DRAFT Environmental Assessment for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Integrated Resource Management Plan

January 26, 2010

Available for Public Review and Comment from February ____, 2010 to March ____, 2010. Contact information: Yvette Tuell, Environmental Program ytuell@sbtribes.com; 221-2995 (cell) or 239-4552 (office) SBT Fish & Wildlife Department

ShoshoneBannock Tribes
of the Fort Hall

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Reservation Fort Hall, Idaho

ii

Resolution for Development of EA for TIRMP Resolution No. ENVR-06-1455, 12/27/06
WHEREAS, the Fort Hall Business Council has the ultimate responsibility for budget approvals and overseeing the administration of all Tribal funds awarded to the ShoshoneBannock Tribes through contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, regardless of source; and WHEREAS, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation was established as a home in perpetuity for the members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes; and WHEREAS, conflicting laws and jurisdictions govern the use, disposition, and overall wise management of natural and cultural resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and WHEREAS, the Tribes have identified a need to develop an overall balanced strategic level management plan that will ensure protection of the Tribal values and traditions, and the natural and cultural resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, yet utilizing our resources for economic benefits; and WHEREAS, the Tribes have received funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, to develop a Tribal Integrated Resource Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Tribes have been planning for the Comprehensive Plan for the Fort Hall Indian Reservation for several years with a Draft Review plan now available; and WHEREAS, in the best interests of the Tribes to provide comprehensive, holistic and integrated planning for the management for the resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF THE SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES, that approval is hereby given to begin the planning process for the development of an Environmental Assessment for the Tribal Integrated Resource Management Plan, which shall provide strategic guidance for managing all aspects of our natural resources and uses of those resources within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) shall consist of: Environmental Program Director Water Resource Director Planning Director ARM Program Director Executive Director Health Director Land Use Director Fish & Wildlife Director Range Program Manager Cultural Resource Coordinator Housing Director Emergency Management Response Director

i

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Team Lead shall be Yvette Tuell, Environmental Program Manager, Fisheries Department, who shall be responsible for reporting to the Fort Hall Business Council on a quarterly basis; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all Tribal departments and programs shall be mandated to work cooperatively with the ID Team and provide input in the planning process. Authority of the foregoing resolution if sound in the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984) as amended and under Article VI, Section 1 (a, g, r) and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Constitution and Bylaws of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Dated this 27th Day of December 2006.

Alonzo A. Coby, Chairman Fort Hall Business Council

CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing resolution was passed while a quorum of the Business Council was present by a vote of 6 in favor, and 1 not voting (AC) on the date this bears. Aldene J. Pevo, Tribal Secretary Fort Hall Business Council

ii

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP  Reviewed and Recommended for Approval by:

Winter 2010

________________________________________ Chairman, Land Use Policy Commission

____________ Date

________________________________________ Chairman, Tribal Water Commission

____________ Date

________________________________________ Chairman, Fort Hall Business Council Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

____________ Date

________________________________________ Superintendent, Fort Hall Agency Bureau of Indian Affairs

____________ Date

iii

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Executive Summary
This programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) presents an analysis of impacts that could result from implementing the Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Four alternatives are presented: the No Action Alternative which continues planning and implementation of projects with limited to no integrated resource management considerations; the Proposed Action Alternative which integrates interdisciplinary resource planning into all projects in order to balance development with natural resource sustainability and cultural resource protection; the Growth Alternative which encourages integrated resource management planning while promoting economic growth and development opportunities on the Reservation; and the Restoration Alternative which encourages integrated resource management planning while clearly establishing growth and development boundaries, restricting certain types of land uses, and restoring a number of areas on the Reservation to native plant communities and wildlife use. The purpose of the IRMP is to provide overall interdisciplinary planning guidance to the Tribes and Tribal departments so that the Tribe’s natural and cultural resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way across programs to meet the goals and objectives of current and future generations of Tribal members and resource managers. The resources of primary concern are those that are found in the natural environment (air, water, earth, plants, and animals) or that require special protection (cultural resources).

iv

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action ........................................................ 1 
1.1.  1.2.  1.3.  1.4.  1.5.  1.6.  1.7.  1.8.  Planning ............................................................................................................................ 1  Relationship to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Comprehensive Plan .............................. 2  Tiering .............................................................................................................................. 4  Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 6  Relevant Laws/Treaties/Governance................................................................................ 6  Decisions to be Made ....................................................................................................... 7  Trust Responsibility ......................................................................................................... 7  Issue Identification ........................................................................................................... 7 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives ....................................................................................... 10 
2.1.  Alternative Development ............................................................................................... 10  2.2  Resource Specific Goals Common to all Alternatives ................................................... 11  2.2.1.  Physical Resources (Air, Soils, Water) ................................................................... 11  2.2.2.  Biological Resources (Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries).................................... 11  2.2.3.  Cultural, Social, and Economic Resources and Values .......................................... 12  2.3.  Alternative A – No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 12  2.4.  Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative ................................................................ 12  2.5.  Alternative C – Growth Alternative ............................................................................... 14  2.6.  Alternative D – Restoration Alternative......................................................................... 16  2.7.  Implementation, Monitoring and Amendment Process.................................................. 17  2.8.  Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 17 

Chapter 3 – Existing Environment....................................................................... 20 
3.1.  Introduction .................................................................................................................... 20  3.2.  General Setting/Landscape ............................................................................................. 20  3.3.  History ............................................................................................................................ 21  3.4.  Government/Tribal Management ................................................................................... 24  3.5.  Demographics/Socioeconomics ..................................................................................... 25  3.6.  Land Use Policy ............................................................................................................. 26  3.7.  Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 27  3.7.1.  Irrigated Farming and Dryland Farming ................................................................. 27  3.7.2.  Rangeland ............................................................................................................... 29  3.7.3.  Fort Hall Bottoms ................................................................................................... 32  3.7.4.  Commercial Areas .................................................................................................. 35  3.7.5.  Rural/Residential Development .............................................................................. 36  3.7.6.  Open Space (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) .................................................. 36  3.7.7.  Mining Areas .......................................................................................................... 36  3.8.  Physical Resources ......................................................................................................... 36  3.8.1.  Air ........................................................................................................................... 36  3.8.2.  Soils......................................................................................................................... 41  3.8.3.  Water ....................................................................................................................... 47  3.9.  Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 53  3.9.1.  Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 53  3.9.2.  Wildlife and Fisheries ............................................................................................. 59 

v

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

3.9.3.  Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 72 

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences ......................................................... 77 
4.1.  Introduction .................................................................................................................... 77  4.2.  Physical Resources ......................................................................................................... 77  4.2.1.  Air ........................................................................................................................... 77  4.2.2.  Soils......................................................................................................................... 78  4.2.3.  Water ....................................................................................................................... 80  4.3.  Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 82  4.3.1.  Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 82  4.3.2.  Wildlife and Fisheries ............................................................................................. 84  4.4  Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 86  4.5  Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 87  4.5.1  Definition of Cumulative Effects ............................................................................ 87  4.5.2  Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................................................... 88  4.5.3  Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ............................................... 88 

Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination ....................................................... 89 
5.1.  Planning Process / Schedule / Meetings ......................................................................... 89  5.2.  Public Involvement ........................................................................................................ 89  5.3.  Interdisciplinary Team Members (Preparers) ................................................................ 90 

References ............................................................................................................... 91  APPENDIX A – Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances Relevant to the Shoshone Bannock Tribes ........................................................................... 94  APPENDIX B – Wildlife and Culturally Significant Plant Species on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation .............................................................................. 99 

vi

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

List of Figures
Figure 1. Levels of Planning. ...........................................................................................................2  Figure 2. Project Location................................................................................................................5  Figure 3. Schematic showing how planning, projects, and other issues directly impact resources. ..........................................................................................................................9  Figure 4. Land Use and Zoning under the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. ...........13  Figure 5. Land Use and Zoning under the Growth Alternative. ....................................................15  Figure 6. Land Use and Zoning under the Restoration Alternative. ..............................................16  Figure 7. Location of the Fort Hall Bottoms within the Reservation. ...........................................33  Figure 8. Non-Attainment Area Boundaries. .................................................................................39  Figure 9. Emission Inventory Trends for the Industrial Source Category. ....................................40  Figure 10. Distribution of Woodland Vegetation Types on the Reservation. ...............................54  Figure 11. Big Game Habitat on the Reservation. .........................................................................64  Figure 12. Elk Population Numbers on the Reservation................................................................65  Figure 13. Deer Population Numbers on the Reservation. ............................................................65  Figure 14. Moose Population Numbers on the Reservation. .........................................................66  Figure 15. Antelope Population Numbers on the Reservation. .....................................................66  Figure 16. Intermittent and Perennial Streams on the Reservation. ..............................................68  Figure 17. Rate of Trout Caught per Hour by Non-Members. ......................................................70 Figure 18. Shoshone and Bannock names for Major Areas on the Fort Hall Reservation …..... 73

List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives. ........................................................................................... 18  Table 2. Range Units on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. .......................................................... 30  Table 3. Special Status Plant Species and Their Potential to Occur on the Reservation. ............. 59  Table 4. Genetic Inventory Sampling of Fish on Fort Hall Indian Reservation. .......................... 72 

vii

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Acronyms
ACHP ARM AUM BIA BIAM CAA CFR CERCLA CWA DM EA EIS EO EPA ESA FSA FONSI ID Team IHS IRMP NEPA NHPA NRHP RMP SBT SHPO USC USDA USDI Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Agricultural Resource Management Animal Unit Monthly Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Indian Affairs Manual Clean Air Act Code of Federal Regulations Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Clean Water Act Departmental Manual Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Statement Executive Order Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Farm Services Agency Finding of No Significant Impact Interdisciplinary Team Indian Health Service Integrated Resource Management Plan National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act National Register of Historic Places Range Management Plan Shoshone-Bannock Tribes State Historic Preservation Office United States Code United States Department of Agricultural United States Department of Interior

viii

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action
This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to analyze and disclose the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP). This EA represents a programmatic analysis that contains Reservation-wide descriptions of existing resources and provides a broad environmental impact analysis. This EA focuses on the relevant environmental resource issues and concerns identified by Tribal members and Tribal departments during public involvement activities. It discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from implementing the alternatives as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4321-4347) and Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508). The IRMP will assist the Tribes in meeting its goal to assert its sovereignty and will provide guidance for implementation of the Tribes commitment to natural resource management that reflects the traditional and cultural land use patterns of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The IRMP will be developed to promote the long-term sustainability of a healthy environment and a prosperous society. More importantly, the IRMP will demonstrate the Tribes commitment to good natural resource planning and in doing so exercise the Tribes sovereignty.

1.1.

Planning

Three general levels of planning typically occur on the Reservation. Strategic plans or comprehensive plans provide the overarching level of planning that creates the foundation for program and project plans and often state the overall long-range vision or mission of the Tribe or organization. Department-level programmatic or implementation plans tier to strategic plans and outline specific goals and objectives for an individual program’s activities. Project-level or activity specific plans tier to department plans and define in a detailed manner specific actions to be undertaken. An example of how these three levels of planning relate to each other is shown in Figure 1. The IRMP is a strategic-level plan that, as its primary goal, provides guidance in planning for the integrated and interdisciplinary management of the Tribe’s natural, environmental and cultural resources in order to meet the Tribes’ established goals and objectives for those resources. As such, the resources of primary concern are those that are found in the natural environment – including physical (air, soil, water) and biological (plants and animals) resources – and important cultural, social and economic values that may be impacted by implementation of program or project-level activities.

1

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP  Figure 1. Levels of Planning. STRATEGIC PLAN

Winter 2010

Integrated Resource Management Plan

PROGRAM OR DEPARTMENT PLAN

Forest Management Plan

Water Management Plan

Grazing Management Plan

PROJECT OR ACTIVITY PLAN

Project or Activity

Project or Activity

Project or Activity

The proposed approach to achieving the overall goal of the IRMP is to develop an integrated style of management whereby planning and implementation of all projects and development of resource-specific or departmental goals is accomplished through deliberate interdisciplinary efforts in order to balance development and project implementation with natural resource sustainability and cultural resource protection. As such, the traditional compartmentalization of programs is discouraged and a multiple resource, integrated culture of management is encouraged. This approach reduces potential conflicts between departments in achieving resource goals and objectives and provides a unifying document that land managers can use to become synchronized with each other, thereby reducing the potential for land use conflicts. Because the IRMP is a strategic-level plan that is based on the Tribes’ common vision for its resources, it serves as a route map which assists managers in moving towards common targets and intentionally deals with potential resource conflicts before they occur. This EA has been prepared to inform decision makers and the public of the impacts of the alternatives. The intent is to develop an IRMP for the Tribes, utilizing federal funding from the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The EA will be made available for public review and comments, and then the Final EA will be presented to the Fort Hall Business Council. The Fort Hall Business Council will choose a preferred alternative. That preferred alternative will evolve into the Final Tribal Integrated Resource Management Plan.

1.2.

Relationship to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Comprehensive Plan

The Tribes’ first formal strategic planning effort resulted in the 1976 Comprehensive Plan, also known as the “Peterson Plan.” Through guidance provided in that plan, the Tribes have created businesses, developed and irrigated thousands of acres of agricultural land, secured water rights, and taken control over development on the Reservation. Many of the goals and projects identified in the 1976 Plan have been accomplished. In 1998, a Core Planning Team was formed to develop a new strategic plan for sustainable growth, social and economic development, and financial independence of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The planning process began in 2001 with a series of community “scoping” meetings and

2

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

resulted in the issuance of a draft Comprehensive Plan in 2005. The draft Plan provides vision statements regarding the Tribes’ sovereignty, identity, and governance, and it identifies overarching goals for environmental resources, social programs and economic opportunities. It is anticipated that the Comprehensive Plan will represent a compilation of program or department plans that describe the goals and specific projects of individual departments. The Comprehensive Plan does not, however, analyze the impacts of planned management actions or projects on Tribal resources, does not integrate across issues or resources to achieve common goals, and is not a NEPA-compliant document. The draft Comprehensive Plan does not by itself analyze the impacts of planned management actions or projects on Tribal resources. Instead, guided by Tribal goals and objectives, it institutionalizes a strategic approach to land and resource management. One of the key elements in this strategy is the development and implementation of the IRMP. The draft Comprehensive Plan adopts strategies and methods for evaluating environmental and resource conditions in the planning process, and compiles a natural resource data base in atlas form. The draft Comprehensive Plan advocates the continued development of the Tribes' environmental data base for use in evaluating systemic and cumulative impacts on plants and animals, natural resources, land, air and water quality. This general approach is to underlie and inform the planning of any specific actions taken that impact Tribal land and resources. In the Natural Resources Management framework chapter of the draft Comprehensive Plan, the statement is made that as a general principal “The Tribes believe that resource management planning should be based on a nuanced understanding of the natural environment, and particularly the interconnected nature of natural systems. Range resources, for instance, cannot be managed without considering water resources, fish and wildlife, fire ecology, and soil erosion. Tribal resource management programs will use a variety of assessment and analysis tools, including land capability (or suitability) analysis as a tool in evaluating land and resources, and in making resource management decisions and will evaluate management decisions for their effects throughout the Reservation’s ecosystem.” The IRMP will adopt the goals and the integrative, data-driven approach of the Comprehensive Plan. Because of its focus on commitments of federal and trust resources, the IRMP will be prescriptive in response to federal environmental law. Whereas the draft Comprehensive Plan uses “best available” published data in evaluating plans and actions, the IRMP may require new scientific studies to identify the impacts of specific actions on natural systems, and may require the use of dynamic modeling of impacts rather than the static analysis of suitability and land capability methods. During the development of this Draft EA, the zoning maps used approved by the Fort Hall Business Council and the final version of those zoning maps will be printed in the Final EA. Recognizing the need for a unified approach to natural resource planning and management under the draft Comprehensive Plan, the Fort Hall Business Council, the governing body for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, determined that a strategic-level planning document was needed to provide interdisciplinary planning guidance for all department-level or project-specific plans that had the potential to impact the natural or cultural resources on the Reservation. In late 2006 a Resolution (ENVR-06-1455) was approved by the Fort Hall Business Council to begin the planning process for the development of this EA and subsequent IRMP. The IRMP is intended to be a strategic, vision-based, long-range management plan that guides management of Tribal resources. 3

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

IRMPs are action-forcing documents that trigger compliance with NEPA requirements. Both the IRMP and this EA describe a course of action, describe the existing environment, and predict the outcome of actions being proposed. The IRMP is not intended to replace the Comprehensive Plan but rather to be a companion document through which the activities and projects identified in the Comprehensive Plan can be carried out in a way that meets the Tribes’ common vision for its resources.

1.3.

Tiering

The scope of the IRMP (and this EA) is limited to the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, which encompasses approximately 546,000 total acres in southeastern Idaho (Figure 2). This EA includes a broad analysis of the impacts of implementing the IRMP to which subsequent departmental actions or specific projects can be tiered. In general, tiering works from broad NEPA analysis documents to more site-specific ones: When a broad analysis has been prepared and a subsequent analysis is then prepared on an action included within the entire program or policy (particularly a site-specific action), it need only summarize issues discussed in the broad statement and concentrate on issues specific to the subsequent action (40 CFR 1502.20). Thus, subsequent EAs prepared to analyze project-specific actions would tier from, or incorporate by reference, sections of this programmatic EA. Tiering to this EA would allow the Tribes to develop project-specific analyses that are consistent with the interdisciplinary resource goals and objectives of the IRMP and to concentrate on the issues specific to the proposed project.

4

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Figure 2. Project Location.

5

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

1.4.

Purpose and Need

The Fort Hall Indian Reservation contains a rich assembly of natural, environmental, and cultural resources that serve the social, economic and environmental needs of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The purpose of the IRMP is to provide overall interdisciplinary planning guidance to Tribal departments so that the Tribe’s natural and cultural resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way across departments to meet the goals and objectives of current and future generations of Tribal members and resource managers. The need for this action is apparent as integrated planning mechanisms currently are not in place and many management decisions that have the potential to impact natural and cultural resources are made independently at the department or project level.

1.5.

Relevant Laws/Treaties/Governance

The Fort Hall Indian Reservation was originally established by Executive Order on June 14, 1867. On July 3, 1868 the Fort Bridger Treaty affirmed the Reservation as a “permanent home” for the Shoshone and Bannock peoples for their “absolute and undeterred use and occupation.” In addition to affirming the Fort Hall Indian Reservation as the permanent homeland for the Shoshone and Bannock people, the Treaty reserved rights including hunting, fishing, and gathering and services such as education and health care. Article IV of the Fort Bridger Treaty reserves the right to Tribal members to hunt and fish on “unoccupied lands of the United States.” Therefore, the Tribes’ interest in protecting, preserving, and enhancing fish and game resources extends far beyond Reservation boundaries. One of the most basic powers of a sovereign people is the power to select their form of government. Pursuant to the 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty and the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ Constitution and Bylaws govern on and off Reservation treaty rights. The Constitution and Bylaws established the Tribe’s governing body – the Fort Hall Business Council – which acts as the Enterprise Board and oversees economic development on the Reservation. Protection of the environment has always been important to the Tribes. In order to provide for sound natural resource management programs, the Fort Hall Business Council, the Land Use Commission, and the Tribal Water Commission make policy decisions to manage the natural resources on the Reservation. Department specialists provide professional and technical support on land use, water, and other environmental quality issues on the Reservation. The IRMP will reflect the Tribes’ intent to comply with a suite of federal laws governing resource management and protection, most notably laws associated with environmental documentation, management of wildlife including endangered species, air and water quality, and cultural resource protection. The U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the federal agency responsible for this EA. Therefore, in addition to complying with NEPA, this EA also complies with BIA regulations (516 Departmental Manual 10) and follows the BIA policy regarding protection and enhancement of environmental quality (BIA NEPA Handbook, 30 Bureau of Indian Affairs Manual Supplement 1). Federal trust responsibilities also require the federal government to uphold rights reserved by or granted to Indian tribes and Indian individuals by treaties, federal statutes, and executive orders. Two main laws specifically mention tribal IRMPs – the Indian Forest Resource Management Act

6

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

and the Indian Agriculture Management Act – and emphasize that Tribes must abide by laws, including NEPA. The action alternatives described in this EA have been designed to comply with all legislative requirements. A summary of other applicable legislation is provided in Appendix A.

1.6.

Decisions to be Made

Once the Alternatives are developed, it will go out for public review and comment, and then presented to the Fort Hall Business Council. After consideration of public comments, the Fort Hall Business Council shall be presented the final EA and they shall choose a preferred alternative or a combination of alternative components from the EA. The Final EA and the Resolution shall be forwarded to the BIA. The Bureau of Indian Affairs Fort Hall Agency Superintendent will approve the selected alternative, or a combination of alternative components from the EA. The Integrated Resource Management Plan will be developed as a standalone document.

1.7.

Trust Responsibility

The United States government has a permanent legal obligation (trust responsibility) to exercise statutory and other legal authorities to protect tribal and allotted lands, assets, resources and treaty rights. Accordingly, the BIA is mandated by federal law to manage Indian lands held in trust for the benefit of the Indian owners. The BIA is committed to the policy of sustained-yield management and to providing management plans as stated in 25CFR163; the Department of Interior Manual; and 53 BIA Manual. The BIA is also committed to a policy of Indian selfdetermination as required under law, and has a duty to consult and coordinate land and resource activities on tribal and allotted lands with the Tribes. Although the Tribes have contracted to administer several programs from the BIA, under the 93-638 process, the BIA ultimately retains trust responsibility over these trust lands.

1.8.

Issue Identification

The IRMP is intended to be a strategic, vision-based, long-range management plan based on the Tribes’ interests, needs, and concerns for their natural and cultural resources. As such, this EA focuses on the decision framework for management activities or projects that have the potential to impact the resources that are found in the natural environment (air, water, earth, plants, and animals) or that require special protection (cultural resources). Several issues of concern were brought forward in a number of planning meetings including social, economic, and infrastructure concerns. Many of these issues – and the management activities or projects needed to address them – are outside of the scope of this EA because they are not resources per se but rather are programmatic topics or issues that have the potential to affect resources. These issues include housing; education; fire management and protection; health and social services; transportation; emergency services; capital facilities development; and specific infrastructure projects such as developing water treatment facilities. These types of issues are important and have the potential to impact resources; however, these types of issues will be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and not in the IRMP or this EA. For example, the Comprehensive Plan contains a section addressing Tribal housing. The Comprehensive Plan would describe the need for housing, where housing construction is proposed, and what codes

7

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

and regulations would need to be adhered to in their construction. Because management decisions on housing will affect a tract of land, it will to a certain degree impact physical (e.g., soil, water) and biological (e.g., vegetation, wildlife habitat) resources on that tract of land. It is the interdisciplinary management of the impact on those resources that is the concern of this EA, regardless of whether the tract of land is used for housing, wildlife habitat, agriculture, range, or any other use. This EA is concerned with resources that exist in the natural environment, that are valuable and necessary for sustaining life, and that play a role in maintaining and developing the Tribe’s economic and social base. More importantly, these resources have the potential to be impacted by department-level planning (or issues such as those discussed above) and project-specific activities and thus require coordinated and interdisciplinary efforts to protect, preserve, and enhance them (Figure 3). The resources addressed in this EA include:         Land Use, including Agricultural Land and Rangeland Air Quality Soils Water Resources Fish and Wildlife Special Status Species Vegetation, including Wetlands and Riparian Areas Cultural Resources

8

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Figure 3. Schematic showing how planning, projects, and other issues directly impact resources.

Planning Education Infrastructure RESOURCES Air, Water, Earth, Plants, Animals, Cultural Projects Transportation

Energy Development

Emergency Services

Range/Grazing

Housing

Fishing/Hunting Agriculture

Mineral Extraction

9

Chapter 2 – Alternatives
This chapter presents alternatives that describe varying approaches to management of resources and land uses on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Three IRMP alternatives and the “no action” alternative are described in this chapter presenting a range of choices for achieving the purpose and need identified in Chapter 1. Shoshone-Bannock Tribal goals and resource specific objectives are also presented.

2.1.

Alternative Development

Alternatives were developed and refined over the duration of this project by the ID Team and by input from Tribal members and departments. Alternatives were developed through scoping (during the Comprehensive Plan process and EA development), issue identification, and assessment of current management practices and desired goals for lands, culture, and resources of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Through the comprehensive planning process, several general Tribal goals were identified; those relevant to the IRMP and this EA are listed below.
Shoshone-Bannock Tribal DRAFT Goals
Our Sovereignty and Continued Existence as a People Protect, reclaim and advance Shoshone-Bannock Tribal sovereignty and control over lands and resources within the outer confines of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, other Tribal lands, and the unoccupied lands of the United States pursuant to the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868. Our Lands and Mother Earth Recognize and fulfill our obligation to future generations of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in the management of our natural resources by pursuing, promoting and where necessary, initiating efforts to restore the Snake River system and affected unoccupied lands to a natural condition. This includes the restoration of component resources to conditions which most closely represent the ecological features associated with a natural riverine ecosystem. In addition, the Tribes will work to ensure the protection, preservation, and where appropriate-the enhancement of rights reserved by the Tribes under the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 and any inherent aboriginal rights. What Makes us Indians To protect, preserve, enhance and restore Shoshone and Bannock language, cultural traditions and way of life. Our Treaty Rights To preserve and ensure for existing and future generations of Tribal members the opportunity to exercise treaty rights. Our Livelihood and Economic Development Create, promote and maintain opportunities for productive, satisfying employment for the members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes desiring work on and off the Reservation, recognizing that sound economic development builds communities and creates an environment in which positive, selfsustaining economic activity can take place.

The overall objective of the alternatives described in this EA is to support efforts to attain an integrated level of planning through specific decision-making and management actions. Alternatives that were carried forward for analysis had to meet the following criteria:

10

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP     

Winter 2010

Support achievement of Tribal goals Meet the purpose and need Protect, preserve, and enhance the Tribes’ natural and cultural resources Be consistent with federal, regional, and Tribal laws, statutes, treaties, and regulations.

Four alternatives were carried forward for analysis:
   

Alternative A – No Action Alternative Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative Alternative C – Growth Alternative Alternative D – Restoration Alternative

These alternatives provide a range of choices for achieving the criteria listed above. Formulation of these alternatives involved identifying combinations of management practices to resolve planning issues and to provide guidance where direction for a resource or use is needed. Each alternative could represent a complete and reasonable interdisciplinary land use plan to achieve the purpose and need and guide future management of the lands, resources, and uses on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Each action alternative was developed to support attainment of the general strategic goals and to achieve the resource specific goals and objectives identified below.

2.2

Resource Specific Goals Common to all Alternatives

During the preparation of this EA broad, overarching goals were developed for protecting, preserving, and enhancing the environmental resources and values on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Reservation-wide strategic, department-level, and project-specific planning and implementation would require integration across departments to ensure that these resourcespecific goals are achieved. The level of protection, preservation, or enhancement that would be required for each resource would be defined through interdisciplinary planning that balances development and project implementation with natural resource sustainability and cultural resource protection. 2.2.1. Physical Resources (Air, Soils, Water)  Protect, preserve, and enhance the quality of the airshed for the ecological health of the Reservation and its residents.  Protect, preserve, and enhance air, soil, water, biological, and cultural resources through responsible land use practices (e.g., mining, grazing, agriculture).  Minimize loss of natural soil and geologic properties.  Protect, preserve, and enhance the quality of rivers, streams, lakes and other Reservation water bodies.  Provide safe and sufficient water sources for domestic, agriculture, range, wildlife and other consumptive use. 2.2.2. Biological Resources (Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries)  Protect, preserve, and enhance vegetation to provide for wildlife habitat and sustainable use of vegetation resources (e.g., livestock grazing, forest products)  Protect, preserve, and enhance riparian areas and wetlands.

11

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP    2.2.3.     Protect, preserve, and enhance fisheries habitat and natural fish populations. Protect, preserve, and enhance wildlife habitat and wildlife populations.

Winter 2010

Cultural, Social, and Economic Resources and Values Perpetuate the Shoshone and Bannock languages, cultures, traditions, and ways of life. Protect, preserve, and enhance historic and pre-contact cultural properties. Provide sustainable opportunities for harvest (fish, wildlife, vegetation) and traditional cultural practices. Create, promote and maintain economic opportunities that benefit members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

2.3. Alternative A – No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative retains the current management practices on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and thus provides a baseline for comparison to the other alternatives. Under this alternative, planning and implementation of projects identified in the Comprehensive Plan and current and future department-level plans would occur with little to no integrated, interdisciplinary management considerations. Tribal departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their programs and projects with little consideration of how their activities might impact the ability of other resource managers to attain their goals. Current land use and zoning would remain in effect on the Reservation unless specific projects necessitated changes (Figure 4). Impacts to natural and cultural resources would generally be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection of or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature.

2.4. Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative
The Proposed Action Alternative would integrate interdisciplinary resource planning into all resource plans and projects in order to balance development with natural resource sustainability and cultural resource protection. Under this alternative, specific projects identified in the draft Comprehensive Plan or other department or program plans would be implemented utilizing a methodology that examines resource issues through an interdisciplinary coordination process prior to project implementation. This early planning process – essentially the IRMP – would serve to identity potential conflicts and address them in a proactive manner. Like the No Action Alternative, current land use and zoning would remain in effect on the Reservation unless specific projects required changes (Figure 4). The Proposed Action would balance resource sustainability and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and use of the land through integrated planning. This alternative recognizes that although the Tribes value and need sustainable economic development, they would balance growth with other needs and interests as well. This type of development would select businesses and activities that have a positive effect on the community and its environment, and that would maintain the harmony and balance of nature. The alternative recognizes that the typical, project-by-project approach to economic development is inappropriate for the setting and situation at Fort Hall and that sound economic development can build communities and create an environment in which positive, selfsustaining economic activity can take place.

12

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Under this alternative, the Tribes would encourage and support regional and sustainable economic development activity. The draft Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for development and designates land suitable for the various proposed projects. Projects in the draft Comprehensive Plan vary from improvements of existing facilities to completely new facilities and design. Using the management philosophy proposed under this alternative, specific actions identified in the Comprehensive Plan or other program plans would be carried out within the existing footprint, by resolving issues and making improvements in the use of existing sites and developed areas, rather than starting over at new locations. New development would occur but areas of open space would also be protected. Figure 4. Land Use and Zoning under the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives.

13

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Under this alternative, high weight would be given to economic development proposals with non-detrimental environmental impacts. Projects with a neutral or positive environmental impact would be preferred and the economic benefits of polluting industry would be discounted. Environmental concerns, whether raised by the Tribe’s Environmental Program staff or by Tribal members, would be addressed in a proactive manner. Areas identified for economic development include I-15 Exit 80 area, the Pocatello Airport and former FMC/Astaris site, I-15 Exit 89 area (South Blackfoot Exit), Rainbow Beach, and Fort Hall sites (U.S. Highway 91 – Fort Hall Enterprise Development). Development opportunities in these locations would create employment and income as well as improve the Tribes’ relations with surrounding communities. In addition to designating these sites for commercial and industrial activity, the Tribes would work to ensure that adequate infrastructure and utilities were available at these sites, including roads and communication infrastructure. A similar philosophy would be followed for other land uses besides economic development. For example, the draft Comprehensive Plan includes specific proposals for housing. Under this alternative, actions selected for implementation would be managed following the new integrated management approach. Development would occur in the footprint area designated in the draft Comprehensive Plan as available for housing construction; that is, lands within one-quarter mile of domestic water lines. Because much of this area is currently in agricultural use a further refinement of the areas to be developed for housing would need to occur. In addition, housing projects would need to take into consideration such factors as soils, water resources, infrastructure, etc. In determining siting locations, effects to transportation, infrastructure, public safety, soils, water resources, wildlife, and other resources would be analyzed. Use of range land provides another example in which this management philosophy would serve to protect the Tribes’ resources for the long term. Currently, in some range units inadequate range management practices have resulted in damage to riparian areas on perennial and ephemeral streams. Degradation of riparian areas has contributed to water quality issues, such as increased stream bank erosion and sedimentation leading to increased summer water temperatures; decreases in available trout spawning areas and egg hatching success; changes in macro invertebrate communities; and reduction in stream primary production. In other range units the productivity and general healthiness of the range is good, but additional coordination with other Tribal resource departments is necessary to improve management strategies to meet the goals of all resource managers. Additional concerns are the current drought conditions, high wildland fire danger, adequate water availability, noxious and invasive weeds, and cultural resources. Under this alternative, decisions related to range land use would be made in an interdisciplinary manner to ensure that effects to all resources are considered.

2.5. Alternative C – Growth Alternative
The Growth Alternative encourages integrated resource management planning while promoting economic growth and development opportunities on the Reservation. This alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative but the degree of development would be greater and could occur outside of the existing zoning footprints. For purposes of analysis, increased economic development under this alternative is anticipated in existing developed areas and along the interstate corridors, especially around the I15 Exit 80 and Exit 89 areas, the Pocatello Airport area, and around Fort Hall (Figure 5).

14

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Changes in land use and zoning would result with more land being converted from irrigated farming and grazing to industrial and urban commercial uses. Figure 5. Land Use and Zoning under the Growth Alternative.

This alternative promotes growth and development throughout the Reservation where it is not in conflict with natural or cultural resources or with land use suitability. Resource uses such as livestock grazing, agricultural production, and mining would also be emphasized. Efforts to involve more Tribal members in ownership of rangeland resources, agricultural operations, and other resource uses would occur, in addition to increasing non-member/non-Indian use. This alternative would also emphasize management of natural resources for the production of natural

15

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

resource commodities (e.g., timber) and public use opportunities, and thus resource development would be less constrained than under Alternatives A or B.

2.6. Alternative D – Restoration Alternative
This alternative would emphasize natural resource conservation by reducing the areas open to future development. Strong growth and development boundaries would be established and adhered to with economic development and urban commercial and industrial growth being limited to the areas on the Reservation already impacted by such activities. This alternative would also change existing zoning by reducing areas available for livestock grazing and agriculture use (e.g., dryland farming) and would return some lands to native range/uses (Figure 6) Figure 6. Land Use and Zoning under the Restoration Alternative.

16

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Some specific actions proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan would be implemented under this alternative and include the elimination of areas designated for “Mineral Mining” from the proposed land use/zoning map, and the imposition of strong environmental safeguards on any proposed development. Other restoration activities and projects would be tied to this alternative and would include a reduction in areas devoted to irrigated agriculture (e.g. Buckskin Basin area) and restoration of sagebrush shrubland in some areas; restoration to a natural state of most dryland farmed areas; closure and repair of most backcountry roads; restricting use of the Ferry Butte area to protect the cultural resources present in that area; restoration to proper functioning condition of all riparian areas on the Reservation; changes in range management (especially in the Bottoms area); increased allocation of forage to wildlife; and restoration of the former Gay Mine site to open space (Figure 6). This alternative would promote native range/uses and would be most protective of the natural and cultural resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Areas such as the Bottoms which are heavily used for livestock grazing would have substantial areas set aside for wildland use. Land designated as wildland on the Reservation is to be “preserved in its natural state as habitat for wildlife” and land and natural resources in these areas are only to be used for hunting and fishing, unless specifically permitted by the Land Use Commission. Under this alternative, the Land Use Commission, in coordination with departmental resource managers (e.g., fish and wildlife, water resources, range), would develop a plan of use for the Bottoms area that would set aside substantial areas for wildland use and the remaining areas would be managed for agricultural use in such a way as to promote natural resource conservation and enhance fish and wildlife populations and riparian habitat in the area.

2.7. Implementation, Monitoring and Amendment Process
Once a decision has been made by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the BIA on which alternative in this EA is selected, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued or the decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement will be made. Once the FONSI is issued the NEPA process will be concluded and the Tribes will begin writing the IRMP, based upon the decision. An implementation and monitoring plan will be contained in the IRMP that describes how the decision will be implemented, monitored, and amended.

2.8. Comparison of Alternatives
The table below compares at a programmatic level the effects of implementing the four alternatives discussed in this EA. A further discussion on potential impacts to resources under each of the alternatives is provided in Chapter 4.

17

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP  Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives.
Parameter / Resource Vision No Action Alternative
Achieve goals at the department/ resource level Single resource management approach

Winter 2010

Proposed Action Alternative
Common achievement of goals across departments and resources

Growth Alternative
Common achievement of goals across departments and resources

Restoration Alternative
Common achievement of goals across departments and resources Integrated resource management approach Interdisciplinary Consensus approach to approval and acceptance

Management Planning environment Decision making Development

Integrated resource Integrated resource management approach management approach Interdisciplinary

Compartmentalized Interdisciplinary

Single individual or Consensus approach to Consensus approach small group at the approval and to approval and program or acceptance acceptance department level Encouraged

Encouraged but in Promoted for both Promoted for natural balance with natural industrial and natural resource commodities resource sustainability resource commodities and restoration and cultural resource protection Public included Proactive Decreased Public included Proactive Decreased May improve or remain unchanged Protected Populations managed for sustainable use; habitat may be reduced Protected Protected but may have more converted to development Public included Proactive Decreased May improve or remain unchanged Protected Populations and habitats improved; habitat may be increased Protected Protected and restored in many disturbed areas

Public role Resource protection Land Use Conflicts Air Quality

Public excluded Reactive Increased

May improve, May improve or remain unchanged, remain unchanged or worsen May be damaged Populations and habitat may remain unchanged or be negatively impacted May be harmed or destroyed Soil loss may remain unchanged or increase May remain unchanged or be negatively impacted Protected Populations and habitat improved through interdisciplinary planning Protected Protected

Cultural Resources Fish and Wildlife

Special Status Species Soils

Vegetation, including Wetlands and Riparian Areas

May be improved or remain unchanged

May be improved, May be improved in remain unchanged, or many areas and reduced in extent converted from agricultural use to native plant communities and wildlife use in some areas

18

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
Parameter / Resource Water Resources No Action Alternative
May remain unchanged or be negatively impacted

Winter 2010
Growth Alternative
May improve or remain unchanged

Proposed Action Alternative
May improve or remain unchanged

Restoration Alternative
May improve

Approximate Land Use (acres)a Zone
Irrigated Farming Dryland Farming Grazing Mining Areas Open Space Industrial Urban Commercial Total
a

No Action Alternative
90,000 34,900b 306,900c 4,700d 104,000e 3,500 2,000 546,000

Proposed Action Alternative
90,000 34,900 306,900 4,700 104,000 3,500 2,000 546,000

Growth Alternative
88,500f 34,900 303,900f 4,700 104,000 6,500f,g 3,500f,h 546,000

Restoration Alternative
80,000i 30,000j 270,000k 0l 160,050 3,500 2,000 546,000

These acreages are presented for analysis purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the exact acreages available in each zone. For instance, some lands zoned as open space are used for livestock grazing and thus are included in the acreage for grazing. These acreages present a reflection of the types and amounts of changes in land use that could be expected under each alternative and thus are used as the basis of comparison of effects presented in Chapter 4 of this EA. b Approximately 110,000 acres of drylands occur on the Reservation and include dryland cropland, croplands that have entered into the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP lands), and sagebrush steppe shrubland more properly classified as open space. c Grazing defined here includes the 14 specified range units on the Reservation that are permitted and managed for livestock grazing. This includes the Bottoms area as well as a number of acres that are zoned as open space. d Mining lands are composed nearly entirely of the Gay Mine, an open-pit phosphate mine developed and used by the J.R. Simplot company from 1944 to 1992. e Open space includes some land that is currently grazed by livestock, woodlands, and wildlands that are preserved as habitat for wildlife. The acreages reported here for open space are somewhat lower than actual zoned acres since significant open space lands are used by the range program for livestock grazing. f Industrial and urban commercial expansion would mostly come at the expense of lands that are currently used as irrigated farmlands and grazing lands. g Industrial expansion would nearly double under this alternative and would be expected to occur mostly around the Pocatello Airport and the two I-15 exits (80 and 89). h Urban commercial expansion would largely be expected to occur around the Fort Hall area and east of the Pocatello Airport. i Most of the decrease in irrigated farming is associated with a reversion of the Buckskin Basin area to dryland farming and/or open space. j Dryland farming is expected to decrease overall on the Reservation as more lands are put into the CRP program and other lands are restored to native sagebrush shrubland vegetation. k Livestock grazing would be substantially reduced under this alternative with much of the reduction coming from a cessation of grazing on much of the Bottoms area. Other areas would also be fenced from livestock use to restore riparian habitat and increase wildlife habitat availability. l The former Gay Mine area would be rehabilitated under this alternative and would be rezoned as open space.

19

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Chapter 3 – Existing Environment
3.1. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the existing or affected environment, including conditions and trends that could be affected by the alternatives described in Chapter 2. This chapter focuses on those portions of the environment that are directly related to the conditions and resource categories being addressed by the alternatives. The description is not meant to be a complete portrait of the study area, but rather is intended to portray the conditions and trends of most concern to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the public and agencies involved in the management of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation at the broad scale.
Survival of human kind and the environment is mutually dependent
The Shoshone and Bannock people’s relationship with the physical environment is interactive and is described as one of stewardship. According to tribal perspective, all animate and inanimate beings – human, animal, plant, and mineral – live together on this earth and are mutually dependent on each other. All things in nature have a voice and a place in creation and it is the responsibility of tribal members to maintain the balance that is present in the environment.

Following a general description of the Reservation landscape, a History section is included below to provide a sense of the land use patterns that shed light on issues surrounding offReservation customary use rights, as well as understanding issues like sovereignty, jurisdiction, and treaty rights. Sections on Government/Tribal Management and Demographics/ Socioeconomics are also included. The next main section of the chapter addresses the Land Use Policy and Land Use on the Reservation, which includes Irrigated and Dryland Farming, Rangeland, the Fort Hall Bottoms area, Commercial areas, Rural/Residential areas, Open Space (Parks, Recreation and Open Space), and Mining areas. The next section of the chapter addresses Physical Resources (with subsections on Air, Soils, and Water), followed by a description of the Natural Resources (with subsections on Vegetation and Wildlife and Fisheries), and a final section describing Cultural Resources.

3.2.

General Setting/Landscape

The Fort Hall Indian Reservation, homeland of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, is located in the southeastern part of the State of Idaho. The ancestral lands of the Shoshone and Bannock people is known as “Bia sogope” and includes lands in the States of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, California, south to the Plains and north into Canada. An 1867 Executive Order proclaimed 1.8 million acres for the Reservation; however in 1872, a survey error substantially reduced the original Reservation to 1.2 million acres. The current Reservation occupies approximately 850 square miles (~544,000 acres) of land in parts of Bingham, Bannock, Power, and Caribou counties, Idaho. The Reservation is adjacent to Interstate 86 and Interstate 15 and the cities of Pocatello and Blackfoot are located on the southern and northern boundaries of the Reservation, respectively. The current Reservation boundaries have resulted from a series of cessations of the original boundaries (see Figure 2). Ceded lands outside the current Reservation boundary include the communities of Lava Hot Springs, McCammon, Inkom, and Pocatello.

20

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Southeastern Idaho’s semi-arid climate is characterized by cold, dry winters; cool, wet springs; and hot, dry summers. Annual average precipitation on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is approximately 11 inches at the lower elevations (period 1948 to 2005). May is generally the wettest month (1.51 inches) and July the driest month (0.55 inches). Summer precipitation is often in the form of intense, localized afternoon thunderstorms. Average total snowfall is 22.7 inches with more occurring at the higher elevations (WRCC 2007). The Reservation is situated at the northern end of the Great Basin and straddles the eastern border of the Snake River Plain. Topography is characteristic of basin and range physiography. The terrain on the Reservation varies between 4,400 feet (above mean sea level) in the flat northwestern portion, to 8,000 feet in the steep mountains to the east and south. Major mountain ranges within the boundary of the Reservation include the Portneuf, Deep Creek, and Pocatello Ranges. The Portneuf Range, neighboring Pocatello, and the more distant Deep Creek Range rise sharply from the surrounding plains and agricultural lands. The highest point on the Reservation is South Putnam at an elevation of 8,549 feet and the lowest point of the Reservation is approximately 4,380 feet at the Rainbow Beach boat ramp. Mountain slopes generally range from 30 to 70 percent with forest communities occupying the cooler and moister north and east exposures at higher elevations. The mountain peaks and surrounding forested lands on the Reservation have both cultural and religious significance to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Warmer, drier exposures are non-forested consisting of a mix of grassland, sagebrush/ rabbitbrush, mountain shrub fields, talus, and rock. The dry foothills and ridges support a mix of bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, juniper, sagebrush, and other shrubs and forbs (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Perennial and intermittent streams dissect the Portneuf and Pocatello Ranges. Alluvial processes have created distinctive floodplains composed of deep, alluvial soils in valley bottoms. The broad Snake River Plain winds in a southwesterly direction from the City of Blackfoot to the American Falls Reservoir. The Snake River’s braided channels form the Fort Hall Bottoms, which are comprised of riparian shrub and cottonwood communities, agricultural lands, and wetlands. Fee lands within the Reservation boundary have been purchased through a land acquisition program. As a result, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is now comprised of 97 percent Tribal/trust and individual Tribal member lands; only 3 percent of the lands are held by nonIndians. The land status is 41,343 acres are trust lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 215,558 acres are Tribal lands and 266,505 are allotted lands. Tribal Lands are managed under the authority of the Land Use Commission and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Reservation is divided into five districts – Gibson, Ross Fork, Bannock Creek, Lincoln Creek, and Fort Hall – each of which has a community center or a lodge for gatherings. The Town of Fort Hall is a small, unincorporated site located adjacent to the Fort Hall campus. The Tribal office is on the Fort Hall campus east of the Town site. The Fort Hall Indian Reservation agency campus is comprised of buildings that house Tribal operations and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

3.3.

History

The ancestors of the Shoshone and Bannock people now living on the Reservation ranged over great areas of what is now the inland northwestern United States and Canada, east into the Great

21

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Plains, and south and west into the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. Tribal members are descendants from bands that were formerly based in the upper Snake River and Portneuf Valleys, the Lemhi-Salmon River Valleys, Boise and Payette River Valleys. Archeological evidence shows that the entire Great Basin and Columbia Plateau supported established populations of hunter-gatherers. Typically, bands would form to take advantage of the various resource opportunities found in different areas, moving with the seasons. The bands of Shoshone and Bannock people named themselves after the principle food resources like the mountain-dwelling “Tuka dika” (sheep-eaters), “Agai dika” (salmon-eaters), “kutshundika” (buffalo-eaters) and “Yambadika” (root-eaters), and other bands. The various groups seem to have worked out of established camps they revisited year after year. Tribal oral history reiterates that ancestors of the Shoshone and Bannock peoples would base themselves in the Portneuf, Boise, Bruneau, Blackfoot, Lemhi, Weiser and Snake River Valley areas, wintering there and using it as a base for the remainder of the year while moving around a home range of hundreds or thousands of square miles with the season (Halliday and Chehak 1996). The groups interacted with each other, through trading, intermarrying, and maintaining widespread family ties by extended visits. The Shoshone and Bannock languages are spoken throughout their aboriginal area and consequently there are many dialects of Shoshoni language. Nevertheless, all speakers of the Shoshoni language understand one another creating a sense of community or nationhood that persists among the Shoshonean-speaking tribes and groups. In the early 1700s, the Shoshone and Bannock ways of life were intensified by the presence of horses. Groups could travel farther, carry more weight and hunt more large game. Horses made it convenient to trade with plains, southwest, and coastal Indian tribes. Salmon fishing groups were able to trade for buffalo robes, elk and deer skins, while others traded buffalo meat or horses. Tribal oral history and early written accounts indicate Shoshone and Bannock peoples were widely known, numerous, powerful and well-off. The Fort Hall “Bottoms” area, including the adjacent benchlands, was a prime wintering ground for many Shoshone and Bannock bands. The Fort Hall Bottoms is a significant resource and cultural area and its use continues to this day by tribal members for hunting, gathering and spiritual needs. Other groups wintered along the Portneuf River at what is now Pocatello and Marsh Valley. There were a number of hot springs along the Portneuf and Bear Rivers that were considered open ground, where members of any band or group came for extended periods to pray, bathe, and relax (Madsen 1985). Today, descendants of the Lemhi, Boise Valley, Bruneau, Weiser and other bands of Shoshoni and Bannock reside on the Reservation and return to their aboriginal areas to visit and to exercise their treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather on aboriginal lands. Traditional harvesting methods are used to hunt fish, including spears, weirs, baskets and nets, with community and extended family groups moving to the waters where the salmon were running. The area around Salmon, Idaho was used by the northwestern band of Shoshone and the Shoshone and Bannock people gathered in numbers along the Snake River and its tributaries during salmon runs. People today still fish where they have always fished, unless access is an issue or original sites have been flooded out. However, the salmon runs have gone extinct in the upper Snake River drainage. Big game hunting consisted of buffalo, elk, moose, and antelope, which were used for food, clothing and shelter (Parry 1976). Tribal members still hunt in areas that were hunted in former times.

22

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Traditional subsistence use of natural resources persists to this day, particularly of fish and wildlife, but also of a wide variety of plants. Traditional hunting and gathering activities are not limited to the Reservation but extend throughout much of the aboriginal territory of the Shoshone and Bannock peoples. Plants and other resources were gathered and harvested where they were found (D’Azevedo 1986). The Shoshone and Bannock peoples would regularly visit the Camas Prairie area near present day Fairfield, Idaho, in late spring or early summer, then move on to fishing territories on the Snake River below Shoshone Falls. Major north-south and east-west trade routes intersected in the areas where the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is now located, and were part of the reason the area was so attractive to the Shoshone and Bannock people. The trade routes and the ability to trade for food, horses, and furs laid the country open to Euro-American explorers and invaders. Lewis and Clark followed these routes, guided by a Shoshone woman. Later the Oregon Trail followed a major east-west route through the territory of the Shoshonean-speaking tribes, leading to long and bitter conflict. In 1863 the federal government sought out Shoshone and Bannock people with the intent of placing them on reserved lands in efforts to open up lands for non-Indian homesteading. In 1867 President Johnson, through a Presidential Executive Order, established the 1.8 million acre Fort Hall Indian Reservation for the Shoshone and Bannock peoples. In return for peace, land, and rights of safe passage through Indian territories, Tribes received annuities, education, and a physician. The Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 confirmed the arrangement, but a survey error reduced the Reservation to 1.2 million acres in 1872. The Bannock Wars of 1878 were a final attempt by independent Native hunters to fight for their traditional existence. The Reservation’s name – Fort Hall – comes from a trading post that was built on the Tribe’s wintering grounds located in the Bottoms in the early 1800s. Nine emigrant trails, including the Oregon Trail, passed through Fort Hall. The railroads followed the same old trails laid down by Native Americans, with east-west and north-south rail lines intersecting within the 1868 Reservation boundaries. The railroad yards and rights-of-way, and the city that sprang up around them were later “ceded” from the Reservation (Halliday and Chehak 1996). From 1885 to 1914, the Reservation was cut into allotments of 160 acres to each adult and 80 acres to each child. The Tribes lost half of their Reservation, including Lava Hot Springs and what is now the City of Pocatello, through a series of agreements between the Tribes and the federal government. In 1888, 1,840 acres were ceded to the Union Pacific Railroad and homesteaders acquired an additional 297,000 acres. In 1900, 418,000 acres of land was ceded for homesteading in the southern end of the Reservation. In 1887 the Dawes Act, also known as the Allotment Act, was ratified establishing individual Indian allotments that further reduced the area of Indian lands (the Dawes Act did not impact the Reservation until 1911-1916 when the Reservation was fragmented further by the allotment process and land survey errors). In 1889 another Executive Order ceded almost 240,000 acres in the Marsh Valley area for settlement. A further cession in 1900 resulted in the loss of almost 420,000 acres, including the land on which the cities of Pocatello, Chubbuck and Inkom are now located. Ceded lands are shown on Figure 2. In 1924, 30,000 acres were ceded to the Bureau of Reclamation for the establishment of the American Falls Reservoir. Other concessions were made to the Union Pacific and Utah Northern Railroads, granting revertible easements and rights of way. The last loss of territory occurred when the Army Air Corps established a tactical bomber base on the Reservation. This base was to have been returned to the Tribes at the end of the war, but was instead transferred to the City of Pocatello and is now the Pocatello Airport. It is located entirely within the Reservation, but

23

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

the City claims the Tribes have no jurisdiction over the airport and other activities taking place on the site. The Fort Hall Indian Reservation is now crossed by two interstate highways and U.S. Highway 91. The vast cessions of land by native peoples were premised on federal promises that the native peoples could continue their way of life on homelands of smaller size, free from intrusions of the majority society. While some of the present rights were secured by treaties between the Tribes and the United States, many of the rights are the product of federal law or executive orders and agreements.

3.4.

Government/Tribal Management

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Constitution and By-laws were adopted by the Tribes and approved by the Secretary of the Interior on April 30, 1936. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Inc. became a federally chartered corporation under the Indian Re-organization Act on April 17, 1937. The Fort Hall Business Council is the official governing body of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Fort Hall Business Council is a seven member body, whose members serve staggered 2-year terms. The Constitution provides for an annual meeting of the Tribes’ membership at which resolutions may be passed governing future actions of the Fort Hall Business Council. The Constitution also provides for special meetings of the membership and for referendum votes. The Tribes administer governmental services through various departments and programs. Services include health programs, planning, zoning, education, and law and order. The Tribal general fund derives from assets on the Reservation with the majority of monies coming from leasing of agricultural lands. The Tribes provides services under the authority of Public Law 93638 that allows the Tribes to administer federally funded programs. The Tribes adopted a Land Use Policy Ordinance in 1976-77, which established goals and adopted a comprehensive land use plan and land use map that has functioned as a Reservationwide zoning map. The Land Use Policy Ordinance, implemented by the Land Use Policy Commission, was established to: 1) Protect the present character of the Reservation; 2) Ensure clean air, water, open space and quality of human environment; 3) Reduce congestion; and 4) Promote orderly economic growth to the Reservation. The ordinance regulates land use activities throughout the Reservation including zoning, building permits, fire permits, trespass permits, permit review, and other impacts on natural resources. The Land Use Policy Commission was established in 1979 pursuant to the ordinance and promulgated the Fort Hall Land Use Operative Policy Guidelines that implement the intent of the Ordinance. The Fort Hall Land Use Operative Policy Guidelines serve as the zoning code for the Reservation. The Tribes also created a Land Use Department that is responsible for the specific environmental protection programs and coordinates ongoing issues with the Land Use Policy Commission. The Land Use Department has programs responsible for regulating solid waste, air quality, pesticides, rangeland, selenium, RCRA/CERCLA matters, agricultural management, building permits and inspections, and mapping and surveying. Because of the need to strengthen and protect Tribal sovereignty and treaty rights, the Tribes must maintain relationships and understandings between several different state and federal agencies, bureaus, and departments. The Tribal government must also be familiar with federal

24

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

and state policies, procedures, laws, mandates, and executive orders, along with various tribal policies, laws, ordinances, resolutions, cultural beliefs, and traditional practices.

3.5.

Demographics/Socioeconomics

The Reservation is located partially within the Pocatello Metropolitan Statistical Area and is part of a growing urban region. The four county region that includes portions of the Reservation – Bannock, Bingham, Caribou, and Power Counties – has grown from 87,647 in 1960 to 132,142 in 2000, an average rate of 8.5 percent per decade, although the growth has been uneven. The 2006 estimated population of the four counties is 137,404, an additional 4 percent increase (Census Bureau 2007). Regional growth projections for Bannock County by the Metropolitan Planning Organization are for continued growth. Urban growth in Pocatello, Chubbuck, American Falls, and Blackfoot impacts the region and the Reservation. The 1970 U.S. Census enumerated 2,079 Indian people living on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The total Indian population within the immediate Fort Hall area in 1970, including Blackfoot, Pocatello, and American Falls, was 2,639. The enrollment in 1972 was 2,824 persons, and in 1973 it was 2,921. The increase in enrolled Shoshone-Bannock Tribal members from year to year is due to adding members to the official Tribal rolls, not because of significant population growth on the Reservation. Out-migration of young people from Fort Hall occurs because of a lack of employment opportunities. In addition, housing has stabilized population growth and weighted the population to the very young and very old. The 1990 Census of Population and Housing identified 5,114 residents on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, 3,035 were Native American and 2,079 were Caucasian. According to the 2000 Census, the total Reservation population was 5,759. Of this number, 3,609 were Native American (including non members), 1,792 were Caucasian, 369 were Latino, 151 were two or more races, 147 were other race, 15 were Asian-American, and 9 were Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. In 2005 the total Tribal enrollment, including those living off-Reservation was 4,852, with 3,487 Tribal members living on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The overall unemployment rate for the Reservation in 2000 was 21.7 percent (16.7 percent for females and 27.2 percent for males). Labor force participation measures the number of people who are working or trying to find work and provides an estimate of the number of workers that would be available for businesses locating on the Reservation. Labor force participation rates are mainly above 60 percent for the working age population, peaking for women in their early twenties and for men in their early thirties. The total number of persons, age 16 and over, available to be in the labor force was 2,334 in 2000 (Comprehensive Plan). The per capita income on the Reservation in 2000 was $11,309 and the median household income was $28,194. The poverty rate on the Reservation was 31.5 percent for individuals and 26.7 percent for families. The Interstate 15, Exit 80 site is located within the Reservation where Ross Fork Road crosses the Interstate in an east-west direction. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a Tribal grocery and clothing store, a gas station and restaurant were built on the northwest side of the interchange. At about the same time but on the southwest side of the interchange, across from the complex, a Tribal museum was built. In the late 1980s a gaming facility was constructed within one-fourth mile west of the enterprise complex on Ross Fork Road. In 2000, the Tribal gas station was relocated to a new facility approximately one-half mile west on Ross Fork Road.

25

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

The current development mix at this site includes facilities such as the Casino, Museum, and Clothes Horse serving a freeway and regional clientele, other businesses such as the Trading Post Grocery store, a bank, and post office serving mainly the local community, the Trading Post Gas Station, as well as Tribal offices and Tribal enterprise office operations. The gaming and commercial operations at the Exit 80 site represent the main source of new non-governmental money flowing into the Fort Hall community.

3.6.

Land Use Policy

Many of the issues discussed below – agriculture, water, wildlife management, mining and industry, among others – involve land use policy and natural resource allocation issues on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. In 1974 the Fort Hall Business Council established a Tribal policy for the environment on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) was established to (1) declare a tribal policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; (2) promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man by imposing mandatory requirements upon federal agencies dealing with the natural resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and (3) enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Declaration of Tribal Environmental Policy states that, The Tribes, recognizing the profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and to its overall welfare and development, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, in cooperation with federal government and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of tribal members. The Tribes have taken advantage of Public Law 93-638 to contract a number of federal natural resource management programs including wildlife management, range management, forestry, fisheries, wildfire control, and solid waste management. The Tribes also administer some EPA programs including air quality, water quality, and solid waste management. The Tribes have US DOE-funded programs for emergency management and management of hazardous materials, and they participate in Bonneville Power Administration’s salmon recovery program. Many of the Tribal environmental or natural resource programs have been established under the Land Use Department and the Land Use Policy Commission. It has always been the intent and action of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to promote the conservation, protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural resources. The Fort Hall

26

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Business Council has established the following policy in order to provide guidance in determining Tribal goals and objectives for affected resources in the Snake River Basin. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes will pursue, promote, and where necessary, initiate efforts to restore the Snake River systems and affected unoccupied lands to a natural condition. This includes the restoration of component resources to conditions which most closely represent the ecological features associated with a natural riverine ecosystem. In addition, the Tribes will work to ensure the protection, Preservation, and where appropriate, the enhancement of Rights reserved by the Tribes under the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 and any inherent aboriginal rights.

3.7.

Land Use

In 2000 and 2001 the Tribes’ Attorneys began work on a new code to be known as the Fort Hall Land Use Regulations. The new Fort Hall Land Use Regulations, or zoning areas, have been developed to meet the needs of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (see Figure 4). The proposed new classifications allow the Tribes to ensure there are adequate lands for future development, and to protect the health, safety and well being of all people living on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The new land use zones include the following categories.  Irrigated Farming and Dryland Farming  Grazing (Rangeland)  Local and Interstate Commercial  Rural/Residential Development  Government and Institutional Facilities  Open Space (Parks, Recreation and Open Space)  Mining Areas Specific actions or management guidance for each of these areas is included below. 3.7.1. Irrigated Farming and Dryland Farming The Fort Hall Reservation represents one of Southern Idaho’s most productive agricultural resources, comprised of farms, rangelands, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands, Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP) lands, native species propagation, allotted water, and a pesticide control program for the application of agricultural chemicals. The Fort Hall Indian Reservation is deeply rooted in agricultural land use through the 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty, which envisioned the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes making a transition to an agricultural society. One of the provisions of this Treaty was that the United States government would aid in the transition from an agrarian society that relied on hunting and gathering to one that sustained itself by the production of agricultural products. Articles 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the Treaty deal specifically with this transition by requiring that the Federal government uphold certain trust responsibilities to help any tribal farmer achieve success in agriculture. The Agricultural Resource Management (ARM) Program – part of the Land Use Department – is authorized by the Fort Hall Business Council to manage the agricultural resources on the Reservation by providing oversight, education, and technical support for every aspect of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ agricultural programs. It is a governing principle of the ARM program that the right to cultivate the soil is a foundational treaty right of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. This right guarantees that the Tribes can choose the methods of cultivation and retain

27

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

some measure of control over the operations taking place on the Reservation. ARM is responsible for overseeing Tribal lands leased out for agricultural purposes and ensuring that practices on these lands use BMPs applicable to agriculture and chemical use to protect the land, air and water quality on the Reservation. Approximately 34 percent of Reservation lands are leased to non-Indian farmers. Although the Tribe has no control over leased farms, Tribal farms are shifting toward more organic farming practices because of concerns about the effects of pesticides on the water and health and well-being of the Tribes. Other agricultural operations that are privately owned on leased or fee lands are subject to applicable laws and ordinances but operate without the direction of the Tribes. The majority of farm operations on the Reservation fall into this category, wherein a farmer leases tribal or tribal member lands from the BIA for a set number of years, at a pre-determined cost per acre. The original 1976 Land Use Policy Ordinance describes four broad zoning classifications, one of which was an “agricultural” zone that included irrigated and dry farming, as well as grazing lands. The new Land Use Regulations include areas zoned specifically for agriculture use (Figure 4). An area zoned for agriculture is one in which the primary use of the land is the tilling of the soil, the raising of crops, horticulture, gardening, the keeping, raising, and grazing of livestock, domestic animals and fowl, and similar uses, but does not include any commercial or agricultural industry or business such as agricultural processing or packing plants, farm equipment, or similar uses. The proposed zoning map generally follows the pattern set by the 1976 map, with its division of the agricultural zone into use areas but the use-classes are not broken down to dry farming, agriculture, and grazing use areas as they were in the 1976 Plan. The use areas have been amended to reflect existing use: some lands are being irrigated that lie outside the area designated for irrigated agriculture on the 1976 Plan, while dry farmed lands have greatly decreased. Presently around 90,000 acres of irrigated cropland and 110,000 acres of dryland farming exist on the Reservation. The non-irrigated portions are comprised of dryland cropland (approximately 34,900 acres), CRP lands, and steppe rangeland used for grazing (BIA 2002). The main crops are potatoes, wheat, sugar beets, barley, hay and alfalfa. As part of the effort to provide the Reservation with parcels of land that are kept in pristine and improved condition, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation has enrolled a number of retired farms and rangeland acres in CRP and CCRP. These programs are managed under the Farm Services Agency (FSA)/United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Land Use Department enters into a CRP/CCRP contract with the approval of the Fort Hall Business Council and then the ARM program administers the day-to-day needs of the parcels, including fencing and replanting native vegetation. In return for the protection/conservation of a parcel of land, the program provides allottees, owners of individual Reservation allotments, with income for practicing conservation on their land. Both of these conservation programs provide areas where native plant species are protected and replanted, wildlife is given preference, and conservation efforts are enforced to protect the land and water. Lands held in a CRP contract are typically lands that were dry farmed for wheat products that have since been taken out of production to allow native vegetation to return and provide wildlife habitat. The program also enrolls qualifying rangeland, typically those lands abutting watercourses, to rest the land and let the soil replenish and rebuild necessary nutrients. In contrast to CRP, CCRP is a conservation effort directed towards restoring waterways to rebuild or protect natural habitat for fisheries or wildlife with the intent of creating a conservation area held in perpetuity. The program enrolls qualifying waterways such as streams,

28

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

creeks, or rivers and fences them off to protect them from grazing by cattle or other domestic animals. There are several Tribal Resolutions and Ordinances that guide use of lands for agricultural purposes in addition to Federal and agency rules that govern the programs (Appendix A). One of the responsibilities of the ARM department is the monitoring of discharge, application and storage of agricultural chemicals. In 1991 the EPA approved the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes plan of certification of applicators of pesticides for restricted use and the ARM program recently finished a comprehensive plan to monitor, license and permit the application of pesticides and herbicides across the Reservation. Pending approval from the Fort Hall Business Council, this code will enable the ARM program to begin the process of controlling every aspect of the agricultural chemical application. The ARM program in cooperation with the West Nile Virus Advisory Committee (Tribal Health, Fisheries and Wildlife, Water Resources, University of Idaho Extension, and IHS) has met with specialists in the mosquito and West Nile Virus field and is developing informational material and a control plan for mosquitoes. Resource depletion and the threat of fertilizer and pesticide overuse and misapplication are concerns associated with agricultural production. The Reservations’ surface water, groundwater, soil and air have been polluted as a result of outdated farming practices that continue to pose a potential risk to the Tribal natural and cultural resources. Sheet and gully erosion from dryland farming has washed thousands of tons of topsoil into Fort Hall’s streams. The Ross Fork watershed in particular has been adversely affected by dryland farming and Bannock Creek has also been affected. A number of programs and practices have been developed by the ARM program to provide for sustainable agricultural practices, to encourage restoration of native plants, to offer informational and educational programs, and to protect natural and cultural resources. 3.7.2. Rangeland Of the 544,000 acres that comprise the Reservation, approximately 350,000 acres are characterized as rangeland, including range units, stock trails and the bottoms area. Rangeland is a type of land on which the indigenous vegetation is predominantly grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs and is managed as a natural ecosystem. On the Reservation, rangeland includes natural and seeded grasslands, shrublands, meadows, and riparian areas. Rangelands are interspersed and transition with a mosaic pattern of woodlands including aspen, willow, juniper, mountain mahogany, and with coniferous forest in the upper elevations. Implicit in the Tribes’ land use priorities are maintaining a homeland where both present and future generations of the Tribes will live and flourish. Rangelands provide the foundation for various multiple uses and values to the Tribes. In addition to the main use of livestock grazing some other uses include cultural/social activities such as gathering roots, willow canes, berries, and medicines; forage and habitat for game and nongame wildlife; warm and cold water fisheries; water quality enhancement, groundwater recharge; and outdoor recreation. The Tribes’ 1976 Land Use Policy Ordinance that differentiated agricultural “use areas” included areas designated for grazing and for open space; the 2005 update categories all of these lands as used for grazing. The Tribes have contractual responsibilities for the Range Program from the BIA through Public Law 93-638. The Tribal Range Program operates under the 25 CFR Grazing Permit procedures. The Tribes have also enacted a Livestock Ordinance that provides specific

29

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

rules for governing grazing on the Tribal Range (LWOR2-S2, Section 800). The Tribal Range Department includes conditions and stipulations that the lessees must follow when they sign their grazing permit contracts. The Fort Hall Business Council, the Land Use Policy Commission, and the Tribal Range Department work cooperatively to approve stocking rates, and award the allocation preferences for Tribal member and non-tribal producers. Livestock grazing on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is administered with 5-year grazing permits. New permits are awarded every 5 years on the basis of competitive bidding. Minimum bid rates are determined for Tribal Members and non-tribal members by an official appraisal that is then adopted by the Fort Hall Business Council and the Land Use Policy Commission and implemented by the Tribal Range Program. The bulk of the lands on the Reservation are used primarily for grazing purposes by local ranchers that pay for the rights to graze animals units on the range. The cost of permits is determined by the animal units monthly (AUM) that will be on the range. The majority of the range is utilized and specific sites are in need of noxious weed control. A range improvement fee is also charged for construction and maintenance of range improvements (e.g., fences and water developments). Maintenance of range improvements and oversight of grazing utilization is conducted by the Tribal Range Program. The Tribal Fish and Game Department oversees permittee compliance for numbers of livestock moved onto the range and enforcement of the Livestock Ordinance. Fourteen separate Range Units are permitted and managed for livestock grazing on the Reservation consisting of both Tribal rangeland and allotted rangeland. Livestock grazing within the Reservation is managed by the Tribal Range Department to provide sustainable yields of forage that when used properly will maintain rangeland health, and maintain animal health and growth. Range units, season of use, and AUMs are described in Table 2. In addition to livestock permits on grazing units, the Tribal Range Department also issues crossing permits to cross the Reservation lands with herds of sheep and cattle moving onto or off of adjacent state and federal lands. Crossing permits are used both in the spring and fall and allow operators to move their livestock across Reservation lands within designated stock driveways for up to three days. Approximately 40 crossing permits are issued annually. Table 2. Range Units on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Range Unit Number
1 3 6A 6B 6C 6D 10 21 23 25 26 27 27A 28 TOTAL

Acres
22,652 114,067 8,607 26,112 16,501 4,417 18,473 1,170 18,617 19,866 13,341 35,459 1,119 6,500 306,901

Grazing Season of Use
Apr 15 – Oct 15 Apr 15 – Sept 15 Apr 15 – Sept 15 May 01 – Nov 01 June 01 – Nov 01 May 15 – Oct 01 May 01 – Oct 15 May 01 – Oct 01 May 01 – Nov 01 May 01 – Oct 15 Apr 15 – Oct 15 May 01 – Nov 01 June 01 – Nov 01 May 15 – Oct 15

Animal Unit Months (AUM)
3,775 19,011 1,435 4,352 1,941 609 3,359 202 1,692 1,987 1,779 4,728 140 560 45,459

Animal Units
629 3,802 287 725 388 135 611 40 282 361 296 788 28 112 8,462

30

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Management of Tribal rangelands is based upon a balanced use of available vegetation between domestic and wild herbivores that is compatible with properly functioning resource conditions and Tribal values. The overutilization of lands and degradation of water resources by livestock is an ever increasing threat on the Reservation. During the range season of 2000, there were over 9,000 head of livestock grazing in the various range units, privately permitted allotted lands on the Reservation. Most of these were through range permits through the BIA Range Management Department. In 2002, the Tribes contracted the Range Management Program from the BIA, and are currently working to update and revise the outdated Range Management Plan. In many of the range units inadequate range management practices have resulted in damage to riparian areas on perennial and ephemeral streams. The degradation of riparian areas, has contributed to water quality issues, such as increased stream bank erosion and sedimentation leading to increased summer water temperatures, decreases in available trout spawning areas and egg hatching success; changes in macro invertebrate communities, and reduced stream primary production. In other areas of the range units, the productivity and general healthiness of the range is good, but additional coordination with other Tribal resource department sis necessary to improve management strategies. Additional concerns are the current drought conditions, high wildfire danger, adequate water availability, noxious and invasive weeds, and cultural resources. Riparian areas and wetlands often produce 10 to 15 times the amounts of forage compared to drier upland sites and as such are especially important to livestock grazing. Because livestock tend to congregate in these areas, the vegetation is utilized more intensely than on adjacent upland sites. Grazing can have substantial effects on vegetation and soils, resulting in decreased vigor and biomass and alteration of species composition and diversity. Improper grazing of riparian areas can change and reduce riparian vegetation, result in streambed widening, alter water flows and velocity, and decrease water quality. Changes to water quality can include increased water temperatures, nutrients, suspended sediments, and bacterial counts. Goals that will be in the new Range Management Plan to address some of these issues are described below. Goals for livestock management include: Continue to manage livestock grazing on the Reservation as a sustainable and economically beneficial form of agriculture that is compatible with a wide array of other sustainable uses of the rangeland resources; Implement grazing management plans to provide necessary periodic rest or deferment from grazing during the early growing season in upland areas and during the latter part of the growing season in riparian areas, and; Educate and inform livestock lessees regarding proper grazing management and effective livestock herding practices to achieve riparian area management objectives. Rangelands are subject to unpredictable disturbances, both natural and human-caused, that can impact the short-term and long-term productivity and site stability of the vegetation resources. The Tribal Range Department responds to these events (such as wildfire, drought, insect or disease epidemics) with management adjustments and rehabilitation plans to reduce or offset the impacts to rangeland health and rangeland users. There is a long history of large wildfires on Fort Hall rangelands. Large wildfires are frequently indicative of heavy fuel loads. Livestock grazing can be used as an effective tool to reduce vegetative fine fuels by harvesting grasses and forbs that create hazardous wildfire conditions when left standing dry. The Tribal Range Department will work to develop flexible grazing strategies to target hazardous wildfire fuels on an annual basis in response to annual growing conditions and according to pre-suppression plans for critical habitat or residential protection. 31

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Data and information regarding the status and changes in rangeland resources resulting from applied management and natural or human disturbances are needed by the Tribes’ resource managers to assure fulfillment of the obligation to preserve Indian sovereignty for future generations. Range management includes long and short term observations and measurements of vegetation and soil resources as the basis for range management planning. Monitoring studies that address specific statements or quantitative objectives for the desired future conditions for soil, vegetation, water quality, and species diversity are used to evaluate the success and compatibility of range management and land use strategies. Monitoring plans are currently being written as part of the Range Management Plan. That plan will include goals for implementing and maintaining short and long term monitoring plans that include participation and cooperation with livestock lessees and/or wildlife biologists as appropriate to conduct annual evaluations of compliance with permit conditions; making short term adjustments to livestock management; making informed and documented assessments of progress toward long term goals; and revising management plans and/or goals for desired vegetation conditions. One of the problems facing rangelands on the Reservation is invasion by noxious weeds and other invasive, non-native species. The sites most vulnerable to weed invasion occur primarily in disturbed areas such as roadsides, areas adjacent to agricultural fields, and other areas where supplemental water from runoff favors plants that are fast growing and prolific seed producers, characteristics that are typical of invasive species. To address these conditions the Tribal Range Department will: Implement plans and treatments to contain, reduce, or eliminate existing noxious and invasive plant infestations that threaten multiple uses on rangeland and diminish biodiversity; Participate with adjacent landowners and land management agencies to improve technologies to manage noxious and invasive plants, and; Incorporate measures to achieve and/or maintain proper functioning condition on all perennial streams throughout the Reservation. The new RMP will also contain goals for wildlife/livestock interactions including:    Developing a shared vision of desired future conditions for vegetation species composition with wildlife biologists based upon ecological site potential, natural shrub and tree overstory dynamics (i.e. fire), current conditions, and other multiple uses; Maintaining an integrated, cooperative approach to resource planning, management, monitoring, and evaluation of ecological conditions with Tribal Wildlife Biologists; and Developing cooperative monitoring procedures to ensure consistency and compatibility of data used to evaluate rangeland vegetation, wildlife and domestic livestock herbivory, and the status of wildlife population trends.

3.7.3. Fort Hall Bottoms The Fort Hall Bottoms is a unique resource area for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes that is used for several practices and purposes. The Fort Hall Bottoms consist of approximately 36,000 acres of lush spring-fed natural grassland meadows and wetlands bordering the Snake River (Figure 7). Historically, tribal members lived in the Bottoms area and utilized the resources for cultural, spiritual, gathering purposes and agricultural practices. Many tribal members continue to gather plants and harvest animals from the Bottoms for cultural and spiritual practices as well as for food and medicinal supplies. The Bottoms are also utilized for recreational purposes including hunting, fishing, swimming, camping, etc. The Bottoms area, which is tribally owned in common and to which individual Indians receive haying assignments, is used by various Tribal programs, departments, and individual interests. 32

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

These include Range Program, Fish and Game Department, Agriculture Resource Management Program, Tribal Roads Department, Land Use Department, Land Use Policy Commission, Fish and Wild Life Department, Buffalo Enterprises, Wildlife and Big Game Department, Cattlemen, Horse Owners, Hunter and Fishermen and Individual Recreational, Traditional and Spiritual Tribal Members. Tribal member cattle are allowed on the Bottoms the first week of October to the fifth of May every year. In the fall, non-tribal cattle from Range Units 3 and 6a are trailed to the Bottoms. Non-tribal cattle can remain on the Bottoms for a time period designated by the Land Use Commission and the Fort Hall Business Council. This time period consists of a minimum of two weeks to one month and varies due to forage availability and climatic conditions. Non-tribal members pay the minimum appraised bid rate as approved by the Fort Hall Business Council and the Land Use Policy Commission to utilize this grazing resource. Figure 7. Location of the Fort Hall Bottoms within the Reservation.

In general livestock grazing occurs on the Fort Hall Bottoms during the winter on feedlots/hay meadows. Heavy use on feedlots during the winter in the Fort Hall Bottoms has resulted in loss of palatable woody vegetation (e.g., cottonwood, willow, etc.) and riparian area function. During the spring and summer livestock are moved to the uplands and mountainous areas. Most riparian areas on the Fort Hall Bottoms are utilized by livestock and use has affected riparian area function. Some aspen and mountain shrub communities have also undergone high utilization rates resulting in less productive and sustainable plant communities.

33

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Hay harvesting activities occur during the summer and fall primarily on the Fort Hall Bottoms. Harvested hay is normally stored for winter use and/or sold. The density of noxious/invasive weeds is high in most hay fields. Over 30 Tribal cattlemen utilize the Bottoms for hay meadows and feed yards. These feed yards do not follow a commercial design for growing and finishing cattle but are utilized for winter feeding and haying purposes. Tribal cattlemen are assigned feed yards and/or hay meadows every five years to winter cattle. Many stay within the family indefinitely. The hay meadows are harvested for one cutting of grass hay. Tribal members are not charged for these uses. Tribal member cattle are allowed on the Bottoms the first week of October to the fifth of May every year. In the fall, non-tribal cattle from range units 3 and 6a are trailed to the Bottoms. Non-tribal cattle can remain on the Bottoms for a time period designated by the Land Use Commission and the Fort Hall Business Council. This time period consists of a minimum of two weeks to one month and varies due to forage availability and climatic conditions. Non-tribal members pay the minimum high bid rate to utilize this grazing resource. Currently, the bid rate is $11.50/AUM. Many livestock grazing permit holders use forage produced on the forest to meet their year-round grazing needs. Some Tribal resource specialists have indicated that heavy livestock grazing has damaged soils and riparian and upland vegetation and conflicts with wildlife and fisheries. Livestock grazing has been implicated in declining reproduction of cottonwood and aspen communities and degradation of water quality in streams supporting cold-water biota (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Approximately 300-400 hundred wild horses roam the Fort Hall Bottoms. Some of these horses have been claimed and branded by tribal members and are often trained as working or pleasure horses. In the past, family owned wild horses were used as an income source. However, the majority of the horses have not been claimed by legal ownership methods. Safety issues can also arise when wild horses move to more urban areas of the Reservation and interfere with traffic, etc. Currently, there is not an official management program in place for these herds. A more official management program would be of benefit to improve breeding stock, animal health and resource management. Currently horse grazing occurs year around on the Fort Hall Bottoms. Unregulated horse grazing has resulted in inbreeding and increased population levels. The number of horses on the Reservation is unknown, but likely ranges from 500-1000 animals. A buffalo herd ranging from approximately 300-400 head (including cows, bulls, yearlings and calves) are managed on the Fort Hall Bottoms. Buffalo grazing is confined to two pastures (north and south) in the Fort Hall Bottoms and both pastures are grazed year around, to at least some extent. The buffalo are contained in pastures located on the middle side on the Northeast end of the Bottoms. A tribal member manages the herd under the Tribal Enterprise program. The herd is fed a diet of grass and alfalfa hay through the winter months. Buffalo are also used for spiritual and cultural practices. In addition, hunts are sold to non-tribal members and buffalo are harvested for a variety of meat products for distribution at local stores and restaurants. Currently, the Bottoms area is not managed intensively. Areas of concern that would benefit from best management practices would be noxious and invasive weed control, development of off-site water to improve riparian area use and management of the wild horse herd. Heavy use at places along Spring Creek and Clear Creek has resulted in loss of riparian vegetation, increase erosion, and the spread of noxious/invasive weeds. Currently the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is seeking to improve riparian area function through fencing along streams and noxious/invasive weed treatments (Bannock Ecological 2007).

34

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

3.7.4. Commercial Areas The new Land Use Regulations include areas zoned for economic development or commercial use. This includes local and interstate commercial development. The Draft Comprehensive Plan contains an economic development plan and provides details about the features that must be addressed for economic development to succeed on the Reservation. In order to create the conditions for economic development, usable sites for commercial and industrial activity need to be available. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have a number of sites designated for commercial and industrial activity, but not all of them are ready for use. Longterm economic development objectives would include withdrawing sites and providing them with road and rail access, water, sewer and electric utilities, communications infrastructure and public services such as rapid-response police and fire protection to ensure sites are available for development. The Tribes would also work to ensure that there is an adequate utilities capacity available, including roads and bridges and communications infrastructure among other things. The Tribes also recognize that economic development requires trained, reliable labor. Tribal government will need to assist in this aspect of economic development by providing training and subsidization of apprenticeships for workers in all trades. Lack of care facilities for children and the elderly is a barrier to employment for many workers and Tribal government would also be solicited for assistance by providing child and elderly care. Good governmental practices are needed to create a high level of institutional capacity that will show up as membership support. The internal bureaucracy of the Tribal government must ensure a high degree of accountability and credibility to retain that support. The Tribes provide a wide range of services to tribally owned businesses and assist in securing SBA and other financing, and should continue to do so. In addition, the Tribes would encourage and support regional economic development activity through recruitment of outside employers. Tax relief and other concessions could be provided to bring a major employer in. The Tribes would support providing technical support and easy-terms financing to new start-up businesses. The Draft Comprehensive Plan includes a Master Plan for the Exit 80 area. The Master Plan serves as a guide for development and designates land suitable for the proposed expansion. The overall planning concept is to resolve issues and make improvements in the use of existing sites and developed areas, rather than start over at new locations. Alternatives vary from improvements to existing facilities (lowest cost and lowest long-term return) to completely new facilities and design as a destination resort (highest cost and higher long-term returns). Regional economic development at the Pocatello Airport is also proposed as part of the larger economic development plan. There are a number of sites located on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation along Interstate 86 and Union Pacific railroad mainline, centered on the Pocatello Airport. Collectively the Pocatello Airport and the nearby former FMC/Astaris sites present unique opportunities for transport-related and transport-dependent industries and services. These opportunities would create employment and income as well as improving the Tribes’ relations with surrounding communities. Other sites considered for development opportunities in the economic development plan are the Exit 89 (South Blackfoot Exit), Rainbow Beach, and Fort Hall sites (U.S. Highway 91 – Fort Hall Enterprise Development).

35

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

3.7.5. Rural/Residential Development This use area is designated primarily for Tribal member housing in the new Land Use Regulations. Additional housing is needed on the Reservation for Tribal members. The Comprehensive Plan contains plans for housing that would provide each community member decent, affordable, and safe housing on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, according to their needs. Housing would be developed in the areas identified for this use in the new Land Use Regulations. The plan includes a provision that Tribal housing and homesite assignments will be made within one quarter mile of the domestic water lines. Because some of this area is in agricultural use at this time a further refinement of the areas to be developed for housing will be required. The Tribal government would be responsible for creating the conditions under which Tribal members can build or buy decent housing for themselves. Providing Tribal housing to extended families, where desired, as a way or preserving social structure and reducing social problems in tribally-provided housing would be supported. Housing projects would need to take into consideration such factors as soils, water resources, infrastructure availability, etc. In determining siting locations, effects to transportation, infrastructure, public safety, soils, water resources, wildlife, etc. would be analyzed. A combined suitability and locational analysis would be used for choosing sites. Natural suitability is based primarily on soil conditions; the two factors considered are limitations for construction of homes without basements, and limitations for septic tank drainfields (areas with sewer service are exempted from the later constraint). Locational considerations include access to transportation and utility infrastructure, as well as neighboring uses. 3.7.6. Open Space (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) Open space areas are scattered throughout the Reservation and include parks, recreational areas, and undesignated open space areas. These areas have been reserved from agriculture, mining, and other uses for the recreational use and enjoyment by Tribal members and the general public. 3.7.7. Mining Areas A number of locations on the Reservation possess surface and subsurface minerals (e.g., phosphate) and mineral materials (e.g., sand, gravel). Phosphate mining (primarily for fertilizer) has been an economic factor in southeastern Idaho for over 100 years. The Gay Mine was developed on the Reservation in 1946 and was the largest phosphate producing mine in Idaho until it ceased operation in 1993. Annual ore production reached 2 million tons annually at peak extraction rates in the 1970s. Areas zoned for mining under the new Land Use Regulations are currently used primarily for range and wildlife habitat, but could become developed at some future time.

3.8.

Physical Resources

In addition to the use areas designated by the new Land Use Regulations, there are a number of physical resources that would be affected by actions in the different areas. 3.8.1. Air In 1988 a Tribal Air Quality Program was established on the Reservation through a grant from the EPA. The program's mission is to measure air quality parameters, including radiation, particulate matter, and meteorological conditions on the Reservation, and in coordination with state and federal agencies, provide notification of air-borne toxic releases or elevated levels of 36

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

radiation. Providing safe air quality is consistent with protection of treaty rights, including the health and welfare of people of the Tribes. In 1993 the Tribes enacted two Tribal ordinances to protect air quality on the Reservation:   The Air Quality Protection Act Rules and Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution.
Tribal Policy Statement on Air Quality
It is the policy of the Fort Hall Business Council of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation to preserve, protect and enhance the air quality of the Reservation for current and future generations in order to protect the health, safety, economic security and environment of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and members thereof and all residents of the Reservation. Air is an essential resource that must be protected from harmful levels of pollution. Improving air quality is a matter of Reservation-wide concern and is in the public interest.

These ordinances were approved by the Fort Hall Business Council and the U.S. Department of Interior, and include all the elements necessary to control outside air pollution on the Reservation. The Tribal Air Ordinances were reviewed and approved by EPA through the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) and the Tribes have received Treatment As State (TAS) status for several parts of the Clean Air Act, including Sections 105, 106, 107, and 505. In order to provide consistency with Federal standards, the ordinances adopted the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the six major criteria pollutants:       Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) Carbon monoxide (CO) Ozone (O3) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Lead (Pb) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

In addition, the Federal Air Rules for Reservations, adopted in March, 2005 by the EPA, apply within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation in order to protect human health and the environment. These rules include limits on visible emissions, fugitive dust, open burning, as well as agricultural and forest burning. This Rulemaking also requires that industry and other emission sources register with EPA, and provide annual emission estimates to them. As part of their responsibilities, the Air Quality Program participates in numerous programs. The air quality staff operates the Environmental Monitoring Station (EMS) located across from the Tribal Museum Building that includes a meteorological station, a radioactive tritium sampler, a Hi-Volume Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) air sampler, and a radio-iodine sampler. The site also features a display board that provides current weather and radiological data for Tribal members and the public. The information is also available at www.shobanairquality.com and www.idahoop.org/newop. Particulate monitors (PM10 Hi-Vols), continuous air monitoring samplers (TEOMS), and a meteorological station are also operated by the air quality staff near the FMC and Simplot plants just outside of Pocatello – the FMC plant was a commercial elemental phosphate production facility that is now inactive and the Simplot Don Plant is a 37

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

fertilizer manufacturing complex. The staff also operate a monitoring site at Ballard Road, just east of Highway 91, initiated in April of 2008. This includes two PM10 Federal Reference Method PM2.5 monitors, and two Hi-Vol PM10 Federal Reference Monitors. The monitoring data is collected and quality assured and submitted to EPA where it is stored. The data summaries can be accessed by the public through the EPA web-pages, or summaries made available upon request by the Air Quality staff. Because the Tribal monitors recorded several PM10 violations in the late 1990s, the EPA designated a section of the Reservation, near the phosphorus plants, as the Fort Hall NonAttainment Area (FHNAA), which is under the jurisdiction of the Tribes and EPA (Figure 8). The adjacent area is known as the Portneuf Valley Non-Attainment Area (PVNAA). The high 24-hour PM10 concentrations in the non-attainment areas have been associated with wintertime stagnation episodes characterized by a deep stable layer, a strong subsidence inversion during the day, cold temperatures, light winds, high relative humidity, fog, and on many occasions snow cover. Chemical analyses of PM10 samples collected during these episodes indicate a large fraction of the mass consists of secondary aerosols including ammonium nitrate, monoammonium phosphate, and ammonium sulfate. During nocturnal periods, the light winds and stable conditions inhibit dispersion, reducing the plume rise from buoyant industrial sources. The strong inversion that forms during the day traps pollutants near the surface, and the light winds provide little ventilation. The cold temperatures and high relative humidity of wintertime episodes favor the formation of nitrate particles. Fog is a common feature of most of the wintertime episodes and wet chemical mechanisms are thought to promote the formation of sulfate and phosphate aerosols (IDEQ 2004).

38

Figure 8. Non-Attainment Area Boundaries.

Because of the chemical constituents determined from the PM10 analysis, the EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address emissions from the FMC facility – the main source of the emissions – and to ensure that air quality in the FHNAA meets the PM10 standards. The FIP contains emission limits, work practice requirements, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that EPA believes represent reasonably available control technology (RACT). The FMC facility announced in late 2001 that they would cease operations by December 31, 2001; the actual date of closure was December 11, 2001. The plant is no longer in operation and is undergoing decontamination and decommissioning (IDEQ 2004). Between 2000 and 2005 a decrease in emissions for the industrial source category was seen across the area (Figure 9); this was mainly due to the closure of the FMC facility. As modeled, the industrial emissions for all pollutants represented are predicted to decrease through the 20-year horizon after the 2000 base year emissions. The FIP does not take into consideration any other sources in the non-attainment area.

39

Figure 9. Emission Inventory Trends for the Industrial Source Category.

The IDEQ 2004 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the PVNAA indicates that the main PM10 sources in the Pocatello area are geologic, secondary aerosol, primary particulate from phosphate industry sources, residential woodburning, and mobile sources. The geologic portion includes road dust, while the mobile source is tail pipe emissions. The primary PM10 emissions from automobiles are insignificant; however, the automobiles emit significant NOx emissions, which are precursors of secondary ammonium nitrate. Secondary aerosols make significant contributions during the winter stagnation periods (IDEQ 2004). In 2000, PM10 in the PVNAA was primarily from paved roads’ re-entrained dust and the largest source of PM2.5 was agricultural windblown dust. The largest source of NH3 and SO2 in the PVNAA was the J. R. Simplot Don Plant. In contrast, within the general area the largest source of NH3 was livestock (IDEQ 2004). Simplot air emissions include Fluoride from cooling towers that are deposited on downwind soils and flora, resulting in historical exceedences of the State Fluoride standard. Because of the proximity of Fort Hall to Pocatello the sources and conclusions generally apply. However, because Fort Hall is a less urbanized area, differences exist; fewer emissions from mobile sources would be expected and there would be greater contributions from road dust and agricultural operations. Typically, agricultural operations are generically classified as soil preparation, soil maintenance, and crop harvesting operations. Reasonably available control measures and BMPs have been implemented to reduce windblown dust from agricultural sources. Techniques for reducing PM10 from road dust have also been implemented in the area. Improvement in the air quality in the non-attainment areas has been the result of permanent and enforceable control measures, in addition to the closure of the FMC facility in 2001. The Tribes anticipate that the area will soon be designated as an attainment area as no violations have been recorded for several years. However, because the area is currently a non-attainment area, new industries that emit particulate matter may be required to install additional emission controls before operating. These control measures may be costly to new industries and therefore it is important for economic development purposes to continue to monitor air quality and work towards redesignation of the area as an attainment area. The Tribal Air Quality Department will

40

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

continue to monitor pollutants and require reasonable limits on emissions from existing emission sources as well as new industries established on the Reservation. In addition to its monitoring responsibilities, the Tribal Air Quality Department is responsible for regulating and permitting emission sources on the Reservation. Emissions are restricted by the air quality ordinances as follows, “Notwithstanding the general and specific emission standards, limitations, and regulations contained in this Section, no person shall cause or permit emissions from any air contaminant source whatsoever which cause or are likely to cause injury or detriment to the public, the environment, or to business or property” (Sections 4.01 and 4.02). The Tribal Air Quality Regulations are similar to the State of Idaho, and include permitting requirements, visible emission rules, fugitive dust controls, open burning rules, to control air emissions on the Reservation. The Tribal Air Quality Department also assists the fire department when there are plans for prescribed fires or by reporting meteorological forecasts and conditions in the case of wildland fires on the Reservation. The Tribal Air Quality Department has participated in a number of studies over the years including a source apportionment study with EPA in 2000, to determine sources of particulate matter causing the violations, and a saturation study in 2006 to determine particulate levels at various locations on the Reservation. The Tribal Air Quality Department also cooperated with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in a health study that showed a correlation between clinic visits at Fort Hall and elevated particulate matter as recorded on Tribal monitors. The Tribes also participate in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), which is made up of western states, federal agencies, and tribes, and was established in 1997 to protect air quality in the region. This voluntary organization is administered jointly by the Western Governors' Association (WGA) and the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). The group is implementing regional planning processes to improve visibility in all Western Class I areas by providing the technical and policy tools needed by states and tribes to implement the federal regional haze rule. The majority of the Reservation is a Class II airshed which allows for moderate deterioration associated with moderate, well-controlled industrial, and population growth; however, the Mount Putnam and Bannock Peak areas have historically been managed by the Tribes as sensitive areas. Several resolutions have been passed restricting activities in these areas in order to protect their values. 3.8.2. Soils The Fort Hall Indian Reservation and a small area of Indian-controlled land south of the Reservation along Bannock Creek make up the soil survey area described in this section (USDA SCS et al. 1977). The soil associations in the Fort Hall survey area have been grouped into six general kinds of landscape for broad interpretative purposes. Each of the broad groups and their included soil associations are described in the following pages. The brief profile description given for each major soil is typical for that soil. Nearly Level to Moderately Sloping Soils on Bottom Lands, Low Terraces, and Alluvial Fans The soils in this group formed in alluvium and are generally very deep. These soils are mainly on bottom lands near the American Falls Reservoir and the lower part of valleys. Elevation ranges from 4,350 feet near the American Falls Reservoir to 5,200 feet in mountain valleys. The 3.8.2.1.

41

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

mean annual precipitation ranges from 8 to 14 inches, the mean annual soil temperature ranges from 47° to 52° F, and the frost-free season ranges from 100 to 120 days. The soils are used for range, meadow hay, wildlife, and recreation. Some areas are used for irrigated and dry farmed crops. Three of the associations of the Fort Hall Area are in this group. They make up 9 percent of the survey area (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Snake-Philbon Association Nearly level, deep and very deep silt loams and peats on bottom lands This association consists of somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained soils, mainly on bottom lands near the American Falls Reservoir. These soils formed in alluvium and partly decomposed plant remains. Vegetation is mainly sedges, rushes, and other water tolerant plants. Elevation is about 4,400 feet. This association makes up about 4 percent of the survey area. It is about 65 percent Snake soils and 15 percent Philbon soils. Snake soils are on low terraces. They have a surface layer of grayish-brown silt loam 8 inches thick. Philbon soils are on low terraces and bottom lands. They have a surface layer of very dark gray peat 22 inches thick. This association is used for range, wildlife, and recreation (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Penoyer-Parehat Association Nearly level and very gently sloping, deep silt loams on bottom lands and low terraces This association consists of well-drained to poorly drained soils. These soils are on bottom lands and low terraces along Bannock Creek south of the community of Fort Hall and along the Portneuf River in the southeastern part of the survey area. These soils formed in alluvium. Vegetation is grasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 5,200 feet. This association makes up about 3 percent of the survey area. It is about 50 percent Penoyer soils and 30 percent Parehat soils. Penoyer soils are on bottom lands along streams. They are light brownish-gray silt loam to a depth of 60 inches. Parehat soils are on low terraces. They have a surface layer of grayish-brown silt loam 9 inches thick. This association generally is used for meadow hay and grazing, and the better drained soils are used for irrigated crops (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Parehat-McDole Association Nearly level to moderately sloping, deep silt loams on low terraces and alluvial fans This association consists of well-drained to poorly drained soils on low terraces and alluvial fans along the Blackfoot River, Lincoln Creek, and Ross Fork Creek. These soils formed in alluvium derived mainly from loess. Vegetation is grasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,350 to 5,200 feet. This association makes up about 2 percent of the survey area. It is about 45 percent Parehat soils and 35 percent McDole soils. Parehat soils are on low terraces. They have a surface layer of grayish-brown silt loam 9 inches thick. McDole soils are on alluvial fans. They have a surface layer of grayish-brown silt loam 10 inches thick. This association is used for irrigated crops and dryfarmed small grain, hay, and pasture (USDA SCS et al. 1977). 3.8.2.2. Nearly Level to Moderately Steep Soils on Alluvial Terraces and Fans The soils in this group formed in very deep alluvium and wind-deposited sandy material underlain by gravel or sand. These soils are mainly along the northwestern part of the area, near the Blackfoot and Snake Rivers and the American Falls Reservoir. Elevation ranges from 4,350 to 4,700 feet. The mean annual precipitation is 9 to 11 inches, the mean annual soil temperature is 47° to 53° F, and the frost-free season ranges from 100 to 120 days. Most of the irrigated crops of the survey area are grown on the soils in this group. The soils are also used for pasture

42

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

and range. Three of the associations of the Fort Hall area are in this group. They make up about 14 percent of the survey area (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Paniogue-Declo Association Nearly level to moderately sloping loamy and silt loamy on alluvial fans and terraces This association consists of well-drained soils on alluvial fans and terraces along the Blackfoot and Snake Rivers. These soils formed in mixed alluvium. Vegetation is mostly bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 4,700 feet. This association makes up about 8 percent of the survey area. It is about 45 percent Paniogue soils and 40 percent Declo soils. Paniogue soils are nearly level to moderately sloping. They have a surface layer of grayishbrown and light brownish-gray loam 7 inches thick. Declo soils are nearly level to gently sloping and undulating. They have a surface layer of grayishbrown loam 5 inches thick. This association is used for irrigated crops (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Paniogue-Broncho Association Nearly level to moderately steep loamy and gravelly loamy on alluvial fans and terraces This association consists of well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soils on alluvial fans and terraces near the mouth of the Portneuf River. These soils formed in alluvium underlain by gravel at a depth of 10 to 40 inches. Vegetation is grasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,350 to 4,700 feet. This association makes up about 1 percent of the survey area. It is about 50 percent Paniogue soils and 25 percent Broncho soils. Paniogue soils are nearly level to moderately sloping and are on alluvial fans and terraces. They have a surface layer of grayishbrown and light brownish-gray loam 7 inches thick. The nearly level to gently sloping Broncho soils are on ridgetops, and the moderately sloping to moderately steep Broncho soils are on breaks of alluvial fans and terraces. They have a surface layer of light brownish-gray gravelly loam 6 inches thick. This association is used for irrigated crops and for grazing (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Tindahay-Escalante Association Nearly level to strongly sloping loamy coarse sands and sandy loamy on alluvial fans and terraces This association consists of well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soils on alluvial fans and terraces near the mouths of the Bannock Creek and the Portneuf River and in an area north of Ross Fork Creek. The soils formed in sandy alluvium and eolian sand. Vegetation is bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 4,700 feet. This association makes up about 5 percent of the survey area. It is about 55 percent Tindahay soils and 20 percent Escalante soils. Tindahay soils are on sandy terraces of alluvial and eolian deposits. They have a surface layer of grayishbrown loamy coarse sand 2 inches thick underlain by pale-brown, brown, light brownish-gray, and light-gray stratified sandy loam or sand to a depth of 60 inches. Escalante soils are on alluvial terraces. They have a surface layer of grayish-brown sandy loam 2 inches thick underlain by stratified light brownish-gray sandy loam and fine sandy loam to a depth of 60 inches. This association is used for irrigated crops, dryfarmed pasture, and range (USDA SCS et al. 1977). 3.8.2.3. Nearly Level to Very Steep Wind-Deposited Soils on Low Plateaus The soils in this group formed in very deep eolian sand on low plateaus. These soils are northeast of the community of Fort Hall. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 5,000 feet. The mean annual precipitation is 9 to 11 inches, the mean annual soil temperature is 50° to 54° F, and the

43

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

frost-free season ranges from 100 to 120 days. The soils are used mainly for grazing. One of the associations of the Fort Hall Area is in this group. It makes up 8 percent of the survey area (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Quincy-Feltham Association Nearly level to gently sloping sands and loamy sands on low plateaus This association consists of well-drained and excessively drained soils on uplands northeast of the community of Fort Hall. These soils formed in sandy eolian deposits. Vegetation is sparse grasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 5,000 feet. This association makes up about 8 percent of the survey area. It is about 60 percent Quincy soils and 20 percent Feltham soils. Quincy soils are mainly on low plateaus. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown sand about 3 inches thick. This layer is underlain by stratified, dark grayish-brown, grayish-brown, and light-gray sand and coarse sand to a depth of 60 inches. Feltham soils are on wind-worked sandy terraces and uplands. They have a surface layer of brown loamy sand 4 inches thick underlain by brown loamy sand and sandy loam to a depth of 32 inches and light-gray and palebrown loam to a depth of 60 inches. This association is used for grazing (USDA SCS et al. 1977). 3.8.2.4. Nearly Level to Very Steep Soils on High Fans and Low Dissected Plateaus The soils in this group formed in loess on high alluvial fans and low dissected plateaus. Large areas of these soils are in the vicinity of Bannock Creek and on the lower terraces and foot hills in the eastern part of the area. Elevation ranges from 4,300 to 6,500 feet. The mean annual precipitation is 8 to 17 inches, the mean annual soil temperature is 42° to 52° F, and the frostfree season ranges from 75 to 120 days. The soils are used mainly for grazing, but some dryfarmed small grain and irrigated crops are grown. Three of the associations of the Fort Hall Area are in this group. They make up about 45 percent of the survey area (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Pocatello- Wheeler-Portneuf Association Nearly level to very steep silt loamy on loess-mantled basalt plains and dissected low plateaus This association consists of well-drained silty soils at lower elevations in the major valleys of the survey area. These soils formed in loess and contain carbonates except for a few inches near the surface. Vegetation is mainly bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,500 to 5,400 feet. This association makes up about 19 percent of the survey area. It is about 40 percent Pocatello soils, 20 percent Wheeler soils, and 15 percent Portneuf soils. Pocatello soils are on high fans and dissected, loess-mantled plateaus. They have a surface layer of light brownishgray silt loam 4 inches thick underlain by light brownish-gray, pale-brown, and light-gray silt loam to a depth of 60 inches. Wheeler soils are on south-facing side slopes of dissected plateaus. They have a surface layer of light brownish-gray silt loam 3 inches thick underlain by light brownish-gray and very pale brown silt loam to a depth of 60 inches. Portneuf soils are on loessmantled basalt plains and low benches. They have a surface layer of light brownish-gray silt loam 5 inches thick underlain by a light brownish-gray silt loam 10 inches thick. This association is used for irrigated crops and for grazing (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Neeley-Rexburg Association Nearly level to steep silt loamy on dissected loess-mantled plateaus This association consists of well-drained silty soils on loess-mantled high fans and dissected plateaus along Bannock Creek and east of Blackfoot and Fort Hall. These soils formed in loess

44

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

and have an accumulation of carbonates between depths of 10 and 35 inches. Vegetation is grasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,900 to 6,200 feet. The association makes up 24 percent of the survey area. It is about 45 percent Neeley soils and 30 percent Rexburg soils. Neeley soils are at lower elevations on south-facing side slopes. They have a surface layer of grayish-brown and brown silt loam 7 inches thick. Rexburg soils are on north-facing side slopes at lower elevations and on ridgetops and south-facing side slopes at higher elevations. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown silt loam 12 inches thick. Most of this association is used for grazing, but the Rexburg soils are well suited to dryfarmed winter wheat (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Lanoak Association Nearly level to strongly sloping silt loams on loess-mantled mountain foot slopes This association consists of well-drained silty soils at higher elevations at the base of mountains. One area is north of Bannock Peak in the southwest corner of the survey area, and the other areas are on uplands in the eastern part of the area. These soils formed in loess and have carbonates below a depth of 35 to 55 inches. Vegetation is mostly bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 5,000 to 6,500 feet. This association makes up about 2 percent of the survey area. It is about 70 percent Lanoak soils. Lanoak soils are at the base of mountains. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown silt loam 22 inches thick. This association is used for grazing or for dryfarmed crops (USDA SCS et al. 1977). 3.8.2.5. Nearly Level to Steep Soils on Uplands and Mountain Foot Slopes The soils in this group formed in shallow to very deep loess and residuum from sedimentary rocks on benches, uplands, and mountain foot slopes. They are on uplands east of Bannock Creek and in the vicinity of Higham Peak, northeast of the community of Fort Hall. Elevation ranges from 4,900 to 8,500 feet. The mean annual precipitation is 11 to 20 inches, the mean annual soil temperature is 35° to 50° F, and the frost-free season ranges from 30 to 110 days. The soils are used mainly for grazing, but some areas are dryfarmed. Two of the associations of the Fort Hall Area are in this group. They make up about 9 percent of the survey area (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Neeley-Hondoho Association Nearly level to steep silt loams and very cobbly loams on loess-mantled benches and uplands This association consists of well-drained soils on uplands east of Bannock Creek and southeast of the community of Fort Hall. Neeley soils formed in loess, and Hondoho soils formed in loess and residuum from quartzite. Vegetation is bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 4,900 to 6,500 feet. This association makes up about 3 percent of the survey area. It is about 40 percent Neeley soils and 30 percent Hondoho soils. Neeley soils are at lower elevations. They have a surface layer of grayish-brown and brown silt loam about 7 inches thick. Hondoho soils are at higher elevations. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown and grayishbrown very cobbly loam 12 inches thick. Hondoho soils and small areas of Neeley soils are used for grazing. Larger areas of Neeley soils are used for dryfarmed grain (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Nagitsy-Nielsen-Lanoak Association Nearly level to steep gravelly, stony, and rocky loams and silt loams on uplands and mountain foot slopes This association consists of well-drained soils that are mainly stony, gravelly, and rocky. These soils are in one large area in the vicinity of Higham Peak in the northeastern part of the survey

45

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

area. The soils formed mainly in residuum and colluvium from quartzite and sandstone and some loess. Vegetation is dominantly bunchgrasses and shrubs. Elevation ranges from 5,000 to 8,500 feet. The mean annual precipitation is 15 to 20 inches, the mean annual soil temperature is 35° to 47° F, and the frost-free season ranges from 30 to 95 days. This association makes up about 6 percent of the survey area. It is about 30 percent Nagitsy soils, 20 percent Nielsen soils, and 15 percent Lanoak soils. Nagitsy soils formed in residuum and colluvium from quartzite and sandstone. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown gravelly loam 23 inches thick. Nielsen soils formed in colluvium and residuum from sandstone and quartzite. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown extremely stony loam 9 inches thick. Lanoak soils formed in loess. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown silt loam 22 inches thick. This association is used mainly for grazing (USDA SCS et al. 1977). 3.8.2.6. Moderately Sloping to Very Steep Soils on Mountains The soils in this group formed in shallow to very deep residuum and colluvium from sedimentary rocks and some surficial loess. These soils are in most mountainous areas in the southern, western, and eastern parts of the area. Elevations range from 4,800 to 8,500 feet. The mean annual precipitation is 11 to 25 inches, the mean annual soil temperature is 35° to 47° F, and the frost-free season ranges from 30 to 110 days. The soils are used for grazing, wildlife, recreation, and watershed. Two of the associations of the Fort Hall area are in this group. They make up about 15 percent of the survey area (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Wahtigup-Highams-Hymas Association Moderately sloping to very steep gravelly to extremely stony loams on mountains This association consists of well-drained and excessively drained soils in mountainous areas of the southern and eastern part of the survey area. These soils formed mainly in colluvium and residuum from limestone. Vegetation is mainly bunchgrasses and shrubs with small areas of aspen and Douglas-fir on northfacing slopes. Elevation ranges from 4,800 to 8,000 feet. This association makes up about 9 percent of the survey area. It is about 30 percent Wahtigup soils, 30 percent Highams soils, and 15 percent Hymas soils. Wahtigup soils formed in colluvium and local alluvium weathered from limestone and some loess. They have a surface layer of grayishbrown gravelly loam 8 inches thick. Highams soils formed in residuum weathered from limestone. They have a surface layer of light brownish gray very gravelly loam 9 inches thick. Hymas soils formed in residuum or colluvium from limestone. They have a surface layer of grayish-brown extremely stony loam 9 inches thick. This association is used for grazing and wildlife (USDA SCS et al. 1977). Moohoo-Nagitsy-Dranyon Association Strongly sloping to steep silt loams, gravelly silt loams, gravelly loams, and stony loams on mountains This association consists of well-drained soils in mountainous areas in the vicinity of Mount Putnam and Bannock Peak. These soils formed in residuum weathered from sedimentary rocks and some admixture of loess. Vegetation is bunchgrasses and shrubs on south-facing slopes and Douglas-fir, aspen, lodgepole pine, pinegrass, snowberry, and Idaho fescue on northfacing slopes. Elevation ranges from 6,000 to 8,500 feet. This association makes up about 6 percent of the survey area. It is about 20 percent Moohoo soils, 20 percent Nagitsy soils, and 15 percent Dranyon soils. Minor soils make up the remaining 45 percent. Moohoo soils are on north-facing side slopes in mountainous areas in the vicinity of Mt. Putnam. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown and brown gravelly silt loam about 11 inches thick. Nagitsy soils are on 46

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

south-facing side slopes. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown gravelly loam about 23 inches thick. Dranyon soils are on north-facing side slopes. They have a surface layer of dark grayish-brown silt loam about 14 inches thick. Nielsen and Pavohroo soils each make up about 10 percent of the association. This association is used for grazing and wildlife. Small acreages of low-quality timber are in patchy, scattered stands, and economical logging is difficult (USDA SCS et al. 1977). 3.8.3. Water Indian water rights stem from the aboriginal lands occupied by the various tribes. These unique water rights were recognized by the United States Supreme Court in the Winters Decision (Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 1908), which determined that Indians had reserved rights to water flowing through, on, and bordering the Reservation. The Fort Hall Indian Reservation is one of the most productive water resource areas in the West. The Reservation is located entirely within the Upper Snake River Basin; consequently all surface water runoff generated on the Reservation eventually drains to the Snake River. The Snake River Basin has long provided substantial resources that sustain the diverse uses of the native Indian tribes including the Shoshone-Bannocks. The significance of these uses is partially reflected in the contemporary values associated with the many culturally sensitive species and geographic areas within the Basin. Various land management practices, such as those associated with hydroelectric projects, have contributed to loss of some crucial resources and reduced the productive capabilities of many resource systems. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ guaranteed continuous use reserves the rights to utilize resources within the region that encompass and include lands of the Snake River Basin. Subsequent to the listing of various salmon and snail species under the Endangered Species Act and the initiation of other conservation efforts in the Basin, the resource is being viewed more and more as a valuable resource that contributes to the overall Pacific Northwest regional conservation framework. The Fort Hall Business Council has recognized the contemporary importance of these rights and resources by advocating certain resource protection and restoration programs and by preserving a harvest opportunity on culturally significant resources necessary to fulfill inherent, contemporary and traditional treaty rights. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes support efforts to conserve, protect, and enhance natural and cultural resources within the Basin and have established their policy to reemphasize previous policy statements and provide new direction with regards to recently initiated Basin actions. In the mid-1980s, the Tribes began negotiation of a major water rights agreement in the Snake River Basin Adjudication to preserve and protect the Tribes’ reserved water rights. From 1986 to 1990, the Tribes entered into negotiations with the State of Idaho and United States to secure water rights for the Reservation to ensure the Tribes had an established water right for agricultural and other uses on the lands reserved by the Executive Order of 1867 and Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868. In 1990, the Tribes reached an agreement that quantified its water rights within the State of Idaho. The “1990 Fort Hall Indian Water Rights Agreement” quantified the Tribes’ water right for the Fort Hall Indian Reservation to waters in upper Snake River Basin in Idaho. Also in 1990, the Tribes received Treatment as a State status from EPA, pursuant to Sections 106 and 518 of the Clean Water Act, and were awarded a grant to build tribal capacity in the area of water quality regulation.

47

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

In 1997 the Tribes adopted the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Water Code which states, “Water resources have cultural, spiritual, social, environmental and economic values that require protection and must guide the appropriate use and management of all resources in the watershed of the Reservation.” Subsequently, the Tribes’ “2007 Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Water Code” was given secretarial approval in 2007. The Tribal Water Code provides for an orderly system for the use, management, and protection of all tribal water rights now and for future uses. The Water Code was enacted to protect Reservation water from over-appropriation, degradation, contamination, exploitation, and any acts injurious to the quantity, quality, or integrity of the water. The Water Code also ensures that residents of the Reservation have sufficient water for cultural, domestic, agricultural, stock, instream, and other uses. The Tribal Water Resources Department (TWRD), which provides technical expertise to a five member Tribal Water Resources Commission (TWRC) appointed by the Fort Hall Business Council, has the primary responsibility of permitting water uses on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The TWRC manages and implements the Water Code through water use permits and licenses of activities or actions affecting Reservation water resources. The TWRD’s Water Quality Program is responsible for establishing, reviewing, implementing, and revising the Tribes’ water quality standards and administering the Tribes’ water quality programs. The Water Quality Program has successfully addressed numerous matters relating to water quality and continues to work on many Tribal activities on the Reservation.
Mission Statement of the Tribal Water Resources Department
The mission of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Water Resources Department and Commission is to develop an integrated, cohesive management system that: coordinates water quantity and water quality considerations in order to protect against surface and groundwater degradation; sets priorities for water use that include: domestic, municipal, cultural, religious, agricultural, wildlife, commercial and industrial purposes; provides for the fair administration of water rights on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, for the present and future, in order to maintain or improve the quality and way of life for all residents of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.

The TWRD has identified several goals to achieve its mission: Promote and develop water quality programs, which preserve tribal culture, protect public health and the environment; Implement provisions the “1990 Fort Hall Indian Water Rights Agreement” and subsequent “1994 Decree Determining Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Right to use water in the Upper Snake River Basin;” Protect and Preserve Shoshone-Bannock Tribes water rights; Promote and develop educational/outreach programs regarding Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Water Resource Activities to Tribal members, Tribal government, and general public; Increase coordination with other Tribal, State, and Federal agencies regarding water resource issues, and; Identify and seek sources of financial support for water management and development. The Reservation is bordered by the Snake and Blackfoot Rivers and is situated over the Snake River Plain Aquifer, one of the richest groundwater sources in the world. The five main hydrological units on the Reservation are the Blackfoot River Basin, the Ross Fork Basin, the Portneuf River Basin, the Bannock Creek Basin, and the Snake River Plain. In addition, two hydrologic features significant to the water resources of the Reservation are Sand Creek and Grays Lake. Sand Creek drains a small area lying between the Snake and Blackfoot Rivers. Grays Lake, for which the Tribes own diversion rights to stored water, drains into Clarks Cut

48

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

which feeds the Blackfoot River Watershed upstream from the Reservation. The Fort Hall Bottoms, located along the northwestern edge of the Gibson Terrace near the northeastern end of American Falls Reservoir, is an area of large groundwater discharge from the Snake River Plain aquifer. Numerous springs exist in the Fort Hall Bottoms area representing one of the most productive springs in the world. The springs are concentrated in two main areas on the Reservation: above the mouth of Spring Creek and near the mouths of the Portneuf River and Ross Fork Creek. Of the five main hydrological units on the Reservation, all are significant sources of surface water with the exception of the Snake River Plain, which does not contribute significantly to surface runoff. Each of these units is briefly described below along with description of groundwater and well resources. 3.8.3.1. Blackfoot River Basin The Blackfoot River forms the Reservation’s northeastern boundary flowing generally east to west to its confluence with the Snake River near the town of Blackfoot. Major tributaries draining the Reservation to the Blackfoot River include (from east to west) Wood Creek, Garden Creek and Lincoln Creek. The Blackfoot River is limited by hydrological modifications including the Government Dam, the Equalizing Dam, and channel realignment. In 2004 the Tribes’ Water Quality Program found that nutrient and sediment concentrations in the reaches above the Equalizing Reservoir were above the targets set in the Blackfoot River TMDL and the reaches below the Equalizing Reservoir were affected by dewatering and high temperature. In 2005 a Reservation-wide bioassessment study found that the majority of the streams in the Blackfoot Watershed were in the bottom half of the streams assessed with Garden Creek having the lowest biological score. 3.8.3.2. Ross Fork Basin The Ross Fork Basin is located in the central part of the Reservation. The South Fork of the basin originates near South Mount Putnam and flows generally south to north. Tributaries of the South Fork located within the Reservation include Sawmill Creek, Thirty Day Creek, Barclay Creek and Mill Creek. Flow in the North Fork originates on the slopes of North Mount Putnam and flows generally east to west across the Reservation. The North and South Forks join to form Ross Fork approximately 7 miles east of Fort Hall. From there, the Ross Fork flows west through the town of Fort Hall and across the Snake River Plain, ultimately draining into the American Falls Reservoir. The upper reaches of the Ross Fork Watershed contain high quality waters. Scores from the 2005 bioassessment project from East Mill Creek, Thirty Day Creek, and Big Springs were in the top five on the Reservation with Big Springs having the highest score. East Mill and Thirty Day creeks contain the only populations of pure strains of Yellowstone cutthroat trout on the Reservation. The watershed changes as it flows through the northernmost foothills of the Pocatello Range where the system experiences significant dewatering and are bisected by the Fort Hall Main Irrigation Canal. At this junction the majority of the water that makes up Ross Fork Creek is primarily irrigation water from the canal. High sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loads are regularly observed at a water quality station upstream from the confluence of Ross Fork and Clear creeks.

49

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

3.8.3.3. Portneuf River Basin The Portneuf River, the headwaters of which are formed on the Reservation, drains the eastern portion of the Reservation. Flow exits the Reservation through the Chesterfield Reservoir and some smaller tributaries and flows south and west through Pocatello and reenters the Reservation between the Fort Hall and Michaud irrigation units. The area above Pocatello will be referred to as the Upper Portneuf River Basin (the remainder of the Portneuf River Basin will be discussed with the Snake River Plain). The majority of flow in the upper basin that lies within the Reservation boundaries drains to the Chesterfield Reservoir. Major tributaries to the Portneuf River above the reservoir include Big Jimmy Creek, Ross Creek and Jeff Cabin Creek. Other on-Reservation tributaries draining to the Portneuf below the reservoir are Little Toponce Creek and North Fork Toponce Creek. The Portneuf River Watershed is unique in the fact that the headwaters and the termination point of the watershed lie within the Reservation, but the majority of the watershed lies off Reservation. Grazing is the dominant land use in the upper reaches that lie within the Reservation boundaries, resulting in stream substrate sedimentation and low macroinvertebrate populations. However, the tributaries from the eastern side of Mount Putnam (Jeff Cabin, North Fork of Toponce, and Little Toponce Creeks) are generally high in quality and scored well in the 2005 bioassessment project. As the Portneuf River flows back on to the Reservation it is impacted by sediment and nutrients from agricultural, urban, and industrial sources. Contaminants from industrial sources are leaching into the groundwater that flows to the Portneuf River and is expressed through tributary springs and groundwater influx directly into the River. The main contaminant in the groundwater is dissolved orthophosphorus, which is causing excess aquatic growth in the river. This nuisance aquatic growth is negatively impacting the aesthetics of the River and is resulting in depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations. 3.8.3.4. Bannock Creek Basin The Bannock Creek Watershed drains the Bannock and Deep Creek mountain ranges in the southwestern portion of the Reservation through Arbon Valley into the American Falls Reservoir. Bannock Creek originates approximately 15 miles south of the Reservation boundary and flows generally south to north. Major tributaries to Bannock Creek include West Fork, Moonshine and Rattlesnake Creeks. Over 75 percent of the Moonshine Creek drainage area is located within Reservation boundaries, but both West Fork and Rattlesnake Creek drain areas that are located almost entirely off the Reservation (95 and 90 percent of the drainage areas, respectively). Sampling conducted for the American Falls TMDL identified excess loads of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment within the watershed. These findings are attributed to agricultural practices such as irrigated agriculture, dry land farming, and grazing. Samples taken by the Tribes in the spring of 2003 revealed a total suspended solids concentration of 454 mg/L at Bannock Creek and in excess of 730 mg/L at Rattlesnake Creek. The high total suspended solid concentrations in these locations are attributed to off-Reservation dry land farming occurring upstream as well as on-Reservation grazing practices. 3.8.3.5. Snake River Plain The Snake River Plain is a broad geologic feature that extends from the Idaho-Wyoming border into Oregon and occupies 178 mi2 of the northwestern portion of the Reservation. Together with the adjacent foothills area, marking the transition between the Plain and Basin and Range Province, this area comprises nearly one third of the Reservation area (270 mi2). The Snake 50

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

River, American Falls Reservoir, and the springs in the Fort Hall Bottoms comprise the Snake River Plain Watershed. The Snake River itself bisects the Snake River Plain and forms the Reservation’s northwestern boundary between the town of Blackfoot and American Falls Reservoir. The water quality of the Snake River in the reach from Tilden Bridge to the American Falls Reservoir is generally of high quality, with the exception of temperatures that exceed water quality standards during the summer months. Water quality in American Falls Reservoir is impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus, which cause nuisance algal blooms. High nitrogen loading is a regional problem due primarily to agricultural fertilizers. Approximately sixty percent of the phosphorus loading to the reservoir comes from the Portneuf River, which provides less than 10 percent of the Reservoir’s water volume. The water quality of the springs in the Fort Hall Bottoms is generally of high quality. Sampling of springs in the Fort Hall Bottoms to assess nutrient and sediment loading to the Reservoir for the American Falls TMDL has shown that the phosphorus and sediment concentrations are well below the TMDL concentrations of 50ug/L and 35mg/L respectively. 3.8.3.6. Reservoirs Successful agriculture on the Reservation – as well as the region – is dependent upon reliable supplies of irrigation water. A system of reservoirs is used to collect snowmelt and precipitation, and release storage water throughout the growing season for agricultural use. Excluding the smaller irrigation units on the Reservation, which depend on the early season natural flows of their respective waterways, surface waters utilized by the Reservation are diverted from the Blackfoot, Portneuf, and Snake Rivers. The Blackfoot River system contains two reservoirs of note: Blackfoot Reservoir and Grays Lake. Blackfoot Reservoir is the main storage feature within the Blackfoot River Basin. The BIA monitors the water level and resulting capacity of the Reservoir. Releases from the reservoir are recorded by both the BIA and TWRD with gauges located just downstream of the Reservoir. The BIA and TWRD began monitoring these locations in 1975 and 1999, respectively. Grays Lake is a National Wildlife Refuge administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and located outside the Blackfoot River Basin. Through water rights within this basin serves the BIA Fort Hall Irrigation Project Flows from Grays Lake are transferred to Blackfoot Reservoir through a trans-basin canal named Clark’s Cut. Diversions through Clark’s Cut can be significant, unfortunately they usually occur as Blackfoot Reservoir is reaching capacity and spilling water. The BIA monitors these releases with a gauge at Clark’s Cut-Meadow Creek. The Portneuf River system contains one impoundment, Chesterfield Reservoir, which is located in the upper reaches of the Portneuf River Basin on the southeast corner of the Reservation. The Reservoir has been privately owned and operated since construction in 1911. Water levels and reservoir discharges are controlled and monitored by the Portneuf Marsh Valley Irrigation Company, serving agricultural entities in the upper reaches of the Portneuf River Basin. The Tribes do not have rights to storage in the Chesterfield Reservoir. The Upper Snake River Basin includes numerous reservoirs and impoundments including Palisades and American Falls Reservoirs. The Tribes own storage rights in each reservoir and utilize the water for irrigation and marketing purposes. The Upper Snake River Basin dams are monitored and operated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).

51

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Water source development on the Reservation is managed by the BIA, Irrigation Division. The division manages two major irrigation areas, Fort Hall and Michaud, which serve both Indian and non-Indian water users. The Fort Hall Irrigation Project included construction of the Idaho Canal and a reservoir on the Blackfoot River with an additional network of canals. The Fort Hall Irrigation project was later extended to include the Michaud Unit. Water for the Michaud division was authorized in American Falls and Palisades Reservoirs. In exchange for the stored waters, the United States waived its rights to the water in the Fort Hall Bottoms. Four other irrigable agricultural areas existed that were not included in the Fort Hall Irrigation Project. These were the four minor units of Lincoln Creek, Ross Fork Creek, Bannock Creek, and Little Indian. The Little Indian Unit subsequently was irrigated from and included in the Fort Hall Irrigation Project because of its physical proximity to the Blackfoot River. The other minor units derive their water supply from the major creeks of the same name and their tributaries. 3.8.3.7. Groundwater The Groundwater Protection Act was enacted in 2001 to prevent groundwater contamination and destruction of high quality aquifer recharge areas in order to satisfy existing uses including, but not limited to, drinking water, agricultural, industrial, and commercial water supplies. The Act seeks to maintain the highest quality of groundwater and protect existing and future uses of groundwater through the reduction or elimination of discharge of contaminants to the Reservations’ groundwater. Pursuant to this Act, the Tribal Water Resources Director may issue permits for discharge and use of groundwater sources on the Reservation. In 2002, the Well Construction Standards Ordinance was enacted to establish minimum standards for the construction of all wells on the Reservation to guard against waste and contamination of groundwater resources. The Ordinance provides for regulation and licensing of water contractors and operators and for regulation of well construction and abandonment. The Reservation’s ground water resources mostly lie in the aquifers underlying the Snake River Plain, a level area of land adjacent to the Snake River. Ground water also exists in the areas surrounding the Snake River Plain, mostly in the valleys, but not to the same extent. The Snake River Plain aquifer is recharged by runoff from the higher elevations of the Reservation, the Snake and Blackfoot Rivers, and irrigation water. The Snake River Plain aquifers discharge a significant amount of water through the various springs in the Fort Hall Bottoms, which flow into the Snake River and American Falls Reservoir. Groundwater is currently the source of all non-agricultural water uses. Groundwater quality is a significant issue on the Reservation, with a carcinogenic chemical plume contaminating the groundwater under much of the south-central part of the Reservation. The contamination of ethylene dibromide (EDB) covers more than 50 mi2 in the south-central part of the Reservation, near the town of Fort Hall. The contamination was discovered in 1994 as part of a routine water quality analysis on a private well. After the initial discovery, 530 wells were surveyed. Of those, 134 had detectable levels of EDB and 110 had EDB levels exceeding the federal government’s maximum contaminant level (MCL). A source of the contamination remains unclear (BOR 2001). Presence of this carcinogen has resulted in the abandonment of groundwater use in the impacted area, and a conveyance system has been constructed to supply water from a groundwater source outside of the contaminated area. Those that do not have

52

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

access to the conveyance system will have to remain on groundwater with filter systems to treat water. Elevated nitrate/nitrite levels in the Reservation’s groundwater are also a concern. A survey of 60 wells in 1988 and 71 wells in 1989 found nitrate plus nitrite concentrations ranging from 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 38 mg/L with a median concentration of 11 mg/L. The majority of Nitrate contamination occurs in the unconsolidated aquifer of the Gibson Terrace. The MCL for nitrate is 10 mg/L nitrate-notrogen and for nitrite is 1 mg/L nitrite-nitrogen. Possible sources of nitrate contamination are fertilizers and human/animal wastes. A specific source for the increased nitrate levels is not known. Nitrate’s water solubility results in a high potential to contaminate groundwater and spread throughout an aquifer (BOR 2001).

3.9.

Biological Resources

3.9.1. Vegetation More than 70 percent of the Reservation’s land base is occupied by farmland, grassland, and sagebrush used mainly for agriculture and grazing. Woodland vegetation types comprise the remaining approximately 30 percent of the Reservation (Figure 10). Vegetation type refers to a community’s predominant species, and is one indicator of species diversity. Five woodland vegetation types have been categorized on the Reservation: Mountain Shrub, Aspen/Conifer, Riparian, Juniper, and Cottonwood. The relatively small amount of conifer forest on the Reservation is restricted to the rugged slopes of the Portneuf and Bannock Ranges. Aspen stands occupy the lower slopes and moist sites, often at the grassland-forest interface. Juniper woodlands occupy rocky ridges surrounded by grasslands and form open stands below the elevational limits of Douglas-fir. Cottonwoods grow along major rivers and streams with the most extensive stands along the Snake River in the Fort Hall Bottoms. The woodland vegetation types present on the Reservation provide habitat for fish, wildlife, and native plants that are utilized by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for food, traditional ceremonies, clothing, and art and provide recreational opportunities to Tribal members and have aesthetic values (Appendix B contains a list of vascular plants and fungi that occur within the Reservation that are known to be of traditional/cultural importance to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes). Therefore, the condition and health of the vegetation communities is of high importance to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The BIA and Tribes are committed to a policy of ecosystem management that maintains the health and resiliency of the vegetation on the Reservation, while at the same time protecting the cultural, spiritual, and ecological functions and values of the land. In line with this thinking the Tribes and BIA have developed the Woodlands Plan that provides landscape scale management direction for the long-term sustainability of woodland resources. The woodland vegetation types present on the Reservation are discussed below.

53

Figure 10. Distribution of Woodland Vegetation Types on the Reservation.

54

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

3.9.1.1. Mountain Shrub The Mountain Shrub vegetation type is the largest vegetation type on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation occupying about 49,100 acres or 9 percent of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation (Bannock Ecological 2007). This vegetation type occurs in a transition zone between the sagebrush steppe and Aspen/Conifer vegetation types, and can almost always be found in areas that naturally accumulate a snow pack, particularly from snow drifting. Elevation of this vegetation type ranges between 6,000 to 8,500 feet, and the average annual precipitation rates vary from 16-20 inches. The Mountain Shrub vegetation type is important for providing habitat for wildlife, especially wintering big game. This vegetation type is also important for the collection of berries and other vegetative products by Tribal members. This vegetation type provides high quality browse, forage, cover and berry producing habitat. Indicative species of this vegetation type are: maple, western serviceberry, chokecherry, mountain mahogany, mountain snowberry, blue elderberry, and snowbrush ceanothus. Mountain big sagebrush is often present. Mountain shrub communities occupy relatively moist sites at the lower elevational limits of the forest communities on the Reservation. Exclusion of wildland fire has allowed many of these communities to develop into late seral stages of ecological succession and reduced the productivity potential of this vegetation from historical conditions. 3.9.1.2. Aspen/Conifer The Aspen/Conifer vegetation type is the second largest woodland type on the Reservation occupying 38,600 acres or 7 percent of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation (Bannock Ecological 2007). This vegetation type generally occurs above 5,000 feet on soils that retain a snow pack into early summer. The Aspen/Conifer vegetation type provides important watershed protection and wildlife habitat although a lack of wildland fire has lowered the productivity of this vegetation type and decreased long-term watershed integrity. This vegetation type has been used mainly for grazing, hunting, gathering, and spiritual purposes and is relied upon as the primary source of fuel wood, post and poles, and other vegetation projects for Tribal members. Past management activities have been largely limited to fire protection and firewood cutting of diseased and insect-killed trees. Most firewood cutting has taken place in the Twitchell and Bear Canyon areas of the Portneuf Range, in the drainage of the South Fork of Ross Fork Creek, and in the timbered areas on the north slopes of the Pocatello Range. Some commercial logging occurred in the late 1960s in the South Fork of Ross Creek but overall logging has been marginal due to the relatively small areas of saleable timber and limited access. Douglas-fir is the most common conifer tree species associated with this vegetation type. It forms the lower timberline in both the Deep Creek and Portneuf Ranges and spans a broad gradient from warm and dry to cold and moist environments. Douglas-fir does best on cool aspects at intermediate elevations ranging from 6,000 to 8,200 feet. Above 8,200 feet, the cold, moist subalpine fir type replaces the Douglas-fir type. At its warm, dry extreme (below 6,000 feet), Douglas-fir merges with foothill sagebrush/shrub communities. Douglas-fir forms dense stands on north and east slopes and open stands of widely scattered poorly formed trees on south and west slopes. On cooler aspects, varying amounts of aspen, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine are present. Douglas-fir stands on the Reservation, sustained substantial mortality from a regionwide infestation of Douglas-fir beetles in the early 1990s. On Bannock Peak the outbreak was extensive; a number of stands were decimated leaving patches of dead timber. More localized damage occurred in the Mount Putnam area and along the South Fork of Ross Fork Creek (Elliott

55

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

and Sawyer 2002). As a result of this insect-caused mortality in combination with overstocked conditions, high-fuel loadings, and growth on steep slopes, most Douglas-fir stands are highly susceptible to high-intensity, stand-replacing fire. Another conifer present in this vegetation type is subalpine fir, which is found at elevations ranging from 6,500 to 8,500 feet. Subalpine fir stands are widespread in the Portneuf Range on all exposures above 7,500 feet. This species also occurs at lower elevations where it is restricted to moist micro-sites, intermixed with Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and aspen. Subalpine fir forms open, park-like stands without Douglas-fir where it grows near timberline. In the Deep Creek Range, subalpine fir is found on steep slopes near timberline and in moist pockets on cool aspects. Signs of intermittent spruce budworm damage are apparent in some subalpine fir stands. Top kill and branch dieback are visible in many of the older stands from an infestation in the late 1980s (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Other conifers found within this vegetation type include lodgepole pine, limber pine, and Rocky Mountain juniper. Lodgepole pine is a minor forest type on the Reservation that is usually found intermixed with Douglas-fir and subalpine fir on moist, cool, mid-elevation exposures between 6,000 and 7,000 feet. Quaking aspen is widespread on the Reservation, with stands ranging in size from small isolated patches that are less than 1 acre to broad expanses of pure stands. Aspen are found at elevations ranging from 5,200 to 8,500 feet. At the lower elevations, aspen occur as stringers confined to moist draws, surrounded by sagebrush/shrub communities. At intermediate elevations, aspen form pure stands at the lower margins of the Douglas-fir type. At higher elevations, aspen grow intermixed with subalpine fir. The most extensive aspen stands on the Reservation are located in the upper Ross Fork and Little Toponce drainages. These stands form a broad band extending along the lower mountain slopes. In the Deep Creek Range, aspen is less common and restricted to cool, moist draws and toe slopes. North of Garden Peak, stunted aspen stringers are intermingled with sagebrush/shrub communities (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Aspen is utilized by many species of wildlife as well as livestock. These woodlands are essential for big game calving/fawning habitat, biological diversity, and watershed maintenance. Without fire, logging, or other disturbance, aspen do not effectively reproduce and are replaced by conifer. Due to years of fire suppression, conifer species have encroached within pure aspen stands to varying degrees resulting in an increased dominance of conifer and a reduction in the size and density of aspen stands on the Reservation. As aspen stands mature and decline in growth and vigor, conifers begin to dominate the sites. Less than 5 percent of the aspen stands on the Reservation are less than 30 years old. High utilization rates of aspen by livestock have also been preventing the regeneration of aspen and contributing to a loss in age-class diversity. Most of the forest types on the Reservation are developing mid- to late-seral stages of ecological succession, with large amounts of standing and down fuels, primarily because many stands have not burned in recent years. Prior to aggressive fire suppression activities, wildfires of variable intensity and severity periodically occurred. Under current conditions, high-fuel conditions have developed as a result of fire suppression and infestations of Douglas-fir beetles in many of the Douglas-fir dominated forest types. Instead of having low- to moderate-intensity fires every 30 to 60 years, the risk of high-intensity, catastrophic fire has greatly increased for most of the Douglas-fir forest. These types of stand replacing fires are generally undesirable because they can adversely affect soils, water quality, wildlife, fisheries, and other resources.

56

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

3.9.1.3. Riparian Riparian areas are areas of land directly influenced by permanent water and exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect that permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Typical riparian areas include lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with rivers, streams, springs, lakes and reservoirs. Riparian vegetation occupies about 32,400 acres or 6 percent of the Reservation, mostly in the Fort Hall Bottoms (Bannock Ecological 2007). This vegetation type is likely the most important on the Reservation because it maintains numerous ecological functions as well as provides many human uses. Riparian areas are highly important for harvesting plants for cultural use; birch trees, willows, and other woodland species are commonly collected for building ceremonial structures and other purposes. Many riparian plant species are also known to be collected for food as well as for medicinal and religious purposes. Native plant communities in riparian areas are important for maintaining Special Status Species habitat and native fish and wildlife that the Tribes rely upon. Riparian areas provide high quality forage for livestock and buffalo and a large majority of this vegetation type is permitted for grazing and haying operations or as pasture. Recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, swimming, and picnicking are also popular in riparian areas. Healthy riparian areas dissipate energy, control erosion, maintain water quality, moderate stream temperatures, and provide habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species. Most riparian areas on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation however have been altered or degraded to some extent from human activities, livestock and buffalo grazing, and noxious/invasive weed invasion, resulting in a decrease in the positive benefits afforded by healthy systems. Ground disturbance and weed spread in these areas has led to soil compaction, increased sedimentation, elimination of desirable woody tree and shrub species, and less productive forage and wildlife habitat. Riparian communities of sandbar willow, yellow willow, red-osier dogwood and other shrubs and forbs have been affected by heavy grazing and reduced intensity and frequency of flood flows (Sampson et al. 2001). Riparian areas have decreased and undesirable species have increased as a result of dewatering due to range improvements or irrigation diversions. Willows have matured and become decadent in some areas and management is needed for regeneration and to improve the understory diversity of other shrubs and herbaceous vegetation (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Some riparian areas on the Reservation are infested with noxious/invasive weeds and excessively grazed by livestock and buffalo. Balancing human use to sustain riparian area function is needed to maintain natural ecological processes, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality. Wetlands are characterized by streamside and wetland vegetation including cottonwoods, willows, rush, and sedges. The Fort Hall Bottoms and American Falls Reservoir comprise a wetland complex of approximately 50,000 acres. Threats to the wetlands complex include noxious weeds, erosion along stream banks from grazing, and erosion along Snake River from Reservoir operations. 3.9.1.4. Juniper The Juniper vegetation type currently occupies about 25,300 acres or 5 percent of the Reservation - approximately 11,700 acres of this vegetation type has burned within the last 7 years (Bannock Ecological 2007). Woodlands dominated by Utah juniper occupy rocky ridges and rangelands below the elevational zone of Douglas-fir and aspen communities, typically between 4,500 feet to 6,000 feet on a wide variety of soils within the 10- to 15- inch precipitation

57

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

zone. (Rocky Mountain juniper also occurs on the Reservation as a minor component of the Aspen/Conifer vegetation type and is not included in the Juniper vegetation type). These relatively open juniper woodland communities are interspersed with sagebrush and grassland communities. Dominant understory species are mostly grasses and forbs adapted to the relatively dry site conditions of this type (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Junipers are of high importance to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for spirituality and traditional ceremonies as well as for fuel wood, post and poles, and other biomass products, and provide important habitat for big game during the winter. Old-growth (naturally occurring) juniper is normally found in fire-safe habitats on dry, stony outcrops along open ridges. Associated plant species often found on the naturally occurring juniper sites include black sagebrush, Indian ricegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, needle-and-thread, prickly phlox, cryptantha, woolypod milkvetch, curlleaf mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and big sagebrush. Juniper encroachment into the sagebrush steppe has been largely controlled by high fire frequency in the sagebrush steppe and juniper vegetation types. There is a large mature juniper stand in the Fort Hall Bottoms area that supports a high density of cultural resources. This stand is located almost entirely within the southern buffalo pasture and is impacted by grazing pressures. 3.9.1.5. Cottonwood The Cottonwood vegetation type occupies about 3,600 acres or 1 percent of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation (Bannock Ecological 2007). This vegetation type is primarily found below 4,500 feet and is most extensive along the Snake River in the Fort Hall Bottoms and along other perennial streams. Cottonwood communities occupy riparian zones of rivers and streams that experience periodic over-bank flooding. Plant communities present in riparian zones are “pulsestabilized” systems maintained in continual ecological transitions through the pulse of period flooding. Scouring by floodwaters and deposition of water-borne sediment creates optimum habitat for cottonwood and willow species, which germinate almost exclusively on recently deposited, fully exposed alluvium (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Cottonwood regeneration has decreased on the Reservation due to reductions in frequency and magnitude of floods, invasion by noxious weeds and invasive species (e.g., reed canarygrass, musk thistle, cheatgrass, Canada thistle), and heavy livestock use in some areas (BOR 2001). Associated trees and shrubs include lemonade sumac, willow, Rocky Mountain juniper, water birch, red-osier dogwood, western serviceberry, and black hawthorn. Cottonwoods are highly important for bank stabilization, wildlife habitat, and cultural ceremonies of the Tribes. 3.9.1.6. Special Status Plant Species Special Status Species include those species officially listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as well as species of concern on the Reservation – those that may also have limited range or may be at risk in the State of Idaho or on the Reservation (although the state sensitive designation does not apply on the Reservation). Currently there is one ESA-listed threatened plant species, one plant species of concern known to occur, and three plant species of concern suspected to occur on the Reservation (Table 3). Habitat for all of these plants consists of riparian vegetation. A thorough inventory for special status plant species has not been conducted on the Reservation and there is limited information available on the status of these species on the Reservation. This type of

58

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

inventory would contribute to identifying the range, threats and ecology of Ute ladies’-tresses and other special status plant species on the Reservation. Table 3. Special Status Plant Species and Their Potential to Occur on the Reservation.
Species
Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Joe-Pye weed (Eupatoriadelphus maculatus var. bruneri) Meadow milkvetch (Astragalus diversifolius) Idaho sedge (Carex idahoa) Giant helleborine (Epipactis gigantea)

Status and Occurrence on Fort Hall Indian Reservation
ESA-listed threatened; Known to occur in the Fort Hall Bottoms Species of concern; Known to occur in the Fort Hall Bottoms Species of concern; Suspected to occur in the Fort Hall Bottoms Species of concern; Suspected to occur along the upper Portneuf River and similar areas Species of concern; Suspected to occur in the Fort Hall Bottoms

Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) was petitioned for delisting from the ESA in 2004 based upon new information that indicates in part that the population size and distribution is much larger than known at the time of listing. This species was originally thought to be limited to undisturbed riparian habitats, but is now known to occur in agricultural lands and managed riparian systems where frequent human-influence disturbance events simulate natural early to mid seral conditions. Currently, the FWS has not issued a ruling on the findings to determine if listing is still warranted. This species is found in the lowlands of the Fort Hall Bottoms, and generally occupy the semi-moist transition area (ecotone) between saturated soils and dry uplands. These areas are usually dominated by creeping bentgrass, which is also the primary indicator species of potential habitat. Other associated species of Ute ladies’-tresses on the Fort Hall Bottoms includes: beaked spikerush, basin wildrye, Nuttall’s sunflower, narrowleaf cottonwood, white panicle aster, yellow sweetclover, narrowleaf willow, redosier dogwood, Wood’s rose, American licorice, common plantain, and lesser Indian paintbrush (Davis 2007). 3.9.1.7. Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds 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. Under this executive order, federal agencies cannot authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species, unless all reasonable measures to minimize risk of harm have been analyzed and considered. Noxious weeds are non-native species that invade areas of native vegetation and replace native species. They are aggressive invaders, particularly in disturbed areas, and decrease habitat value for wildlife and agricultural productivity. Forested areas on the Reservation contain Canada thistle, black henbane, spotted knapweed, and hound’s tongue. Musk thistle, Scotch thistle, and Canada thistle are common noxious weeds found in the Fort Hall Bottoms. 3.9.2. Wildlife and Fisheries Article IV of the Fort Bridger Treaty provides, “The Indians herein named agree…they will make said Reservations their permanent home, and they will make no permanent settlement elsewhere; but they shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so 59

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

long as game may be found thereon, and so long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts.” Because of the scope of the Fort Bridger Treaty the reach of the Tribes’ natural resources programs extends beyond Reservation boundaries throughout much of the Shoshone and Bannock peoples’ aboriginal territory. To protect their treaty rights, the Tribes have followed a strategy of encouraging members to hunt wildlife and salmon throughout the upper Snake River Basin. Native plants and animals are important elements of the ecosystem on the Reservation. Sustainable, naturally reproducing populations of native wildlife that support both subsistence and limited sport harvest are attained by maintaining the functions and attributes of healthy portions of the ecosystem, and working with modified aspects of the ecosystem to either restore lost ecological components or replace them with other components that produce desirable outputs.
Mission of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fish & Wildlife Department
Protect, restore, and enhance, fish and wildlife related resources in accordance with the Tribes’ unique interests and vested rights in such resources and their habitats, including the inherent, aboriginal and treaty protected rights of Tribes members to fair process and the priority rights to harvest pursuant to the Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3, 1868.

3.9.2.1. Wildlife There are two main programs that manage wildlife on the Reservation – the wildlife program and the big game program. The goals of the wildlife program are to protect, manage, and enhance the wildlife resources and wildlife habitat on the Reservation and to protect the Tribes treaty rights off of the Reservation while the big game program is set up to provide BMPs to promote and enhance wildlife on the Reservation as well as to protect off-Reservation treaty rights. The wildlife resources on the Reservation include all of the species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians present as well as the habitat used by these species. The wildlife program is responsible for the management of all wildlife species – including Special Status Species – on the Reservation except big game animals, which are managed under the big game program. The big game program conducts population surveys on selected species on an annual basis, develops hunting regulations, monitors harvest, and resolves conflicts between wildlife and humans. To facilitate the description of existing wildlife on the Reservation, species are discussed in terms of their association with vegetation cover types and their cultural significance to the Tribes (subsistence, ceremonial use, etc.). A list of the wildlife species that are known to inhabit the Reservation, including culturally significant species, are listed in Appendix B. Low- and mid-elevation shrub sites are characterized as sagebrush steppe. Plants in these areas include Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, mountainmahogany, and bitterbrush, with a native grass and forb understory. These species are highly desirable browse species for big game, especially deer. Mountain-mahogany is also important for winter range, as it provides cover. Culturally significant wildlife species that are found in low and mid-elevation shrub sites include black-tailed jackrabbit, white-tailed jackrabbit, pygmy rabbit, mountain cottontail, Uinta ground squirrel, yellow-bellied marmot, mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, sharp-tailed grouse, and greater sage-grouse. Threats to this habitat type include fire, loss of habitat to agriculture and housing projects, and overgrazing.

60

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Forests on the Reservation provide cover, forage, water, and reproductive sites for a diversity of mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians. Forest sites are characterized by conifers including Douglas fir, subalpine fir and lodgepole pine. Wildlife associated with these vegetation types include mule deer, elk, moose, black bear, mountain lion, ruffed grouse, blue grouse, boreal toad, and snowshoe hare. Threats to forest habitat on the Reservation include fire, insects, disease, age, and logging. Woodland cover types consist of aspen, aspen/conifer mix, mountain shrub, juniper, riparian, and cottonwood species. Wildlife associated with this large variety of vegetation include mule deer, whitetail deer, elk, moose, ruffed grouse, bald eagle, white tailed jackrabbit, and beaver. Aspen is utilized by many species of wildlife – as well as livestock – and is essential for big game calving/fawning habitat, biological diversity, and watershed maintenance. Juniper woodlands provide important habitat for big game during the winter. Mature juniper communities have also been reported to contain a high number and variety of bird species and are considered to be one of the highest proportions of obligate or semi-obligate bird species among forest types in the West (Paulin et al. 1999, Gillihan 2006). Threats to woodland habitat include disruption of the natural fire regime, changes in water flow cycles, age, insects, overgrazing, and increased development. In addition a large majority of the juniper vegetation type has burned across the Reservation landscape within the last 10 years resulting in a loss of wildlife habitat. Wetlands are characterized by streamside and wetland vegetation including cottonwoods, willows, sedges, and rush. The Fort Hall Bottoms and American Falls Reservoir comprise a wetland complex of approximately 50,000 acres and provide habitat for thousands of shorebirds. This complex is an important migration corridor for waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway and the American Falls Reservoir is part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. The wetland complex is used by more than 150 different bird species. Large populations of colonial nesting birds (e.g., herons, egrets) and neotropical song birds use the area and thousands of ducks, geese, and swans fly down the Snake River in the fall and remain in the Fort Hall Bottoms and American Falls Reservoir for the winter. Large spring fed creeks and spring holes in the bottoms provide open water for Canada geese, mallards, widgeon, pintails, and trumpeter swans throughout the winter. In the spring and summer, the Bottoms provides excellent breeding habitat for mallards, cinnamon teal, gadwalls, lesser, and redheads. The streams, lateral springs, and surrounding marshlands are also heavily used by withering and nesting waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors. Bald Eagles and trumpeter swans winter, nest, and feed on the Bottoms. The Tribes sell waterfowl and pheasant hunting permits for the wetland complex area. Hunting is critical to the overall health of waterfowl because it prevents “short stopping” that leads to overpopulation in open water areas and leads to the spread of diseases (avian cholera). Beginning in 1987, the Tribes became involved in trumpeter swan management projects with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The transplanting and monitoring projects were designed to reestablish wintering populations along the Snake River migration corridor. In 1987, there were 11 trumpeter swans wintering in the Fort Hall Bottoms and American Falls Reservoir; this number had increased to 800 by 2006. The wetland complex is also used by other wetland dependent wildlife including leopard frog, otter, mink, muskrat, beaver, pronghorn antelope, mule deer, and whitetail deer. Threats to the wetland complex include noxious weeds, erosion along stream banks from grazing, and erosion along the Snake River from reservoir operations. Other wildlife species on the Reservation include common predatory species such as cougar, black bear, bobcat, and coyotes; as well as small mammals such as mice, voles, pocket gophers, 61

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

yellow-bellied marmots, raccoons, ground squirrels, beavers, porcupines, weasels, snowshoe hare, jackrabbits, and several bat species. Suitable nesting habitat is present for raptors including the red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, goshawk, golden eagle, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, American kestrel, great gray owl, flammulated owl, great horned owl, saw whet owl, and raven. There are many song birds and migratory bird species that are known to occur throughout the Reservation in habitats types such as sagebrush steppe, forested areas, and agricultural lands. Blue grouse and ruffed grouse are present in forest communities on slopes and ridges and in riparian areas. Riparian habitat is also present on the Reservation for species like spotted frogs, tiger salamanders, boreal chorus frogs, western toad, leopard frog, rubber boa, and garter snakes. The Tribes is making a concerted effort to reintroduce beaver in many of the riparian areas scattered throughout the Reservation (BIA 2002). Special Status Animal Species Special Status Species includes those species officially listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as well as species of concern on the Reservation – those that may also have limited range or may be at risk in the State of Idaho or on the Reservation (although the state sensitive designation does not apply on the Reservation). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified two federally listed animal species (Canada lynx and Utah valvata snail) and one candidate species (yellow-billed cuckoo) that may occur within the counties surrounding the Reservation. Little information exists that can be used to characterize the occurrence of most of these species within the Reservation; a brief discussion of each of these species is presented below. A proposed rule to list the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) as threatened under the ESA was published July 8, 1998 (Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 130) and the lynx was listed as threatened on March 24, 2000. Lynx occur throughout the northern Rocky Mountains of Montana and Idaho, primarily in Douglas fir, spruce-fir, and fir-hemlock forests (Ruediger et al. 2000). In western Montana and northern Idaho, lynx habitat generally occurs at elevations above 4,000 feet. In southern Idaho, near the edge of their geographic range, lynx have been observed in sagebrush steppe habitat and riparian habitats at the margins of conifer forest habitat (Lewis and Wegner 1998). The status and distribution of lynx within the Reservation is largely unknown. Lynx have not been documented on the Reservation; however the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger 2000) indicates that lynx occur in Idaho in the Salmon, Upper Snake River, and Bear River watersheds. It is possible that an occasional lynx could travel through portions of the Reservation, but it is unlikely that resident individuals occur. The Utah valvata snail (Valvata utahensis) is listed as Endangered under the ESA and is the only special status snail species on the Reservation. It is found in deep pools adjacent to rapids or perennial flowing water associated with large spring complexes and was thought to be restricted to a few isolated free-flowing reaches or spring-alcove habitats in the middle Snake River characterized by cold well oxygenated, unpolluted water (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). This species historically occurred from river mile 492 (near Grandview, Idaho) to river mile 585, just above Thousand Springs, with a disjunct population in the American Falls Dam tail water near Eagle Rock damsite at river mile 709. Presently, populations of Utah valvata snail exist on the Reservation within the American Falls Reservoir. Listing of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) as endangered or threatened was found to be warranted, but was precluded by higher priority listing actions on July 25, 2001 (66 FR 38611). This species is currently designated as a Candidate species in the western U.S., 62

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

including Idaho. The yellow-billed cuckoo is a neotropical migrant species that is considered an obligate riparian nester that breeds only in streamside forests, especially if willow and cottonwood stands are dominant. Most nesting in the west occurs within relatively large patches of riparian forest (25-100 acres). When they are not breeding, they are found in open woodland with thick undergrowth and deciduous riparian woodlands. They prefer mature cottonwoodwillow forests and are dependent upon a dense willow understory and cottonwood overstory. Habitat for this species is present in the Bottoms. Several other special status species are known to occur on the Reservation. Bird species inventories have been conducted on the Reservation; a list of birds present on the Reservation is included in Appendix B. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was first listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967 (64 FR 36453). In 1995 its designation was changed to threatened in the lower 48 states (60 FR 35999) and in 1999 the bald eagle was proposed for delisting (64 FR 36453). This species was delisted from the ESA in June 2007 and is now managed as a species of concern. Bald eagles are still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified the counties associated with the Reservation as wintering/nesting areas and bald eagles use lands on the Reservation largely as wintering areas. Within the Reservation the greatest density of bald eagles occurs around American Falls Reservoir during late fall and winter months. Cottonwood trees along the Snake River and reservoir margin provide day and night roost areas and are often located adjacent to foraging areas. Beyond the American Falls Reservoir and Snake River, bald eagles are frequently observed near open water where waterfowl congregate such as the mouths of Spring Creek, Clear Creek, Portneuf River, and Bannock Creek (Bechtel Environmental, Inc. 1994, in Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Important winter roosts for bald eagles are also present in the Bannock Peak area. In 2006 and 2007 there was a successful bald eagle nest in the Fort Hall Bottoms (Christopherson 2007, personal communication). No special status mammal species are known to occur on the Reservation. However, Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) is suspected to occur on the Reservation and the gray wolf may be present at times. Townsend’s big-eared bat is experiencing declines in population and habitat and is in danger of extinction in Idaho. Inventories for this species would contribute towards understanding the range and potential threats on the Reservation. Gray wolves (Canis lupus) that may occur within the Reservation boundaries today are part of the northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment of the gray wolf that was delisted from protection under the ESA on February 27, 2008, (73 FR 10514). Populations of wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho and have successfully established breeding packs in those and other areas of the state. Wolf populations are expected to expand until constrained by resource or human imposed limitations, so occasional sightings within the Reservation can be expected. In 2000, a lone wolf was killed in the Blackfoot Mountains, north of the Blackfoot Reservoir. Breeding wolves are not known to occur on the Reservation; however, because of the species’ the transient nature it is possible that wolves have and will continue to travel through the Reservation periodically (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Currently there are two special status amphibian species on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. These species include the Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) and Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas). There is potential for these species to be listed on the ESA due to declines in range, rarity, and endangerment factors. The Northern leopard frog can be found in the Riparian

63

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

vegetation type. The boreal toad can also be found in riparian, aspen/conifer and mountain shrub vegetation types. A status review would contribute greatly toward the range and conservation of these special status amphibians on the Reservation. The common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) is the only special status reptile species on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. This snake species can be found in the Aspen/Conifer, Mountain Shrub, and Riparian vegetation types. Big Game Species The main species addressed by the Big Game Program are mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces), and antelope (Antilocapra americana), which represent an integral part of the Tribes’ treaty hunting rights. The program does work on habitat restoration projects, big game counts, road maintenance, observations and monitoring of big game species and habitat. Big game species are monitored throughout the year for health and population purposes. Big game counts are a valuable measure of populations of deer, elk, moose and antelope on the Reservation that allow for harvest of these species. Population counts are taken via big game surveys done in the months of January and February and allow season harvest quotas to be set for Tribal hunters on the Reservation. Populations need to remain sustainable to maintain an active hunting season for today and for generations to come. The big game winter range – shown on Figure 11 – has been reduced due to fires in the Buckskin Basin and Bannock Creek areas. Figure 11. Big Game Habitat on the Reservation.

64

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Elk and mule deer are found in the upland areas and winter on the Reservation lands (BIA 2002). Elk and deer populations and trends are shown on Figures 12 and 13. In 1993 there were 183 elk and in 2007 there were 963. The lowest number recorded was the 183 in 1993 and the highest number was 1,004 in 2005. The trendline shows that elk populations are reaching carrying capacity at this time. In 1993 there were 259 deer and in 2007 there were 654. The lowest number recorded was 124 in 1995 and the highest number was 831 in 2004. There has been a loss of winter forage and winter range as a result of fire and grazing on winter range habitat; these declines are affecting mule deer populations on the Reservation and counts indicate the population may be reaching carrying capacity. Figure 12. Elk Population Numbers on the Reservation.
1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
19 96 19 98 20 02 19 93 20 06 20 00 20 04

Figure 13. Deer Population Numbers on the Reservation.
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

19 98

20 00

19 96

19 93

20 02

65

20 06

20 04

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Moose and antelope population numbers are shown on Figures 14 and 15. In 1995, 72 moose were counted on the Reservation and in 2007 there were 102. The highest number of moose recorded was 105 in 2000 and the lowest was 51 in 1996. Moose populations are increasing slowly and providing a viable huntable population. Before 2002, antelope were sighted on the Reservation but no known counts were verified. In 2002 there were 43 antelope and in 2006 there were 25. The lowest number counted was 9 in 2004 with the highest number recorded in 2002. The antelope population appears stable at this time with habitat available for at least 150. Figure 14. Moose Population Numbers on the Reservation.
120 100 80 60 40 20 0
19 93 19 96 19 98 20 04 20 06 20 00 20 02

Figure 15. Antelope Population Numbers on the Reservation.
120 100 80 60 40 20 0
19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 19 93 20 06

Along with elk, mule deer, moose and antelope there are a number of other wildlife species that are known to occur on the Reservation. Wild turkeys have historically used the river bottoms and bison, whitetail deer, Chinese pheasant, and numerous species of waterfowl are found in the Fort Hall Bottoms. The Bottoms and the surrounding area provide excellent water, food, and rest and refuge areas for fall flights or ten to fifteen thousand Canada geese and an estimated five hundred thousand ducks in the 1970s. At the time the Tribes received substantial income from

66

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

non-Indian permit waterfowl hunting. These revenues and the number of waterfowl produced in the Bottoms could be dramatically increased with a sophisticated management plan. A management plan that includes collection of scientific information and increasing goose nesting in the Bottoms was recommended to preserve the Tribes’ waterfowl opportunities for future generations. 3.9.2.2. Fisheries The Fisheries Department is responsible for management of fisheries resources within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation including streams on the Fort Hall Bottoms and mountain streams in the Mt. Putnam and Bannock Creek areas. The primary management goal is to restore, enhance, and protect these streams so they can support native salmonid populations at historic levels. In addition, the department works to facilitate recovery of native fish populations to near historic levels on the Reservation. Priorities include benefiting weak but recoverable native fish populations and important trophy trout and subsistence fisheries within the Reservation and promoting natural riverine ecosystems for native assemblages of species.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Snake River Policy

The Shoshone Bannock Tribes (Tribes) will pursue, promote, and where necessary, initiate efforts to restore the Snake River systems and affected unoccupied lands to a natural condition. This includes the restoration of component resources to conditions which most closely represents the ecological features associated with a natural riverine ecosystem. In addition, the Tribes will work to ensure the protection, preservation, and where appropriatethe enhancement of Rights reserved by the Tribes under the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 (Treaty) and any inherent aboriginal rights. The Reservation is drained by more than 20 streams (Figure 16). Many small streams drain montane areas of the Reservation and feed into the Blackfoot and Portneuf Rivers. Tribal Water Quality Standards identify the following as Outstanding Resource Waters on the Reservation: Snake River (Fort Hall Bottoms), West Fork Bannock Creek, Ross Fork Creek, Mill Creek, and Thirty-day Creek. These creeks most closely represent the ecological features associated with a natural riverine ecosystem and were identified as outstanding because they meet the following criteria:    Outstanding national or Tribal resource Waters of exceptional recreational, cultural, spiritual, or ecological significance Waters supporting priority species as determined by the Tribes.

Of particular importance are streams in the Fort Hall Bottoms, a large wetland approximately 33,000 square acres adjacent to the Snake River near its entrance into American Falls Reservoir. These streams are all spring fed, low gradient, and relatively short in length. Of the four primary Bottoms spring streams, Spring Creek is the largest (discharge averages 12.75 m3/s and is approximately 15 km in length) and Clear Creek is the second largest (average discharge 5.4 m3/s and is approximately 11 km in length). These Bottoms streams provide critical wintering, spawning and rearing habitats for adfluvial and resident salmonids (Taki and Arthaud 1993). Exceptional cold-water fisheries exist in numerous spring-fed tributaries in the Fort Hall Bottoms

67

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

and the Snake River. Streams in the Bottoms are far more important than all other waters combined; collectively, these streams are some of the most unique water resources in the United States and potentially the single-most important stream fishery in Idaho. High quality streams in the Fort Hall Bottoms with productive fisheries include Spring Creek, Clear Creek, Big Jimmy Creek, and Biggie Creek (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Figure 16. Intermittent and Perennial Streams on the Reservation.

Perennial streams that drain forested, mountain habitats of the Reservation also provide important habitat for cold-water species. Major streams that drain forested areas include Mill and Ross Fork Creeks on the west and northwest flanks of Mount Putnam and Jeff Cabin and Toponce Creeks that flow eastward from its slopes. The South Fork of Ross Creek drains the north slopes of the Pocatello Range. In the Deep Creek Range, West Fork Bannock, Squaw, and Sawmill Creeks drain Bannock Peak. Several streams on the Reservation and the American Falls Reservoir provide Tribal members with abundant opportunities for subsistence and cultural harvest of native and non-native fishes. Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri), brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow-cutthroat hybrids, mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii), Utah sucker (Catostomus ardens), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), black crappie (Pomoxis

68

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

nigromaculatus), black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) are found in various Reservation waters (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Yellowstone cutthroat trout are considered a sensitive species by the U.S. Forest Service and a species of concern by the State of Idaho. Currently, the Reservation has two locations of pure Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Mt. Putnam area; Ross Fork and Mill Creeks. These two streams along with West Fork Bannock Creek and Upper Portneuf River are of prime importance and are the most abundant in trout densities for Reservation mountain streams. Limiting factors for these streams are mainly negative impacts from cattle grazing which cause streambank damage and further decrease in habitat such as clean gravels for spawning. Ross Fork Creek has a strong population of Yellowstone cutthroat trout at Twitchell Meadows (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). In a 1986 fisheries study conducted in Ross Fork Creek, brook trout were most abundant followed by rainbow-cutthroat hybrids, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and mottled sculpins (Mariah Associates 1986). Mill Creek contains an isolated population of pure Yellowstone cutthroat trout within the conifer forest on Mount Putnam. A strong, nearly pure population of cutthroat trout exists in West Fork Bannock Creek below the conifer forest on Bannock Peak. Thirty-day Creek has excellent fishery habitat but it has been invaded by non-native brook trout (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). Other forested streams on the Reservation (e.g., Toponce, Jeff Cabin, and Sawmill Creeks) have been more severely affected by livestock grazing, roads, limited timber habitat, and additional stressors; as a result they are degraded and in need of protection (Elliott and Sawyer 2002). The Reservation is rich in sport fishing potential, from the beaver ponds along Big and Little Toponce Creeks to the spring-fed streams in the Fort Hall Bottoms. Catch-rates of trout primarily on the Bottoms have fluctuated from < 0.4 to > 1.2 fish per hour (Figure 17). In 2006, approximately 0.80 trout were being harvested per hour and about 0.20 per hour for trout over 18 inches. Relatively, the Bottoms could be considered as ranking about 5th for streams in Idaho. Angler reports (non-member) on the quality (size and appearance) of naturally reproducing cutthroat rainbow hybrids have been positive. Tribal members harvest mainly in the trout spawning months from December to March during which times many large trout are harvested more so than in the warmer months. Numerical data for members is lacking because they are not required to provide harvest numbers to fish and wildlife staff.

69

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP  Figure 17. Rate of Trout Caught per Hour by Non-Members.

Winter 2010

Streams on the Reservation have been negatively affected (e.g., loss of riparian vegetation, downcutting, lateral scouring of streambanks) by a variety of sources, including livestock grazing, construction and operation of American Falls Reservoir, upstream operations on the Snake River including off-Reservation channelization, and the 1976 Teton Dam collapse. Cattle, bison, and horses have been present on the Reservation since the early 1800s. Damage to streambanks from years of unrestricted grazing continues to be a problem on Reservation streams. Rapid flooding and drafting of American Falls Reservoir in conjunction with seasonal freeze-thaw cycles is a cause of streambank failures on lowland Reservation streams. Negative impacts from streambank failures include widened channels, a reduction in riparian vegetation and instream cover, increased summer water temperatures, and deposition of fines on critical spawning and rearing substrates. Collectively, these impacts have decreasing spawning and adult trout habitat. Today many streams support reduced salmonid populations and those streams that do have viable salmonid populations are in serious danger of extirpating remaining native salmonid stocks, through hybridization, competition, and further loss of habitat. The gradual widening and shallowing of Bottoms’ streams is the result of natural stream aging that has been accelerated by the lack or streambank vegetation and livestock breaking down unprotected banks. Streambank failures on the Bottoms streams are a serious problem affecting aquatic biota through changes in habitat quality. Limiting factors for Yellowstone cutthroat in tributaries to American Falls Reservoir (Fort Hall Bottoms) include hybridization with rainbow trout, reservoir operations, overgrazing of riparian areas from cattle and bison, sedimentation, widened channels and increased water temperatures, and dewatering of lower Portneuf and low dissolved oxygen levels. Limiting Factors for Upper Portneuf River above Chesterfield Reservoir include over-grazing from cattle, dewatering, and sedimentation. The Upper Portneuf on Reservation has been negatively impacted by cattle grazing (loss of riparian, downcutting, etc.). Dewatering of small tributaries and overgrazing of Portneuf drainage negatively impact spawning habitat and rearing habitats of trout. In 1999, a genetic inventory of suspected populations of rainbow trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout was initiated Reservation wide. Thirteen streams were found to contain salmonids 70

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

(Table 4). Two sites showed no evidence of genetic introgression; Mill Creek and Ross Fork Creek. Previous studies conducted by the Fisheries Department have included trout densities in Upper Clear Creek from 1988 to 2006; length frequency of trout in Spring Creek from 20032006; densities of cutthroat vs. brook trout on Ross Fork from 1987-2006; and fry densities on the head-end of Spring Creek from 1991-2006. The primary focus of restoration has changed over years, in particular, less reliance on in-stream structures and more reliance on exclosure fencing, bank sloping and revegetation (with native plants propagated in Tribal nurseries) and natural healing processes. Future efforts by the Fisheries Department to plant streambank vegetation would slow the natural aging process; provide valuable shade and cover for trout; create food and cover for other wildlife; and act as natural barriers to livestock. Increased and continued restoration/protection efforts that could include development of a Tribal fish hatchery for stocking impacted streams on the Reservation and in other areas would also increase population numbers.

71

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP  Table 4. Genetic Inventory Sampling of Fish on Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Stream
30-Day Birch Cold Creek Garden Creek Lower Moonshine Lower/Mid Jeff Cabin Portneuf/Chesterfield Squaw Creek Upper Portneuf Wood Creek Mill Ross Fork WF Bannock South Fork Ross Moonshine Little Toponce Big Jimmy (Fort Hall Bottoms) Midnight Spring (Fort Hall Bottoms) North Toponce Rattlesnake Clear (Fort Hall Bottoms)

Winter 2010

Species
Brook Trout Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid NO FISH NO FISH Sucker spp, Longnose Dace, Redside Shiner Sucker spp, Longnose Dace, Redside Shiner Rainbow Trout, Sucker spp, Longnose Dace NO FISH Longnose Dace NO FISH Cutthroat trout Cutthroat trout Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid, Brook Trout, Sucker spp Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid, Sucker spp Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid, Sucker spp, Rainbow Trout Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid, Sucker spp Cutthroat X Rainbow Hybrid

Sample Size
0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Results are from sampling that occurred from August to September 1999.

3.9.3. Cultural Resources
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have a holistic definition of cultural resources and therefore for the purposes of this EA they are broadly defined as historic and pre-contact archaeological sites, buildings and structures, travel routes, material culture items, oral traditions, language, sacred landscapes and objects, social institutions, social practices, beliefs, religious practices, intellectual property, traditional cultural properties, and natural resources – water, air, wildlife, plants, minerals – and their use. These cultural resources may consist of land, water, and air, and the associated vegetation and landforms, or they may also have other physical evidence left by humans, and they can be tied to persons, places, events, or practices of social customs and traditional skills. Landscape cultural features include mountain peaks, benches, springs, cedar bluffs, and the Bottoms. See Shoshone and Bannock names for major areas on the Fort Hall Reservation. (Figure 18).

72

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
Figure 18 Shoshone and Bannock names for Major Areas on the Fort Hall Reservation.

Winter 2010

73

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Several competing chronology sequences have been established in an effort to understand and explain human occupation and use of the upper Great Basin. While the archaeological community has yet to agree upon any particular chronological sequence, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes believe that the chronology remains within the knowledge of the Tribes and they further maintain that the existence of the Shoshone and Bannock peoples has been intact since creation. The archeological record maintains that human occupation of the region has been more or less constant over the last 12,500 years and the prehistoric chronology of the region continues through the historic period. Evidence suggests that hunting and gathering have been the main subsistence strategy from the paleo-Indian period forward to historic and contemporary times as many Tribal members continue to hunt and gather. The indigenous people of this region have been in contact with Euro-Americans since the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Fur trappers as well as explorers with the Lewis and Clark expedition place Euro-Americans in contact with Great Basin people during this time period. Additional Euro-American contact came with the pioneer migration along the Oregon Trail and the development of the Fort Hall Trading post – established in 1834 to serve early trappers. The Reservation has many culturally significant archaeological and historical sites including National Register and eligible landmarks, districts, properties, and objects (historic, tribal, and prehistoric sites including permanent and seasonal village sites, quarries, Fort Hall, Cantonment Loring, California-Oregon Trail), Tribal and allotment development (including cemetery and isolated grave sites), sacred and religious areas (cultural areas, vision quest locations), and places of culturally significant botanical resources (the “cedars,” juniper areas, choke cherry locations), some of which have a particular cultural sensitivity (e.g., burial areas, the Bottoms). Presently, although only 25 percent of the Reservation lands have been surveyed, the Heritage Tribal Office (HeTO) has identified 126 archaeological sites within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and many of the sensitive cultural resource sites within the boundaries of the Reservation have been inventoried (BIA 2002). Among the many known cultural resource areas on the Reservation, the Fort Hall Bottoms is a unique resource area of high cultural significance for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes that is used for several practices and purposes. Historically, Tribal members lived in the Bottoms area and utilized the resources for cultural, spiritual, and gathering purposes as well as agricultural practices. Tribal members refer to the Bottoms as “Bungawidikie” meaning near water’s edge. This unique area is characterized by typical riparian vegetation next to the many streams and springs in the area with tall grass and sage steppe types in the upland areas. The numerous water sources in the area have always been hydrologically connected to the area and served as the ancient wintering ground and the heart of the Shoshone-Bannock aboriginal homeland. The Fort Hall Bottoms contain National Historic Sites (i.e., Fort Hall) and National Register Sites (i.e., the Oregon Trail). Many Tribal members continue to gather plants and harvest animals from the Bottoms for cultural and spiritual practices as well as for food and medicinal purposes. Protection of these resources and continued access to sacred sites are paramount to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Fort Hall Business Council – the responsible governing authority for managing cultural resources on the Reservation – and the Tribes are profoundly dedicated to the protection and conservation of cultural resource areas and sites within the Tribes’ aboriginal territory. A Cultural Resource Management Policy was drafted by the Tribes in 1999 to protect Tribal resources, customs, and values among the Shoshone and Bannock people of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. By authorization of Resolution CULT-96-0262, the

74

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Fort Hall Business Council established the HeTO to conduct cultural resource management and enforcement procedures to comply with Tribal and federal laws. HeTO is responsible for preparing management plans, implementation plans and procedures, and policy for cultural resource issues and for consulting with the Tribal Council prior to implementation of activities with the potential for effects to cultural resources. When properties are discovered on the Reservation during implementation of an undertaking, HeTO is responsible for developing a plan for the treatment of such properties. An undertaking is considered to have an adverse affect if it would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects on properties include, but are not limited to:      Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property’s setting when that character contributes to the property’s qualifications for the National Register Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction Transfer, lease, or sale of the property.

If an adverse effect on a property is found, HeTO notifies the Tribal Chairman and Council members and consults with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to seek ways to avoid or reduce the effects on the property. In addition, to these requirements, all federally funded activities within the Reservation boundaries are required to comply with various Tribal and federal regulations. A number of the federal laws, regulations, and guidelines, as well as Tribal ordinances that govern and protect cultural resources on Indian lands are listed in Appendix A. The principle federal law addressing cultural resources is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 USC Section 470), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). The NHPA describes the process for identifying and evaluating historic properties, for assessing the effects of federal actions on historic properties, and for consulting to avoid, reduce, or minimize adverse effects. The term historic properties refer to cultural resources that meet specific criteria for eligibility for listing on the NHPA. This process does not require historic properties to be preserved, but does ensure that the decisions of federal agencies concerning the treatment of these places result from meaningful consideration of cultural and historic values and the options available to protect properties. Because of the Tribes dedication to the protection and conservation of cultural resource areas and sites the Cultural Resources Department has developed a number of objectives including the following:       Manage for holistic values for traditional and cultural resources Inventory, as necessary, for cultural resources within exterior boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation Manage closed area of the Reservation to protect native plants which may be used for medicinal and traditional uses for Tribal members Develop and implement a Tribal Cultural Resource Management Plan Protect, preserve and pass on to future generations knowledge of cultural resources Foster the continuation of Shoshone and Bannock language and culture and to protect and support traditional religion and ways of life

75

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP    Maintain the identity of the Shoshone and Bannock people Protect and preserve the burials and grave sites on the Reservation.

Winter 2010

76

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences
4.1. Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the potential impacts of implementing the selected management measures in their entirety (as presented in Chapter 2) on the physical, biological, and cultural resources of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in the context of the scope of the Proposed Action and alternatives and in consideration of the affected environment described in Chapter 3. Implementation of the No Action Alternative reflects the continuation of existing baseline conditions as described in Section 2.3 and Chapter 3.0. Cumulative effects are addressed at the end of this chapter.

4.2.

Physical Resources

4.2.1. Air 4.2.1.1. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative retains the current management practices on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to air quality would generally be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection of or mitigation for impacts to air quality would be reactive in nature. The primary concern regarding the potential environmental effects on air quality would be exceedances of NAAQS and other Federal limits and impacts on existing air permits. Because Tribal departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their programs and projects, little consideration would be given to how their activities might impact air quality. The lack of integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects could result in an improvement, degradation, or no change to air quality. 4.2.1.2. Proposed Action Alternative Similar to the No Action Alternative, current land use and zoning would remain in effect on the Reservation under this alternative. However, under this alternative specific projects identified in the draft Comprehensive Plan or other department or program plans would be implemented utilizing a methodology that examines resource issues in an interdisciplinary manner prior to project implementation. This early planning process would serve to identify potential impacts to air quality and address them in a proactive manner. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may improve or have no effect on air quality. Activities would be planned in a manner consistent with air quality protection objectives. Minor temporary impacts to air quality from increases in fugitive dust may occur during construction projects but potential increases would be minimized because BMPs would be included in project planning and followed during construction. Other activities that may occur under the Proposed Action Alternative, such as prescribed burning, would also potentially cause a temporary negative effect on air quality. Prescribed fire would generate smoke that could potentially cause negative impacts to the public, both on and off Reservation. However, prescribed burning is conducted under strict parameters to ensure adequate dispersion of smoke and associated particulate matter.

77

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

4.2.1.3. Growth Alternative The Growth Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative but the degree of development would be greater and could occur outside of the existing zoning footprints. Changes in land use and zoning would result with more land being converted from irrigated farming and grazing to industrial and urban commercial uses; there would be up to 1,500 fewer acres of irrigated farmland and 3,000 fewer acres of land available for grazing and 3,000 more acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial activities. Expanded acreage for industrial and urban commercial development would have the potential to affect air quality on the Reservation during construction and operation. BMPs would be used to minimize fugitive dust impacts from agricultural and construction activities and proper permits would be required for any new emission sources. Therefore, impacts to air quality are not anticipated to change appreciably under this alternative compared to the No Action Alternative. 4.2.1.4. Restoration Alternative Under this alternative there would be up to 10,000 fewer acres of irrigated farmland, 4,900 fewer acres of dryland farming, and 36,900 fewer acres of land available for grazing. There would 3,000 more acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial activities. No land would be zoned as available for mining and there would be 56,050 acres of additional open space. Air quality would be expected to improve under this alternative as fewer ground disturbing activities would be authorized. 4.2.2. Soils 4.2.2.1. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative retains the current management practices on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation which often results in reactive management to problems after their occurrence, rather than on managing the resource to prevent impacts. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to soil resources would generally be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection of or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature. Because Tribal departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their programs and projects, there would be no plan of action to prevent or minimize potential soil problems related to erosion and sedimentation before their occurrence. The Reservation’s soils are vulnerable to degradation without the implementation of interdisciplinary planning. By failing to address potential soil erosion and sedimentation issues at the beginning of the project process, impacts on soils associated with erosion and sedimentation would be expected to continue. The lack of integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects could result in soil loss or disturbance remaining unchanged or increasing. 4.2.2.2. Proposed Action Alternative Similar to the No Action Alternative, current land use and zoning would remain in effect on the Reservation under this alternative. However, under this alternative specific projects identified in the draft Comprehensive Plan or other department or program plans would be implemented utilizing a methodology that examines resource issues in an interdisciplinary manner prior to

78

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

project implementation. This early planning process would serve to identify potential impacts to soil resources and address them in a proactive manner. Under the Proposed Action Alternative activities would be planned in a manner consistent with soil resource protection objectives and soils would be protected. Minor impacts to soil resources may occur during construction of various projects but many potential impacts to other resources would be avoided because best management practices (BMPs) would be included in project planning and followed during construction. Other activities with the potential to impact water quality – such as forest and fire management activities, grazing, agricultural practices, etc. – would also be implemented using BMPs appropriate for those actions to minimize effects. Erosion controls designed to reduce sedimentation would be implemented to reduce the potential for impacts to soils. The initial identification and use of BMPs in project implementation would minimize potential impacts from proposed activities. By implementing effective soil erosion and sedimentation control planning into the initial planning process, impacts on soils associated with erosion and sedimentation would be minimized and beneficial effects would be expected. With proper planning and use of BMPs, impacts to soils from construction and other ground disturbing activities, would be expected to be temporary and minor. 4.2.2.3. Growth Alternative Changes in land use and zoning would result in more land being converted from irrigated farming and grazing to industrial and urban commercial uses; there would be up to 1,500 fewer acres of irrigated farmland and 3,000 fewer acres of land available for grazing and 3,000 more acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial activities. Emphasizing resource uses such as livestock grazing, agricultural production, and mining and expanding acreage for industrial and urban commercial development would affect soil resources on the Reservation. While increased economic development could occur under this alternative, integrated resource management planning would be in place to ensure potential impacts to soil resources are adequately considered and mitigated. Therefore while soil resources would be protected more acres would potentially be disturbed as more land is converted for development. 4.2.2.4. Restoration Alternative The Restoration Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative and therefore impacts to soils would be similar to those described above for that alternative. However, because this alternative would decrease the amount land available for farming or grazing and increase the amount of open space – there would be up to 10,000 fewer acres available for irrigated farming, 4,900 fewer acres available for dryland farming, 36,900 fewer acres of land available for grazing, no land zoned for mining, and 56,050 acres of additional open space – there would be less disturbance to soils in those areas. An increase in soil disturbance could occur if development were to occur on the 3,000 additional acres made available for industrial development and the 1,500 additional acres made available for urban commercial activities. Use of the integrated management process described under the Proposed Action Alternative would result in protection of soils through the early planning and including BMPs etc. as well as through actual restoration actions in many disturbed areas. Restoration activities and projects

79

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

implemented under this alternative – such as restoration of sagebrush shrubland in some areas; restoration to a natural state of most dryland farmed areas; closure and repair of most backcountry roads; restoration to proper functioning condition of all riparian areas on the Reservation; changes in range management (especially in the Bottoms area); and restoration of the former Gay Mine site to open space – would have a beneficial effect on soils through rehabilitation of degraded areas maintenance of groundcover in undisturbed areas. Reducing the areas available for grazing and agriculture use (e.g., dryland farming) would reduce the potential for future ground disturbance in those areas and allow rehabilitation and revegetation to occur. Strong growth and development boundaries would be established and adhered to with economic development and urban commercial and industrial growth being limited to the areas on the Reservation already impacted by such activities. Allowing some lands to return to native range/uses would reduce the potential for soil erosion in those areas. Under this alternative, a Bottoms Management Plan would be developed and the amount of land available in the Bottoms for livestock grazing would be reduced as more acreage is set aside for wildland use. This action would reduce soil disturbance and allow revegetation in areas that have been previously disturbed. 4.2.3. Water 4.2.3.1. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative retains the current management practices on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to water resources would generally be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection of or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature. Because Tribal departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their programs and projects, little consideration would be given to how their activities might impact water resources. The Reservation’s water resources are vulnerable to degradation without the implementation of interdisciplinary planning that considers measures such as nonpoint source pollution controls and watershed protection measures at the planning stage. The lack of integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects could result in water resources remaining unchanged or being negatively impacted. 4.2.3.2. Proposed Action Alternative Similar to the No Action Alternative, current land use and zoning would remain in effect on the Reservation under this alternative. However, under this alternative specific projects identified in the draft Comprehensive Plan or other department or program plans would be implemented utilizing a methodology that examines resource issues in an interdisciplinary manner prior to project implementation. This early planning process would serve to identify potential impacts to water resources and address them in a proactive manner. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have limited, minor impacts to riparian, wetland, and other water resources. Activities would be planned in a manner consistent with water resource protection objectives. Minor impacts to water resources may occur during construction of various projects but many potential impacts would be avoided because BMPs would be included in project planning and followed during construction. Other activities with the potential to impact water quality – such as forest and fire management activities, grazing, etc. – would also be implemented using BMPs appropriate for those actions resulting in minimal 80

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

effects. Erosion controls designed to reduce sedimentation would be implemented to reduce the potential for impacts to water quality. The establishment of buffers for project near water sources would minimize potential impacts to riparian, wetland, and other water resources associated with adjacent activities. Efforts to limit impacts on water bodies would reduce the potential for water quality degradation both in and adjacent to the Reservation. 4.2.3.3. Growth Alternative The Growth Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative but the degree of development would be greater and could occur outside of the existing zoning footprints. Increased economic development could occur under this alternative in existing developed areas and along the interstate corridors. Changes in land use and zoning would result with more land being converted from irrigated farming and grazing to industrial and urban commercial uses; there would be up to 1,500 fewer acres of irrigated farmland and 3,000 fewer acres of land available for grazing and 3,000 more acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial activities. Emphasizing resource uses such as livestock grazing, agricultural production, and mining could result in impacts – both positive and negative – to water resources. Construction activities related to increased development could also result in impacts to water resources. 4.2.3.4. Restoration Alternative The Restoration Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative but this alternative would emphasize natural resource conservation by reducing the areas open to future development. Under this alternative there would be up to 10,000 fewer acres of irrigated farmland, 4,900 fewer acres of dryland farming, and 36,900 fewer acres of land available for grazing. There would 3,000 more acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial activities. No land would be zoned as available for mining and there would be some 56,050 acres of additional open space. These land use changes have the potential to decrease impacts to water resources. Reducing the amount of land available for livestock grazing and agriculture use, particularly in the Buckskin Basin area, and returning some lands to native sagebrush shrubland would indirectly benefit water quality by decreasing the amount of soil disturbance and erosion in those areas. Restoration of all riparian areas on the Reservation to proper functioning condition as well as implementation of changes in range management (especially in the Bottoms area) would also result in indirect beneficial impacts. Because substantial areas such as the Bottoms that are heavily used for livestock grazing would be set aside for wildland use, the potential for impacts to water quality would be reduced. Other actions proposed under this alternative would provide additional protections for water quality. Restoration of the former Gay Mine site to open space and closure and repair of backcountry roads proposed as part of this alternative would reduce soil disturbance and the potential for erosion and sedimentation thereby indirectly improving water quality.

81

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

4.3.

Biological Resources

4.3.1. Vegetation 4.3.1.1. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative retains the current management practices on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to vegetation would generally be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection of or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature. Because Tribal departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their programs and projects, little consideration would be given to how their activities might impact vegetation. The Reservation’s vegetation resources are vulnerable to degradation in some areas without the implementation of interdisciplinary planning that includes consideration of resource protective measures at the planning stage. The lack of integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects could result in vegetation resources remaining unchanged or being negatively impacted. 4.3.1.2. Proposed Action Alternative Similar to the No Action Alternative, current land use and zoning would remain in effect on the Reservation under this alternative. However, under this alternative specific projects identified in the draft Comprehensive Plan or other department or program plans would be implemented utilizing a methodology that examines resource issues in an interdisciplinary manner prior to project implementation. This early planning process would serve to identify potential impacts to vegetation and address them in a proactive manner. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have limited, minor impacts to riparian, wetland, and other vegetation resources; overall resources may be improved or remain unchanged. Activities would be planned in a manner consistent with vegetation resource protection objectives. Minor impacts to vegetation resources may occur during construction of various projects but many potential impacts would be avoided because BMPs would be included in project planning and followed during construction. Initial integrated planning under the Proposed Action would incorporate BMPs to help preserve ground cover in project implementation and minimize potential impacts to vegetation. Other activities with the potential to impact vegetation – such as forest and fire management activities, grazing, etc. – would also be implemented using BMPs appropriate for those actions in order to minimize effects. The establishment of buffers would minimize potential impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation. Applying prescribed fire on the Reservation would gradually decrease the fire return interval so that it becomes closer to pre-settlement disturbance patterns and would encourage more fire resistant species. Through implementation of prescribed fire and other forest management actions, a mosaic of vegetation species would be created and the pockets of desirable habitat would support plant and wildlife species diversity. Implementing these types of actions in an integrated manner will help to focus efforts on restoring structure and composition in certain vegetative communities. Actions such as forest management or prescribed burning would be conducted in an interdisciplinary manner. Some short term direct effects would occur as vegetation is crushed by heavy equipment or reduced by prescribed fire. Indirect impacts to vegetation would be

82

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

beneficial for most herbaceous species in the long term as the removal of overstory vegetation would encourage native grasses and forbs through decreased competition and increased sunlight, with possible growth stimulation from fire. Mosaics of vegetation species would support plant diversity. Temporary direct impacts to vegetation could result from being crushed by heavy equipment or reduced by prescribed fire. Indirect impacts to vegetation would be beneficial for most herbaceous species; their growth would be encouraged through decreased competition and increased sunlight, with possible growth stimulation from fire. Herbicides would be used as necessary to control noxious weeds and invasive species. Only approved pesticides would be used and they would be applied by qualified applicators according to label directions. 4.3.1.3. Growth Alternative The Growth Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative but the degree of development would be greater and could occur outside of the existing zoning footprints. Increased economic development could occur under this alternative in existing developed areas and along the interstate corridors. Changes in land use and zoning would result with more land being converted from irrigated farming and grazing to industrial and urban commercial uses; there would be up to 1,500 fewer acres of irrigated farmland and 3,000 fewer acres of land available for grazing and 3,000 more acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial activities. Emphasizing resource uses such as livestock grazing, agricultural production, and mining could result in impacts to vegetation resources. Development of additional acreage for industrial and urban commercial uses would likely result in removal of vegetation resources on those areas and thus fewer acres of native vegetation would exist on the Reservation. 4.3.1.4. Restoration Alternative The Restoration Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative and therefore impacts to vegetation would be similar to those described above for that alternative. However, because this alternative would emphasize natural resource conservation by reducing the areas open to future development the potential for effects to vegetation would be reduced. Urban commercial and industrial growth and development would be limited to the areas on the Reservation already impacted by such activities so no new areas of native vegetation would be disturbed. This alternative would also change existing zoning by reducing areas available for livestock grazing and agriculture use (e.g., dryland farming) and would return some lands to native range/uses. These actions would improve vegetation conditions in those areas. Other restoration activities and projects tied to this alternative would result in improvements to the overall condition of vegetative resources on the Reservation. These include a reduction in areas devoted to irrigated agriculture (e.g., Buckskin Basin area) and restoration of sagebrush shrubland; restoration to a natural state of most dryland farmed areas; closure and repair of most backcountry roads; restoration of riparian areas to proper functioning condition; changes in range management (especially in the Bottoms area); and restoration of the former Gay Mine site to open space. These actions would indirectly benefit vegetation by reducing the amount of disturbance occurring in an area. Setting aside substantial areas of the Bottoms for wildland use would reduce livestock grazing and allow vegetation to recover to its natural state as habitat for

83

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

wildlife. This alternative would promote native range/uses and would be most protective of the vegetation resources on the Reservation. 4.3.2. Wildlife and Fisheries 4.3.2.1. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative retains the current management practices on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat would generally be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection of or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature. Because Tribal departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their programs and projects, little consideration would be given to how their activities might impact wildlife or their habitat. The Reservation’s wildlife habitat is vulnerable to degradation without implementation of interdisciplinary planning that considers including habitat protection measures at the planning stage. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no formal implementation of an integrated planning system to ensure consideration of effects to wildlife habitat, resulting in a continued challenge for the Tribes to achieve their objective of providing benefits to wildlife species and to maintain or improve overall biodiversity. The lack of integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects could result in wildlife resources remaining unchanged or being negatively impacted. Minor adverse effects to terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic habitat, and fish and wildlife would be expected to continue because the No Action Alternative would not assure project planning takes place to include routine management measures to protect and enhance habitats by preventing or minimizing potential impacts from project implementation. Minor adverse effects to would be expected to continue and the health and condition of existing populations would not be improved. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would continue the management of threatened and endangered species. 4.3.2.2. Proposed Action Alternative Similar to the No Action Alternative, current land use and zoning would remain in affect on the Reservation under this alternative. However, under this alternative specific projects identified in the draft Comprehensive Plan or other department or program plans would be implemented utilizing a methodology that examines resource issues in an interdisciplinary manner prior to project implementation. This early planning process would serve to identify potential impacts to wildlife and fisheries and address them in a proactive manner. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, implementation of interdisciplinary planning would be beneficial to species by improving and integrating the information available to managers for the decision making process. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have a positive net effect on wildlife management actions on the Reservation by providing improved integration between departments. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have limited, minor impacts to wildlife and fisheries but overall populations and habitat would be improved through interdisciplinary planning. Activities would be planned in a manner consistent with wildlife and fisheries resource protection objectives. Minor impacts to these resources may occur during construction of various projects depending upon their location but many potential impacts would be avoided because BMPs would be included in project planning and followed during 84

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

construction. Other activities with the potential to impact wildlife and fisheries – such as forest and fire management activities, grazing, etc. – would also implement BMPs appropriate for those actions to minimize effects. Management measures designed to protect and enhance wildlife habitats (e.g., aquatic, riparian, wetlands, terrestrial) would be included in project implementation, thereby resulting in an increase in the quality and complexity of the habitats. Improvements in habitat quality and complexity would beneficially affect wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Although changes brought about by implementation of fire or forestry management actions would produce both positive and negative effects based upon individual species habitat and forage preferences, they would have a net beneficial effect on those species adapted to a fire maintained ecosystem. Populations of game species would increase in the short term as grass and forb growth is stimulated and better quality brood rearing habitat is created through the use of prescribed fire. Implementation of the alternative would also have a net beneficial effect on nongame species that would extend throughout the terrestrial and aquatic communities. Implementation of forestry and fire actions would change forest community structure at a slow rate, and create less favorable habitats for many nongame species (including some neo-tropical migrant birds) but would maintain native and migratory populations of these species at levels consistent with ecological carrying capacity as it relates to pre-settlement conditions. The use of prescribed fire would have both short and long term negative effects on mid-story and shrub nesting avifauna. These changes would produce both positive and negative effects based upon individual species habitat and forage preferences. The effects of specific actions such as prescribed fire on amphibian and reptile populations are unclear but under this alternative they would be addressed during interdisciplinary project planning for proposed forest and habitat management actions. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have beneficial effects on federally protected species as planned actions such as fire and forest management would occur in an interdisciplinary manner. Seasonal and resident terrestrial species populations would benefit from the transformation of potential habitat to suitable habitat as management activities restore historic structure and disturbance regimes to forested areas. 4.3.2.3. Growth Alternative The Growth Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative but the degree of development would be greater and could occur outside of the existing zoning footprints. Increased economic development could occur under this alternative in existing developed areas and along the interstate corridors. Changes in land use and zoning would result with more land being converted from irrigated farming and grazing to industrial and urban commercial uses; there would be up to 1,500 fewer acres of irrigated farmland and 3,000 fewer acres of land available for grazing and 3,000 more acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial activities. Emphasizing resource uses such as livestock grazing, agricultural production, and mining could result in impacts to wildlife and fisheries. Increased development could also result in impacts to these resources. Populations would still be managed for sustainable use but wildlife habitat may be reduced.

85

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

4.3.2.4. Restoration Alternative The Restoration Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative, therefore effects to wildlife and fisheries from any projects implemented would be similar to those described above for that alternative. However, because this alternative would reduce the areas open to farming and grazing while increasing the amount of open space, beneficial effects to wildlife and fisheries would be increased. Under this alternative there would be up to 10,000 fewer acres of irrigated farmland, 4,900 fewer acres of dryland farming, and 36,900 fewer acres of land available for grazing. No land would be zoned as available for mining and there would be 56,050 acres of additional open space. Strong growth and development boundaries would be established and adhered to with economic development and urban commercial and industrial growth being limited to the areas on the Reservation already impacted by such activities. These changes in land use zoning would result in improvements in wildlife populations and habitats as well as potential increases in the amount of habitat available. Reducing the amount of land devoted to agriculture and restoring sagebrush shrubland would provide new habitat for wildlife and restoring riparian areas to proper functioning condition would improve fisheries habitat as well as habitat for wildlife species that use this type of habitat. Setting aside areas in the Bottoms for wildland use would improve wildlife and fisheries habitat conditions by eliminating habitat degradation caused by livestock. Enhanced management in the Bottoms area, restoration of the former Gay Mine site to open space, and increased allocation of forage to wildlife would all serve to improve wildlife habitat. Closure and repair of most backcountry roads would reduce habitat fragmentation. Overall, populations may increase under this alternative due to changing habitat conditions and the size of the areas designated and protected for wildlife.

4.4

Cultural Resources

4.4.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative retains the current management practices on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Under this management scenario, potential impacts to cultural resources would generally be realized at the project implementation stage instead of the planning stage, and thus protection of or mitigation for impacts to the resource would be reactive in nature. Because Tribal departments would largely continue to work independently to plan and implement their programs and projects, little consideration would be given to how their activities might impact cultural resources. The Reservation’s cultural resources are vulnerable to degradation without the implementation of interdisciplinary planning that considers including measures such as avoidance and site-specific surveys at the planning stage before ground disturbance occurs. The lack of integrated, interdisciplinary consideration in planning and implementation of projects could result in cultural resources being damaged. 4.4.2 Proposed Action Alternative Similar to the No Action Alternative, current land use and zoning would remain in effect on the Reservation under this alternative. However, specific projects identified in the draft Comprehensive Plan or other department or program plans would be implemented utilizing a methodology that examines resource issues in an interdisciplinary manner prior to project implementation. This early planning process would serve to identify potential impacts to cultural 86

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

resources and address them in a proactive manner. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in the protection of cultural resources. Activities would be planned in a manner consistent with cultural resource protection objectives. Potential impacts would be avoided through implementation of cultural resource protection measures. 4.4.3 Development Alternative The Growth Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative but the degree of development would be greater and could occur outside of the existing zoning footprints. Increased economic development could occur under this alternative in existing developed areas and along the interstate corridors. Changes in land use and zoning would result with more land being converted from irrigated farming and grazing to industrial and urban commercial uses; there would be up to 1,500 fewer acres of irrigated farmland and 3,000 fewer acres of land available for grazing and 3,000 more acres available for industrial development and 1,500 more acres available for urban commercial activities. Although these lands use changes would have the potential to impact cultural resources, examination of resource issues in an interdisciplinary manner prior to project implementation would result in the protection of cultural resources. 4.4.4 Restoration Alternative The Restoration Alternative would employ the same integrated management process as the Proposed Action Alternative; therefore effects to cultural resources would be similar to those described above for that alternative. Zoning changes proposed under this alternative would reduce the amount of land available for farming and grazing while increasing the amount available for urban commercial activities and development. Although there is a potential for impacts to cultural resources from increased development, utilization of the early planning process would serve to identify potential impacts to cultural resources and address them in a proactive manner. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would result in the protection of cultural resources.

4.5 Cumulative Effects
4.5.1 Definition of Cumulative Effects Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations stipulate that the cumulative effects analysis within an EA should consider the potential environmental impacts resulting from “the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.7). Cumulative effects are most likely to arise when a relationship or synergism exists between a proposed action and other actions expected to occur during a similar time period or in a similar location. Actions overlapping with or in close proximity to the proposed action would be expected to have more potential for a relationship than those more geographically separated. Similarly, actions that coincide, even partially, in time would tend to offer a higher potential for cumulative effects. Implementation of the IRMP would result in a comprehensive natural resource management strategy for the Tribes that improves the existing management approach for natural resources on the Reservation. Implementation would be expected initially to improve existing environmental

87

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

conditions. Over time, adoption of the Proposed Action would enable the Tribes to achieve their goal of maintaining ecosystem viability and ensuring sustainability of desired conditions. 4.5.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis The scope of the cumulative effects analysis involves both the geographic extent of the effects and the time frame in which the effects could be expected to occur. For this EA, the region of influence is the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, which defines the geographic extent of the cumulative effects analysis. The time frame for cumulative effects centers on the timing of the proposed action and would continue into the foreseeable future. The scope of the cumulative effects analysis also involves identifying other relevant actions in the ROI. Beyond determining that the geographic scope and time frame for the actions interrelate to the proposed action, the analysis employs the measure of “reasonably foreseeable” to include or exclude other actions. For the purposes of this analysis, information about upcoming projects from Tribal departments represent the primary sources of information regarding reasonably foreseeable actions. Documents used to identify other actions included management plans, other NEPA studies, and the Draft Comprehensive Plan. 4.5.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Past activities and projects on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation have generally not been conducted with deliberate interdisciplinary planning prior to implementation. As a result, past projects undertaken by one department to meet their goals and objectives have often resulted in unintended and negative consequences on other resources and on the ability of other departments to achieve their department’s goals and objectives. Currently, there is no set policy on interdisciplinary planning at the project planning stage. It is reasonable to expect that growth (both in population numbers, housing, and commercial development) will continue to occur on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in the foreseeable future. The ability of land and resource managers to balance this development with natural resource sustainability and cultural resource protection will largely depend on how well an integrated culture of management is implemented. The goal of the IRMP is to put into place such a planning system that will systematically involve all affected departments in order to reduce potential conflicts between departments in achieving resource goals and objectives and move managers towards common targets. This EA analyzes three alternatives that emphasize interdisciplinary planning under 1) current land use, 2) an economic growth scenario, and 3) a conservation scenario. The No Action Alternative is also analyzed and represents the status quo of no formal interdisciplinary planning.

88

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination
5.1. Planning Process / Schedule / Meetings
An interdisciplinary approach is being used to develop the Plan and interdepartmental participation was solicited throughout the process for developing this IRMP. Information and guidance was solicited from a variety of Tribal departments and groups. An IRMP interdisciplinary Team was formed that consisted of key departmental personnel and individuals from various groups that have an interest in the Reservation and the management of its natural resources. Members of this ID Team represent the Water Resources Department; Fish & Wildlife Department; Planning Department; Range Program; ARM Program; Cultural Resources; and. This ID Team will ensure that information concerning the natural resources on or in the vicinity of the Reservation is accurately accounted for and is managed in a way that is compatible with local and regional management strategies. In 1998, a Core Planning Team was formed to develop a new plan for sustainable growth, social and economic development, and financial independence. The planning process began in 2001 with a series of community “scoping” meetings that resulted in the Draft Comprehensive Plan in 2005. As described in chapter 1, the EA for the IRMP was initiated to analyze the impact of various management alternatives on resources and to provide a strategic planning level document to guide management of the natural and cultural resources on the Reservation in an integrated manner. In 2007 a Resolution was approved by the Fort Hall Business Council to begin the planning process for the development of this EA and the IRMP. Prior to initiating the NEPA process for the IRMP, several meetings were held to afford the public an opportunity to provide input into the Comprehensive Plan development process (a summary of these efforts is contained in the Comprehensive Plan). Information obtained during this process, as well as from internal ID Team meetings, was used to develop a list of issues that needed to be addressed in the IRMP. Interviews with individual programs and departments were held to gather baseline information for the EA and to be carried into the Plan. During Winter of 2010 public involvement will occur with the Draft EA available for public review and comment, and public meetings scheduled throughout the Reservation.

5.2.

Public Involvement

Public participation is provided for in the NEPA process to promote open communication and better decision-making and is invited throughout the development of this IRMP. Public meetings will be held once the Draft EA is released to solicit input and comments for the proposed plan. A listing of the persons consulted in the preparation of the IRMP and copies of all agency correspondence will be included in the Final IRMP, expected to be available in early 2010. The public and concerned organizations will be notified of the findings and conclusions of this EA by an announcement of the availability of a FONSI in the local newspapers and by the availability of this IRMP for public review for 45 days before the Proposed Action is initiated. The availability of the FONSI and the IRMP will be published in the local newspaper (i.e. the Sho-Ban News, the Idaho State Journal and the Blackfoot News) and the documents will be made available for public review at the BIA Fort Hall Agency Offices, the Tribal Library, the Fish & Wildlife Department and at the Administrative Offices in the Tribal Business Center.

89

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

5.3.

Interdisciplinary Team Members (Preparers)

This EA was prepared under the direction of the Environmental Program and in cooperation with the ID Team. The ID team consisted of the following individuals:              Yvette Tuell, Environmental Coordinator Elese Teton, Tribal Water Resource Director John Norstog, Planning Director Bill Snapp, ARM Program Director Angelo Gonzales, Executive Director Angela Mendez, Health Director Arnold Appeney, Land Use Director Hunter Osborne, Fish & Wildlife Director (Interim) Mark Wadsworth, Range Program Manager Carolyn Smith, Cultural Resource Coordinator Lorraine Shay, Housing Director Wes Jones, Emergency Management Response Director

The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document:              JoEtta Buckhouse Dan Christopherson Chad Colter Jace Fahnestock Kelly Green Danielle Gunn Hal Hayball Tom Liddil Hunter Osborne Dan Stone Reginald Thorpe Roger Turner Dr. LaNada War Jack Tribal DOE/Cultural Resources Wildlife Program Fish & Wildlife Department NEPA, North Wind, Inc. NEPA, North Wind, Inc. University of Idaho Extension Office, Fort Hall GIS/LIS Program, SBT Agriculture Resource Management Program, (former) Resident Fisheries Program, SBT Fish & Wildlife Department, SBT Emergency Management Response (former) Air Quality Program, SBT Executive Director’s Office (former)

90

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

References
60 FR 35999. 1995. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Reclassify the Bald Eagle From Endangered to Threatened in All of the Lower 48 States. USFWS. 64 FR 36453. 1999. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. USFWS. 65 FR 76203. 2000. Finding of Attainment for PM-10; Portneuf Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area, Idaho. Federal Register: December 6, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 235) Proposed Rules. Bannock Ecological. 2007. Woodland Management Plan for the Fort Hall Reservation. Bechtel Environmental, Inc. 1994. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Preliminary Site Characterization Summary for the Eastern Michaud Flat Site. Unpublished Report. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2002. EA for Wildland Fuels Reduction Program on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Prepared by Fire Logistics, Inc., May 2000. Revised by June Boynton, BIA, Northwest Region, April 2002. Cates, K. 2007. Personal communication related to the IRMP. District Conservationist, Fort Hall NRCS Office, Fort Hall, Idaho. Christopherson, D. 2007. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Davis, C. 2007. Survey for Ute Lady’s Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) for the Fort Hall Historic Landmark Bank Stabilization Project. Prepared for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and Bureau of Reclamation. Fort Hall Idaho. D’Azevedo, W.L. 1986. Editor, Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 11, Great Basin. Washington D.C.: The Smithsonian Institution. Elliott, J.C., and P. Sawyer. May 2002. Environmental Assessment Forest Management Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Prepared for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, Idaho. Ehrhart, R., and P. Hansen. 1998. Successful strategies for grazing cattle in riparian zones. Montana BLM Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 4. Gillihan, S.W. 2006. Sharing the land with pinyon-juniper birds. Partners in Flight Western Working Group. Salt Lake City, Utah. Halliday, J. and G. Chehak. 1996. Native Peoples of the Northwest; A Traveler's Guide to Land, Art, and Culture. In cooperation with the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. Sasquatch Books, Seattle, WA. IDEQ 2004. Portneuf Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan, Maintenance Plan, and Redesignation Request. Prepared by: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Pocatello Regional Office, Pocatello, Idaho. May 2004. http://www.deq.state.id.us/air/data_reports/reports/portneuf_valley/portneuf_valley_SIP_plan _draft_2004.pdf

91

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Lewis, L. and C. R. Wegner. 1998. Idaho’s Canada Lynx: Pieces of the Puzzle. Tech. Bull. 9811. Boise, Idaho: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. 19 p. Madsen, B.G. 1985. The Shoshoni Frontier and the Bear River Massacre. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. Mariah Associates, Inc. 1986. Environmental Assessment Report, Gay Mine Expansion Area Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho. Unpublished report prepared for J.R. Simplot Company and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (NPAIHB). 2007. Information about ShoshoneBannock Tribes. http://www.npaihb.org/profiles/tribal_profiles/Idaho/Shoshone_Bannock.htm Parry, M. T. 1976. Massacre at Boa Ogoi. In Madsen, 1985. Paulin, K.M., J.J. Cook, and S.R. Dewey. 1999. Pinyon-juniper woodlands as sources of avian diversity. Pp. 240-243 in S.B. Monsen and R. Stevens, compilers. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West. USDA Forest Service RMRS-P-9. Ruediger, B. J. Claar, S. Mighton, B. Naney, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson, L. Lewis, B. Holt, G. Patton, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, and S. Gniadek. 2000. Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. Interagency Publication. Sampson, R., T. Stevenson, and J. Castro. 2001. The Snake River from Ferry Butte to American Falls Reservoir: Changes and trends in stream form and function. Unpublished report prepared by NRCS for Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, Idaho. Schoolcraft. Encyclopedian of Idaho Indians Nations Treaties of the West. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Draft Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Comprehensive Plan. Tribal Planning Department, draft dated April 20, 2006. Shoshone Bannock Tribes. 2007. Information about Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. http://www.shoshonebannocktribes.com/fhbc.html Taki, D. and D. Arthaud. 1993. Fort Hall Indian Reservation Stream Enhancement: ShoshoneBannock Tribes 1992 Annual Report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Project 92-10, Portland Oregon. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 2001. Snake River at Fort Hall, Idaho Bank Erosion Study. Unpublished report prepared for the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, Idaho. U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Census Bureau Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USDA SCS), USDI BIA, and University of Idaho College of Agriculture, Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station. 1977. Soil Survey for the Fort Hall Area, Idaho, Parts of Bannock, Bingham, Caribou, and Power Counties. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/ID710/0/id710_text.pdf

92

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2004. Understanding Soil Risks and Hazards: Using Soil Survey to Identify Areas with Risks and Hazards to Human Life and Property” Lincoln, NE: National Soil Survey Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Final Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered or Threatened Status for Five Aquatic Snails in South Central Idaho. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2007. Climate Summary Information. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu.

93

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

APPENDIX A – Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances Relevant to the Shoshone Bannock Tribes
Below is a list – including brief summaries – of a number of the regulations that affect natural resource management on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. This list is not meant to be all inclusive. More detailed descriptions and complete lists of relevant regulations should be contained in individual resource plans. National Environmental Policy Act, 1969, 42 U.S.C 4321 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates that every federal agency prepare an in-depth study of the impacts of “major federal actions having a significant effect on the environment” and alternatives to those actions, and requiring that each agency make that information an integral part of its decisions. NEPA also requires that agencies make a diligent effort to involve the interested and affected public before they make decisions affecting the environment. Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA establish the process by which federal agencies fulfill their obligations under the NEPA process. The CEQ regulations contain the requirements for EAs and EISs that document the NEPA process. These regulations also define such key terms as “cumulative impact,” “mitigation,” and “significantly” to ensure consistent application of these terms in environmental documents. National Indian Forest Resource Management Act of 1990 (PL 101-630) The National Indian Forest Resource Management Act provides for the management of forested tribal trust land and requires a management plan be developed for all forestry lands under the jurisdiction of the BIA. The Tribes has contracted management of the Forest Program from the BIA under the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act P.L. 93-638 process, and therefore must ensure compliance with federal laws. Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Public Law 93-638 The intent of Public Law 93-638 is to recognize that Tribes can have control over BIAadministered programs. The law contains the Indian Self-Determination and Self-Governance criteria for Tribes. These criteria require the BIA to offer Tribes the opportunity to contract all programs within the Bureau (such as programs to administer health, housing, education, or transportation). Clean Water Act, 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 The Clean Water Act (CWA) gives the EPA the authority to set effluent standards on an industry basis and water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f The Safe Drinking Water Act was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S. This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources.

94

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management This EO requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid development in floodplains whenever there is a practical alternative. Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands This EO established the protection of wetlands and riparian systems as the official policy of the federal government. It requires all federal agencies to consider wetland protection as an important part of their policies and take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Fort Hall Water Rights Agreement, November 16, 1990, P.L. 101-602 The 1990 Agreement determined the rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to the use of water in the upper Snake River Basin for the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Partial Final Consent Decree Determining the Rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to the Use of Water in the Upper Snake River Basin, August 2, 1995 This Court Decree issued by the Snake River Basin Adjudication Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for the County of Twin Falls ratifies, confirms and authorizes the water rights of the United States and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in the Upper Snake River Basin for the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Water Resources Code, WATR-07-S1, May 11, 2007 The Water Code governs the regulation and protection of the Tribes’ water resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Groundwater Protection Act, WATR-02-S2, January 10, 2003 The Groundwater Protect Act was enacted to maintain the highest quality of ground water and protect existing and future beneficial uses of ground water through the reduction or elimination of the discharge of contaminants to the Fort Hall Indian Reservation’s ground water. Well Construction Standards, WATR-02-S3, January 10, 2003 These standards were implemented for the regulation and licensing of water well contractors and operators and for the regulation of water well construction and abandonment for the protection of the health of the groundwater for public health, welfare, and safety of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation residents. Comprehensive Water Master Plan, January 31, 2006 This plan was developed in direct compliance with 1990 Fort Hall Water Rights Agreement to provide the Tribal Water Resources Department with guidance regarding efficient practices for using and regulating water resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The overall plan includes sections on water conservation opportunities, drought planning, groundwater monitoring and regulating, and future water development planning. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, PL 89-665, 80 Stat. 915, 16 USC§470 et seq., and 36 CFR 18, 60, 61, 63, 68, 79, 800 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has developed implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), which allow agencies to develop agreements for consideration of these historic properties. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to

95

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

take into account the effects of their undertakings on cultural resources, either listed in or eligible to be listed in the NRHP, and afford the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), affiliated American Indian tribes, individuals with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking, and the general public, a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Public Law 96-515 amended NHPA and granted American Indian Tribes equal status with state and local governments. This act was further amended in 1992 by the Fowler Bill that allows for inclusion of Traditional Cultural Properties on the NRHP and establishment of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO). Antiquities Act of 1906, PL 59-209, 34 Stat. 225, 16 USC 432, and 43 CFR 3 This Act provides for the protection of historic or prehistoric remains, “or any antiquity,” on federal lands. It protects historic monuments and ruins on public lands. This Act was superseded by the Archeological Resources Protection Act (1979). Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, PL 96-95, 93 Stat. 712, 16 USC 470aa et seq., 25 CFR Part 262 This Act secures the protection of archeological resources on public or Indian lands and fosters increased cooperation and exchange of information between private, government, and the professional community in order to facilitate the enforcement and education of present and future generations. It regulates excavation and collection on public and Indian lands. This act established provisions for granting permits to conduct archaeological investigation on federal lands and requires consultation with American Indian Tribes who may consider a site of religious or cultural importance regarding archaeological investigations prior to the federal agency issuance of a permit. The Act was amended in 1988 to require the development of plans for surveying public lands for archeological resources and systems for reporting incidents of suspected violations. American Indian Religious Freedom Act, PL 95-341, 92 Stat. 469, 42 USC 1996 This Act declares policy to protect and preserve the inherent and constitutional right of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiian people to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. It requires federal agencies to examine the areas where their policies and regulations affect religious freedoms of American Indians and provides that religious concerns should be accommodated or addressed under NEPA or other appropriate statutes. Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, 1990, PL 101-601, 104 Stat. 3049, 25 USC 3001-3013 This Act assigns ownership or control of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony that are excavated or discovered on federal lands or tribal lands and provides for the repatriation to lineal descendants or culturally affiliated Native American groups. Federal agencies and institution must inventory their material culture collections and consult with Indian Tribes or religious leaders concerning the repatriation of the inventory material culture. Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 13, 1971 This Executive Order instructs all federal agencies to support the preservation of cultural properties. It directs them to identify and nominate cultural properties under their jurisdiction to the NRHP and to “exercise caution…to assure that any federally owned property that might qualify for nomination is not inadvertently transferred, sold, demolished, or substantially

96

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

altered.” In addition the EO calls for federal agencies to develop policies for the preservation of all historic properties not owned or controlled by the federal government. Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 24 May 1996 this EO requires that agencies responsible for the management of Federal lands shall, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Endangered Species Act, 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides for the listing and protection of endangered and threatened species and their critical habitat. The ESA requires consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 if any listed species may be adversely affected. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703-712 The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the protection of migratory birds. Later amendments implemented treaties between the United States and Mexico, Japan, and current day Russia. Specific provisions in the statute include prohibition on killing of designated migratory birds. Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 718-718j, March 16, 1934, as amended through 1988 This Act requires use of a migratory bird stamp for hunting, and raises funds for the conservation of migratory waterfowl by the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty between the U.S. and Canada. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668a-d This Act prohibits any form of possession or taking of both bald and golden eagles. The statute imposes criminal and civil sanctions as well as an enhanced penalty provision for subsequent offenses. The statute excepts from its prohibitions on possession the use of eagles or eagle parts for exhibition, scientific, and Indian religious uses. Lacey Act Amendments, November 16, 1981, 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378 These amendments repealed the Black Bass Act and sections 43 and 44 of the Lacey Act of 1900, replacing them with a single comprehensive statute. Under this law, it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of state or foreign law. Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act, 25 U.S.C. 3701 The purpose of this Act is to protect and restore the agronomic and rangeland resources on trust lands and facilitate the development of renewable agricultural resources. Conservation Reserve Programs 7CFR, Part 1410 and the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended The USDA Farm Service Agency's (FSA) Conservation Reserve Programs are voluntary programs available to agricultural producers to help them safeguard environmentally sensitive land. Producers enrolled in the programs plant long-term, resource-conserving covers to improve the quality of water, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat. In return, FSA provides participants with rental payments and cost-share assistance.

97

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

BIA Grazing Regulations, 25 CFR, Part 166 These are the regulations that BIA uses to approve, grant, and administer a permit for grazing on tribal land, individually owned Indian land, or government land. Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species This EO directs federal agencies to not authorize, fund, or carry out actions they believe are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. Indian Mineral Leasing Act, 25 U.S.C. 396a-g C.F.R. Part 211 This Act, as well as court precedent and agency policy, establishes the BIA as the primary custodian of Indian mineral resources. Through secondary agreements and through policy directives, other Federal agencies provide technical assistance and may act in an advisory role to tribes. Surface Mining and Control Reclamation Act, 30 U.S.C. 1201 This Act establishes a program for the regulation of surface mining activities under the administration of the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, in the Department of the Interior. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 and 11001 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. Clean Air Act, 1970, including 1977 and 1990 amendments; 42 U.S.C. 7401 The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set national health-based air quality standards to protect against common pollutants (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter) and national standards for major new sources of pollution, including automobiles, trucks, and electric power plants.

98

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 

Winter 2010

APPENDIX B – Wildlife and Culturally Significant Plant Species on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
Wildlife known to occur on the Reservation are listed in the first table and culturally and traditionally important plant species known to occur on the Reservation are listed in the second table.
WILDLIFE SPECIES SPECIES
Rubber boa (Charina bottae) Western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans) Common garter snake (Thamnophis siralis) Great Basin gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) Striped whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus) Night snake (Hypsiglena torguata) Western yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictor) Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus) Great Basin western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris) Desert collared lizard (Crotaphytus insularis) Longnose leopard lizard (Gambella wislizenii) Short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii) Desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos) Sagebrush lizard (Sceloperous graciosus) Western fence lizard (Sceloperous occidentalis) Side-blotched lizard (Uta stansbruiana) Western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus)

HABITAT SNAKES
Woodlands, forests, riparian, and meadows Near water Near water Dryland habitats Shrub steppe Rocky slopes and outcrops Meadows, sage steppe Sagebrush steppe, grasslands, and rock outcrops Shrub steppe Rocky dry areas Sandy shrub steppe Sagebrush and juniper Shrub steppe Sagebrush and juniper Rocky canyons and talus slopes Sage steppe and juniper Moist, rocky areas All habitats Sagebrush steppe near water Marshes, wooded areas, and grasslands Aquatic habitats Sagebrush steppe and mountain forest Aquatic habitats Forests and wet meadows Mountain streams Moist areas at lower elevations Riparian areas Sagebrush steppe

LIZARDS

Western toad (Bufo boreas) Great Basin spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus intermontanus) Striped chorus frog (Pseudacris triserata) Northern leopard frog** (Rana pipens) Tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) Long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) Dusky shrew (Sorex monticolus) Water shrew (Sorex palustrus) Vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans) Masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) Merriam's shrew (Sorex merriami) Long legged myotis (Myotis volans) Small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) Long eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Silver-haired bat (Lasionmycteris noctivagans) Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)

AMPHIBIANS

SHREWS

BATS
Trees, crevices, and building Crevices and buildings Open forests and rocky areas Caves and forests Trees, crevices, and buildings Coniferous forest

99

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) Pygmy rabbit** (Sylvilagus idahoensis) Nutall's or mountain cottontail** (Sylvilagus nuttallii) Snowshoe hare** (Lepus americanus) Black-tailed jackrabbit** (Lepus californicus) White-tailed jackrabbit** (Lepus townsendii) Yellow-bellied marmot** (Marmota flaviventris) Least chipmunk (Tamias minimus) Yellow-pine chipmunk (Eutamias amoenus) Caves, crevices, and buildings Caves, crevices, and buildings

Winter 2010

RABBITS AND HARES
Sagebrush Shrub steppe, rocky areas, and riparian areas Forests Sagebrush and shrub steppe Grasslands and shrub steppe Rocky areas Sagebrush steppe Coniferous forests

MARMOTS

CHIPMUNKS

Uinta ground squirrel** (Spermophilus armatus) Sagebrush and grassland Townsend's ground squirrel (Spermophilus townsendii) Shrub steppe Golden-mantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus Coniferous or mixed forests lateralis) Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus)

GROUND SQUIRRELS

TREE SQUIRRELS
Coniferous and mixed forests Mixed forests in towns and cities Coniferous or mixed forests Sagebrush steppe and meadows

Idaho pocket gopher (Thomomys idahoensis) Beaver** (Castor canadensis) Taxidea taxus Muskrat** (Ondatra zibethicus) Bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea) Ord’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii)

POCKET GOPHERS BEAVERS
Streams, ponds, and riparian areas

MUSKRATS
Marshes, ponds, streams, and lakes

WOODRATS
Coniferous forest

KANGAROO RATS
Sandy areas

Great Basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus)

POCKET MICE
Sagebrush steppe

HARVEST MICE Western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) Weedy or grassy areas GRASSHOPPER MICE Northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster) Deserts and valleys JUMPING MICE Western jumping mouse (Zapus princeps) Wet meadows and riparian areas WHITE FOOTED MICE Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) All habitats OLD WORLD RATS AND MICE Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) Human dwellings and cultivated fields House mouse (Mus musculus) Urban areas and farm lands VOLES Long-tailed vole (Microtus longicaudus) Dry grassy areas, willows, and sedge areas Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) Moist grasslands Montane vole (Microtus montanus) Grasslands

100

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
Southern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi) Heather vole (Phenacomys intermedius) Sagebrush vole (Lagturus curtatus) Porcupine** (Erethizon dorsatum) Mountain lion (Puma concolor) Bobcat (Felis rufus) Black bear (Ursus americanus) Coyote (Canis latrans) Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) Marten (Martes americana) Raccoon (Procyon lotor) Ermine (Mustela erminea) Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) Mink (Mustela vison) Badger (Taxidea taxus) Northern river otter (Lutra canadensis) Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Western spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis) Elk** (Cervus elaphus) Mule deer** (Odocoileus hemonius) White-tailed deer** (Odocoilus virginianus) Moose** (Alces alces) Pronghorn antelope** (Antilocapra americana) Bison (Bison bison) Canada goose (Branta canadensis) Snow goose (Chen caerulescens) Green-winged teal (Anas crecca) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) American coot (Fulica americana) Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) Cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera) Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) American widgeon (Anas americana) Wood duck (Aix sponsa) Greater scaup (Aythya marila) Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) Ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris) Barrow's goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) Common goldeneye (Bucephala elangula) Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) Pintail (Anas acuta) Gadwall (Anas strepera) Canvasback (Aythya yalisineria) Redhead (Aythya americana) Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator)

Winter 2010
Forests and bogs Mountaintop clearings Sagebrush and grass-sage communities Cottonwood forests and riparian areas

PORCUPINE CARNIVORES
Semiarid and mountain areas Rocky canyons Forests and mountain areas All habitats Farm land Coniferous forest Cottonwood forest and sagebrush steppe near water Farm lands and riparian areas Shrub steppe and farm lands Near streams, rivers, and lakes Farm lands and forests Streams and lakes Riparian areas and farm lands Farm lands near streams

UNGULATES
Sagebrush and mountain areas All habitats All habitats Mixed forests, marshes, and bogs Sagebrush and grasslands Forests, grasslands, and riparian areas Riparian areas, lakes, and meadows Marshes Rivers, ponds, and lakes Rivers, ponds, and lakes Lakes, rivers, and ponds Lakes and rivers Rivers, ponds, and lakes Rivers, lakes, and ponds Lakes and ponds Rivers, ponds, and meadows Lakes, ponds, and rivers Large lakes and rivers Lakes, rivers, and ponds Lakes, rivers, and ponds Rivers, ponds, and lakes Rivers, lakes, and ponds Lakes and ponds Lakes and ponds Lakes and ponds Marshes, ponds, and lakes Marshes, lakes, and rivers Lakes and ponds

WATERFOWL

101

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
Tundra swan (Cygnus colombianus) Rudy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) Common merganser (Mergus merganser) Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) Hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) Western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis) Pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) Eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) Horned grebe (Podiceps aurtis)

Winter 2010
Lakes, marshes, and slow streams Marshes and lakes River, ponds, and lakes Rivers, lakes, and ponds Ponds and lakes

GREBES
Lakes and ponds Lakes and ponds Lakes and ponds Lakes, marshes, and slow rivers Lakes and ponds Lakes and rivers Marshes, ponds, and lakes

White pelican (Pelecanus erythorhynchos) Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Arctic loon (Gavia artica) Common loon (Gavia immer) Franklin's gull (Larus pipixcan) Ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) California gull (Larus californicus) Bonaparte's gull (Larus philidelphia) Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Forester's tern (Sterna forsteri) Black tern (Childonias niger)

PELICANS AND CORMORANTS IBIS LOONS
Lakes and rivers Lakes

GULLS AND TERNS
Lakes Pools Pools Mudflats, marshes, and rivers Lakes and rivers Lakes and rivers Marshes and rivers Marshes, wet meadows, and rivers Riparian areas, meadows, rivers, and ponds Marshes Marshes and shallow lakes with trees Marshes and lakes Marshes and lakes Marshes, lakes, and slow rivers Ponds, marshes, and mudflats Marshes, ponds, and mudflats Marshes Pastures, grasslands, and fields Marshes, mudflats, and pastures Marshes Mudflats and lake shores Mudflats and lake shores Grassy marshes and mudflats Wet meadows, mudflats, and lakeshores Ponds, streams, and marshes Rivers and lakes Mudflats, lake and pond shores Mudflats and lake shores Mudflats and lake shores

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Great egret (Casmerodius albus) Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) Snowy egret (Egretta thula) Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) Greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) Marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa) Western sandpiper (Caldris mauri) Least sandpiper (Caldris minutilla) Baird's sandpiper (Caldris bairdii) Pectoral sandpiper (Caldris melanotos) Solitary sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) Spotted sandpiper (Actitis maculara) Semipalmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) Stilt sandpiper (Calidris himantopous) Rudy turnstone (Arenaria interpres)

HERONS, BITTERNS, AND EGRETS

SHOREBIRDS

102

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
Redknot (Calidris canutus) Sanderling (Calidris alba) Dunlin (Calidris alpina) Blacknecked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) American avocet (Recurvirostra americana)

Winter 2010
Mudflats and lake shores Mudflats and lake and river shores Mudflats, marshes, and pond and lake shores

STILTS AND AVOCETS
Lakes and ponds Ponds, lakes, and mudflats Riparian areas and meadows Marshes and lake and pond shores Mudflats and lake and pond shores Pond and lake shores Grasslands, pastures, and mudflats Mudflats, marshes, and lake and pond shores Mudflats, marshes, and lake and pond shores River, pond, and lake shorelines and agricultural areas Pond, river, and lake shore lines Mudflats and lakes

Common snipe (Capella galinago) Long-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) Short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) Black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola) Lesser Golden plover (Pluvialis dominica) Semipalmated plover (Chadadrius semipalmatus) Snowy plover (Chadrius alexandrinus) Killdeer (Chadrius vociferus) Wilson's phalarope (Steganopus tricolor) Northern phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus) Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) Sora (Porzana carolina) Virginia rail (Rallus limicola) American coot (Fulica americana) Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) Bald eagle** (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Red-tailed hawk** (Buteo jamaicensis) Rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Golden eagle** (Aquila chrysaetos) American kestrel (Falco sparverius) Merlin (Falco columarius) Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) Pygmy owl (Glaucidium gnoma) Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) Great horned owl (Bubo virginanus) Long-eared owl (Asio otus)

SNIPE AND DOWITCHERS

PLOVERS

PHALAROPES CRANES
Riparian areas and meadows

RAILS
Marshes Marshes Lakes, ponds, and marshes

RAPTORS
Dry open country Rivers, riparian areas, and lakes Rivers, riparian areas, and lakes Range, mountain brush, riparian areas, and ponds Riparian areas, fields, and forests Riparian areas, fields, and forests Riparian areas, fields, and forests Range and agricultural areas Range and agricultural areas Range and agricultural areas Range Range, cliffs, and riparian areas Range, meadow, and agricultural areas Range, meadow, and agricultural areas Range and agricultural areas Range, riparian areas, and meadows Range, lakes, and agricultural areas Conifers, forest clearings, and alpine meadows Mixed conifer and aspen woods Coniferous forests Cottonwoods, agricultural areas, and range Riparian trees and brush

103

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus) Barn owl (Tyto alba) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)

Winter 2010
Coniferous or deciduous woods Shrub steppe, meadows, and agricultural areas Shrub steppe and grasslands Grasslands, meadows, and marshes Rivers and cliffs Range and meadows

DOVES

Rock dove (Columba livia) Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) Poor will (Phalaenoplilus nuttallii) Common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor)

NIGHTJARS
Sagebrush Range, ponds, and meadows

HUMMINGBIRDS Black-chinned hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri) Meadows and brush Rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) Meadow, range, and coniferous forest Calliope hummingbird (Stellula caliope) Forest clearings and alpine meadows KINGFISHERS Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcycon) Rivers, lakes, and riparian areas WOODPECKERS Northern three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) Coniferous forests Lewis's woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Cottonwoods and riparian areas Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) Cottonwoods and riparian areas Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) Cottonwoods and riparian areas Northern flicker** (Colaptes auratus) Cottonwoods and riparian areas Williamson's sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) Cottonwoods and riparian areas Red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) Aspen and coniferous forests JAYS, MAGPIES, AND CROWS Scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Scrub and woodlands Gray jay (Perisoreus canadensis) Coniferous forests Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) Stands of juniper or pines near tree line Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) Cottonwoods and juniper Black-billed magpie (Pica pica) Agricultural areas and range American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Cottonwoods and agricultural areas
Common raven (Corvus corvax) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Northern shrike (Lanius excubitor) Juniper, cliffs, agricultural areas, and coniferous forest

SHRIKES
Shrub steppe Shrub steppe and farm lands

Dusky flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri) Hammond’s flycatcher (Empidonax hammondii) Say’s phoebe (Sayornis says) Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus borealis) Western wood-pewee (Contopus sordidulus) Western flycatcher (Empidonax difcillis) Ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens) Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris)

FLYCATCHERS
Coniferous forest Coniferous forest Dry sparsely vegetated country Woodlands Riparian areas and woodlands Forests Shrub steppe and juniper Riparian areas, willows, and meadows Range, riparian areas, and meadows Shrub steppe, agricultural areas, and riparian areas

LARKS
Range

104

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
SWALLOWS

Winter 2010

Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) Violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina) Northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis) Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) Cliff swallow (Hirunda pyrrhonota) Barn swallow (Hirnudo rustica) Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus) Mountain chickadee (Parus gambeli) Plain titmouse (Parus inornatus) Brown creeper (Certha familiaris) Red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) Pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) House wren (Troglodytes aedon) Rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus) Canyon wren (Catherpes mexicanus) Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) Mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides) Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) Veery (Catharus fuscescens) Swainson's thrush (Catharus ustulatus) Hermit thrush (Catharus guttata) American robin (Turdus migratorius) Townsend’s solitaire (Mydestes townsendi) Varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius) Solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius) Warbling vireo (Vireo gilvas) Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) Cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) Bohemian waxwing (Bombycilla garrulus)

Aspen, riparian areas, meadows, and cliffs Cliffs, rivers, and riparian areas Cliffs and riparian areas Riparian areas and meadows Cliffs and riparian areas Range and riparian areas Aspen, riparian areas, and meadows Douglas-fir Juniper woodlands

CHICKADEES AND TITMICE

CREEPERS
Deciduous forest

NUTHATCHES
Deciduous forest Deciduous forest and brush Douglas-fir

DIPPERS
Riparian areas, meadows, and rivers

WRENS
Brushy areas, deciduous forests, and willows Rocky slopes Cliffs and rocky canyons Marshes Riparian areas and meadows Riparian areas and bushy areas Range, aspen, and agricultural areas Range and meadows Riparian areas and forests Riparian areas and forests Riparian areas and forests Deciduous forest, riparian areas, and meadows Riparian areas and forests Montane coniferous forest

KINGLETS, BLUEBIRDS, AND THRUSHES

VIREOS
Deciduous forest Aspen Deciduous woodlands and parks

WAXWINGS
Open woodlands Open woodlands

Orange-crowned warbler (Vermivora celata) Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) Yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata) Wilson's warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) Townsend's warbler (Dendroica townsendi) MacGillivray's warbler (Oporonis tolmiei)

WARBLERS
Forests Aspen, Douglas-fir, and willows Open areas in coniferous forests Shrubs, alpine-willow-fir thickets Douglas-fir Douglas-fir, riparian areas, and meadows

105

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) Virginia's warbler (Vermivora virginiae) Nashville warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) Black and white warbler (Mniotila varia) American redstart (Setophaga ruticlla) Common yellowthroat (Geothypis trichas) Black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens)

Winter 2010
Riparian areas and meadows Juniper Open deciduous woodlands Mixed forest Mixed forest Marshes Shrubby openings in coniferous or mixed forest

BLACKBIRDS, MEADOWLARKS, AND ORIOLES Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) Marshes and agricultural areas Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) Aspen and agricultural areas Yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus Marshes, lakes, and meadows xanthocephalus) Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) Agricultural areas and riparian areas European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) Agricultural areas, towns, and open woodlands Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) Range and meadows Northern oriole (Icterus galbula) Riparian areas and meadows Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) Agricultural areas and woodlands TANAGERS Western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana) Mixed woodlands BUNTINGS AND GROSBEAKS Lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena) Mountain brush and Douglas-fir Lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys) Sagebrush steppe Snow bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis) Grasslands and stubble fields Pine grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator) Coniferous forest
Black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus) Evening grosbeak (Hesperiphona vespertina) Red crossbill (Lavia curvirasta) Aspen, Douglas-fir, riparian areas, and meadows Forests Forests, riparian areas, and meadows

CROSSBILLS

SPARROWS AND TOWHEES Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) Brush Green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) Sagebrush and juniper Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Grasslands Lincoln's sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) Mountain meadows Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina) Aspen, riparian areas, and meadows Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Riparian areas and meadows White-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophryus) Shrub steppe and willows Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri) Sagebrush and alpine meadows Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwhichensis) Range, grasslands, and fields Fox sparrow (Passerell iliaca) Riparian areas and woodlands Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) Meadows and range
Oregon junco (Junco hyemalis) Gray-headed junco (Junco caniceps) Lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) American tree sparrow (Spizella arborea) Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) House sparrow (Passer domesticus) Lapland longspur (Calcarius lapponicus) Coniferous forest, suburban gardens, and roadsides Coniferous forest and aspen Shrub steppe Sagebrush steppe Fence rows and weedy fields Flooded meadows and alfalfa fields Farm lands, fields, and woodlands

FINCHES
Meadows and fields

106

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
Black rosy finch (Leucosticte atrata) Gray crowned rosy finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis) Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus) American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) Cassin's finch (Carpodacus cassinii) Purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus) House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) Common redpoll (Carduelis flammea) Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinenis) Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Water pipit (Anthus spinoletta) Gray partridge (Perdix perdix)

Winter 2010
Alpine meadows Alpine meadows Coniferous forest Aspen, riparian areas, and meadows Coniferous forest Tall shrubs Shrub steppe Woodlands and fence rows Dense shrub Shrub steppe and farm lands Sagebrush steppe Lake and river shorelines

MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS

WAGTAILS AND PIPITS GALLINACEOUS BIRDS
Farm lands with shrubs Shrub steppe, grasslands, and agricultural areas Sagebrush steppe Grasslands and agricultural areas with cover Arid mountainous areas and canyons Deciduous and coniferous forest Subalpine forest clearings Open woodlands

Ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) Greater sage grouse** (Centrocercus urophasianus) Sharp-tailed grouse** (Tympanuchus phasianellus) Chukar (Alectoris chukar) Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) Blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) Wild turkey (Meleagris gallapavo) **Culturally Significant Wildlife Species

VASCULAR PLANTS COMMON NAME SPECIES Maple Acer spp. Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Giant hyssop Agastache spp. Wild onion Allium spp. Serviceberry Amelanchier spp. Dogbane Apocynum spp. Sagebrush or Sage Artemisia spp. Aster Aster spp. Balsamroot Balsamorhiza spp. Water birch Betula occidentalis Sego lily Calochortus spp. Sedge Carex spp. Goosefoot Chenopodium spp. Thistle (native) Cirsium spp. Redosier dogwood Cornus sericea Spring parsley Cymopterus spp. Wildrye Elymus spp. Buckwheat Eriogonum spp. Strawberry Fragaria spp. Fritillary Fritillaria spp. Sunflower Helianthus spp.

107

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: IRMP 
VASCULAR PLANTS COMMON NAME SPECIES Juniper Juniperus spp. Wildrye Leymus spp. Desert parsley Lomatium spp. Creeping Oregon grape Mahonia repens Oniongrass Melica bulbosa Wild mint Mentha arvensis Coyote tobacco Nicotiana attenuate Plains pricklypear Opuntia polyacantha Great Basin Indian potato Orogenia linearifolia Yampa Perideridia spp. Pine Pinus spp. Narrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifolia Aspen Populus tremuloides Common chokecherry Prunus virginiana Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Lemonade sumac Rhus triolobata Current Ribes spp. Wild rose Rosa spp. Wild raspberry Rubus spp. Willow Salix spp. Elderberry Sambucus spp. Common cattail Typha latifolia Huckleberry Vaccinium spp. Tobacco root Valeriana edulis
FUNGI Puffballs Morels Oyster mushroom

Winter 2010

Clavatia spp. Morchella spp. Pleurotus spp.

108