United 

States 

Department 

of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

April 

2017 

Environmental Assessment 

Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project

Montpelier Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

Bear Lake County, Idaho 

Township 14 S., Range 42 E., Section 13 of the Boise Meridian 

For Information Contact: Dennis Duehren, Montpelier District Ranger 

322 N. 4th Street, Montpelier, ID 83254 

(208) 847-0375 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/ctnf 
i 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................1 

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

1.2 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 

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

1.4 Proposed Action and Location ................................................................................ 2 

1.5 Decision Framework ............................................................................................... 2 

1.6 Management Direction ............................................................................................ 2 

1.7 Public Involvement .................................................................................................. 3 

1.8 Agencies and Persons Consulted ........................................................................... 4 

1.9 Scope of Environmental Analysis / Issues .............................................................. 4 

2.0 Alternatives and the Proposed Action .......................................................5 

2.1 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis ............................................................... 5 

2.2 Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Analysis ........................................................ 5 

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) ........................................................................................ 6 

2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ............................................................................. 7 

3.0 Environmental Consequences...................................................................10 

3.1 Water Resources .................................................................................................. 10 

3.2 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 12 

3.3 Other Resources Considered and Findings .......................................................... 13 

4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring........................................................................ 16 

5.0 References.............................................................................................16 

Table 1 – Summary of Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 4 

Figure 1 – Bloomington Allotment Elevation Profile .............................................................. 6 

Figure 2 – Vicinity Map / Project Area ................................................................................... 9 

Figure 3 – Proposed Action / Project Area ............................................................................ 9 

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, AD3027, 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: program.intake@usda.gov . 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender 

 
 ii 

SUMMARY 

Project Proposal. The Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Montpelier Ranger District 

(Forest Service) proposes to allow Forest Service permittees to construct a corral and 

associated fencing on forest land. 

Purpose and Need. The purpose for the project proposal is to facilitate post-roundup 

cattle management activities by Forest Service permittees within the Bloomington 

Allotment, on forest land. The project proposal is needed to address the infrequent 

occurrence of cattle remaining in the allotment after the end of grazing season. A small 

structure is needed to contain a small number of cattle for short periods of time from 

when remaining cattle are located and moved out of the allotment. 

Management Direction. The project area is within the Cache National Forest, as 

administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest and managed under its Revised 

Forest Plan (2003). 

Location. The project area is located in the Cache National Forest, approximately 5 

miles west of Paris and directly east of the Paris Springs Campground in Bear Lake 

County, Idaho (Township 14 S., Range 42 E., Section 13 of the Boise Meridian). 

Proposed Action and Alternatives. The proposed action is to construct a corral and 

associated fencing on forest land below and east of the Paris Springs Campground, 

along Paris Campground access road (Forest Service Road #427). The total area of 

disturbance for the action is less than 1 acre within a previously disturbed area (currently 

a user-developed gravel parking area). In developing the proposed action, the Forest 

Service also considered the following action alternatives that were ultimately dismissed: 

 Require permittees to continue to use private land;

 Alternative locations in Paris Canyon and Bureau of Land Management land;

 Use of a portable corral; and

 Enforceable permit terms/condition in lieu of a corral.

Environmental Consequences. Considering the potential effects on various resources, 

the potential effects to water resources was the sole area warranting detailed analysis in 

this EA. In summary, no appreciable effects to water resources would occur under 

either the no action alternative or the proposed action. In comparison to the no action, 

the proposed action may result in beneficial, indirect effects to water resources because 

the presence of a corral would facilitate the timely, occasional removal of livestock from 

the riparian pasture (temporarily off limits to cattle). Because the proposed action was 

designed and sited to avoid potentially significant effects to the environment, no 

mitigation measures are required for implementing the action; however the installation 

of a new relief culvert is recommended to improve existing conditions. 

Decisions to be made. Based upon the information contained in this EA, the responsible 

official will determine whether to implement the proposed action (original or modified 

form) or select the no action alternative, whether mitigation and/or monitoring is 

required, and whether the analysis presented in this EA supports a Finding of No 

Significant Impact or requires further analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement. 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 1 of 18 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Montpelier Ranger District (Forest Service) has 

prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C.A. §§4321 to 4370(h)), Council on Environmental 

Quality implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. parts 1500 to 1508 (1978)), Forest Service 

supplemental regulations and guidance (36 C.F.R. part 220, National Environmental 

Policy Act Compliance (2008), and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1901.15, National 

Environmental Policy Act Handbook (2010)), and other relevant laws, regulations and 

policies (as discussed herein) to evaluate the potential effects from Forest Service 

permittees, organized as the Bloomington Cattle Association, constructing a corral and 

associated fencing on forest land. 

1.1 Document Structure_______________________________ 

This document is organized into the following five parts: 

 Introduction. Section 1.0 describes the background of the project proposal, its 

purpose and need, the proposed action developed to achieve the purpose and 

need, the decisions to be made under this EA, the management direction for the 

project area, the public involvement process including persons and agencies 

consulted, and the scope of environmental analysis for this EA. 

 Alternatives including the Proposed Action. Section 2.0 describes the alternative 

methods developed and considered to achieve the purpose and need. 

 Environmental Consequences. Section 3.0 describes the potential effects of 

implementing the proposed action and the no action alternative with analyses 

organized by resource and then focused on the potentially significant issues. 

 Mitigation and Monitoring. Section 4.0 summarizes any mitigation measures and 

monitoring for the proposed action and no action alternative. 

 References. Section 5.0 lists the sources used and relied upon in preparing this 

EA, which are incorporated by reference into this EA and located in the project 

planning record at the Montpelier Ranger District’s office in Montpelier, Idaho. 

1.2 Background ____________________________________ 

The project proposal is the result of the Forest Service permittees losing access to a 

corral located on private lands, down the road from Paris Springs Campground. The 

permittees used this corral on an occasional basis to facilitate the gathering and 

movement of cattle in the Bloomington Allotment where remaining cattle were not 

located during the initial roundup, at the end of the grazing season. Generally, after the 

initial roundup took place permittees would find cows (a few pair at a time) and bring 

them to the corral. These cows would then be loaded into a trailer and hauled to 

various destinations that day. The loss of access and use to the private corral will result 

in a decreased efficiency of the permittees to move and gather cattle out of the 

allotment in an orderly and timely manner. A corral is a practical necessity for cattle 

management. 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 2 of 18 

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action _______________________ 

The purpose for the project proposal is to facilitate post-roundup cattle management 

activities by Forest Service permittees within the Bloomington Allotment, on forest land. 

The project proposal is needed to address the infrequent occurrence of cattle remaining 

in the allotment. A small structure is needed to contain a small number of cattle for 

short periods of time from when remaining cattle are located and moved out of the 

allotment. 

Within the Bloomington Allotment, the permittees are allowed to graze 435 pair of cattle 

from June 26 to September 25 annually (USFS 2016a). At the end of the grazing 

season the cattle are gathered (rounded up) and then moved (driven) down the county 

road to Paris and their home ranches. Generally not all cattle are found during the initial 

round up. Cattle not found during the initial roundup, but subsequently located in the 

days following would be placed in the proposed corral (few at a time) and then hauled 

off the Forest. The proposed corral would allow the sorting of any cattle subsequently 

found (i.e., resolve pairing [cow and calves] and ownership [cattle from another 

allotment). It would function as an occasional-use gathering structure and is not 

designed or intended to be used for large scale gathering or sorting, or for long term 

containment of cattle. 

1.4 Proposed Action and Location________________________ 

The Forest Service proposes to allow its permittees to construct a corral and associated 

fencing on forest land, within the Bloomington Allotment, to aid with the management of 

cattle. The proposed action would affect less than 1 acre of land in total. For more 

details on the proposed action, see Section 2.2.2. 

The project area is located in the Cache National Forest, approximately 5 miles west of 

Paris and east of Paris Springs Campground, located in Bear Lake County, Idaho 

(Township 14 S., Range 42 E., Section 13 of the Boise Meridian) (see Figures 1 and 2). 

The proposed action would be constructed along the Paris Springs Campground access 

road in a previously disturbed area (user-developed gravel parking area) (see Figure 3). 

1.5 Decision Framework_______________________________ 

Based upon the information contained in this EA, the deciding official with determine: 

 Whether to implement the proposed action (original or modified form) or select 

the no action alterative; 

 Whether mitigation and/or monitoring is required; and 

 Whether the analysis presented in this EA supports a Finding of No Significant 

Impact or requires further analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

1.6 Management Direction______________________________ 

The project area is located within the Cache National Forest, administered by the 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest and managed under the Caribou RFP and associated 

travel plan, providing guidance and direction for forest management decisions and 

allocation of uses across forest landscapes in the form of desired future conditions 

(DFC), goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. The Caribou RFP and travel plan 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 3 of 18 

were previously analyzed in Final [EIS] for the Caribou National Forest RFP (USFS 

2003a) and Caribou Travel Plan Revision, Final EIS (USFS 2005a). 

Consistent with the Caribou RFP, livestock grazing permittees may be allowed to 

develop range improvements assigned in their grazing permits. Although developed in 

response to permittee needs, the proposal complies with goals, objectives, and 

guidelines pertaining to soils (limiting new disturbance), watershed and riparian 

resources (protecting/maintaining water quality), recreation (avoiding user conflicts at 

developed sites), and scenic resources (improvements visually subordinate to natural 

scenery). In addition, the project area is located in the following prescription area 

(allocates uses/emphasizes resource priorities): 

 Semi-Primitive Restoration (Prescription 3.3(b)). 

Semi-Primitive Restoration emphasizes ecological restoration to improve resource 

conditions that are not functioning properly, although other uses such as recreation and 

grazing are allowed. (USFS 2003b). 

The project proposal would not affect existing grazing activities because it only seeks to 

facilitate existing cattle management activities; no increased use or changed usage 

patterns. The proposed corral would be added to the list of structural improvements 

that permittees are responsible for maintaining under their existing permits. Existing 

grazing activities would continue as analyzed in Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

South Bear River Range Allotment Management Plan Revisions (USFS 2005b). A 

resulting and relevant limitation from this prior analysis and decision is that livestock 

grazing is not authorized within Paris Creek riparian area until DFCs are met (USFS 

2005b, USFS 2005c, USFS 2016a). Consistent with this limitation, the project area is 

located outside of the riparian area. 

Therefore, applicable land management requirements were considered during the 

development of the project proposal and EA and the proposal is consistent with the 

Caribou RFP and travel plan (no amendment required). 

1.7 Public Involvement________________________________ 

The Forest Service listed the project proposal in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on 

December 6, 2016. A letter regarding the proposal was mailed to the ShoshoneBannock Tribes on January 6, 2017. The proposal was provided for comment during 

scoping. Public scoping occurred for 30 days (January 25, 2017 to February 23, 2017). 

The legal notice initiating scoping was published in the Idaho State Journal on January 

24, 2017. Persons and agencies requesting individual notice of project proposals within 

the Montpelier Ranger District were notified. The Forest Service received several 

comments on the project proposal. Where comments raised specific and relevant 

concerns, they are addressed in this EA. No comments were received by the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Based on a review of scoping comments in combination 

with their professional experience and best professional judgment, the Forest Service 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) determined the scope of this EA (see Section 1.9). 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 4 of 18 

1.8 Agencies and Persons Consulted ___________________ 

1.8.1 Forest Service IDT 

The Forest Service IDT conducted internal scoping for the project proposal, including 

initial site visits of the project area on November 8 and 22, 2016. Additional site visits 

were made by the IDT members to aid in preparing this EA. 

1.8.2 Environmental Consultation and Permitting 

The Forest Service IDT determined that no permits or consultations are required to 

implement the proposed action. However, a mitigation measure is recommended to 

avoid road damage under existing conditions, which would also protective of water 

quality (see Section 3.1). 

1.8.3 Government-to-Government Consultation 

The project proposal would not affect the treaty rights of the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes for hunting and gathering on ceded lands or other rights/resources (i.e., 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Executive Order (EO) 13007 (Indian Sacred 

Sites), traditional cultural properties). No comments or requests were received from 

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and no archeological sites/artifacts were identified 

during the development of this EA. Therefore, formal Government-to-Government 

consultation was not conducted during the development of this EA as set forth in EO 

13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Departmental Regulation 1350-002 (Tribal Consultation, 

Coordination, and Collaboration), and FSH 1509.13 (Tribal Relations Handbook). 

1.9 Scope of Environmental Analysis / Issues ____________ 

The Forest Service IDT determined that potential effects to water resources was the 

issue that held the most potential for significant effects, warranting detailed analysis in 

this EA (potential effects summarized in Table 1). Other resources/issues considered 

by the Forest Service IDT, but not warranting detailed analysis in this EA are briefly 

discussed in Section 3.3 (Other Resources Considered and Findings). 

Table 1 – Summary of Environmental Consequences 

Issue Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Water 

Quality 

Existing levels of nonpoint 

source pollution (i.e., runoff) 

would continue, but effects 

would still not be measureable 

at watershed scale 

Same as no action, except that cattle 

would cause soil compaction (in a small 

area that is already compacted) with 

runoff from the project area contributing 

to non-point source pollution. 

Specific concerns raised during public scoping that are outside the scope of this EA (not 

relevant to the proposed action or its potential effects) include: 

 Revisiting the capability of the Bloomington Allotment; 

 Modifying the grazing program and terms of grazing permits; 

 Repairing fences throughout the Bloomington Allotment; 

 Analyzing noise effects from off-road vehicles and timber sales; 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 5 of 18 

 Analyzing and addressing potential nuisances (noise, dust, privacy) from the 

public’s use of county roads and claims of trespass; 

 Analyzing effects from trapping game; 

 Conducting a wildlife corridor study; and 

 Removing water developments in canyon bottoms and near conifers and aspens. 

The above-listed issues would be best resolved when brought up in connection with a 

project proposal that affects or seeks to address these resources/issues. Although the 

proposed action is related to grazing, not all grazing-related comments are relevant to 

this EA and decisions to be made. For purposes of this EA, the scope of analysis is 

focused on the resource/issue holding the most potential for significant effects from the 

proposed action – water resources. The cumulative effects analysis is similarly 

focused. Not any and all past, present and future actions are relevant, only those that in 

combination with the proposed action could result in a potential for significant effects. 

Generalized, broadly stated, or vague comments may not have been addressed in this 

EA if the specific issue could not be ascertained from the context provided. 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED ACTION 

2.1 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis_____________ 

The following alternatives were carried forward for analysis, as explained below. 

 Construct a Corral near Paris Springs Campground. The Forest Service 

determined that the proposed project area (Figure 1) is the most suitable area in 

the Bloomington Allotment because the corral needs to be located near the 

location where cattle are removed at the end of the grazing season, near the 

lowest elevation area of the allotment, on level terrain, near the Paris Canyon 

Road, accessible by truck and trailer, and on land managed by the Forest 

Service. Finally, the Forest Service focused on previously disturbed areas 

outside of any AIZ to avoid potentially significant environmental effects. 

 No Action. The proposed corral would not be constructed, but current activities 

including grazing would continue within the Bloomington Allotment (see Section 

2.2.1). NEPA requires the analysis of the no action alternative despite not 

meeting the purpose and need. 

2.2 Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Analysis ________ 

The Forest Service considered other action alternatives, including those raised during 

public scoping, but they were not carried forward for analysis, as explained below. 

The first alternative considered (responds to scoping comment) was to require the 

Forest Service permittees to use private land. The permittees have been avoiding the 

use of forest lands for years by using a private corral. Although other private 

landowners exist within the general area and have private corrals, to date, no 

opportunities exist for permittees to use these corrals. The Forest Service cannot direct 

its permittees to take action outside of the terms of their permits. 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 6 of 18 

A second alternative considered (responds to scoping comment) was to locate the 

corral higher up in Paris Canyon either on or above Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM) land. Locating the corral above BLM land was not desirable because of 

topography that would lead to difficulties of sorting and paring cattle on steep slopes, 

involve increased costs for site preparation and require new road construction, which is 

not congruent with the Forest Service’s goal of minimizing environmental effects. 

A third alternative considered (raised during public scoping) was the use of a portable 

corral. The environmental consequences of one portable corral in project area would be 

identical whether portable or permanent. However, if portable corrals are used, there 

would be the potential for multiple disturbed sites since each permittee would need to 

have a portable corral on hand (as opposed to sharing one permanent corral). Also, the 

project area may not be available for their use if other members of the public are parked 

in that area, resulting in permittees having to set up the corral in other areas within the 

allotment that may not be as desirable as the project area (already disturbed). 

A fourth alternative considered (raised during public scoping) was to use enforceable 

terms and conditions of the permits in lieu of a corral. The permittees currently operate 

under a permit with enforceable terms and conditions. The Forest Service is not 

proposing this corral as a result of the permittees inability to comply with their permit 

terms and conditions. The commenter did not provide additional permit terms which 

would eliminate the need for the proposed late season corral. 

 Source: USFS GIS Data (January 19, 2017). 

Figure 1– Bloomington Allotment Elevation Profile 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 7 of 18 

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the no action, no new corral would be constructed in the Bloomington Allotment; 

however, current activities including land management and grazing would continue. 

Without a corral, it is anticipated that the permittees would have to walk small groups of 

cattle down Paris Canyon road to the vicinity of Paris, sort cattle within the road right-ofway, and then continue driving individual pairs to their respective home ranches. 

Within the allotment and in the vicinity of the project area, permittees have access to 

forest and county roads. Paris Canyon Road runs from Paris toward Paris Springs 

Campground, with a Forest Service access road (#427) leading to the project area. The 

access road is currently maintained for vehicle access (gravel). Paris Creek is located 

in the vicinity of the project area. Currently the area adjacent to the proposed project 

area is not grazed. Cattle (grazing in the vicinity of the project area) have been 

excluded since approximately 2000 with the construction of fences to the north and 

south. The goal of this exclusion is riparian restoration of Paris Creek. In the summer 

of 2016, these exclusion fences received extensive maintenance. Separately, 

restoration activities (streambank, vegetation plantings, and stream bed manipulation) 

also occurred to increase the rate of stream restoration. The no-grazing limitation would 

continue until riparian health has reached the desired objective as determined by the 

Forest Service. 

Other relevant existing/ongoing activities in the vicinity of the project area include: 

recreation, firewood gathering, hunting, grazing, and maintenance activities (facilities, 

fences, roads and trails). These activities would continue as guided by the Caribou 

RFP and travel plan and as limited by the prior NEPA and other management 

documents, noted above. A representative photo of the project area is provided below 

with signs of past use evident (i.e., area cleared, soil compacted). 

 Date: November 8, 2016. Date: November 8, 2016. 

 Photo 1 – User Developed Parking Area Photo 2 – Parking Area Vegetation and Soils
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 8 of 18 

2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

The Forest Service proposes to construct a small corral and associated fencing in a 

previously disturbed area of the Bloomington Allotment, located on forest land along the 

Paris Springs Campground access road (see Figures 2 and 3). 

The corral would likely measure 80 feet by 80 feet (6,400 square feet/0.15-acre) (see 

Figure 3, in yellow). The corral would be constructed approximately 200-feet west of 

the forest boundary/entrance into the campground and on the opposite side of the road 

from Paris Creek. This area corresponds to the existing area of disturbance (a userdeveloped gravel parking area) and it is also in close proximity to supporting 

infrastructure that already exists (adjacent road, nearby cattle guard and boundary 

fence). The fencing would be constructed from the existing cattle guard at the forest 

boundary to the corral (Figure 3, in green), running along both sides of the Paris 

Campground access road (Figure 3, in red). The purpose of the fence running along 

both sides of the road is to ensure as cattle are brought up Paris Canyon Road to the 

corral so that they cannot escape out into the riparian area. This will ensure that cattle 

do not affect the riparian area. Cattle being brought to the corral will remain on the 

developed road. The fencing along both sides of the road leading to the corral will act 

as a funnel to efficiently guide cattle into the corral. The corral and fencing would be a 

post and pole design (see Photo 3). In addition, vehicle access to move cattle is 

required (room for standard truck with detachable trailers). No road widening or 

improvements would be required; vehicles would enter and exit from opposite ends of 

the project area (drive through in a U-turn manner). 

All ground disturbing activities would be confined to the previously disturbed area and 

along an existing road. Digging holes for the posts associated with the corral and 

fencing would be required. Clearing, grubbing, and/or leveling of the area may be 

needed, but would be limited because the area is already somewhat level and cleared 

of vegetation as a result of past use. In total, the proposed action would affect less than 

1-acre of land. 

The proposed action could be implemented as early as summer of 2017, but may be 

delayed into 2018 depending on Forest Service priorities. Installing the corral and 

associated fencing would take approximately 3 weeks to complete. This is primarily due 

to the fact that the action would largely be completed by manual labor (hand tools) 

rather than typical construction equipment (heavy machinery). Installation activities 

would not block road access since the project area has sufficient space for staging 

activities and vehicle parking. 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 9 of 18 

Note: Error in GIS data – power company canal (south of project area) should not be classified as a perennial (correction to 

GIS data in progress). Source: USFS GIS Data (January 17, 2017).

Figure 2 – Vicinity Map / Project Area 

 Source: Google Earth (December 14, 2016). 

Figure 3 – Proposed Action / Project Area 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 10 of 18 

Photo 3 - Typical Post and Pole Fence (for illustrative purposes only) 

3.0 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 alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for 

comparison of alternatives presented in Table 1. The no action represents existing 

conditions against which the effects from the proposed action are evaluated (“affected 

environment”). The potential effects from each alternative are evaluated within the 

context of relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the 

project area (see Section 3.2 for list of relevant actions). The potential effects of these 

actions in combination with the potential effects of the alternatives are referred to as 

"cumulative effects," which are integrated into the analyses below. In preparing the 

analyses, the Forest Service IDT reviewed and considered the most relevant and 

current scientific data available. 

3.1 Water Resources_________________________________ 

3.1.1 Floodplains/Wetlands 

Available information indicates that the proposed corral and associated fencing are not 

in a floodplain or wetland and no Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit is required 

to implement the proposed action, as confirmed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(FEMA 1984, IDWR 2016, Laprevote 2017). The Forest Service located the action 

outside of the default 300-foot aquatic influence zone (AIZ) to avoid direct effects to 

wetlands and floodplains. Based on the analysis in Section 3.1.2, there would be no 

appreciable indirect effects to floodplains and wetlands located outside and downstream 

of the project area. Therefore, wetlands and floodplains would not be appreciably 

affected by the no action or proposed action and consequently the more specific 

analysis requirements of EOs 11988 and 11990 do not apply. 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 11 of 18 

3.1.2 Water Quality 

The project area is located to the south of upper Paris Creek (see Figure 2), which is 

currently listed under 303-d of the CWA as impaired for its designated uses (supporting 

cold water aquatic life and salmonid spawning), but a total maximum daily load has not 

yet been established (USEPA 2012a). 

The no action alternative would have no measurable effect to water quality or the 

functionality of the riparian area under existing condition and considering the reasonably 

foreseeable scenario of inaction. The user-developed gravel parking area (just outside 

the 300-foot AIZ) would continue with the same disturbance as it is at present. Runoff 

from this area is currently minimal because it is on the downslope side of a small mound 

and where the mound directs runoff from all the uplands above (to the south of project 

area, see Photo 3) around either side of the proposed corral. So, runoff is not normally 

directed through the project area under existing conditions. Moreover, the mound itself 

produces minimal runoff because it is well-fractured rock that combined with sandy soil 

result in a characteristically high infiltration capacity. Any runoff from the project area 

would have to travel further than 300 feet to the creek as the direction of drainage 

angles about 20 degrees downstream (see Photo 3). This distance exceeds 

recommended buffer widths for avoiding effects to water quality (see e.g., Buffler 2005, 

Belt 1992). The area surrounding the project area contains productive upland mollisol, 

silt loam to loam with an organic rich topsoil. The top soil layer just below the road is 

highly friable (“bb” sized soil structure) that falls apart easily in the hand, and though it is 

fairly fine grained, the loose structure gives it a high infiltration capacity. In addition, this 

area has a slightly hummocky surface with good grass ground cover, which also adds to 

the travel length and provides additional detention potential for runoff. Overall, runoff 

patterns under the no action would not raise any hydrology concerns or result in any 

appreciable adverse effect to the functionality of the riparian area, which plays a role in 

preserving the water quality of Paris Creek. (Laprevote 2017). 

The proposed action would have no measurable effect to water quality or the 

functionality of the riparian area as compared to the no action alternative. Livestock 

management would be essentially the same as the no action except for the new corral 

to handle the small groups of animals during collection and pairing of strays. The small 

corral would be constructed in the user-developed gravel parking area just outside the 

300-foot AIZ. Runoff patterns from this area would be the same as under the no action. 

Any runoff from the project area would likely be infiltrated into the soils prior to entering 

Paris Creek with little to no resulting risk of the action adversely affecting water quality. 

(Laprevote 2017). Corrals inevitably involve additional areas of soil compaction around 

them caused by animal herding; however, the proposed corral wing and two roadside 

fences would help control animals and limit further compaction to the road (which is by 

design already compacted) and area east of the corral (which is part of the already 

disturbed parking area). Overall, the addition of the corral, fences and small additional 

area of compaction around the corral would be too small to raise any hydrology 

concerns and not result in any appreciable adverse effect to the functionality of the 

riparian area or water quality of Paris Creek. (Laprevote 2017). 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 12 of 18 

No Clean Water Act (CWA) permit is required to implement the proposed action. First, 

the effects of the proposed action would be considered nonpoint source pollution under 

Section 402 of the CWA (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, “NPDES”). 

The Forest Service works in coordination with the State of Idaho, under the terms of a 

MOU (USFS 2013), and implements appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to 

avoid or minimize effect from non-point source pollution. Second, the proposed corral is 

not a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) because it would be used for less 

than 45 days per year, the number of cattle in the corral would not meet the threshold 

for number of animals in a large or medium CAFO, the area does not sustain vegetation 

as a result of past use, and the corral would not result in any significant contribution of 

pollutants to Waters of the United States to warrant designation as a small CAFO 

(USEPA 1995; see generally 40 CFR §§122.23(b)). Finally, the proposed action does 

not trigger the NPDES General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities

(Construction general permit, “CGP”) (USEPA 2017a) because implementing the 

proposed action would disturb less than 1 acre of land. 

The effects from the relevant past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions 

listed in Section 3.2, were considered in the foregoing analysis. The Forest Service 

hydrologist determined that the existing relief culverts along the road are too far apart, 

producing noticeable erosion and deposition in the road ditch (on the south side of the 

road), west of the proposed corral, and recommended the placement of a new 

(additional) relief culvert to prevent road damage. The new relief culvert is 

recommended to be located approximately 300 to 400 feet west of the project area, in 

an upland area. The culvert would have the added benefit of limiting runoff and 

associated pollutants (i.e., vehicle-related particulates, sediment, feces) from the project 

area toward Paris Creek under either the no action or proposed action. (Laprevote 

2017). 

Therefore, no appreciable adverse effects to water resources are anticipated under the 

no action or proposed action, no CWA permit is required to implement the proposed 

action, and existing conditions could be improved by installing the recommended 

culvert. 

 Source: Google Earth (January 20, 2017). 

Photo 4 – Edge of Riparian 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 13 of 18 

3.2 Cumulative Effects List____________________________ 

The following listing includes the relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions (RFFA) in the vicinity of the project area: 

 Paris Creek Restoration Project (USFS 2016b) (increased woody riparian shrub 

cover, stabilized eroding stream banks, and constructed pool habitat for fish and 

aquatic species; cattle grazing in the riparian pasture is restricted for a minimum 

of the next 5 years to ensure desired future conditions have been reached prior 

to reintroducing any level of cattle use) (Past); 

 Non-grazing actions in the vicinity of Paris Springs Campground (recreation, 

firewood collection, and maintenance of facilities, roads and trails) carried out 

under the direction of the Caribou RFP, as previously analyzed in the associated 

EIS (USFS 2003a, USFS 2003b) (Past/Present/RFFA); 

 Grazing activities and structural improvements in the Paris Creek area within the 

Bloomington Allotment as previously analyzed in Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, South Bear River Range Allotment Management Plan Revisions 

(USFS 2005b) (Past/Present/RFFA). 

3.3 Other Resources Considered and Findings__________ 

Air Quality. The proposed action is anticipated to have a negligible effect on air quality 

because it involves installing a corral and fencing on less than 1 acre, implementation 

would be short in duration (1 week), and mostly involving manual labor (private vehicles 

and hand tools at most); having a low potential for generating criteria air pollutants. The 

action would not be implemented in a non-attainment or maintenance area for criteria 

air pollutants or in Class I Area for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of 

air quality (IDAPA §58.01.01.580.01.a, Restrictions on Area Classification; IDEQ 2016; 

USEPA 2016a). Based on the above, there would be no potential for the action to 

cause/contribute to a violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, interfere with the federally-approved 

Idaho State Implementation Plan, or exceed the Class II Area threshold for allowable 

increases in ambient air pollution (IDAPA §§ 58.01.01.580.01.c and 58.01.01.581.01, 

Incorporated Federal Program Requirements - Class I, II and III Areas). Therefore, the 

action complies with the Clean Air Act and no further analysis (General Conformity) or 

permit to construct (not a construction/ modification of a source/facility per IDAPA 

58.01.01.201) are required. 

Climate Change. The proposed action would have a negligible effect on climate change 

because the action has a low potential for generating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) 

and no potential to result in loss of CO2 storage/absorption capabilities of the project 

area (i.e., mostly manual labor, project area devoid of vegetation, action responds to 

existing use) (see e.g., USEPA 2016b). Although small-scope projects contribute to 

global GHG levels, this action does not lend itself to the consideration of mitigation 

measures. Rather, broader Forest Service efforts (research) (see e.g., USFS 2016c) 

and mandated GHG reductions (EOs 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the 

Next Decade and 13424 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 

Transportation Management) would appreciably influence the global situation. The 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 14 of 18 

potential effects of climate change would not prevent the use of the corral (sited outside 

the floodplain/would withstand a flood). 

Cultural/Heritage Resources. The proposed action would not affect known historic 

properties or the Oregon National Historic Trail (NPS 2017a. NPS 2017b). No other 

cultural/heritage resources were identified in the project area or its vicinity during the 

development of this EA. Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act is not required (36 CFR §800.3(a)(1), No potential to cause 

effects). 

Environmental Justice and Children (Executive Orders (EO) 12898 and 13045). The 

proposed action seeks to facilitate cattle management on forest lands (not near any 

population center/sensitive receptor) and thus would not result in any exclusionary, 

discriminatory or disproportionate effect on EO 12898 or 13045 populations (lowincome, minority, children), including health, safety and environmental effects (see 

Section 3.1 and herein). 

Fisheries. As discussed in Section 3.1, the proposed action would not result in adverse 

effects to Paris Creek’s water quality or the ability of the riparian area to function and 

therefore the Forest Service does not anticipate adverse effects to fish species or fish 

habitat. This in addition to recent Paris Creek projects (fish passage, relocating a 

CAFO, Forest Service habitat restoration) are anticipated to result in improved 

conditions for fish in Paris Creek (IDEQ 2011, USFS 2016b). 

Invasive Species. The proposed action would occur in an area where recreational and 

grazing uses occur and may be contributing to the spread of invasive species, but the 

action is responding to an existing use not likely to result in any appreciable change in 

species distribution or density within the project/surrounding areas. Preventing the 

introduction, controlling the spread, and eradicating invasive species is a major 

undertaking currently handled under the Noxious Weed and Poisonous Plant Control 

Program, as previously analyzed in Caribou National Forest Noxious Weed and 

Poisonous Plant Control Program Environmental Assessment Decision Notice and 

Finding of No Significant Impact (1996) and implemented per EOs 13112 (Invasive 

Species) and 13751 (Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species). 

Under this program, the Forest Service addresses priority species in priority locations so 

that efforts are focused and consistent overtime, leading to measurable results. Since 

the Forest Service manages for multiple uses, often dealing with competing uses, the 

mere presence of an invasive species is not a sufficient reason to close access to forest 

land. Further, the spread of invasive species is not specific to cattle (e.g., feces from 

avian species and wind). Considering these factors, no additional mitigation measures 

are recommended to implement the proposed action. 

Land Use and Socioeconomics. The proposed action would not result in land use or 

user conflicts (consistent with the Bear Lake Comprehensive Plan and Idaho Roadless 

Rule, responds to grazing permittee needs, and not affecting prime farmland/other land 

of statewide importance) (BLRC 2002, NRCS 2017 and herein). The action would not 

affect recreational operations at the campground and cattle roundup at the end of 

grazing season is later than the main camping season at Paris Springs Campground 

(BLRC 2002, IDPR 2016). Due to the presence of a permanent structure located on 

forest land, it is possible that recreational use of the corral would occur (i.e., dispersed 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 15 of 18 

camping, storing of recreational livestock), but this use would be minimal based on 

Forest Service IDT knowledge of use patterns in this area. Incidental recreational use 

of the corral would nevertheless be consistent with the purpose of the corral as 

analyzed in this EA. Consequently, no additional effects are anticipated and this use 

would be considered within the scope of the analysis presented in this EA. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The proposed action complies with NFMA 

by virtue of being consistent with the Caribou RFP and travel plan, as discussed in 

Sections 1.6, 3.1, and herein. Goals, standards, and guidelines for resource areas not 

discussed specifically in this document were deemed to be not affected by (not 

applicable) the project. These include; Caves, Air Quality, Land Uses, Minerals and 

Geology, Vegetation, Facilities, Transportation, Recreation, and Timber Management. 

Pollution Prevention (EOs 11514 and 13423). Due to the small-scope of the proposed 

action, to be implemented largely by manual labor, pollution prevention measures 

normally applicable to construction projects (i.e., dust suppression) are not required 

because they would be out of proportion to the potential effects. However, the Forest 

Service is considering a measure (additional culvert) to improve existing conditions that 

is within the scope of pollution prevention (see Section 3.1). 

Idaho Roadless Rule (IRR) (36 CFR Part 294, Subpart C). The proposed action is not 

prohibited by the IRR (not located within the Paris Peak Roadless Area (PPRA)) and it 

would not impair its roadless characteristics (see 36 CFR §294.21, Definitions). 

Scenic Resources. The proposed action would involve a small corral and associated 

fencing that would be visually subordinate to and complementary with the 

characteristics landscape, which is currently dominated by recreational and grazing 

activities; therefore, the action is consistent with the partial retention visual quality 

objective that applies in the project area (USFS 2003a). There are no scenic resources 

in the area (USFS 2003b, IDWR 2017, and IDOT 2017). 

Soil Resources. The proposed action would not affect soil resources or result in the 

loss of productive land because it would reutilize a small, previously disturbed area that 

remains cleared and compacted from past use as a parking area (Green K., 2016). 

Travel Management (36 CFR Part 212). The proposed action does not trigger any 

requirement for roads analysis under the travel plan. 

Wildlife. The proposed action would have no effect on wildlife species and would have 

no effect on the federally-listed greater sage grouse and thus no consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act is required. The project area is located outside of a nearby 

Important Habitat Management Area and more than 1.2 miles from the nearest lek 

(Green, D. 2017). Although the project area may be identified in maps showing that the 

forest is part of larger ecosystems supporting wildlife (i.e., allotment, Greater 

Yellowstone), the action would occur in an already disturbed area and avoids the loss of 

any important wildlife habitat and would not result in any adverse effects reverberating 

from the project area into the surrounding areas/ecosystems that could adversely affect 

wildlife or its habitat (see Section 3.1 and herein). The corral and associated fencing 

would not impede wildlife passage or result in mortality because the structure could be 

circumnavigated by wildlife and not result in entrapment. 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 16 of 18 

4.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING 

Based on the analyses presented in Chapter 3, no mitigation measures or monitoring is 

required to implement the proposed action because the Forest Service avoided 

environmental effects during project design/siting. 

The following mitigation measure is recommend to improve existing conditions: 

 Add a new relief culvert approximately 300 to 400 feet west of the project area 

(see Section 3.1). 

5.0 REFERENCES 

Bear Lake Regional Commission (BLRC), 2002. Bear Lake County Comprehensive 

Plan (March 1, 2002), pp. 25, available at: http://www.bearlakeregionalcommission.org/ 

(last accessed December 15, 2016). 

Belt, G.H, J. O'Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for 

the Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife 

and Range Policy Analysis Group. Report No. 8. Moscow, ID, available at: 

http://digital.lib.uidaho.edu/cdm/ref/collection/IR/id/66 (last accessed March 3, 2017). 

Buffler, S. 2005. Synthesis of Design Guidelines and Experimental Data for Water 

Quality Function in Agricultural Landscapes in the Intermountain West (Thesis). USDAFS Rocky Mountain Research Station GTR203 Appendix C, available at: 

https://nac.unl.edu/documents/research/publications/2005buffler.pdf (last accessed 

March 13, 2017). 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1984. Flood Map Service Center, 

Flood Hazard Boundary Map for City of Paris, Idaho, available at: 

https://msc.fema.gov/portal (last accessed January 20, 2017) (map not available for 

project area). 

Green, Devon, 2017b. E-mail from Devon Green, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Forest 

Service, to Dennis Duehren, Montpelier District Ranger, U.S. Forest Service (January 

11, 2017). 

Green, Kara, 2016. E-mail from Kara Green, Soil Scientist, U.S. Forest Service, to 

Dennis Duehren, Montpelier District Ranger, U.S. Forest Service (November 28, 2016). 

IDAPA (no date). Idaho Administrative Code, Rules of the Department of 

Environmental Quality, 58.01.01 - Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho, 

available at: https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/index.html (last accessed 

February 13, 2017). 

IDEQ, 2011. Bear River Basin, Addendum to the Bear River/Malad Subbasin 

Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Plan for HUCs 16010102, 16010201, 

16010202, 16010204, pp. 41, 42, 50, available at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waterquality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/bear-river-basin-malad-river-subbasin/

(last accessed March 1, 2017). 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 17 of 18 

IDEQ, 2016. Idaho Air Quality Planning Areas Map, available at: 

http://deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/monitoring/attainment-versus-nonattainment/ (last 

accessed November 10, 2016). 

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR), 2017. E-mail from Jeff Cook, 

Outdoor Recreation Analyst, IDPR, to Dell Transtrum, Range Specialist, U.S. Forest 

Service (January 26, 2017). 

Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), 2016. Idaho Flood Hazard Map, 

available at: http://maps.idwr.idaho.gov/floodhazard/Map (last accessed November 14, 

2016) (no floodplain map for Bear Lake County). 

IDWR, 2017. Wild and Scenic Watersheds Map, available at: https://www.idwr.idaho. 

gov/ (last accessed February 13, 2017). 

Idaho Department of Transportation (IDOT), 2017. Information on Idaho Scenic Byways 

and the Pioneer Historic Byway, available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/ 

states/ID (last accessed March 1, 2017). 

Laprevote, Jim, 2017. E-mails from Jim Laprevote, Hydrologist, U.S. Forest Service, to 

Linda Serret, NEPA Planner, U.S. Forest Service (March 8 2017 and March 10, 2017). 

National Park Service (NPS), 2017a. National Register of Historic Places, Idaho, Bear 

Lake County, available at: https://npgallery.nps.gov/nrhp (last accessed April 6, 2017). 

NPS 2017b. E-mails from Lee Kreutzer, Cultural Resources Specialist/Archeologist, 

NPS, to Linda Serret, NEPA Planner, U.S. Forest Service (February 9, 2017). 

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2017. Web Soil Survey, Prime 

Farmland, http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (last 

accessed February 16, 2017). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1995. Guide Manual on NPDES 

Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, https://www3.epa.gov/ 

npdes/pubs/owm0266.pdf (last accessed February 13, 2017). 

USEPA, 2012a. Idaho Water Quality Assessment Report for 2012, available at: 

https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_state.control?p_state=ID (last accessed March 

1, 2017). 

USEPA, 2012b. Stormwater Phase II Final Rule, Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver, 

Factsheet, available at: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/construction-rainfall-erosivitywaiver-fact-sheet (last accessed February 13, 2017). 

USEPA, 2016a. Idaho Nonattainment Area Plans, at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/ 

r10/airpage.nsf/283d45bd5bb068e68825650f0064cdc2/e2ab2cc6df433b8688256b2f008

00ff8?OpenDocument (last accessed December 1, 2016). 

USEPA, 2016b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions (last 

accessed November 17, 2016) (information gathered from information contained in 

“Overview of Greenhouse Gases” and “Sources of Greenhouse Gases”). 
Environmental Assessment Bloomington Cattle Association Corral Project 

Page 18 of 18 

USEPA, 2017a. EPA’s 2017 Construction General Permit (CGP), pp. 1-2, A-8, 

available at: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-construction-activities2017-cgp (accessed February 13, 2017). 

USEPA, 2017b. Small Construction Activity Waivers, Online Rainfall Erosivity Factor 

Calculator, https://www.epa.gov/npdes/rainfall-erosivity-factor-calculator-smallconstruction-sites (last accessed February 13, 2017) (calculated R-factor for project 

area). 

USFS, 2003a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Caribou National Forest, 

Revised Forest Plan, pp. 3-25, Figure 17 (February 2003), available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/ main/ctnf/landmanagement/planning (last accessed March 1, 

2017). 

USFS, 2003b. Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest, pp. 3-40, 3-43, 4-

23, 4-39, 4-45 to 4-53, 4-59 to 4-61, available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ctnf/ 

landmanagement/planning (last accessed March 1, 2017). 

USFS, 2005a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Caribou Travel Plan, 

Westside, Soda Springs, and Montpelier Ranger Districts of the Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest (August 2005), available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ctnf/ 

landmanagement/planning (last accessed January 19, 2017). 

USFS, 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement, South Bear River Range 

Allotment Management Plan Revisions, Ch. 2, pp. 11 (February 2005). 

USFS, 2005c. Record of Decision, South Bear River Range AMP Revisions Project, 

pp. 5 (February 7, 2005). 

USFS, 2013. Memorandum of Understanding between the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho, Department 

of Lands, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the USDA, 

Forest Service Northern and Intermountain Regions, Implementing the Nonpoint Source 

Water Quality Program in the State of Idaho, available at: https://www.deq.idaho.gov/ 

laws-rules-etc/memoranda-of-understanding.aspx (last accessed February 13, 2017). 

USFS, 2016a. Bloomington Cattle Allotment, 2016 Annual Operating Instructions 

(under “Quick Links”), pp. 4, available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ctnf/ 

landmanagement/ (last accessed January 24, 2017). 

USFS, 2016b. Decision Memo for Paris Creek Restoration Project, pp. 3 and 6 (May 

23, 2016). SOPA information available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/? 

project=45886&exp=detail (last accessed January 19, 2017). 

USFS, 2016c. Climate Change, http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/ (last accessed 

December 8, 2016).