United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Fish Haven South Wildland Urban Interface Fuel Reduction Project

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA March 2018

Pocatello Field Office 4350 Cliffs Drive Pocatello, ID 83204 (208) 478-6340

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...... 4 Project Area Description ...... 4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 Decision to be made: ...... 6 Land Use Plan Conformance...... 6 Scoping and Issue Identification ...... 6 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 7 Alternative A: No Action ...... 7 Alternative B: Fuel Reduction and Targeted Grazing ...... 7 Wildland Urban Interface Objectives ...... 7 Treatment Methods ...... 8 Alternative C: Fuel Reduction Only...... 9 Design Criteria Incorporated into both Alternative B and Alternative C ...... 9 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 10 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, and CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 11 General Setting ...... 11 Resources Considered in the Analysis ...... 11 Soils ...... 11 Vegetation (inclusive of Forest Resources and Invasive, Non-Native Species) ...... 14 Wildlife Resources (inclusive of Migratory Birds and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Animals) ...... 16 Wildland Urban Interface Fire Risk ...... 24 Cumulative Effects ...... 27 Past, Present and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions ...... 27 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 34 Public Involvement ...... 34 Tribes, Agencies, and Organizations Contacted ...... 34 List of Preparers ...... 34 Appendix A – References, Acronyms/Abbreviations, and Glossary ...... 36 REFERENCES ...... 36 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... 43 GLOSSARY ...... 45

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 2

Appendix B - Figures ...... 51 Appendix C – Tables ...... 62 Appendix D – Land Use Plan Conformance and Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or other Plans...... 72 Land Use Plan Conformance...... 72 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or other Plans...... 73 Appendix E – Management Restrictions and Standard Operating Procedures ...... 75 Fire and Non-fire Vegetation Restrictions ...... 75 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Restrictions ...... 79 Appendix F – Sage-grouse Conformance (includes Required Design Features) ...... 81 Appendix G – Monitoring Plan...... 89

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 3

INTRODUCTION The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pocatello Field Office (PFO) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the environmental effects of implementing a proposal to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations and improve sagebrush community health in the Fish Haven South Wildland Urban Interface (FHS WUI) Fuels Reduction project area (Figure 1). This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from implementation of this proposal as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. This EA will determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on environmental impact context and intensity, thereby informing agency decision making. Guidance for EA organization is determined by the BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1(BLM 2008). Project Area Description The FHS WUI project area (hereafter referred to as project area or FHS) is located approximately 5 miles south/southwest of St. Charles, Idaho, west of Bear Lake, and 2 miles north of the Idaho/Utah border (Appendix B, Figure 1). The 307 acre project area is comprised of BLM-administered public lands. The project area is legally described as follows: Boise Meridian, Bear Lake County, Idaho Township 16 South, Range 43 East, Section 30. The project area has been identified as wildland-urban interface where homes have been developed within and adjacent to the wildlands (BLRC 2004). Eastern and southern boundaries are proximate to residential neighborhoods. Western boundary is adjacent to land managed by the US Forest Service. BLM-managed lands continue to the north. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of the FHS WUI project is to implement fuels reduction treatments to reduce wildland fire behavior, develop defensible space within the wildland urban interface (WUI) (Appendix B, Figure 2), and reduce risk to people, property, and critical infrastructure from wildfire hazards. Dense shrubs and encroaching conifer trees would be removed manually or mechanically to reduce the risk of damaging wildfires in the WUI. An increased potential for unacceptable public and private property loss exists under the current situation, therefore this project was developed to mitigate this risk. The majority of the project area is characterized as Phase I juniper encroachment where trees are present on the site, but the shrub and herb layers are the dominant influence on ecological processes (hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles). In Phase II, trees rapidly encroach and are co-dominant with shrub and herb layers. In Phase III, trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary driver influencing ecological processes and fire behavior. As the ecosystem transitions from Phase II to III, herbaceous plant and shrub presence decreases drastically, shifting the fire regime (Chambers 2008). During this transition, trees begin to influence interspaces and change community structure altering ecological process, wildlife habitat suitability, and restoration options (Johnson and Miller 2006). As juniper establishment increases on a landscape, herbaceous plants and shrub component decreases (Chambers 2008), leading to an even higher fire intensity, should a fire occur.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 4

Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 160, August 17, 2001) identified Fish Haven, Idaho as “wildland- urban interface communities in the area of federal lands at high risk from wildfire.” The Fish Haven South project area encompasses public lands adjacent to this community. Bear Lake County Wildland Urban Interface Assessment - Communities at Risk - Hazard Assessment - Mitigation and Action Plan (BLRC 2004) designates the project area as occurring within a “High Risk Area” within the county. Additionally, the plan identifies the highest priority action to “initiate fuels reduction in the interface region between the Bear Lake West subdivisions and the Forest Service boundary (BLRC 2004).” The need for action was established through an onsite meeting with the Bear Lake Soil Water Conservation District (BLSWCD), US Forest Service (USFS), Bear Lake county commissioners and the Bear Lake Volunteer Fire Department (BLVFD) on August 11th, 2015. The west side of Bear Lake has an increasing number of residences being constructed adjacent to wildland fuels (BLRC 2004). Development is occurring adjacent to public lands, both BLM-managed and US Forest Service. Bear Lake Soil and Water Conservation District received a grant from the Idaho Department of Lands to implement a fuel break behind/within the Bear Lake West Property Owners Association (POA) area. To complete the fuel break, BLSWCD requested of both BLM and USFS to implement fuel breaks on public land to complete and compliment the BLSWCD fuel break. Bear Lake Soil and Water Conservation District, BLM, and the USFS want to mitigate risk within the home ignition zone (FSG 2015). The Home Ignition Zone (defensible space) is centered on residences, businesses, and important structures, and extends outward for up to 200 feet, depending on topography (FSG 2015). The Home Ignition Zone is broken down into three zones: Immediate Zone (0-5ft from furthest exterior point of the home), Intermediate Zone (5- 30ft from the furthest exterior point of the home), and the Extended Zone (30-200ft from the home) (NFPA 2018; ICC 2015) as shown in Appendix B, Figure 3. Objectives in this zone are to create fuel conditions that allow firefighters to safely and effectively defend a structure from a wildfire, increase the chance that the structure may survive a wildfire on its own, or to keep a structure fire from igniting adjacent vegetation. Typically, creating defensible space on private land is dependent on the property owner. However, in this project area, the Intermediate Zone and the Extended Zone areas fall on BLM-managed public lands. Existing structures adjacent to the project area are shown in Appendix B, Figure 2. Federal, State, County agencies, and private landowners working in cooperation with the BLM, would all be responsible, not only in reducing home ignition zone threat, but also in reducing the threat further outward from structures, approximately 0.25 mile to 1.5 miles. The fuel treatment objective is to protect loss of life and property by creating defensible space and reduce approaching fire intensity. Additional fuel treatments beyond the BLM-managed lands would be planned by private or US Forest Service. Fire history data shows high potential for fire starts within the project area. Two human caused fires have been recorded within the project area. Within one mile of the project area, there have been 15 fires, with the largest burning up to 80 acres. The largest fire in the area was the 2016 Peterson Hollow fire, which burned 1,216 acres west, south-west of the project area. Fire ignition points and some fire perimeters within or near the project area are shown in Appendix B, Figure 4. Many of these fires were generally kept small due to successful wildland fire suppression efforts.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 5

Decision to be made: The BLM will decide whether or not to implement fuels reduction treatments to aid in the protection of both private property and important wildlife habitat within the Fish Haven South project area. Land Use Plan Conformance The alternatives are in conformance with the objectives, goals, and intent of the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ID/swMT ARMPA; BLM 2015) and the Approved Pocatello Resource Management Plan (PFO ARMP; BLM2012). See Appendix D for Land Use Plan Conformance (and Appendix F for ID/swMT ARMPA) and Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or other Plans. Scoping and Issue Identification Internal scoping meetings were conducted by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) of BLM specialists to discuss the purpose and need of the project; various alternatives; resources of concern; potential environmental impacts; past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that may have cumulative effects; and possible mitigation measures. External scoping was initiated with the distribution of a scoping letter to inform the public of the proposal and to generate input on the preparation of this EA. The scoping notice for this proposal was sent to other agencies, organizations, and the interested public on November 30, 2017, initiating a 30-day comment period. An open house was held at the School District Office Boardroom located at 39 Fielding Rd, in Paris, Idaho on December 13, 2017 to provide area landowners and public an opportunity to receive project information and to identify issues of concern. More information regarding public comment can be found in Consultation and Coordination. Issues identified in the development of this proposal included Fish Haven Creek concerns, noxious/invasive species treatments, and the use of livestock grazing. Due to the various issues raised with Fish Haven Creek. The project boundary and treatments were re-designed to avoid any pressures on the drainage.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 6

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, vegetation treatments on BLM-administered public lands in the project area would not occur and the BLSWCD fuel break would not be complete. Current grazing practices would continue under the permitted use. Actions that would continue include noxious weed treatments and maintenance activities associated with roads and trails within the proposed project area. Alternative B: Fuel Reduction and Targeted Grazing In order to provide protection to the Bear Lake West communities of Fish Haven, ID, the BLM is proposing to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations on BLM-administered public lands. This would be accomplished through the use of mechanical equipment including mowing decks, chainsaws, brushcutters, hand tools (e.g. pulaskis, axes etc.), and other equipment (e.g. drill seeders, chippers, Off-Highway vehicles [OHV], wheeled, and tracked vehicles). Alternative B would involve the treatment of approximately 307 acres over a period of 15 years. Depending on levels of funding, 20 to 100 acres, would be treated annually during the life of the project. In order to organize and prioritize the treatments, the project area was divided into 3 landscape units based on adjacency to private lands and vegetation type (Appendix B, Figure 5). Enhancing protection of WUI is priority and preference would be given to those areas. Treatments are not intended to eliminate wildland fire but represent actions considered necessary to affect a change in the intensity of potential wildland fires within the project area, reducing threat to homes and property in the WUI. Wildland Urban Interface Objectives The following objectives apply: a) Decrease risk to public/firefighter health and safety and loss of property associated with uncontrollable wildland fire. b) Decrease shrub continuity to reduce fire behavior intensity. c) Create live fuel breaks using existing aspen, maple, and mahogany stands. Stimulate aspen suckering by increasing available sun light and soil temperatures. d) Provide education and incentives for cooperative hazardous fuel management projects on private, county, state, and federal lands. Within the Extended Zone of the Home Ignition Zone, the BLM would create a 50-foot fuel break free of woody vegetation (shrub/trees) through mechanical treatments (e.g., mowing, chainsaws, brushcutters, and other hand tools) on BLM-managed public lands adjacent to the private boundary and the French Hollow (Loveland Lane Trail Head) to Fish Haven trail. Beyond the 50-foot fuel break, an additional 150-foot selective thinning of shrubs/trees through mechanical treatment would occur to reduce fire behavior prior to it approaching the 50-foot fuel break. Within this 150-foot selective thin, groups of shrubs would be separated by10-15 feet of woody vegetation free areas (Appendix B, Figure 5). Additional treatments include lopping and scattering of encroaching juniper/Douglas fir, and selective hand thinning of aspen or maple stands. Conifer encroachment in the mountain shrub

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 7

steppe would be classified as Phase 1, increasing torching and spotting potential within the Defense Zone. Slash, resulting from treatments, would be scattered on site or chipped if access is available. Slash from treatments may be made available to the public for firewood collection (Appendix B, Figure 5). Aspen and Maple vegetation types are scattered across the area. Species composition includes quaking aspen and bigtooth maple. Juniper and Douglas fir are currently encroaching in many stands. Aspen and maple stands would be treated to encourage their regeneration, growth, and spread as they are considered fire resistant species (Rosentreter et al 2017; Fechner & Barrows 1976). All encroaching Douglas fir and juniper without old growth characteristics would be cut and scattered to reduce torching and spotting potential. In both aspen and maple dominant areas, some mature deciduous trees may be felled to stimulate suckering. In the future, aspen and maple stands could serve as live fuel breaks, potentially slowing the spread of an oncoming wildland fire. At no point would any of the following proposed treatment methods be applied in the active floodplain or Fish Haven Creek riparian area. Treatment Methods Mowing - A deck mower would be used to reduce vegetation height on sites having vegetation dominated by either grasses and/or shrubs. Mowing would be accomplished by pulling a mowing implement behind a tractor, UTV, or other pulling implement. The pulling mechanism may be tracked or tired. Mowing treatments would remove shrubs to a leave stubble height of 6-8 inches. Mowing treatments, 50-foot complete mow and 150-foot selective mow, would not extend beyond 250 feet (additional 50 feet is to allow for varying terrain and/or obstacles) adjacent to south/east private boundary or west of the Loveland Lane Trail Head north to the Maple stand south of Fish Haven Creek. Treatment implementation timing would occur in spring to mid- summer. Hand Cutting - Hand cutting individual or small groups of shrubs/trees would be utilized separately or in concert with other treatments. Shrubs would be cut with brushcutters or chainsaws. Trees would be cut with chainsaws and would scattered on the ground. Treatment implementation timing would occur anytime. Targeted Grazing – Livestock would be used as a tool to control flashy fuel loading (associated with grasses) within the 200 foot shrub treatment zone. The treatment objective or goal would be a 3-6 inch stubble height on grasses by mid-July to sufficiently reduce fine fuel loads resulting in diminished fire behavior during the warmer summer months. To ensure achievement of the stubble height goals, an electric fence is proposed to be constructed around the perimeter of the 200 foot shrub treatment zone south of Loveland Lane (Appendix B, Figure 5), which would enclose approximately 30 acres. There is currently a barbed wire fence along the public/private land boundary, so an electric fence may not be needed. However, if an extra deterrent is needed, a single electric wire would be attached to the existing fence. Electric polytape or similar product would be used to improve fence visibility and help reduce avian species collisions. The electric wires/polytape would be installed and removed annually. Two water haul sites are proposed within the enclosure, however only one site would be established and used on an annual basis (Appendix B, Figure 5). The trough associated with the water haul site would remain in place.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 8

The 30 acre treatment area falls within the Fish Haven - 2 Allotment that is currently permitted to be used by cattle. This area would continue to remain in the Fish Haven - 2 Allotment and existing permitted livestock would be used to achieve the vegetative height objectives. Grazing use of the area would fall within the current season of use permitted for the allotment. Chemical Treatment - Chemical treatment would involve the application of herbicides at certain plant growth stages to suppress or kill the plant. Herbicides would be used for maintenance by reducing the amount of fuel available for wildfire and for reducing the presence of noxious/invasive species. Chemical application as the exclusive method of maintaining fuels breaks free of woody vegetation would occur primarily in the mowed areas. Herbicides would be used to treat any noxious/invasive species which may occur post-treatment. Treatment timing would follow mechanical/biological treatments throughout the spring/summer Only those herbicides approved for use on public lands would be employed in chemical treatments subject to methods and standard operating procedures presented in the Upper Snake- Pocatello Weed Control Program Environmental Assessment (BLM 2017c). Alternative C: Fuel Reduction Only All treatment and methods in Alternative B would be implemented, except for using targeted grazing to maintain the mow treatments. Without using targeted grazing to maintain treatments, the grass, fine flashy fuel loading, would vary year to year based upon local area weather and normal grazing influences (Appendix B, Figure 6). Design Criteria Incorporated into both Alternative B and Alternative C All restoration and fuels reduction treatments identified in the proposed action would follow accepted agency management plans, policies, and procedures. Management restrictions specified in the ARMP would be applied to all vegetation treatments with the intent of meeting current BLM, state, or federal policy and preventing significant impacts to human and natural resources (ARMP, Appendix A: Guidelines/Techniques/Practices; BLM 2012) including sage-grouse (ID/swMT ARMPA; BLM 2015). ARMP and ARMPA restrictions (Standard Operating Procedures, Management Decisions, and Required Design Features) would be applied to site- specific actions with the intent of protecting sensitive resources (Appendix E). Noxious/Invasive Species Management Treatment of noxious weeds/invasive species would be conducted as part of Alternatives B and C with the objective of containing and preventing further spread of known and newly invading populations of weeds (BLM 2012). Before implementation of vegetation treatments, equipment would be required to be thoroughly washed to remove noxious weed seeds and debris, helping in the prevention of noxious weeds. Weed treatment and monitoring may occur both before and after project implementation if necessary. All treatments would receive post-treatment monitoring for invasive species. Invasive species would be treated through methods and techniques dictated by the Upper Snake-Pocatello Integrated Weed Control Program Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-ID-I010-2016-0011-EA; BLM 2017c). Migratory Birds Specifications to reduce impacts to migratory bird species during implementation include the following: minimize the number of equipment trips through the project area during the nesting season, work during daylight hours only, and avoid trees with stick raptor nests.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 9

Monitoring Monitoring would be conducted following BLM protocols. Data would be compiled and analyzed to determine if treatment objectives were met or if additional treatments are required. Formal evaluation and reporting would occur as described in the ARMP (BLM 2012). Monitoring and treatment of noxious weeds and invasive plants would ensue for up to three years following treatment completion (Appendix G - Monitoring Plan). Maintenance Targeted grazing, mowings, hand cuttings, and/or chemical treatments would continue in order to maintain the woody shrub removal and keep the grass loading, fine flashy fuels, to a lower abundance. Maintenance treatments would be based on site evaluations and may include all of the same elements included in the initial treatment. Treatment implementation may begin as early as spring of 2018. The BLM would implement treatments using in-house crews or contracting opportunities. Lands within the WUI would be given priority for treatment as identified in the National Fire Plan and other locations within the project area would be treated over a 15-year period as funding is available. The proposed treatments would reduce fuels and develop areas of “defensible space” in and around the Bear Lake West area. The BLM would only be responsible for treatments identified on public lands. Because of the presence of high fuel loads on adjacent private, state, and USFS lands, the BLM would coordinate with the Bear Lake Soil and Water Conservation District (BLSWCD), Idaho Department of Lands (IDL), Bear Lake Volunteer Fire Department, US Forest Service – Montpelier Ranger District and the communities of Fish Haven to reduce hazards associated with wildland fire. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Analysis In addition to the alternatives described in detail, two other alternatives were considered during project analysis. These alternatives are described below along with rationale for why they were not further analyzed. Timber Removal by Conventional Logging or Hand-Based Methods. This alternative considered removing timber to reduce fuel loading by conventional logging (feller-bunchers, skidders, delimbers, and log trucks) or hand-based (chainsaws) methods. Due to lack of viable log-deck locations, lack of currently established creek crossing, slopes greater than 50%, and the presence of migratory spawning adult and rearing juvenile Bonneville cutthroat trout in Fish Haven Creek, this alternative was determined to pose too much risk and was not economically viable for further consideration. Therefore the alternative was not considered reasonable. Fuel Reduction to Fish haven Creek’s Edge. A treatment alternative was suggested which would have reduced fuel loading all the way to Fish Haven Creek’s edge. Several issues raised by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Yellowstone to Uintas, and the interdisciplinary team (IDT) (e.g. Bonneville cutthroat trout spawning and juvenile rearing habitat). This treatment alternative was dropped from further consideration and the project boundary adjusted south to avoid any impacts to Fish Haven Creek.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 10

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, and CUMULATIVE EFFECTS General Setting The project area is located approximately 2 miles west/southwest of Fish Haven, within Bear Lake County, Idaho. Topography of the area consists of mild/moderate terrain to steep hillsides. Drainages fall primarily east and west. Elevation ranges from approximately 6,300 to 7,000 feet. The region is characterized by cold, wet winters; cool, wet springs; and hot, dry summers. Precipitation for the area varies with elevation, but generally averages between 15 and 20+ inches per year. Undeveloped public lands create the northern and western boundaries and concentrated developed private areas (WUI) are found to the east and south of the project area (i.e. Bear Lake West POA, Aspen Creek Estates, Aspen Creek Meadows). Resources Considered in the Analysis Affected resources considered as part of this analysis are shown in Table 1. Analysis results indicate that not all of the resources considered are present or would be impacted by the alternatives. Resources considered to be “Not Present” or “Present, Not Affected” may be found in Appendix C. Resources not present or not affected by implementation of the alternatives in the project area receive no further consideration in this analysis. Resources present in the project area which may be impacted by alternative implementation are identified in Table 1 and described and analyzed in the following narratives. Table 1. Affected Resources Considered for Analysis Resource Resource Status Rationale Forest Resources Present, Affected Impacts are disclosed under Vegetation. Invasive, Non-Native Present, Affected Impacts are disclosed under Vegetation species Migratory Birds Present, Affected Impacts are disclosed under Wildlife Resources Soils Present, Affected Impacts are disclosed under Soils Threatened, Endangered, Present, Affected Impacts are disclosed under Wildlife and Sensitive Animals Resources Vegetation Present, Affected Impacts are disclosed under Vegetation Wildlife Resources Present, Affected Impacts are disclosed under Wildlife Wildland Urban Interface Present, Affected Impacts are disclosed under Wildland Urban Fire Risk Interface Fire Risk

Soils Affected Environment Eight soil map units were identified within the project area (USDA NRCS 2018) (Appendix B, Figure 7; Appendix C, Table 2). All eight were complexes of two or more soil components. Complexes consist of two or more dissimilar soils or miscellaneous areas in a regular repeating

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 11

pattern so intricate they cannot be delineated separately due to the scale of mapping. They consist of two or more of the following: different soil series, and/or different phases of soil series, and/or miscellaneous areas that occur in regular patterns like rock outcrops (Habich 2001). Parent material varies but all are considered well drained with the exception of the rock outcrops. The K factor is an index quantifying the relative susceptibility of a soil to sheet or rill erosion. Values range from 0.02 to 0.64 (USDA NRCS 2016). The lower the K factor value, the more stable and less susceptible a soil is to erosion. Soils high in clay have a low K value (0.05 to 0.15) because they are resistant to detachment. Coarse textured soils (sandy soils) have a low K value (0.05-0.2) because of low runoff even though these soils are easily detached. Medium textured soils (silt loam soils) have a moderate K value (0.25-0.4) because they are moderately susceptible to detachment and produce moderate runoff. Silty soils have a high K value (0.4) because they are easily detached and produce high rates of runoff (IWR 2002). The majority (80%) of the project area had a moderate susceptibility (K = 0.24 – 0.37) to erosion. Of the remaining soils 5% had a low susceptibility (K ≤ 0.2) and 15% had a high susceptibility (K = 0.43). Alternative A – No Action Under Alternative A, no fuels treatments would occur. There would be no impacts to soils associated with the removal and disposal of woody vegetation. Wildland fires would occur within the project area, although it is impossible to predict when. Suppression tactics associated with the control of wildfires would be employed including but not limited to dozer lines and hand lines. Such tactics would directly disturb soil resources increasing bare ground and increasing the potential for erosion due to wind and water. Stabilization and rehabilitation of soils caused by firefighting activities and wildfire itself would be implemented following the SOPs outlined in the Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan Upper Snake and Pocatello Field Offices ID-320-2005-003 (BLM 2005). Impacts to soils associated with recreation would continue along the Ranger Dip Trail in the form of localized compaction and perpetual bare ground. Livestock grazing would continue to be authorized within the project area under the current terms and conditions. Impacts to soils from livestock are generally localized near watering sites and near fence lines. Alternative B – Fuels Reduction with Targeted Grazing Maintenance Five soil map units were identified within the 50 foot mow break, the subsequent 150 foot selective thinning area, and the 200 foot targeted grazing area (Appendix C, Table 4). Soil map units 105, 136, and 181 are composed of slope alluvium and/or colluvium or residuum weathered quartzite, conglomerate, sandstone, igneous, or sedimentary rock depending on the map unit. The map units comprise 34.5% of the 50 foot mow break treatment area, the 150 foot selective thinning area, and the 200 foot targeted grazing area. All three map units have relatively low to moderate K factors ranging from 0.10 to 0.32 on a 0.02 to 0.64 scale. The components of soil map unit 105 have a very cobbly sandy loam, channery sandy loam, or very gravelly sandy loam surface (A) horizons providing substantial resistance to water erosion. The components of soil map unit 136 have a loam surface; corresponding to one of the greatest potential for water erosion (0.32) within the primary treatment areas (1.1 acres, 3.4 acres, 4.5 acres by treatment type respectively). The components of soil map unit 181 have a very gravelly silt loam to a moderately decomposed plant material surface layer.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 12

Soil map units 203 and 204 are composed of Loess influenced clayey colluvium or mixed colluvium. The map units comprise the remaining 65.5% of the two primary proposed treatment areas. The K factor for these two soils vary between moderate and high susceptibility (K = 0.28 – 0.43). The components of soil map units 203 and 204 have a cobbly loam, gravelly silt loam, or silty clay loam surface layer. These surface gravels and or clay help resist water erosion. Figure 8 (Appendix B) identifies the varying K factors within the 50 foot mow break. The pattern illustrated within Figure 8 (Appendix B) is the same as that found within the 150 foot selective thinning and the 200 foot targeted grazing areas. Table 4 (Appendix C) identifies all soils located within the project area, the 50 foot mow break, the 150 foot selective thinning area and the 200 foot targeted grazing area as well as the number of acres within each area and the proportion of the particular soil within each area (soil map unit acres/total acres within treatment area). Implementation of the 50 foot mow break along the south and east borders with private lands would cause minor short term compaction of the surface soil horizons association with either the tire or tracks of the tractor and mower deck. Normally, only one pass with a tractor would be made in the same location during implementation, so compaction would be minimal and confined to those areas where tractor tires or tracts cross. This treatment would be conducted in spring to mid-summer or fall. The degree of compaction would be a direct result of the type of equipment used and soil moisture at the time of treatment. It is expected that any compaction would be limited in scale and would dissipate with repeated freeze thaw cycles following the initial treatment. The soil horizons of Soil Map Unit 105 and 204, which make up the vast proportion of the proposed mow break, are composed of cobbles, gravels, channery, which would resist compaction. The cut debris would remain on site. As a result, soil erosion from water in the mowed areas would not be expected to increase above normal levels. The selective thinning of shrubs with brushcutters and chainsaws within the subsequent 150 foot buffer would have little to no direct effect on soil resources. If equipment such as tractors with mower decks are used, impacts would be similar to those discussed for the 50 foot mow break above and affect a portion of the 23 acres included within the 150 foot selective thin treatment area. The selective thinning of junipers and isolated conifers within the remainder of the project area and subsequent scattering of the woody material would have little to no direct effect on soil resources. The reduction of woody shrub and grass/forb vegetation would be achieved utilizing a mower deck the first year of implementation and grass/forb vegetation would be maintained in subsequent years through targeted grazing. Targeted grazing would occur within the 200 foot project area with the goal of 3-6 inch stubble heights to be accomplished by mid-July. Direct short-term effects from hoof action include the removal of vegetation cover and disturbance of the soil surface horizon. The depth of this disturbance is expected to be less than 1 inch on dry soils and between 1-2 inches on wet soils. Repeated use of vegetation during the same grazing season has shown to have detrimental effects on plant vigor (Anderson 1991). However, it is expected that utilization would not be uniform across the landscape as it would be if mowing was implemented on a yearly basis. Some perennial bunchgrasses may experience a decrease in vigor leading to increased space between basal areas. Soil map unit 204, Swanpeak- Dutchcanyon-Ant Flat complex, 12 to 20 percent slopes, is the most predominate soil within both the mow break and target grazing treatment areas. This map unit is composed of three soil

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 13

components, 70% of which have a K factor of 0.28 indicating a moderate potential to erosion from water, therefore any increases in erosion due to the combination of the defensible space mow break and targeted grazing would be slight. Alternative C – Fuels Reduction Only Implementation of Alternative C would have similar effects discussed above under Alternative B with the exception of those resulting from high intensity, low duration (targeted) grazing. Under this alternative it is expected that there would be a higher frequency and density of herbaceous (grass) cover within the 200 foot treatment zone. This additional cover and corresponding root structure would improve soil stability within the treatment zone; however based on the soil types there would be little change in soil erosion potential between Alternatives B and C. Vegetation (inclusive of Forest Resources and Invasive, Non-Native Species) Affected Environment The project area contains a mosaic of vegetation types. Field visits were conducted in 2017 to characterize the landscape as it relates to vegetation characteristics, fuel loading, and fire hazard. The project area is comprised of approximately 76.3 percent montane sagebrush steppe vegetation type (234.3 acres); 8.8 percent is maple (27 acres); 7.5 percent is conifer/aspen/maple (23.2 acres); 5.2 percent is maple/aspen (16 acres); 1.7 percent is Douglas-fir (5.3 acres); and 0.5 percent is mahogany (1.2 acres) (Appendix B, Figure 9). The montane sagebrush steppe (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) is prominent throughout the project area, separated by stands of maple, aspen, and Douglas fir. Large Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) stands are present on north facing slopes on the northern portion of the project area. Mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) is often found to the north, adjacent to the Douglas fir stands. Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and maple (Acer grandidentatum) exist in many north aspects or drainages with invading conifers. Juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) is found throughout the project area in varying densities. The montane sagebrush steppe with invading juniper is the primary vegetation type of the project area. This vegetation type occurs at mid-elevations (12 to 22 inch precipitation zones) with cooler soils (USDA NRCS). The potential natural plant community varies between sites but consists mainly of sagebrush/grass associations. Primary species are mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) and Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. Wyomingensis) with Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) encroachment, along with antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus), Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegnaria spicata), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), and mountain brome (Bromusmarginatus) (USDA NRCS). Forest Resources Maple (Acer grandidentatum) is found at all elevations (12-20+ inch precipitation zones), often associated with Douglas-fir and Aspen vegetation types, on sites that are wetter than sagebrush steppe but drier than aspen. Maple are usually found on north and east slopes that tend to be cooler and moister than south and west aspects. This vegetation type is highly diverse. In the aspen/conifer vegetation types of the project area primary species are Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). These are seral aspen stands,

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 14

naturally varying between pure aspen to Douglas fir dominated, depending on disturbance frequency. Common shrub species are mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus), and Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia). The conifer cover data showed no pure aspen in any of the plots surveyed (BLM 2017a). Inventories show the timber stands consist of mature, even aged, densely stocked stands of Douglas-fir (BLM 2017b). Invasive, Non-Native Species Invasive species are alien species whose introduction is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Exec. Order No. 13112). Noxious weeds are invasive, non-native plant species designated by a federal, state, or county government to be injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or any public or private property (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Idaho currently has 68 species designated noxious by state law. In addition to the invasive species identified on Idaho’s designated noxious weed list, other invasive species that may become problems or may be elevated to the list would also be treated for the life of this EA. The Fish Haven South Wildland Urban Interface Fuel Reduction Project Area has a low infestation level with one or more of state-listed noxious weed species. In addition, approximately 1% to 5% of the project area is currently infested with cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa). Conifers (Juniper spp/ Douglas fir) readily invade mountain shrub, aspen, and maple communities in the absence of historic fire regimes (LANDFIRE 2007; USDSA NRCS). Phase I juniper encroachment characterizes the project area where trees are present on the site, but shrub and herbaceous layers are the dominant influence on ecological processes (hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles). During periods of reduced fire frequency, juniper can invade the site and increase rapidly (USDA NRCS). Juniper has a competitive advantage over mountain shrub, aspen, and maple communities due to its rapid growth, long lived, intercepts precipitation, extracts moisture at various soil depths, reduces nutrient cycling, and eventually gains control of energy capture (USDA NRCS). Alternative A – No Action Implementation of Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would result in lands along the project area to remain in their current state, consisting of mountain shrub communities with a vast amount of species diversity and low levels of invasive/noxious species. As juniper exists and increases on a landscape, the herbaceous plants and shrub component decreases, resulting in a change to the ecosystem and fire regime (Chambers 2008). Other plants become unable to acquire sufficient water and nutrients to sustain growth and production. This eventually results in cover and biomass reduction in the interspaces. Once the Juniper canopy closes, there is only sufficient soil moisture available for shallow-rooted, shade tolerant species (e.g. cheatgrass) to persist (USDA NRCS).In the absence of fire, Phase I would transition to Phase II in about 80 years, Phase II would transition to Phase III in about 50 years, and Phase III transitions to a closed canopy system in about 75 years (LANDFIRE 2007). Junipers become the dominant life form reducing shrub and herbaceous cover to less than 20%. A closed juniper community takes control of hydrologic, energy capture, and nutrient cycling processes. When juniper canopy cover nears 20%, the plant community is approaching a threshold to a different state not economically viable to return to its original shrub community (USDA NRCS). Alternative B – Fuels Reduction with Targeted Grazing Maintenance

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 15

Impacts to vegetation would include removal or mechanical injury by equipment used to mow/cut shrubs, cut juniper/Douglas fir, and aspen/maple in the project area. Perennial grasses and forbs may be released post mowing the woody shrub increasing in density, vigor, and biomass. Controlling juniper encroachment in the earlier stages of succession before the shift to declining understory takes place would enhance the ability of understory plants to recover post wildfire (Chambers 2008). In addition, it requires less intensive treatment to treat Phase I encroachment areas than it does to treat Phase II or III encroachment areas and therefore the treatments are less expensive to implement. Understory production would increase after juniper removal as shrub and herbaceous understory plant cover re-establishes. Grazing is currently an ongoing activity within the project area as the project area is within the southern end of the Fish Haven Creek 2 allotment. Targeted grazing, as a treatment, is short duration,high intensity and would reduce grass densities near structures. The placement of salt/mineral, temporary troughs, and temporary electric fences would focus livestock to these areas. Temporary trough and salt/mineral supplement locations would receive a direct impact of livestock concentration, therefore expecting a reduced vegetative cover around these. Temporary trough and salt/mineral sites would only experience livestock for a short duration. Construction of electric ribbon fencing may also cause a brief increase in localized disturbance as livestock may walk adjacent to the fence. Implementation of Alternative B, would have impacts associated with reduction of vegetation found within the project area. Short term impacts related with new disturbances found along the project area has the potential for introducing invasive, non-native species, which potentially could outcompete native species currently found in the area. Other short term impacts to consider are associated with targeted grazing. There is high probability that isolated areas designated for targeted grazing, would in fact have greater potential for further establishment and expansion of noxious weeds and invasive plants. This is due to increased disturbance that livestock bring to an area, such as ground disturbance and translocation of seeds. However, long term effects following treatment of invasive, non-native species would allow re-establishment of perennial native vegetation to outcompete non-native species. These treatments would include monitoring over a three year period. Also, current conditions found along the project area landscape have little to no invasive species present. Therefore, under Alternative B, pre and post weed treatments would allow an overall maintenance and/or improvement of health, vigor, and recruitment of perennial native vegetation that was potentially lost due to short term impacts. These benefits would allow an increase in native ground cover, resulting in improved soil stability and reduce erosion potential. Alternative C – Fuels Reduction Only Implementation of Alternative C, would contribute all the impacts associated with Alternative B, excluding impacts correlated with targeted grazing. However, normal grazing conditions would continue to occur in the allotment. Wildlife Resources (inclusive of Migratory Birds and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Animals) As provided in the vegetation section, the project area is comprised of approximately 76.3 percent montane sagebrush steppe vegetation type (234.3 acres); 8.8 percent is maple (27 acres);

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 16

7.5 percent is conifer/aspen/maple (23.2 acres); 5.2 percent is maple/aspen (16 acres); 1.7 percent is Douglas-fir (5.3 acres); and 0.5 percent is mahogany (1.2 acres) (Appendix B, Figure 9). The potential natural plant community varies per ecological site, but generally consists of sagebrush and grass associations in the valleys and lesser degrees of slope, whereas the more treed associations exist at the foothills, ridges and north slopes. Most juniper encroachment is described as Phase 1, where mostly young trees are present, and the sagebrush and herbaceous growth dominates the vegetation produced. Typically receiving over 12 inches of annual precipitation, the project area is a highly productive and diverse habitat, reciprocal to the biodiversity of wildlife species present. Special Status Species (Sensitive Animals) Special Status Species (SSS) are identified as those for which population viability in the region is a concern as indicated by current or predicted downward trends in population numbers, density, or habitat capability. Special Status Species receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to prevent the need for listing of the species as Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Candidate Species. The BLM also recognizes SSS as those that are range-wide or globally imperiled, regionally or state imperiled or peripheral species (species that are generally rare in Idaho, with the majority of their breeding range outside the state). Type 1 SSS include federally listed threatened or endangered species and experimental essential populations. Based on review of information available on the USFWS IPaC website (USFWS 2018), there are no known federally listed species (Type 1) with potential to occur in the project area. Type 2 Sensitive Species include: Idaho BLM sensitive species, including USFWS proposed and candidate species, Endangered Species Act (ESA) species delisted during the past 5 years, and ESA experimental non-essential populations. Table 6 (Appendix C) displays a non-comprehensive list of Type 2 special status animal species on the BLM Idaho Special Status Species list (BLM 2016b) and those species of conservation priority found on the Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan that are likely to inhabit habitat in proximity of the proposed lease area. Resources utilized to verify key habitat types, seasonal occurrence, and rationale for occupancy include; Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s Wildlife Information System, the Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan and Nature Serve. With the exception of a few well-studied species, current occurrence and population data for most special status animal species within the project area are limited due to a deficiency of surveys and directed research. Therefore, only a few focal special status animal species will be discussed in detail individually. These species will be discussed in detail because they likely occur within the project area, and they have been the subject of targeted surveys and periodic species-specific monitoring studies. The focal species concept provides a link between single- and multi-species methods of wildlife conservation and management (Mills 2007). Focal species serve as a set of species which define the characteristics of different spatial and compositional landscape attributes necessary for functional and healthy ecosystems (Lambeck 1997) (Caro and O'Doherty 2001). In short, because they are sagebrush obligates, sage-grouse function as a surrogate for sagebrush communities and associated vertebrates (Rowland et al. 2006). The focal species concept (Mills 2007) is applicable to sage-grouse because they can serve as an umbrella species for broader conservation of the sagebrush habitats across the West (Rowland et al. 2006). Greater sage-grouse occurrence is strongly correlated with the distribution of sagebrush habitats as they depend on a variety of shrub steppe habitats throughout their life cycle, and are obligate

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 17 users of several species of sagebrush. They exhibit strong site fidelity to seasonal habitats (USFWS 2010). The Fish Haven project area is identified as Important Habitat Management Area (IHMA). IHMA encompasses areas of generally moderate to high conservation value habitat and populations, and often connect patches of PHMA. The IHMA generally reflect somewhat lower sage-grouse population status or reduced habitat value when compared to PHMA, due to disturbance, habitat fragmentation, or other factors. The project area is located in the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Management Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone IV (MZ IV; Stiver et al. 2006). The entirety of the project area has been identified as IHMA. The project area, and its vicinity, likely provides habitat for sage-grouse throughout the year. The proximity of leks (Appendix C, Table 7), both Occupied (one lek 3.3 mi north) and Undetermined (two leks <2 mi north), and limited amount of undisturbed shrubland habitat present on the western flank of Bear Lake, suggest the importance of the project area to the grouse. The herbaceous biodiversity observed during site visitation, in combination with sagebrush/other shrub cover within the project area likely provides suitable breeding, summer and winter habitat. Suitability may be somewhat reduced due to the abundance of treed/forested stands in the project area, which provide increased perching opportunity for raptors, however, the shrub cover and shrub diversity present is likely to provide cover from aerial predators. Another important factor affecting habitat suitability is the proximity of the project area to anthropogenic disturbance. For example, housing developments, OHV trails/use, livestock grazing and other negative habitat values are factors known to degrade habitat suitability for sage grouse. Identified wintering habitat is mapped roughly one mile north of the project area. Although not directly observed during site visitation, sage grouse are likely to inhabit the project area. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and greater sage-grouse are sympatric, although, the two species use the habitat differently. Sharp-tails use sagebrush stands but do not require sagebrush for nesting and brood rearing habitat. No known occurrences have been documented within ten miles of the project area, via the Idaho Natural Heritage dataset (IFWIS 2018). Pygmy rabbits are sagebrush obligate species, known to inhabit dense, tall stands of big sagebrush growing on deep, friable soils that allow them to dig extensive burrow systems (Janson 2002). No pygmy rabbit occurrence have been documented within ten miles of the project area via the Idaho Natural Heritage dataset (IFWIS 2018). Although the species likely exists in vicinity the project area, the lack of neither ongoing nor historic discovery is indicative of incidental/low density populations. Considering the limited distribution and occupancy observed in the project area, instead of the sharp-tailed grouse or the pygmy rabbit, the sage-grouse will serve as the primary umbrella/surrogate species to address current health, and project impacts on the sagebrush/shrubland ecotone within the project area. In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew a proposal to list the North American wolverine as Threatened in the contiguous U.S, however in 2016 the Service reopened the comment period for the proposed ruling (USFWS 2016; USFWS 2014). The wolverine primarily occupies boreal forests, tundra, and mountains in western North America that are cold and receive enough snow to reliably maintain a snow pack late in the spring (Copeland 2010). Only one known wolverine observation has been made within 10 miles of the project area (see Figure 11), and no officially designated habitat has been identified in proximity. Similarly, gray wolf are known to disperse throughout the mountainous regions of eastern Idaho, require large home ranges, and actively avoid the human/urban interface. Considering the following - limited

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 18 expected occupancy by either species due to habitat present, the amount of human development an ongoing disturbance in proximity, and the abundance of adjacent undisturbed habitat with greater habitat suitability – the project area would be expected to be avoided by both species. The Fish Haven project area likely provides habitat for several Special Status bat species including; silver-haired bat, hoary bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, little brown bat, long-eared myotis, and western small-footed myotis. Habitat preferences vary among these species, and many utilize an array of different habitat types throughout the year. However, all of these species feed exclusively on insects and they ultimately rely on productive vegetation for cover and forage for themselves and/or their insect prey base. Many of Idaho’s bat species have been described as being associated with woodland covered foothills, and have been documented as commonly foraging at the interface between woodlands and sagebrush-steppe (Sherwin et al. 2000). Wooded openings, road cuts, and riparian areas often concentrate commuting and foraging bats. Wetlands provide water sources where bats drink and are important foraging locations because of high concentrations of insects (Taylor 2006). Woodlands, shrub steppe, and riparian areas all exist within or proximity to the project area. Quality day-roosting habitat (particularly rock outcrops, large/mature forested stands and snags) is abundant throughout the project area. Due to the proximity of available roosting substrate associated with nearby wooded areas, the allotment may provide potential foraging habitat for tree roosting bat species such as the silver-haired or hoary bats. Species such as the western small-footed myotis, have habitat requirements that are very closely associated with caves or cavern-like structures available for roosting, during all stages of its life cycle (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Although not abundant, the cliffs, rock outcrops, and seral junipers found in the portions of the allotments provide marginal roosting habitat (Perkins and Peterson 1997). Because the effects of small scale fuels reduction and livestock grazing on bats is not well- known and old growth junipers would remain the most abundant day roost substrates in the area, effects to bats are expected to be negligible and will not be discussed further. Migratory Birds (including Special Status) Table 8 (Appendix C) displays a non-comprehensive list of migratory bird species on the Bird Species of Conservation Concern list (USFWS 2008) (USFWS and BLM 2010), the BLM Idaho Special Status Species list (BLM Instructional Bulletin No. ID-2016-003) and those species of conservation priority found on the Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan that are likely to inhabit habitats present in the proposed project area. Resources utilized to verify key habitat types, seasonal occurrence, and rationale for occupancy include; Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s Wildlife Information System, the draft Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan, Idaho Partners in Flight, and Nature Serve. The nesting requirements of many migratory birds are fulfilled within the project area from late- April to mid-July and/or during spring and fall migrations. While some migratory bird species use a wide variety of habitats, others are more specialized. Sagebrush and mountain shrub species found in the project area are used as nesting cover, feeding habitat, and escape cover for migratory birds (Ritter 2000). Brewer’s sparrows breed in shrub-steppe, transitions between shrub-steppe and other habitat types, and semi-desert shrub- steppe habitats (Walker 2004). Similarly, loggerhead shrikes are known to be generalists, utilizing a variety of habitats including prairies, pastures, and sagebrush desert (Dechant et al.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 19

2001). Brewer’s sparrows are gleaners, consuming small insects, gleaned from foliage and bark of shrubs or dwarf trees and seed taken from the ground (Rotenberry et al. 1999), whereas loggerhead shrikes prey upon reptiles, mammals, other birds and a wide array of invertebrates (Woods and Cade 1996). Brewer’s sparrows and loggerheaded shrikes are known breed and forage within the allotment. Sage sparrows and sage thrashers are dependent on sagebrush for nest sites, food, and cover (Vander Haegen 2003; Reynolds and Rich 1978). These sagebrush obligates are found more frequently in extensive areas of continuous sage, with decreased disturbance regimes (Vander Haegen 2003; Reynolds et al. 1999). Both sage sparrows and sage thrashers are ground foragers that eat insects, seeds and berries (Martin and Carlson 1998), however, the thrasher is known to prefer insects. Sage sparrows and thrashers are known to occur within the allotment. The migratory birds associated with juniper generally use the mature stands and older trees within the younger stands (Ritter 2000). Migratory birds use juniper habitat for nesting, feeding and escape cover. Although juniper woodland encroachment into shrublands is generally viewed as detrimental to wildlife, especially sage-grouse, some species may benefit (e.g., pinyon jay, Virginia’s warbler). The aspen/big toothed maple stands, and mountain shrub provide deciduous components within the sagebrush steppe habitats, increasing migratory species diversity. Said tree species provides forage and shelter for other species, including cavity-nesting birds like chickadees and woodpeckers. The complex and often moist aspen/maple understories attract insects that are important to the insectivores (Ritter 2000). Small pockets of aspen may be important locally in the mountainous areas, but make less than one percent of the allotment. Raptors are known to occur in the project area and vicinity. The shrub steppe, woodlands, and rock outcrops within the project area provide nesting and foraging substrate for many of these species. Eagle species are afforded additional protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Although bald eagles have been documented near the project area during winter months, their use of the area is not well known. Bald eagle breeding in proximity of the project area is highly probable because of the abundance of open water and nesting trees. Golden eagles inhabit a very wide distributional range, and occupy a variety of habitat types within that range. They exist primarily in mountainous or hilly terrain, canyons, and rimrock terrain within shrub-steppe or grassland habitat (Kochert et al. 2002). Golden eagles have been documented foraging within the project area. Burrowing owls generally occur in treeless areas within grassland, shrub-steppe, and desert habitats. They are typically associated with gently sloping areas containing sparse, low-growing vegetation. Although they also feed extensively on insects, burrow sites are often associated with high densities of burrowing mammals (Poulin et al. 2011). No known documentation of the species has occurred within 10 miles of the project area, likely due to the steep terrain, height of shrubs and abundance of tree species in proximity. Short-eared owls are widely distributed and occur throughout much of North America. They are a ground-nesting species that inhabit grasslands, shrub-steppe, agricultural areas, and other open habitat types (Wiggins et al. 2006). They are active during both day and night, flying low above the ground to hunt small mammals. The Ferruginous hawk nests in juniper trees, generally single trees or a small group of trees, surrounded by sagebrush habitat. The widely distributed woodlands and sparse/single trees within the project area provide the juniper component preferred by nesting Ferruginous hawks. Although important for nesting substrate, juniper encroachment is invading/reducing hawk

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 20

foraging habitat (shrublands) within the allotment. Prairie falcon, Swainson’s hawk, American kestrel, northern harrier, and red-tailed hawks are usually are found in more open areas such as sagebrush steppe, grasslands, meadows, or open riparian areas, and prey on a wide variety of small mammals, reptiles, birds, and insects. Documented nest sites and potential nesting habitat for these species is abundant in the project area. Resident bird species known to occur within the allotment include dark-eyed junco, horned lark, American kestrel, common raven, and black-billed magpie. These species rely on productive vegetation to provide cover, and/or to provide habitat requirements of the species that form their prey base. Big/Small Game and other non-Special Status mammals The Fish Haven project area provides year-round habitat for three species of big game herbivore; elk, moose, and mule deer. The project area is wholly located within the IDFG game management unit 78. Elk utilize open sagebrush and mountain shrub habitat types during different times of the year, and foliage from big sagebrush has been identified as an important component to the fall and winter diet of mule deer (Hoskins and Dalke 1955). Healthy sagebrush-steppe habitat, with a diverse composition of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, can provide adequate year-round forage for elk, and mule deer populations (Sawyer et al. 2007). Elk are known to have greater security requirements than mule deer and moose. Although adequate forage resources exist for use throughout the year, the project area is likely avoided by elk, especially during summer months, when human activity would be most prevalent. Parturition and rearing habitat exists within the project area for ungulates, which primarily occurs the higher elevation, forested, or thicket-like habitats. This includes moist areas with dense understory for cover and forage, such as aspen stands and chokecherry/serviceberry/snowberry/Rocky Mountain maple thickets, all of which occur in the project area.The State of Idaho has identified the project area as winter range for both mule deer and elk. Mule deer especially are known to over-winter in the project area. Large predators that are known to occur within the project area include bobcat, coyote, and mountain lion. These predators are quite secretive and elusive. Badgers are also commonly associated with open habitats such as sagebrush-steppe and mountain shrub. These species rely on vegetation mainly as a source of cover while hunting and/or hiding, and for providing the habitat requirements of the species that form their prey base. Because of their secretive nature, predator densities are difficult to determine. However, predators are closely tied to their prey, and if prey numbers are low, predator numbers would reflect that. Because these species are relatively common, and abundant habitat exists in the area, they will not be discussed further. The geographic distributions and preferred habitats of several other mammal species including; the little pocket mouse, kit fox, deer mouse, northern grasshopper mouse, black-tailed jackrabbit, and various vole and other ground squirrel species likely occur within the allotment and in the vicinity. These species prefer open habitats such as mountain shrub, sagebrush steppe, salt desert scrub, grasslands, meadows and other productive bottomlands. As well as being major constituents to biodiversity, small mammals serve as predators, prey, seed dispersers, and grazers. Habitat preferences vary among these species, however they ultimately rely on productive vegetation for cover and forage for themselves and/or their prey base. The vegetative structure within the project area provides adequate cover and foraging habitat for many species.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 21

Species of upland game birds known to occur in the allotment include the ruffed grouse, the greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse [discussed previously]. Ruffed grouse, typically a forested habitat obligate, are known to incidentally inhabit mountain shrub and scattered aspen; but prefer young forest where insects and spiders are most prevalent (Crawford 1986). Alternative A – No Action No proposed activities (Alternatives B and C) would occur, and no direct impact to wildlife resources (including Migratory Birds and Special Status species) would be anticipated. There would be no short-term displacement of wildlife due to project activities. Over time habitat changes would continue to occur due to natural succession and continual chances of human caused or natural caused wildland fire starts. Under this Alternative, continued juniper encroachment into the sagebrush/mountain shrub habitat type would decrease the amount and diversity of the shrublands. Conversely, said juniper encroachment may possibly increasing habitat suitability for species such as the olive-sided fly catcher, or pinyon jay. If juniper thinning activities did not occur within the project area, the general health of the shrublands would continue to decline. Alternative B – Fuels Reduction with Targeted Grazing Maintenance Under Alternative B, roughly 34 acres of mechanical treatment (e.g. mow, hand thin [chainsaw and brushing tools], lop and scatter) would occur in proximity of the BLM and private land ownership boundary (Appendix B, Figure 5), and reoccur on a regular (3-5 year) rotation, while avoiding treatment during the sage-grouse nesting (May 1 – June 30) and winter (Nov 1 – Mar 31) use periods. Annually, the livestock grazing permittee associated with the project area, in cooperation with the BLM, would administer a targeted grazing program to reduce herbaceous (fine) fuels near the private public boundary. Reoccurring treatments would also include the lop- and-scatter of encroaching juniper in the green area (Appendix B, Figure 5). Special Status Species Direct impacts to SSS are expected to be negligible as a result of the implementation Alternative B due to site-specific mitigation measures and best management practices that would be conditions of approval for the proposed activity (Appendix F). For instance, mechanical treatments would avoid the sage-grouse nesting seasons, preventing the potential for nest flushing and abandonment. Noise and vibratory disturbance associated with mechanical treatment would be limited to less than one week of work per 3-4 year period, with all of which occurring during daylight hours. Special Status bat species would not be expected to be directly impacted either, as no hibernacula nor maternity habitat would be affected by the proposed action. Indirect impacts anticipated are primarily vegetative structure and composition related. Generally, larger woody fuels associated with the mow and hand-thin lines (see figure) would be reduced and dispersed. The removal of shrub over-story should release the currently suppressed/out-competed herbaceous vegetation. Grass and forb species would be expected to increase in vigor, biomass, and abundance within the treatment areas. Areas with a lesser level of woody material removal (e.g. selective mow/hand thin/and conifer removal areas) would anticipate a lesser degree of herbaceous release. Selective juniper removal (Phase 1 and old

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 22

growth avoidance) would be expected to increase habitat suitability for sage-grouse, but may reduce day roost opportunity for tree-roosting bat species. Generally, reduced shrub cover is thought to be detrimental to most sagebrush steppe inhabitants. However, in the moisture rich mountain shrub ecotone, limited shrub loss, especially at the current successional status, would do very little to habitat suitability for most species. Moreover, the highest intensity treatment area is associated with the private/homeowner and BLM land ownership boundary, where elevated levels of anthropogenic disturbance and other negative habitat values already exist. Targeted livestock grazing in combination with the mechanical treatments would further reduce fuel (fine). No modification to the grazing permit would be required to facilitate this grazing treatment, therefore, no additional livestock related impacts would occur in-addition-to the current permit, but livestock disturbance and forage use would be concentrated. Concentration areas would be associated with areas already impacted by negative habitat qualities – adjacent to housing sub-division, abundance of raptor perching opportunity (fencing and tall structures), and chronic noise – in essence co-locating disturbance. Livestock related infrastructure can adversely impact sage-grouse, for instance, exotic/invasive plant species establishment (e.g. cheatgrass, Rocky Mountain Juniper, noxious species) is more likely to occur near facilities that congregate livestock [water troughs, fence lines, salt/supplement locations]. Stock watering sites, especially when functioning improperly, can provide optimal breeding habitat for mosquitos; a known vector for West Nile virus which can be especially devastating to small populations of sage-grouse. Site-specific mitigation measures and best management practices would be applied as conditions of approval for the proposed grazing related activities (See Appendix F). Indirect impacts associated with changes in vegetative structure/composition at the scale described would have negligible impact on forage abundance and roosting substrate for Special Status bats. Migratory Birds (including Special Status avian) Direct impacts to migratory birds are expected to be negligible as a result of the implementation Alternative B. Mechanical treatments would attempt to avoid the migratory bird nesting season, preventing the potential for egg crushing, nest flushing and abandonment. Should avoidance not be possible, site clearance using a qualified biologist would be required, and any identified nests would be buffered and avoided. Areas of elevated grazing pressure (targeted grazing treatment areas) would receive elevated risk of direct impacts to eggs/chicks, should nest establishment occur within the treatment area. However, it is likely that the targeted grazing treatment area is largely avoided by avian due to the proximity of ongoing human disturbance. Noise and vibratory disturbance associated with mechanical treatment would be limited to less than one week of work per 3-4 year period, with all of which occurring during daylight hours. As stated in the SSS section, indirect impacts anticipated are primarily vegetative structure and composition related. A shift toward an earlier successional plant community, herbaceous dominated cover type, would be expected to benefit species that prefer more open grass-type areas such as the long-billed curlew, or the sage sparrow/thrasher. Predatory species like raptors would have an increased visual/foraging advantage in treatment areas, where shrub cover is reduced. Reduced shrub cover may reduce nesting habitat suitability for shrub nesting species

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 23

like the Virginia’s warbler. A reduction/removal of the Phase 1 juniper encroachment would improve habitat suitability for sagebrush obligate species like the Brewer’s sparrow; whereas reduced juniper cover may reduce suitability for species like the Pinyon jay, olive-sided flycatcher, or the Ferruginous hawk. Big Game and other Non-Special Status Mammals/Reptiles Direct impacts to big game species are expected to be negligible as a result of the implementation Alternative B. However, burrowing small mammals and reptiles are likely to be directly impacted during project implementation. Large tractors that haul/power the mower decks would be heavy enough to crush a limited number of tunnel systems for said species. Although, the duration and frequency of large tractor related treatments would be extremely limited. As previously stated, indirect impacts anticipated are primarily vegetative structure and composition related. The high intensity treatment areas (mow and thin areas) are largely avoided by big game due to their proximity to the urban interface. Treatment in these areas would have a negligible impact on big game. Phase 1 juniper reduction may decrease available thermal cover within identified winter range (see figure) however, abundance of adjacent similar cover options (forested stands, maple and other mountain shrub thickets) would suggest that removal of Phase 1 encroachment would have negligible impact on wintering big game. Indirect impacts to predatory mammals, prey mammals, and reptiles would be expected to be negligible. Alternative C – Fuels Reduction Only Implementation of Alternative C, would contribute all the impacts associated with Alternative B, excluding impacts related to targeted grazing. All potential impacts would be associated with the mechanical fuels reduction treatment. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Risk Affected Environment Bear Lake and the greater area is a highly sought after vacation spot for people. Bear Lake is often called “Caribbean of the Rockies” for its intense turquoise blue water, with multiple recreational opportunities year round (BLVCVB 2002), draws people to the surrounding mountain areas. The west side of Bear Lake has seen the largest growth in development. Many homes built in the area are vacation homes and are often rented to vacation seekers (Davidson 2018). According to the Bear Lake County Building Official, 257 new homes have been built in the Fish Haven area since 2008 (Davidson 2018). There are currently 663 structures within 1.5 miles of the project area. In general, there are many homes positioned adjacent to moderate slopes of the project area. This includes homes ridgetop along the southern boundary. These homes are on 20% or greater slopes with heavy shrub mixed with grass and encroaching junipers. Those conditions make these homes vulnerable to rapid fire spread from the project area as exampled by the Charlotte fire, June 28th 2012, Pocatello, Idaho. Considered one of the most destructive fires in Idaho’s history, the Charlotte fire burned 1038 acres, 66 homes, and 29 out-buildings (Gates 2012) in a single afternoon. The fire burned through mostly Phase III juniper and shrub. Homes are not only threatened by fire burning towards them, but also threatened by spotting potential from trees torching.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 24

The primary fuel model for the project area is a GS2 (LANDFIRE 2013; Scott & Burgan 2005). Using BehavePlus (Andrews 2009) to model how fire would react within this fuel type (August weather conditions and a 25 mph wind), the fire surface rate of spread is 70 ft/sec, fireline intensity is 644 Btu/ft/sec, and flame lengths are 9 feet (Appendix B, Table 5), making it a High to Very High Fire Behavior class (NWCG 2017). Firefighters would take an indirect tactical approach by using aircraft or other means because it would be too much for engines or dozers (NWCG 2017). Vegetation Departure Historically, fire was a periodic disturbance that helped maintain a mosaic of cover types and different seral stages while periodically reducing fuel loads. Currently, many fire regimes have been altered resulting in increased shrub density, juniper encroachment, and decadence in aspen/conifer or their vegetative departure from a lack of disturbance. Stand replacing fire historically occurred within the mountain big sagebrush communities every 40 (USDA NRCS) – 80 (LANDFIRE 2007) years. “Under pre-settlement conditions, mosaic burns generally exceeded 75% top kill due to the continuous herbaceous layer (LANDFIRE 2007).” In the absence of fire, grasses and forbs decrease,shrub community density increases, and eventually juniper invades, overtopping and controlling the ecological site (USDA NRCS). Vegetation departure (LANDFIRE 2013) is an indicator of how different existing vegetation on a landscape is from its estimated historical condition. The vegetation departure in the Fish Haven South project area ranges from approximately 20% - 80% (LANDFIRE 2013) as seen in Appendix B, Figure 10. This is an indication for lack of disturbance which could result in increased fire behavior when the area burns. Alternative A – No Action Under the No Action Alternative vegetation treatments on public lands would not occur. The current trend of increasing fuel density would continue in the montane sagebrush steppe and aspen/conifer vegetation types. Juniper encroachment in the montane steppe would continue progression toward Phase III, which would result in dominance of trees and decreased understory vegetation. As juniper becomes dominant, fuel loads would further increase, magnifying the risk of high severity fires with extreme fire behavior to adjacent structures as seen with the Charlotte fire. The ability of the natural vegetation community to recover/re-establish from fire would be reduced as juniper encroachment progresses. Residential and business property damage could be impacted by wildfire. Residential building replacement costs from the Charlotte fire were near $12 million dollars (Murri 2012). In the absence of treatment, fuels would continue to accumulate until removed by human caused or naturally ignited wildland fire. This fuel build-up would create conditions making higher intensity wildfires more likely. Although, there is no way to know when wildland fires may actually occur within the project area, when it does occur, it could result in extensive vegetation removal and possibly damage to structures. The WUI would remain the highest priority suppression area within the project area and wildland fire suppression restrictions would be implemented as specified in the ARMP with the intent of preventing significant impacts to natural and human resources and to meet current BLM, state, and federal policy (see Appendix E and BLM 2012). Alternative B – Fuels Reduction and Targeted Grazing

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 25

Cutting encroaching juniper/Douglas fir would decrease spotting potential from individuals torching, slow the transition toward full-tree dominance, and reduce the associated high fuel loads thus decreasing the risk of high severity fires. Grass heights can reach at 3 feet tall at maturity and can generate flame lengths up to 8 feet. Mountain shrub heights can reach to 5-7 feet tall at maturity. Mountain shrub communities can generate flame lengths in excess of 22 feet (NCIFPC 2001). Juniper heights can reach up to 50 feet tall at maturity. Fires in mature Phase III juniper can travel at 11 miles per hour and generate flame lengths in excess of 65 feet (UNCE 2003). Maintaining a grass and shrub community adjacent to structures decreases the overall fire behavior in the area. Both Aspen and Maple are species which have been identified as reducing fire behavior. Fire personnel often put control lines in or adjacent to aspen because the rate of spread is lower (Fechner & Burrows 1976). The fire spread component for grass may be 100 feet per minute, under similar weather conditions, the fire spread component would reduce to 8 feet per minute after entering an aspen stand (Fechner & Burrows 1976). Fire experience shows that crown fires drop to surface fires and may only burn a short distance into an aspen stand (Fechner & Burrows 1976). Maples are recommended species in Southern Idaho for use within the Extended Zone of the Home Ignition Zones (Rosentreter et al 2017). Both trees resprout from surface disturbance or stem injury. Treatment includes selectively thinning live stems of these species to invigorate sprouting, creating living fuel breaks, and expanding the stands. Under this alternative, conditions would be improved for structure defensible space because the BLM, in concert with the BLSWCD and the existing permittees, are reducing fuels within the home ignition zone. Post treatments of mowing and targeted grazing would shift the fuel model to a GR1. Modeling fire under the same weather and wind conditions reduces the fire surface rate of spread to 21 ft/sec, reduces fireline intensity to 35 Btu/ft/sec, and reduces the flame lengths to 2.3 feet (Appendix B, Table 5). This reduces the Fire Behavior class down to Low to Moderate (NWCG 2017). With this reduction in fire behavior, firefighters would be effective tactically going direct by hand or with equipment (NWCG 2017). The result of treatments would be more open stands, reduced fuel loading, which allows remaining surface fuels to burn less intensely. In the event of a wildland fire, the intensity of the fire would be decreased, reducing damage and costs. Treated areas could slow, and even stop, the spread of a wildland fire because there would be less fuel to carry the fire. Fuels reduction treatments provide firefighters with safe zones to take a stand against a wildland fire and lower intensity wildland fires are easier to contain and control. Alternative C – Fuels Reduction Only Under this alternative, modeled fire behavior conditions would only be slightly modified within structure defensible space because normal grazing regimes would be expected in the area. Post treatments of mowing and normal grazing would shift the fuel model to a GR2. Modeling fire under the same weather and wind conditions slightly reduces the fire surface rate of spread to 114 ft/sec, fireline intensity to 578 Btu/ft/sec, and flame lengths to 8 feet (Appendix B, Table 5). This slightly reduces the fire behavior, but does not change the Fire Behavior class of High to Very High (NWCG 2017). Firefighters would still need to operate tactically indirect (NWCG 2017), would not be able to engage structure protection, and require the use of aircraft.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 26

Cumulative Effects CEQ regulations require assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision-making process for federal projects. Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7).” Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions, taking place over a period of time. For this analysis, past, present or ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future activities with the potential to affect resources in the project area are identified and discussed below. Implementation of the proposed action is expected to last approximately 10-15 years. Therefore, a 15-year timeframe for the cumulative analysis was used. It is estimated that 20-200 acres could be treated on any given year. The geographical boundary for the cumulative impact analysis can vary by resource. For most of the resources considered, the cumulative impact analysis area used was the project area boundary. However, Wildlife Resources use the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 12 watershed boundary (Appendix B, Figure 12). For wildlife species the HUC 12 boundary provides meaningful context for some highly mobile species (e.g., big game, raptors, and migratory birds), while likely exceeding the range of many wildlife species. This cumulative effects area encompasses a portion of identified (BLM 2015) IHMA sage-grouse habitat. Analysis timeframes include past activities that have created the present conditions and future activities planned within the next 3 years, including the expected duration of effects from current and future activities (generally 10 to 20 years). Past, Present and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions Past and present actions with the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts to the resources considered in this analysis are discussed below and include: (1) Recreational Use; (2) Wildland and Prescribed Fire; (3) Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Activities; (4) Fuels and Weed Treatments; (5) Urban Development; (6) Agricultural Activity; (7) Livestock Grazing. Recreation: Recreation use occurs in French Hollow and the corridor from Loveland Lane to Fish Haven. The BLM and USFS are rerouting the Ranger Dip trail, a frequently used ATV/OHV trail which begins at Loveland Lane trail head and goes west onto Forest Service. The trail would be rerouted to an east-west ridgeline that bisects the project area taking the trail out of the drainage bottom. Once the new trail is established, the old trail would be recontoured and seeded. Recreational uses include OHV use, snowmobiling, camping, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, and birding. Wildland and Prescribed Fire: It is expected that wildfires, either human caused or naturally ignited, will continue to occur within the project area and suppression measures such as dozer lines and hand lines will continue to be employed to control them. Impacts to soils/vegetation from firefighting activities will continue to be addressed utilizing the Fire Management Plan, PFO ARMP, and the ID/swMT ARMPA. Emergency Stabilization Activities: Impacts to soils/vegetation from firefighting activities will continue to be addressed utilizing SOPs outlined in PFO ARMP, ID/swMT ARMPA, and the Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan Upper Snake and Pocatello Field Offices (BLM 2005). Fuels and Weed Treatments: The BLM, Forest Service, and cooperators are working to reduce hazardous fuels and treat noxious weeds on federal and private lands on the west side of Bear

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 27

Lake. Previous fuels projects have been conducted within the HUC 12 boundary, reducing fuels on approximately 50 acres of private land. The Bear Lake Soil and Water Conservation District fuel breaks (2017-Present) in Bear Lake West POA subdivision. Hazardous fuels reduction and forestry management actions consisted of vegetation manipulation through mechanical treatment (mowing and handcrew selective thinning). The USFS Montpelier Ranger District is in the planning process for fuels reduction treatment adjacent to the project area and the Bear Lake West POA subdivision, but no details have been released at this time. Cumulative impacts to human health and to the environment of herbicide spraying by the BLM PFO, combined with other herbicide use in Bear Lake County, are expected to be minimal when following SOP’s found within Appendix C of the Upper Snake-Pocatello Integrated Weed Control Program Environmental Assessment (BLM 2017c). Urban Development: As west of Bear Lake area surrounding Paris, St. Charles, and Fish Haven grow, increased development in the WUI would continue to occur adjacent to public lands. Each year more residential property is being developed in and around wildland areas. Development of these lands results in disturbance and loss of soil, vegetation, and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Buildings in this interface area can be in danger from wildfires in areas where fuel has accumulated. Currently, there are no WUI building codes or defensible space requirements in Bear Lake County. Livestock grazing: Livestock grazing has taken place for many years on private and public lands within the Fish Haven Creek 2 allotment and is expected to continue in the future. Modifications of grazing management and construction of range improvements exists due to changing resource conditions or changes in a permittee’s operation. Continued maintenance of range improvements, such as fence lines, pipelines and troughs would occur. This maintenance would result in limited disturbance of soils both spatially and temporally. Wildlife: The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the cumulative effects analysis area relevant to fish and wildlife resources are presented in Table 9 (Appendix C). The spatial extent of these actions were calculated using the best available BLM spatial data. In much of the CIAA, upland, riparian, and stream habitats have been adversely affected by grazing practices and rangeland management infrastructure, wildfire, vegetation treatments, and habitat fragmentation by buildings, roads, agricultural land uses and transmission lines. As a result, wildlife habitat and populations in the analysis area have been altered from the conditions before Euro-American colonization of North America and what would be expected under a natural disturbance regime. Worth particular emphasis, the sage-grouse habitat present within and in proximity to the project area is highly fragmented within IHMA and GHMA associated with Bear Lake Valley. Private lands uses of varied type, including CRP/undeveloped land and agricultural/urban development present a matrix of suitable and unsuitable habitat types that sage-grouse must persist therein. Limited contiguous shrubland/sagebrush habitat exists within the CIAA and Bear Lake Valley. Forested habitat, primarily located on USFS managed lands, makes up a large portion of the western flak on the CIAA, leaving merely a strip/sliver of intact shrubland between the western edge of Bear Lake and forested habitat. Considering the limited amount of sage grouse habitat available, it is likely that most grouse migrate or make large movements into and out of the CIAA, during different seasonal use periods. For those non-migratory individuals, another side

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 28

effect of limited habitat is likely seasonal habitat overlap, where a particular patch of habitat may serve as breeding, summer and winter habitat. Deer, elk and some moose are present in the analysis area, and long-distance interstate movements to seasonal ranges have been documented. The surrounding mountain ranges and toe slopes provide relatively undisturbed high value nesting habitat for a variety of wide-ranging raptors and bird species. The shrub steppe, and mountain shrub transition into forested ecosystems is l represented within the cumulative effects analysis area and provides vital habitat for many species. Although populations of some notable species (e.g., sage-grouse) have declined range-wide, population trends in the analysis area for most fish, wildlife, and special status species are unknown because long-term monitoring data are lacking. Alternative A – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, it is expected that wildfire suppression activities and stabilization/rehabilitation of those areas burned would continue to occur. Livestock grazing would continue to be authorized at the current number of AUMs for the same grazing season, and maintenance of associated range improvements would occur as needed. The re-route of the Ranger Dip trail would occur and the subsequent rehabilitation of the current trail would be completed. Utility vehicles, hand tools, other handheld mechanical tools, increase in foot traffic, and redistribution of livestock grazing may introduce and/or expand noxious/ invasive species, as they are all vectors for introduction and spread. The area currently has few noxious/invasive species for seed to be spread naturally. Noxious/invasive species monitoring would occur post Ranger Dip trail re-route. If such species are found, they would be treated using treatments and methods found in the Upper Snake-Pocatello Integrated Weed Control Program Environmental Assessment (BLM 2017c). Alternative B – Fuels Reduction and Targeted Grazing (see table below) Alternative C – Fuels Reduction Only Cumulative effects under Alternative C would be the same as those under Alternative B, with the exception of those associated with high intensity, low duration (targeted) livestock grazing.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 29

Alternative B – Fuels Reduction and Targeted Grazing Impacts of Reasonably Impacts of Past and Cumulative Impacts of the Action Resource Foreseeable Future Present Actions Actions Alternative B All of the past and present The Ranger Dip trail would be Alternative B would reduce hazardous fuel loads, create fuel actions identified have re-routed out of French breaks, and reduce juniper encroachment. These activities potentially affected the soil Hollow canyon and onto the would reduce the potential for future ground disturbance resources through ground uplands, resulting in the within the area from moderate or high intensity wildfire. disturbance and an increased disturbance of approximately Under Alternative B, it is expected that wildfire suppression, potential for erosion. Ground 4.3 acres of vegetation and and associated stabilization and rehabilitation treatments, disturbance has been most soils during trail construction range improvement maintenance, and the re-route of the evident in areas of residential and establishment. The Ranger Dip Trail would occur. In addition, woody vegetation development, agricultural current Ranger Dip Route would be completely removed from approximately 8 acres and development, OHV use, and would be rehabilitated through selectively removed from an additional 23 acres. Removal of where repeated fires have the use of heavy machinery to Soils woody vegetation within the defensible space mow break occurred. These types of re-contour the existing trail, (50ft) should have negligible impacts on soils due to the ground disturbing activities rip currently compacted soils, abundance of perennial herbaceous vegetation to protect soils have increased erosion and and seed the area temporarily from rain drop splash and provide obstacles for overland eliminated areas of productive impacting 5.6 acres. flows. Livestock use would be concentrated along the soils (i.e. house footprints). southern boundary with private lands during spring through early summer. This increased use would have direct effects on the soil surface through hoof action and removal of vegetation. A slight increase in erosion within the 8 acres of the 50 foot mow break is expected to occur. Any increase in erosion within the 150 foot selective thinning area is expected to be negligible. The past and present actions The Ranger Dip Trail re-route Effects of the Alternative B in combination with past, present, identified above have affected would coincide with the fuels and reasonably foreseeable future actions would result in an vegetation indirectly through reduction project and would improvement in vegetative conditions reducing both fire ground disturbance as well as temporarily increase behavior and the vegetation departure rating. In the long term, Vegetation through direct effects to vegetation disturbance. Use of fuel loads, fire severity, and fire size, would be reduced vegetation. Vegetative OHVs for seeding post reroute approaching structures, which in turn, would protect recovery should occur construction could disturb vegetation species present should fire initiate from the urban relatively quickly with some vegetation by crushing development. Other actions would contribute a negligible adjacent areas providing a seed smaller vegetation. However, amount to cumulative effects to this resource. sources along with favorable vegetative recovery should Impacts of Reasonably Impacts of Past and Cumulative Impacts of the Action Resource Foreseeable Future Present Actions Actions Alternative B moisture conditions to sustain occur relatively quickly with plant germination and growth the Frigid/Xeric site receiving after construction. higher precipitation amounts and having a generally high productivity (Chambers et al 2016). Past and present identified Reasonable foreseeable Alternative B would reduce fuel loads, create fuel breaks, and above have affected wildlife vegetation treatments within reduce juniper encroachment. Woody vegetation would be resources within the CIAA. the CIAA include the fuel completely removed from approximately 8 acres and Habitat loss is most evident in reduction work disclosed in selectively removed from an additional 23 acres. Livestock areas of residential this EA, and the Ranger Dip use would be concentrated along the southern boundary with development, agricultural trail, which is a trail re-route private lands during spring through early summer. These development and areas of out of French Hollow canyon activities would reduce the potential for moderate or high excessive OHV use. These onto the uplands. The current intensity wildfire. Under Alternative B, it is expected that types of ground disturbing Ranger Dip route would be wildfire suppression, and associated stabilization and activities have resulted in the rehabilitated through the use rehabilitation treatments, range improvement maintenance, removal of the native of heavy machinery to re- and the re-route of the Ranger Dip Trail would occur. vegetation with the contour the existing trail, rip Disturbance and fragmentation of wildlife habitat may impact Wildlife substitution of some type of currently compacted soils, and wildlife species by displacement or temporarily and Resources, to include non-habitat, or reduced habitat seed the area temporarily permanently altering habitat. Habitat loss and displacement Migratory Birds and value (e.g. mineral material impacting 5.6 acres. can have negative impacts on wildlife populations. However, Special Status pits, agricultural uses) species Salable mineral development the reasonably foreseeable impacts of WUI related mechanical (Sensitive) Species within roughly 3000+ acres of and associated impacts to treatment within the assessment area is negligible if potential the CIAA. wildlife resources would be impacts are effectively minimized through site-specific best Livestock grazing has resulted negligible in the foreseeable management practices and mitigation measures. in a reduction of vegetative future. Privately owned The proposed action will contribute very little to the impacts cover and a shift in vegetative housing development and road of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. community composition. creation is expected to increase Impacts to wildlife resources would be localized to the project Change in vegetative cover on private lands, decreasing area and would account for approximately 31 acres and species composition has available wildlife habitat (approximately 0.002% of the CIAA) of new disturbance to impacted wildlife distribution, found on private lands as well potential wildlife habitat within the CIAA. The disturbance abundance and diversity. The as within the CIAA. disclosed would not result in vegetation conversion, and negative impacts are more Agricultural activity within the would maintain the native bunchgrass and other herbaceous commonly associated with CIAA would continue within cover. livestock congregation approximately 3000 acres.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 31

Impacts of Reasonably Impacts of Past and Cumulative Impacts of the Action Resource Foreseeable Future Present Actions Actions Alternative B locations, like troughs and Livestock grazing within the salting locations, which CIAA would continue to comprise relatively few acres reduce vegetative cover within the CIAA. primarily within those areas Recreational use within the associated with troughs and CIAA has resulted in the salting locations. reduction of habitat quality for Continued or increased wildlife resources. recreational use, including Fragmentation of habitat due motorized activity on routes anthropogenic disturbance, and trails, within the CIAA and the removal of vegetative would continue to reduce cover have degraded wildlife wildlife habitat quality by habitat in locations where habitat fragmentation, and density of recreational use is vegetative impacts. elevated. However, the majority of recreational activity within the CIAA is dispersed. The Wildland Urban Interface The developed areas around Residential development would continue adjacent to the FHS increased with 257 homes Fish Haven and the west side WUI project area. Wildfire risk would continue with having been built within the of Bear Lake are expected to additional recreation pressure on the trails in the analysis area. Fish Haven area in the last 10 continue to grow, specifically Without IWUIC in place, the potential for devastating and years. Bear Lake County without WUI construction and economically draining wildfires exist. BLM would complete Commissioners adopted the defensible space requirements. the BLSWCD fuel break and complement it by extending the International Building Code This leads to an increased risk fuel break along the private/public land border. The BLM fuel (IBC) in 2008 (BLC 2018), of fire to and from structures. break would complement both the BLSWCD and the USFS Wildland Urban but does not state the adoption BLSWCD and USFS are fuel break/fuel reduction projects in the Fish Haven area Interface Fire Risk of the International Wildland- anticipating implementing further reducing the Wildland Urban Fire Risk. Urban Interface Code fuels reduction within the (IWUIC), which supplements Home ignition zone to the IBC. The IWUIC decrease the fire risk threat. establishes minimum regulations for protecting “life and property from fire intrusion from wildland fire

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 32

Impacts of Reasonably Impacts of Past and Cumulative Impacts of the Action Resource Foreseeable Future Present Actions Actions Alternative B exposures, fire exposures from adjacent structures, and prevent structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels (FEMA 2017).” Therefore, homes constructed within the Fish Haven area may or may not have defensible space

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 33

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION This chapter lists individual BLM resource specialists who participated in the preparation of this EA, as well as others who contributed or were contacted during its development. The alternatives and issues analyzed in detail were produced through input from those identified below. Public Involvement On November 30 2017, the BLM mailed 228 scoping letters to land owners adjacent to the project area; grazing permittees with allotments in the project area; and agencies, tribes, and other interested organizations. Additionally, the BLM posted the scoping package on ePlanning and released a media notice. An open house was held in Paris, Idaho on December 13, 2017 to solicit comments and provide information about the project. Ten members of the public attended the meeting. Written comments were received from two individuals, two organizations (Idaho Conservation League and Yellowstone to Uintas), and two agencies (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the US Fish and Wildlife Service) during the public scoping comment period which concluded on January 5, 2018. Complete comments and responses are available in the administration record. Tribes, Agencies, and Organizations Contacted The following were contacted during the preparation of this EA. Agencies Bear Lake County Commissioners Idaho Department of Lands Bear Lake Soil and Water Conservation Idaho Department of Transportation District Bear Lake Volunteer Fire Department, Idaho U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Garden City Fire District, Utah United States Congress, Mike Simpson Idaho Department of Environmental Quality United States Senate, James Risch Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 United States Senate, Michael Crapo Organizations Greater Yellowstone Coalition Keisha’s Preserve Idaho Conservation League Western Watersheds Project Idaho Wildlife Federation Yellowstone to Uintas Tribes Shoshone Bannock Tribes

List of Preparers The following were involved with the development of this EA. Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello Field Office Ryan Beatty Fisheries Biologist Karen Kraus Natural Resource Specialist (botany/soils) Mike Kuyper Supervisor / Assistant Field Office Manager Amy Lapp Archaeologist Adrienne Lipka Range Management Specialist Shelli Mavor Fire Ecologist, BLM Project Lead Chuck Patterson Outdoor Recreation Planner Geoff Phelan Noxious/Invasive Species Coordinator David Price Wildlife Biologist Channing Swan Forester US Fish and Wildlife Service Matt Bringhurst Wildlife Biologist – Conservation Partnerships

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 35

Appendix A – References, Acronyms/Abbreviations, and Glossary REFERENCES 40 CFR 1500-1508. Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA. 16 USC 80. Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 16 USC 6512. Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. 16 USC 6513. Prioritization. 16 USC 703. 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 42 USC 4321-4347. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 43 USC 1701. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Anderson, L. D. 1991. Bluebunch wheatgrass defoliation effect and recovery: a review. USDI, BLM Tech. Bull. 91-2. Boise, ID. Andrews, Patricia L. 2009. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 5.0.5. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Asher, J. 1998. The spread of invasive weeds in western wildlands: A state of biological emergency. The Governor’s Idaho Weed Summit. Boise, Idaho. May 1998. Bear Lake County (BLC). 2018. Bear Lake County Building Department. Bear Lake County Courthouse, Paris ID. Accessed on 03/23/2018: http://www.bearlakecounty.info/building- permits.html Bear Lake Regional Commission (BLRC). 2004. Wildland-Urban Interface Communities-at- Risk Hazard Assessment, Mitigation and Action Plan – Bear Lake County Wildland Fire Plan. Bear Lake County, Idaho. Bear Lake Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau (BLVCVB). 2002. Bear Lake Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau. 69 N, Paradise Parkway Bld. A; Garden City, UT 84028. Accessed on 03/22/2018: https://bearlake.org Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1996. Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan for the Idaho Falls District, Upper Snake and Pocatello Field Offices – ID-320-2005-003. Environmental Assessment for the Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan. BLM Idaho Falls District, Upper Snake and Pocatello Field Offices. Idaho Falls, Idaho. January 2005. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008a. BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. Washington Office. 12/28/2008. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/bl m_manual.Par.43545.File.dat/6840.pdf Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008b. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1. Office of the Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning (WO- 200); Washington, DC.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 36

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008c. Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook, H- 1740-2, Release 1-1714; 03/25/2008. Office of the Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning; Washington, DC. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. August 31, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/ib_attac hments/2010.Par.67473.File.dat/IB2010-110_att1.pdf Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2012. Record of Decision and Approved Pocatello Resource Management Plan (PFO ARMP). Idaho Falls District - Pocatello Field Office, Pocatello, Idaho. April 2012. (p14, 22, 65-68, 91) Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwest Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, Utah; Attachment I – Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ID/swMT ARMPA). Idaho State Office – Boise, Idaho. September 2015. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2016a. Fuels Management and Community Assistance Handbook, H-9214-1, Release 9-412; 01/06/2016. Assistant Director, Fire and Aviation. Boise, ID Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2016b. Idaho Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species List. Instruction Bulletin ID-2016-07, Boise, Idaho. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2017a. Aspen Risk Assessment, Plot 1A and 2A. Pocatello Field Office, Pocatello, ID 83204. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2017b. BLM FORVIS Plot Measurement Record, Plot 2. Pocatello Field Office, Pocatello, ID 83204. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2017c. Upper Snake-Pocatello Integrated Weed Control Program Environmental Analysis (DOI-BLM-ID-I010-2016-0011-EA). Prepared by the Idaho Falls District BLM, Upper Sake and Pocatello Field Offices. Caro, T. M., & O'Doherty, G. 2001. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 13(4), 805-814 Chambers, J.C. 2008. Sagebrush Steppe: A Story of Encroachment and Invasion. Fire Science Brief, Issue 27. December 2008. http://www.firescience.gov Chambers, J.C; Beck, J.L.; Campbell, S.; Carlson, J.; Christensen, T.J.; Clause, K.J.; Dinkins, J.B.; Doherty, K.E.; Griffin, K.A.; Havlina, D.W.; Henke, K.F.; Hennig, J.D.; Kurth, L.L.; Maestas, J.D.; Manning, M.; Mayer, K.E.; Mealor, B.A.; McCarthy, C.; Parea, M.A.; Pyke, D.A. 2016. Using Resilience and Resistance Concepts to manage threats to sagebrush ecosystems, Gunnison Sage-grouse, and Greater Sage-grouse in their eastern range: A strategic multi-scale approach – General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-356. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1508.7). November 29, 1978. Title 40-Protection of Environment, Chapter V-Council on Environmental Quality, Part 1508.7-Terminology and

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 37

Index: Cumulative Impact. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title40-vol34/xml/CFR- 2012-title40-vol34-sec1508-7.xmlCopeland, J. K. 2010. The Bioclimatic Envelope of the Wolverine (Gulo gulo); Do Climatic Constraints Limit Its Geographic Distribution? Canadian Journal of Zoology. Vol. 88: 233-246. Crawford, J. A. 1986. Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus). Section 4.1.1, US Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual. Tech. Rep. EL-86-4. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi. 42 pp. Davidson, Wayne. 2018. Bear Lake County Building Official, Bear Lake County Building Department. Personal phone/email contact. 7 East Center, PO box 190, Paris, ID 83261. Dechant, J. A.; M. L. Sondreal; D. H. Johnson; L. D. Igl; C. M. Goldade; M. P. Nenneman; and B. R. Euliss. 1998 (revised 2001). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Sprague’s Pipit. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 15 pages. Executive Order 13112 of February 03, 1999. Federal Register Vol.64, No. 25, Monday, February 8, 1999. Accessed online 02/8/2017 at: https//www.federalregister.gov/documents/1999/02/08/99-3184/invasive-species Fechner, Gilbert H. & Barrows, Jack S. 1976. Aspen stands as wildfire fuel breaks. Aspen Bibliography. Paper 5029. Accessed on 02/23/2018: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/aspen_bib/5029 Federal Register. 2001. Urban Wildland Interface Communities within the Vicinity of Federal Lands that area at High Risk from Wildfire. Volume 66, No. 160, August 17, 2001. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) toolkit – Codes and Standards, International WUI Code. Accessed on 03/23/2018: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui_toolkit/wui_codes.html Forest Steward Guild (FSG). 2015. Effective Wildfire Mitigation in the Wildland-Urban Interface: A research summary. Joint Fire Science; Forest Stewards Guild, National Office, Madison, WI. Accessed 02/29/2018: http://forestguild.org/publications/research/2015/WUI_effectiveness_summary.pdf Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. October 25, 2006. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed on 03/14/2018: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf Habich, E.F. 2001. Ecological site inventory, Technical reference 1734-7. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado. BLM/ST/ST-01/003+1734. 112 pp. Holechek, J. L.; Baker, T. T.; Boren, J. C.; Galt, D. 2006. Grazing impacts on rangeland vegetation: What we have learned. Rangelands, 28(1), 7-13. Hoskins, L. W., and P. D. Dalke. 1955. Winter browse on the Pocatello Big Game Range in southeastern Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management 19(2): 215-225. HR 1904 Healthy Forest Restoration Act (16 USC 6512/6513) – 108th Congress. 2003. Title 16- Conservation, Chapter 84-Healthy Forest Restoration, Subchapter I-Hazardous Fuel Reduction on Federal Land, Section 6512-Authorized Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects and Section

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 38

6513-Prioritization. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2009-title16/USCODE-2009- title16-chap84-subchapI-sec6512/content-detail.html Gates, David. 2012. The Charlotte Fire; Successes and Lessons Learned. Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security, Quarterly Newsletter. Summer 2012. Accessed on 03/22/2018: https://ioem.idaho.gov/Pages/PressRoom/Releases/BHSnewsSUM12lowres.pdf Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System (IFWIS). Accessed on March 13, 2018: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/portal/ Institute of Water Research (IWR). 2002. RUSLE on-line soil erosion assessment tool - K Factor. Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan. Accessed on 05/24/2016: http://www.iwr.msu.edu/rusle/kfactor.htm International Code Council, Inc (ICC). 2015-updated. International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. ISBN: 978-1-60983-485-2. First printing May 2014. Accessed on 01/13/2018: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui_toolkit/wui_codes.html Johnson, D.D. and R.F. Miller. 2006. Structure and development of expanding western juniper woodlands as influenced by two topographic variables. Forest Ecology and Management. 229 (2006): 7-15. Kochert, M. N.; K. Steenhof; C. L. Mcintyre; E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Accessed on 03/14/2018: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/684 Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal Species: A Multi-Species Umbrella for Nature Conservation. Conservation Biology, 11(4), 849-856. LANDFIRE. 2007. Biophysical Setting Model: 1844260 – Inter-mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior. Accessed on 03/08/2018: https://www.landfire.gov/bps-models.php LANDFIRE. 2013 – last update. LANDFIRE Vegetation Departure Layer. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior. Accessed http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ Martin, J. W. and B. A. Carlson. 1998. Sage Sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Accessed on 03/08/2018: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/326 Mills, L. S. (2007). Bridging applied population and ecosystem ecology with focal species concepts. In Conservation of wildlife populations (pp. 276-285). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. Miller, R.F., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, F.B. Pierson, and L.E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, ecology and management of Western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station. Technical Bulletin 152. 21;79. Murri, Jessica. 2012. Pocatello Fire Ruled an Accident. Boise State Public Radio. Boise, Idaho. July 16, 2012. Accessed on 03/22/2018: http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/pocatello-fire- ruled-accident#stream/0 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2018. Firewise USA – Residents reducing wildfire risks. The ember threat and the home ignition zone. Accessed on 02/15/2018:

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 39

http://www.firewise.org/National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 2017. Fire Behavior Field Reference Guide, Interpreting Surface Fire Behavior. PMS 437 December 2017. Accessed on 03/11/2018: http://www.fbfrg.org/fire-behavior/fire-behavior-interpretations-hauling-charts North Central Idaho Fire Prevention Cooperative (NCIFPC). 2001. Living with Fire, a guide for the homeowner. Lawai, Idaho. Accessed on 03/20/2018: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd506299.pdf Perkins, J. M., & Peterson, J. R. 1997. Bat distribution in the juniper woodlands of the Idaho Owyhee Mountains. Technical Bulletin No. 94, USDI BLM. Poulin, R. L.; D. Todd; E. A. Haug; B. A. Millsap; M. S. Martell. 2011. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed on 03/06/2018: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/061 Reynolds, T. D. and T. D. Rich. 1978. Reproductive ecology of the Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) on the Snake River Plain in south-central Idaho. Auk 95:580-582. Reynolds, T. D., T. D. Rich and D. A. Stephens. 1999. Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed on 03/08/2018: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/463 Ritter, S. 2000. Idaho Bird Conservation Plan. Idaho Partners in Flight, Hamilton, MT Rosentreter, Roger; Van Paepeghem, Brett; DeBolt, Ann. 2017. Fire resistance of Plants Master Database & placement of species within firewise landscape zones – for Southern Idaho. DOI Bureau of Land Management; College of Western Horticulture; & Idaho Botanical Garden. Accessed on 02/28/2018: http://idahofirewise.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/FireXResistanceXofXPlantsXMasterXDatabase.pdf Rotenberry, J. T.; M. A. Patten; K. L. Preston. 1999. Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed on 03/06/2018: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/390 Rowland, M. M.; Wisdom, M. J.; Suring, L. H.; Meinke, C. W. 2006. Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for sagebrush-associated vertebrates. Biological Conservation, 129, 323-335. Sawyer, H.; R. M. Nielson; F.G. Lindzey; L. Keith; J.H. Powell; A.A. Aabraham. 2007. Habitat Selection of Rocky Mountain Elk in a Nonforested Environment. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71: 868–874. Scott, Joe H. & Burgan, Robert E. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model; General Technical Report RMRS- GTR-153. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Sheley, R.L. and J.K. Petroff (eds.). 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. 438 pgs. Sherwin, R. E., D. Stricklan, and D. S. Rogers. 2000. Roosting affinities of Townsend’s big- eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in northern Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 81:939-947. Stiver, S.J.; E.T. Rinkes; D.E. Naugle; P.D. Makela; D.A. Nance; J.W. Karl, eds. 2015. Sage- Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 40

6710-1. Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, Colorado. Taylor, Jr., C. A. 2006. Targeted Grazing to Manage Fire Risk: in Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Englewood, Colorado: American Sheep Industry Association. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (UNCE). 2003. Living with Fire….in the Pinyon- Juniper Woodland. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, Reno, NV. Accessed on 03/21/2018: https://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/2003/cm0301.pdf USDA NRCS. 2016. Updated T and K Factors Questions & Answers. Available online: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/download?cid=stelprdb1262856&ext=pd f. US Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2018. Custom Soil Resource Report for Bear Lake County Area, Idaho, and Caribou National Forest, Idaho and Wyoming, Produced February 27, 2018. US Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). Ecological Site Description R013XY014ID: Stony Loam 16-22in ARTRV-PSSPS – Draft. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008 .pdf US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage- Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. FWS-R6-ES-2010-0018. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/sagegrouse/FR03052010.pdf US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. February 2013. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. USFWS Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in CO, WY, and NM; Withdrawal. 79 Federal Register (August 13, 2014 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule for the North American Wolverine. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Information for Planning and Conservation, Interactive website. Accessed on 03/08/2018: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Vander Haegen, M. 2003. Sage Sparrow 33-1 – 33-4 in E. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA. Walker, B. 2004. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Brewer’s Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 41

Center Online. Accessed on 03/08/2018: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/brsp/brsp.htm Western Governors’ Association (WGA). 2006. Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan Wiggins, D.A., D.W. Holt, and S.M. Leasure. 2006. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed on 03/08/2018: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/062 Woods, C. P. and T. J. Cade. 1996. Nesting habits of the loggerhead shrike in sagebrush. The Condor 98:75-81.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 42

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS μg/m³...... micrograms per cubic meter ACEC...... Areas of Critical Environmental Concern AQRV...... Air Quality Related Value ARMP …………………………………………Approved Pocatello Resource Management Plan ATV…………………………………………………………………………..All Terrain Vehicle AUM...... Animal Unit Month BLM...... Bureau of Land Management BLSWCD……………………………………....Bear Lake Soil and Water Conservation District BMP...... Best Management Practice Btu…………………………………………………………………………..British Thermal Unit CIAA...... Cummulative Impacts Analysis Area CEQ...... Council on Environmental Quality CFR...... Code of Federal Regulations cfs...... Cubic feet per second csm ...... Cubic feet per second per square mile CWA...... Clean Water Act DBH……………………………………………………………………Diameter at Breast Height DOE...... U.S. Department of Energy EA...... Environmental Assessment EPA...... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ES&R...... Emergency Stabilization & Rehabilitation ESA...... Endangered Species Act FMP...... Fire Management Plan FONSI...... Finding of No Significant Impact HUC………………………………………………………………………..Hydrologic Unit Code IDT ………………………………………………………………………. Interdisciplinary Team IDEQ...... Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IDFG...... Idaho Department of Fish and Game IDL...... Idaho Department of Lands lb/ac...... Pounds Per Acre Mgal...... Million gallons mi² ...... Square Miles NEPA...... National Environmental Policy Act NFRP...... Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plans NHPA...... National Historic Preservation Act NPDES...... National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS...... Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP...... National Register of Historic Places OHV...... Off-highway Vehicles PFO...... Pocatello Field Office POA………………………………………………………………..Property Owners Association ROD...... Record of Decision ROW...... Right-of-way SAS …………………………………………………………………….Sensitive Animal Species

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 43

SHPO ...... State Historic Preservation Officer SOP……………………………………………………………….Standard Operating Procedures SRMA...... Special Resource Management Area SSS...... Special Status Species t/a...... tons/acre T&E...... Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered USDI ...... U.S. Department of Interior USFS...... U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service USFWS ...... U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service VRM ...... Visual Resource Management WEG ...... Wind Erodibility Group WUI...... Wildland Urban Interface

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 44

GLOSSARY 303(d)-listed Streams: Streams in which water quality is impaired; also known as "water quality-limited streams." Airshed: A geographic area with similar topography and meteorology within which the airflow is contained the majority of the time. Analysis Area: The geographic area that was analyzed to predict the possible effect that may be associated with proposed alternatives. This area varies in scale depending on the discipline being discussed, or the relationship being described. Animal Unit Month (AUM): Determined to be equal to the amount of forage used to support one cow and calf for one month (approximately 800 pounds of forage). Anthropogenic: Derived from human activities. Attainment: A geographic area that meets or has pollutant levels below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is call an attainment area. Biodiversity: The variety of life and its processes. It includes the array of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, the communities and ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that keep them functioning, yet ever changing and adapting. Biological Assessment (BA): An evaluation conducted for federal projects requiring an environmental impact in accordance with the legal requirements under Section 7(e) of the Endangered Species Act as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(c)). The purpose of the assessment is to determine whether the proposed action is likely to affect any endangered, threatened, or proposed species or critical habitat. British Thermal Unit (Btu): The amount of heat needed to raise one pound of water at maximum density through one degree Fahrenheit, equivalent to 1.055 × 103 joules. Carbon Monoxide (CO): One of the six "criteria" pollutants for which the U.S. EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Chemical (vegetation treatment): This is the application of herbicides to control invasive species/noxious weeds and/or unwanted vegetation to meet resource objectives. Class I Airshed: Under the Clean Air Act, the “Class I” area designations were given to 156 areas in existence as of August 1977 for the purposes of visibility protection meeting the following criteria: all national parks greater than 6000 acres and all national wilderness areas and national memorial parks greater than 5000 acres (http://www.epa.gov/visibility/maps.html). Clearing: A forest opening with little or no canopy closure that is either permanent or temporary. Permanent clearings occur as ski trails and contain grasses and forbs along with some shrub component. Temporary clearings are forest regeneration and contain seedlings and saplings trees that are less than 10 years old. Cohesive Strategy: An aggressive, collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risk to communities and to restore and maintain ecosystem health within fire-prone areas, which is based on the concept of restoring ecosystems to their historic fire regime. Community: A group of interacting plants and animals inhabiting a given area.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 45

Corridor: A route that potentially allows movement of individuals or species from one region to another. Cultural Resource Inventory Classes: An inventory system used to identify and assess cultural resource values on BLM public lands. Class I: an overview document discussing the known resources of a particular region and defining research goals and questions from known data; primarily a chronicle of past land uses. Class II: professionally conducted, statistically based random samples designed to help characterize the probably density, diversity, and distribution of cultural resources in a large area. Class III: inventories conducted at 30-meter intervals or less to provide for intensive coverage over an entire project area, rather than a randomly selected sample area. District: Idaho Falls District of the Bureau of Land Management. Ecosystem: A dynamic complex of biotic (plant, animal, fungal, and microorganism) communities and their associated abiotic (non-living) environment interacting as a functioning unit. Ecotone: The transition zone between two structurally different communities (see Edge). Edge: The zone where two or more different communities meet and integrate, e.g., field and woodland or seedling/sapling forest and mature forest. Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R): Emergency stabilization actions are implemented within one year of a fire. Their purpose is to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation of natural and cultural resources; to minimize threats to life or property resulting from the effects of fire; or to repair, replace, or construct physical improvements necessary to prevent degradation of land or resources. Rehabilitation actions are implemented within three years of a fire. Their purpose is to repair or improve affected lands unlikely to recover to a management-approved condition on their own, or to repair or replace minor facilities damaged by fire. Endangered Species Act (ESA): A federal statute enacted in 1973, which provided for the protection of native wildlife threatened with extinction. Endangered Species: Any species of animal or plant, which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion its range. An endangered species must be designated in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior. Disturbance of the habitat of endangered species is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act, 1973, as amended. Environmental Gradient: The change in ecological or environmental features across space, such as changes in elevation, moisture, temperature, or soil type. Fire Management Plan (FMP): Prepared at the Field Office or District level, this is a strategic document that defines a program to manage wildland fires based on an area's land use plan. Footprint-acres: Refers to a single area or acreage within which some intervention, manipulation or treatment is/are performed. Fragmentation: The process by which habitats or communities are increasingly subdivided into smaller units, resulting in their increased isolation as well as losses of total habitat area. Habitat: A place where an animal or plant lives and grows for all or a portion of its life.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 46

Hazardous Fuels: Dry brush, trees, or other vegetation that have accumulated to a level that they increase the risk of unusually large, catastrophic fires as a result of decades of fire suppression activities, sustained drought, and/or increasing insect, disease, and invasive plant infestations. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Hydrologic unit codes are a way of identifying all of the drainage basins in the United States in a nested arrangement from largest (Regions) to smallest (Cataloging Units). Interdisciplinary Team: A team comprised of agency and interagency natural resource specialists. Juniper Old-Growth Characteristics (Miller et al 2005): “Old-growth is a relative term, and has been based on morphological characteristics, actual age, or general period of establishment (pre and post-settlement). As trees age they change morphologically. Compared to younger trees, old trees have approached their maximum size, height growth has ceased, and the tree crowns may be in various stages of decline. As trees mature, their inverted-cone-shaped canopy becomes increasingly unsymmetrical in appearance with rounded tops and spreading canopies that may become sparse and contain dead limbs or spike tops. In addition, the bark on the trunk becomes deeply furrowed, fibrous, and reddish in color. Bark on trees less than 150 years is scaly and furrows are shallow or lacking. Branches near the base may be very large (more common in open stands), and branches are covered with bright green arboreal fruticose lichens. The cambium layer (live wood tissue) may also die around portions of the tree trunk, leaving only a narrow strip connected to a single live branch. An additional characteristic that helps distinguish older trees is limited terminal leader growth on branches in the upper 25 percent of the tree canopy. Younger trees, between 80 to130 years, typically have terminal branch leader growth ranging between 2 to 6 inches in the upper portion of the canopy. Many of these traits that separate old and young trees usually begin to develop at 150 (+ 30) years of age but can vary across different sites. For example, on Green Mountain in northern Lake County, Oregon, trees older than 200 years still retain symmetrical inverted-cone-shaped canopies. However, terminal and lateral leader growth in the upper canopy was less than 0.5 inches and vertical furrows in the bark were present.” Full view of young juniper.

Full view of old growth juniper.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 47

185 and 205 years old. Fibrous bark About 75 years, Bark with no has deep furrows. furrows and not fibrous.

Mechanical (vegetation treatment): This includes the application of mechanical treatments such as mowing, chaining, chopping, and cutting to meet resource objectives. NFS Lands: National Forest System lands. Proposed Action: Alternative B. Phase 1: Trees are present but shrubs and grasses are the dominant vegetation that influence ecological processes (hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles) on the site. Phase II: Trees are co-dominant with shrubs and herbs, and all three vegetation layers influence ecological processes on the site. Phase III: Trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary plant layer influencing ecological processes on the site. Shrubs no longer dominate the understory. Rehabilitation: Actions that occur following wildfire, and are designed to mitigation negative impacts associated with unplanned ignitions. Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS): There are nearly 2,200 interagency Remote Automatic Weather Stations (RAWS) strategically located throughout the United States. These stations monitor the weather and provide weather data that assists land management agencies with a variety of projects such as monitoring air quality, rating fire danger, and providing information for research applications. Most of the stations owned by the wildland fire agencies are placed in locations where they can monitor fire danger. RAWS units collect, store, and forward data to a computer system at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho, via the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES). The GOES is operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The data is automatically forwarded to several other computer systems including the Weather Information Management System (WIMS) and the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) in Reno, Nevada. Fire managers use this data to predict fire behavior and monitor fuels; resource managers use the data to monitor environmental conditions. Locations of RAWS stations can be searched online courtesy of the Western Regional Climate Center. Restoration: Actions that occur independently of wildfire, and are pre-planned with the intent of meeting resource management objectives.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 48

Riparian Zone: The zone along streams and rivers, which receives additional moisture and supports hydrophytic vegetation. Seeding (vegetation treatment): This includes the application of grass, forb, or shrub seed, either applied aerially or with rangeland drill. Sensitive Species: Those plant and animal species identified by a BLM wildlife specialist for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density; b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. Seral: A stage of vegetation succession. Snag: Any standing dead tree or portion of a tree with a minimum diameter at breast height of 6 inches and minimum height of 10 feet. Snags can be hard, possessing essentially sound exterior wood, or snags can be soft being in an advanced state of decay. Snags are used by forest bats as roosts and maternity/nursery sites. Other mammals will use snags for denning and foraging. In addition, they are often used by birds for nesting, roosting, perching, displaying, and/or foraging. Soil Data Mart: Data made available by the Natural Resource Conservation Service for a soil survey area includes a tabular component and a spatial component. The tabular component is typically imported into a database for querying, reporting and analysis. The spatial component is typically viewed and analyzed using a Geographic Information System (GIS). Soil K Factor: A variable that determines how susceptible a specific soil is to erosion by water. Species Richness: Number of species in a given location. Spread Component (SC) - A rating of the forward rate of spread of a head fire. It integrates the effect of wind, slope, and fuel bed and fuel particle properties. The daily variations are caused by the changes in the wind and moisture contents of the live fuels and the dead fuel timelag classes of 1, 10, and 100 hr. SSURGO: Data from the Soil Data Mart is distributed in what is referred to as “SSURGO” format. For the tabular component, this format dictates which soil attributes are included, how those attributes are defined, how those attributes are grouped and how those groups are related. For the spatial component, this format dictates which spatial layers are defined, which spatial layers are mandatory and the standards to which that spatial data conforms. Threatened Species: Any species of plant or animal which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its rangeand which has been designated in the Federal Register by the Secretary of Interior as a threatened species. Treatment-acres: Refers to the multiple interventions, manipulations or treatments on the same (footprint) acre(s) to achieve management objectives. Variety Class: A level of visual variety or diversity of landscape character used to determine scenic quality value. Viewshed: The panorama from a given viewpoint that encompasses the visual landscape, including everything visible within a 360-degree radius. Visual Absorption Capability (VAC): The ability of a landscape to absorb human alterations without loss of landscape character and without reduction in scenic quality. The major inventory factors used to determine VAC are slope, vegetative cover, and soils and geology.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 49

Visual Management System (VMS): Provides a method for setting measurable objectives for the management of the visual resource. It provides standards for inventorying the visual resource and documenting changes in the landscape. Visual Quality Objective (VQO): A desired level of excellence in visual appeal based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area. Refers to the degree of acceptable alteration to the characteristic landscape. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI): The line, area or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Wind Rose: A wind rose gives a very succinct but information-laden view of how wind speed and direction are typically distributed at a particular location. Presented in a circular format, the wind rose shows the frequency of winds blowing FROM particular directions. The length of each "spoke" around the circle is related to the frequency of time that the wind blows from a particular direction. Each concentric circle represents a different frequency, emanating from zero at the center to increasing frequencies at the outer circles. Wind roses contain additional information, in that each spoke is broken down into discrete frequency categories that show the percentage of time that winds blow from a particular direction and at certain speed ranges. All wind roses use 16 cardinal directions, such as north (N), NNE, NE, etc.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 50

Appendix B - Figures Figure 1. Fish Haven South Fuels Reduction Project Area within the Pocatello Field Office.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 51

Figure 2. Wildland Urban Interface Structures in the Fish Haven South Project area.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 52

Figure 3. Home Ignition Zones.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 53

Figure 4. Fish Haven South Project Area Fire History for the Period 1987 Through 2016.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 54

Figure 5. Alternative B Treatments

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 55

Figure 6. Alternative C Treatments

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 56

Figure 7. Distribution of K factors by acres found within the project area.

Project Area K factors 140 120 100 80

Acres 60 40 20 0 0.1 0.15 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.37 0.43 K factor value

Figure 8. Distribution of K factors by acres found within the 50 foot mow break area.

50 ft Mow Break K factors 3.5 3 2.5 2

Acres 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.1 0.15 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.37 0.43 K factor value

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 57

Figure 9. Vegetation types within the project area.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 58

Figure 10. Vegetation departure of project area.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 59

Figure 11. Map of identified Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer winter range; greater sage grouse habitat delineation; wolverine sighting; and the Wildlife Resources Cumulative Impacts Assessment Area.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 60

Figure 12. Map of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Area

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 61

Appendix C – Tables Table 2. Resources addressed Resource Resource Status Rationale Access Present, not Access is available through current BLM affected trailheads and trail network. Areas of Critical Not Present There are no ACECs located in the project Environmental Concern area. (ACEC) Cultural Resources Present, not Fuels treatments would be reviewed on a case- affected by-case basis in consultation with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for inventory needs. The BLM would avoid NRHP eligible historic properties during project implementation. No historic properties would be affected. Economic and Social Present, not All Alternatives are consistent with the Values affected prevalent economic and social values of the area. There would be no major change in conditions. Environmental Justice Present, not None of the alternatives would result in affected disproportionately high and adverse impacts to low income or minority populations. Existing and Potential Present, not None of the alternatives would result in Land Uses affected adverse impacts to existing and potential land uses, with the exception of livestock grazing. Impacts to livestock grazing are discussed in Range Resources Livestock Management section 3.9. Fisheries Not Present Fish Haven Creek supports a trout fishery and other native non-game species. However, the creek and its associated riparian area and floodplain lie to the north and outside of the project boundary. Buffers applied through the movement of the project boundary south, removal of treatments within Fish Haven Creek drainage and its associated riparian areas/floodplain will likely be adequate to ensure that no adverse effects occur from any proposed fuels treatment activities. Floodplains Not Present The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not yet completed a study to determine flood hazards within the project

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 62

Resource Resource Status Rationale area. Floodplains are likely present in areas adjacent to Fish Haven Creek however none of the alternatives authorize construction of structures in, modification of, or federal occupancy of those areas. In accordance with Executive Order 11988, there will be no alteration of the floodplain’s function, risk of loss of federal facilities due to flooding, or impact human safety from flooding. None of the actions proposed under the alternatives would impact flood plains. Mineral Resources Present, not Currently, there are no active mining claims, affected solid mineral leases, fluid mineral leases, or salable mineral permits on BLM-administered public lands within the project area. The alternatives constitute surface use and would not affect any mineral resources. Native American Present, not There would be no known impacts to places or Religious Concerns affected things of Native American religious concern. There are no known ceremonial sites or resources known to be important to Native American religious practices present in the project area. Paleontological Not Present There are no known paleontological resources Resources located in the project area. Prime and Unique Not Present There are no known prime and unique Farmlands farmlands located in the project area. Range Resources Present, not There would be no change to the current affected grazing stipulations defined for the project area. Recreation Present, not The project would not affect recreation affected because the work takes place off the trails. Vehicles used for the project work would be parked off the trails and would not block visitors using the trails. Riparian Areas and Present, not Buffers are in place to mitigate any adverse Streams affected effects to Fish Haven Creek and the associated riparian area. Threatened, Endangered, Not present The Fish Haven Creek is north of the project and Sensitive Fish boundary. Project boundary and treatments were adjusted south to avoid impacts to the

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 63

Resource Resource Status Rationale Fish Haven Creek drainage to protect Bonneville Cutthroat Trout spawning habitat. Fish Haven Creek supports a sensitive species trout fishery, comprised of migratory Bear Lake Cutthroat Trout (e.g. BCT) which ascend the creek during spring spawning migrations. Juvenile trout rearing also occurs for up to several years, prior to fish migrating back to Bear Lake. Some resident (e.g. non-migratory) trout may also occur. However, the creek and its associated riparian area and floodplain lie to the north and outside of the project boundary. Buffers applied to Fish Haven Creek and its associated riparian areas and floodplain will likely be adequate to ensure that no adverse effects occur from any proposed fuels treatment activities. Threatened, Endangered, Not Present There are no known threatened, endangered, and Sensitive Plants and sensitive plants located in the project area. Tribal Treaty Rights and Present, not The 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty, between the Interests affected United States and the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes, reserves the Tribes’ right to hunt, fish, gather, and exercise other traditional uses and practices on unoccupied federal lands. The federal government has a unique trust relationship with federally-recognized American Indian Tribes including the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. BLM has a responsibility and obligation to consider and consult on potential effects to natural resources related to the Tribes’ treaty rights or cultural use. There would be no impact to Tribal treaty rights as the project would not affect the status of public lands and there would be negligible effects on access to wildlife and plants. Visual Resources Present, not The project falls within VRM Class III and IV affected objectives. Fuel treatments to the vegetation in the project area would meet the VRM Class Objectives because the level of change to the characteristic landscape would be moderate. Wastes, Hazardous and Not Present There are no known hazardous or solid wastes Solid associated with the project area.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 64

Resource Resource Status Rationale Water Quality (Surface Present, not Fish Haven Creek flows north beyond the and Ground) affected project area. The project boundary was shifted to the south to avoid impacts to the stream. There would be no impacts to groundwater quality. Wild and Scenic Rivers Not Present There are no wild and scenic rivers near the project area. Wild Horse and Burro Not Present There are no wild horse and burro herd Herd Management Areas management areas in the project area. Wilderness Not Present There are no wilderness areas in the project area. Lands with Wilderness Not Present There are no lands with wilderness Characteristics characteristics in the project area.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 65

Table 3. Soil Map Units within the project Area with proportion of each soil component within the map unit and corresponding K factor indicated. Soil Map Unit Number Soil Name % of Map Unit K factor Hoopgobel 65% .28 101 Slights 25% .28 Hutchley 30% .24 105 Cupine 25% .10 Vitale 20% .15 Lag 40% .24 125 Dollarhide 35% .24 Rock outcrop 15% NA Leftfork 60% .32 136 Cleavage 25% .32 Richollow 70% .37 181 Dranburn 20% .32 Swanpeak 70% .28 203 Dutchcanyon 20% .43 Swanpeak 45% .28 204 Dutchcanyon 30% .43 Ant Flat 25% .28 Spearhead, very stony surface 35% .28 389 Broad Canyon, very stony surface 30% .24 Ezbin 20% .28

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 66

Table 4. Name and number of Soil Map Units found within the project area. 50 ft. Mow 150 ft. Targeted Project Area Break Selective Thin Grazing Acres/ Treatment Treatment Soil Map Unit Number; Name Acres/% % Project Acres/ Area Acres/ Targeted Area % Mow Break % Selective Grazing Area Area Thin Area 101; Hoopgobel-Slights complex, 15 to 17.6 ac./ 0/ 0/ 0/ 30 percent slopes 5.7% 0% 0% 0% 105; Hutchley-Cupine-Vitale complex, 30.7ac. / 1.2 ac./ 3.3 ac./ 4.5/ 2 to 60 percent slopes 9.9% 15% 13.9% 14% 125; Lag-Dollarhide-Rock outcrop 29.0 ac./ 0/ 0/ 0/ complex, 5 to 60 percent slopes 9.3% 0% 0% 0% 136; Leftfork-Cleavage complex, 5 to 23.6 ac./ 3.4 ac./ 4.5 ac./ 1.1 ac./ 13.7% 40 percent slopes 7.6% 14.5% 14% 181; Richollow-Dranburn complex, 5 55.7 ac./ 0.5 ac./ 1.5 ac./ 2 ac./ to 50 percent slopes 18% 5.8% 6.2% 6.3% 203; Swanpeak-Dutchcanyon complex, 40.7 ac./ 5.2 ac./ 6.3 ac./ 1.1 ac./ 13.4% 20 to 35 percent slopes 13.1% 22.1% 19.7% 204; Swanpeak-Dutchcanyon-Ant Flat 112.1 ac./ 4.3 ac./ 10.3 ac./ 14.6 ac./ complex, 12 to 20 percent slopes 36.1% 52% 43.4% 45.6% 389; Spearhead family, very stony surface-Broad Canyon family, 0.1 ac./ 0/ 0/ 0/ very stony surface-Ezbin, 0% 0% 0% 0% complex, 30 to 60 percent slopes 0.7 ac./ 0/ 0/ 0/ NOTCOM; No Digital Data Available 0.2% 0% 0% 0% TOTAL ACRES 310.4ac. 8.3 ac. 23.7 ac. 32 ac.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 67

Table 5. BehavePlus Modeling Run Parameters and Reports BavePlus 5.0.5 Fish Haven South EA Runs (no supression) GS2 Surface Used LANDFIRE Scott&Burgan designator for 20ft Midflame Rate of Flame Fireline current Fuel Type(GS2).GS2 Shrubs are 1 to 3 feet Wind Wind Spread Length Intensity high, moderate grass load. Spread rate high; flame (mi/hr) (mi/hr) (ft/s) (ft) (Btu/ft/s) length moderate. Mix of Grass and Shrub; shrub 10 4 20 5 188 coverage up to 50%. Used Otter Creek RAWS in UT for weather in August 18 7 43 7 393 2017. (8/1) Max Temp 86; Min RH13 25 10 70 9 644 FDFM 14:00 unshade S-aspect 0-30: 3; 10hr: 5 33 13 101 11 933 20ft Wind Ave: 7.3; 20ft Wind Max: 40; 0.4 adj 40 16 136 12 1254 factor: 3-16 GR GR4

Surface Anticipated post woody veg removal only Fuel 20ft Midflame Rate of Flame Fireline Type(GR4). GR4 Moderately coarse continuous Wind Wind Spread Length Intensity grass, average depth about 2 feet. Spread rate very (mi/hr) (mi/hr) (ft/s) (ft) (Btu/ft/s) high; flame length high. Nearly pure grass and/or forb type. 10 4 67 9 662 Used Otter Creek RAWS in UT for weather in August 18 7 141 13 1393 2017. (8/1) Max Temp 86; Min RH13 25 10 232 16 2286 FDFM 14:00 unshade S-aspect 0-30: 3; 10hr: 5; 33 13 336 19 3312 20ft Wind Ave: 7.3; 20ft Wind Max: 40; 0.4 adj 40 16 452 22 4453 factor: 3-16 GR2

Surface Anticipated post woody veg removal and normal 20ft Midflame Rate of Flame Fireline grazing Fuel Type(GR2). GR2 Moderately coarse Wind Wind Spread Length Intensity continuous grass, average depth about 1 foot. (mi/hr) (mi/hr) (ft/s) (ft) (Btu/ft/s) Spread rate high; flame length moderate. Nearly pure grass and/or forb type. 10 4 33 5 168 Used Otter Creek RAWS in UT for weather in August 18 7 69 7 352 2017. (8/1) Max Temp 86; Min RH13 25 10 114 8 578 FDFM 14:00 unshade S-aspect 0-30: 3; 10hr: 5; 33 13 165 10 836 20ft Wind Ave: 7.3; 20ft Wind Max: 40; 0.4 adj 40 16 170 10 862 factor: 3-16 GR1

Surface Anticipated post woody veg removal and targeted 20ft Midflame Rate of Flame Fireline grazing maintenance Fuel Type(GR1). GR1 generally Wind Wind Spread Length Intensity short, either naturally or by grazing, may be sparse (mi/hr) (mi/hr) (ft/s) (ft) (Btu/ft/s) or discontinuous. Spread rate high; flame length are low. 10 4 16 2 27 Used Otter Creek RAWS in UT for weather in August 18 7 21 2.3 35 2017. (8/1) Max Temp 86; Min RH13 25 10 21 2.3 35 FDFM 14:00 unshade S-aspect 0-30: 3; 10hr: 5; 33 13 21 2.3 35 20ft Wind Ave: 7.3; 20ft Wind Max: 40; 0.4 adj 40 16 21 2.3 35 factor: 3-16

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 68 Table 6. List of Special Status animals and their expected habitat associations. Special Status Animal Species Forested Sagebrush Grassland Riparian/Wetland Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse X X X (Tympanuchus phasianellus) Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) X X X Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus X X urophasianus) Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) X X Long-eared Myotis (Myotis evotis) X X X Long-legged Myotis (Myotis volans) X X X Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) X X X X Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) X X X Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) X Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris X X X noctivagans) Townsend’s Big-eared Bat X X X (Corynorhinus townsendii) Western Small-footed Myotis (Myotis X X ciliolabrum)

Table 7. Attendance at occupied leks1 in or within 10 miles of the Fish Haven project area from years 2000-2016. Size categories (bins) are used to describe the maximum male count for the past 5 years - Lo (Low) = Maximum annual male count n=1-10, M (Moderate) n=11-40, Lr (Large) n=41-100. Lek Survey Year 2016 2015 2010 2001 2000 2B001 -- 0 Lo 0 Lo 2B036 0 Lo -- -- Lo 2B037 -- Lo -- -- Lo 2B038 ------Lo 2B039 ------Lo 2B040 ------Lo 1Surveys were not conducted in years indicated by dashes (--).

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 69

Table 8. List of Migratory Bird Species, Including Species Status Migratory Bird Species Typical Habitat Required Expected Period of Use Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Assoc. w/aquatic habitats Year-round, leucocephalus) wintering Black-throated-Sparrow (Ampispiza Generalist, nest near or at Year-round bilineata) timber/snowline Brewer’s Sparrow ( Spizella breweri) Sagebrush dominated Breeding Cassin’s Finch (Carpodacus cassinii) Coniferous and deciduous forests Breeding Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops Forest Breeding flammeolus) Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) Grass/shrublands, Pinyon juniper Breeding Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Generalist. Grass/shrublands, and Year-round open coniferous forest Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo Shrub/scrubland Breeding chlorurus) Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes Mountain riparian Breeding lewis) Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius Generalist Breeding ludovicianus) Long-billed Curlew (Numenius Short grass, mixed prairie Breeding americanus) Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Forest Year-round Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Generalist Breeding Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus Open forests Breeding cooperi) Pinyon Jay (Gymnorhinus Pinyon juniper/Ponderosa pine Year-round cyanocephalus) Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) Generalist, open areas Breeding Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus Shrublands to open woodlands Breeding rufus) Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli) Big sagebrush shrublands Breeding Sage Thrasher ( Oreoscoptes Sagebrush Breeding montanus) Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Marshes, grasslands, shrub steppe Year-round

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 70

Migratory Bird Species Typical Habitat Required Expected Period of Use Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes Grasslands, shurbland, cropland, Breeding gramineus) generalist Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura vauxi) Forest Breeding Virginias Warbler Shrub/scrublands Breeding

Table 9. Past, present, and foreseeable future actions within the cumulative effects analysis area for fish and wildlife. Type of Activity Past and Present Reasonably Foreseeable Additions Grazing 9 BLM Allotments ; USFS Permits will be renewed/modified allotments unknown as they expire

Wildfire 45 fires; 91.6 acres (1987-2017) Unknown

Vegetation Treatments (Prescribed Fire, 50 acres private (2017-present) 5.6 acres (e.g. Ranger Dip) Mechanical and Chemical)

Agriculture 3000+ acres (up to 2015) Unknown 1 Roads and 53 miles of roads; Maintenance Unknown Transmission regime class 3 or above Lines

Communication2 and 6.6 acres Mineral Material; New sites may be authorized as Mineral Material sites demand requires. Development Communication Sites (3) @ 1.5 potential unknown. acres/each = total 4.5 acres 1Roads with maintenance regime level 3 or greater, as defined in the 2015 ID/swMT ARMPA (Appendix E, pg. 41). 2Communication sites assumed at 0.5 acres of disturbance.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 71

Appendix D – Land Use Plan Conformance and Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or other Plans.

Land Use Plan Conformance The Record of Decision for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ID/swMT ARMPA) was signed on September 21, 2015. The ID/swMT ARMPA amended all of the Land Use Plans within Idaho that have sage-grouse habitat. The ID/swMT ARMPA identifies and incorporates measures to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for unavoidable impacts of threats to GRSG habitat. The ID/swMT ARMPA addresses threats to GRSG and its habitat identified by the GRSG National Technical Team (NTT), by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision, as well as those threats described in the USFWS’s 2013 Conservation Objectives Team report (USFWS 2013). The ID/swMT ARMPA establishes Objectives, Management Decisions, Buffers, and Required Design Features to protect and restore sage-grouse habitat. Idaho uses a conformance review form to document how each project proposal conforms to the ID/swMT ARMPA. The completed conformance review is located in Appendix F. The conformance review determined that noxious weed and invasive plant management would not contribute to any new disturbance associated with GRSG habitat. Implementation of the proposed action may be beneficial to GRSG habitat by reducing exotic species. The conformance review concluded the proposed action is in conformance with ID/swMT ARMPA when following all applicable goals, objectives, and management decisions. Specific management decisions and required design features identified in the ID/swMT ARMPA that are applicable to this project for the Southern Conservation Area (located south of the Snake River and east of the Bruneau River, including East Idaho uplands and Bear Lake Plateau) are addressed in the Idaho Greater Sage-grouse Implementation Plan Conformance Request and Review Worksheet located in Appendix F. Specific goals, objectives, and management actions identified in the PFO Approved Pocatello Resource Management Plan (PFO ARMP; BLM 2012) that are applicable to this project include: • Goal VE-2. Prevent the establishment of invasive species/noxious weed species. Objective VE-2.1 Treat invasive species/noxious weed species to decrease or control the total number of acres occupied. • Goal WF-2 /Objective (WF-2.1) Protect life, property, and resources. Manage public land in and around WUI areas to reduce fire hazards. Appropriate treatment methods (e.g. mechanical, chemical, seeding, and prescribed fire) to reduce/remove hazardous fuels will be used. • Goal WF-3 /Objective (WF-3.1) Manage the low-elevation shrub and perennial grass vegetation types in order to move towards Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 1 (Land Health Class [LHC]-A) so wildland fire occurs less frequently and at a smaller scale on the landscape. (3.1.3) Following prescribed fire treatments, chemical, mechanical, and revegetation treatments will utilize appropriate plant materials to provide the best opportunity to stabilize sites and prevent dominance of invasive annual vegetation and noxious weeds. The use of native plants will be emphasized.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 72

• Goal WF-3 / Objective (WF-3.2) Manage the mid-elevation shrub, juniper, dry conifer, Aspen/conifer and mountain shrub vegetation types in order to move towards FRCC 1 (LHC- A) so wildland fire mimics historical conditions. Vegetation treatments will be designed to simulate the effects of historic fire on vegetation structure and composition. Encroaching juniper in the mid-elevation shrub type will be removed using chemical, mechanical, and prescribed fire treatments. • Goal WF-3 / Objective (WF-3.6) Implement priorities for wildland fire suppression and vegetation treatments. (3.6.1.1) Protect the WUI and communities-at-risk where public and firefighter health and safety are of concern. (3.6.1.2) Minimize risks to sagebrush steppe. • Goal WF-3 / Objective (WF-3.7) Maintain, protect, and expand Greater Sage-grouse source habitats. (3.7.3) Vegetation treatments will be conducted in areas that pose a wildland fire risk to source habitats. Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or other Plans The following regulatory provisions are relevant to this EA: HR 1904 Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (16 USC 6512, 6513); Federal Register August 17, 2001 (Vol. 66, No. 160) Urban Wildland Interface Communities within the vicinity of Federal Lands that are at high risk from wildfires. Broad objectives for management of vegetation on public lands are identified in BLM’s Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (WGA 2006) and Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM 1996). The following laws, acts, plans, manuals, and policies provide a foundation for vegetation management by the BLM. • The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, (Public Law 94-579; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) directs BLM to "...take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary and or undue degradation of the public lands." • H-9214-1 Fuels Management and Community Assistance Handbook (2016a), this handbook provides overall directions, objectives, authorities, responsibilities, and policies for fuels management, community assistance activities, and treatments within the BLM. • H-1740-2 Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook (2008), this handbook guides implementation of vegetation management planning and treatment activities to achieve the objectives set forth. • Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, 1999, directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control, and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. • Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended, outlines the procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Section 7(a) (1) imposes on federal agencies a “duty to consult” with USFWS whenever a listed species can be found within the area affected by the agency action. Section 7(a) (2) states that each federal agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, insure that any action it authorizes, funds, carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of a listed species critical habitat.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 73

• The Environmental Assessment and Biological Assessment for the Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan, 2005, (NFRP; ID-320-2005-003) identifies emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions needed after fire. • Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), Interim Strategies for Managing Fish Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada (USDA-USDI 1995). The strategy was adopted by the BLM in 1995 and the BLM was directed to use this interim management guidance until RMPs were updated, in a 1998 USFWS Land and Resource Management Plan Biological Opinion. 40 CFR 1502.20: Outlines the tiering process being implemented within this EA. Portions of this EA are tiered to the Upper Snake-Pocatello Integrated Weed Control Program Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-ID-I010-2016-0011-EA).

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 74

Appendix E – Management Restrictions and Standard Operating Procedures Fire and Non-fire Vegetation Restrictions Air Quality • All fire activities on BLM-administered public lands would be coordinated with the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group Smoke Management Program. Under this program, prescribed fire could be restricted when regional or local air quality is compromised, or if the project would negatively affect visual quality in Class 1 Airsheds (Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, Bridger Wilderness, Sawtooth Wilderness, and Craters of the Moon Wilderness), Non-attainment Areas, and sensitive receptors. Cultural Resources and Historic Trails • The FO will ensure that required and appropriate cultural resource inventories/surveys are completed prior to implementing site-specific fuels projects to meet BLM policy. • A Class II or Class III inventory will be conducted for all proposed prescribed fire areas unless previous inventory has been deemed adequate in consultation with the SHPO and Native American Tribes. • All prescribed fires and fuels projects will be subject to further site-specific analyses and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act compliance and consultation. • All proposed fire and non-fire (mechanical, chemical, and seeding) vegetation treatment actions will be assessed in consultation with the SHPO and Native American Tribes for their potential to affect cultural resources. Where previous inventory has been sufficient to identify vulnerable cultural resources, no inventory should be needed. However, where adequate inventory is lacking, appropriate and required inventory of the area as determined in consultation with the SHPO will be conducted. • Fire project planners should coordinate with the archeologist to incorporate, as necessary, best cultural protection practices in burn plans. Examples of cultural protection practices to be considered may include but are not limited to: . Manual reduction of fuels on vulnerable sites/features; disposal of debris away from cultural features. . Use of low-intensity backing fire in areas near historic features. . Saturation of ground/grass adjacent to vulnerable structures with water, foam, or gel before burning. . Pre-burning of site(s) at lower intensity than planned for surrounding areas. . Limiting fire intensity and duration over vulnerable sites. . Use of a fast-moving, higher intensity fire over lithic scatters, where rock materials are vulnerable to longer-duration heating.

. Creation of fire breaks near or around sites. . Wrapping of structures in fire-proof materials or use of retardant/foam to protect structures.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 75

. Flush-cutting and covering of stumps with dirt, foam, or retardant where subsurface cultural resources could be affected. . Identification of and reduction of hazard trees next to structures. . Covering of rock art or wrapping of carved trees, dendroglyphs, and other such features in fire retardant fabric. . Limbing of carved trees to reduce ladder fuels. . Reduction of fuels and smoke near rock art. . Covering of fuels near rock art with foam, water, or retardant, avoiding the rock art. . Dozer blading should not occur within 300 feet of known historic trails and cultural sites. . Manual reduction of fuels from vulnerable sites/features; disposal of debris away from cultural features. . Creation of fire breaks near or around sites. . Wrapping of structures in fire proof materials or use of retardant/foam to protect structures. . Flush-cutting and covering of stumps with dirt, foam, or retardant where subsurface cultural resources could be affected. . Identification of and reduction of hazard trees next to structures. . Use of low intensity, backing fire in areas near historic features. . Saturation of ground/grass adjacent to vulnerable structures with water, foam, or gel before burning. . Covering of rock art or wrapping of carved trees, dendroglyphs, and other such features in fire retardant fabric. . Limbing of carved trees to reduce ladder fuels. . Reduction of fuels and smoke near rock art. . Covering of fuels near rock art with foam, water, or retardant, avoiding the rock art.

Migratory Birds • Minimize the number of equipment trips through the project area during the nesting season. • Work during daylight hours only. • Complete reclamation as soon as possible. • Avoid trees with stick raptor nests. Noxious Weeds

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 76

• To minimize spread of noxious weeds, equipment used for treatment implementation should be cleaned before arriving on-site. • Staging areas should avoid sites with noxious weed infestations. Placeholder Species • Plant materials used in re-vegetation actions would be native when appropriate and practical. However, desirable non-native species may be used in re-vegetation actions on harsh or degraded sites, when native seed is not available, or where they would structurally mimic the natural plant community and prevent soil loss and invasion by exotic annual grasses and noxious weeds. The species used would be those that have the highest probability of establishment on these sites. These "placeholders" would maintain the area for potential future native restoration. Native seed would be used more frequently and at larger scales as species adapted to local areas become more available. Recreation • Developed recreation sites and structures on public lands will be protected. • Treatments in developed or high-use recreation areas would be designed to minimize impacts to the recreational resource or users. • Minimum Impact Suppression Techniques (MIST) guidelines will be followed where appropriate as identified in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (USDA and USDI 2006).

Riparian Areas • Dozer blading should not occur within 300 feet of perennial streams unless approved by the authorized officer. Buffer zones greater than 300 feet from riparian areas are preferable. • Application of retardant or foam, adjuvant/surfactant should be avoided within riparian areas and 300 feet adjacent to riparian areas and waterways. Special Designations • Fire camps and staging areas should be placed outside of special management areas. • Use of natural firebreaks and existing roads and trails to contain a wildland fire would be encouraged. Vegetation • No chemical treatment would conflict with existing or future national vegetative treatment guidance. To reduce potential resource impacts from chemical treatments, herbicide use would conform to application criteria described in the 1991 document, Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States or in subsequent revisions and/or replacements of this document. Use would conform to instructions from BLM Manual 9011 Chemical Pest Control, as well as label restrictions and current policies and state statutes. In addition, the prescription for herbicide application (desired, optimum environmental conditions) would evaluate off- site migration and non-target species by assessing wind speed and direction, temperature,

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 77

precipitation forecast, soil infiltration potential, constraints on overland water transport due to precipitation or flooding, establishment of riparian buffer strips, and risk to special status species. Fishery and/or wildlife biologists would assist project planners in selecting appropriate herbicides for use among or near terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna sensitive to herbicides. • The economic effects of alternative fuels management practices would be considered. Local involvement and economic benefits from fuels reduction projects would be promoted. • Collaboration with local partners to assess WUI areas would be continued, and existing mitigation plans would be updated to implement fuels treatments. • Vegetation treatment activities would continue to exercise Native American Tribal trust responsibilities. • Fuels treatments would be utilized to reduce the overall threat of the establishment and spread of noxious/invasive plant species. • The economic effects of alternative fuels management practices would be considered. Local involvement and economic benefits from fuels reduction projects would be promoted.

• Collaboration with local partners to assess WUI areas and to update existing County Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) would continue. • Blading should occur on existing roads where possible. Blading through undisturbed areas, especially those supporting native cover types, should be avoided unless necessary to protect life, property, or resource values. Visual Resources • Treatments occurring in areas classified or inventoried as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I and II would consider visual qualities to preserve the landscape character. Wherever possible, landscape modifications would replicate the natural line, form, color, and texture found in the surrounding area. Treatments that result in long-term disruption of natural visual qualities (e.g., drill seeding that establishes vegetation rows) should be avoided or hidden by design. Wildlife • When conducting fire suppression actions, species with recovery plans, conservation agreements, Partners in Flight species, and Birds of Conservation Concern will be protected as specified in their respective plans/agreements. • Establishment of control lines, base camps, and support facilities in known special status species habitat will be avoided unless life and property are threatened. • Seasonal guidelines may be applied if needed to mitigate the impacts to big game species from planned fuels management and vegetation treatments as specified in the LUPs.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 78

• Restrictions may be imposed on fuels management and vegetation treatment projects in areas supporting nesting raptors as per amended LUPs. Treatment proposals would be coordinated with IDFG. • Species with recovery plans, conservation agreements, Partners in Flight species, and Birds of Conservation Concern will be protected as specified in their respective plans/agreements. • Habitat Conservation Assessment and Conservation Strategies have been prepared and are currently being implemented for the following BLM sensitive species: Townsend's big-eared bat, wolverine, spotted bat, white headed woodpecker, trumpeter swan, northern goshawk, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage grouse (Idaho plan pending), mountain quail, Idaho dunes tiger beetle, Bonneville cutthroat trout, bull trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, red band trout and leather sided chub. • Vegetation treatments proposed in areas supporting sage grouse,sharp-tailed grouse, and/or migratory birds would be implemented under LUP and amendment guidance or restrictions. o No repeated or sustained behavioral disturbance (e.g., visual, noise over 10 dbA at lek, etc.) to lekking sage-grouse from 6:00 pm to 9:00 am (until at least 2 hours after dawn) within 4 miles of leks during the lekking season (March 1-May 15). o Avoid mechanized disturbance in nesting habitat during the sage-grouse nesting season (May 1 – June 30) when implementing fuels management projects and infrastructure maintenance. o Avoid mechanized disturbance in winter habitat (November 1 – February 28) when implementing fuels management projects and infrastructure maintenance. This design feature may be adjusted based on a biologist’s recommendation and the severity of winter conditions. For instance, if weather conditions are mild, a winter restriction may not be needed until later in the season, whereas snow or extreme temperatures may warrant full compliance from November 1st. • Seasonal guidelines may be applied to mitigate the impacts to big game species from planned vegetation treatments as specified in LUPs. Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Restrictions Cultural Resources and Historic Trails • Cultural resources will be given full consideration during subsequent site-specific NEPA processes. This consideration provides for review of existing literature on previous inventories, field inventory of unsurveyed areas, documentation and evaluation of identified sites, analysis of site-specific effects, application of appropriate management actions to reduce anticipated adverse effects, and consultation with the SHPO. • The FO will ensure that existing cultural and paleontological data and information will be reviewed and that required appropriate cultural resource inventories/surveys will be complete prior to implementing site-specific fuels projects to meet BLM policy.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 79

• Dozer blading should not occur within 300 feet of known historic trails, cultural sites, Register of Historic Places Districts, Landmarks and ACECs designated for cultural resources. • All proposed fire and non-fire (mechanical, chemical and seeding) vegetation treatment actions will be assessed in consultation with the SHPO for their potential to affect cultural resources. Where previous inventory has been sufficient to identify vulnerable cultural resources, no inventory should be needed. However, where adequate inventory is lacking, appropriate and required inventory of the area, as determined in consultation with the SHPO, will be conducted. • All RxFires and fuels projects will be subject to further site-specific analyses and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act compliance and consultation. • A Class II or Class III inventory will be conducted of all proposed RxFire areas unless previous inventory has been deemed adequate in consultation with the SHPO. Recreation • Treatments would be designed to minimize impacts to character of the managed recreation setting and to the recreation experiences and benefits desired by the recreation participant. In areas where the character of the setting and/or the desired benefit outcomes is not defined, treatments would be designed to minimize impacts to the recreational resource or users. Wildlife • During implementation, the Proposed Plan Amendment directs collaboration with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies to promote public education on species at risk, including their importance to the human and biological community and the rationale behind the protective measures that would be applied to their habitats.

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 80

Appendix F – Sage-grouse Conformance (includes Required Design Features)

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 81

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 82

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 83

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 84

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 85

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 86

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 87

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 88

Appendix G – Monitoring Plan Targeted Grazing Treatment: A start-up period of 3 years would give the operator time to test, adjust operations, and to work out implementation logistics to achieve desired target grazing results. The 3 year timeframe is expected to provide for annual fluctuations in weather and variable vegetation conditions that would require adjustments to annual targeted grazing approaches and strategies. After 3 years, the feasibility of the targeted grazing treatment as a whole would be evaluated. Targeted grazing treatments may be discontinued if treatments are not meeting objectives. If targeted grazing is found to not be feasible, it would be replaced by other treatments analyzed in this document to maintain the grass loading within the fuel breaks. Maintenance conducted through targeted grazing on fuel breaks (treatment area) would be monitored annually and would occur by June 30th. If vegetation objectives of 3-6 inch stubble heights are not being met, temporary electric fence and water trough sites would be initiated to achieve objectives by mid-July. Monitoring would occur during treatment to ensure livestock are removed from the fuel breaks once vegetation objectives are reached. The treatment area would be monitored using residual fuel height (stubble) transects following the Stubble Height methodology and Key Species methodologies involving quick assessment, pace transects as described in the Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3 (USDI BLM 1999b) and photo points. Pace transect(s) would be randomly generated within the 50ft mow break each year. Along these transects, shrub height would be recorded to monitor for maintenance needs. Once shrubby vegetation has reached an average height of 12 inches, mowing maintenance would be initiated the following year. Additionally, those monitoring would take notes of noxious/invasive species in the area and provide the information to management for future treatment. Monitoring and treatment of noxious/invasive species would ensue for up to three years following treatment completion. Mowed areas would be monitored 3 & 5 years following treatment. Both the 50ft fuel break and the adjacent 150 ft selective mowed fuel break would be retreated with any of the methods identified within Alternative B. One or more of the following protocols may be used to acquire increase in density of Aspen/Maple stand treatments: 1. Measure Density and Diameter Breast Height (DBH) of Pole sized trees: Count and measure DBH for all pole-size trees within the sampling area (DOI NPS 2003). a. Tree density circular plots 2. Count seedling trees to obtain species density: Count the number of seedling trees by species within the sampling area (DOI NPS 2003). a. Belt Transect, b. Frequency quadrats, c. Circular density plots One or more of the following protocols may be used to acquire shrub percent cover: 1. Line Intercepts: Canopy cover is measured along a line intercept transect by noting the point along the tape where the canopy begins and the point at which it ends. When these intercepts are added, then divided by the total line length, the result is a percent cover for a particular species along the transect (Elzinga et al).

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 89

2. Point Intercepts: Cover is measured by point intercept based on the number of "hits" on the target species out of the total number of points measured (Elzinga et al).

References USDOI National Park Service (DOI NPS). 2003. Fire Monitoring Handbook. Boise (ID): Fire Management Program Center, National Interagency Fire Center. Elzinga, Caryl L.; Salzar, Daniel W.; Willoughby, John W. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations, BLM Technical Reference 1730-1. Bureau of Land Management, National Business Center, Denver, CO. Accessed on 03/14/2018: https://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/MeasAndMon.pdf

DOI-BLM-ID-I020-2018-0004-EA 90