U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Tri-state Fuel Breaks Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Volume 1) DOI-BLM-ID-B000-2015-0001-EIS October 2019 Boise District Office 3948 Development Ave. Boise, Idaho 83705 Vale District Office 100 Oregon St. Vale, Oregon 97918 Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing This DEIS $1,408,000 The Bureau of Land Management’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands. Executive Summary Introduction This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) evaluates creating and maintaining a system of roadside fuel breaks to improve suppression coordination and response across the Tri-state area where southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northern Nevada converge. This area contains the largest expanse of intact sagebrush steppe in North America, an ecosystem that supports diverse wildlife and is critically imperiled by the threat of wildland fire. The project area encompasses 3.6 million acres across the southeastern corner of Oregon and southwestern corner of Idaho. The proposed fuel breaks would connect to existing fuel breaks within northern Nevada to improve firefighting coordination across jurisdictional and state boundaries and better protect this threatened landscape. Purpose and Need The purpose of the action alternatives is to provide a network of safe areas and strategic opportunities to enable wildland fire suppression resources in the Tri-state area to more rapidly and effectively protect natural and cultural resources and socioeconomic values from wildfires. The Wildland Fire Directive (2017), Executive Order 13855 (2018), and Department of Interior Secretarial Order (SO) 3372 (2019) instruct the Department of Interior to incorporate active fuels management into resource-management planning to prevent and combat catastrophic wildfires. Through its consideration of action alternatives, the BLM seeks to leverage fuel treatments to meet this goal. Public Involvement and Issues In the spring of 2016, the Boise District and Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) formed a subcommittee (RAC subcommittee) that held a series of meetings regarding the BLM’s proposal to identify issues and inform the development of action alternatives. The BLM considered public responses provided during three scoping meetings held in Boise, Idaho, Murphy, Idaho, and Jordan Valley, Oregon in January 2017. It also considered public comments submitted during the scoping period and input from cooperating agencies and Tribes. For more information on the scoping process, see section 1.4. Issues such as direct and indirect costs and consequences of the project, impacts on wildlife and special status species, impacts on known and unknown cultural sites of significance, and the potential for the introduction or spread of invasive plants were identified during scoping and are addressed in this DEIS. For the full list of issues analyzed, see section 1.4. Decision to Be Made The BLM will decide whether to construct and maintain a fuel break network across 1,539 miles of existing roads in southeastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho in order to provide safe spaces and strategic opportunities for wildland firefighters to protect the sagebrush steppe from catastrophic wildfire. Each of the action alternatives evaluated in this DEIS would directly result in construction of roadside fuel breaks on BLM-administered lands, as well as State-managed lands where authorized, and approve maintenance of these fuel breaks in perpetuity. Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, a strategic fuel break network connecting the Tri-state area would not be developed and maintained. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Alternative 2 contains all roads that BLM fire suppression experts recommended for the fuel break network based on their accessibility and strategic importance to suppression resources. It would result in up to 67,559 Tri-state Fuel Breaks Project Draft EIS DOI-BLM-ID-B000-2015-0001-EIS Page ES-1 acres of roadside mowing and/or seeding treatments and a total fuel break network of 73,920 acres1 along 1,539 miles of established roads. Up to 950 miles of roads could require blading to remove vegetation within the roadbed. Alternative 3 (Social/Cultural Emphasis) Alternative 3 incorporates criteria developed by the RAC subcommittee to limit impacts to cultural resources, wilderness study areas, and lands with wilderness characteristics. Under this alternative, the BLM would mow and/or seed up to 45,872 roadside acres to create a total fuel break network of up to 51,127 acres along 1,063 miles of established roads. Up to 585 miles of roads could require blading to remove vegetation within the roadbed. Alternative 4 (Wildlife Habitat Emphasis) Alternative 4 also incorporates criteria from the RAC subcommittee and emphasizes avoiding important wildlife habitat, including greater sage-grouse nesting habitat. Under this alternative, the BLM would mow and/or seed up to 38,044 roadside acres to create a total fuel break network of up to 43,833 acres along 910 miles of established roads. Up to 399 miles of roads could require blading to remove vegetation within the roadbed. Impact Analysis For a detailed analysis of impacts by method and alternative, see Chapter 3.The following general impacts would be expected under the action alternatives in this DEIS: • Safer and more effective wildland firefighting within the project area. Reduced fire behavior within fuel breaks would allow for a more rapid and effective suppression response upon arrival to an incident. • Reduced wildfire size and intensity related to increased fire suppression opportunities and decreased potential for wildfire spread across fuel breaks when firefighters are present. This would result in increased protection for native habitats and restoration projects. • Vegetation modification and soil disturbance caused by fuel break creation and maintenance, which would exist for the life of the fuel breaks. • Potentially long-term wildlife habitat impacts caused by development of fuel breaks depending on the current vegetation community. For example, in treatment areas where there is more sagebrush than invasive annual grasses, sagebrush would be mowed to a height of 6 to 10 inches, reducing cover and forage for wildlife within the area of the fuel break. • Impacts to greater sage-grouse. Greater sage-grouse are a BLM sensitive species and an indicator species for the sagebrush steppe ecosystem. Landscape cover of sagebrush is a strong predictor of persistence for sage-grouse. Action alternatives are designed to better protect vast expanses of sagebrush from catastrophic wildfire, however fuel breaks would reduce landscape cover of sagebrush along roads in the fuel break network. Collaboration and Coordination The BLM is the lead agency for this DEIS. Organizations, state, local, and tribal governments, and other agencies invited to participate as cooperating agencies and consulting parties can be found in section 4.2. A more detailed summary of the BLM’s consultation and coordination efforts can also be found in Chapter 4. 1 For all action alternatives, total acres of the fuel break network exceed acres recommended for treatment because the BLM would not treat certain areas within the fuel break network. These areas either already meet fuel break criteria (e.g., areas with low or no vegetation) or would be avoided (e.g., riparian areas). Tri-state Fuel Breaks Project Draft EIS DOI-BLM-ID-B000-2015-0001-EIS Page ES-2 Volume 1: Executive Summary, Chapters 1 through 5 Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Need for and Purpose of Action..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Fire Behavior and Fuel Breaks ...................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plans and Other Related Documents ............................ 5 1.4 Scoping and Development of Issues .............................................................................................. 5 2.0 Description of the Alternatives .................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Features Common to All Action Alternatives ............................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Fuel Break Treatments .................................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ......................................................................................... 15 2.3 Alternative 2 – Maximum Fire Suppression Emphasis (Proposed Action) ................................. 15 2.4 Alternative 3 –