Environmental Agriculture...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service September 2017

Environmental Assessment

Fremont County Solid Waste Transfer Site Project

Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest Fremont County, Idaho

For Information Contact: Mark Bingman PO Box 858

Ashton, ID 83420 208-652-1228

[email protected]

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]

Draft Environmental Assessment Fremont County Solid Waste Transfer Site Project

Table of Contents

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... i

Chapter 1 - Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

Document Structure .....................................................................................................................1

Background ..................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................................2

Proposed Action ...........................................................................................................................5

Decision Framework ....................................................................................................................5

Management Direction Relative to the Analysis Area .................................................................5

Public Involvement ......................................................................................................................6

Issues ............................................................................................................................................6

Chapter 2 - Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ........................................................... 7

Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................7

Alternative 1................................................................................................................ 7

Alternative 2................................................................................................................ 7

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...................................................12

Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................................12

Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 13

VEGETATION RESOURCES ..................................................................................................13

Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 13

Environmental Effects .............................................................................................. 15

WILDLIFE RESOURCES .........................................................................................................15



CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................26



RECREATIONAL ACCESS .....................................................................................................27



ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............................................................................................................28



WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY ...............................................................................29

Existing Condition .................................................................................................... 29


SOILS ........................................................................................................................................31

Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................. 31



Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination .............................................................................. 33


i

SUMMARY

The Caribou-Targhee National Forest received a proposal from Fremont County to

authorize construction of a Solid Waste Transfer Site Project at the Island Park Landfill.

The project area is 9.1 acres and located directly east of the Island Park Landfill within

the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Idaho. The

special use permit would be issued for a ten-year term.

This Proposed Action is needed to improve solid waste management and provide a

recycling center for Fremont County as the populations and tourism increase in the

region. The Proposed Action may include clearing and grubbing, placement of concrete

footings and metal buildings, and constructing approximately 1,800 feet of new interior

access roadways on 4.6 acres of the 9.1 acre site. In addition to the Proposed Action, the

Forest Service also evaluated the No Action Alternative.

Based upon the effects of the Proposed Action Alternative, the responsible official will

decide whether or not to issue a special use permit to Fremont County to construct the

Solid Waste Transfer Site Project at the Island Park Landfill.


1

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Document Structure ______________________________

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws

and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and

alternatives. The document is organized into four parts:

Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal,

the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that

purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the

public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a

more detailed description of the agency’s Proposed Action as well as alternative

methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on

significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. Finally, this section

provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each

alternative.

Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of

implementing the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives. This analysis is

organized by resources area; existing conditions are described first followed by the

effects of each alternative. Within each section, the affected environment is described

first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for

evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may

be found in the project planning record located at the Ashton/ Island Park Ranger District

Office in Ashton, Idaho.

Background _____________________________________

Fremont County constructed a sanitary landfill, the Island Park Landfill, on National

Forest lands to serve the Island Park area in 1974. The county operates and maintains the

landfill under the terms and conditions of a USFS special use permit (Permit # AIP808).

After 40 plus years of operation, the landfill has started to reach its capacity, and the

county does not believe it can reform the existing site to meet the demand for waste

disposal.

The landfill is located on National Forest System lands administered by the Ashton/Island

Park Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in the W ½, Section 15,

Township 13 North, Range 43 East, Boise Meridian, Fremont County, Idaho. Existing

improvements on the 20-acre site include an office, storage building, transfer station

Fremont County Solid Waste Tranfer Site Project Draft Environmental Assessment

2

dock, entrance station building, three gas monitoring wells, three ground water

monitoring wells, one culinary well, and a perimeter fence with an electric fence. The

fences prevent access to the site by bears. The landfill has a gated road that allows access

during hours of operation. This gate is at Yale-Kilgore Road and is locked after hours.

In Fall 2016, the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District received a request for a special use

permit from Fremont County for the new Solid Waste Transfer Site Project (Figures 1

and 2). The project would weigh and collect the waste in Fremont County and transport it

to a disposal site in Jefferson County, Idaho.

Since soil instability precludes building the new project on lands already used at the

landfill site, the county has requested authorization to build the new facility on a 9.1 acre

piece of mostly undeveloped land. The site is partially covered with trees and has a power

line than runs north/south through the site along with an undesignated snowmobile trail.

The new project would include a 60-foot by 60-foot scale/administration building, a 60-

foot by 60-foot recycling center, a 75-foot by 75-foot transfer station, and associated

interior roads. As per forest handbook direction, the new permit would be issued for a

ten-year term.

Depending on timing for funding scenarios and required approvals, the county anticipates

construction to begin in fall of 2017. If funding and approvals take longer than expected,

construction will begin in the summer of 2018. Construction of the recycling center and

scales will take three to four months, while construction of the transfer station will take

five to six months to complete.

Purpose and Need for Action _______________________

The purpose of the proposed Solid Waste Transfer Site Project on National Forest

Service lands is to meet solid waste needs in Island Park. This project will be part of the

County’s solid waste management plan as it transitions from a flat fee (tax based) system

to a tipping fee (weight based) system.

This action is needed to improve solid waste management and provide a recycling center

for the residents in the Island Park portion of Fremont County in anticipation of

populations and tourism growth in the region. In order to make these transitions, a new

scale and recycling building are required. The County is not comfortable building the

new facility on lands already used at the existing landfill site, due to soil stability and

settling concerns created by the buried solid waste.

This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the 1997 Revised Forest Plan

Targhee National Forest (RFP), and helps move the project area towards desired

conditions described in that plan. The proposed project area is within an area managed

under prescription 5.1.3(a) (timber management) as described in the RFP.


3


4


5

Proposed Action _________________________________

The Forest Service proposes to authorize Fremont County to construct the Solid Waste

Transfer Site Project under the terms and conditions of a special use permit. The special

use permit would authorize the construction of a transfer station building, a recycle

building, and a scale building on a 9.1 acre parcel immediately adjacent to the existing

sanitary landfill. The Proposed Action would include clearing and grubbing, placement of

concrete footings and metal buildings, and constructing approximately 1,800 feet of new

interior access roadways on 4.6 acres of the 9.1 acre site. The special use permit would be

issued for a ten-year term. A forest plan amendment is not proposed.

Decision Framework ______________________________

Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the Proposed Action and No

Action Alternatives in order to make the following decisions:

1. Whether the Proposed Action will proceed as proposed, as modified by design

features by an alternative, or not at all.

2. What mitigation measures and monitoring requirements, if any, will be

required.

3. Whether a Forest Plan amendment is needed.

Management Direction Relative to the Analysis Area

This analysis tiers to the 1997 Revised Forest Plan Targhee National Forest Final

Environmental Impact Statement, Appendices and Amendments. The RFP provides

guidance and direction for forest management decisions and allocates uses across forest

landscapes. The RFP was derived from an interdisciplinary process with public and

community involvement. The RFP uses prescription areas to allocate uses and emphasize

resource priorities. Specific Forest-wide plan direction for resources, uses, and

management prescription area direction relative to the Proposed Action are discussed

below. Discussion of the effects of this guidance on specific resource areas and uses is

discussed in Chapter 3.

The project site is included in prescription area 5.1.3(a). The area is designated for timber

management and management of vegetation & fuels to minimize fire risk for an urban

facility within the interface. No clear cutting is allowed. The Proposed Action would

subscribe to requirements of prescription area 5.1.3(a) (pages III-137 to III-138), and

management direction for wildlife forest-wide (pages III-15 to III-23) and in the Island Park

Subsection of the forest (pages III-46 to III-48). The Forestwide and Island Park

subsection standards for lands in the RFP address only utility corridors and do not have

any specific standards that would apply to a special use permit (page III-8).


6

Public Involvement _______________________________

The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning on October 4,

2016. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during

scoping from January 25, 2017 to February 25, 2017. The proposal was also provided to

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

No comments were received from the public, other agencies, or the Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes.

Issues __________________________________________

Information from public and internal scoping was considered to determine if any

concerns were raised relevant to the decision. Potential issues were identified through

discussions with USFWS regarding various wildlife species that might be in the area. The

specific concerns were the wildlife concerns of unintended interaction between humans

and grizzly bears, the Columbia spotted frog, and Migratory Birds. The differences

between the alternatives analyzed in detail, are measured through "issue indicators";

measurable or definable consequences of actions. Issues that were analyzed were:

1. Columbia spotted frog – Potential for direct impacts from project activities.

2. Grizzly bear – Attractants to grizzly bears, potentially creating human-grizzly

bear conflict and resulting in lethal actions against grizzly bears.

3. Migratory birds – Potential for habitat alteration and disruption of breeding

activities.


7

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Fremont County

Solid Waste Transfer Site Project. It includes a description and map of each action

alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form,

sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for

choice among options by the decision maker and the public.

Alternatives _____________________________________

Alternative 1

No Action

Under the No Action alternative, the Forest Service would not issue a special permit to

Fremont County for the Solid Waste Transfer Site Project. Current management plans

would continue to guide management of the project area, and no expansion would be

implemented to accomplish project goals. Fremont County would continue to use the

existing landfill until it is full and then require a long-term solid waste management

solution. This alternative may hinder future operation and development within the Island

Park area when the existing landfill reaches the end of its service life.

Alternative 2

The Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action alternative, the Forest Service would issue a special use

authorization to Fremont County to construct the Solid Waste Transfer Site Project. The

special use permit would authorize the use of 9.1 acres of contiguous NFS lands for the

project. The new scales, scale building, recycling center, transfer station building, and

associated interior roads would occupy 4.6 acres of the 9.1 acre site (Figures 3 and 4).

To prevent the unintended interaction between humans and grizzly bears, the buildings

will have walls composed of both concrete and steel. The base of the walls will be

concrete, and four feet tall and eight inches thick along the entire perimeter of each

building. The upper portions of the walls will be built using three steel plates: one on the

interior and exterior, and one between. Windows on the buildings will be no lower than

12 feet high at the lowest section. There will be two types of doors to each building.

Those designed for human entry to the building will be composed of steel with a solid

core. There will also be rollup doors, composed of heavy gauge steel. These will close

with a bolt-locking system that will hold the door down.

The transfer station will not be self-serve. It will be staffed during the same hours as the

existing site. Summer and winter hours may vary, but year-round, the existing landfill is

open five to six days per week and either nine or ten hours per day, depending on the

season. Customers will unload trash or recyclables inside the appropriate building. No

trash or recyclables will be stored outside of buildings.


8

To facilitate construction, most of the trees within the 4.6 acre area of disturbance would

be removed. Following construction, any disturbed areas would be covered with slash or

wood straw and/or be restored with an appropriate native plant mix.

A forest plan amendment is not proposed. The Proposed Action would continue to

operate as management prescription area 5.1.3(a) (timber management).


9


10


11

Design Features Associated with the Proposed Action Alternative

The solid waste transfer site project would be designed to comply with Idaho

Department of Environment Quality’s Solid Waste Management Rules (IDAPA

58.01.06) for a Tier II Facility.

The solid waste transfer site would have convenient operating hours to discourage any illegal dumping. The access road gate at Yale-Kilgore Road would be closed and locked when the facility is not open.

If any historical sites are found during construction, work would be immediately

stopped and the Forest Archeologist would be contacted.

All personnel involved with on the ground implementation of the project must

comply with the most current food storage order, to protect grizzly bears. This

order makes attractants unavailable to grizzly bears.

All bear attractants will be stored in closed and locked buildings at the transfer station outside of operating hours. Two transfer stations in grizzly bear country in northwestern Montana that also keep all bear attractants in closed and locked buildings during off-hours have had no grizzly bear conflicts.

In the event of a bear conflict, coordination between IDFG, the Ashton-Island Park/ Ranger District, and Fremont County; will occur to determine if additional measures are necessary to prevent further bear conflicts. These measures may include installation of an electric fence or other structure, or changes in practices, policies, or procedures; to prevent conflicts.

Any machinery used on site for construction or maintenance will be cleaned of

invasive species seed or debris prior to working on site. The site would be

monitored and treated for invasive plant species for the lifetime of the permit.

Best management practices associated with heavy equipment operation (i.e., fuel

storage, fueling procedures, spill prevention/clean-up kits present, and proper

functioning of machinery) would be implemented to prevent contamination of

soils and potential run-off of contaminants offsite.

Vehicle staging, cleaning, maintenance, refueling, and fuel storage will be 150 feet or more from any stream, waterbody, or wetland and in a location where surface runoff from the site is incapable of being delivered to perennial or intermittent channels.

Disturbed areas would be covered with slash (fine wood and coarse wood) or

wood straw whenever feasible to limit erosion and maintain soil productivity.

Areas in need of reseeding post-construction would be re-seeded with an

appropriate native plant mix approved by the Forest Botanist.

Slash would be piled and burned on roads where feasible. Where this is not feasible, slash would either: (1) be piled in such a way (tall and narrow) as to reduce the footprint on the soil and piles would be burned when the soil is cold/frozen and moist, or (2) chipped onsite and transported offsite for use or disposal.


12

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

No other alternatives besides the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives were

seriously considered during the planning process. One alternative considered during the

planning process, but not included in the EA for detailed study is described briefly below,

along with the rationale for why it was not considered further.

Expanding the existing landfill was considered. This alternative was dropped

from further consideration because the Forest Service would not permit expansion

of the existing landfill as an expansion does not comply with current forest

service direction for landfills.

Comparison of Alternatives ________________________

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative.

Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of

effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 1. Comparison of Effects between Alternatives

Indicator Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed

Action

Wildlife – Grizzly bear No Change Not likely to adversely affect

Wilflife – Columbia Spotten Frog No Change

Mayy impact individuals or

habitat, but would not likely

contribute to a trend towards

federal listing, or cause a loss

of viability to the population or

species

Migratory Birds No Change

Negative, however, no bird of

conservation concerns are

expected in the project area

Result in economic impact to

County Yes, greater than Alt 2 Yes


13

CHAPTER 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of

the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to

implementation of the alternative. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for

comparison of alternative presented in the chart above.

In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.21, this EA incorporates by reference the resource

specialist reports in the project record. The specialist reports contain the data, regulatory

framework, assumptions, methodologies, maps, references and documentation that the

interdisciplinary team relies upon to reach the conclusions of the analysis.

The most relevant scientific data that is available is considered and reviewed for this

analysis. The information below and in the project record describes the conditions of

resources and uses that are anticipated to occur under each alternative.

The effects analysis for each alternative consists of the direct and indirect effects of each

alternative. Direct effects are impacts that occur at the same time and place as the initial

action. Indirect effects are impacts that may (1) follow the initial action, (2) be of a

different type, or (3) be in a different place from direct impacts. The direct and indirect

impacts of each alternative can only be completely evaluated within the context of past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the area, regardless of what agency

or person undertakes such further action (40 CFR 1508.7) The effects of these other

actions when combined with the effects of the project are referred to as "cumulative

effects." Environmental issues carried forward for analysis in the EA have the potential

for cumulative effects. NEPA implementation guidance requires that federal agencies

identify the temporal and geographic framework used to evaluate potential cumulative

effects of alternatives and the specific past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects

that will be analyzed (40 CFR 1508.25). For purposes of the EA, the general temporal

framework of reference will be from the date of permit issuance through the proposed

permit term of 10 years.

VEGETATION RESOURCES

Existing Conditions

The project area is a forested ecosystem. The overstory within the project area is

primarily lodgepole pine (Pinus contortus), with a few juvenile quaking aspen saplings

(Populus tremuloides). Within the matrix between trees, the main habitat type is

mountain big sagebrush with an Idaho fescue understory. The lodgepole pines within the

project area regenerated following harvest activities in the early 1970s.

During a site visit on December 9, 2016, the site was walked during snowy conditions

and 542 lodgepole pine trees were identified ranging from 4 to 20 inches diameter at

breast height (dbh) with most trees 4 to 8 inches dbh. Of these 542 trees identified,


14

approximately 497 trees are within the area of disturbance for the Proposed Action. Tree

dbhs are presented in Table 2 below. The trees in the northeast corner of the site were not

inventoried as the proposed design would avoid those trees.

Table 2. Trees Identified within the Area of Disturbance for Proposed Action

Tree Diameter (inches) Number of Trees

4 122

6 181

8 91

10 47

12 27

14 17

16 7

18 2

20 3

Totals 497

A Botany Specialist Report and Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Plant

Species Biological Assessment (BA) & Biological Evaluation (BE) (Botany Specialist

Report BA/BE) which serves as the plant species Biological Assessment and Biological

Evaluation, have been completed and is on file at the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District

Office. The species evaluated are Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis), whitebark

pine (Pinus albicaulis) and all other sensitive plant species listed for the Targhee NF

portion of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

Ute Ladies’-Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Threatened

Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with stems 20 to 50 centimeters (8 to

20 inches) tall, arising from tuberously thickened roots. No populations in Idaho have

been found associated with riparian areas on the Ashton/Island Park District. There are

currently no known occurrences of Ute ladies’-tresses on the Ashton/Island Park District

of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The closest population is at Chester Wetlands,

north of St. Anthony, ID. The known habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses is riparian/wetlands

generally below the coniferous forest zone. There is no riparian or wetland habitat present

in the project area.

Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) Intermountain Region, Forest Service Sensitive &

Candidate for listing under the ESA

There are no known occurrences of whitebark pine in the project area, and the species is

typically found at the alpine tree-line and in subalpine elevations throughout its range.

The project area is not suitable for stands of whitebark pine. Though individual whitebark

pine trees can occur at lower elevations, site visits verified that no whitebark pines occur

within the project area.


15

The Botany Specialist BA/BE Report is part of the planning record for the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that analyzes proposed activities on National

Forest Service System lands in relation to rare plants.

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects: By not issuing the special use permit to Fremont County

the proposed project would not occur in the project area. This would result in no impacts

to vegetation within the project area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects: The installation of the project would affect vegetation.

Under the Proposed Action, most of the trees and tall brush species in the 4.6 acres of

disturbance of the 9.1-acre project area would be removed, changing a forested setting to

a non-forested developed site. Approximately 497 trees would be removed.

The project will have “no effect” on Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis), a

Threatened orchid. A "No Impact" determination for the sensitive species whitebark pine

(Pinus albicaulis), and “No Impact” for all other sensitive species listed for the Targhee

NF planning area.

Disturbance activities often increase the risk of invasion of weedy vegetation species. All

construction equipment will be cleaned of invasive species seeds or debris prior to

working on NFS lands. Areas where soils are disturbed would be covered with slash or

wood straw whenever feasible to limit erosion and maintain soil productivity. Areas

needing reseeding post-construction woulbe be re-seeded with an appropriate native plant

mix approved by the Forest Biologist.

Cumulative Effects: There are no other past, future or current projects planned near the

project area which would cumulatively impact vegetation resources. The site would be

monitored and treated for invasive plant species for lifetime of the permit.

WILDLIFE RESOURCES

Existing Conditions

Three reports have been completed and are on file at the Ashton/Island Park Ranger

District Office: (1) a Biological Assessment (BA) addressing species protected under the

ESA; and (2) a Biological Evaluation (BE) addressing Forest Service special status

species, and (3) a Wildlife Specialist Report.

The purpose of the BA is to analyze the effects of the Proposed Action on threatened and

endangered species in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

(as amended). Two threatened, one proposed threatened, and one sensitive wildlife


16

species are described in the BA: Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis; threatened), grizzly bear

(Ursus arctos horribilis; sensitive), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus;

threatened), and North American wolverine (Gulo gulo; proposed threatened).

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species list (consultation code: 01EIFW00-

2016-SLI-0346) for this analysis was accessed at the IPAC website on January 30, 2016.

The date of streamlining consultation was March 9, 2016. There is no designated critical

habitat in the project area for the listed species.

The BE addresses Forest Service special status species listed for the Targhee National

Forest portion of the Caribou –Targhee National Forest. Twenty Forest Service sensitive

species are addressed in the BE. One species was identified in the BE as occurring in

habitat types like those which are present within the project area, the Columbia Spotted

Frog (Rana luteiventris).



Direct and Indirect Effects: By not issuing the special use permit to Fremont County

the proposed project would not occur in the project area. This would result in no impacts

to wildlife species.


Direct and Indirect Effects: An individual determination of effects of this project on

threatened, endangered and sensitive species and migratory birds is described in Table 3

below for each species or group of species discussed in the BA, BE, and Wildlife

Specialist Report. All documents are in the project file.

Table 3 analyzes effects of the Proposed Action on three categories of wildlife species.

The first category are species listed as endangered, threatened, and proposed; under the

Endangered Species Act. The second category are sensitive species, which are designated

by the regional forester with direction to maintain viable populations throughout their

geographic range. The third category are migratory birds, especially birds of concern. A

list of these species, with status, habitat, presence and determinations for the Proposed

Action alternative; is provided below. For those species with a determination other than

“no effect,” “no impact,” or “neutral,” further analysis follows.

Table 3. Comparison of Effects between Alternatives

Category 1 Species Status Habitat Presence Determination

Canada lynx

(Lynx canadensis)

Threatened Habitat is characterized by

dense, horizontal cover;

moderate to high snowshoe

hare densities, and

persistent snow. Main lynx

vegetation type in western

US is spruce-fir forests.

The project area is in lynx

linkage habitat.

May be present,

especially during

movements, but

habitat suitability

low

No Effect


17

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus)

Threatened Cottonwood forests with

thick understory, usually

below 6600 feet in

elevation. Therefore, no

habitat in project area.

Not within historic

or current

distribution.

No Effect

North American

Wolverine (Gulo gulo)

Proposed

threatened

In the Greater Yellowstone

Ecosystem, wolverines

occupy areas at or above

tree-line in summer and

areas below, but centered

at tree-line, in the winter.

No denning

habitat in the

project area; the

only possible use

of the project area

might be for

dispersal.

No Effect


Grizzly bear

(Ursus arctos

horribilis)

Sensitive Overall, grizzly bears are

opportunistic omnivores

and utilize many different

habitat types. However,

grizzly bear habitat is also

defined by human

activities.

May be present,

but area is

characterized by

relatively high

levels of human

development and

GB are expected

to avoid these

areas.

Not likely to

adversely affect

(NLAA)

Boreal Toad (Bufo

boreas, Anaxyrus

boreas)

Sensitive Suitable habitat contains

breeding sites (ponds,

lakes, oxbows, streams,

flooded meadows, etc.),

nearby summer upland

sites (forests, sagebrush

steppe, meadows), and

over-winter sites (beaver

dams, root channels,

underground cavities under

rocks or trees, banks,

squirrel middens, rodent

burrows, crevices in dried

aquatic areas, and muskrat

tunnels. All of current toad

breeding sites on the

district are human-made

habitats (gravel quarries,

reservoirs, roadside

ponds).

Not documented

within or adjacent

to the project area.

No Impact

Columbia Spotted Frog

(Rana luteiventris)

Sensitive Suitable spotted frog

habitat includes aquatic

areas (springs, streams,

beaver dams, lakes, ponds,

marshes, meadows, and

oxbows) and the riparian

or overland migration

corridors between these

habitats.

May be present in

wetlands near the

project area.

May impact

individuals or

habitat, but would

not likely

contribute to a

trend towards

federal listing, or

cause a loss of

viability to the

population or

species (MIIH)

American Three-Toed

Woodpecker (Picoides

tridactylus)

Sensitive Habitat within home

ranges is mature and old-

growth conifer forests

characterized by

disturbance (burns, floods,

wind-throw, avalanche,

disease, and drought).

Presence not

documented and

habitat not

present.

No Impact


18

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus)

Sensitive Large lakes, reservoirs and

rivers in both summer and

winter. Primary prey are

fish and waterfowl. Nest

trees must be large old-

growth trees to support

1000-pound nests. Winter

habitat may include

uplands.

No nesting zones,

foraging,

wintering, or

migration areas

within the project

boundary.

No Impact

Boreal Owl (Aegolius

funereus)

Sensitive Three types of habitats that

are important: mature

mixed conifer or aspen

stands with natural or

woodpecker-created

cavities for nesting; cool,

moist forested stands for

summer roosting; and

mature, mesic, usually

spruce-fir forests for

foraging.

Presence not

documented and

habitat not

present.

No Impact

Columbian Sharp-tailed

Grouse (Tympanuchus

phasianellus

columbianus)

Sensitive Shrub/grass/forb habitats

for breeding and brood

rearing, and riparian areas

and deciduous hardwood

shrub habitats in winter.

Presence not

documented and

habitat not

present.

No Impact

Common Loon (Gavia

immer)

Sensitive Lakes at least 24 hectares

in size with an abundance

of small fish and small

nesting islands and

irregular shorelines, or in

Targhee NF, clear lakes >9

acres at elevations of 5,000

to 9,000 feet.

Five common

Loon breeding

sites are all over

40 kilometers

from the project

area.

No Impact

Flammulated Owl

(Otus flammeolus)

Sensitive Nesting habitat is primarily

mature Douglas fir and/or

ponderosa pine stands or

late-seral aspen stands with

a shrub understory; prefer

ridges, upper slopes, and

south or east-facing slopes.

Species is insectivorous, so

it winters in the southern

US, Mexico, and Central

America.

Documented owls

are all over 40

kilometers from

the project area.

No Impact

Greater Sage-Grouse

(Centrocercus

urophasianus)

Sensitive Sagebrush steppe Presence not

documented and

habitat not

present.

No Impact

Great Gray Owls (Strix

nebulosa)

Sensitive Nest in mid- to late-

successional Douglas fir

stands with herbaceous

understories near to natural

meadows and small

clearcuts. Foraging

habitats are natural

meadows, small forest

openings, recent clearcuts,

and open mature and older

forests.

Presence not

documented and

habitat not

present.

No Impact

Harlequin Duck Sensitive Breeding habitat is swift

inland mountain streams.

Presence not

documented and

No Impact


19

(Histrionicus

histrionicus)

habitat not

present.

Northern Goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis)

Sensitive Late-seral to old-growth,

primarily Douglas fir and

ponderosa pine for nesting,

but both forested and non-

forested areas for foraging

May be present,

for foraging,

nesting habitat not

present.

No Impact

Peregrine Falcon

(Falco peregrinus)

Sensitive Breeding habitat is steep,

high, large cliffs without

human disturbance for

nesting and adjacent areas

(up to 15 kilometers from

the cliff) of foraging

habitat, primary prey are

birds caught in flight

There is no habitat

within 15

kilometers of the

project area.

No Impact

Trumpeter Swan

(Cygnus buccinator)

Sensitive Nesting habitat includes

marshes, lakes, beaver

ponds, and oxbows and

backwaters of rivers.

There are no

breeding sites

within, adjacent,

or near the project

area.

No Impact

Bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis)

Sensitive Summer and winter ranges

are arid or semi-arid, open

or semi-open, and in steep,

rugged, mountainous

terrain. Winter ranges are

windswept or in low-snow

areas, on south, southwest,

and southeast-facing

slopes; and may be at

lower elevations. Summer

ranges may include alpine

meadows or high-elevation

plateaus.

No suitable

habitat.

No Impact

Fisher (Martes

pennanti)

Sensitive Strongly associated with

mature forest (late-

successional coniferous

forest in the Rocky

Mountains) with a high

canopy closure, understory

vegetation, and large-

diameter downed woody

debris; often near riparian

areas.

Presence not

documented and

habitat not

present.

No Impact

Gray wolf

(Canis lupus)

Sensitive Rocky Mountain forested

and non-forested habitat

generalist and primary

prey in the Greater

Yellowstone Ecosystem is

elk

May be present No Impact

Pygmy Rabbit

(Brachylagus

idahoensis)

Sensitive Suitable habitat includes

sagebrush areas with dense

and mature stands of big

sagebrush (which provide

shelter and forage) on deep

loamy soils, which provide

for the development of

residential and natal

burrow systems.

Presence not

documented and

habitat not

present.

No Impact

Spotted bat

(Euderma maculatum)

Sensitive Large, isolated rock walls

and cliff faces within 20

miles of riparian corridors

Presence not

documented and

No Impact


20

primarily, but also forest

openings, juniper and

sagebrush uplands,

meadows, wetlands, and

fields

habitat not

present.

Townsend's big-eared

bat (Corynorhinus

townsendii)

Sensitive Suitable roosting habitat is

typically caves and mines,

but also hollows of

redwood trees, attics,

abandoned buildings, lava

tubes, and bridges

Presence not

documented and

habitat not

present.

No Impact


Migratory birds Bird of

conservation

concern

(BCC) or no

designation

Varies No BCC are

expected in the

project area

because there are

no key migratory

bird habitats in the

project area, such

as late-seral forest,

aspen, riparian

zones, wetlands,

or whitebark pine

stands.

Negative

Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos)

Affected Environment and Existing Condition

The project area is not within the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) or Grizzly Bear

Recovery Zone (GBRZ). The GBRZ pertains to a listed grizzly bear, while the PCA

pertains to a de-listed grizzly bear. Specifically, the project area is near the junction of

Highway 20 and the eastern terminus of the Yale-Kilgore Road, which is characterized

by high human development.

The most important consideration relative to this project may be the occurrence and

potential for human- grizzly bear conflicts associated with the landfill. The Interagency

Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) knows of three conflicts associated with the existing

landfill, although they believe that there have been other conflicts not reported. The first

known conflict occurred in July 2006 by a sub-adult female. She was able to access the

landfill through a large hole in the fence. The fence was repaired and an electric fence

was installed. One year later, this same female and her two cubs of the year were

removed for repeated nuisance activity, food rewards, and property damage. In

September 2012, an adult female with cubs accessed the landfill several nights in a row

because of a faulty electric fence. A different sub-adult female accessed the landfill for

two nights in September 2012. The electric fence was repaired on September 20, 2012

and no further conflicts were reported (L. Landenburger, IGBST, pers. comm.). Forestry

Technician Mike Alfieri said that the problem was that trees and vegetation were falling

on the electric fence and rendering it useless. The forest gave permission to the county to

clear the vegetation and this solved the faulty electric fence problem.


21

The existing landfill access road is gated at Yale-Kilgore Road and allows access during

hours of operation. This gate is locked after hours and has had incidents of people leaving

garbage at the locked gate. There are no known grizzly bear incidents from garbage left at

the gate. Grizzly bear conflicts with garbage left at the gate may be less likely because

the gate is at a relatively busy paved county road which is less than 1000 feet from

Highway 20 and a small shopping complex with a gas station.

From 1983 to 2002, the annual population growth rate of grizzly bears in the GYE was

four to seven percent. From 2002 to 2011, the annual population growth rate was 0.3 to

2.2 percent. While there were 230 to 312 grizzly bears in the GYE in 1975, there were at

least 714 grizzly bears in the GYE in 2014. In 2013, there were an estimated 58 unique

females with cubs of the year. This is the highest number recorded. Further, the range and

distribution of grizzly bears has tripled since 1975. Forty-one percent of the GYE grizzly

bears are present within the GBRZ and 59 percent are present outside of the GBRZ,

mostly on federal land. The stabilizing population trend, along with evidence of other

density dependent regulation, suggests that the GYE grizzly bear population is

approaching carrying capacity (ICST 2016).

Regulatory Framework

The grizzly bear was designated as a sensitive species under the Endangered Species

Action in the conterminous United States on August 1, 2017. Previously, the bear had

been designated as threatened on July 28, 1975. Since 1975, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service de-listed the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of grizzly bears in 2007,

because the population had met recovery plan goals. However, in 2009, the Federal

District Court in Missoula re-listed the Yellowstone grizzly bear by court order because

the decline of whitebark pine stands may be a threat to the grizzly bear in the

Yellowstone Ecosystem.

On the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Occupancy and Use Order #04-15-117 (food

storage order) applies to the Ashton-Island Park District and portions of the Dubois and

Teton Basin Districts annually from March 1 to December 1. This project is on the

Ashton-Island Park District. Food storage order compliance is mandatory for the

Proposed Action.

The 1997 revised forest plan for the Targhee National Forest contains management

direction for grizzly bears. This direction is based on the best available science on grizzly

bears in the 1990s (see Biological Assessment, Fremont County Solid Waste Transfer Site

Project).

The national forests in the GYE follow the management direction in the 2016

Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The

strategy provides the adequate regulatory mechanisms to maintain a recovered grizzly

bear population. However, the management direction of the strategy applies only to areas

within the GBRZ.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action


22

The determination of effects is “may affect, not likely to adversely affect.” The following

are direct and indirect effects to grizzly bears:

There is the potential for construction of the facility to disturb grizzly bears.

However, this disturbance is expected to be minimal for the following

reasons: First, the site is existing with regular and frequent human presence at

the adjacent landfill. Second, the site is in an area already characterized by

high human use including a small residential area, a county road and state

highway nearby, and a shopping complex with gas station, convenience store,

liquor store, auto repair shop, bank, and post office.

Vegetation will be removed in the nine-acre transfer station site. However, this

vegetation removal is not expected to impact grizzly bears for the following

reasons: First, the nine acres is sagebrush-dominated with pole-sized lodgepole

pine. It is not an area of high-quality grizzly bear habitats, such as denning areas,

riparian zones, or areas that contain the four important food resources. Further,

the nine acres is in non-secure habitat, areas within 500 meters of motorized

roads. Grizzly bears are likely to avoid areas of non-secure habitat.

There is the potential for a human-grizzly bear conflict if a grizzly bear received a

food reward from the transfer station. A bear that receives a food reward is likely

to be lethally removed. However, project design features associated with this

project should prevent this occurrence. These design features include keeping all

attractants within the closed building during off-hours, using the current landfill

practices to prevent dumping on the forest, and operations plans stipulations that

any human-grizzly bear conflicts will require changes in policies or structures to

prevent any further conflicts.

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action

For the cumulative effects analysis, the analysis area is the area outside of the PCA or

GBRZ on the Ashton-Island Park District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. This

area encompasses the project area. This area is approximately 240,000 acres or one-

third of the district.

Currently, there is no charge for municipal dumping or recycling at the landfill; there is

only a fee for large loads of construction waste and dead animals. In the future, the

public will be charged a fee for garbage, but recycling will still be free. This may

cause an increase in dumping of garbage at the transfer station access road gate during

off-hours or an increase in dumping of garbage on adjacent public lands. Garbage

dumping could increase the likelihood of a grizzly bear receiving a food reward,

becoming a nuisance or danger to the public, and requiring lethal removal of that bear.

It is not possible to determine the likelihood of this occurrence, but the greater threat

to grizzly bears may continue to be the presence of food rewards in the subdivisions.

Secure habitat, in areas where human contact is infrequent, is important for grizzly

bear populations (ICST 2007). Secure habitat is largely determined by motorized

roads (ICST 2007). Past road construction decreased habitat quality for grizzly bears,

but the 1999 Motorized Road and Trail Travel Plan for the Targhee National Forest


23

has decreased motorized road density and maintains a stasis into the future. Illegal

motorized activity on unauthorized routes occurs in the analysis area, detracting from

secure habitat for grizzly bears.

Grizzly bear-livestock conflicts may occur with cattle, but are more likely with sheep

(ICST 2007). Seven of the 10 active grazing allotments in the cumulative effects

analysis area are cattle allotments and three are sheep allotments. Since the year 2000,

there have been six total grizzly bear/livestock conflicts in these allotments. All conflicts

occurred in cattle and horse allotments. One conflict occurred in Gerritt Meadows

allotment in 2008, two conflicts occurred in the Antelope Park allotment in 2010, and

three conflicts occurred in 2015, with one in the Davis Lake allotment and two in the

Grandview allotment. None of these conflicts were recurring. Relocation or lethal

removal of grizzly bears is possible when livestock conflicts occur.

Human-grizzly bear conflicts are an important conservation issue, and human recreation,

private developments, and human populations are increasing in the Greater Yellowstone

Ecosystem (Hansen et al. 2002). In Idaho, grizzly bear-human conflicts were relatively

low in 2016 compared to recent years (Nicholson and Hendricks 2016). In 2016 (most

recent available data), increased summer forage and above average whitebark pine cone

production brought fewer bears to human food than in the past (Nicholson and Hendricks

2016).

Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris)


Forest-wide, decadal surveys for amphibians have occurred in 1992, 2002, and 2012; at

over 90 standard sites. Results from these surveys demonstrate that there is geographic

and temporal variability in amphibian use of sites, but there is no indication that

amphibians species are declining on the forest. Of the 47 standard survey sites on the

Ashton-Island Park District, spotted frogs were detected at 32 of these sites (Clark et al.

2012). Overall, spotted frogs are considered common on the Targhee National Forest. No

decline in spotted frog populations is evident in nearby Yellowstone and Grand Teton

National Parks. However, declines in spotted frog populations have been documented in

southwestern Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah (Patla and Kenaith, 2005).

There are aquatic areas within one kilometer of the project area. Further, spotted frogs are

common on the district and it is reasonable to expect their presence in aquatic habitats.

Near the project area, there is the Island Park Reservoir to the southwest, a small gravel

quarry pond on the east side of Highway 20 and to the southeast, and a roadside wetland

due east on the east side of Highway 20.


The Columbia spotted frog is a sensitive species on the Targhee National Forest. There

are no standards and guidelines in the 1997 Revised Forest Plan for the Targhee National

Forest for this species.


24


The determination of effects is “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or

species.” The following is a direct effect to spotted frogs:

During June and July, and then in late August to mid-October, spotted frogs may

move to summer habitats and over-winter sites, respectively (Bull 2005, Patla and

Kenaith 2005, Pilliod et al. 2002). Movements occur in dry or wet stream

corridors, or overland if the route is more direct (Patla and Kenaith 2005, Pilliod

et al. 2002). Overland routes are possible in the project area, but are not known.

However, movements may occur coincident with project activities such as

clearing vegetation, excavation, and operation of construction equipment. This

could result in direct mortality to Columbia spotted frogs.

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action

For the cumulative effects analysis, the analysis area is the Buffalo River Watershed

because the project area is within this watershed. Activities that may impact spotted frogs

include alterations to aquatic habitats, road construction, introduced fish, and beaver

eradication. Beavers create spotted frog habitat (breeding ponds, dams for wintering sites,

and slower streamside areas for summer foraging areas) and a recent study suggested an

increase in spotted frog populations after beaver re-introduction (Patla and Kenaith

2005). However, it is estimated that only 10 percent of the historic North American

beaver population is present today (Naiman et al. 1988).

It is estimated that 95 percent of Western mountain lakes were historically fishless; fish

have been introduced into many lakes and streams. All life phases of spotted frogs (eggs,

tadpoles, and adults) are palatable to salmonids (Patla and Kenaith 2005). Indirect effects

include prevention of movement through riparian corridors and lower habitat quality in

deep lakes used for over-wintering. However, a study of over 2000 Western lakes

suggests that spotted frogs are able to co-exist successfully with fish (Pilliod et al. 2010).

A literature review on road effects on amphibians indicates that amphibians receive

primarily negative effects from roads because of vulnerability to road mortality (Fahrig

and Rytwinski 2009). The 1997 Revised Forest Plan for the Targhee National Forest

reduced road density throughout the forest and this may have provided benefits to frogs.

Aquatic habitat alteration, such as diversions, damming, and recreation; may have

removed or impacted spotted frog habitat. Livestock grazing has occurred in the past, but

currently, is only present on private land within the watershed. However, the duration,

frequency, and intensity of grazing were greater in the past. Grazing has differing effects

on frogs, which include nitrogen pollution, compaction of streambank refugia (negative),

increases in basking sites, and algal tadpole food resources (positive). Research on the

effects of cattle grazing at spotted frog breeding habitats suggests neutral to beneficial

impacts (Bull and Hayes 2000, Adams et al. 2009). Overall, the expected level of effects

for the project would not contribute to overall cumulative effects in a way which is

detrimental to spotted frogs.


25

Migratory Birds

Over 150 migratory bird species breed on the Targhee National Forest (TNF 1997). In

addition, the Ashton-Island Park District is within Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 9

and 10 and there are 33 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) within these 2 regions

(USFWS 2008). Nineteen of the BCC have been documented on the Targhee National

Forest. No BCC are expected to nest within the project area.


Habitat in the project area is in a sagebrush dominant landscape with pole-sized

lodgepole pine interspersed. A small pond is very near the project area. No migratory

bird surveys have been conducted in the project area.


The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 prohibits the killing, taking, or possessing of

native birds, nests, or eggs. One of the nation’s first environmental laws, its purpose was

to prevent the killing of millions of birds annually to supply the fashion hat trade.

Executive Order (EO) 13186, signed by President Clinton in 2001, outlined the

responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds. The USDA Forest Service

and US Fish and Wildlife Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

in 2008 regarding migratory birds. This MOU established compliance with the EO. In the

MOU, the Forest Service agreed to consider the effects on migratory birds of agency

actions during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Species of

management concern are the first priority for consideration (e.g. BCC).


The following are direct and indirect effects to migratory birds in the project area:

Project activities would most likely occur between May and October . The

migratory bird breeding season is April or May to August 15. Thus, project

activities may occur during the migratory bird breeding season. Project activities

have the potential to disturb or disrupt migratory bird breeding activities. Due to

the presence of an existing road and the adjacent landfill, the project area does not

represent high-quality migratory bird breeding habitat. Further, no migratory birds

of conservation concern are expected to be nesting in the project area. Because of

the lower quality habitat, less disruption and destruction of migratory bird

breeding activities is expected, especially for migratory birds of conservation

concern.

Vegetation will be removed on approximately five acres in the project area.

However, the project area is already lower-quality migratory bird breeding

habitat because of the existing roadway and adjacent landfill. The project area

does not contain any high-quality migratory bird breeding habitats such as

aspen, riparian areas, wetlands, or old-growth forests.


26

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is the Ashton-Island Park District (669,726 acres).

Past, present, and future activities that are important for forest birds in the inland Rocky

Mountains are grazing in riparian areas, decline in whitebark pine stands from insects and

disease, presence of snags, increase in urban interface, and climate change (NABCI

2011). There has been an increase in urban interface within the cumulative effects

analysis area and further increase is expected in the future. There are private land

inholdings within the district and the population growth rate of the Greater Yellowstone

Ecosystem was 55 percent between 1970 and 1997, although Fremont County was one of

the slower-growing counties (Hansen et al. 2002). Snags are well-represented in the

analysis area from insect-related tree mortality. Snag presence is between 40 and 70

percent biological potential, which meets or exceeds recommendations for cavity-nesting

species (Bull et al. 1997). Whitebark pine stands are present primarily in the Centennial

Mountains, on Sawtell Peak, and Two Top Mountain Area within the analysis area.

Declines have been consistent with that in other areas in the Greater Yellowstone

Ecosystem. Grazing in riparian areas is present within the analysis area. There is less

grazing pressure currently than in the past. Grazing pressure may decline in the future.

Climate change may be the primary effect on birds in the analysis area. Climate change

may produce asynchrony in the arrival of long-distance migratory bird species and the

peak of food resources, lowering reproductive success and survival. Also, climate change

may alter the hydroperiod, resulting in a decrease in wetland habitats, which are

important habitats for migratory birds. Further, extreme weather events, such as drought,

increase with climate change and can cause bird population declines. Climate change also

requires range shifts, northward or to higher elevations, for bird species, but range shifts

may not be possible because of migration impediments or habitat loss. Further, range

shifts may result in new unfavorable ecological relationships with prey, predators, or

disease (Wormworth and Mallon 2006). Overall, the expected level of effects for the

project would not contribute to overall cumulative effects in a way which is detrimental

to migratory birds.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Existing Conditions

The area of potential effects (APE) is comprised of an undeveloped parcel of public land

administered by the U.S. Forest Service and is located in the Ashton/Island Park Ranger

District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Fremont County, Idaho. The objective

of the cultural resource inventory was to identify and evaluate cultural properties within

the project’s APE in accordance with 36 CFR 800.

The project area is located 1.5 miles east of the Henry’s Fork River within Island Park.

This area has a rich history dating to 10,000 years ago when nomadic tribes inhabited the

area during the summer months. The first Euro-American explorers arrived after 1800,

followed by fur trappers and later homesteaders. With the establishment of Yellowstone

National Park in 1905, the area became a recreational destination. The Union Pacific


27

Railroad connection between Ashton and Yellowstone increased economic stability and

prosperity until it was abandoned in 1979.

A cultural resource survey of the APE was conducted May 18, 2016. No cultural

properties were identified, however, information from the public indicated the area had

been used to dispose of trash for decades. To determine the presence of a subsurface

cultural deposit, the excavation of the soil stability test pits was monitored on November

14, 2016. No cultural properties were identified. The project will have no effect on any

historic properties. The Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with

this determination on March 14, 2017.

Based on the results of the field monitoring, construction activities within the proposed

area of the Transfer Station will not affect any known NRHP-eligible resources. If any

additional cultural resources are discovered during the course of this project, all work will

cease until the Forest archaeologist can evaluate the resource(s).



Direct and Indirect Effects: Under the No Action alternative a special use permit would

not be granted to Fremont County for project. By not constructing the project, the

existing landfill would continue to operate. The adjacent 9.1 acres would not be disturbed

so there would not be opportunity to disturb any subsurface artifacts.


Direct and Indirect Effects: No historic sites were discovered during the archaeological

site survey. If any additional cultural resources are discovered during the course of this

project, all work will cease until a qualified archaeologist or historian can evaluate the

resource(s), and consulting with the Forest Archeologist to determine how to proceed.


project area which would cumulatively impact historic sites.

RECREATIONAL ACCESS

Existing Conditions

The area associated with the proposed project is prohibited for cross country travel for all

vehicles.

The project area is within IDFG Game Management Unit (GMU) 60 which provides

opportunity for open and controlled hunts for big game species (deer, elk, pronghorn,

bear, lion, wolf, and moose) as well as multiple upland bird species, small game, and

waterfowl. However, due to the close proximity to the landfill properties the area is

anticipated to receive very little use by hunters.


28



Direct and Indirect Effects: Under the No Action alternative recreation use of the

project area would continue. Use by ATVs and snowmobiles in the 9.1 acres would

continue to be prohibited.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Under the Proposed Action, recreation use around the

project area would continue. Use by ATVs and snowmobiles in the 9.1 acres would

continue to be prohibited.


project area which would cumulatively impact recreational access or activities.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Existing Conditions

The Island Park Landfill is expected to be at capacity in approximately 10 to 15 years. By

that time, Fremont County needs to expand its facility or send its waste somewhere else

for disposal. Neighboring Jefferson County operates two landfills, the Circular Butte

Landfill and the County Line Road Landfill. Circular Butte Landfill is located off

Highway 28 near the City of Mud Lake, approximately 140 miles southwest of the Island

Park Landfill, It is a large regional landfill that currently receives waste from Fremont

County’s St. Anthony Transfer Station Facility, and Madison, Clark, and Teton Counties.

It has capacity to accept solid waste from Island Park.

Waste disposal costs for county residents was a flat fee (tax based) system, and is in the

process of transitioning to a tipping fee (weight based) system. This project will be part

of the County’s solid waste management plan. Disposal rates Disposal rates were initially

increased to raise capital funds, and pay for waste transport costs



Direct and Indirect Effects: Under the No Action alternative a special use permit would

not be granted to Fremont County for the new transfer station project. By not building the

transfer station, the existing landfill would continue to operate until it reaches capacity,

and residents would need to transport their waste to a different transfer station in St.

Anthony, Idaho that is 38 miles south of Island Park, Idaho. This in turn would impact

the economic growth of the community by requiring residents to drive up to 76 extra

miles to dispose of their waste once the landfill reaches capacity.


29


Direct and Indirect Effects: While disposal rates were raised for capital funds to build

the Proposed Action, it is unknown if they will need to be raised again. Implementation

of the Proposed Action along with the new weight based fee system may result in an

increase or decrease in individual user fees. These changes in user fees may occur over

time however an exact percentage of increase is not known. Recycling fees would be set

by the County. The ability of the new facility to accommodate continued growth in the

Island Park Area would increase the tax base of the County.

Cumulative Effects: Continued development of the new residential and commercial

properties within the Island Park Area which are served by the Island Park Landfill would

have a cumulative economic impact on the area. Without the new transfer station

development of these properties would mostly not be restricted, but would carry the extra

costs of individuals transporting their waste an extra 76 miles or contracting with a

private solid waste hauler. However, the development of these properties would aid in

reducing the cost associated with increased taxes by spreading the total cost over more

users.

WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY

Existing Condition

Ground water levels in the project area vary by season, being shallower in spring and

early summer associated with snow melt and deeper in late summer and fall. During

spring and early summer ground water levels may rise as high as 12 inches above to 24

inches below ground surface, but is most often approximately 20-40 feet below ground

surface. Most domestic wells within a one-mile radius of the existing landfill are bored to

a depth of 34 to 183 feet.

There are no surface water bodies present within the proposed project area. The closest

open surface water is Island Park Reservoir 0.5 miles southwest of the project area. The

closest flowing surface water is the Henry’s Fork of the Snake River, located

approximately 1.6 miles northwest of the project area. Henry’s Fork of the Snake River is

the main collector for the Upper Henry’s Fork Subbasin which encompasses 706,550

acres, and is identified as hydrologic unit code (HUC) 17040202.

IDEQ is currently the governing agency which has issued a permit to Fremont County for

the operation of the existing landfill. Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

(MSWLFs) in Idaho must be certified in compliance with all MSWLF regulations. New

MSWLFs or existing MSWLFs wishing to expand their operations must apply to DEQ

for site certification. Monitoring and sampling practices aid the County in remaining in

compliance with state and federal water quality standards. If at any time levels of

chemical properties within a water sample are found to be outside of the allowable range

the facility manager takes immediate corrective actions to bring levels within acceptable

standards.


30

Hydrologic Disturbance: A guideline of the RFP is that “Not more than 30% of any of

the principal watersheds and their subwatersheds should be in a hydrologically disturbed

condition at any one time” (RFP Guideline, pg. III-10). Table 4 provides estimates of the

current hydrologic disturbance (HD) in principal watershed and subwatershed. The

watersheds are currently well below the 30% guideline.

Table 4. Estimate of the current hydrologic disturbance (HD) in TPW-010 and the subwatersheds

Targhee Principal Watershed

(TPW) Area (acres) Current HD (%)

TPW 010 - Buffalo River 43,901 10%

Subwatershed HUC Area On NFS Lands (acres) Current HD (%)

170402020401 - Buffalo River 23,899 10%



Direct and Indirect Effects: The facility would continue to operate at its current level

under the No Action alternative. Implementation of this alternative is not anticipated to

impact ground water or surface water quality in association with the operation of the

facility, due to the regulation imposed by IDEQ associated with the operation permit.


Direct and Indirect Effects: The installation of the project would require some soil

disturbance in association with the installation of the new buildings and roadways. Best

management practices associated with heavy equipment operation (i.e., fuel storage,

fueling procedures, spill prevention/clean-up kits present, and proper functioning of

machinery) would be implemented to prevent spills which have the potential to impact

water quality.

Under Idaho's Solid Waste Management Rules (IDAPA 58.01.06), transfer stations are

classified as Tier II facilities and must comply with basic Tier II regulations and

deadlines and meet certain specific additional design, operating, and closure

requirements.

There is no open or flowing water present within the proposed project area. The distance

of surface water (Henry’s Fork and Island Park Reservoir) from the proposed project area

limits the risk of potentially impacting these water bodies with increased sediment or

other contaminants associated with the project area. Implementation of BMPs during

construction of the facility also reduces the risk of sediment and contaminants from

entering surface water.


31

Ground water contamination could occur with the Proposal Action alternative. These

risks are associated with ground disturbance activities which would occur during the

clearing of trees associated with construction of the transfer station project. Construction

would not occur at the times when ground water levels are high (during spring melt and

run off). In addition to design features, BMPs associated with heavy equipment operation

(i.e., fuel storage, fueling procedures, spill prevention/clean-up kits present, and proper

functioning of machinery) would be implemented to prevent spills which have the

potential to impact water quality.

Hydrologic Disturbance: The Proposed Action would generate approximately 5 acres of

hydrologic disturbance. This is approximately 0.01% at the Principal Watershed scale

(TPW 010) and 0.02% at the subwatershed scale (170402020401 – Buffalo River).

Cumulative Effects:

No other projects are planned in the immediate project area which would cumulatively

impact water quality or the hydrology of the area. However, the Forest is currently

preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the Buffalo River Timber Stand

Improvement project, which is located in the headwaters of TPW 010. That project is

consider in the cumulative hydrologic disturbance analysis below.

Hydrologic Disturbance: The timing and/or duration of streamflows is not expected to be

a concern because very little disturbance is occurring at the watershed scale. Table 5 lists

the cumulative hydrologic disturbance information for the analysis areas. The watersheds

would remain well below the 30% guideline

Table 5: Cumulative hydrologic disturbance

Targhee Principal

Watershed Current HD (%) Project Generated HD (%) Cumulative HD (%)

TPW 010 - Buffalo River 10% 0.01% 11%

Subwatershed Current HD (%) Project Generated HD (%) Cumulative HD (%)

170402020401 - Buffalo

River 10% 0.02% 10%

SOILS


Management actions occurring on the National Forest lands, involving the soil resource

are guided by the following: FSM 2500-2010-1 (National Soil Management Manual),

FSM-2500-2011-1 (R4 Supplement) and the Targhee National Forest Plan – 1997.

Activities as described for the construction of a solid waste transfer site are not governed

by FSM 2500-2010-1 or FSM-2500-2011-1.

These activities are considered to occur on administrative sites not primarily managed for

soil productivity and function and are therefore excluded from soil analysis (FSM 2500-

2011-1/2550.5).


32

The Revised Targhee Forest Plan, 1997 (RFP) does have applicable guidance, which

specifies sustaining long term soil productivity by retaining fine organic matter and

woody residue on activity areas (Goal). This Goal will be complied with by

implementing the prescribed soil related Design Features above limiting erosion.

Existing Conditions

The general soil map unit in the project area is the ARTRV/ARART Trude unit of the

Trude Soil Series (USDA NRCS 2016). Soils are characterized by sandy loam textures in

the upper 20 inches and sandy textures from 20 to 60 inches with 15 to 35 percent gravel

sized fragments throughout. This unit is listed at having a 0 to 4 percent slope with depth

to the water table and restrictive features being more than 80 inches deep. The soil unit is

generally well drained mixed alluvium and has formed in outwash plains.



Direct and Indirect Effects: Under the No Action alternative the soils in the project area

would not be affected.


Direct and Indirect Effects: The installation of the proposed project would require some

soil disturbance. 50% of the soils in the project area are anticipated to be disturbed (4.6

acres of the 9.1 acre project area). Clearing the site of vegetation with heavy equipment

would also result in some soil compaction on the site. Best management practices

associated with heavy equipment operation (i.e., fuel storage, fueling procedures, spill

prevention/clean-up kits present, and proper functioning of machinery) would be

implemented to prevent contamination of soils and potential run-off of contaminants

offsite. Erosion control mitigation has been prescribed to maintain site productivity

wherever possible.


project area which would cumulatively impact soil productivity, or create conditions

susceptible to erosion. The current facility has previously impacted 20 acres of soils. The

expansion proposed in this project would impact an additional 4.6 acres of soils in the 9.1

acre project area.


33

CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local

agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this

environmental assessment:

ID TEAM MEMBERS:

Sabrina Derusseau, Zone Wildlife Biologist

Sharon Plager, Forest Archeologist

Brad Higginson, Hydrology

David Marr, Soils

Jessica Taylor, NEPA Specialist

Rose Lehman, Botanist

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES:

Fremont County

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

TRIBES:

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Date post:	14-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lehuong
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Environmental Agriculture...

Documents