Boulder Creek Vegetation Project

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood Field Office 2 Butte Drive, Cottonwood, Idaho 83522

October 2018

CONTENTS Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Proposal and Background: ...... 3 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 3 1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance ...... 3 1.4 Scoping and Public Involvement ...... 4 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 4 2.1 Alternative A (Proposed Action) ...... 4 2.2 Alternative B (Reduced New Roads/Stream Crossings): ...... 6 2.3 Alterative C (Existing Roads Only): ...... 6 2.4 Alternative D (No Action Alternative): ...... 6 2.5 Summary of Action Alternatives: ...... 7 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts ...... 7 3.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 7 3.2 Forest Vegetation ...... 9 3.3 Fuels ...... 15 3.4 Soils...... 17 3.5 Water Resources ...... 21 3.6 Fisheries, Aquatic Habitats, and Special Status Aquatic Species ...... 26 3.7 Wildlife, Habitat, and Special Status Species ...... 43 3.8 Economic Conditions ...... 59 3.9 Livestock Grazing ...... 60 4.0 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted ...... 61 5.0 List of Preparers ...... 61 Appendix A: Maps ...... A-1 Appendix B: References Cited...... B-1 Appendix C: Land Use Plan Conformance ...... C-1 Appendix D: Project Design Features...... D-1 Appendix E: Issues not Analyzed in Detail ...... E-1 Appendix F: Fisheries, Aquatic Habitats, and Special Status Species ...... F-1 Appendix G: BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species ...... G-1

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 2 Introduction

1.1 Proposal and Background: The BLM proposes to implement a vegetation management project designed to improve forest health and resilience, enhance wildlife habitat, and reduce the potential impact of a wildfire to public lands and adjacent private property. The project area is located approximately 11 air- miles north of New Meadows, Idaho in northern Adams County. (See Appendix A, Map A-1).

1.2 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Boulder Creek Vegetation Project is to address a goal from the Approved Cottonwood Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 2009), which states “Manage forests to maintain or improve forest health, composition, structure, and diversity consistent with site potential, and Historical Range of Variability.” To accomplish this goal, the proposed action would improve forest health and resilience by maintaining or moving current conditions found on the Boulder Creek project area toward the desired future conditions identified in the RMP for forest vegetation through treatments that would: • Promote large tree forest structure, reduce high stand density levels and the associated risk of large scale insect and disease events, favor early seral species composition (for example, ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir), and provide economic opportunities to resource dependent communities; • Promote achievement of diverse wildlife habitat conditions by promoting forest structure and spatial arrangements as described in the RMP that favor an array of forest dependent species (for example, create openings, enhance cover and forage, retain large trees, provide security, and maintain/promote desired snag levels); • Reduce the wildfire hazard within and adjacent to the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and increase the resilience of vegetative communities to fire by moving toward more characteristic fire regimes and fuel conditions; • Reduce potential for sediment delivery from identified road segments. The need for this project is based on the departure of current forest stand conditions from desired conditions and goals for watershed quality described in the RMP. These departures include: • A change in the forest structure from an increase of small and medium tree size class and decrease in large tree size classes; • A decrease in early seral species such as western larch and ponderosa pine; • A change toward high canopy cover; • An increase in ground and surface fuels and a decrease in fire resilient species; • Less than desired conditions for watershed function and integrity for Trail Creek and Boulder Creek.

1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance The proposed action would specifically be in conformance with the Forest Vegetation Goal from the Approved Cottonwood RMP, as stated in the Purpose and Need above. The proposed action would also be in conformance with other applicable RMP decisions listed in Appendix C.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 3 1.4 Scoping and Public Involvement The BLM solicited public comments about this proposal from January 3 to February 3 2017. During this time the BLM received two comment submissions. We considered these comments when developing the alternatives described in Section 2.0 and when identifying issues for analysis described in Section 3.

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives In addition to the proposed action (Alternative A), the BLM developed two action alternatives: Alternative B (Reduced New Roads/Stream Crossings) and Alternative C (Existing Roads Only). As a baseline for effects analysis, the BLM also considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative D). The proposed action and alternatives are described in detail below.

2.1 Alternative A (Proposed Action) The BLM would implement mechanical treatment on approximately 2,427 acres, prescribed burning on 4,625 acres, and decommission 4.24 miles of road. The mechanical treatments will be divided into three to four separate entries with the first two occurring south of Boulder Creek and the third and possibly fourth occurring north of Boulder Creek. The entry time frames would be spaced two to three years apart due to contract terms and time needed to complete treatment area preparation (i.e. unit layout, tree marking etc.). Prescribed burning would follow these entries. Maps A-2 and A-3 in Appendix A shows the locations of proposed treatments. Actual treatment acres may be less than depicted due to steep slope inclusions, equipment limitations, or other unique features. Mechanical Treatments

The BLM would implement four types of mechanical treatments on a total of 2,427 acres (see Table 2.5 in Section 2.5): improvement thinning, non-commercial thinning, even-aged harvest, and uneven-aged harvest. Improvement Thinning – 1,622 acres. Improvement thinning would primarily consist of low thinning often termed “thinning from below” (removing trees from the lower crown), but would also include crown thinning (removing some of the dominant and co-dominant trees) and sanitation cutting to address the spread of insect or disease outbreaks. The objective is to improve the existing stands by retaining the largest diameter classes, promoting fire-resilient stands, and reducing the number of stems, without effort directed at regeneration. The proposed treatments would thin stands by removing diseased and less desirable species such as grand fir (Abies grandis).

Emphasis would be placed on providing adequate spacing between crowns to prevent potential crown fire spread, and on retaining and developing the more fire adapted large diameter (>20- inches diameter breast height - DBH) early seral western larch (Larix occidentalis), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa (var. ponderosa)), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (var. glauca)).

Non-Commercial (Small Diameter) Thinning – 164 acres. This treatment would focus on trees less than 8 inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) and brush concentrations.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 4 Even-aged Harvest - 559 acres. These treatments would include either seed-tree with reserves or irregular shelterwood treatments, depending on stand conditions; and would be applied mainly but not exclusively in cool moist stands dominated by grand fir. Remnant early seral species would be favored for retention where present and artificial regeneration (planting) would occur where natural regeneration of desired species is considered insufficient.

Uneven-aged – 82 acres. These treatments would maximize structural diversity within the stand. Three main size classes would be favored in a mosaic across these stands to include skips (no treatment areas) and gaps (enhanced natural openings in the canopy). Wildlife habitat enhancement objectives such as travel corridors and hiding cover would be a primary focus. Individual, group selection, along with improvement thinning, will be applied to create multi- storied stands.

Prescriptions will integrate structural considerations that enhance and maintain wildlife habitat, water quality, and resilience to wildfire and insect outbreaks. Mechanical treatments may also include follow-up logging slash treatments to reduce hazardous fuels to include prescribed burning described below, and/or mastication.

Harvest Methods

The BLM proposes to use four methods for removal of commercial timber involved with the mechanical treatments identified above: tractor (392 acres), jammer (25 acres), skyline (1,410 acres), and helicopter (230 acres). The proposed action would also include 370 acres where tractor or jammer use would be at the discretion of the contractor. Table 2.5 in Section 2.5 outlines the applicable acreage for each method. This would include the use of 0.71 miles of swing trails in three units. A swing trail is a ridgetop skid trail upon which logs are skidded from a skyline yarder site to a haul road. While swing trails are designated on Map A-2 and A-3 (Appendix A) actual locations of swing trails may vary as field layout will likely require adjustments to accommodate steep areas, rock outcrops, and other factors. The width of a swing trail impact area (ground disturbance, plus vegetation removal) would average 15 feet in width.

Roads

In order to facilitate commercial harvest the BLM would construct 2.41 miles of new road, 11.52 miles of temporary roads, and 0.71 miles of swing trails. To reduce environmental impacts, the BLM would also decommission 4.24 miles of existing roads. The BLM is not proposing to change access or any previous route designations. The proposed new permanent roads would be closed to public motorized use, but remain open for future administrative BLM use, such as vegetation management, fire suppression, or monitoring activities.

Fuels Treatments

In addition to the mechanical treatments described above, the BLM would implement prescribed fire on 4,625 acres (see Maps A-8 and A-9 in Appendix A). This would include burning of slash piles from 666 treated acres, and broadcast burning 1,852 acres of unpiled slash as well as 1,282 acres of non-slash area. The BLM would construct handlines, typically on ridgetops, for containment for prescribed fire.

The BLM proposes to incorporate burning on adjacent U.S. Forest Service and private lands to mitigate holding concerns (e.g. utilizing a road for a fireline rather than constructing a fireline

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 5 mid-slope along the BLM boundary.) Prescribed fire would occur on 201 acres of Forest Service lands and 624 acres of private lands. Some minor modification of location and acres would occur and would be dependent on coordination and approval of landowners and site specific constraints. Project Design Features

All treatments proposed in this alternative would follow established agency management plans, policies and procedures, and the Idaho Forest Practices Act (Idaho Administrative Code, Title 38, Chapter 13). The design features specified at Appendix D would be implemented to avoid or minimize potentially adverse environmental impacts.

2.2 Alternative B (Reduced New Roads/Stream Crossings): The BLM developed Alternative B to respond to concerns over sediment delivery to streams from road construction and line skidding on steep grounds. To address these concerns, helicopter logging would be used in specific areas (see Maps A-4 and A-5 at Appendix A) to minimize temporary road construction and line skidding on steep grounds. Mechanical treatments would occur on 2,362 acres and include 793 acres of helicopter logging (see Table 2.5). To facilitate commercial harvest, the BLM would construct 0.13 miles of new permanent road, 6.95 miles of temporary roads, and 0.78 miles swing trails. In addition, the BLM would decommission 5.02 miles of existing roads. The BLM would implement prescribed fire on 3,402 acres - very similar to Alternative A. This would include burning of slash piles from 612 treated acres and broadcast burning of 1,871 acres of unpiled slash as well as 912 acres of non-slash area. There would be no fuels treatments on USFS or private lands under this alternative. This alternative would also apply the design features identified in Appendix D.

2.3 Alterative C (Existing Roads Only): This alternative responds to concerns expressed in scoping comments about road-related impacts and adopts recommendations for an alternative with minimal or no new roads. Under this alternative, the BLM would construct no new roads (temporary or permanent) and would decommission 9.47 miles of existing roads. Helicopter logging would replace conventional harvest methods (ground-based and cable logging systems) in areas where new road construction (temporary and/or permanent) would have been necessary to facilitate conventional harvest methods. Mechanical treatments would occur on 2,003 acres and would include 978 acres of helicopter logging (see Table 2.5). Due to reduced access, the BLM would implement prescribed fire on only 2,638 acres. This would include burning of slash piles from 468 treated acres, and broadcast burning of 1,912 acres of unpiled slash as well as 258 acres of non-slash area. No USFS or private lands would be treated under this alternative. This alternative would also apply the applicable design features identified in Appendix D.

2.4 Alternative D (No Action Alternative): No vegetation treatments or associated actions would occur.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 6 2.5 Summary of Action Alternatives: The following table compares the acres/miles proposed for treatment under the alternatives. No treatments would occur under the No Action Alternative (Alternative D), which is not included.

Table 2.5 Summary of Alternatives. Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Mechanical Treatments (Acres) Non-Commercial 164 199 199 Improvement Thinning 1,622 1.552 1,286 Even Aged 559 550 457 Uneven-aged 82 61 61 Mechanical Treatments Total 2,427 2,362 2,003

Harvest Methods (Acres) Jammer 25 57 37 Skyline 1,410 712 367 Tractor 392 378 298 Tractor/Jammer 370 370 247 Helicopter 230 793 978 Hand Cut and Pile 0* 54 76

Proposed Road/Treatments (Miles) Permanent Road Constructed 2.41 0.13 0 Temporary Road Constructed 11.52 6.95 0 Swing Trail Constructed 0.71 0.78 0 Road Decommissioning 4.23 5.36 8.93 Drainage Upgrade/Repair 1-5 1-5 1-5

Prescribed (Rx) Burning (Acres) Rx Piles 666 612 468 Rx Broadcast (Slash) 1,852 1,871 1,912 Rx Broadcast (Non-Slash) 1282 1300 258 Rx Total 4625 3,402 2,638 *Some or all of the non-commercial treatment may be implemented through hand cut and pile.

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts

3.1 Scope of Analysis

3.1.1 Issues Analyzed in Detail Through internal and external scoping, the BLM identified the following issues that require detailed analysis.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 7 1. How will the proposed vegetation treatments effect the composition, structure and health of the forest vegetation within the project area? (See Section 3.2) 2. How will the proposed vegetation treatments, including prescribed fire, affect fuel loading and associated risk of high intensity wildfire? (See Section 3.3) 3. Will proposed road construction, timber harvest operations and vegetation removal, or prescribed fire cause mass wasting or sediment? (See Section 3.4) 4. Will proposed road construction, timber harvest operations and vegetation removal, or prescribed fire increase sediment delivery to streams and adversely affect water quality? (See Section 3.5) 5. Will the proposed road construction, timber harvest operations and vegetation removal, or prescribed fire affect aquatic species or their habitats, including fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act? (See Section 3.6) 6. Will the proposed road construction, timber harvest operations and vegetation removal, or prescribed fire affect wildlife, including special status species and migratory birds or their habitats? (See Section 3.7) 7. How will the proposed timber harvest contribute to local economic conditions? (see Section 3.8) 8. Will the proposed vegetation treatments affect livestock grazing authorizations or available forage? (see Section 3.9) The BLM also considered a number of other issues, but determined that they do not require detailed analysis. Appendix E describes these issues and explains why they were eliminated from further detailed analysis.

3.1.2 Related Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Table 3.1.2 displays the harvest related activities found in the records of past timber management at the Cottonwood Field Office. It is possible that other activities have occurred but were not documented. Activities from adjacent land owners including DF Development (formerly Potlatch Corporation), Idaho Department of Lands, and USDA Forest Service (Payette National Forest) were also compiled from available sources.

Table 3.1.2: Past, Current and Future Vegetation Treatment Related Activities Agency/Sale Name Dates Activity Types Proximity to Acres Project Area Past Timber Harvest Activities BLM Bally Mt. North 2013-2016 Timber harvest Less than ¼ mile 211; 300 Timber Sale (thinning); RX fire east of project (broadcast burning) area BLM Hazard Creek 2015-2016 Timber Harvest (fire Less than 1 mile 140; 70 (Half-Hazard) Fire salvage); Conifer east of project Salvage) planting area Potlatch Corp. 2015 Seed tree timber Adjacent to 202; 80; 80 (Currently DF Harvest; Herbicide southern portion Development) Upper site prep; Conifer of project area Trail Creek TS planting (South of Trail Creek) Idaho Department of 2015-2016 Fire salvage timber Less than 2 640; 640 Lands Hazard Creek harvest; Conifer miles east of Fire Salvage planting project area

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 8 Current Projects Forest Service 2018 Primarily Thinning Greater than 2 Unknown, 195, Lost Creek Boulder (Ant Horn, Moon miles West of Unknown, 478 Creek River, Corral, Project Area Grouse) BLM Bally Mt. South 2018 Timber harvest 2 miles 298 Timber Sale (thinning); southeast of project area on Future Timber Harvest Activities BLM Bally Mt. South 2019 RX fire (broadcast 2 miles 298 Timber Sale burning) southeast of project area on Forest Service 2019 Primarily Thinning Greater than 2 Unknown, Lost Creek Boulder (Brush Wallow, Lost miles West of Unknown Creek Timber) Project Area Forest Service 2018 Regeneration Greater than 2 1,206; 1,304; Windy-Shingle harvest; Intermediate miles North of 126 Project harvest, RX Project Area

The 2012 Wesley wildfire totaled 16,010 acres and approximately 3,500 acres occurred within the Boulder Creek watershed.

The 2018 Rattlesnake Creek wildfire burn perimeter area totaled 8,213 acres. A portion of the wildfire burn perimeter encompasses the north end of the project area and totaled 107 acres. The wildfire burned within several cumulative effects watersheds for the Boulder Creek Vegetation Management Project including: Little Salmon River face drainages (746 acres); Fall Creek watershed (776 acres); Camp Creek watershed (105 acres); and Boulder Creek watershed (1,867 acres).

3.1.3 Access Related Assumptions For this analysis, the BLM assumes we will obtain access for portions of the proposed project area where we do not have it through existing easements such as the Hillman Basin Road, and roads through the Fall Creek Ranch.

3.2 Forest Vegetation

3.2.1 Affected Environment: The vegetation analysis area is located within the Little Salmon River-Elk Creek, Boulder Creek, and the Little Salmon River-Round Valley watersheds. A combination of wildfire, intentional fire, timber harvest, fire suppression, and forest succession has shaped the existing pattern and composition of vegetation in these watersheds. Through interpretation of existing data and application of LANDFIRE Modeling, the BLM determined that the greatest changes from historic vegetation conditions to the forest species composition and structure are: • Declines in ponderosa pine-dominated communities due to harvest, fire suppression and forest succession. • Increases in more shade tolerant tree species, such as grand fir, due to fire suppression and forest succession. • Open stand conditions in all seral structural stages have decreased. Snags and down wood have increased because of fire suppression. Numbers of pole-medium trees have increased in most areas.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 9 • Stands once dominated by ponderosa pine cover types meeting old growth (early phase) criteria of Hamilton (1993) are nearing extinction due to the first two items noted above and the dying of the older trees in these stands.

In order to determine existing conditions for forest vegetation, forest inventory data was collected on stands within the project area. This data was analyzed using Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and analyzed to determine existing conditions (Dixon 2011). Dominant species within stands was used for composition, while basal area, trees per acre, stand density index and canopy cover were used to describe stand structure (definitions below).

Composition The acres of dominant species occurring within the project area are: 1,503 for grand fir, 1,017 for Douglas-fir, and 337 acres for ponderosa pine. Historically, frequent low severity fires would have maintained ponderosa pine as the dominant species on the majority of the acres within the project area with grand fir as a minor component in all but cool wet areas. This is supported by the existence of stump or snag distribution and widely spaced older large diameter ponderosa pine western larch, which persist among the high-density younger grand fir in the majority of forested project area.

Stand Structure Tree density, commonly referred to as stand density, provides a measure for assessing important ecological thresholds that govern tree vigor and the ability to withstand endemic disturbances and requirements for regeneration of early seral species (e.g., ponderosa pine).

Basal area is defined as the cross-sectional area of all stems in a stand measured at 4.5 feet above the ground expressed in square feet per acre. This is an important measurement because it indicates the portion of area within a given stand occupied by tree volume. For stands within the project area, basal area ranges from 54 to 279 with an average of 163 square feet per acre.

Stand Density Index (SDI) is an expression of relative density based on the predictable relationship between average tree size and trees per acre. This relationship, independent of both stand age and site quality, provides a basis to develop an understanding of the competitive interactions between individuals in a population (Reineke 1933). The stand density index measured as a percent of maximum (459) is called SDImax. Greater than 55% maximum SDI is considered over the threshold for the onset of density-related mortality (Long 1995, Long and Shaw 2005). For stand resilience against high wildfire and insect caused mortality, the desired condition for stand density is to maintain an average density in the Project Area between 25% and 40% SDImax (Long 1995, Long and Shaw 2005). This range would allow for the desired diversity of density and structural components across the landscape, promote ecosystem resiliency, and reduce the hazard for uncharacteristic disturbance events.

Canopy cover is defined as the percentage of the ground area directly covered by tree crowns. Canopy cover is a function of tree size, species composition, and stand density. Canopy cover illustrates how much of the forest floor would be sheltered from some environmental factors including light, precipitation, and temperature. It is also an indicator of stand susceptibility to intense fire behavior such as torching and crowning (Crookston & Stage 1999). Currently, canopy cover across all stands ranges from 11% to 77%, with an average of 53%.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 10 Stand density for the project area is currently outside the desired condition for stand resilience (see Table 3.2.1), exhibiting features of the full site occupancy stage, with minimal forage production, limited opportunities for regeneration of early seral species, and decreased growth into the large tree size class. Inter-tree competition is reducing tree vigor, limiting the ability to recover from endemic stressors and making trees more susceptible to uncharacteristic disturbances. High stand density within the project area has created ideal conditions for insects and disease processes to cause high levels of mortality in both the short and long term (Jorgensen and Saavedra, 2017).

Table 3.2.1 displays the average desired and existing stand conditions for the project area derived from stand exam data analyzed using FVS (Dixon, 2011).

Table 3.2.1: Average Desired and Existing Stand Conditions Average Existing Stand Structure Basal Trees per Stand Density Index; SDImax (on per Acre Basis) Area Acre

Desired Structure 40-80 30-170 110-170 (25%-40% SDImax)

Low 54 50 93 (20% SDImax)

High 279 3915 755 (164% SDImax)

Average 166 391 300 (65% SDImax)

Existing stand conditions range from moderate to extremely high with the average being high for the stand structure indicators (Basal area, trees per acre, and stand density index) these levels reduce stand resilience to fire and lead to increased insect related mortality (Agee 1996; Powell 1999; Steele et al,1996).

3.2.2 Environmental Effects from the Alternative A (Proposed Action) Under this alternative, treatments would improve forest resiliency to insect and disease infestations, and fire. These proposed treatments would alter forest vegetation by reducing basal area, stand density, and canopy cover, as well as retaining and promoting the development of large diameter fire-resistant species. Beneficial effects of these proposed treatments would be apparent for several decades. Even though treatments would result in reduced stand densities and lowered risks to insect and disease infestation, vegetation growth rates would dictate how long the risk level actually remains reduced (Agee, 2005, Reynolds et al, 1994).

Long term vegetation benefits are expected through proposed treatments by reducing forest stocking. Fewer trees would improve individual tree health and vigor as there would be less competition for nutrients and water. Insect and disease infestations would likely be less severe in the event of a mixed or stand replacing fire event due to treatments. However, it is difficult to predict precisely what may actually happen since many factors play into insect and disease epidemics and wildfire. As fire is incorporated back onto the landscape, we would expect there would be some bark beetle activity in trees scorched by maintenance and prescribed burning. The actual amount is difficult to determine but we expect it would be very small in scale and localized in the treatment units as long as burn prescription parameters were followed.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 11 Composition The majority of acres proposed for treatment under this alternative would be thinned to reduce overstocking and increase dominance of drought and fire resistant ponderosa pine and western larch trees. Even-aged treatments would be designed to reinitiate early seral composition where this component has been lost through past logging practices that removed these species or succession through lack of natural disturbance such as fire.

Stand Structure The post-treatment stand basal areas range from 24 to 215 with an average of 115.

Average SDI for all forest types within the project area would change from existing 300 to post- treatment 203. Thirty years post-treatment (in the year 2048) it would be155, and without density reduction (no action) 208. Reduction in SDI from no treatment would occur due to insect and disease related mortality.

Over the long term, proposed vegetation treatments under this alternative would reduce the SDI levels that lead to high competitive stress, minimal-to-no forage production, and stagnation with minimum individual tree diameter growth and low resiliency from bark beetle epidemics and other stand-replacing disturbance events (Long & Shaw, 2005).

The average existing canopy cover changes with proposed action from 55% to 40% for all stands, equating to an average 27% reduction in canopy cover resulting from the proposed action within the project area. Changes in canopy cover will vary according to existing stand conditions, such as density and species composition along with corresponding variation in the harvest prescription to meet the purpose and need within a given stand. Generally canopy cover within the project area will be reduced from closed, interlocking canopies to more open canopy conditions. Exceptions to this will occur to integrate structural diversity for wildlife habitat, riparian buffers, springs or seep buffers and similar concerns. For the even-aged treatments, canopy cover would decrease to approximately 15-25 percent in the irregular shelterwood and seedtree with reserve treatments. This change would be short-term as trees planted and naturally regenerated post-harvest mature over time and increase canopy cover in these areas.

3.2.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (Reduced New Roads): Effects to forest vegetation from Alternative B would be similar to those described above for the Proposed Action alternative.

3.2.4 Environmental Effects from Alternative C (Existing Roads Only): Effects to forest vegetation from Alternative C would be similar to those described above for the Proposed Action alternative. The proposed vegetation treatments under this alternative are slightly reduced by acres with any difference in effects being negligible.

3.2.5 Environmental Effects from Alternative D (No Action) Composition

There would be no direct effects on vegetation in the short term. The composition of the stand would change in direct relation to future disturbances. Ecosystem processes would continue and forest composition would change in direct relation to them. However, forest conditions would continue to be very different from what they were historically. The potential natural vegetation in the project area is Douglas-fir and grand fir. Although this is the theoretical climax

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 12 forest, it is not what existed historically in the ponderosa pine cover types because periodic fire maintained the seral species mix and structure. Eventually, fire will occur within the project area with uncharacteristically high severity and scale with tree mortality rates beyond that which was historically typical for these forest types prior to the fire suppression era. (Agee, 2005) (see fuels section for mortality projections).

While insects and pathogens are an inherent part of the forest, changes in stand composition, density, and structure would create additional concerns that relate to ecosystem resiliency and maintaining biological function. Dense, multi-storied stands are susceptible to and capable of supporting populations of western spruce budworm and dwarf mistletoe infections (Jorgensen and Saavedra, 2017).

Structure In the short-term, some of the ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir will continue to succumb to bark beetles and dwarf mistletoe generally in the larger trees. Therefore, in some stands basal area per acre would decrease. However, tree growth of smaller Douglas-fir and particularly grand fir would offset much of this decrease and ultimately create denser stands. In the long-term, barring fire, insect or disease epidemics, trees per acre would decrease as stands mature and competition results in stem exclusion. Also as trees become larger, basal area per acre would increase to the point that eventually creates conditions leading to some type of insect and/or disease perturbation. Stand density for the project area is currently outside the desired condition for stand density exhibiting features of the full site occupancy stage, with minimal forage production, limited opportunities for regeneration of early seral species, and decreased growth into the large tree size class. Inter-tree competition is reducing tree vigor, limiting the ability to recover from endemic stressors and making trees more susceptible to uncharacteristic disturbances. Under this condition, opportunities for regeneration of early seral species would be scarce to non-existent, providing no opportunity to correct desired species composition. Structural diversity would be limited to established trees, and canopy densities would continue to homogenize. Most trees not currently in the upper diameter of the medium tree size class would likely die before reaching the large tree size class. Stands with higher SDI’s would become stagnant, producing small incremental growth and competitive-induced mortality, and in the absence of an uncharacteristic disturbance event, would create limited opportunities for expanded growing space. As succession homogenizes conditions in later stages, the high demand for water would reduce and diminish riparian functions. Due to the competition-induced stress on trees, the likelihood for an uncharacteristic disturbance event would increase. The no action alternative would increasingly perpetuate the shift in species composition from species that were able to withstanding wildfires, insects, and diseases characteristic of historic conditions to those more susceptible to destruction if these events occur. These site factors create conditions for a large scale stand replacement fire and the return to the stand initiation stage at a level that is both uncharacteristic for these habitat types and undesirable according to the goals for future conditions for forest vegetation in the Approved Cottonwood RMP. Canopy cover would be expected to increase across the project area to more closed conditions as shade tolerant species mature and regenerate. However, decreases in canopy cover would also occur through insects and disease, and or high severity wildfire leads to high rates of tree mortality within the project area. The scale of these disturbances are difficult to predict but high stand density induced stress, loss of fire adapted shade intolerant species, and increases in hazardous fuels would be expected to increase the scale and severity of these disturbance events.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 13 3.2.6 Summary of Environmental Effects for All Alternatives Canopy cover effects vary little by alternative with average current canopy cover for all stands at 53% and post-harvest canopy cover at 38% for all alternatives except the no action alternative which remains unchanged without treatment at 53%.

Table 3.2.6: Post Harvest Effects on Stand Structure by Alternative. Average Basal Average Trees Per Average SDI Average Canopy Alternatives Area Acre Cover Alt A 115 237 203 38% Alt B 117 319 215 38% Alt C 117 314 214 38% Alt D (Existing 53% 166 391 300 Condition)

3.2.7 Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area for the vegetation resource is comprised of portions of the Trail Creek, Boulder Creek, Fall Creek, Round Valley Creek, and the Little Salmon River watersheds. Land ownership/administration in the analysis area from largest to smallest is the Payette National Forest, BLM, and private. The typical ownership pattern is marked by private ownership along the Little Salmon River/Highway 95 corridor bordered by BLM and or IDL at the mid-elevations, followed by Forest Service at the higher elevations to the east and west of the river corridor. See Section 3.1.2 for information about past and current vegetation treatment projects that contribute to cumulative effects.

Collectively, the direct and indirect effects of actions proposed under Alternatives A, B and C would contribute to the goals for desires future conditions of the vegetation resource within the project area adding to structural diversity within the cumulative effects analysis area. State and private lands (including those within the analysis area have been treated more intensively due to differences in regulations that govern management. As a result, forested stands on State and private lands lack structural diversity, and have fewer large trees than the project area is expected to have for several decades following treatment.

Recently proposed and current Forest Service treatments on both the Payette and the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests are very similar in purpose and need and treatment types to this project. The cumulative effect of implementing these projects of similar scope would be to improve vegetative conditions within portions of a much larger area than this project alone. Therefore, as a whole, resiliency will be improved on a broader scale within and beyond the cumulative effects area. Cumulatively, these projects are designed provide a broader maintenance of ecological processes, allowing for restoration of more characteristic forest conditions and disturbance regimes approaching a landscape scale.

Under the No Action Alternative no stand treatments would occur on BLM administered lands at the project area scale. At the fifth field watershed scale, the greatest change in vegetation would likely occur on private lands (DF Development) with industrial forest management objectives, which normally result in shorter rotations and higher canopy cover removal relative to federal land management objectives. Current and future work by State and the Forest Service would also continue, as described above, within the cumulative effects analysis area.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 14 3.3 Fuels

3.3.1 Affected Environment Scope of the Analysis The geographic scope of the fuels analysis focuses on the project area. The analysis area includes non-BLM ownerships both within and outside of the defined vegetation treatment area. Analysis Methods: The BLM used the Fire and Fuels Extension of the Forest Vegetation Simulator model (FVS- FFE) to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed fuel treatment versus no treatment. A representative stand (IDMO-1370) was picked to simulate the treatment effectiveness. This stand is very close to the average Basal Area (BA), a measurement of standing live trees, for all of the stands that have been field-measured and proposed for treatment. Indicators: The BLM considered four indicators of impacts : Surface Biomass (fuel loading), Canopy Base Height (ladder fuels), Fire Type (Surface Fire/Crown Fire) and Tree Mortality (stand resiliency). However, tree mortality is the primary indicator for this analysis. The prior three indicators all contribute to mortality in the fact that more fuel (in whatever arrangement, surface or vertical) contributes to a ‘hotter’ fire (more energy released) which can damage or kill vegetative tissue. Existing Condition Historically, the project area was dominated by open stands of fire resistant ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, with some western larch and grand fir. These dry, open forests were maintained predominantly by frequent low severity surface fires, with occasional mixed severity fires occurring on higher elevations and on northerly aspects. Due to a century of fire suppression in this area, surface and ladder fuels have accumulated beyond the historic range leading to the potential for more intense fire behavior, which results in greater tree mortality.

3.3.2 Environmental Effects from the Alternative A (Proposed Action) The following table describes the effects of the proposed action on an average stand versus no action. Tree mortality was calculated by the FFE-FVS using the severe weather scenario (97% weather inputs that influence fire behavior, such as high winds or dry fuels) and the field gathered vegetation data.

Table 3.3.2: Average Percent Stand Overall Mortality (Following an assumed wildfire) Year Alternative D (No Action) Alternative A (Proposed Action) 2017 99% 99% Post Treatment 99% (no treatment) 14% 2028 98% 96% 2038 97% 95%

Mortality in the representative stand would decrease from 99% before to 14% after treatment. It then rises again as the crown fire risk increases from growth of ladder fuels. This would apply to 4,233 treated acres.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 15 Any future development within the project area would benefit from reduced fire risk under Alternatives A, B and C because of the added fire protection these alternatives offer. Wildfire suppression would be enhanced along the ridge and roads above private structures because of reduced fuels which promotes lower fire severity. Public infrastructure, utilities and commerce would not be affected.

3.3.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (Reduced New Roads) and C (Existing Roads Only) Because the analysis is based on a representative stand, the primary difference between the action alternatives is based on acreage treated, which means the more acreage treated, the more effective the treatments. These scenarios are the same as Alternative A, except the treated acreages are less. Alternative B would treat approximately 3,402 acres while Alternative C would treat approximately 2,638 acres. As noted above, the analysis (one representative stand) reflects one treatment on one stand, therefore there is a range of outcomes across the treatment areas but as treated acreage decreases, so does the overall effectiveness.

3.3.4 Environmental Effects from Alternative D (No Action) In the continued absence of fire, these stand conditions would maintain high mortality (averaging 99%) in severe burning conditions. Any future development within the project area would not benefit from reduced fire risk under Alternative D. Wildfire activity in the project area would be difficult to suppress along the ridge or roads above private structures, posing a great risk to private property and the Highway 95 corridor. Traffic, power, and telephone lines may be disrupted, along with general commerce (local businesses, commercial trucking).

3.3.5 Cumulative Effects There are currently no active projects on United States Forest Service (USFS) ownership or state lands adjacent to or in proximity to the project area. There is one USFS project in preliminary planning (Windy Shingle and a recently approved project - Lost Creek/Boulder Creek (see Section 3.1.2)The BLM conducted small-scale salvage removal of trees north of Hazard Creek and has implemented about 50% of vegetation and fuels management activities across the Little Salmon River drainage to the east (Bally Mountain Vegetation Management Project). The large private timber ground within the general analysis area was recently harvested, which has broken up some of the continuous stands of timber but has left untreated slash, which increases surface fire severity. Increased fire severity reduces fire suppression efficiency which could threaten BLM lands. Additionally, some local landowners continue to alter the fuels on their private property and may not treat the remaining slash, which could contribute to higher surface severity, increasing risk of fire not being efficiently suppressed and moving onto BLM lands. The action alternatives provide mechanical and prescribed fire treatments, differing in the amount (acres) and location of those treatments. These fuel reduction treatments can reduce the intensity and severity of a wildfire burning through those areas. Proposed treatments that tie in with similar projects on adjacent lands may enhance fire suppression efforts and decrease the overall wildfire severity.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 16 3.4 Soils The project area falls within the larger study area for soils and landslide hazard which includes the Little Salmon-Elk Creek, Boulder Creek, and the Little Salmon River-Round Valley Sixth Hydrologic Unit Codes. The BLM Cottonwood Field Office contracted with soil and water specialists from the USFS Enterprise Team to prepare an environmental analysis of proposed vegetation management activities within the Boulder Creek Vegetation Management project area (Maloney and Burgoyne, 2014). As part of this pre-planning effort, surveys were conducted to determine the current condition of the soils resource with respect to soils characteristics, current erosion and sedimentation issues, and the identification of potential landslide-prone areas. That report documents the results of those surveys and modeling efforts. Rapid Soil Disturbance Assessment Surveys (USDA 2009) were performed to describe the condition of surface soils in activity units and the type and magnitude of past land management activities. This included whether or not there were any legacy impacts to the soil resource, existing skid trails, landings, or other soil-disturbance features. Relative impacts to watershed condition through erosion and sediment delivery were also estimated through erosion modeling using the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) erosion model. In this case, WEPP was used to estimate erosion and maximum sediment delivery distances and using road and hillslope parameters developed from field observations and GIS analysis. Model outputs were used to help characterize the current erosion and sedimentation condition for activity units in the project area. The methods for landslide potential identification and mapping include field identification, photo or digital orthographic photo interpretation, and computer modeling with SINMAP 2.0, which is a “stability index approach to terrain mapping.” The model utilizes digital elevation data sets and digitized point location data landslide locations that were located in the field. The model utilizes the elevation dataset to compute and map a slope stability index (see Appendix A, Map 14). The slope stability index is then calibrated with locally observed landslide data so that the computed landslide locations generally match up with the observed locations. The BLM field-verified areas preliminarily identified by SINMAP modeling with moderate to high landslide potential. Field investigation confirmed evidence of high landslide risk resulted in the elimination of several preliminary harvest units.

3.4.1 Affected Environment The project area is located on the mountain slopes which rise up to the west from the Little Salmon River valley floor. A small portion of the terrain at the ridge top is somewhat gentler. The most common soils within the Little Salmon River subbasin are border zone and volcanic soils. Border zone soil textures are medium to coarse and are generally highly erodible. Volcanic soils consist of various basalt formations that produce a medium-to-fine textured soil with low to-medium erodbility. Soil map units can be further aggregated into landtypes based on parent material, soil series, landform, dominant vegetation types, slope, slope position, and dominant geomorphic process. The project area is dominated by the moderately steep to steep mountain slopes derived from volcanic ash and loess. This landtype tends to be quite steep with most soil map units having slope ranges from approximately 30 to at least 60 percent—and sometimes up to 90 percent. Soil textures are sandy loams to cobbly sandy loams. These soil textures create very high infiltration and low water holding capacities throughout the project area.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 17 Mass wasting (e.g., a landslide), a category of natural landscape processes, occurs when large masses of soil are rapidly displaced downslope. Naturally occurring landslides function to deliver important aquatic habitat components to streams, such as spawning gravel and large woody debris. Landslides can also result in on-site loss of soil productivity, as surface soils are translocated down slope. Landslides are episodic events and may be associated with rain-on- snow events, such as the January 1997 storm that caused many landslides in the Little Salmon River subbasin. Land disturbances that change the hydrologic regime (e.g., reduced transpiration following timber harvest or fire) may increase the occurrence of mass wasting and harm aquatic habitats. In addition to the land clearing and soil compaction associated with roads, construction of improper road alignments may undercut the base of unstable slopes. Where roads intercept and concentrate surface runoff and subsurface flow, water may be diverted to hillsides causing soil saturation and slope failures. Finally, if culvert or other drainage structures become plugged with sediment and debris, road fill can be washed out and cause mass wasting.

Timber harvest, fuel treatments and roads occurring on steeper slopes may contribute at varying levels to initiation and acceleration of soil mass movements. Vegetation treatments contribute to mass wasting occurrences through: (1) destruction of roots, the natural mechanical support of slope soils, (2) disruption of surface vegetation cover which alters soil water distribution, and (3) road building or existing roads causing slope failures resulting largely from slope loading (from road fill and sidecasting), oversteepened bank cuts, and inadequate provision for road drainage (Chatwin et al. 1994). Road construction is the main destabilizing activity related to forest management actions. Megahan and King (2004) found that 58% of management-related landslides were related solely to roads, while forest vegetation removal accounted for only 9% of landslides. Roads in combination with logging or wildfire accounted for 88% of all management-related landslides. Gucinski et al. (2001) identified several studies where landslide erosion from roads was one to several orders of magnitude higher than forest vegetation management.

Mass wasting in the general project area includes slumps, creep, debris avalanches or flows and debris torrents. Landslide hazard is variable within the project area, and instances of mass erosion have occurred in harvest units or along roads as well as under natural conditions. Field reconnaissance indicates past mass wasting has been generally restricted to small scale-events with modest impacts.

The 2018 Rattlesnake Creek Fire encompassed approximately 8,213 acres in proximity to the project area. The cumulative effects analysis drainages that were primarily affected by the Rattlesnake Creek Fire includes the watersheds that overlap with the project area and include Little Salmon River face drainages, Fall Creek, Camp Creek, and Boulder Creek. The fire was detected July 23, 2018. Table 3.4.1 below summarizes burn severity within the Rattlesnake Creek Fire perimeter.

Table 3.4.1: 2018 Rattlesnake Creek Fire Burn Severity Summary Burn Severity (Acres) Very Low or Subwatershed/Area High Moderate Low Unburned Total Rattlesnake Creek Fire Perimeter 89 1,551 3,029 3,543 8,213 Boulder Creek Project Area 0 0 7 100 107 Little Salmon River - Face Drainages 0 9 192 544 746

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 18 Burn Severity (Acres) Very Low or Subwatershed/Area High Moderate Low Unburned Total Fall Creek 0 188 289 299 776 Camp Creek 0 24 55 26 105 Boulder Creek 1 401 630 835 1,867 Trail Creek 0 0 0 0 0 Round Valley Creek 0 0 0 0 0

3.4.2 Environmental Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Action alternatives affecting mass erosion and sediment processes have the ability to directly or indirectly affect sediment yield and water quality in the short-term and long-term. Other related effects to soils include compaction which reduces porosity, water holding capacity, aeration, and long-term productivity, Construction of permanent and temporary roads would have the greatest impact on soils, followed by tractor, cable and helicopter logging. Megahan et al. (2004) summarizes the reported soil disturbance from various logging systems in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia; he found an average of 21 percent from tractor logging, 13 percent from ground cable logging, 8 percent for skyline logging, and 4 percent for aerial logging. Prescribed burning generally would have a much lower impact. Temporary roads would contribute most to cumulative erosion per acre of ground disturbance, but erosion would decline to negligible levels after decommissioning. Cable harvest units in moderate hazard areas would be done with partial suspension where possible. By suspending logs in the air, soil disturbance and potential changes to surface drainage from skid corridors are greatly reduced.

Effects from permanent road construction are considered long-term, though sediment yield will typically drop substantially after one year as cutslopes and fillslopes revegetate. Similarly, temporary roads and restoration activities will have a short-term impact of 2-5 years after obliteration due to vegetative recovery. Project design features and restoration can reduce the likelihood of effects to productivity, diversity, and weed susceptibility. Additional soil restoration associated with decommissioning of old roads would also reduce the extent of effects within the project area.

Some levels of risk may exist from vegetation/soil disturbance actions in areas mapped as moderate or high hazard for landslides. Road construction or mechanical treatments would be at highest risk for impacting slope stability. Several of the prescribed burn only areas include mapped high-hazard areas, primarily due to steep slopes. Prescribed burning design measures identify that no more than 10% of the overstory would experience mortality. However, on similar past projects the BLM has found that overall mortality of overstory trees is less that 2-3% with low intensity spring or fall burning due to higher relative humidity and soil moisture, which results in minimal tree mortality and provide for slope stability. Site-specific design features to reduce landslide risk have been incorporated into the action alternatives, including: use of FS road engineers for onsite slope stability investigations and recommendations for some of the steeper proposed road sites; increased buffer widths from old slumps etc.; and modified harvest prescriptions to include additional retention of deep-rooted trees, where applicable. Prescribed burning will be constrained to 5-10 percent overstory mortality, to help preserve root strength. Together these practices will effectively mitigate landslide risk and help maintain slope stability.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 19 3.4.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action) Sediment, and reduced slope stability associated with Alternative A would be higher than the other action alternatives. Alternative A proposes temporary and permanent road construction of 12.57 miles and 2.41 miles, respectively. This alternative has a slightly higher risk of mass wasting than the other alternatives due to the 1.36 miles of temporary road construction and 278 acres of harvest occurring on moderate-high hazard slopes. Soil disturbance associated with harvest methods, including tractor, skyline and helicopter logging, would be similar for Alternatives A and B. Use of design measures will reduce soil displacement and compaction. The Proposed Action would include the potential to stabilize existing sediment source or poorly functioning drainage segments on 4.24 miles of road to be decommissioned.

3.4.4 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (Reduced New Roads) Impacts to soils associated with Alternative B would be less than the proposed action, with 0.13 miles of permanent roads and 10.97 miles of temporary roads constructed, and 5.02 miles of road decommissioning. Impacts to soil productivity and erosion from tractor logging and other harvest methods would be similar. This alternative has a lower risk of mass wasting than the Proposed Action, with 0.32 miles of road construction on, and 262 acres of harvest moderate- high landslide mapped slopes.

3.4.5 Environmental Effects from Alternative C (Existing Roads Only) This alternative would have no risk associated with miles of temporary road on moderate hazard areas, as no new roads would be constructed. Also, 10.7 miles of road would be decommissioned. The long term (i.e., new permanent roads) and short-term effects to soils from Alternative C would be less than described above for the Proposed Action alternative as well as alternative B. Increased acreage of helicopter harvest and decreased ground-based yarding would also result in less soil disturbance than Alternatives A and B.

3.4.6 Environmental Effects from Alternative D (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, mass erosion processes would remain a slight factor in soil processes in the project area. Mass erosion from natural causes would continue at small scales and infrequent rates. Mass erosion from past management activities would continue at a localized scale and declining rate as old roads are stabilized and harvest units are revegetated. No new management sources of mass erosion would occur from this alternative, so the net trend would be reduced management- caused mass erosion. If a wildfire occurred, consequent mass erosion could range from negligible to modest, depending on location, size, and severity of burn. The scope of such impacts is not foreseeable, given the uncertainties of fire ignition and burning weather.

The continued accumulation of dead and down fuel loads could contribute to increased potential for locally severe burning behavior, which can increase the likelihood of mass erosion in steep draws, drainage headlands, and on steep, wet lower slopes because rooting strength would be lost, and more moisture available.

3.4.7 Cumulative Effects Past activities, such as mining, timber harvest and road construction on soils susceptible to erosion, result in soil compaction and displacement. These activities may also contribute to cumulative effects on soil porosity, water holding capacity, aeration, and long-term productivity, with repeated entries. Cumulative effects may also occur at the landscape level, where large areas of compacted and displaced soil affect vegetation dynamics, runoff, and water yield

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 20 regimes in a sub-watershed. This can increase sediment yield to streams by overland transport from compacted areas or gullying. However, no repeated entries into recently harvested areas are proposed for this project so cumulative effects at the harvest unit scale should be negligible.

As noted, landslides are episodic events and may be associated with rain-on-snow events, such as the January 1997 storm that caused many landslides in the Little Salmon River subbasin. Although it cannot be quantified, it is anticipated that road construction, development and timber harvest on private lands within the watersheds will continue. These source areas contribute to loss of soil productivity. As private landowners are not required to file for permits prior to activity, the foreseeable cumulative effects from these private land activities is difficult to quantify. Based on past harvest levels, past road construction, and associated erosion and mass wasting, it is assumed that sediment delivery from these activities would not exceed pre- Forest Practice Act (1974) levels when standards were lower.

3.5 Water Resources

3.5.1 Affected Environment The analysis area for water resources was the same as the analysis area used for soil resources (see Section 3.4.1) Equivalent clearcut area (ECA) and changes in sediment yield values are the primary indicators for effects on water quality. Logging and tree harvest prescriptions, road reconstruction, road storage, and post-harvest activities, including broadcast burning, were modeled. The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) computer model was used to estimate sediment delivery from all units with proposed timber harvest prescriptions for the action alternatives. Timber harvest within the subbasin has occurred on Federal, State, and private lands. Forest canopy cover functions in the hydrologic cycle to moderate precipitation runoff by intercepting and transpiring water (e.g., snow regimes). Removal of the forest canopy (e.g., timber harvest, road construction, wildfires, etc.) can result in increased water yield and hydrograph modification (e.g., increased peak flows, particularly in areas subject to rain-on-snow events). An indicator of the overall relative risk of impact to the hydrologic functions of a forested watershed may be calculated as the ECA. Values generated by this method are combined with other information, such as stream condition and channel type, to interpret the potential effects of proposed land management activities. Table 3.5.7.1 shows the existing ECA for each subwatershed (Alternative D: No Action).

The surface erosion potential for the proposed treatments was estimated using the WEPP model. Several Forest Service WEPP online interface tools were used as a means to compare sediment delivery from physical disturbances such as road construction and decommissioning, timber harvesting, and prescribed burning. The model and supporting documentation can be found at: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. The WEPP model is a physically based soil erosion model that provides estimates of soil erosion and sediment yield considering site- specific information about soil texture, climate, ground cover, and topographic settings (Elliot et al. 2000). Harvest and prescribed fire prescriptions, temporary and new road construction, road decommissioning and post-harvest activities are modeled and discussed.

3.5.2 Environmental Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Removal of forest canopy by timber harvest, road construction or natural processes (such as wildfire) can affect the quantity and timing of stream flow. Under all action alternatives, the ECA

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 21 increases would be minor in the affected 6th code HUC watersheds due to the relatively small percentages of the project area within the larger HUCs. Overall, changes to ECA would be negligible at a watershed level. Any changes would not affect Boulder Creek, Round Valley Creek and the Little Salmon River channel conditions. Changes to small tributary ECAs (e.g., first and second order tributary streams) within the project area and potential impacts to channel conditions are discussed below in more detail.

Similarly, predicted peak monthly water yield increases for all action alternatives are minor because of the relatively small size of the harvest units compared to the watershed area and the harvest and treatment methods (which include low severity burning). There would be no large openings created by clearcuts, therefore, changes to snow accumulation patterns, snowmelt rates, and flow regime would not be expected to substantially increase peak flows. In the longer term (15-20 years), the increases in ECA would be largely offset by natural recovery through vegetation regrowth in all watersheds.

An estimate of existing ECA, as well as post-project ECA, was calculated for each of the six drainages within the project area. This analysis is discussed below in the cumulative effects section 3.5.7.

A qualitative assessment was made of the risk of channel (and property) impacts, including debris torrents, as well as sediment delivery to fish bearing streams for these six drainages. Methods used included aerial photo interpretation, as well as field inspection of channel stability, slope steepness, and past landslide activity in the area.

Forests generally have very low erosion rates unless they are disturbed (Elliot et al. 2000). Common disturbances include timber harvest operations, roads, prescribed burning, and wildfires. Impacts which include soil erosion from these activities typically last 2-5 years before rapid revegetation covers the surface with protective plant litter (Elliot 2011, personal communication). However, not all impacts to soil erosion are short lived. A poorly-maintained permanent road could remain as a long-term sediment source.

Numerous research studies have documented that forest roads are usually the leading contributor of sediment to stream channels (Megahan and King 2004). Forest roads can be chronic sources of sediment because; road construction, use, and maintenance compact soils, reduce infiltration, intercept and concentrate surface and subsurface runoff, and limit growth of vegetation. Road ditches can be a direct conduit of sediment from ditch and road erosion into live water bodies. Also, roads can increase the frequency and magnitude of mass wasting (i.e. landslides) by one of several ways; improper alignment can undercut the base of unstable slopes, roads can intercept, divert, and concentrate runoff to sections of the hillside that are unaccustomed to overland flow causing soil saturation and slope failures, and culverts and other drainage structures can become plugged with debris and the subsequent flow over the road surface can cause failures (Megahan and King 2004).

Temporary and permanent road construction will be the primary source of erosion and sediment production in the short term. Decommissioning of existing roads will result in a minor and short term (1-2 years) increase in sediment delivery to streams. However, implementation of erosion control measures on decommissioned roads (including reducing compaction to improve infiltration) as well as improving drainage on existing roads, will reduce sediment yield below existing conditions.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 22 All road construction would follow BMPs and design measures described in Appendix D of this document. A short-term spike from road construction, timber harvest/fuels treatments, and restoration would occur. However, implementation of erosion/sediment control measures would minimize potential for adverse effects. .A long-term reduction of baseline sediment yield from chronic sediment sources would result from restoration activities (e.g., road decommissioning) and aid in recovery of watershed and aquatic conditions. Restoration actions include decommissioning roads and closing roads to public motorized use. Overall, long-term sediment reductions from the proposed road closures and decommissioning would improve water quality and stream channel conditions and move the streams toward improving conditions of beneficial uses.

Fuels treatments would reduce the risk of a severe wildfire, which could otherwise cause erosion and sediment; the degree of erosion and sediment would be dependent on size and severity of the fire. Prescribed fire would not be ignited within the RCAs, but would be allowed to back into these riparian zones. Prescribed fire backing into the riparian zones may result in minor and negligible increase in erosion/sediment delivery to streams. Low intensity prescribed burning backing into RCAs would be expected to have low adverse impacts on riparian buffers since burning would occur during periods of higher relative humidity and higher soil moisture.

Across all action alternatives, road related activities would have some short term increases in sediment delivery to area streams due to disturbance of the road bed, ditch lines and stream crossings; however, long term sediment inputs should be reduced due to improved road drainage from the addition of aggregate, crowning of roads, and ditch lines being disconnected to streams (new cross drains). Upon the completion of the harvest, treatments and post-harvest treatments and subsequent road decommissioning and closures there would be an overall decrease in road densities under all action alternatives. This lower road density, especially within RCAs, would help decrease the effects of roads on flows and decrease the likelihood of contributing sediment into stream networks. Reducing fuel load build up and/or managing overstocked timber stands would reduce risk from effects of high intensity wildfires within the cumulative effects area (see Fuels Section 3.3). Timber harvest prescriptions include design features and BMPs to minimize soil disturbance (see Design Features in Appendix D) and to protect soil and water. Timing restrictions would ensure activities would only occur when soils are not saturated. One purpose of vegetative treatments is to move composition and structure toward more desired conditions. Resilient vegetative conditions would help to maintain stable hydrologic conditions throughout the project area.

3.5.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action) Much of the proposed permanent and temporary road construction is located relatively high on the slope, where long slope distances, generally straight to convex shaped slopes, and no- harvest stream buffers are factors that reduce sediment delivery efficiency to stream channels. Overall sediment impacts from road construction will be reduced due to minimal live water crossings on the new roads, construction of slash filter windrows on steeper side slopes, and gravelling the approach and departure of existing stream crossings. Slash filter windrows have been tested and proven to intercept 75 to 100% of sediment eroding from road fills (Megahan and King 2004). Rocking of live water crossings would reduce road surface erosion an estimated 79% at stream crossings (Burroughs and King 1985).

The increase in sediment production due to soil disturbance associated with road decommissioning would be short-term, as impact levels have been shown to drop to near zero by the third year due to vegetative recovery (Megahan and King 2004). Also, this increase would occur at least one year after the peak increases from new road construction and harvest

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 23 activities. Road decommissioning will not have a significant adverse impact on sediment yield and water quality in the first year, and will have a net reduction in sediment yield from year two forward.

The predicted increase in un-routed sediment yield (sediment delivered to the stream channel) would be short-term as impacts from road construction and harvest typically decrease substantially after the first year. As with changes to water yield, sediment impacts would be relatively minor under all action alternatives in the three affected 6th code HUCs watersheds. WEPP modeling results predict that five years following completion of the project, including road decommissioning, water quality impacts would decrease slightly below existing conditions. This is due to obliteration of some existing roads, as well as drainage improvements to some remaining roads.

A severe wildfire could result in a short-term but a very high flush of sediment into streams, particularly in the Trail and Camp Creek watersheds, adversely affecting beneficial uses. Reducing fuel load build up and/or managing overstocked timber stands would reduce risk from effects of high intensity wildfires within the project area (see fuels report). This alternative would treat more fuels and therefore would do more to reduce potential wildfire effects risks to watershed resources (increased sedimentation).

3.5.4 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (Reduced New Roads) The short-term effects from Alternative B would be similar to those described above for the Proposed Action alternative. Over the long term (five years or more) this alternative would result in a reduction in road density, particularly in the Trail Creek and Little Salmon Face drainages.

3.5.5 Environmental Effects from Alternative C (Existing Roads Only) This alternative would have less soil disturbance due to no proposed road construction compared to the other action alternatives. This alternative produces the least amount of sediment, particularly in the Little Salmon Face drainages and Trail Creek. Long-term (post project) road densities would be slightly lower than the Alt B and substantially lower than the Proposed Action.

3.5.6 Environmental Effects from Alternative D (No Action) Under this alternative, the status quo remains. Although predicting when a wildfire might occur or its magnitude cannot be completed accurately, the risk of wildfire would remain higher than the other alternatives. No existing roads would be decommissioned and the associated watershed and soils benefits from treating these chronic sediment sources would not be realized.

3.5.7 Summary of Environmental Effects from the Alternatives Tables 3.5.7.1 and 3.5.7.2 summarize the effects from the alternatives.

Table 3.5.7.1. Percent ECA by Alternative (2018) Watershed Area Alt D Subwatershed (sq mi) (existing) Alt A Alt B Alt C Little Salmon River Face Drainages1 5.8 13% 22% 21% 20% Fall Creek 3.8 12% 19% 19% 18%

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 24 Watershed Area Alt D Subwatershed (sq mi) (existing) Alt A Alt B Alt C Camp Creek 1.3 5% 12% 13% 8% Boulder Creek 39.3 13%3 15%2 15%2 15%2 Trail Creek 2.4 14% 23% 23% 22% Round Valley Creek4 15.2 NA NA NA NA 1ECA calculations includes small tributaries and face drainages within the project area that flow into Little Salmon River, calculations are for alternative comparison and these drainages do not comprise a “pure” watershed. These small face drainages occur within two larger Little Salmon 6th code Hydrologic Units (Elk Creek – Little Salmon River and Round Valley Creek – Little Salmon River). 2Total includes less than 1% attributed to BLM implementation of action alternatives and 1% attributed to Payette National Forest implementation of Alternative B Modified as the selected alternative within Boulder Creek watershed (USDA-FS 2014B). 3Past vegetation treatments and existing roads on BLM and private lands were estimated to contribute less than 0.4% to existing condition ECA for Boulder Creek watershed. An existing ECA for the watershed was calculated at 11% (USDA-2014A). 4The Round Valley Creek watershed totals 9,727 acres, and vegetation treatments for all action alternatives are 120 acres (ECA acres = 76 acres) and potential affects to ECA are calculated to be discountable.

Table 3.5.7.2. WEPP Predicted First Year Percent Increase over Base Sediment Yield By Alternative (Tons/Square Mile) Background Percent Over Base Sedimentation Watershed Rate1 Area (Average Subwatershed (sq mi) Annual) Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Little Salmon River Face 5.8 11.6 16.5 13.0 12.5 11.6 Drainages Fall Creek 3.8 4.2 9.0 9.0 6.0 4.2 Camp Creek 1.3 1.6 9.6 7.6 3.5 1.6 Boulder Creek 39.3 5.6 6.5 6.5 5.9 5.6 Trail Creek 2.4 14.1 24 21 17.9 14.1 Round Valley Creek 15.2 <1 NA NA NA <1 1The background sedimentation rate – the rate that will occur with no action- was estimated by summing the erosion from existing roads, undisturbed forest erosion, and the 2018 Rattlesnake wildfire

3.5.8 Cumulative Impacts The Little Salmon River adjacent to the project area has been impacted by encroachment of U.S. Highway 95, as well as timber harvest, grazing, rural development and wildfire. Lands uses within the other analysis area watersheds have had varying levels of impacts on streams within the drainages and include: roads, timber harvest, livestock grazing, rural residences, and water diversions (private lands).

Sediment yield The cumulative effects from existing and project related increases to road density, proposed harvest activities, and wildfire were analyzed for increased sediment yield over base using WEPP modeling. These results are presented in Table 3.5.7.2. Existing condition (background sedimentation rate) includes effects of the 2018 Rattlesnake Fire.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 25 WEPP considers changes to ground cover in estimating sediment delivery. There is a first year increase following a wildfire depending on burn severity. The most impacted subwatersheds in the project area were Fall Creek, Camp Creek and Boulder Creek. Most of the burn severity was moderate, low or very low. Substantial recovery to ground cover (grasses and duff) would be expected within a year, i.e., by spring of 2019.which is prior to scheduled harvest activity.

Peak flow increases An estimate of existing ECA, as well as post-project ECA, was calculated for each of the six drainages within the project area. This included timber harvest, road construction and wildfires on all ownerships within the cumulative effects analysis area. The existing condition ECA assumed all existing road prisms were the same width and un- vegetated. Actually, many of the old roads and fill slopes are overgrown and partially recovered with natural revegetation. A conservative value of 20% ECA was chosen as a threshold for further review. There is much debate in the literature about acceptable levels of ECA, but most studies agree that 15-20 percent is low enough to show only minimal, if any, channel degradation from increased flows (Grant et al. 2008).

Factoring in tree mortality from the 2018 Rattlesnake Fire, as shown in Table 3.5.7.1, the Trail Creek watershed would have an estimated ECA over 20 percent (23 percent in Alternatives A and B, and 22 percent in Alternative C. The Little Salmon Face Drainages within the project area would also exceed this (22% in Alt A and 21% in Alt B). Since they exceeded the 20% threshold, these watersheds were reviewed in more detail. Referring to the study by Grant, et al. 2008, the presence of deep soils, steep (>2%) channel gradients, and a disbursed harvest pattern are all mitigating factors that lower the likelihood of adverse impacts to the channel from increased peak flows. On the smaller, first-order sub-watersheds where ECA would exceed 20%, design measures to mitigate potential slope instability would include site-specific increased stream buffer widths and retention of additional deep-rooted trees on steep slopes.

Section 3.6 includes an assessment of risk of channel (and property) impacts, including debris torrents, as well as sediment delivery to fish bearing streams for these six drainages.

3.6 Fisheries, Aquatic Habitats, and Special Status Aquatic Species

3.6.1 Affected Environment The analysis area for fisheries, aquatic habitats, and special status species includes the Elk Creek - Little Salmon River, Little Salmon River – Round Valley Creek, and Boulder Creek subwatersheds (see Appendix A, Map A-16). These subwatersheds are within the Little Salmon River subbasin which provides aquatic habitat for 17 fish species, including 14 native species (two of which are anadromous species) and three introduced species (Forest Service 2003). Special status fish occurring within the analysis area include three Endangered Species Act (ESA) – listed species and three BLM sensitive fish species. Within the analysis area, the Boulder Creek Vegetation Project Area occurs on the west side of the Little Salmon River and includes portions of several fish-bearing watersheds, which include the Little Salmon River, Fall Creek, Boulder Creek, Trail Creek, and Round Valley Creek. A large portion of the project area also includes small non-fishbearing tributary streams (e.g, Camp Creek and other Little Salmon River face drainages) that flow directly into the Little Salmon River. Approved Cottonwood RMP Management Guidance and Strategies The Approved Cottonwood RMP Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy provides guidance and programmatic direction for watersheds, riparian, and aquatic habitats (BLM 2009, Appendix

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 26 D). This strategy also provides for the establishment of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), and management emphasis for aquatic and riparian dependent resources, which is designated and described as: • 300 feet on each side of the stream channel for fish-bearing streams • 150 feet on each side of the stream channel for permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams and from the edge of water body for ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands >1 acre • 100 feet on each side of the stream channel for seasonally flowing or intermittent streams and wetlands <1 acre in size. The Approved Cottonwood RMP (BLM 2009) identifies Boulder Creek and Trail Creek as Restoration Watersheds. Restoration watersheds were identified because biological and physical processes and function do not reflect natural conditions because of past and long-term disturbances. The common effects of these human caused disturbances which include a variety of land uses (e.g., roads, livestock grazing, timber harvest, recreation, etc.) and natural events (e.g., wildfire, landslides, floods, and severe rain on snow events) which impact aquatic habitats. Active management and restoration may be required to restore these watersheds to their natural range of biological and physical integrity (BLM 2009). The Approved Cottonwood RMP (BLM 2009) identifies desired aquatic and riparian conditions and watershed and aquatic condition indicators for designated conservation and restoration watersheds. Within designated conservation and restoration watersheds the desired condition is to provide aquatic habitat to support native and nonnative vertebrate and invertebrate populations. Desired stream channel conditions should be within the range consistent with the geomorphology setting that riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed. Within non-designated (conservation/restoration) watersheds, BLM authorized land uses would be evaluated at the project level or stream/reach level and authorized uses would strive to support achievement of desired conditions, or not impede achievement of desired conditions in the long term. Appendix F, identifies the lower and upper thresholds of desired stream and riparian conditions (e.g., deposited sediment, water temperature, etc.) and identifies indicators of watershed and aquatic condition (e.g., road density, water yield, aquatic habitat parameters, etc.) and rates overall condition of the watershed. The BLM used the Watershed Condition Indicators (WCIs) and the associated matrices included in Appendix F from the Record of Decision and Approved Cottonwood RMP (BLM 2009) to identify baseline conditions and the proposed action and alternatives may influence the condition and trend. Watershed condition is commonly described by functional classifications: (1) properly functioning, (2) functioning at risk, and (3) not properly functioning. For consistency with the Cottonwood RMP this analysis ranks habitat quality and condition as high, moderate, and low, using an established rating definition for each WCI (BLM 2009). The BLM determined that the following WCIs are the most relevant to fish and fish habitat that may be affected by implementation of this project: (1) Watershed Road Density; (2) RCA Road Density; (3) Sediment Percent Above Natural; and (4) Equivalent Clearcut Acres (ECA)/Water Yield. See Section 3.5., Water Resources, for additional discussion and analysis of sediment and ECA in regards to project and cumulative effects analysis area. The following table, extracted from the RMP, identifies the values for the rankings of each of these WCIs (BLM 2009):

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 27 Table 3.6.1.1: WCI Rating Definitions WCI High Condition Moderate Condition Low Condition Watershed Road Density < 1 mile/mile2 1-3 mile/mile2 >3 mile/mile2 RCA Road Density < 1 mile/mile2 1-2 mile/mile2 >2 mile/mile2 Sediment - % Over Natural <5% 6-15% >15% ECA/Water Yield <15% 15-20% >20%

WCIs ratings for project and analysis area watersheds and subwatersheds are summarized in Tables 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3 below.

Table 3.6.1.2: Watershed Conditions – Road Density and ECA Total Road RCA Road Area Miles of Density RCA Miles Density Subwatershed (sq mi) Road (mi/sq mi) of Road (mi/sq mi) ECA4 Little Salmon River 5.8 22.9 4.4 1.1 2.5 13% – Face Drainages1 Fall Creek 3.8 2.6 0.7 0.4 0.75 12% Camp Creek 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.7 5% Boulder Creek2 39.3 121.5 3.1 33.2 3.4 13 % Boulder Creek3 39.3 63.9 1.7 18.7 1.9 14% Trail Creek 2.4 18.5 7.8 2.1 5.5 14% 1RCA miles of road and density for small tributary streams (face drainages) that flow into Little Salmon River. Calculation do not include Little Salmon River RCA and Highway 95. 2Ratings are for baseline and the Payette National Forest Lost Creek – Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2014A). Implementation of this project will alter and improve these ratings (USDA-FS 2014B). Total ratings were adjusted to include BLM and private lands within the lower portion of the watershed. 3Record of Decision and implementation of the Payette National Forest Lost Creek – Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2014B), combination of Alternatives B and C (Alternative B – Modified). Total ratings were adjusted to include BLM and private lands within the lower portion of the watershed. 4ECA ratings for Little Salmon River – project area face drainages, Fall Creek, Camp Creek, and Boulder Creek; includes tree mortality attributed to 2018 Rattlesnake Creek Fire.

Table 3.6.1.3: Current Ratings for Selected WCIs by Analysis Subwatersheds1 RCA Sediment % Over ECA Subwatershed Road Density Road Density Natural Water Yield Little Salmon River Face Low Low Low High Drainages – Project Area Fall Creek High High High High Camp Creek High High High High Boulder Creek2 Low Low Moderate High Boulder Creek3 Moderate Moderate Moderate High Trail Creek Low Low Low High Round Valley Creek4 ------1Ratings (WCI Quality): High=Properly Functioning; Moderate=Functioning at Risk; and Low=Not Properly Functioning 2 Ratings adapted from Forest Service 2014A USDA-FS 2014B) 4The Round Valley Creek subwatershed totals 9,727 acres. Within the watershed BLM lands total only 121 acres and no streams flow across these lands, consequently ability to affect WCIs is negligible.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 28 Within the project area the only man made barrier includes a culvert located on private lands in upper Trail Creek (partial barrier/undersized culvert). In 2002, the Idaho Department of Transportation replaced a barrier culvert at the mouth of Trail Creek with a new culvert to provide fish passage. In 2003 the BLM replaced a barrier culvert in upper Trail Creek with an arch culvert to provide improved fish passage. Special Status Fish Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed fish occurring within the Boulder Creek Vegetation Project analysis area include spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentrus). Refer to Appendix A, Maps A-17, A-18, and A-19 for spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout distribution. Boulder Creek and the Little Salmon River provide designated critical habitat for spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout. There are three BLM sensitive fish species occurring within the project and analysis area: westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss spp.), and Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata). Sensitive species are managed to ensure that BLM actions will not contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population. Aquatic Habitat and Watershed Conditions The Little Salmon River Subbasin is 372,500 acres in size and flows into the Salmon River at river mile 86.7. The Little Salmon River subbasin provides designated critical habitat for ESA- listed spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout. The subbasin also provides aquatic habitat for BLM designated sensitive fish species which include westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and Pacific lamprey. Analysis will focus on project area and cumulative effects watersheds/subwatersheds which will include Little Salmon River, Fall Creek, Camp Creek, Boulder Creek, and Trail Creek. For additional detailed information regarding project/analysis area fish species, aquatic and watershed conditions refer to the Biological Assessment of Boulder Creek Vegetation Project (BLM 2018), Little Salmon River Subbasin Biological Assessment of Ongoing and Proposed Bureau of Land Management Activities (BLM 2000), and Lost Creek – Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2014A). For additional information regarding cumulative effects watersheds refer to Appendix F. Following is a summary of watersheds and streams occurring within the project and cumulative effects analysis area. Little Salmon River The Little Salmon River provides designated critical habitat for spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout. Three barrier falls occur in the Little Salmon River between stream mile 24.1 and 24.6, these falls limit upriver fish passage for ESA-listed fish. No recent documentation exists for spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, or bull trout using rivers and streams above river mile 24.6 in the Little Salmon River. However, some anecdotal reports exist for spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead trout use above the Little Salmon River falls. The mainstem Little Salmon River downstream from river mile 24 has limited amounts of good Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning habitat, due to the dominant large sized substrate. The steeper stream gradient and high flushing flows do reduce sediment deposition, however, high discharge also "flushes" smaller sized suitable salmonid spawning gravels. Limited suitable gravels that do occur are primarily in deposition areas along the river margins or behind

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 29 boulders. These gravel deposition areas also have potential for increased fine sediment and may be highly "cemented" and/or compacted. The Little Salmon River drainage, periodically within the project area, has experienced rain on snow and flood events, which have resulted in severe channel scouring and debris torrents in tributary watersheds and the mainstem Little Salmon River. A variety of land uses such as roads, timber harvest, livestock grazing, irrigation, private land development, recreation, and natural events (e.g., wildfires and floods) have impacted aquatic habitat to varying levels. Primary limiting factors for Little Salmon River fish production include sediment, altered aquatic habitats, riparian impacts, and elevated summer water temperatures. Fall Creek The Fall Creek watershed has a total of 2,421 acres and flows into the Little Salmon River at river 16.2. Fall Creek has a full fish passage barrier (25-foot falls) near the mouth of the stream and rainbow/redband trout occur in the stream upstream from the barrier falls to stream mile 1.1 where a 90-foot falls/cascade restricts upstream passage for resident fish. A 25 foot falls occurs within 100 feet of the Little Salmon River. No documented adult steelhead use is known to occur in Fall Creek, however, steelhead may potentially use the mouth area or lower 25 feet for juvenile rearing. A total of 441 acres of BLM lands occur within the watershed and the project area. Other ownerships in the watershed include Forest Service (1,766 acres) and private lands (214 acres). Elevations within the watershed range from 2,800 feet at the mouth to 7,240 feet. Fall Creek is a steep gradient and comprised of A+ channel types (Rosgen 1996). The majority of the Fall Creek watershed is Forest Service lands that are unroaded and occur in the mid- and upper portions of the watershed. Primary lands uses that have had varying levels of impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats within the drainage include: roads, timber harvest, livestock grazing, and water diversions (private lands). Previous Tables 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3 above summarize various Fall Creek watershed condition indicators for roads, sediment and ECA. Primary limiting factors for fish production in Fall Creek include: natural fish passage barriers, steep gradients, lack of good quality pools and limited spawning gravels. Boulder Creek The Boulder Creek watershed includes a total of approximately 25,145 acres and flows into the Little Salmon River at river mile 17.1. A total of 729 acres of BLM lands occur within the watershed and project area within the lower portion of the drainage. Other land ownerships within the watershed include Forest Service (23,617 acres) and private lands (799 acres). Boulder Creek does not flow across BLM lands, however, tributary non-fish bearing intermittent and perennial stream segments flow across BLM lands in the watershed. Boulder Creek provides designated critical habitat for ESA-listed spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout. Other fish found in the drainage include rainbow/redband trout, cutthroat trout, and brook trout. Elevations within the watershed range from 3,040 feet at the mouth to 8,038 feet at the lookout on Pollock Mountain. Boulder Creek is a fourth order stream comprised of A, B, and C channel types. For additional information regarding Boulder Creek aquatic habitats and watershed conditions, refer to the Lost Creek – Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2014A).

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 30 Primary lands uses that have had varying levels of impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats within the drainage include: roads, timber harvest, livestock grazing, recreation, water diversions, and private land development in lower portion of drainage. Previous Tables 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3 above summarize various Boulder Creek watershed condition indicators for roads, sediment and ECA. Trail Creek The Trail Creek watershed includes a total of 1,788 acres and flows into the Little Salmon River at river mile 19.2. A total of 853 acres of BLM lands occur within the watershed. Other land ownerships within the watershed include Forest Service (436 acres) and private lands (235 acres). Trail Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for ESA-listed steelhead trout and BLM sensitive westslope cutthroat trout. Elevations within the watershed range from 3,140 feet at the mouth to 5,708 feet at the top of Indian Mountain. Trail Creek is a third order stream comprised of A channel types. Lands uses within the Trail Creek watershed have had varying levels of impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats within the drainage and include: roads, timber harvest, livestock grazing, recreation, water diversions, and private land development in the lower portion of drainage. Previous Tables 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3 above summarize various Trail Creek watershed condition indicators for roads, sediment and ECA. Primary limiting factors for fish production in Trail Creek include: deposited sediment, lack of good quality pools, limited amounts of good quality spawning gravel, and high road density in watershed and RCAs. Round Valley Creek The Round Valley Creek watershed includes a total of 9,727 acres and flows into the Little Salmon River at river mile 25.3. Elevations within the watershed range from 3,780 feet at the mouth to 6,246 feet at Brush Mountain. A total of 121 acres of BLM lands occur within the watershed. Other land ownerships within the watershed include Forest Service (6,427 acres), private lands (3,122 acres), and Idaho Department of Lands (57 acres). Round Valley Creek occurs upstream from Little Salmon River fish passage barriers (river mile 24.1 – 24.6), and is not accessible to ESA-listed fish. Fish species occurring within the Round Valley Creek watershed include redband/rainbow trout and brook trout. Brush Creek is a tributary of Round Valley Creek and flows into Round Valley Creek at stream mile 1.9. BLM lands occurring within the watershed have no streams flowing across them and occur near a ridge top and upper elevations of Indian Mountain. Since no aquatic species or habitat will be affected in this subwatershed, Round Valley Creek will not be addressed further in the direct and indirect effects analysis.

3.6.2 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action) The following indicators were used to evaluate existing fish habitat and watershed condition for comparison of alternatives. The indicators include: (1) change in sediment/stream substrate condition; (2) aquatic habitat and water quality/temperature; and (3) watershed condition. This section also includes discussion of effects common to other action alternatives.

Sediment/Stream Substrate Condition and Deposited Sediment Vegetation and soil disturbances, removal of vegetation, mechanical disturbance, and topographic alteration increases the erodibility of forest soils and, consequently both the amount of soil available for transport and the likelihood of transport downslope and into streams.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 31 Additional information and analysis regarding direct and indirect effects to this indicator is found in the Soils and Water Resources sections (Section 3.4.2 and 3.5.2). Short-term “pulse disturbance” increases in turbidity and sediment would result from project implementation for most actions, however, restoration efforts would focus on long term reductions in chronic or “press disturbance” sediment. “Pulse disturbance” such as most fires, floods, and some droughts are within the range of natural disturbances to which an ecosystem is adapted, are temporary in time and often patchy in space, and natural recovery is usually possible without assistance. “Press disturbance” alters the long-term resilience of an ecosystem, like sediment from permanent roads or channel alteration from mining or grazing. Surface erosion and sediment delivery to streams would be expected to be near pre-project conditions within one to two years after project implementation, with gradual improving reductions occurring in the long term (see Water Resources Section 3.5.3). Temporary and permanent road construction would be the primary source of erosion and sediment production in the short term. Decommissioning existing roads will result in short term erosion and sediment, however, long term benefits would occur from reduced erosion and sediment production in the long term. Implementation of erosion control measures and improving drainage on existing roads will reduce erosion and sediment production from these localized road segments. Salmonids are typically negatively affected by increasing amounts of sediment (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). A review of studies related to the effects of fine sediment on salmonids by Chapman and McLeod (1987) concluded that survival to emergence decreases as fine sediment increases in the spawning gravels, the loss of pool volume due to sediment deposition reduces the suitability of a stream for adults, macroinvertebrates decrease in biomass and diversity, and winter carrying capacity decreases. Sedimentation of deep pools and coarse substrate limits the physical space available to juvenile fish for rearing and overwintering. The summer or winter carrying capacity of a stream for fish declines when sediment fills the interstitial spaces of the substrate (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Fine sediment (less than 6.33 mm) deposited in spawning areas can trap or smother eggs and embryos, reducing reproductive success of spawning adults. In spawning areas, egg deposition, development, and survival become limited when sediment fills the spaces between gravel, preventing the flow of oxygen and the flushing of metabolic wastes. Field verification from 2006 through 2017 has been used to delineate perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, seeps, springs, and bogs to ensure all appropriate areas are included and protected in designated and mapped RCAs. Channelized flow can travel in excess of 1,000 feet (Belt et al. 1992). Action alternatives have identified that no timber harvest would occur in the RCA buffers, these buffers are very effective for filtering any potential erosion/sediment attributed to land management activities from reaching streams. However, even though these RCA buffers are very beneficial, they cannot completely eliminate the risk of channelized sediment from reaching streams. Road construction, road maintenance, road reconstruction, and road use occurring within RCAs would be potential erosion and sediment sources. However, implementation of RCA buffers and erosion/sediment control measures would minimize potential for adverse effects from non- channelized sediment. A review by Belt et al. (1992) of studies in Idaho and elsewhere concluded that non-channelized sediment flow rarely travels more than 300 feet and that 200– 300 foot riparian “filter strips” are generally effective at protecting streams from non-channelized sediment flow. In a review of past studies, Broderson (1973) noted that a stream buffer width of 200 feet had been found to control overland flows of sediment under the most extreme

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 32 conditions. Negligible or discountable amounts of sediment would be expected to reach channels. Under Alternative A, erosion/sediment effects to cobble embeddedness, surface fines, and fines by depth (spawning gravels) is expected to be minor and unmeasurable using accepted monitoring protocols. Previous Table 3.5.7.2 (Waters Resources Section) provides a summary of increased sediment levels for this alternative, and other alternatives. Existing substrate conditions and trends are expected to continue for Little Salmon River, Fall Creek, and Boulder Creek. Trail Creek has a high road density (total and within RCAs) and legacy erosion and sediment effects from roads, past timber harvest, and grazing have had varying levels of effect. A short-term erosion/sediment spike from road construction, timber harvest/fuel treatments, and restoration would occur. Existing roads that are overgrown and in stable condition and currently not being used by motorized vehicles would have varying levels of maintenance to provide access for timber harvest. Reconditioning of roads would also result in additional erosion/sediment contributions. A long-term reduction of baseline sediment yield from chronic sediment sources would result from restoration activities (e.g., road decommissioning) and aid in recovery of watershed and aquatic conditions. Restoration actions include decommissioning roads, which would reduce long term chronic sediment sources. Prescribed fire would not be ignited within the RCAs, but would be allowed to back into these riparian zones. Prescribed fire backing into the riparian zones may result in minor increases in erosion/sediment delivery to streams. Fuel treatments would reduce the risk of a severe wildfire and related erosion and sediment; the degree of erosion and sediment would be dependent on size and severity of the fire. Effects from Alternative A on mass erosion and sediment processes have the ability to directly or indirectly affect water quality and fish habitat in the short-term and long-term. Refer to Soils Section 3.4 and 3.4.2 for additional background and analysis information regarding mass erosion within the project area. Some levels of risk may exist from vegetation/soil disturbance actions in areas mapped as moderate or high hazard for landslides; see Soils Section 3.4.2. Road construction would have highest risk for affecting slope stability and followed by timber harvest on slopes with risks for stability (e.g., landslide prone). Prescribed burning design measures identify that no more than 10% of the overstory would experience mortality. However, based on BLM observation of similar past projects, overall mortality of overstory trees would be expected to be less than 5% and low adverse impacts to riparian habitats with low intensity spring or fall burning due to higher relative humidity and higher soil moisture, which would result in minimal tree mortality and provide for slope stability. Project design measures have been developed to minimize or avoid potential risks (see Appendix D). Low intensity prescribed burning backing into RCAs would be expected to have low adverse impacts on riparian habitats because spring and fall burning would occur during periods of higher relative humidity and higher soil moisture. Juvenile rearing is a limiting factor attributed to elevated levels of cobble embeddedness for fish production within the analysis area. However, surface erosion and sediment delivery to streams would be expected to be near pre-project conditions within one to two years after project implementation, with gradual improving reductions occurring in the long-term. Table 3.6.6.1 below provides a comparison of alternatives in regards to sediment/substrate conditions. Based on the effects on sediment/stream substrate condition, Table 3.6.6.4 shows the rating of sediment/deposited sediment WCIs for subwatersheds. This alternative is predicted to produce the largest amount of sediment for the project area and each subwatershed in the short term due to temporary roads and swing trails (12.23 miles) and

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 33 permanent roads (2.41 miles) proposed for construction and the harvest methods and amounts of mechanical timber harvest treatments (2,427 acres) (see Soils Section 3.4). A total of 4.24 miles of road are proposed for decommissioning under this alternative, which would reduce long term erosion and sediment production attributed to these roads within the project area. Mechanical and prescribed burning vegetation treatments within moderate and high landslide prone risk areas have increased inherent risk from soil and vegetation disturbance (see Appendix A, Map A-14 – Landslide Prone Potential Risk). See Soils Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 for further information regarding modeling discussion and analysis of landslide-prone areas. These areas generally have high erosion concerns also. Prior to implementation, the BLM would conduct on-site validation of these sites, and implement BMPs, project design measures, or modification of treatments to reduce the associated risks in these areas (Appendix D). A total of 278 acres of proposed vegetation mechanical treatments, and 320 acres of broadcast-burn- only treatments and 1.36 miles of temporary roads are proposed to occur on moderate to high risk landslide-prone areas. Sediment yield and modeling for this alternative is discussed in detail in Section 3.4.3. At the subwatershed and project area level, the modeled maximum sediment increase in the temporary time frame varies by subwatershed (see Section 3.4). Across the project area the short term increases in sediment are not likely to be measurable in fish habitat (deposited sediment) at the subwatershed or project area level because the predicted changes are relatively small. RCA Effects – Aquatic Habitat, Large Woody Debris, Water Quality, and Temperature Management actions occurring within RCAs and riparian habitats have the highest potential to affect aquatic habitats and special status fish. Such actions could include vegetation treatments (mechanical and prescribed burning), road construction, road decommissioning, and other restoration actions. No mechanical treatments would occur within RCAs under any of the alternatives. Also, no ignition of prescribed fire would occur in RCAs, however, fire would be allowed to back in and minimal tree mortality would be expected to occur. Potential LWD recruitment would continue from natural mortality, wildfire, or landslide events. Roads within 100 feet of a stream channel (approximately one tree height) can negatively affect sedimentation, stream shading, large woody debris contributions, and pool frequency (Spence et al. 1996). Permanent and temporary roads proposed for construction that occur within RCAs have the highest potential to affect aquatic habitat, large woody debris recruitment, and water quality (temperature). RCA road decommissioning associated with all the action alternatives would also incrementally improve stream channels and floodplains, stream shading, riparian vegetation and recruitable large woody debris as decommissioned roads re-vegetate and streambank re-stabilize. The decommissioning of roads within the RCAs and upland areas would increase sediment erosion and delivery in the short-term, but is expected to result in unquantified long-term reductions of sediment delivery. No mechanical vegetation treatments are proposed to occur within RCAs and potential LWD recruitment would continue from natural mortality, wildfire, or landslide events. Prescribed burning within RCAs is expected to be low severity and tree mortality would be less than 5%. Negligible or discountable LWD recruitment would be expected to occur from tree mortality attributed to prescribed burning. Construction of permanent and temporary roads, mechanical vegetation treatments, and prescribed burning all would result in varying levels of soil and vegetation disturbance. These actions would result in potential increased invasive species. As needed, invasive vegetation control measures would occur to minimize spread (e.g., herbicide application, seeding, etc.).

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 34 Design measures would minimize risks from herbicide treatments that would occur under the action alternatives and no adverse impacts are expected to occur to water quality from any weed treatments attributed to vegetation treatments and associated activities. Design measures would minimize or avoid potential risks from potential fuel spills and include the following primary measures: spill prevention and emergency action plan; prohibit log or helicopter landings within RCAs; prohibit fuel storage, equipment maintenance, or fueling within RCAs; and no fuel storage would occur in RCAs. Implementation of Alternative A has the largest amount of permanent and temporary roads constructed in RCAs and stream/spring crossings with the construction of 0.26 mile of permanent and 0.32 mile of temporary roads in RCAs, and includes 4 stream crossings. Permanent RCA roads would be constructed in the Fall Creek subwatershed (0.11 mile with one stream crossing) and Camp Creek (0.17 mile with one crossing). Temporary RCA roads would be constructed in Little Salmon River face drainages (0.16 mile with one crossings) and Camp Creek (0.16 mile with one crossing). A total of 0.85 mile of road decommissioning within RCAs would occur in this alternative, with the highest amount (0.73 mile) occurring in Trail Creek, which is a designated restoration watershed (BLM 2009), and 0.06 mile within Little Salmon River face drainages and 0.06 mile within the Fall Creek watershed. Table 3.6.2.1 summarizes all new road actions by subwatersheds for the alternatives. Table 3.6.2.2 summarizes all new road actions in RCAs by subwatersheds for the alternatives. Table 3.6.2.1. Road Actions Within Subwatersheds (Miles) Little Salmon Round Project

Proposed Road River Face Fall Camp Boulder Trail Valley Area Actions Alts. Drainages Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Total Alt. A 0.0 0.91 1.30 0.07 0.13 0.0 2.41 Permanent Road Alt. B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13 0.0 0.13 Alt. C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alt. A 4.06 1.30 1.52 2.35 1.83 0.45 11.52 Temporary Road Alt. B 1.05 1.79 1.59 1.66 0.48 0.38 6.95 Alt. C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alt. A 0.31 0.21 0.0 0.19 0.0 0.0 0.71 Swing Trail Alt. B 0.31 0.28 0.0 0.19 0.0 0.0 0.78 Alt. C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alt. A 1.26 0.10 0.0 0.70 1.88 0.29 4.23 Road Alt. B 2.20 0.10 0.04 0.85 1.88 0.29 5.36 Decommissioning Alt. C 2.92 0.21 0.04 0.85 4.08 0.83 8.93

Table 3.6.2.2. Summary of Proposed Roads within RCAs (Miles) Little Salmon Round Project

Proposed Road River Face Fall Camp Boulder Trail Valley Area Actions Alts. Drainages Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Total Alt. A 0.0 0.1 0.17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.26 Alt. B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 35 Little Salmon Round Project

Proposed Road River Face Fall Camp Boulder Trail Valley Area Actions Alts. Drainages Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Total RCA Permanent Alt. C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Road Construction (Stream Crossing) RCA Temporary Alt. A 0.16 0.0 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.32 Road Alt. B 0.0 0.1 0.17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.27 Construction Alt. C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (Stream Crossing) RCA Road Alt. A 0.06 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.73 0.0 0.85 Decommissioning Alt. B 0.21 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.73 0.0 1.04 (Stream Alt. C 0.21 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.84 0.0 1.15 Crossing)

Road Density/Watershed and RCAs Roads and their effects on streams and fish habitat are well documented. When located in riparian areas, roads can directly influence a stream’s channel and floodplain, alter riparian vegetation, decrease large woody debris input and can create passage barriers at stream crossings (Furniss et al. 1991). Within a watershed, roads can alter flow regimes, affect water temperatures, alter channel characteristics, increase the potential of landslide and mass movement, and increase erosion and sedimentation (Furniss et al. 1991 and Gucinski et al. 2001). Roads can increase sedimentation and change the substrate in streams (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Nelson et al. (2004) also demonstrated that on the Payette National Forest, road density appeared to be directly correlated with surface fines. High sediment levels can have many adverse effects to salmonids and their habitats. Refer to following Table 3.6.6.3 for a summary of watershed and RCA road density by alternative. ECA/Water Yield Timber harvest, road construction, fires, and development activities have the ability to affect ECA conditions in the analysis area watersheds. Water yield refers to stream flow quantity and timing and is a function of water/soil/vegetation interactions. Changes in amount or distribution of vegetation can affect water yield by changing rates of interception and infiltration, evapotranspiration, and alter shading. These factors affect the accumulation and melt rates of snow packs and how rainfall is processed, which have an effect on the timing and total amount of water yield that flows off the landscape. Determining the ECA, which represents the extent of forest canopy opening from fire, harvest, and roads, can assess changes in amount and distribution of vegetation. Compacted soils and road systems (watershed networks) can also have an effect on the timing and amount of runoff. Increased runoff and peak flow may be associated with stream downcutting, bank instability, and deposition of sediment in low-gradient stream reaches can cause alteration of riparian function and lower the quality of fish habitat. Existing ECA and changes to ECA for the subwatersheds within the project and analysis area are summarized for alternatives in Water Resources Section 3.5.7. Surveys conducted 2012 through 2017 field seasons documented for most streams, overall channel stability ratings of high fair to good and predicted increases in water yield are not expected to result in adverse impacts to the channels. Several small tributary streams (non-fishbearing) were determined to

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 36 be at potential risk from increased water yields because of channel stability ratings and/or level of vegetation treatments and roading on sensitive soils and landtypes. As needed, vegetation treatments would be modified in these small subwatersheds to minimize or avoid potential adverse erosion, sediment, and stream channel impacts. Implementation of the proposed action is not expected to result in adverse impacts from increased ECA and water yield for larger streams (see Water Resources Section 3.5.7). Fuels reduction would reduce the potential for severe wildfire occurring on treated acres. The size and severity of wildfire events is unpredictable and would depend on fire suppression effectiveness, topography, fuel loading, and weather conditions.

3.6.3 Environmental Impacts from Alternative B (Reduced Roads) Sediment/Stream Substrate Condition and Deposited Sediment This alternative would produce the second largest amount of sediment for the project area and each subwatershed due to temporary roads and swing trails proposed for construction (7.73 miles) and the harvest methods and amounts of mechanical timber harvest treatments (2,362 acres) (see Section 3.5.7 Table 3.5.7.2). No permanent roads are proposed for construction in this alternative. A total of 5.02 miles or road are proposed for decommissioning, which would reduce long term sediment production attributed to these roads in the long term. Effects from treatments within high to moderate landslide prone areas would differ slightly from Alternative A based on affected acreage. A total of 262 acres of proposed vegetation mechanical treatments, 1,403 acres of broadcast-burn-only treatments, and 0.32 mile of temporary roads are proposed for construction on moderate to high risk landslide-prone areas. At the subwatershed and project area level, maximum sediment increase would vary by subwatershed (Water Resources Section 3.5.7, Table 3.5.7.2). Across the project area the temporary increases in sediment are not likely to be measurable in fish habitat (deposited sediment) at the subwatershed or project area level because the predicted changes are relatively small. Based on the effects on sediment/stream substrate condition, Table 3.6.6.4 shows the rating of sediment/deposited sediment WCIs for subwatersheds. RCA Effects – Aquatic Habitat, Large Woody Debris, Water Quality, and Temperature Although no permanent roads would be constructed, Alternative B would have the second largest amount of temporary road constructed in RCAs and stream/spring crossings with the construction of 0.27 mile of temporary roads in RCAs and 2 stream crossings. This would occur in Fall Creek (0.11 mile and one crossing) and Camp Creek (0.17 mile and one stream crossing). A total of 1.02 miles of RCA road decommissioning would occur in this alternative. Within the Little Salmon Drainages, 0.21 mile of road would be decommissioned, 0.10 mile in Fall Creek, and 0.73 mile and three stream crossings in Trail Creek. Similar to Alternative A, Table 3.6.6.2 identifies that 387 acres of prescribed burning could potentially would occur in RCAs. Potential LWD recruitment would continue from natural mortality, wildfire, or landslide events. Road Density/Watershed and RCAs Refer to 3.6.6.3 for a summary of watershed and RCA road density by alternative. ECA/Water Yield Implementation of this alternative is not expected to result in adverse impacts from increased ECA and water yield (see Section 3.5.7). Fuels reduction would reduce the potential for severe

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 37 wildfire occurring on treated acres. The size and severity of wildfire events is unpredictable and would depend on fire suppression effectiveness, topography, fuel loading, and weather conditions.

3.6.4 Environmental Impacts from Alternative C (Existing Roads Only) Sediment/Stream Substrate Condition and Deposited Sediment This alternative is predicted to produce the least amount of sediment for the project area and each subwatershed because no road construction is proposed. Similar amounts of fuel treatments occur under all alternatives, however, this alternative has the highest amount of helicopter logging proposed which causes less soil and vegetation disturbance than other logging methods (see Water Resources Section 3.5.7, Table 3.5.7.2). A total of 8.93 miles of road, the highest amount of any alternative, are proposed for decommissioning, which would reduce long term sediment production attributed to these roads in the long term. A total of 149 acres of proposed vegetation mechanical treatments, and 46 acres of broadcast- burn-only treatments would occur on moderate to high risk landslide-prone areas. This action alternative has the least amount of vegetation treatments being conducted in moderate to high risk landslide-prone areas. At the subwatershed and project area level, a WEPP modeled maximum sediment increase in the temporary time frame varies by subwatershed. Across the project area the temporary increases in sediment are not likely to be measurable in fish habitat (deposited sediment) at the subwatershed or project area level because the predicted changes are relatively small. Based on the effects on sediment condition, Table 3.6.6.4 shows the rating of sediment WCIs for subwatersheds. RCA Effects – Aquatic Habitat, Large Woody Debris, Water Quality, and Temperature This alternative proposes no permanent or temporary road construction and the same amount of road decommissioning within RCAs as Alternative B. A total of 1.15 miles of RCA road decommissioning would occur in this alternative (similar to Alternative B), with the highest amount occurring in Trail Creek (0.84 mile,and four crossings) a designated restoration watershed (BLM 2009). RCA road decomissioning would also occur in the Little Salmon Drainages (0.21 mile) and Fall Creek (0.1 mile) would be the same as in Alternative B. Table 3.6.6.2 identifies that 258 acres of prescribed burning would potentially occur in RCAs, however, it is expected that less burning would probably occur. Low intensity burning within RCAs would result in a mosaic of burned and unburned areas. Potential LWD recruitment would continue from natural mortality, wildfire, or landslide events. Road Density Within Watersheds and RCAs Refer to 3.6.6.3 for a summary of watershed and RCA road density by alternative. ECA/Water Yield Implementation of this alternative is not expected to result in adverse impacts from increased ECA and water yield (see Section 3.5.7). Fuels reduction would reduce the potential for severe wildfire occurring on treated acres. The size and severity of wildfire events is unpredictable and would depend on fire suppression effectiveness, topography, fuel loading, and weather conditions.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 38 3.6.5 Environmental Impacts from Alternative D (No Action) Sediment/Stream Substrate Condition and Deposited Sediment No additional soil or vegetation disturbance would occur from vegetation treatments and associated actions. Current conditions and trends for riparian and aquatic habitats would occur within the project and analysis area. Increased risks associated with wildfires and sediment impacts potentially would occur within the project area; which is dependent on the severity of the fire, vegetation condition, climatic events, and acres that have burned. Based on the effects on sediment/stream substrate condition, Table 3.6.6.4 shows the rating of sediment/deposited sediment WCIs for subwatersheds. RCA Effects – Aquatic Habitat, Large Woody Debris, Water Quality, and Temperature No mechanical timber harvest vegetation treatments, road construction/maintenance, road decommissioning, or other soil/vegetation disturbance would occur within RCAs which would have potential adverse impacts on riparian and aquatic habitats. Potential LWD recruitment would continue from natural mortality, wildfire, or landslide events. Under this alternative, no use of herbicides or fuels is proposed above current levels. The risk of these materials entering streams would remain unchanged from the existing condition. Under this alternative, stream temperatures within the analysis area would remain unchanged over the short-term. Some improvement may occur over time as vegetation recovers in areas where shade has been reduced from past activities. These areas include flood damaged segments of the Little Salmon River that scoured channels and impacted riparian habitats and a few other streams within the project area (small tributary non-fish bearing streams) that experienced flood damage, debris torrents, or landslides. Lack of vegetation treatments may contribute to continued accumulation of fuels, potentially resulting in more severe wildfires, which, depending on size, severity, and location, could affect aquatic habitats and water quality (water temperature). Effects would be dependent on amount of stand replacing fire that occurred within riparian habitats and changes resulting to shading. With severe wildfire, there are risks associated with impacts to riparian vegetation and trees, which would affect LWD in the short- and long-term. Generally, with stand replacing fires, fire- killed trees would provide an abundance of LWD as trees fall into the stream. Overall, a severe fire would also result in a loss of live trees, shrubs, and ground cover; which provide for channel and slope stability. Consequently, a severe fire may result in adverse impacts to riparian vegetation, slope instability, stream channel and bank erosion and scouring. Road Density within Watersheds and RCAs Refer to the following Table 3.6.6.3 for a summary of watershed and RCA road density by alternative. ECA/Water Yield Under this alternative, ECA and any changes in water yield from past activities would continue to recover and areas affected by land uses that result in soil compaction, such as past tractor logging, dozer piling, and log landings would recover at slower rates. These areas are affected by low soil infiltration rates and may not recover in the absence of soil and other watershed restoration efforts. In addition, existing roads would continue to contribute towards ECA, and recovery, if any, would occur extremely slowly in the absence of road decommissioning and soil restoration. Lack of vegetation treatments may potentially contribute to continued accumulation of fuels, potentially resulting in more severe wildfires, which, depending on size, severity, and location, could result in varying water yield changes.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 39 Implementation of this alternative, with respect to ECA and water yield, include no short-term changes in ECA and no impact to water yield and fish habitat condition.

3.6.6 Summary of Environmental Effects from the Alternatives Table 3.6.6.1 below provides a comparison of alternatives in regards to sediment/substrate conditions.

Table 3.6.6.1: Sediment/Substrate Conditions Alternative Sediment/Substrate Conditions Alt A Action alternative with highest sediment production. Highest amount of road construction (14.64 miles). Highest amount of permanent road construction (2.41 miles). Largest amount of timber harvest proposed on modeled moderate to high risk landslide prone areas (timber harvest – 278 acres). Lowest amount of road decommissioning (4.24 miles). Similar amounts of mechanical timber harvest proposed (65 acres difference) as Alternatives B for reducing risk of stand replacing fires. A total of 384 acres of RCA prescribed burning could occur, similar to Alternative B. Alt B Action alternative with second highest for sediment production. Second highest for permanent and temporary road construction (7.86 miles). Second highest for permanent road construction (0.13 mile). Second largest amount of timber harvest proposed on modeled moderate to high risk landslide prone areas (65 acres difference acres). Second highest for road decommissioning (5.02 miles). Similar amounts of timber harvest proposed (869 acres) as Alternatives A for reducing risk of stand replacing fires. A total of 387 acres of RCA prescribed burning could occur, similar to Alternative A. Alt C Action alternative with least amount of sediment production. No permanent or temporary roads proposed for construction. Highest for proposed road decommissioning (9.47 miles). Less timber harvest proposed (709 acres), compared to Alternatives A and B for reducing risk of stand replacing fires. Less prescribed burning of RCAs (258 acres). Alt D No additional soil or vegetation disturbance would occur. No baseline increase in sediment, would incrementally decrease over time. Current conditions and trends will continue for erosion and sediment. No road decommissioning will occur. Highest potential risk for wildfires and stand replacement fires.

Table 3.6.6.2 Identifies the amount of prescribed burning that could potentially occur in RCAs.

Table 3.6.6.2.Prescribed Burning (acres) within RCAs* Little Salmon River Face Boulder Project Area Alternative Drainages Fall Creek Camp Creek Creek Trail Creek Total Alt. A 144 57 56 18 108 384 Alt. B 144 57 60 18 108 387 Alt. C 82 48 24 14 90 258 * Low intensity burning within RCAs would result in a mosaic of burned and unburned areas, likely resulting in less area being affected than predicted in the table. Table 3.6.6.3 summarizes total road density within each watershed and within RCAs for the various alternatives. It also shows the resulting WCI rating (see Section 3.6.1 and Table 3.6.1.1 for an explanation of the WCI ratings).

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 40 Table 3.6.6.3. Watershed and RCA Road Density (mi/sq mi) and Resulting WCI Rating Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Subwatershed Total Total Total In RCA Total Wtshd. In RCA Wtshd. In RCA Wtshd. Wtshd. In RCA Project Area Little 4.4 1.5 4.4 1.5 4.4 1.5 4.4 2.5 Salmon River Face Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Low Drainages1 Fall Creek1 0.9 <0.5 0.68 <0.5 0.68 <0.5 0.68 <0.5 High High High High High High High High Camp Creek1 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 Mod. Mod. High High High High High High

Boulder Creek1, 2 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.4 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Boulder Creek3 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.8 3.4 Mod.. Low Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Low Trail Creek 7.1 7.5 7.1 7.5 7.1 7.5 7.8 9.0 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 1ECA ratings for Little Salmon River – project area face drainages, Fall Creek, Camp Creek, and Boulder Creek; includes tree mortality attributed to 2018 Rattlesnake Creek Fire. 2Ratings are for baseline and the Payette National Forest Lost Creek – Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2014A). Implementation of this project will alter and improve these ratings (USDA-FS 2014B). Total ratings were adjusted to include BLM and private lands within the lower portion of the watershed. 3Record of Decision and implementation of the Payette National Forest Lost Creek – Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2014B), combination of Alternatives B and C (Alternative B – Modified). Forest Service proposing to decommission 48 miles of road (including 14.5 miles of roads in RCA). Total ratings were adjusted to include BLM and private lands within the lower portion of the watershed.

Effects to ESA-listed and BLM Sensitive Fish Species ESA-listed Species:The BLM is currently consulting with and cooperatively preparing a Biological Assessment (BA) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service for the proposed action (BLM 2018). From the initial analysis and consultation with USFWS and NMFS it has been determined that the proposed action “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout; and designated critical habitat for these species. No other listed or candidate fish species would be affected. This determination would apply to the other action alternatives. In addition to previous analysis information, following is a brief summary of some of key effects from project implementation identified in the draft BA: The BLM has identified concerns for soil and vegetation disturbance and landslides and debris torrents within the project area. In areas with moderate to high relative risk for landslides, management actions would be designed to minimize adverse effects. Project design measures to reduce risk include: reducing basal area removal of forested vegetation, selective harvest with partial suspension yarding, relocating existing or proposed road alignment, improving road drainage design, increased no harvest buffers, eliminating portions of harvest units, etc. No temporary road construction will occur in high hazard areas. Prescribed burning would occur on areas identified as moderate to high hazard for landslides and within RCAs. However, prescribed burning will be low intensity and overstory mortality is expected to be an average of less than 5% (range 1% – 10%). This will minimize risk of landslide initiation with the majority of overstory trees not being removed and providing slope stability and reducing risks to riparian and aquatic habitats. Project design measures will reduce risks in sensitive areas (e.g., landslide prone and RCAs), however, there would still be inherent risks from vegetation treatments and management actions in these sensitive areas. No mechanical timber harvest

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 41 would occur in RCAs, however, proposed actions occurring in RCAs include: permanent and temporary road construction; road use and maintenance; and road decommissioning. Design measures to minimize erosion and sediment would occur, however, these actions occurring in RCAs would have potential to contribute sediment to streams. The project objectives are to reduce fuel loading and threats from large scale stand replacing wildfires. A severe fire could potentially have adverse effects from increased erosion and sediment, mass wasting, landslides, and debris torrents resulting in direct and indirect effects to riparian areas, fish and aquatic habitats. BLM Sensitive Species: BLM sensitive occurring or potentially occurring within the project area include westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and Pacific lamprey. From the previous analysis of potential effects to aquatic species and habitats presented in this section, the BLM determined that the proposed action “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely lead to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability of the population or species” for westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and Pacific lamprey.

3.6.7 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for fisheries, aquatic habitats, and special status species includes the Elk Creek Little Salmon River, Little Salmon River – Round Valley Creek, and Boulder Creek subwatersheds (see Appendix A, Map A-16). The Boulder Creek Vegetation Project Area occurs on the west side of the Little Salmon River and includes portions of several fish-bearing watersheds, which include the Little Salmon River, Fall Creek, Boulder Creek, Trail Creek, and Round Valley Creek. A large portion of the project area also includes small non- fishbearing tributary streams (face drainages) that flow directly into the Little Salmon River. Cumulative effects analysis will focus on the watersheds and subwatersheds that encompass the project area described previously. Past and present actions have impacted upland, riparian, and aquatic habitats to varying levels. The primary effects to riparian and aquatic habitats has occurred from timber harvest, road and trail construction and use, unauthorized “pioneered” ATV trail use”, livestock grazing, recreation use, wildfires, extreme weather conditions (e.g., rain on snow events, precipitation), and rural development activities. Evaluation of the project area and cumulative effects watersheds included past, current, and foreseeable land uses (e.g., roading, timber harvest, restoration, etc.) on Forest Service and private lands within the cumulative effects watersheds for baseline conditions. Reasonably foreseeable actions in the analysis area include BLM, Forest Service, Idaho Department of Lands and private land timber sales and fuel reduction projects. The Payette National Forest is proposing to decommission 47.6 miles of system roads and unauthorized routes in the Boulder Creek watershed, which would reduce road density in the watershed and RCAs, and reduce long term sediment attributed to these roads and routes proposed for decommissioning (USDA-FS 2014A and USDA-FS 2014B). In addition, the Forest Service is also proposing a variety of fuels treatment and restoration projects in the Boulder Creek watershed which are summarized in Table 3.1.2. Vegetation and soil disturbance in cumulative effects watersheds and RCAs is expected to continue on Forest Service, State, and private lands. Refer to Table 3.1.2 for a list that summarizes past, present, foreseeable future land uses. Other foreseeable actions involving these different landowners include: road use, maintenance, construction, restoration, road decommissioning, and closures; fish habitat improvement projects on Forest Service lands, recreation, firewood cutting, private land development, agriculture practices, noxious weed control, wildfires, prescribed fire and fire suppression.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 42 Alternatives A, B, and C Baseline analysis for water quality, fisheries, and water quality indicators assessed cumulative effects from timber harvest, roads, wildfires, and etc. occurring on private and Forest Service lands which would impact the cumulative effects watersheds. Short term effects (0 – 5 years), and associated increases in erosion and sediment are expected with all the action alternatives from vegetation treatments, road construction, road use and maintenance and road decommissioning. This would result in varying levels of effects to subwatersheds when combined with reasonable foreseeable actions and the current conditions. Alternative A would have the highest potential contribution to cumulative effects, followed by Alternative B, and C. Alternative A has the highest amount of proposed and temporary road construction. Alternative C has the highest amount of road decommissioning, no new road construction, and utilizes logging methods that result in less soil and vegetation disturbance (e.g., more helicopter logging). In the short- to long-term period (greater than 5 years), sediment conditions are expected increase primarily within one to two years after project implementation and decrease to near post-project levels within five years. Road decommissioning would contribute to improved aquatic and watershed conditions in the long term. BLMs ability to affect cumulative effects at a 6th level watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code – HUC) are low because land ownership is minor. When combined with reasonable foreseeable actions and current conditions, WCIs are expected to be maintained or have minor improvements from implementation of action alternatives. Small subwatershed effects would have more measurable effects within the project area, with the highest ability in Trail Creek. Within the Boulder Creek drainage, and Payette implementation of the Lost Creek/Boulder Creek Landscape project would change WCIs within this watershed, primarily from road decommissioning within the watershed (USDA-FS 2014A and USDA-FS 2014B). Alternative D (no action) is expected to maintain the current trend and conditions of aquatic and riparian resources within the project area/cumulative effects subwatersheds. Current roads would remain on the landscape and continue to affect WCIs such as sediment and road density. All of the reasonably foreseeable actions, and their potential effect to fish and fish habitat (as described above) would continue across the project area and cumulative effects analysis area. This alternative would not incrementally add to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities to result in cumulative effects to fish habitat or ESA list fish species and their critical habitat.

3.7 Wildlife, Habitat, and Special Status Species

3.7.1 Affected Environment The most common wildlife habitats within the project area are mid-aged to mature mixed conifer stands, dominated by grand fir and Douglas-fir habitat types. These habitat are interspersed with riparian, shrub/grasslands, and grassland habitats. Common overstory trees in the project area include grand fir, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine. The project area provides habitat for a large number of big game, upland game, and non-game species which occur within the project and cumulative effects analysis area yearlong or seasonally. The project area provides important habitat for big game species such as Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, mountain lion, and black bear. Other big game species, which may utilize the project area include gray wolf, bighorn sheep, and moose.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 43 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listed Species

The Canada Lynx is listed threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a portion of the project area occurs within the Boulder Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). All of the potential and suitable lynx habitat in the LAU occurs on Forest Service lands located in the higher elevation areas of the Boulder Creek watershed. The BLM has determined that the proposed action “may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx. No other ESA-listed, candidate, or proposed wildlife species would be affected with implementation of the proposed action.

BLM Sensitive Species

The proposed action may potentially impact 20 BLM sensitive species (see Table 3.7.1 below). For additional information about these species see Appendix G.

Table 3.7.1: BLM Sensitive Species Potentially Affected by Boulder Creek Project Mammals Birds Amphibians Common Genus/Species Common Genus/Species Common Genus/Species Name Name Name Fisher Martes pennant Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Idaho Giant Dicamptodon leucocephalus Salamander aterrimus Gray Wolf Canis lupus Northern Accipter gentilis Western/Boreal Anaxyrus Goshawk Toad boreas Fringed Myotis Flammulated Otus Myotis thysanoides Owl flammeolus Hoary Bat Lasiurus Cassin’s Carpodacus cinereus Finch cassinii Little Brown Myotis lucifugus Lewis’s Melanerpes Bat Woodpecker lewis Long-eared Myotis evotis White- Picoides Myotis headed albolarvatus Woodpecker Long- Myotis volans Mountain Oreotyx pictus legged Bat Quail Silver- Lasioncycteris Olive-sided Contopus haired Bat noctivagans Flycatcher cooperi Willow Empidonax Flycatcher trailii Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi

Migratory Birds

Migratory and Neotropical migrant birds utilize coniferous forest habitats of the U.S. during the summer breeding season, but migrate to southern latitudes to spend winters as far south as Mexico and South America. There are 119 species of Neotropical migrants that breed in the State of Idaho.

Fragmentation of nesting habitat may increase rates of migrant bird nest predation and brood parasitism by other species. Small, isolated forest patches, particularly in forests of the eastern U.S. are at greatest risk. In contrast, natural fire regimes and topographic diversity in the western U.S. combined in the past to produce a temporally dynamic, naturally fragmented landscape compared with the previously extensive and relatively homogenous eastern

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 44 deciduous forests. Timber harvest and fire suppression activity have nevertheless altered the natural landscape of western forests (Dobkin 1994).

Idaho Partners in Flight (2000) identified four high-priority habitats in Idaho, which are important habitats for migratory birds. Three of these habitats occur in the project area: (1) riparian habitat; (2) ponderosa pine habitat; and (3) low elevation mixed conifer habitat. The representative high priority bird species chosen for this analysis are also discussed as BLM sensitive species.

For the riparian habitat, 2 of 13 priority species that may occur include the dusky and willow flycatchers. The willow flycatcher, a BLM Idaho sensitive species, will serve to represent the riparian habitat. Refer to willow flycatcher discussion and analysis that is included in Wildlife Habitat Guilds section below (Riparian/Aquatic Dependent) and Appendix G, for detailed information about these species and habitats.

Four of nine high-priority species representing the low-elevation, mixed-confer habitat, include northern goshawk, Williamsons’s sapsucker, sharp-shinned hawk, and brown creeper. The northern goshawk, a BLM Idaho sensitive species, was chosen to represent this habitat class. Refer to northern goshawk discussion included in Wildlife Habitat Guilds section below (Late Seral/Old Growth Associated) and Appendix G, for detailed information about these species and habitats.

The white-headed woodpecker and flammulated owl are high-priority species in the ponderosa pine habitat and were chosen to represent this habitat class. Both are BLM Idaho sensitive species. Refer to flammulated owl and white-headed woodpecker discussion included in Wildlife Habitat Guilds section below (Late Seral/Old Growth Associated) and Appendix G, for detailed information about these species and habitats.

Wildlife Habitat Guilds

Wildlife species were evaluated in relation to available habitat quality and quantity occurring within the project area. The description of the affected environment and effects analysis for wildlife species and habitats in this section will include: habitat fragmentation/connectivity; snags and large down wood; and four generalized wildlife species habitat guilds based on predominant habitat associations or dependency relationships. These guilds include: (1) riparian/aquatic dependent; (2) fire/early/seral dependent; (3) late seral/old growth associated; and (4) security dependent.

Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity

Habitat connectivity is the degree to which the landscape facilitates wildlife movement and ecological processes. Historically, habitats may not have not been connected due to natural disturbances (i.e., fire history, natural barriers). Connectivity within the analysis area has been altered by roads, private residences, stand replacing fires, timber harvest, and fire exclusion. Habitat connectivity can have positive and negative considerations. Connectivity is important for some wildlife species to move on the landscape. However, habitats that have not been connected due to fire history, natural barriers, etc. that are allowed to become connected (through fire exclusion for example) may allow wildlife, plants, insects and disease to interact in negative ways. Invasive wildlife species and noxious weeds increase their ranges by using these artificial connections on the landscape.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 45 Snags and Large Down Wood

Snags, broken-topped live trees, downed logs, and other woody material are required by a wide variety of wildlife species for nesting, denning, roosting, foraging, perching, breeding, and cover. Overall, there are abundant small to medium sized snags in the project area, however, many stands do not have desired number of large sized snags (> 20 inches dbh). Some stands are also lacking desired large sized green tree snag-replacement (i.e., 4 trees/acres ≥ 20 inches dbh) and large sized coarse woody debris (largest size class best, preferably over 15 inches dbh). Large diameter logs provide long-term habitat structures. In the project area, large western larch, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir snags are the most valuable for snag-dependent species. Downed logs and stumps provide resting and denning for species hunting below the snow in winter (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994) and are used as travel cover. Amphibians and reptiles use large woody debris for shelter and breeding sites (Bull et al. 1997). Down wood provides habitat for insects and other invertebrates that form an important forage base for larger species. Woodpeckers are primary excavators creating nest and roost sites for themselves and other cavity-dependent species in forested habitats such as flammulated owls, a BLM sensitive species. Several BLM sensitive bat species, use the loose bark or cavities of snags for roosting. Other BLM sensitive species that utilize snag cavities for nesting or foraging include Lewis’s woodpecker and the white-headed woodpecker. Vaux’s Swift will utilize cavities in trees and snags for nesting.

Riparian/aquatic dependent:

There is approximately 184 acres of riparian habitat within the project area associated with the small non-fishbearing Little Salmon River face drainages, Fall Creek, Camp Creek, Boulder Creek, and Trail Creek. Riparian habitats widths vary along the Little Salmon River because of Highway 95 riparian encroachment and private residents and approximately 8-miles of the Little Salmon River are adjacent to the project area east side boundary. In many areas Highway 95 and private resident occur between the Little Salmon River and riparian habitats. Approximately 48 acres of riparian habitat is associated with the Little Salmon River along the east boundary of the project area. Riparian habitats provide important habitat or a critical habitat component for many wildlife species, such as amphibians. Riparian areas also provide connectivity and travel corridors for a variety of wildlife. BLM sensitive species that are riparian dependent or make extensive use of riparian habitat include Bald Eagle, fisher, Lewis’ Woodpecker, Mountain Quail, willow flycatcher, Idaho giant salamander and western toad. Bald eagles are primarily found at lower elevations along the Little Salmon River in the winter. Fishers are closely associated with forested riparian areas which are used extensively for foraging, resting, and travel corridors. Lewis’ woodpecker use riparian areas dominated by cottonwood. Mountain quail use areas along creeks and riparian shrub communities. Willow Flycatchers breed in riparian habitat that has a mid-story cover layer of shrubs within 5-6 feet of the ground (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). Preferred habitats for Idaho giant salamander and western toad include riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats.

Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated:

Timber harvest and fire suppression have negatively impacted late seral/old growth dependent species the most within the analysis area. Fire suppression and forest management have affected stand composition and structure in the lower and mid elevations and drier forests, where frequent low-intensity fires had historically maintained stands of large-diameter ponderosa pine within the dry conifer habitat types. With fire suppression, the more shade- tolerant Douglas-fir and grand fir have established and stands have become dense and more

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 46 susceptible to disease and stand-replacing fires. Forest management effects in the lower montane zone are most noticeable for old forest (i.e., old single-stratum and old multi-strata), where timber harvest has been the primary cause of a 33 percent reduction in this structural stage (USDA FS, 2003). BLM sensitive fisher, Northern Goshawk use mature and older forests. White-headed Woodpeckers primarily occupy low-to-mid-elevation, multi-storied open stands of mature and large, late seral ponderosa pine, including large snags (Wisdom et al. 2000, Frederick and Moore 1991). Vaux’s Swift, a BLM sensitive species prefers late seral stages of coniferous and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests; more abundant in old-growth forests than in younger stands. Several BLM sensitive bat species utilize older forests more than younger forests because of a higher abundance of snags for roosting (under bark or in cavities).

Early Seral

Timber harvest, fire exclusion, and wildfires have had various effects on early seral habitats within the project area and larger landscape analysis area (e.g., watersheds). The majority of stands are mid-aged forested stands, and early seral stands comprise a small portion, about 20%. However, at the larger watershed level (Little Salmon River subbasin), early seral stands are more prevalent, primarily as a result of the large stand replacing wildfires. Large wildfires which occurred in the general analysis area include; 1994 Corral Fire which burned in upper Hazard and Hard Creeks (east side of Little Salmon River); 2012 Wesley Fire which burned in the Boulder Creek and Rapid River watersheds; 2015 Tepee Springs Fire located on the east side of the Little Salmon River; and the 2018 Rattlesnake Creek Fire that burned a small portion of the north end of the project area. Past timber harvests on adjacent private lands, State lands, and Forest Service lands, have also created early seral stands. Lewis’ woodpecker use snags in early seral post-burn areas dominated by ponderosa pine. Olive-sided flycatchers are common in disturbed, early successional habitat, however they appear to require residual large snags and/or live trees for foraging and singing perches. Vaux’s Swift will utilize open areas adjacent to forest habitats for foraging. Several BLM sensitive bats species are expected to use more open habitats and early seral forest habitats for foraging because of reduced vegetative clutter and/or increased insect abundance.

Security Dependent Species

Security dependent species are primarily affected by human disturbances, such as roads, hunting, residences, livestock grazing, and various recreational activities. Within the project area most of the roads had been developed by the mid-1980s. Although road closures and decommissioning efforts have reduced vehicular and human disturbances, vulnerability to hunting and similar impacts remain. The majority of the project area lies behind private-land locked gates or involves private land access, which are closed to public use without permission. Portions of the project area occurring on BLM lands provide non-motorized pubic access to accommodate recreational activities such as hunting, hiking, horseback riding, and cross- country skiing. The BLM sensitive species gray wolf is a security dependent species, as is one of their main prey species, Rocky Mountain elk.

Rocky Mountain elk are a security dependent species and summer range habitat is present within the project area, which is the Elk Analysis Unit (EAU) for this analysis. The quality of summer elk habitat and whether the habitat is capable of sustaining or increasing elk populations is rated through the use of the Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho (EHE – Elk Habitat Effectiveness) model (Leege 1984). When all

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 47 habitat factors are in optimum abundance and distribution, habitat would be rated 100% of potential elk use. The percentage value refers only to habitat quality and not to actual elk use. The analysis of progressive road-density and habitat alteration related effects on wildlife through time are illustrated by the elk summer and fall habitat analysis. The primary factors decreasing habitat quality are: 1) road density and roads open to vehicle use, 2) size and distribution of hiding, thermal, and security cover, and 3) size and distribution of forage areas. The Boulder Creek Vegetation Project Area includes the following two EAUs for the project area: South Boulder EAU (located south of Boulder Creek) and North Boulder EAU (located north of Boulder Creek). Table 3.7.1.2 below summarizes the current modeled EHE for the South Boulder EAU and North Boulder EAU.

Table 3.7.1.2. Percent Elk Habitat Effectiveness Elk Habitat Effectiveness (%) Elk Analysis Unit Existing Conditions South Boulder EAU 59% North Boulder EAU 57%

3.7.2 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action) The proposed action will have varying levels of disturbance, displacement, and potential injury/mortality to wildlife species utilizing habitats in the short term during project implementation. Long-term effects will be dependent on species specific preferred habitats and critical habitat niches (e.g., nesting, young-rearing, denning sites, etc.) maintained post-project. Primary differences between alternatives and potential effects to wildlife species and habitats will include varying amounts of mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, permanent road construction, temporary road construction, and road decommissioning that will be conducted (see Table 2.5 for a summary of alternatives). Primary effects analysis will include vegetation treatments occurring on BLM lands within the project area and proposed prescribed burning on private and Forest Service lands.

The project area totals 6,608 acres and within the project area BLM lands comprise 4,201 acres (approximately 64%). Interspersed within the project area with BLM lands are Forest Service and private lands. The dominant habitat types within the project area include grand fir and Douglas fir habitat types. Refer to Section 3.2 (Forest Vegetation) and Section 3.3 (Fuels), for additional information regarding affected environment and environmental effects to habitats/vegetation from implementation of the various alternatives. The BLM lands within the project area are generally characterized as mature tree stands that are interspersed with grass/shrub stands with scattered trees and riparian habitats. Private land timber harvest has also occurred within the project area, and early seral forest stand structure exists in these areas (e.g., seedling, sapling, small trees stand structure). Proposed BLM vegetation treatments will alter stand structure primarily by mechanical treatments that open canopy cover of mature tree stands from an average canopy cover of 55% to 40%, average reduction of canopy cover would be 27% for all stands.

The most significant alteration of mature timber stands would occur in areas proposed for even aged harvest, an average canopy cover removal would be 50% – 70%. Alternative A (559 acres) and B (550 acres) are similar in that they only have a difference of 9 acres. Alternative C (457 acres) is approximately 100-acres less than Alternatives A and B. These treatments would occur in mixed-conifer large tree stands with grand fir being dominant in the overstory, retention of large size and mature ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir tree species would occur.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 48

Prescribed burning only treatments would primarily result in reduction of understory fuels, and it is expected that less than 5% tree mortality would occur from these treatments (range 1% - 10%). Alternative A includes the most acres of prescribed burning only (2,107 acres), and is followed by Alternative B (1,300 acres), and Alternative C has the least (258 acres).

Refer to previous Table 2.5 for a summary of Action Alternatives which includes all proposed mechanical treatments, harvest methods, proposed road actions, and prescribed burning.

Action alternatives would have similar effects and would vary by acres treated. These effects are discussed in detail under Alternative A, and discussions under Alternative B and C would summarize these effects. In summary, wildlife species that prefer more open canopy covers would have long term beneficial effects. No increase in public motorized access would occur under all action alternatives. All roads proposed for decommissioning are currently closed to public motorized access. A decrease in hiding, thermal, and security cover for elk would occur. However, because most of the treatments are in areas that are closed to public motorized access or have restricted access because private land permission potential impacts are reduced because of limited public motorized use in the area.

BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species

Vegetation treatments and associated activities have the potential to adversely affect BLM sensitive species in the short term by disturbing or displacing wildlife species utilizing affected habitats. Potential injury or mortality would occur from management actions occurring during nesting periods for birds or bats utilizing trees and snags for maternity roosts. Adjacent undisturbed habitats would be available for use. Affects to species preferred habitats would be altered in the long term by vegetation treatments, and species that prefer more “open canopy” forested conditions and early seral conditions for forest stands would be benefitted in the long term. Species that prefer higher canopy closures and large tree stands of mature grand fir would be adversely affected. Alternative A would result in highest potential for adverse impacts to BLM sensitive species from disturbance or displacement in the short term. Alternatives A and B would have similar affects for reducing potential for severe wildfire events with reduction of fuels and Alternative C would have lesser amounts of treated acres (see Section 3.3).

The discussions below regarding affects to habitat guilds and Appendix G provide additional information regarding effects to BLM sensitive species and preferred habitats. The BLM has determined that implementation of the action alternatives “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population” for the BLM sensitive wildlife and bird species.

Migratory Birds

Effects to migratory birds is dependent on the amount of mechanical treatment, prescribed burning, and permanent and temporary road construction that would take place with each alternative. Impacts to specific birds is dependent on preferred habitats and short term and long term effects to the species and preferred habitats.

Primary habitat impacts would be dependent on acres treated and would primarily occur from acres of mechanical treatments which would favor species that prefer more open canopy stands and early seral conditions.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 49 Vegetation treatments and associated activities taking place during bird nesting periods would have potential to disturb, displace, injure, or cause death to migratory birds during this critical period. It is expected that no more than 20% of the proposed treatments would occur during nesting periods annually. Table 3.7.2.1 below summarizes proposed treatment acres and potential impacts to nesting birds utilizing habitats that have vegetation and soil disturbance conducted during this critical period.

Table 3.7.2.1: Actions that Would Potentially Occur During Bird Nesting Periods Mechanical Treatment Rx Burn Only Permanent Road Temporary Road Alternative (acres) (acres) (miles) (miles) A 485 178 2.41 (9 acres) 11.52 (42 acres) B 472 182 0.13 6.95 (25 acres) C 401 182 0 0

Fuels reduction would reduce the potential for severe wildfire or stand replacing fires. The size and severity of wildfire events is unpredictable and would depend on fire suppression effectiveness, topography, vegetation/stand condition, fuel loading, and weather conditions.

See discussion regarding habitat guilds and associations below and Appendix G for more information regarding effects to representative BLM sensitive birds and migratory species.

Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity Timber harvest and prescribed burning would result in more open canopy stands, which would fragment the landscape in localized areas within the project area and mostly affect habitats used by small bodied, relatively immobile, and relatively small home range species such as amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals. Effects to mobile, wide-ranging species such as mountain lion and elk, would be less. Species using complex vertical and horizontal habitat structure, such as some of the forest raptors and other birds, would experience reduced complexity of habitat in treated areas. The average existing canopy cover changes with proposed action (mechanical treatments) from 55% to 40% for all habitat types, equating to an average 28% reduction in canopy cover resulting from the proposed action within the project area.

Vegetation treatments would reduce fuel loading in the project area, thus reducing risks for stand replacing fires. The size and effect of fires to habitat fragmentation and connectivity is unknown. Large severe stand replacing fires could result in patch size and openings that are uncharacteristic and would reduce connectivity and cause habitat fragmentation.

Snags and Large Down Wood In the long-term this alternative would create more open canopy openings, which would alter the amount of vertical and horizontal habitat structure or habitat complexity. Treatments that include green and dead tree harvest would reduce habitat for many snag dependent species. Numbers of snags are expected to decrease with the action alternatives in the short term as snags would be lost as hazard trees and through damage by logging operations. Many snags felled during harvest activities for safety reasons are often in an advanced state of decay so felling these snags can provide down woody material and subsequent nesting, resting, cover, and foraging areas for a variety of wildlife species. Some snags will be created from the burning of harvesting slash where fuel loads are concentrated. However, more snags are generally lost than created during harvest operations when compared to fire. It is important that sufficient

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 50 amounts and size classes of snags are left in clumps or as individuals to meet the needs of snag-dependent wildlife species and to add diversity to the landscape. The snag management protocol would be implemented and standards for snag retention would be met or exceeded in the long term. Therefore, timber harvest and prescribed burning would result in some short term effects to snag-dependent wildlife species, but in the long term the amount of snags would be maintained or increased. Timber harvest actions that maintain larger diameter trees such as ponderosa pine (preferred snag tree) will be beneficial for snag dependent species.

Riparian/Aquatic Dependent Habitat Guild Watershed restoration actions (e.g., road decommissioning), road use/maintenance and construction, and other vegetation treatments would initially add modest levels of sediment to streams, elevating impacts related to sediment and water quality in the short term. The effects would be relatively minimal in terms of impacts to aquatic wildlife species and their habitats.

RCA no-treatment timber harvest buffers would protect riparian habitats used for feeding, resting, and reproduction. Connectivity, snags and large down would mostly be maintained at current conditions. However, prescribed burning would be allowed to back into riparian habitat, resulting in localized effects. Prescribed burning would be low intensity, and no direct ignition would occur in RCAs, which would minimize risks to riparian habitats from adverse impacts. Expected tree mortality within RCAs would be generally less than 5% (potential range 1% – 10%). See previous Table 3.6.6.2 for prescribed burning that would occur under various alternatives within RCAs. However, unplanned moderate and high severity prescribed burning within RCAs would have potential adverse effects to habitats and species utilizing the areas, particularly less mobile species such as amphibians and reptiles, nesting birds, small mammals, etc. Fire could burn snags and large down wood, but could add them as well. Vegetation treatments would reduce fuel loading in the project area, reducing risks for stand replacing fires in riparian habitats.

Fire/Early Seral Dependent Habitat Guild Timber harvest and prescribed burning would increase open canopies and mosaics, which may provide additional “edge” habitat for species. In addition, this alternative would reduce local fire intensity risks where fuels are removed, resulting in uncertain levels of both positive and negative effects to various fire/early seral dependent species. Overall, habitat quality would improve for early seral dependent species such as the olive-sided flycatcher. Timber harvest activities would result in more open canopy, which would create areas more responsive to improved forage conditions with the opening up of timber stands and increases in shrub, forb, and grass production. Short-term beneficial effects would occur (e.g., 5 – 15 years), but with stand succession would decline slightly over time (natural succession). Stand treatments are primarily occurring in mid-age and mature stands. Treatments that open up stands the most would be beneficial to early seral dependent species.

Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated Habitat Guild Harvest of some large trees will change stand structure conditions and future large desired snag density/snag recruitment. All timber harvest treatments in all three action alternatives would occur on medium and large size class tree stands. This will result in an increase the acres of seedling and medium size class stands and reduce the acres of large size class stands in the short term. Timber harvest will also result in in a reduction in canopy cover (e.g., more open stands). Alternatives A would result in more open canopy on approximately 2,400 acres. The average existing canopy cover changes with proposed action treatment areas from 53% to 38%

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 51 for all habitat types, equating to an average 28% reduction in canopy cover resulting from the proposed action within the project area.

Vegetation treatments would reduce fuel loading in the project area, reducing the risk for stand replacing fires occurring in late seral stands (i.e., large tree stands). See fuels section for a more complete analysis of risks to these stands. Fire could have varying levels of positive and adverse effects to large tree and old growth stands, dependent on fuel loading and severity of the fire. Prescribed burning in late seral stands is expected to result in minimal mortality to trees larger than 20 inches dbh.

Timber treatments and prescribed burning would result in short term disturbance and displacement of wildlife species utilizing these stands. Suitable “untreated areas” would be available for use within the project area and general analysis area.

Security Dependent All action alternatives identify roads proposed for decommissioning and closure to public motorized use, which would be beneficial for security dependent species by reducing potential disturbance, displacement and mortality and improving forage production. Many of the roads identified for decommissioning have restricted public access because of private ownership control of access and/or they are overgrown with shrubs and trees so the benefits would be limited.

Temporary roads would be closed to public motorized vehicle use, reducing potential human impacts. Short-term disturbance and displacement to wildlife would occur during project implementation and associated use of temporary roads.

Moderate levels of harvest, followed predominantly with prescribed burning for fuel reduction to remove logging slash, would help stimulate regeneration of nutritious forage plants important to elk nutrition. However, timber harvest and fuels treatments along roads would reduce elk hiding and security cover; and potential for adverse effects would primarily occur along roads that are open to motorized vehicles. As vegetative treatments are implemented, human-elk interactions are likely to increase. To minimize this impact, existing access restrictions will be maintained within the analysis area. All temporary roads created for timber harvest activities and identified for closure or decommissioning would be closed to public motorized use when not being used for project implementation. In the long-term, road densities would decrease as roads are decommissioned. Moist sites, such as wet meadows, ponds, seeps, and springs, are important to elk and would be protected by RCA no timber harvest buffers as part of project implementation.

The proposed action would impact elk habitat conditions in the short term and long-term within the project area EAU, due to fuels treatments and amounts of temporary and permanent road construction. In the long-term, road densities would decrease as roads are decommissioned, however, all of these roads were closed to public motorized use. Proposed fuels treatment and related activities would not be conducted over the project area at one time, and it is expected that two to three timber sales would occur and would only encompass a portion of the project area during implementation.

Overall, all action alternatives are very similar for fuels treatment acreage, but vary for amounts of temporary road and permanent road constructed, with Alternative C having the least short term impacts with no construction of temporary or permanent roads and Alternative A would have most short term impacts with the highest amount of temporary and permanent road

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 52 construction. Alternative D depicts the existing conditions (No Action Alternative). Primary items affecting short term impacts is the amount of roads that would be constructed and used for timber harvest and associated activities. Primary items affecting long term include roads and changes to hiding, foraging, and security habitats. Within the project area it is expected that several timber sales and fuels treatment projects would occur, resulting in no more that 25% – 35% of the total project area being affected annually. Tables 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3 shows the calculated EHE numbers as a measure of the short term and long term effects of the various alternative on summer and fall elk habitat. The short-term South Boulder EHE for Alternative A would be 23%, and long-term EHE would be 44%; and short term North Boulder EHE would be 24% and long term EHE would be 38% (see Tables 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3).

Table 3.7.2.2: Percent Elk Habitat Effectiveness for the South Boulder Elk Analysis Unit Elk Habitat Effectiveness (%) Elk Analysis Unit Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Short Term and Long Term A B C D South Boulder EAU (Short-Term)1 23% 25% 29% 59% Project Implementation South Boulder EAU (Long-Term)1 44% 46% 48% 59% 1Prediction of short-term EHE that would occur with all temporary roads constructed and timber harvest and fuel reduction related activity occurring at the same time (short term). Long term effects include implementation of all road closures and temporary roads decommissioned and obliterated after timber harvest and fuel treatments are completed (long term).

Table 3.7.2.3: Percent Elk Habitat Effectiveness for the North Boulder Elk Analysis Unit Elk Habitat Effectiveness (%) Elk Analysis Unit Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Short Term & Long Term A B C D North Boulder EAU (Short-Term)1 24% 29% 37% 57% Project Implementation North Boulder EAU (Long-Term)1 38% 42% 45% 57% 1Prediction of short-term EHE that would occur with all temporary roads constructed and timber harvest and fuel reduction related activity occurring at the same time (short term). Long term effects include implementation of all road closures and temporary roads decommissioned and obliterated after timber harvest and fuel treatments are completed.

3.7.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (Reduced New Roads) Effects on habitat fragmentation/connectivity, snags and downed large wood and the species guilds would be similar as Alternative A, with some slight variations due to acres treated and miles of constructed or decommissioned roads. This is most evident for elk and other security dependent species, particularly in the short term during project implementation. The short-term South Boulder EHE for this alternative would be 25%, and long-term EHE would be 46%; and short term North Boulder EHE would be 29% and long term EHE would be 42% (see Tables 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3).

3.7.4 Environmental Effects from Alternative C (Existing Roads Only) Effects on habitat fragmentation/connectivity, snags and downed large wood and the species guilds would be the same as Alternative A, with some slight variations due to acres treated, no construction of roads, and the most decommissioning of roads. Variations would be most evident for the late seral/old growth habitat guild and security dependent species. Alternative C would increase open canopy on approximately 2,000 acres (approximately 400 acres less than

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 53 alternatives A and B). The short-term South Boulder EHE for this alternative would be 29%, and long-term EHE would be 45%; and short term North Boulder EHE would be 37% and long term EHE would be 45% (see Tables 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3).

3.7.5 Environmental Effects from Alternative D (No Action) BLM Sensitive and Migratory Birds

No impacts would occur to nesting birds or preferred habitats for BLM sensitive and migratory birds and existing habitat and population trends would occur for the project area.

Without fuels reduction the potential for severe wildfire increases for untreated acres. The size and severity of wildfire events is unpredictable and would depend on fire suppression effectiveness, topography, fuel loading, and weather conditions. Moderate and low burn intensity fires may be beneficial for the reduction of understory and ladder fuels in some stands with the reduction of fuels (reducing risks for future severe fires) and providing improved habitat conditions for species that prefer more “open” forested stands or a mosaic of burned and unburned habitats (edge affects). Species that prefer early seral forest conditions, abundant snags, and more “open” stands of coniferous forest would be benefitted with wildfire events.

Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity Under this alternative, existing conditions would remain. Specifically, insects and disease would continue affecting wildlife habitats; natural canopy gaps in mixed conifer habitat would create openings where shrubs, forbs, and grasses could respond to available sunlight and moisture; and the natural succession process from tree regeneration of early seral species such as ponderosa pine to advanced and later succession regeneration of shade tolerant species such as grand fir and Douglas-fir would occur; and the level of patchiness in the watershed would persist until a stand-replacing fire takes place. Species that prefer mature tree stands would benefit from successional advancement.

Without hazardous fuels reduction the potential for severe wildfire increases. The size and severity of wildfire events is unpredictable and would depend on fire suppression effectiveness, topography, fuel loading, and weather conditions. Moderate and low burn intensity fires may be beneficial for the reduction of understory and ladder fuels in some stands with the reduction of fuels (reducing risks for future severe fires) and providing improved habitat conditions for species that prefer more “open” forested stands or a mosaic of burned and unburned areas. Large severe stand replacing fires could result in the loss of connectivity for some wildlife species or loss of preferred habitats. Potential post-fire conditions would result in an increase in snags, which would be beneficial to early seral and snag dependent species; natural fire could also eliminate live tree habitats important to many wildlife species, particularly old growth associated species.

Snags and Large Down Wood Insects and disease would continue affecting wildlife habitats, especially at the project level. As trees die, the amount of downed wood and snags would increase. Without hazardous fuels reduction the potential for wildfire increases. The size and severity of wildfire events is unpredictable and would depend on fire suppression effectiveness, topography, fuel loading, and weather conditions. Potential post-fire conditions would result in an increase in snags, which would be beneficial to early seral and snag dependent species.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 54 Riparian/Aquatic Dependent Habitat Guild Existing conditions and trends would be expected to continue for riparian habitats. As stands mature and decline with their associated fuel-buildups, the risk of severe fire would increase. Severe fire would increase the chance of mortality to riparian dependent species, particularly species that are not so mobile (e.g., salamanders, frogs, western toad) and habitat losses, particularly if such fires affected large percentages of a drainage, and associated riparian and aquatic habitats. Moderate and low burn intensity fires may be beneficial for the reduction of understory and ladder fuels in some stands with the reduction of fuels (reducing risks for future severe fires) and providing improved habitat conditions for species that prefer more “open” forested stands or a mosaic of burned and unburned areas.

Fire/Early Seral Dependent Habitat Guild This alternative would allow cumulative fuel-loading to occur unabated, which could initially be harmful to some species. Eventually the accumulations and continuity of fuels may encourage larger acreages to burn and to regenerate which would result in outcomes beneficial for most fire/early seral species to mixed degrees. Some of these species also require interspersions of mid-seral/mature forest cover (e.g., edge habitats) with early seral habitat, so benefits to some species may be limited. Species such as black backed woodpecker would benefit from wildfire, while adverse effects would occur for other species, dependent on interspersion of mature/early seral habitats.

Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated No harvest of larger diameter trees or legacy trees (larger than 20 inches dbh) would occur. Succession may result in more large tree stands becoming old growth stands in the long term within the project area. This alternative would initially have no direct impacts on large tree stands, late seral or old growth habitats, but would allow cumulative fuel-loading to occur unabated.

In the absence of disturbances shade-tolerant Douglas-fir and grand fir would continue to increase, ponderosa pine would decrease, and stands would continue to become denser and more susceptible to disease and stand-replacing fires. Insects and disease would have varying levels of impact on mature/old growth stands. Effects would include increased risks for fire losses of late seral and old growth habitats in patterns and patch sizes at scales that may be outside historical norms. The effects may potentially be negative for some species. Whether these effects would extend outside the project or analysis area is uncertain. Low burn intensity fires may be beneficial for the reduction of understory and ladder fuels in some stands with the reduction of fuels (reducing risks for future severe fires) and providing improved habitat conditions for species that prefer more “open” forested stands or a mosaic of burned and unburned areas.

Security Dependent Under this alternative, existing road densities, access, and human intrusion effects would continue within the analysis area. Current risk levels of wildlife disturbance, displacement and potential mortality would remain unchanged in developed areas. No short-term disturbances from project implementation would occur and existing conditions and trends for security dependent species and habitats would continue. The EHE for this alternative was 59% for South Boulder EAU and a 57% EHE was assessed for North Boulder EAU (see Tables 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3). For elk summer habitat, increases in cover would occur with forest successional development in localized areas, which could result in a decrease in suitable forage areas, while

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 55 security and cover would increase. This alternative would also have the greatest fuel buildup, risks for more severe fires and, consequently, the post-fire conditions which would result in early seral habitats and improved forage conditions, but reduce the hiding and security cover. No reduction of hiding or security cover along roads open to motorized use would occur. Low burn intensity wildfires may be beneficial for the reduction of understory and ladder fuels in some stands with the reduction of fuels (reducing risks for future severe fires) and providing improved habitat conditions for species that prefer more “open” forested stands or a mosaic of burned and unburned areas.

3.7.6 Cumulative Effects BLM Sensitive and Migratory Birds

Cumulative effects to BLM sensitive and migratory bird species and habitats addressed under the following habitat associations and guilds discussion below. A variety of land uses occurring on federal, state, and private lands that occur during nesting periods have the highest potential to adversely affect BLM sensitive and migratory bird species by disturbing, displacing or causing injury or mortality during a critical period. Overall, it is expected that proposed activities would unlikely contribute significantly to cumulative effects.

Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity Past timber harvest activities have created a patchy landscape across the watershed, which has likely resulted in larger wildlife home ranges than would be the case in unlogged habitats. Larger home ranges affect the energy reserves of wildlife species as they must travel greater distances for their daily needs.

At the watershed and landscape level, habitats and forested corridors would remain available and function as habitat linkages/corridors. U.S. Highway 95 would continue to alter travel corridor habitat use along the Little Salmon River. Public and private land timber harvest, road construction, home construction, and natural events (e.g., wild fire, insect, disease, flood events, etc.) would also have varying effects to habitat fragmentation and connectivity.

Though some loss of connectivity would occur in the short term under the action alternatives, there would be areas that are left untreated, such as most of the RCAs and untreated areas outside of the RCAs that would be left as patches of cover and travel corridors for wildlife. It is unlikely that the proposed action alternatives would contribute to cumulative effects of past, present, and foreseeable future management actions on habitat fragmentation and connectivity within the analysis area.

Snags and Large Down Wood Throughout the West, densities of large-diameter snags (>21 inch dbh) have been reduced in areas with a history of timber sales (Hann et al. 1997; Hessburg et al. 1999; Quigley et al. 1996). Fire suppression efforts, salvage of insect-infested trees, firewood harvest, and harvest of dead and dying trees have reduced the habitat potential for species relying on dead and downed wood.

The action alternatives would provide for long-term snag retention. The activities proposed in the project area would result in some short term reduction of snags and large down wood. Negligible and minor effects are expected to occur to snags and down wood within the cumulative analysis area (e.g., project and watershed level). It is unlikely that the proposed

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 56 activities would contribute to cumulative effects of past, present, and future management actions on snags and down wood within the cumulative analysis area.

Riparian/Aquatic Dependent Habitat Action alternatives in combination with the past, present, and foreseeable future actions would have localized direct and indirect cumulative beneficial and negative effects on riparian and aquatic habitats, which may be utilized by riparian dependent species. Actions in the RCAs and riparian areas, such as prescribed burning may have localized short term adverse effects, particularly from disturbance and displacement and habitat alterations, overall such are considered negligible for the project area.

Timber harvest and salvage logging, grazing, insect and disease epidemics, fires, fire suppression, and road construction and maintenance can cumulatively affect riparian/aquatic habitats and dependent species through soil compaction, changes in vegetative cover, altering stream channels, or by changing the quantity and quality of water flowing into wet meadows. Although historical fires often burned riparian habitats at lower severity, advanced succession and increased fuel loading would increase risk for more severe fires within riparian habitats, which may affect dependent species habitats, water quality and quantity. Fire suppression has created denser forests, which tend to burn hotter, and hotter fires tend to be more destructive.

Negligible and minor effects are expected to occur to riparian/aquatic dependent species and habitats within the cumulative analysis area. It is unlikely that the proposed action alternatives would contribute to cumulative effects of past, present, and foreseeable future management actions on riparian/aquatic dependent species and habitats within the cumulative analysis area (e.g., project and watershed level).

Fire/Early Seral Dependent Habitat Guild Action alternative treatments would cause openings sooner than allowing the openings to occur through natural attrition from dead or dying trees, and insect/disease infestations. Fuels reduction and timber harvest activities would alter the amount of horizontal and vertical habitat structure or habitat complexity in treated areas verses untreated areas.

Action alternatives would result in post-fire habitat losses; however, they would create early seral habitats. Such losses add moderately to cumulative losses of existing and potential future black-backed woodpecker habitat related to previous harvests, and post-disturbance harvest projects as well as reasonably foreseeable harvests on private and public lands in the analysis area. While losses of existing and future post-fire habitat opportunities would result from this project, the loss would be relatively minor and inconsequential in the cumulative analysis area.

Activities that reduce the potential for wildfire and insect outbreaks reduce habitat for post-fire or early seral dependent species, which in turn affect population levels for early seral habitat dependent species. Past timber harvest activities have created a patchy landscape across the watersheds, which have likely resulted in increased early seral habitat, which has improved forage for elk, deer, and moose.

Past, present, and foreseeable future fuel treatments and timber harvest on public and private lands have created or would continue to create early seral habitat in the cumulative analysis area. Forest successional advancement would reduce the value of early seral habitats to dependent species with growth of trees from early seral to mature stands, and associated increased canopy cover.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 57 Negligible and minor effects are expected to wildlife habitat guilds (i.e., fire/early seral dependent species) and preferred habitats within the cumulative analysis area. It is unlikely that the proposed activities would contribute to cumulative effects of past, present, and future management actions on fire/early seral dependent species and habitats within the cumulative analysis area.

Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated Habitat Guild Timber harvest and road construction have reduced the amount and continuity of mature and old growth habitat across the analysis area. In addition, past actions frequently targeted medium and large trees and valuable ponderosa pine and western larch snags, left few snags or legacy trees, and little down wood (e.g., managed areas). In addition to timber harvest, the more recent 2012 Wesley Fire and 2018 Rattlesnake Creek Fire reduced potential late seral habitats within cumulative effects watersheds for the Boulder Creek Vegetation Project (i.e., Little Salmon River face drainages, Fall Creek, Camp Creek, and Boulder Creek). Past timber harvest and wildfires have left fewer appropriate stands and individual trees that could be used by mature or old growth forest dependent species. Until these stands mature to large tree/old growth stands, they are devoid of the structures that could be utilized by old growth dependent species.

Action alternatives will have varying effects to old growth and potential old growth stands. Some clusters of planned project harvest units, in conjunction with the interruption of fuels created by previous harvest units, may impart some measure of fire risk reduction to old growth patches. If old growth habitats in the cumulative analysis area are partially lost to stand replacing fires in the near future, old growth conditions would still remain distributed across the Forest Service lands in the subbasin in the remaining watersheds and habitat for old growth associated species, as well as other wildlife species, would be managed to maintain viable populations of wildlife species. Private land timber harvest and development areas would be more prone to actions impacting old growth and potential old growth within the analysis area.

Past, present, and foreseeable future fuel treatments and timber harvest on public and private lands have created or would continue to impact old growth and potential old growth stands in the cumulative analysis area. An abundance of early seral habitats exists for the analysis area, and reductions in mature and old forest stands would be detrimental. Proposed activities may contribute slightly to cumulative effects of past, present, and future management actions on late seral and old growth dependent species and habitats within the cumulative analysis area. However, reducing the risk of a large, stand replacing fire and improving the forest health will result in late seral habitat in the long term. Overall, timber harvest would result in more “open” mature timber stands.

Security Dependent Habitat Guild Roads are a major factor cumulatively influencing wildlife habitat and use patterns, particularly for species preferring areas undisturbed by humans or are a hunted population. Without roads, human use of the cumulative effects analysis area would be very limited. Wildlife habitats and wildlife use patterns would be dictated by natural processes (e.g., weather, fire, insects and disease). Human disturbance to wildlife species would likely be similar to that of large wilderness areas.

Research focusing on the influence of open roads on wildlife species in the 1970’s and 1980’s revealed the effects of roads on big game species (Leege 1984). In the 1980s and 1990s, road construction was mitigated by implementing road restrictions. The focus recently has been to decommission roads, thus reversing the cumulative effects of human access into wildlife

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 58 habitats. All three action alternatives propose to decommission roads, resulting in a net reduction in road density and a benefit to wildlife.

Cumulative effects of past incremental road development in the analysis area include variable effects to wildlife such as direct habitat loss; disturbance; displacement; vehicle-induced mortality; human hunting and trapping mortality; habitat fragmentation; edge effects; and noxious weed spread. Past fires, fire suppression, and timber harvest across the analysis area have resulted in a complex matrix of forested interior habitat, edge, ecotones (overlap of adjoining communities), and openings in various stages of succession. Past timber harvest converted hiding and thermal cover into seedling stands, some of which have progressed to sapling hiding cover; narrowed or severed forested connections; and removed hiding and screening cover along open and closed roads.

Negligible and minor effects are expected to security dependent species and preferred habitats within the cumulative analysis area. It is unlikely that the proposed activities would contribute to cumulative effects of past, present, and future management actions on security dependent species and habitats within the cumulative analysis area.

3.8 Economic Conditions

3.8.1 Affected Environment The project area is located in northeastern Adams County and borders Idaho County to the north and east. Two primary processing facilities for timber products likely to be interested in the project are in Tamarack, (near New Meadows) Idaho (approximately 18 miles south) and Grangeville, Idaho (approximately 60 miles north). Given that three to four separate timber sale contracts would be utilized over a period of two to three years per contract, each facility will have multiple opportunities to compete for the contracts associated with this proposed project. This will potentially allow for the economic benefits of this proposed project to be dispersed across both Adams and Idaho Counties. There are also local and regional facilities, contractors, and subcontractors associated with the implementation of the alternatives that could be positively impacted (including trucking services; vehicle/equipment fueling, repair and maintenance services; road construction/maintenance services; and falling and logging services).

According to Idaho’s Forest Products Industry Current Conditions and 2016 Forecast (Becker et al. 2016), there is a measurable correlation between the harvest amount and the number of jobs created:”…today each million board feet of timber harvested and processed in the state provides approximately 20 jobs (12 in the forest products industry plus 8 indirect or induced jobs in supporting industries), $667,000 in wages and salaries, and generates $3.85 million in sales of goods and services.”

3.8.2 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action)

The proposed action would result in the harvest of approximately 22.9 million board feet (MMBF) of timber. Timber values as of December 2017, range from $325.00 to $500.00 per thousand board feet (MBF) within the project area depending on several factors such as species, diameter, and log length, and quality. Using an average cost of $400.00 per MBF, the total gross value of 22.9 MMBF would be 9.1 million dollars. The estimated potential net value after all harvest, trucking, road development, restoration work, and other associated costs are subtracted would range from 2 to 4 million dollars, depending on market values, labor costs and availability, fuel costs, and other local, regional, and national scale economic factors. Applying

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 59 the estimate from the above reference, this equates to as many 458 temporary jobs in the forest products and supporting industries.

3.8.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (Reduced New Roads) Alternative B would result in the harvest of approximately 18.2 MMBF of timber. The cost of helicopter harvesting associated with this alternative would bring the estimated potential net value down to approximately 1.5 to 2 million dollars. Generated employment would be slightly less than under Alternative A, at 364 jobs.

3.8.4 Environmental Effects from Alternative C (Existing Roads Only) Alternative C would result in the same harvest volume as Alternative B. However, the helicopter harvest units associated with this alternative would bring the estimated potential net value down to a deficit of up to 1.5 million dollars, depending on market conditions and several other economic factors.

3.8.5 Environmental Effects from Alternative D (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, no management activities would occur including wood product removal, associated activities, and road decommissioning thus, there would not be any change to the socio economics at local and regional scales.

3.8.6 Cumulative Effects All of the vegetation treatments identified in Section 3.1.2 would contribute to timber industry revenues and employment in timber and supporting industries.

3.9 Livestock Grazing

3.9.1 Affected Environment Three BLM livestock grazing allotments are within the project area but only the Trail Creek Allotment is actively grazed and would be impacted by the proposal. Cattle typically utilize BLM lands within the proposal area from mid to late August through the end of September.

3.9.2 Environmental Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Many components are likely to be implemented outside grazing use periods. Direct impacts may result if implementation occurred in the same location and time that livestock were present. More vehicle traffic, people, and general disturbance would increase the potential for direct loss of animals from vehicle and animal collisions or may result in decrease of animal growth and/or condition due to disturbance and displacement. Impacts would lesson over time as grazing animals may simply move to areas not being treated, or may become accustomed to the activity. Adjustments to grazing use are not proposed during phased implementation of components such as road building or vegetation manipulation. Indirect impacts to authorized grazing use would occur primarily from prescribed burning activities. In order to assure herbaceous vegetation recovery after fire, a period of deferment and/or rest from livestock grazing use would be required. Livestock grazing of burned areas may resume if vegetation has recovered sufficiently in vigor that 50% of plants are producing seed and appear to have recovered adequate biomass that they can withstand moderate grazing use. Duration of rest to meet recovery goals may be quite variable and depends upon intensity of prescribed fire, post fire precipitation and other climatic conditions. Optimal conditions may allow fairly quick recovery and only necessitate deferment of grazing use until

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 60 normal use periods in the fall. More severe levels of vegetative disturbance or lack of adequate precipitation for recovery may necessitate complete rest of the burned areas for a minimum of one year. This would require closure of the allotment or implementation of management actions by the lessee such as herding or fencing to keep livestock out of burn units. The proposed action does not specifically prescribe planting of conifer seedlings for reforestation in treatment areas although the practice is reserved for use if needed to reach goals for desired future conditions. Conifer planting areas will be closed to grazing use for as many as four years as conifer seedlings can be damage by grazing livestock either through trampling or browsing. Grazing would be allowed to resume when seedlings are large enough, (3 – 4 feet in height) that they are less likely to be damaged by grazing livestock. Long-term indirect impacts would occur as a result of vegetation treatments reducing canopy closure and increasing the amount of herbaceous vegetation in the understory. Grazing animals would have access to more open forested plant communities and would likely increase distribution of grazing use.

3.9.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative D (No Action Alternative) Since no increased activity will occur in the Trail Creek Allotment due to implementation of vegetation treatments, there is no potential for direct impacts to livestock through increased traffic or human activity. There will also not be indirect impacts resulting from project implementation as there will be no need to rest areas after prescribed fire activities or seedling planting. The potential for long-term negative impacts exists due to continued reduction of herbaceous plants in the understory due to overstory closure and continued over-stocking of forested plant communities resulting in an increased potential for larger scale and more intense wildfire.

3.9.4 Cumulative Effects Impacts to grazing use from the proposal are short-term and specific to two BLM allotments; therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts expected.

4.0 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted During preparation of this EA, the BLM consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding ESA listed species. The BLM also consulted with the Nez Perce Tribe regarding cultural and Tribal interests.

5.0 List of Preparers Jared Hammatt Forester/Project Lead Craig Johnson Fisheries/Wildlife Biologist Cindy Weston Fisheries/Wildlife Biologist Mike Stevenson Hydrologist Lynn Danly Rangeland Management Specialist Rebecca Urbanczyk Outdoor Recreation Planner David Sisson Archeologist Doug Graves Fuels Specialist Adam Ridley GIS Specialist Scott Pavey Planning and Environmental Coordinator

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) 61 Appendix A: Maps A-1. Project Vicinity Map

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-1

A-2 Map of Proposed Action (Alternative A) Mechanical Treatments (North)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-2

A-3 Map of Proposed Action (Alternative A) Mechanical Treatments (South)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-3

A-4 Map of Alternative B Mechanical Treatments (North)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-4

A-5 Map of Alternative B Mechanical Treatments (South)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-5

A-6 Map of Alternative C Mechanical Treatments (North)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-6

A-7 Map of Alternative C Mechanical Treatments (South)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-7

A-8 Map of Proposed Action (Alternative A) Fuels Treatments (North)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-8

A-9 Map of Proposed Action (Alternative A) Fuels Treatments (South)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-9

A-10 Map of Alternative B Fuels Treatments (North)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-10

A-11 Map of Alternative B Fuels Treatments (South)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-11

A-12 Map of Alternative C Fuels Treatments (North)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-12

A-13 Map of Alternative C Fuels Treatments (South)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-13

A-14. Landslide Prone Potential Risk

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-14

A-15. Rattlesnake Creek Fire Burn Severity

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-15

A-16. Map of Subwatersheds

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-16

A-17. Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Distribution

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-17

A-18. Steelhead Trout Distribution

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-18

A-19. Bull Trout Distribution

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) A-19

Appendix B: References Cited

Agee, J.K., Skinner, C.N., 2005. Basic Principles of Forest Fuel Reduction Treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 83–96.

Agee, J.K., 1996. The Influence of Forest Structure on Fire Behavior. In: Proceedings of the 17th Forest Vegetation Management Conference. Redding, CA, PP. 52+68. Altman, B. 1997. Olive-sided flycatcher in western North America: Status review. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Becker, Dennis R.; Philip S. Cook; Steven W. Hayes; Todd A. Morgan; Eric Simmons; and Colin B. Sorenson. 2016. Idaho’s Forest Products Industry Current Conditions and 2016 Forecast, Station Bulletin 103. College of Natural Resources at the University of Idaho and the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana. Moscow, ID. Belt, H.T., T. Merill, and J. O’Laughlin. 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. 39p. Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: Influences of rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. W. R. Meehan (ed). American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. pp. 108 and 132. BLM (USDI Bureau of Land Management).1986. Visual Resource Inventory Handbook. H- 8410-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. BLM (USDI Bureau of Land Management). 2000. Little Salmon River Subbasin Biological Assessment of Ongoing and Proposed Bureau of Land Management Activities. Cottonwood Field Office. Cottonwood, ID. BLM (USDI Bureau of Land Management). 2009. Record of Decision and Approved Cottonwood Resource Management Plan. Cottonwood, ID. BLM (USDI Bureau of Land Management). 2012. Bally Mountain Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2011-0014-EA). Cottonwood, ID. BLM (USDI Bureau of Land Management). 2018. Biological Assessment of Boulder Creek Vegetation Project. Cottonwood Field Office. Cottonwood, ID. Broderson, J.M. 1973. Sizing buffer strips to maintain water quality. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Bull, E.L.; C. G. Parks; and T. R. Torgensen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 55 p. Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. U.S. Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. pp. 7-37

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) B-1 Chapman, D. W. and K. P. McCleod. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment in the Northern Rockies Ecoregion, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Report 910/9-87-162, Washington, DC. Chatwin, S.C., D.E. Howes, J.W. Schwab, and D.N. Swantson. 1994. A guide for management of landslide- prone terrain in the Pacific Northwest, 2nd ed. Victoria, BC: research Program, Ministry of Forests. Crookston, Nicholas L.; Stage, Albert R. 1999. Percent canopy cover and stand structure statistics from the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-24. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 11 p.

Dixon, G.E. 2011. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Service vegetation simulator. Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Elliot, W. J., D.E.Hall, and Scheele, D.L. 2000. Disturbed WEPP (Draft 02/2000). WEPP Interface for Disturbed forest and Range Runoff,Erosion and Sediment Delivery. Technical Documentation. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Franklin, J.F., K.N. Johnson, D.J. Churchill, K. Hagmann, D. Johnson,and J. Johnston. 2013. Restoration of dry forests in eastern Oregon: a field guide. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. 202 p. Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 297–323. Grant, G.E., S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, and J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of forest practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-760. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 76 p. Gucinski, Hermann, Michale J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha H.Brookes, 2001, Forest Roads: A synthesis of Scientific Information, USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, General Technical Report PNW-GTR- 509. Jorgensen, Carl, and Angel Saavedra. 2017. Boulder Creek Vegetation Management Project Insect and Disease Evaluation (BFO-TR-2017-22). USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Boise Field Office. Leege, T. A. 1984. Guidelines for evaluating and managing summer elk habitat in northern Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin No. 11. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. Long, James N., John D. Shaw. 2005. A Density Management Diagram for Even-aged Ponderosa Pine Stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 20(4):205–215.

Long, J.N., 1995. Using Stand Density Index to regulate stocking in uneven-aged stands. In: O’Hara, K. (Ed), Uneven-Aged Management— Opportunities, Constraints, and Methodologies, vol. 56. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, pp. 110–122, Misc. Pub. Long JN, Shaw JD. A density management diagram for even-aged ponderosa pine stands, West. J. Appl. For. , 2005, vol. 20 (pg. 205-215)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) B-2 Maloney, P. Cavan, Tricia Burgoyne. 2014. Boulder Project Soils Report. USDA Forest Service. Martin, Thomas H. (USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station). 2010. Personal Communication. Intermountain Max SDI Values Megahan, Walter F. and John G. King. 2004. Erosion, Sedimentation, and Cumulative Effects in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Pages 201-222 in George G. Ice and John D. Stednick editors. A Century of Forest and Wildland Watershed Lessons. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland. Nelson, R.L., D.C. Burns, and K.L. Ketchu. 2004. Relationships between estimated equivalent clearcut area and fish habitat attributes in selected streams on the Payette National Forest, with application to use of watershed condition indicators in forest planning and consultation under the Endangered Species Act. Unpublished report. McCall, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Payette National Forest. 63p.

Powell, D.C., 1999. Suggested Stocking Levels for Forest Stands in Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington: An Implementation Guide for the Umatilla National Fores. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National, Forest F14- SO-TP-03-99.LANDFIRE, 2016, Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, technical editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service. Volumes I-V. Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382. 303pp. Reineke, L. H. (January 01, 1933). Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research, Washington, 46, 7, 627-638.

Reynolds, K.M.; Holsten, E.H. 1994. Relative importance of risk factors for spruce beetle outbreaks. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 24:2089-2095 p.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novistski. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Corp, Corvalis, OR. Funded by National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available from NMFS, Portland, OR.

Steele, R.; Williams, R.E.; Weatherby, J.C.; Reinhardt, E.D.; Hoffman, J.T.; Their, R.W. 1996. Stand hazard rating for central Idaho forests. General Technical Report INT- GTR-332. U.S. Deparment of Agriculture. Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 29p. USDA-FS (USDA Forest Service). 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. General Technical Report WO-82b. Washington, DC. 64 p. USDA-FS (USDA Forest Service). 2003. Little Salmon River subbasin review. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Payette National Forest, New Meadows Ranger District, New Meadows, ID.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) B-3 USDA-FS (USDA Forest Service). 2014A. Lost Creek–Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. McCall, ID. USDA-FS (USDA Forest Service). 2014B. Lost Creek–Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project Record of Decision. McCall, ID.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) B-4 Appendix C: Land Use Plan Conformance

The BLM has determined that the proposed action is in conformance with the decisions from the Record of Decision and Approved Cottonwood Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 2009) listed in Table C-1.

Table C-1: RMP Decisions

RMP Reference Citation from 2009 Approved Cottonwood RMP Forest Vegetation Goal VF-1—Manage forests to maintain or improve forest health, (VF), p. 22 composition, structure, and diversity consistent with site potential, and Historical Range of Variability. Forest Vegetation Objective VF-1.1-Manage for forest health and/or habitat diversity in DFC (VF), p. 22 blocks (Map 3, Desired Future Condition Blocks) 1,000 or more forested acres. Forest Vegetation Action VF-1.1.1-Design treatment project to enhance forest health and/or (VF), p. 22 habitat diversity (consistent with Appendix C, Desired Future Conditions for Forest Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat). Forest Vegetation Action VF-1.1.2-To the extent practicable, emphasize retention of large (VF), p. 22 tree size ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), western larch (Larix occidentalis), and/or Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in dry conifer sites. Forest Vegetation Objective VF-1.1—In areas not included in Objective 1 (DFC blocks (VF), p. 22 identified on Map 3, Desired Future Condition Blocks) manage for multiple resource values that include but are not limited to habitat management, grazing, etc. Forest Vegetation Action VF-1.2.1—When applying treatments in the vicinity of stands which (VF), p. 22 are large tree and/or old growth stands, these treatments will contribute toward the restoration of the structure and composition of old growth stands according to the pre fire-suppression old growth characteristics. Forest Vegetation Action VF-1.2.2—In the stands described in Action VF-1.2.2, if outbreaks (VF), p. 22 of insect or disease, or mortality related to wildland fire or other disturbance, threaten the structure, silvicultural treatments may be applied that reduce potential mortality. These treatments will attempt to maximize retention of the structure while minimizing loss due to the disturbance. Vegetation—Weeds Goal VW-1—Prevent establishment of new invasive plant species and (VW), p.22 reduce infested acreage of established invasive plant species. Vegetation—Weeds Objective VW-1.2—Work with partners in coordinated weed management (VW), p.22 areas to develop and implement annual treatment strategies. Vegetation—Weeds Action VW-1.1.43—Implement prevention activities (Appendix A, Best (VW), p.22 Management Practices for Weed Prevention) as part of field activities to avoid contributing to spread of invasive plants from BLM actions. Wildlife and Special Goal WS-1—Manage habitat to contribute to the conservation of Status Wildlife (WS), p. special status species habitats and to maintain biological diversity of 26 wildlife.

Wildlife and Special Objective WS-1.5—Manage BLM sensitive species habitats so actions do Status Wildlife (WS), p. not contribute to species decline or contribute to federal listing. 26

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) C-1

RMP Reference Citation from 2009 Approved Cottonwood RMP Wildlife and Special Action WS-1.5.4-Manage wildlife habitats using established BMPs and Status Wildlife (WS), p. guides for BLM sensitive species. Use a species habitat guild approach 26 (e.g., riparian, old growth, canyon grasslands, etc.) for identification of desired conditions, conducting analysis, and developing project and activity design measures. Development of project design measures should include conservation and restoration measures for BLM sensitive species, while striving for appropriate habitat diversity and achievement of project objectives. Wildlife and Special Objective WS-1.6—Manage rangeland and forest vegetation habitats to Status Wildlife (WS), p. provide for diversity, cover, structure, forage, and security to contribute to 27 healthy populations of rangeland and forest dependent species and other wildlife. Wildlife and Special Action WS-1.6.3-Priority subwatersheds or areas where BLM Status Wildlife (WS), p. programmatic management direction will support progress towards 27 attainment of DFC for forest wildlife habitat vegetation includes BLM forested contiguous areas that are greater than 1,000 acres (Appendix C, Desired Future Conditions for Forest Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat). Wildlife and Special Action WS-1.6.5—During the development and review of new project Status Wildlife (WS), p. proposals, final design criteria will consider and minimize or eliminate 27 where possible adverse impacts on wildlife travel corridors and fragmentation of habitats when consistent with project objectives. Emphasis areas for identification and validation of travel corridors and habitat connectivity will include riparian and ridge top areas. Wildlife and Special Action WS-1.6.4—Manage riparian and upland areas to provide for snag- Status Wildlife (WS), p. dependent species (Appendix C, Desired Future Conditions for Forest 27 Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat). Wildlife and Special Action WS-1.6.8—Identify and undertake opportunities to decommission, Status Wildlife (WS), p. partially obliterate, or fully obliterate roads and trails not needed for long- 28 term management (more than 10 years). Emphasis areas will be in restoration and conservation watersheds (Appendix B, Conservation and Restoration Watersheds). Wildlife and Special Action WS-1.6.10—The following guidelines can be used when designing Status Wildlife (WS), p. vegetation projects in big game habitat (shrub and forest habitats): To 28 provide forage areas, promote the creation of openings less than 40 acres (preferred less than 20 acres) and/or maximum width is less than 1,000 feet. Openings should be bordered on all sides by cover not less than 800 feet wide. Rejuvenate and enhance the desired shrub and forage component of big game winter ranges by simulating or promoting natural disturbance regimes for early-seral habitats. Aquatic Resources, Fish, Goal AF-1-Manage habitat to contribute to the conservation of special and Special Status Fish status and native fish species. (AF), p. 29 Aquatic Resources, Fish, Objective AF-1.1-Provide for diverse and healthy aquatic habitats that and Special Status Fish contribute to the recovery of listed fish species and conservation of BLM (AF), sensitive fish species. p. 29 Aquatic Resources, Fish, Action AF-1.1-Ensure that all ongoing and new BLM management actions and Special Status Fish support or do not retard or preclude recovery for federally listed fish (AF), (Endangered Species Act), designated critical habitat, and important p. 29 aquatic habitats (supporting spawning, incubation, larval development, rearing, migration corridors, and aquatic habitats for forage species).

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) C-2

RMP Reference Citation from 2009 Approved Cottonwood RMP Wildland Fire Goal WF-1—Manage fuels and wildland fires to protect life and Management (WF), p. 33 property and to protect or enhance resource values. Wildland Fire Objective WF-1.2—Reduce hazard and the potential for stand- Management (WF), p. 34 replacement fire in areas identified as wildland-urban interface (WUI) and/or in municipal watersheds as follows (as identified in the fire management plan, community wildfire protection plans, or other hazard/risk assessment). Wildland Fire Action WF-1.2.5—Initiate maintenance and hazard fuels reduction Management (WF), p. 34 activities to 1. reduce the potential for high severity, stand-replacement fires, regardless of FRCC or historic fire regime; and 2. reduce potential fire size in areas where large, stand- replacement fires might cause adverse effects to WUI and adjacent resources. Wildland Fire Action WF-1.3.6—Increase the use of prescribed fire and fire managed for Management (WF), p. 34 resource benefit activities in frequent fire regime groups (I, II, and III). Wildland Fire Objective WF-1.3—Maintain or return vegetative communities outside the Management (WF), p. 34 WUI to their Historic Fire Regime and to FRCC 1. Wildland Fire Action WF-1.3.7—Increase the use of prescribed fire and fire managed for Management (WF), p. 34 resource benefit activities in frequent fire regime groups (I, II, and III). Wildland Fire Action WF-1.4.1—Use fire as a tool for site preparation and slash disposal; Management (WF), to reduce fire hazard; prepare areas for reforestation; reduce competition p. 34 between existing or newly established trees and other vegetation, to expose mineral soil to encourage establishment of natural regeneration; for sanitation thinning; and to meet other forest management objectives. Wildland Fire Objective WF-1.4—Within municipal watersheds and WUIs, manage Management (WF), existing old growth stands to maintain and/or contribute to the restoration of p. 35 pre-fire suppression characteristics. Forest Products (FP), Goal FP-1—Provide forest products to help meet local and national p. 36 demands. Forest Products (FP), Action FP-1.4.2—All harvest systems and treatment methods and p. 37 techniques may be used unless specifically prohibited or limited by site- specific prescription direction. Site-specific prescriptions will be refined using an interdisciplinary team approach to identify management needs for other resources. Forest Products (FP), p. Action FP-1.4.3—All final harvest and reforestation projects in commercial 37 forest management areas will be designed to achieve full stocking on 90 percent of the area within five years. Forest Products (FP), p. Action FP-1.4.4—Thinning can be used to achieve stocking rate, species 37 composition and vigor goals and objectives identified in site-specific silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Products (FP), p. Action FP-1.2.1—Develop silvicultural treatments that support DFC for 36 those stands identified as Desired Future Condition Blocks on Map 1. Soils (SO), Goal SO-1—Maintain and restore watershed health, soil productivity, p.20 and areas of fragile soils. Soils (SO), Objective SO-1.1—Ensure that management actions for other resources p.20 incorporate adequate soil protection. Soils (SO), Action SO-1.1.1—Implement BMPs (Appendix A, Best Management p.20 Practices) for soil-disturbing activities. Soils (SO), Objective SO-1.2—Manage soil-disturbing activities to protect landslide- p.20 prone areas and minimize potential for mass wasting.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) C-3

RMP Reference Citation from 2009 Approved Cottonwood RMP Soils (SO), Action SO-1.2.2—Design projects to avoid or minimize the potential for p.20 adverse impacts in landslide prone areas and sensitive land types and adjacent areas. Visual Resources (VR), Goal VR-1—Manage activities to maintain scenic quality. p. 36 Visual Resources (VR), Objective VR-1.1—Manage activities to protect scenic quality in p. 36 accordance with VRM class guidelines. Visual Resources (VR), Action VR-1.1.1—Manage the following acreage of BLM land according to p. 36 VRM class designations (Map 8, Visual Resource Management) (WSAs will be managed as VRM Class I): • Class I—11,710 acres; • Class II—39,012acres; • Class III—59,521 acres; and • Class IV—20,236 acres. VRM guidelines are general and are not intended to be site specific. During project planning, more precise mapping and evaluation of VRM class can be done. Mitigation measures will then be identified to reduce visual

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) C-4 Appendix D: Project Design Features

Air Quality • Conduct prescribed fires in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group Operating Guide (Montana/Idaho Airshed Group 2010) to minimize air quality impacts from smoke. • Employ dust abatement measures, such as water or magnesium chloride, where dust from timber haul routes is likely to impact private property. Standard design measures for magnesium Chloride use will be followed. Dust abatement measures will likely be necessary along road segments through private property adjacent to the Highway 95 corridor. These include Fall Creek Road, Hillman Basin Road, roads in the Trail Creek area, and Smokey Boulder Road.

Soils and Water Resources • Track-laying or wheeled equipment would not be used on sustained slopes greater than 40 percent. • Swing trails will not be placed on slopes greater than 40% and will not include stream crossings. • Modify, via site specific mitigation measure(s), timber harvest methods or temporary road construction/location in areas of moderate to high risk landslide hazard to protect slope stability. Examples would include, but not be limited to: modify basal area retention guides in harvest units as needed (leave more trees in designated sensitive areas, e.g., draw bottoms); require partial suspension on cable logging; construct and apply mulch or slash on yarding corridors where bare soil is exposed; and manage tractor logging activities to limit detrimental soil disturbance. • Restrict activities when soils are wet to prevent resource damage (indicators include excessive rutting, soil displacement, and erosion). • Limit prescribed burning to low severity to insure adequate duff retention to limit surface erosion. Only low severity under burning will occur on high landslide hazard areas. • Construct slash filter windrows at the toe of fill slopes on newly constructed landings and roads concurrent with construction. Limit height of windrows to three feet. Provide breaks and limit length of windrow to allow easy passage of wildlife. • Reduce road surface erosion by rocking the approach and departure of stream crossings and roads within RCAs as needed. Priority stream crossings and roads that will be rocked/graveled (minimum of 100 feet each side of stream crossing) include the following: (1) perennial stream crossings on existing roads and newly constructed roads (minimum 100 feet each side of the stream crossing); and (2) roads within RCAs. Prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (40 CFR 112) that incorporates the rules and requirements of the Idaho Forest Practices Act Section 60, Use of Chemicals and Petroleum Products; and US Department of Transportation rules for fuel haul and temporary storage; and additional direction as applicable. Erosion control measures including removal of log culverts and construction of temporary cross drains, drainage ditches, dips, or berms will be required on all temporary roads before operations cease annually.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) D-1 • Scarify non-excavated skid trails and landings that are compacted or entrenched 3 inches or more. • Scarify and re-contour excavated skid/swing trails and landings to restore slope hydrology and soil productivity. • All temporary roads will be constructed and then obliterated and decommissioned within a minimum of three operating seasons after timber harvest is completed, which will include the following measures: (1) obliteration and decommissioning will include recontouring, decompaction (e.g., scarification, deep ripping), and the application of woody material onto the decompacted surface to provide for soil productivity and limit erosion potential, (2) cut/fill slopes and crossings will be reshaped to natural contours, (3) available slash and course wood material (>3 inches) will be applied to the re-contoured surface, (4) natural drainage patterns of the area will be maintained wherever practical, (5) temporary roads left open over winter will be winterized using appropriate soil stabilization methods which can include seeding, mulching, slash coverage, filter windrows, outsloping, or extra waterbarring. • Road storage includes the rehabilitation and stabilization of roads to minimize adverse erosion and sediment; these roads would be available for use in the future. Road storage includes the deep ripping, placement of large woody debris, seeding with desirable vegetation, and insuring that proper road drainage is occurring to minimize adverse erosion or sediment. These roads currently are not open for public motorized use, and as needed road closure barriers and signing will be implemented. • In the event of winter logging activities, snow plowing will maintain a minimum of two inches of snow on the road, leave ditches and culverts functional. Side cast material will not include dirt and gravel, and berms will not be left on the shoulder unless drainage holes are opened and maintained. • Management activities within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) will be conducted in accordance with the Approved Cottonwood RMP, Action VR-1.1.4, page 24 and Appendix D, Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy (BLM 2009). In the event an unknown seep, spring, or watercourse is discovered, apply Riparian Conservation Area buffers. Prescribed fire will not be ignited within a RCA, but may back into these areas under conditions where fire intensity will be low and burning will not result in extensive reduction in canopy cover or exposure of bare soil in these RCA areas. Minimize construction of fire handlines in RCA’s

Invasive, Non-Native Species • Treat existing weed infestations along access roads prior to project implementation. • Clean all off-road equipment of soil, plant parts, seeds, and other debris before entering the treatment units. • All rock used for road surfacing must be free of noxious weed seed. Borrow pits and stockpiles will not be used if it is determined they are infested with undesirable invasive plants. • Inventory disturbed areas for new weed introductions and implement weed control treatments 1-year post project and followed up for a second year if staff and funding is available. Treatments will be conducted as part of the Cottonwood integrated weed treatment program.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) D-2 • Ensure any mulch or seed products used are certified as noxious weed free. • Revegetate disturbed areas the first spring or fall after disturbance with with BLM-approved seed mixes appropriate for the site. If desired species in the mix are not available, appropriate substitutions may be made. High priority target areas include permanent and temporary roads, road rehabilitation areas, log landings, severely disturbed cable corridors and skid trails, and firelines. • Temporarily close burned, planted, or seeded areas to livestock grazing to allow for reestablishment of desired vegetation.

Wildlife • Develop silvicultural prescriptions in accordance with the Approved Cottonwood RMP, Appendix C, Desired Future Conditions for Forest Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat (USDI-BLM 2009). Develop slash treatment and burn guidelines to meet desired stand conditions of species composition, structure, and watershed sediment guidelines. Prescribed burning would be designed and implemented with the intent of limiting tree mortality to less than 10 percent of the overstory. • Retain snags and snag replacement green trees and use coarse woody debris in accordance with Appendix C of the Approved Cottonwood RMP. • Do not allow contractors or their representatives to hunt or trap while using motorized vehicles on restricted routes. Use signs where needed to discourage public use of roads that are closed to public use, but open for logging use. Use signs where needed to discourage public use of closed roads that are used for logging. • Provide a 450-foot non-disturbance and non-treatment buffer (10-15 acres) around occupied nests for sensitive raptor species. Provide a 300-foot buffer around occupied nest for all other raptors. Buffer size may be modified depending on potential for disturbance from an activity or project. • When practical the BLM will not schedule ground disturbing activities during nesting periods (April 1 – July 15). • Throughout harvest areas clumps of trees that are both commercial and non-commercial sized would be retained for wildlife objectives. These clumps would consist of 5 to 20 or more trees and should be designed to enhance spatial variability within each stand. Emphasis for creation of these clumps of trees would occur in areas that have a high percentage of overstory tree removal (e.g., regeneration harvest – tractor units) and other areas where such clumps would provide enhancement of wildlife habitat values (e.g., cover, security, habitat variability, etc.). These clumps or “leave areas” would generally not exceed 15% of a unit. • Large diameter legacy (>20 inches DBH) ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir will receive emphasis for retention. Late seral trees (e.g., grand fir) greater than 20 inches DBH not meeting merchantability specifications due to damage, poor form, or indicators of rot should generally be retained to meet wildlife objectives. However, removal will have preference for removal if causing direct crown/root competition with large diameter or vigorous western larch and ponderosa pine.

Aquatic and Riparian Habitat • No mechanical treatments would occur within riparian conservation areas

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) D-3 • Management activities within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) will be conducted in accordance with the Approved Cottonwood RMP, Action VR-1.1.4, page 24 and Appendix D, Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy (BLM 2009). • In the event an unknown seep, spring, or watercourse is discovered, apply Riparian Conservation Area buffers. • Apply RMP guidance to landslide prone areas; and streamside and wetland RCAs. • Prohibit log or helicopter landings within RCAs. • Prohibit fuel storage, equipment maintenance, or fueling within RCAs. • Prescribed fire will not be ignited within a RCA, but may back into these areas under conditions where fire intensity will be low and burning will not result in extensive reduction in canopy cover or exposure of bare soil. • Only the minimum necessary hand fire lines are allowed within RCAs. • Adhere to other design features identified to reduce impacts to soils and water resources above. Implement actions to improve road drainage and prevent adverse erosion from roads, with emphasis on stream crossing and roads occurring within RCAs. • Implement restoration actions within BLM designated restoration watersheds, which includes Trail Creek and Boulder Creek (BLM 2009) to promote watershed and aquatic habitat objectives. Priority actions would include decommissioning of roads within the watersheds.

Threatened and Endangered, and Sensitive Species • When ESA-listed species may be affected by project implementation coordinate with National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Served to develop appropriate design and conservation measures to minimize or avoid impacts for the species and habitats (Approved Cottonwood RMP 2009 and Appendix F).

Cultural Resources • No mechanical equipment will be allowed within 100 feet of the existing historic trail tread. Hand thinning is allowed, but no slash piles will be stacked on the trail tread. If a hand line is needed to control proposed prescribed burning then it will be situated so it does not impact the trail. If prescribed burning occurs near the historic homestead site, measures will be taken to avoid or protect features that are susceptible to burning. Monitoring • The BLM will conduct monitoring to determine effectiveness of the proposed treatments, environmental design features, and impacts to affected resources during and following implementation.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) D-4 Appendix E: Issues not Analyzed in Detail

Issue: Will the timber harvest, prescribed burning, or the road or handling construction effect the cultural resources located in the project area? The BLM completed an on-the-ground cultural resource inventory and located seven cultural resources in the project area. There is a prehistoric site near the mouth of Boulder Creek and subsurface archeological excavation work was undertaken in 1997. Data recovery at this site yielded information on a late prehistoric campsite sealed by land slide deposits sometime between 670 to 800 years ago. This site is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Another site originally consisted of historic structures, but those were destroyed during realignment of Highway 95 r. This site now consists of historic can dumps, bone, and lithic flake. Buried deposits would make this site eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The third site is a historic homestead site with privy, well, and stove parts. This indicates a habitation site with buried deposits and based only on surface indications (it may have information potential and only subsurface testing can determine whether it actually does or not) this site is considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The fourth site is a short section of trail tread associated with an “Old Indian Trail”. This site is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The fifth site is a scatter of recent historic cans probably associated with past logging in the 1980s or 1990s and is not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The final two sites appear to be hydraulic mine cutbanks with no associated artifacts or living features, both are not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places.

The prehistoric campsite and the site affected by the realignment of the highway are outside of any areas with proposed actions. Prescribed burning is proposed near the historic homestead site. However measures will be taken to avoid or prevent impacts to features if susceptible to burning and there will be no effect. The historic trail is within the harvest project area. A 100- foot buffer will be placed along the trail tread so no mechanical equipment will be near the trail. Hand thinning is compatible with site preservation and slash piles will not be stacked on the trail tread. If a hand line is needed to control proposed prescribed burning then it will be situated so it does not impact the trail. Any burning over the trail will have no effect. Since there is no potential for significant effects to cultural resources, this issue was not analyzed in further detail.

Issue: Will implementation of the proposal result in successful invasive weed introduction, establishment and spread? Invasive weed species of most concern in the project area, mainly due to current distribution and densities, are exotic annual grasses, spotted knapweed, and Canada thistle. Increased density of annual grasses such as cheatgrass, a fire promoted species, is a concern on portions of burned units. Favorable conditions for early seral weed species such as spotted knapweed will be created in the short-term by opening the forest canopy along with the potential for spread along travel corridors where it is currently established. Canada thistle will commonly increase in density due to disturbance such as forest management, road building or fire. Long-term increase in these weeds post disturbance is not generally an issue unless the site is devoid of competing native or desired vegetation to recolonize the disturbed area. Proposed project design features will significantly reduce risk to native plant communities from invasive species. Similar design features were implemented on the nearby Bally Mountain Project (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2011-0014-EA). Analysis in that document is relevant to the Boulder project and suggested that implementation of design features would result in minimal

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) E-1 change to the existing weed situation. Design features were implemented and post project monitoring is documenting the response of invasive weeds is consistent with the analysis. Since proposed design features have successfully avoided impacts from weed introduction and spread in other projects with similar treatments and vegetative conditions, it is unlikely there will be significant effects due to invasive weeds from implementing the Boulder Creek Vegetation project. Therefore, this issue was not analyzed in further detail.

Issue: Will vegetation treatments and associated activities adversely impact ESA-listed, candidate, or BLM sensitive plants?

Two ESA-listed plants occur within the Cottonwood Field Office management area. These include MacFarlane’s four-o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii). Preferred habitats for these plants include Palouse prairie grasslands and canyon grasslands. A small percentage of the project area includes open grassland area with scattered trees or timbered areas with a very low canopy cover (less than 10 percent). Vegetation surveys of the project area have not documented these ESA-listed plants as occurring within the project area. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is a federally designated candidate species and preferred habitat for this species includes higher elevation alpine areas. Past plant surveys of the area have not documented any occurrence of whitebark pine and the project area does not provide preferred habitats.

There would be no effect on any federally-listed threatened, endangered, or candidate plant species with the implementation of the proposed action. Plant surveys of the areas have not documented occurrences of ESA listed species and the project area does not provide optimum habitats for the species and no populations are known to occur in close proximity to the project area. A “no effect” determination is concluded for ESA-listed MacFarlane’s four-o’clock and Spalding’s catchfly. A “no impact” determination is concluded for whitebark pine, a candidate species, because plant survey has not documented any occurrences and the project area does not provide suitable habitat for the species (e.g., higher elevation, subalpine habitats).

Vegetation surveys conducted of the project area did not document occurrence of any BLM sensitive plant species, however, suitable habitats does exist within the project area for specific BLM sensitive species. It is acknowledged that potential does exist for unknown populations of BLM sensitive plant species occurring within the project area. A staff report documents plants that may potentially occur within the project area, and a “may impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for the population or species” was concluded for any unknown BLM sensitive plant species that potentially may be affected from project implementation.

Issue: Will the vegetation treatments or road construction adversely affect the unroaded characteristics or wilderness features of the Rapid River Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) which is within the Payette National Forest, adjacent to the northern portion of the project area? Under all of the action alternatives, proposed treatments that would be adjacent to the IRA would be similar to those proposed by the Forest Service in their Lost Creek – Boulder Creek

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) E-2 Landscape Restoration Project. In their Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service found that their proposal would not affect the qualities or characteristics of the IRA (Forest Service 2018). Thus, the BLM proposed treatments would also have no effect on the IRA. None of the BLM’s proposed new roads or road improvements would be adjacent to or contiguous with the IRA, and all proposed permanent or temporary roads in the project area would be closed to public motorized use after completion of the project. Thus there would be no new opportunities for motorized access to the IRA or impacts to the unroaded characteristics. Therefore this issue was not analyzed in further detail. Issue: Would the removal of forest vegetation and construction of roads change the visual quality of the project area or create a contrast between the project area and the existing landscape? Visual Resource Management classes and the corresponding objectives were established in the Cottonwood Approved Resource Management Plan (BLM, 2009). All Action Alternatives fall within areas managed under VRM Class II, Class III, and Class IV. Within the project area, approximately 30% of the proposed treatment units are within VRM Class II, 64% are in Class III, and 6% are within Class IV. In general, portions of the proposed treatment units classified as VRM Class II and Class III can be seen from U.S. Highway 95 at one or more locations. The remainder of the proposed units are not visible from U.S. Highway 95 and can only be viewed from within the project area or from opposing ridges accessed by steep mountain roads. VRM Classes and their objectives are provided in Table E-1.

Table E-1. BLM Visual Resource Management Class Descriptions: Class Visual Resource Management Class Descriptions/Characteristics I The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and should not attract attention. II The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. III The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. IV The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements of the landscape. Source: BLM,1986

Implementation of the treatments proposed in all Action Alternatives would result in units displaying weak visual contrast with the existing landscape because it would repeat form, line, color, and texture elements typical of the landscape features. The visual modifications resulting from the proposed treatments may be visible, but would not dominate the landscape character and therefore perceptible change within the landscape would be low. Vegetation treatments would be feathered on the edges of units in order to obscure units and make treatments less obvious.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) E-3 There would be weak to moderate texture and line contrasts from the treatments in all Action Alternatives. The texture of the vegetation would become slightly rougher as thinning occurs and smaller diameter trees are removed from the project area. Vertical lines associated with the trunks of individual trees would be slightly more discernible in the middle ground after treatments because of the reduced tree density. The level of change would create openings in an existing dense, coarse-textured stand with full canopy closure. In the short- term, the proposed treatments would cause temporary moderate contrast to texture and line and may attract attention to the landform until vegetation fills in the openings. In the long-term, the proposed treatments would improve scenic quality by increasing desired vegetation conditions for diversity and age class.

There would be temporary contrasts in color and form from the treatments in all Action Alternatives. Vegetation management would reduce the amount of dark green hues within the treatment units. However, regrowth of grasses and shrubs would add various colors to the landscape. The reduced tree density would make mineral soils and rock outcroppings more visible, adding tan and gray colors to the landscape. Variations in the hues of greens that would be visible would create the impression of large, irregular shaped forms. These forms would generally repeat with irregular shapes created by subtle changes in colors among the vegetation within the existing landscape.

Temporary and permanent roads would likely not be visible from U.S. Highway 95. The location of the temporary and permanent roads within the project area would be mostly hidden from views in the majority of the project area. Therefore, structural contrast of temporary roads and skid trails for any of the Action Alternatives is considered low.

Proposed treatments would create changes that may been seen but would not dominate or affect the landscapes character. Visual contrast and changes would be expected to dissipate within three to five years following implementation of proposed treatments. Impacts on visual resources resulting from implementation of any of the Action Alternatives would be short-term and no long- term impacts are anticipated. Any of the Action Alternatives would not conflict with the objectives and landscape characteristics of VRM Class II, Class III, or Class IV.

Issue: Would implementation of the proposal result in changes to public motorized access? The majority of the project area lies behind private landowner locked gates and requires private landowner permission for access, making public access without private land owner permission very restrictive. The Cottonwood RMP designated specific routes in the project area closed year- long or seasonally to public motorized use. However, non-motorized public access is allowed to accommodate recreational activities such as hunting, hiking, horseback riding, and cross-country skiing. Inventoried roads for this project total approximately 23 miles of BLM existing roads in the transportation analysis area. Of this total, 10.2 miles of road were unrecorded at the time the RMP was finalized. According to the default language within the RMP, any newly recorded roads are designated as closed to public motorized use.

The roads currently passable and utilized by the public would not change under any Action Alternatives. There would be a no net increase in designated roads open to public motorized use.

All proposed new permanent and temporary roads for the project would be closed to public motorized uses, but open for administrative uses (e.g., future vegetation management, fire suppression, and monitoring activities). All temporary roads would be constructed and then obliterated and decommissioned within a minimum of three operating seasons after timber harvest is completed.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) E-4

Only existing roads that are closed for public motorized use and are no longer needed to meet resource management objectives, would be decommissioned. Based on field information about the roads condition, a road to be decommissioned is targeted for either abandonment or some level of mechanical alteration. Roads to be abandoned are already stable and are revegetating naturally. No physical work is required for abandonment, just a change in the database to reflect the fact that it no longer will be tracked as a road. Decommissioning by alterations can include partial or full obliteration in addition to the database change.

There would be no change to public access from any of the action alternatives, therefore this issue was not analyzed in further detail.

Issue: Would implementation of the proposal result in displacement of recreational users?

Recreational opportunities within the project area provides roaded natural and rural recreation with no developed recreation facilities. Primary use includes hunting, hiking, horseback riding, and cross-country skiing. Locked gates control access to the majority of the project area. The Cottonwood RMP designated the routes in this area closed to public motorized use. Non- motorized pubic access is allowed in order to accommodate dispersed recreational activities. The proposed new permanent roads would be closed to public motorized uses, but open for administrative uses, such as future vegetation management, fire suppression and monitoring activities. There would be no RMP designation change to existing roads that would allow for more or less public motorized use. Implementation of proposed treatments is expected to cause temporary displacement of recreational users within or adjacent to the project area due to smoke and other activities (e.g., associated noise, presence of equipment, etc.). The displacement would be limited to the active treatment period only and would therefore have limited direct or indirect effects on recreation.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) E-5 Appendix F: Fisheries, Aquatic Habitats, and Special Status Species

I. Special Status Fish

ESA-listed Fish

ESA-listed fish occurring within the Boulder Creek Vegetation Project analysis area include spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentrus). Within the project/analysis area these species occur in the Little Salmon River and Boulder Creek. Steelhead trout occur within the Trail Creek drainage. For ESA-listed fish distribution within the analysis area refer to Appendix A, Map A-9 (spring/summer Chinook salmon), Map A-10 (steelhead trout), and Map A-11 (bull trout). Protection of these species afforded by the ESA (Section 7(a)(2)) requires the BLM to ensure that all actions authorized or funded by the agency are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of listed species. For more detailed information and analysis regarding ESA-listed fish, and their habitats occurring within the analysis area, refer to the Biological Assessment (BA) of the Boulder Creek Vegetation Management Project (BLM 2018) and the Little Salmon River Subbasin Biological Assessment of Ongoing and Proposed Bureau of Land Management Activities (BLM 2000).

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead trout are under the jurisdiction of National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries or NMFS). The Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon was listed as threatened on May 22, 1992 (57 FR 14653). Critical habitat was designated for spring/summer Chinook salmon on December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543), effective on January 27, 1994, and includes the Little Salmon River and Boulder Creek. Spring/summer Chinook salmon use the Little Salmon River as a juvenile and adult migration corridor, and to a limited extent for juvenile rearing habitat. Boulder Creek provides spawning and juvenile rearing habitat for spring/summer Chinook salmon.

Steelhead trout in the Snake River basin were listed as threatened on October 17, 1997 (62 FR 43937). Critical habitat for Snake River Basin steelhead trout was designated on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630) and includes the Little Salmon River and Boulder Creek. Steelhead trout use the Little Salmon River as a juvenile and adult migration corridor, for adult over-wintering, limited spawning occurs, and for juvenile rearing habitat. Steelhead trout use Boulder Creek and Trail Creek for spawning and juvenile rearing.

Bull Trout Bull trout is under the jurisdiction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). On July 10, 1998, the USFWS listed the Klamath and the Columbia River population segment of the bull trout as threatened (63 FR 31647). Bull trout critical habitat was redesignated

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) F-1

on November 17, 2010 (75 FR 63898). The Little Salmon River and Boulder Creek are designated as bull trout critical habitat below the Little Salmon river barrier falls. Bull trout use the Little Salmon River as a migration corridor and adult and subadult foraging habitat. Within the Little Salmon River subbasin; Rapid River and Boulder Creek are used by bull trout for spawning and/or juvenile rearing.

Magnuson-Stevens Act Pursuant to Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries regarding any actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook salmon within the Little Salmon River subbasin. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, Section 3, defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Federal agencies may incorporate an EFH Assessment into ESA Biological Assessments.

BLM-Sensitive Fish

There are three BLM sensitive fish species identified as occurring within the project and analysis area. These species are westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss spp.), and Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata). Sensitive species are managed to ensure that BLM actions will not contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Westslope cutthroat trout use the Little Salmon River as a migration corridor and for adult foraging and rearing habitat, and to a lesser extent is used for juvenile rearing. Spawning generally occurs in a few Little Salmon River tributary streams (e.g., Trail Creek) providing suitable habitats, and migratory fish may spawn in lower reaches of the same streams used by resident fish. Boulder Creek is used by the westslope cutthroat trout primarily for adult foraging. Overall, the Little Salmon River subbasin has very low populations of fluvial (migratory) or resident populations.

Redband Trout Redband trout (non-anadromous rainbow) in the Upper Columbia River basin have been divided into two groups. One group evolved in sympatry with steelhead trout, and the other allopatric, or those which evolved outside the historical range of steelhead trout. The Little Salmon River is used as a migration corridor by redband trout and is also used for juvenile rearing. Spawning and primary juvenile rearing occurs in tributary streams providing suitable and accessible stream habitat. Boulder Creek and Trail Creek have allopatric redband trout that evolved with steelhead trout. Fall Creek has a full fish passage barrier near the mouth of the creek and rainbow/redband trout have been documented as occurring above the barrier water falls. Within the project area redband trout have evolved in sympatry with steelhead trout because they are downstream of partial/full barrier falls and cascades. Rainbow/redband trout occurring above Fall Creek barrier falls need genetic analysis to determine if such are allopatric.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) F-2

Pacific Lamprey Pacific lamprey adults enter freshwater (Columbia River) between July and September and migrate over 400 miles to Idaho. They spawn in sandy gravel immediately upstream from riffles between April and July and die soon after. Eggs hatch in two to three weeks and the ammocoetes (larval lamprey) spend up to six years in soft substrate as filter- feeders before emigrating to the ocean. They remain in the ocean for 12 to 20 months before returning to freshwater to spawn. Diatoms appear to be a primary food supply for ammocoetes. The Little Salmon River and other tributaries providing accessible and suitable habitat for Pacific lamprey in stream and river reaches that are downstream of fish passage barriers.

Table F-1 identifies the time of year when each species/lifestage is present within the project analysis area (Little Salmon River Subbasin).

Table F-1. ESA-Listed and BLM Sensitive Fish Species Lifestages Sp/Summer Chinook Steelhead Westslope Pacific Lifestage Salmon Trout Bull Trout Cutthroat Trout Lamprey Adult Migration APR-JUL AUG-APR JUN-AUG JUL-OCT JUL-OCT L. Salmon R. L. Salmon R. L. Salmon R. L. Salmon R. L. Salmon R. Adult Spawning AUG-SEP MAR-JUN Late AUG- MAR-JUN APR-JUL Boulder Cr. Boulder Cr. SEP Trail Cr. L.Salmon R. Trail Cr. Boulder Cr. Adult N/A NOV-MAR NOV-MAR NOV-MAR NOV_MAR Overwintering L. Salmon Salmon River L. Salmon R. L. Salmon R. River Trail Cr. Adult/Subadult N/A N/A YEARLONG YEARLONG L. Salmon R. Rearing L. Salmon R. L. Salmon R. Boulder Cr.. Trail Cr. Incubation & SEP-MAY MAR-JUN SEP-MAY MAR-JUN APR-JUL Emergence Trib. Boulder Cr. Boulder Cr. Trail Cr. L. Salmon Streams Trail Cr. River Juvenile 1 Year 1-3 Years 2 - 3 Years 1 - 3 Years 4-6 Years Rearing Trib. L. Salmon R. Boulder Cr. Trail Cr. L. Salmon R. Streams. Boulder Cr. Trib. Streams Trail Cr. Smolt APR-JUL APR-JUL N/A N/A APR-JUL Emigration

Cottonwood Resource Management Plan (RMP) Management Guidance and Strategies

The Cottonwood RMP Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy provides guidance and programmatic direction for watersheds, riparian, and aquatic habitats (BLM 2009, Appendix D). This strategy also provides for the establishment of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), and management emphasis for aquatic and riparian dependent resources, which is designated and described as:

• 300 feet on each side of the stream channel for fish-bearing streams

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) F-3

• 150 feet on each side of the stream channel for permanently flowing non-fish- bearing streams and from the edge of water body for ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands >1 acre

• 100 feet on each side of the stream channel for seasonally flowing or intermittent streams and wetlands <1 acre in size.

The Cottonwood RMP (BLM 2009, Appendix B) identifies Boulder Creek and Trail Creek as Restoration Watersheds. Restoration watersheds were identified because biological and physical processes and function do not reflect natural conditions because of past and long-term disturbances. The common effects of these human caused disturbances which include a variety of land uses (e.g., roads, livestock grazing, timber harvest, recreation, etc.) and natural events (e.g., wildfire, landslides, floods, and severe rain on snow events) which impact aquatic habitats.

The Cottonwood RMP (BLM 2009, Appendix H) identifies desired aquatic and riparian conditions and watershed and aquatic condition indicators for designated conservation and restoration watersheds. Within designated conservation and restoration watersheds the desired condition is to provide aquatic habitat to support native and nonnative vertebrate and invertebrate populations. Desired stream channel conditions should be within the range consistent with the geomorphology setting that riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed. Within non-designated (conservation/restoration) watersheds, BLM authorized land uses would be evaluated at the project level or stream/reach level and authorized uses would strive to support achievement of desired conditions, or not impede achievement of desired conditions in the long term. Appendix H, identifies the lower and upper thresholds of desired stream and riparian conditions (e.g., deposited sediment, water temperature, etc.) and identifies indicators of watershed and aquatic condition (e.g., road density, water yield, aquatic habitat parameters, etc.) and rates overall condition of the watershed.

Little Salmon River

The following Table F-2 summarizes deposited sediment monitoring results in the Little Salmon River occurring within the project area.

Table F-2. Deposited Sediment for Little Salmon River Monitoring Percent Fines By Depth Cobble Percent Surface Stream/River Station Spawning Gravels Embeddedness Fines Location (% Less 6.3 mm) Little Salmon River RM 19.9 34.0% 30.6 % 6.1%

Fall Creek

A stream channel stability evaluation for lower stream reaches (stream mile 0.0 to 2.4) had a rating of fair to good (Pfankuch 1978). Table F-3 below summarizes Fall Creek fish habitat parameters and conditions for the lower reaches.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) F-4

Table F-3. Habitat Analysis for Fall Creek (Reaches 1-5, Stream Miles 0.00 - 2.4) Active Spawning Pool Summer Debris & Habitat Cobble Pool Instream Bank Bank Gravels Rif. Temp. Pot. Potential Embed. Qual. Cover Cover Stab. %<6.3 Ratio Co Debris 100m. Natural <22% <19% 1:4 <=16 25+/60+ 5.0 11%+ 5%+ 95%+ Exist. 29% Good est. 1:15 16-17 10/25 3-4 7% 2% 95% %Nat. 80% 80% est. 60% 80% 60%/70% 60% 70% 80% 95%

Boulder Creek

A stream channel stability evaluation for lower stream reaches in the watershed (stream mile 0.0 to 1.7) had a rating of good (Pfankuch 1978). Table F-4 below summarizes Boulder Creek fish habitat parameters and conditions for the lower reaches (BLM and private lands).

Table F-4. Habitat Analysis for Boulder Creek (Reach 1, Stream Miles 0.00 – 1.7) Active Spawning Pool Summer Debris & Habitat Cobble Pool Instream Bank Bank Gravels Rif. Temp. Pot. Potential Embed. Qual. Cover Cover Stab. %<6.3 Ratio Co Debris 100m. Natural <22% <19% 1:4 <=16 25+/60+ 5.0 11%+ 5%+ 95%+ Exist. 38% 23% 1:10 16-17 1/25 407 10% 3% 98% %Nat. 60% 80% 70% 80% 60%/70% 80% 90% 80% 100%

Deposited sediment and substrate monitoring conducted in the lower reach of Boulder Creek is summarized below in Table F-5.

Table F-5. Deposited Sediment for Boulder Creek Percent Fines By Depth Monitoring Station Cobble Spawning Gravels Percent Surface Fines Location Embeddedness (% Less 6.3 mm) SM 0.5 38 % 23 % 5 – 7 %

The Payette National Forest analysis conducted for the Lost Creek – Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-Forest Service 2014A) modeled baseline sediment at 5.3% (see Table F-6) and implementation of the selected alternative B modified (USDA-FS 2014B) identified modeled sediment increases in the temporary timeframe (2017) to 9.6% and a reduction in the short-term timeframe (2027) to 4.3%.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) F-5

Table F-6. Boulder Creek Watershed Sediment Evaluation1 BOISED Sediment Model – Base Year 2016 Base Year Total Base Year Percent Base Year Percent Percent Over Natural Harvest Related Road Related Base Year Percent Fire Sediment Sediment Sediment Related Sediment 5.3% <1% 88% 11% 1 Lost Creek – Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-Forest Service 2014A). Ratings are for baseline and the Payette National Forest identified Alternative B, Modified, as the selected alternative which will alter and improve these ratings with implementation (USDA-Forest Service 2014B).

Trail Creek

A stream channel stability evaluation for stream reaches in the watershed (stream mile 0.0 to 2.9) had a rating of fair to good (Pfankuch 1978). Table F-7 below summarizes Trail Creek fish habitat parameters.

Table 7. Habitat Analysis for Trail Creek (Reaches 1-4, Stream Miles 0.00 - 2.9) Active Spawning Pool Summer Debris & Habitat Cobble Pool Instream Bank Bank Gravels Rif. Temp. Pot. Potential Embed. Qual. Cover Cover Stab. %<6.3 Ratio Co Debris 100m. Natural <22% <19% 1:4 <=16 25+/60+ 5.0 11%+ 5%+ 95%+ 1-16/16- Exist. 43% 21% 1:10 16-17 3 5 – 20% 2% 95%+ 42 %Nat. 60% 80% 60% 80% 60%/70% 70% 70% 80% 100%

Deposited sediment and substrate monitoring conducted in the lower reach of Trail Creek is summarized below in Table 8.

Table 8. Deposited Sediment for Trail Creek Percent Fines By Depth Monitoring Station Cobble Spawning Gravels Percent Surface Fines Location Embeddedness (% Less 6.3 mm) SM 0.3 43% 21 % 16%

Appendix F References

BLM. 2000. Little Salmon River subbasin biological assessment of ongoing and proposed Bureau of Land Management activities on sockeye salmon, fall Chinook salmon, spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Upper Columbia- Salmon Clearwater District, Cottonwood Field Office, Cottonwood, Idaho.

BLM. 2009. Cottonwood Approved Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of land Management, Coeur d’Alene District, Cottonwood Field Office, Cottonwood, Idaho.

BLM. 2018. Biological assessment of the Boulder Creek Vegetation Management Project. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of land Management, Coeur d’Alene District, Cottonwood Field Office, Cottonwood, Idaho.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) F-6

Pfankuch, D.J. 1978. Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation. R1-75- 002, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region.

USDA-Forest Service (FS). 2014A. Lost Creek – Boulder Creek landscape restoration project – Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1 – Chapters 1-4. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Payette National Forest, McCall, ID.

USDA-Forest Service (FS). 2014B. Final Record of Decision, Lost Creek – Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Payette National Forest, McCall, ID.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) F-7

Appendix G: BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species

INTRODUCTION: Within the BLM Cottonwood Field Office management area 51 BLM designated sensitive species occur. A review of these species has determined that 20 species potentially may be impacted by implementation of the Boulder Creek project (see Table G-1 below). Preferred habitats (habitat guilds) for these species are also discussed and assessed in Section 3.7 Wildlife, Habitat, and Special Status Species.

Table G-1. BLM Sensitive Species Potentially Affected by Boulder Creek Project Mammals Birds Amphibians Common Genus/Species Common Genus/Species Common Genus/Species Name Name Name Fisher Martes pennant Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Idaho Giant Dicamptodon leucocephalus Salamander aterrimus Gray Wolf Canis lupus Northern Accipter gentilis Western/Boreal Anaxyrus Goshawk Toad boreas Fringed Myotis Flammulated Otus Myotis thysanoides Owl flammeolus Hoary Bat Lasiurus Cassin’s Carpodacus cinereus Finch cassinii Little Brown Myotis lucifugus Lewis’s Melanerpes Bat Woodpecker lewis Long-eared Myotis evotis White-headed Picoides Myotis Woodpecker albolarvatus Long-legged Myotis volans Mountain Oreotyx pictus Bat Quail Silver-haired Lasioncycteris Olive-sided Contopus Bat noctivagans Flycatcher cooperi Willow Empidonax Flycatcher trailii

Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi

BLM Sensitive Species and Preferred Habitats Within Project Area

Gray Wolf: Refer to the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS; IDFG 2005) for habitat, ecology and other information.

Three aspects of wolf habitat in the project area were reviewed: security of dens and rendezvous sites, prey base (elk), and security from human disturbances and harm. The project area provides suitable wolf habitat and wolves may use the project area. No denning or rendezvous sites are known to occur in the project area.

Prey base is assumed sufficient to support wolves if elk habitat effectiveness desired conditions are maintained.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-1

An important effect on gray wolf recovery in Idaho is incidental mortality from shooting and vehicle-strikes. The probability of wolf mortalities increases with increased road access and creating open areas where animals can be easily seen. It is currently legal to hunt or trap wolves in Idaho in accord with State regulations. The majority of access routes into the project area are restricted for public vehicle motorized use. Highway 95 provides potential for vehicle- strikes.

Fishers are wide-ranging forest predators that prefer late seral, mesic (moist) forest habitats (Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1995). The CWCS (IDFG 2005) summarizes fisher habitat in Idaho as a mosaic of mesic conifer, dry conifer, and subalpine forests. Mature and older forests are used during summer; early seral and late successional forests are used in the winter. Fishers are also closely associated with forested riparian areas which are used extensively for foraging, resting, and travel corridors. There are approximately 184 acres of riparian habitat within the project area. Current distribution of fishers in North American is substantially fragmented compared to their historical (pre-European) distribution. Across the species’ range, fisher populations declined in the early twentieth century, probably due to a combination of over trapping, predator poisoning, and habitat loss from settlement, logging and forest fires (Heinemeyer 1994). No fisher trapping is currently allowed in Idaho, but animals are occasionally caught incidental to trapping for other species.

Fringed Myotis: Resident to short-distance migrant. Primarily at middle elevations of 1,200- 2,150 m (3,900-7,000 ft.) in desert, grassland, and woodland habitats. Roosts in caves, mines, rock crevices, buildings, and other protected sites. Nursery colonies occur in caves, mines, and sometimes buildings. Hibernates in the winter but is known to be active at times.

Hoary Bat: A solitary bar. Habitat includes deciduous and coniferous forests and woodlands, including areas altered by humans. Usually roosts in tree foliage 3-5 meters above ground with dense foliage above and open flying room below, often at the edge of a clearing and commonly in hedgerow trees. Also roosts in rock crevices; rarely uses caves. Hibernating individuals have been found on tree trunks, tree cavities, and in squirrel’s nests.

Little Brown Bat: Found mainly in mountainous and riparian areas in a wide variety of forest habitats; from tree-lined xeric-scrub to aspen meadows and Pacific Northwest coniferous rain forests. Roosts in tree cavities and crevices.

Long-eared Myotis: Probably migratory. Forested areas, especially those with broken rock outcrops; also shrubland, over meadows near tall timber, along wooded streams, over reservoirs. Often roosts in buildings, also in hollow trees, mines, caves, fissures, etc. Hibernates in the winter. Individuals will wake and move around within the hibernaculum.

Long-legged Bat: Resident. Dependent on wooded habitats from pinion- juniper to coniferous forests, usually at elevations of 4,000 to 9,000 ft. (1,200-2,700 m). Maternity colonies are most often formed in tree cavities or under loose bark, they also are found in rock crevices, cliffs, and buildings.

Silver-haired Bat: Resident. Habitat is primarily coniferous forested areas adjacent to lakes, ponds, or streams, including areas that have been altered by humans. Summer roosts and nursery sites are in tree foliage, cavities, or under loose bark, sometimes in buildings.

Bald Eagle are known to use the Little Salmon River corridor lands during the winter, however, such use would be incidentally or at very low levels within the project area. Primary winter used

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-2

use would occur at lower elevations in the Little Salmon River subbasin. Large trees and snags in the project area may be used by bald eagles as perches. No known Bald Eagle nest sites occur within the project area.

Northern Goshawks are typically found in montane coniferous forest in northern Idaho and western Montana, where they occupy relatively large home ranges of 1,988 to 9,638 acres in size (Patla et al. 1995). They nest in stands or groups of trees in the mature to over-mature age classes principally on the mid to lower third of slopes. Douglas-fir and Western larch are preferred nest tree species (Hayward and Escano 1989). Northern goshawks prey on a variety of medium-sized forest birds and small mammals. Pole stage or larger stands open enough to permit unimpeded flight are suitable for feeding (Hayward et al. 1990). However, foraging habitat may be as closely tied to prey availability as to particular habitat composition or structure (Patla et al. 1995).

Flammulated Owls would be expected to occur on the project area during the breeding season (May to mid-October). Flammulated owls are secondary cavity nesters and are dependent on cavity excavators, such as pileated woodpeckers. In Idaho, flammulated owls occupy older ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and mixed coniferous forests (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1997).

Cassin’s Finch are migratory and occupy a variety of coniferous forest types over a broad elevation ranges. Often found in mature forests of lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. Found in open stands of mixed conifers. Occasionally breeds in open sagebrush shrubsteppe with scattered western junipers. Within the project area preferred habitats primarily include the mixed conifer habitats and include early seral to mature tree stands that are open. Cassin’s Finches occur in most forest types and timber harvest regimes, including riparian cottonwood, but are especially common in ponderosa pine and postfire forest; they occur less often in lodgepole pine, sagebrush, and grassland (Manuwal 1983, Hutto and Young 1999).

Lewis’ Woodpeckers are considered burn specialist for their use of snags as nest trees in post-burn areas dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and riparian areas dominated by cottonwood (Vierling 1997; Linder and Anderson 1998; Saab and Vierling 2001; and Gentry and Vierling 2007). Breeding habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker is characterized by an open canopy, brushy understory, available perch sites and abundant insects (Bock 1970; Linder and Anderson 1998; and Sabb and Dudley 1998). While a certain number of trees are necessary for nesting and perching sites, a closed canopy forest is not suitable due to reduced visibility, limited room for aerial maneuvers, and lack of shrubs (Bock 1970 and Saab and Dudley 1998).

White-headed Woodpeckers primarily occupy low-to-mid-elevation, multi-storied open stands of mature and large, late seral ponderosa pine, including large snags (Wisdom et al. 2000, Frederick and Moore 1991). This species generally prefers to use large-diameter (> 21 inch dbh) snag classes for nesting and foraging in greater proportion than available (Bull et al. 1997; Dixon 1995a; Dixon 1995b; Frederick and Moore 1991; Ritter 2000; and Wisdom et al. 2000). They feed on seeds and insects extracted from the bark of trees. They are dependent on mature and older ponderosa pine as a source of seeds for winter survival (Garret et al. 1996). Partially cut stands with moderate to heavy stocking of large pine trees, or open forested lands with remnant, large-size pine can provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat (Ritter 2000). Road access and cutting of large snags for firewood may have adverse effects in localized areas.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-3

Mountain Quail in Idaho have a range restricted mostly to areas of west-central Idaho, with remnant population strongholds occurring in the lower canyon reach of the Little Salmon River subbasin (Vogel and Reese 2002).

Mountain quail breed and winter in shrub-dominated communities. They may move to high elevation, forested habitats during the summer (Herman et al. 2002). Mature quail eat mostly plant material, while invertebrates are very important food items for chicks. Seed heads and bulbs are important food in Idaho (Ormiston 1966), as are perennial forbs and mast-producing shrubs (Reese et al. 1999).

Habitat loss and degradation from forest succession, reservoir construction, wildfire, weed invasion, livestock grazing, and human developments are all important limiting factors (Gutierrez and Delehanty 1999). Limited availability of shrubby habitats within a matrix of grasslands and forest restricts mountain quail in many interior populations to narrow strips, rather than broad expanses of mountain shrub habitat common in populations west of the Sierra-Cascade Crest (Brennan 1990). Critical factors affecting habitat that may be responsible for the decline of mountain quail in Idaho include: (1) loss of wintering areas along creeks and riparian shrub communities due to the development of hydroelectric dams along the Snake River and tributaries, (2) agricultural development along the Snake River corridor, and (3) excessive cattle grazing that degrades creek-side shrub communities (Brennan 1990, 1994). Road building, and housing development in and near shrubby draws, and accompanying activities such as predation by dogs and cats, also fragment and degrade mountain quail habitat and populations in Idaho (Odell and Knight 2001; Maestas et al. 2003). Interspecific competition with California quail and chukars, introduced around 1950, also may be a limiting factor.

Olive-sided Flycatchers are found in forests and woodlands (especially in burned-over areas with standing dead trees) such as subalpine coniferous forests, mixed forests, and borders of lakes and streams (Groves et al. 1997). They generally breed in montane and boreal forests in the mountain west of North America, as well as throughout the boreal forests of Canada (Kaufman 1996). Olive-sided flycatchers are most often associated with forest openings, forest edges near natural or man-made openings, or open/semi-open stands with a low percentage of canopy closure (Kaufman 1996; Altman 1997). Hutto and Young (1999) found olive-sided flycatchers were more abundant in early post-fire habitats than in any other major cover type. They had similar occurrence in seed tree cover types, and were only slightly less common in clear-cut and shelterwood cover types. They occur more frequently in disturbed than in undisturbed forests in the northern Rocky Mountains. In Douglas-fir forests of west-central Idaho, olive-sided flycatchers were found to be more abundant in forest types created by logging methods such as diameter-cut and single tree selection that retained residual medium and large trees (moderate to high canopy height) and low canopy closure (Medin 1985; Medin and Booth 1989). In northwestern Montana, Tobalske et al. (1991) found olive-sided flycatchers to be more abundant in logged (clear-cut and partial cut) than in unlogged forest. Although olive-sided flycatchers are more common in disturbed, early successional types, they appear to require residual large snags and/or live trees for foraging and singing perches (Altman 1997).

Willow Flycatchers are migratory birds that breed over a large portion of North American. Winter habitat is Central Mexico to Columbia (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). They are found in thickets, scrubby and brushy areas, open second growth, swamps, and open woodlands (Groves et al. 1997). In an Idaho study of riparian birds, willow flycatchers were intermediate in association with mesic and xeric willow habitats (Groves et al. 1997). Willow flycatchers breed in riparian habitat that has a mid-story cover layer of shrubs within 5-6 feet of the ground (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). They nest in edge habitats of large, continuous shrub patches

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-4 juxtaposed with open areas. The project area does provide suitable riparian habitat for willow flycatcher but optimum habitat conditions are limited.

Vaux’s Swift are migratory. Prefers late seral stages of coniferous and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests; more abundant in old-growth forests than in younger stands. Nests communally, usually in hollow trees, less commonly in chimneys.

Idaho Giant Salamander larvae usually inhabit clear, cold streams, but are also found in mountain lakes and ponds. Adults are found under rocks and logs in humid forests, near mountain streams, or on rocky shores of mountain lakes (Groves et al. 1997). The occurrence of Idaho giant salamander has been documented within the Little Salmon River subbasin. Adults eat terrestrial invertebrates, small snakes, shrews, mice, and salamanders (Groves et al. 1997). Breeding occurs in spring and fall.

Western Toads are strongly associated with wetlands, but toads may use forested terrestrial habitats outside of breeding and over-wintering periods (Keinath and McGee 2005). Adult toads can be found in forested areas, wet shrublands, clearcuts, and meadows. They appear to favor dense shrub cover, perhaps because it provides protection from desiccation and predators. Bull (2006) found toads in Oregon that traveled nearly 4 miles from breeding areas and most traveled over 1 mile. Bull (2006) found toads preferred open forests with high prey (ants and beetles) availability. In all of Bull’s (2006) study areas, toads selected south-facing slopes and preferred open sites to forested settings. Ground cover at selected sites had more rock, water, and forbs with fewer logs and less bare ground than random sites in the study area. Toads in Bull’s (2006) study found refuge in rocks (31%), burrows (18%), logs (17%) and stumps, root wads or bark (6%). Uplands in the project area are considered marginal habitat because of dense canopy cover.

The western toad will breed in a large variety of natural and artificial aquatic habitats, from the shallow margins of lakes and ponds to roads side ditches. It does not seem to matter if the sites have tree or shrub canopy cover, coarse woody debris, or emergent vegetation. Adult females may lay their eggs at depths of 5 centimeters to 2 meters (depths over one meter are rare) in the same location within sites each year. Hibernation sites generally are deep enough to prevent freezing, and moist enough to prevent desiccation

Effects of the Alternatives

Common to All Action Alternatives

The differences between action alternatives will primarily occur from the following: alteration of habitat from implementation of vegetation treatments; disturbance and displacement of wildlife from project implementation; and potential for injury or mortality to wildlife species from project implementation. Critical periods for wildlife species generally occurs when species are most vulnerable during young rearing periods (e.g., fawning, calving, denning, nesting, maternity roosts, etc.). Short term and long term effects from project implementation will be assessed in regards to effects to wildlife species and preferred habitats.

Action alternatives would have similar effects and would vary by acres treated, permanent and temporary road construction, and road decommissiong (see EA Table 2.5 – Summary of Alternatives).

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-5

Gray Wolf – Alternatives A, B, C Based on available information, the analysis criteria for wolves and their habitat for this project is relative impact on ungulate prey (elk) and elk habitat effectiveness (EHE).

Timber harvest and burning in some stands would reduce available cover and connectivity, causing a slight short-term reduction in EHE. However, in these areas long-term habitat improvement from road closures, road decommissioning, prescribed burning, and opening of canopy cover would be expected to increase the prey base for gray wolf. Creating early seral communities would improve habitat for prey species such as elk and deer, where security and cover is provided in the long-term.

The temporary increase of human activity in the planning area associated with harvest and vegetative treatments could increase the possibility of human-wolf interactions. The construction and use of temporary roads and reconstructed roads could temporarily displace wolves and/or their prey. Disturbance of individuals during project implementation would not cause, or is unlikely to cause injury or decrease productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or rearing behavior. All current motorized access closure would be maintained as part of the proposed project. Temporary roads would be closed (when not being used for project implementation). Road decommissioning would help reduce human intrusion long-term. Based on the nature and duration of the proposed project, the mortality risk for wolves would remain low. No known key wolf critical habitat niche areas, such as den sites, rendezvous sites, or whelping sites would be affected within or outside the project area.

Gray Wolf – No Action Under the no action alternative, moderate levels of motorized access would continue to limit elk habitat effectiveness. In the long-term, the no action alternative would increase the probability that untreated sites would add cumulatively to overall fuel loads increasing the total acres with high fuel loading. As a result of fuel continuity, more extensive and severe fires may become more likely which may have adverse effects on elk hiding cover (refer to the fire effect analysis for more details). Stand-replacing fires would result in an increase of early seral habitats and improved forage production for prey species such as elk and deer.

Gray Wolf – Cumulative Impacts

All action alternatives would have moderate immediate cumulative effects because harvest would be directly added to the road density, harvesting, human disturbances, and other vegetation impacts imposed by past management. Long- term cumulative effects may be less impactive than the no action alternative because of fuel reduction and staged regeneration of harvested areas in the event of wildfires for the project area and the watersheds.

Human activities near active dens or rendezvous areas have the greatest effect on reproducing wolves, however there are no known dens or rendezvous areas within the project area. Current wolf population growth and pack formations in north-central Idaho indicate wolves can thrive even where human-wolf interactions occur regularly. Based on this, current actions do not appear to be preventing wolf recovery.

Reducing the exposure of gray wolves and ungulate prey to humans is a factor in maintaining high quality big game habitat and reducing the risk of incidental wolf mortality. The project area contains established human activities and development including roads, timber harvest, home sites, grazing, and recreational opportunities. The Little Salmon River area, including the project

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-6

area, receives hunting pressure for elk and deer, which not only affects the wolf prey base, but increases the number of wolf-human interactions. The most important cumulative effect to gray wolf recovery in Idaho is incidental mortalities from shooting, trapping, and vehicle-caused mortality. This probability increases with increased road access. Road decommissioning would take place under the proposed project, and existing road access closures would remain in effect. Human access, available cover, and public attitudes largely determine mortality risk to wolves.

Other projects such as private land logging, road construction, and rural development in the area could affect ungulates, small mammals and their habitats. If the end result of these activities is the restoration of more stable vegetative patterns and natural or prescribed fires processes, these actions could help restore declining forage availability, productivity, and nutritional quality of important to big game species. Alternatively, if these actions result in a more fragmented landscape with poor interspersions of foraging and hiding cover, big game populations could decline, reducing the suitability of the area for gray wolves. Administrative uses of closed roads for reforestation or road-related work may affect wolf use of the area. These and other activities such as routine road maintenance, watershed improvements, trail reconstruction, and measures to control weeds are foreseeable and scheduled to occur. Across the analysis area, recreation uses, including hunting, will continue. There have been confirmed reports of wolves within the project/analysis area. No geographic or manufactured barriers exist within the analysis area that would preclude wolf movements to adjacent populations.

No Action alternative would have relatively little immediate cumulative effect on wolves or their habitats since no habitat-altering impacts would be directly added to the road density, timber harvesting, human disturbances, and other vegetative impacts imposed by past management. However, indirect effects of continued trend of fuel buildups, when added to existing cumulative effects would negatively affect wolf prey habitats particularly during post-wildfire recovery. Fire beneficial effects would occur from improvements of forage conditions for big game ungulate species.

Fisher – Alternatives A, B, C Based on best available information, the analysis criteria for fisher will be the extent to which each alternative: 1) Conserves or protects the integrity of late seral habitats; 2) The amount of habitat modified by each alternative; and 3) The degree to which each alternative provides security by limiting mortality risks from incidental trapping, because densities of accessible roads and trails facilitates human access.

Even aged mechanical treatments would reduce overstory canopy of mature mixed conifer stands by 50% - 70%. Reduction of preferred habitat conditions and stand structure would be similar for alternatives A (559 acres) and B (550 acres), and a lesser amount would occur under Alternative C (457 acres). Protection of RCAs in all action alternatives would maintain this habitat for fisher. Though there is a difference in the amount of road construction and decommissioning between the alternatives, public motorized access would not change under any of the action alternatives, therefore mortality from incidental trapping would be similar for the action alternatives.

Also see the Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated Habitat Guild and the Snags and Downed Wood analyses for additional information which is addressed in the EA.

Fisher – Alternative D (No Action)

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-7

Under the no action alternative, habitats would continue to be altered by natural events such as succession and potential wildfire. As local stands mature and decline with their attendant fuel- buildups, thereby increasing the likelihood of a stand-replacing fire. Stand-replacing fires could potentially reduce mature and old growth habitat across the project area, depending on the size and severity of the disturbance. Similarly, fuel loads along streams and RCAs would continue to increase and may expose these environments to intense fires. An increase of large logs on the ground due to fire or insects could provide denning structures and cover for fisher and several prey species, but these areas are likely to be avoided until the living canopy cover again exceeds 40%.

In general, mature, high-canopied habitat would increase and small-tree winter habitat would decrease as forest succession continues to fill in understories and increase stand canopy closure. In RCAs, trees killed by insects and other successional processes would fall to the ground and into streams enhancing structural diversity in these areas. In summary, if a severe wildfire occurred resulting in stand replacement of mature forest stands (increased amounts of early seral habitats), such would have adverse effects to fishers which would be dependent on scope and magnitude of the fire. As mid-aged stands advance in succession to mature stands, such would be beneficial to fishers.

Fisher – Cumulative Impacts See cumulative effects analysis for snags/downed wood and late seral/old-growth associated habitat guild.

The No Action alternative would have no certain cumulative effects on the fisher or its habitat other than fire and security risks, which would eventually become additive to the past effects of logging, incidental trapping risks, fire exclusion and other human disturbances of normal ecosystem processes and forest pattern. Risks of fire-spread losses in old growth or other late seral stands would become cumulative to past and present effects of fire exclusion in the analysis area. Whether these effects would extend outside the project or analysis area is uncertain.

Bats – Alternatives A, B, C The bat species that utilize forest habitats and adjacent areas for roosting and foraging and potentially impacted from implementation of action alternatives include fringed myotis, hoary bat, little brown bat, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, and silver-haired bat. These bats utilize trees and/or snags for roosting. Of all the habitat components required by bats in forests, the two most heavily influenced by forestry and related activities roosting sites and foraging habitat (Hayes and Loeb 2007). Bat maternity periods are a critical period and varies by species and dates vary between early May and mid-August. By the end of the bat maternity season, all of the pups born in the spring will be able fly, and they will no longer be left in the roost at night while the mothers feed. Timber harvest, prescribed burning, and related activities have the potential to impact bat maternity roosts when pups are most vulnerable.

It is expected that no more than 25% of the areas proposed for timber harvest and prescribed burning would be impacted in a year, consequently, the majority of the project area would not be impacted annually.

Several studies have investigated the effects of silvicultural treatments on bat activity. Generally, nocturnal bat activity increased immediately following timber harvest (Loeb and O’Keefe 2011), this effect can vary greatly by species (Patriquin and Barclay 2003, Owen et al. 2004). Most, though not all, studies show heavy use by bats of more “open”, less “cluttered”

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-8

habitats (Brighan et al., 1992, Erickson 1993, Ericson and West 1996, Grindal and Brigham 1998, Tibbles and Kurta 2003), the increased use is likely due to reduced vegetative clutter and/or increased insect abundance (Hayes and Loeb 2007).

Higher bat use in older forests than younger forests has been shown (Thomas 1988, Perkins and Cross 1988, Thomas and West 1991, Krusic et al. 1996, Crampton and Barclay 1998, Grindal and Brigham 1999, Humes et al. 1999, Jung et al. 1999) and is frequently noted as likely due to higher availability of snag roosts in older stands (Perkins and Cross 1988, Thomas 1988, Thomas and West 1991, Crampton and Barclay 1996, 1998, Humes et al. 1999, Kalcounis et al. 1999).

The average reduction in canopy cover would be approximately 28% from mechanical treatments and would increase potential foraging habitat and use by bats in these areas. Timber harvest and related activities have the potential to disturb, displace, or cause injury or mortality to bats and impact roost and foraging. Prescribed burning alone would result in localized minor increases in foraging habitat, primarily occurring in small pockets or areas that had increase overstory and understory tree mortality. Fuels reduction will reduce potential wildfire impacts to bat species and would have varying impacts on foraging and roost sites, which is dependent on fire severity.

Bats – Alternative D (No Action) In the short term, no effects to roosting or foraging habitats for bats would occur. Existing habitat condition and trends for bats utilizing the area would be expected to occur. No vegetation treatments would occur, consequently, risks for more severe stand replacing fires potentially would occur. The effects to bat roosting and foraging areas is unknown and would be dependent on the severity of fire and acres burned, and the species of bat. Loss of roost trees and snags would occur with stand replacing fires. A low to moderate burn severity wildfire may potentially be beneficial and result in a mosaic of burned and unburned areas, which would provide for roost sites (e.g., increased snags) and improved foraging areas in the long term and the effects would be dependent on bat species. Summer wildfires occurring during maternity roosting periods would result in mortality to pups still occupying the maternity roost and are unable to fly.

Bald Eagle – Alternatives A, B, C The primary analysis criteria for the bald eagle is the protection, enhancement, and maintenance riparian areas and aquatic habitats, particularly along Little Salmon River.

Protection of RCAs (riparian conservation areas), would provide for maintenance of mature, old growth, and potential old growth stands within these areas. Prescribed fire would not be ignited within the RCAs, but would be allowed to back into these riparian zones. While there are no plans to ignite prescribed burns with the RCAs, there would be some effect from fire backing down into these areas, consequently some small, negligible amount of tree and shrub habitat could be lost. Prescribed burn prescriptions would be designed to minimize potential for large tree mortality; however, some mortality would be expected to occur. Within the uplands, there would be fewer large snags post treatment and some of the existing snags would be felled during implementation. The objective of the project is to reduce risk of wildfire; therefore the potential for fire-killed snag creation would be reduced when compared to the No Action alternative. Treatments would also reduce the potential effects of insect/disease in treated areas, thus reducing snag creation by this process. Overall, treated areas would provide sufficient large tree snag habitat within the project area to accommodate existing low levels of bald eagle use.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-9

Disturbance of individuals during project implementation may occur but would not cause injury or substantially interfere with normal feeding behavior. Any bald eagle nest sites would be protected with appropriate buffers so that disturbance or displacement would not occur during active nesting periods. Currently, no nesting documented for analysis area, consequently, no effects to bald eagle nest sites would occur.

Timber harvesting at or near bald eagle foraging or perch sites can directly disturb or displace birds. Some larger trees (various species), in mixed conifer stands are planned for harvest in all action alternatives in the uplands. Timber harvest in old growth stands and mature/large tree stands would occur; which would impact potential nesting habitat in upland areas. Most trees harvested would be in medium size classes.

Bald Eagle – Alternative D (No Action) Bald eagle winter habitat or potential nesting habitats would continue to be altered by natural events such as succession and potential wildfire because no vegetation management actions would take place at this time. Snag and large down wood habitat components would remain available as trees die (and fall) from natural causes. A wildfire and/or insect and disease activity would likely leave behind greater numbers of snags than exist now. Ongoing fire suppression reduces likelihood of snag creation by fire. As local stands mature and decline with their attendant fuel-buildups, lethal, more severe fire risks would become more prevalent. Such risks would increase the chances of late seral habitat losses to wildfires.

Bald Eagle – Cumulative Impacts Action alternatives would have localized direct and indirect cumulative effects on riparian, aquatic, and upland habitats which may be utilized by the bald eagle, in addition to those produced from past, current, and foreseeable future timber harvest, residential development, livestock grazing, recreation, public access, wildfires, fire exclusion, flood damage, and other habitat impacts. Disturbance or displacement of individuals during project implementation may occur but would not cause injury or substantially interfere with normal winter feeding behavior. If a nest site is located within the project area, the appropriate protective buffers would be established to reduce potential for disturbance to the nest site while it is occupied.

Timber harvest and salvage logging, grazing, insect epidemics, fires, fire suppression, mining, and road construction and maintenance can cumulatively affect bald eagles through changes in vegetative cover, altering stream channels, or by changing the quantity and quality of water flowing into wet meadows. Past timber harvest practices, and residential development that involved removing forest vegetation along streams and wetlands left these sites vulnerable to hydrologic and vegetative changes. Although fires are not as common in riparian habitats, water quality and quantity varies after large fires upstream and could affect local toad populations. Fire suppression has created denser forests, which tend to burn hotter, and hotter fires tend to be more destructive. Whether these potential fire effects would extend outside the project or analysis area is uncertain.

Past, present, and future actions can affect bald eagle habitat in the project area as well as across the project area and Little Salmon River watershed. Although individuals could be affected, none of the proposed alternatives should affect the low number of bald eagles currently using the area at the project or watershed level.

The No Action alternative would have no immediate, direct negative or positive impacts on the bald eagle or its habitat. A s local stands mature and decline with their attendant fuel-buildups,

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-10 lethal, more severe fire risks would become more prevalent. Such risks would increase the chances of late seral habitat losses to wildfires. The No Action alternative would have no effects on the bald eagle or its habitat cumulative to past, current, or foreseeable future timber harvest, residential development, human disturbance, livestock grazing, recreation, wildfires, fires exclusion, flood damage, recreation, mining, or other activities.

Northern Goshawk – Alternatives A, B, C The action alternatives could directly impact patches of mature mixed conifer habitats, large tree/mature stands, and existing old growth stands, or patch sizes. Old growth habitat connectivity would remain consistent within historical patterns by retention of riparian corridors. Opening up canopy cover in mature large tree stands would impact potential nesting habitats, particularly areas identified for even aged mechanical treatments. Even aged mechanical treatments would remove 50% to 70% of the canopy cover of mature timber stands. Alternative A (559 acres) and Alternative B (550 acres) proposes similar even aged treatments, and Alternative C proposes to treat 457 acres. These treatments would result in a loss of potential nesting habitat for Northern Goshawk.

Regeneration harvest and thinning can impact goshawks by removing suitable nesting habitat, although it can also create forest edges and in some cases smaller openings that goshawks could use for foraging. The proposed project design spreads potentially affected acres across the entire project area. As a result, most resident goshawks are likely to experience some habitat loss at a small or site-specific scale. Project activities near an active nest site could cause temporary avoidance or abandonment, depending on the length and intensity of activity. However, project design measures identify the protection of active nest sites from disturbance, which will minimize potential for adverse effects.

Proposed treatments would break up the fuel patterns, which in turn could reduce the likelihood of severe fire effects within the project area and effects to goshawk habitat.

Reduction of preferred habitat conditions and stand structure would be similar for Alternatives A (559 acres) and B (550 acres) and would be less for Alternative C (457 acres).

Also see the Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated Habitat Guild analysis for additional information.

Northern Goshawk – Alternative D (No Action) No direct effects to old growth stands, replacement old growth stands, or any mixed conifer stands will occur, thus existing old growth habitat patch sizes and connectivity will be maintained. Existing goshawk habitat would not be harvested under this alternative. In general, nesting habitat would increase and foraging habitat would decrease as forest succession continues to fill in understories and increase stand canopy closure.

Natural fuel buildup would occur as stands mature and decline from age and outside agents such as beetles. As a result of this buildup, lethal, stand-replacing fires could become more prevalent (refer to fire effects analysis for additional details). Stand-replacing fires could potentially reduce nesting habitat across the project area. However, the size and severity of the disturbance could either eliminate or create the various elements of goshawk habitat.

Northern Goshawk – Cumulative Impacts See cumulative effects analysis for late seral/old-growth associated habitat guild.

Flammulated Owl – Alternatives A, B, C

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-11

The action alternatives could directly impact patches of mature mixed conifer habitats, large tree/mature stands, and existing old growth stands, or patch sizes. Old growth habitat connectivity would remain consistent within historical patterns by retention of riparian corridors.

Regeneration harvest and thinning can impact flammulated owls by removing suitable nesting habitat. A reduction in mature or over mature forest habitats, or large diameter ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir would reduce habitat quality for the flammulated owls. The proposed project design spreads potentially affected acres across the entire project area. As a result, most flammulated owls, which may occur within the project area may potentially experience some habitat loss at a small or site-specific scale. Project activities near an active nest site could cause temporary avoidance or abandonment, depending on the length and intensity of activity.

Timber harvesting or fuel treatments at or very near flammulated owl nest sites can directly disturb or displace birds, potentially impacting nest success and future nesting. Some larger trees (various species), in mixed conifer stands are planned for harvest in all action alternatives. Timber harvest of old growth stands and mature/large tree stands would occur; which would impact potential nesting habitat. Old growth and mature tree stands in RCAs would be protected in the project area. Most trees harvested would be in medium size classes.

Protection of nest sites and surrounding forest vegetative conditions is done principally through nest site mitigation. All action alternatives would provide protection with a no-harvest buffer around each active nest discovered during occupancy.

Refer to goshawk action alternative vegetation treatment effects to old growth and mature timber stands which are described above, which would have similar effects to preferred flammulated owl habitats.

Flammulated Owl - No Action Overall, current conditions and trends would continue for preferred flammulated owl habitats. More stands would have successional advancement to large tree and old growth stands. Natural fuel buildup would occur as stands mature and decline from age and outside agents such as beetles. As a result of this buildup, lethal, stand-replacing fires could become more prevalent (refer to fire effects analysis for additional details). Stand-replacing fires could potentially reduce nesting habitat across the project area. However, the size and severity of the disturbance could either eliminate or create the various elements of flammulated owl habitat. Loss of the large tree component of these stands would be detrimental for flammulated owl reproduction.

Flammulated Owl – Cumulative Impacts See cumulative effects analysis for late seral/old-growth associated habitat guild.

The No Action alternative would not contribute to past, present, or foreseeable future harvest- related fragmentation and/or losses of existing or replacement old-growth habitat stands. As a result of widespread, cumulative fuels buildup, lethal, stand-replacing fires could become more prevalent with associated risks to old growth habitats (refer to fire effects analysis for additional details). Due to a measure of uncertainty in estimating intensity of future fire risks to habitat conditions considered important for goshawk and owl nesting, there may be impacts to habitat with this alternative.

Cassin’s Finch – Alternatives A, B, and C Opening ponderosa and mixed conifer stands will improve Cassin’s Finch habitats.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-12

Cassin’s Finch - Alternative D (No Action) The No Action alternative would not contribute to past, present, or foreseeable future harvest- related fragmentation and/or losses of existing or replacement old-growth habitat stands.

Cassin’s Finch – Cumulative Effects The action alternatives would result in habitat increases. Such increases add moderately to cumulative increases of existing and potential future Cassin’s finch habitat related to previous harvests and post-disturbance harvest projects as well as reasonably foreseeable harvests on private, Forest Service, and State lands in the analysis area.

Increases of existing and future foraging and nesting habitat opportunities would result from this project, the increase would be relatively moderate in the project and analysis area. These acres may burn by wildfires and become high quality post-fire habitat in the future; therefore, the relative amount of expected Cassin’s finch habitat predicted to be increased from management treatments is relatively minor within the analysis area.

Activities that reduce the potential for wildfire and insect outbreaks reduce habitat for Cassin’s finch; however, proposed treatments would create suitable habitat. Past timber harvest activities have created a patchy landscape across the watershed, which has likely resulted in more suitable habitat than would occur in unlogged habitats. However, advancement of forest succession will result in these logged areas becoming unsuitable as trees mature and canopy cover increases.

Lewis Woodpecker and White-headed Woodpecker – Alternatives A, B, C The action alternatives could directly impact patches of mature mixed conifer habitats, large tree/mature stands, and existing old growth stands, or patch sizes. Old growth habitat connectivity would remain consistent within historical patterns by retention of riparian corridors.

Regeneration harvest and thinning can impact the woodpeckers by removing suitable nesting habitat (large ponderosa pine and potential snag habitat), although it would also create more open canopy cover which would be beneficial to the woodpeckers. The proposed project design spreads potentially affected acres across the entire project area. As a result, both woodpeckers, which may occur within the project area may experience some habitat loss at a small or site- specific scale. Project activities near an active nest site could cause temporary avoidance or abandonment, depending on the length and intensity of activity.

Proposed treatments would break up the fuel patterns, which in turn could reduce the likelihood of severe fire effects within the project area and effects to woodpecker habitat. However, it also noted that wild fire may be beneficial with the creation of snags and more open canopy cover within the project and analysis area. Timber harvest that creates more open canopy cover, while maintaining large live ponderosa pine and snags would be beneficial to the species.

Lewis Woodpecker and White-headed Woodpecker – No Action Natural fuel buildup would occur as stands mature and decline from age and outside agents such as beetles. As a result of this buildup, lethal, stand-replacing fires could become more prevalent (refer to fire effects analysis for additional details). Stand-replacing fires could potentially reduce nesting habitat across the project area. However, the size and severity of the disturbance could either eliminate or create the various elements of woodpecker habitat. Loss of the large tree component of these stands would be detrimental for woodpecker reproduction.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-13

Lewis Woodpecker and White-headed Woodpecker – Cumulative Impacts See cumulative effects analysis for snag/downed wood and late seral/old-growth associated habitat guild.

All action alternatives would result in varying levels of increases of foraging areas with actions that result in a reduction in canopy cover in medium and large tree stands. The No Action alternative would not contribute to past, present, or foreseeable future harvest- related fragmentation and/or losses of existing or replacement old-growth habitat stands. As a result of widespread, cumulative fuels buildup, lethal, stand-replacing fires could become more prevalent with associated risks to old growth habitats (refer to fire effects analysis for additional details). Due to a measure of uncertainty in estimating intensity of future fire risks to habitat conditions considered important for woodpecker nesting. Because woodpeckers’ are considered burn specialist for their use of snags in post-burn areas, wildfire occurrences would be beneficial to the species.

Mountain Quail - Alternatives A, B, C The analysis criteria includes actions that impact riparian/shrub areas and forested shrub communities; road building and timber harvest potential effects to habitat fragmentation; and timber harvest and fuel treatments that affect nesting habitats and mountain quail during the nesting period

No harvest activities would take place in RCAs, so these stands would remain relatively intact and available for potential mountain quail nesting habitat. Proposed treatments would break up the fuel patterns, which in turn could reduce the likelihood of severe fire effects within the project area and effects to mountain quail habitat. Prescribed burning would reduce shrub cover in the short term, but shrub cover would increase in the long term and be beneficial to mountain quail. Timber harvest activities and prescribed burning during nesting periods may result in disturbance, displacement, and some mortality to mountain quail.

Mountain Quail - No Action Natural fuel buildup would occur as stands mature and decline from age and outside agents such as beetles. As a result of this buildup, lethal, stand-replacing fires could become more prevalent (refer to fire effects analysis for additional details). Stand-replacing fires could potentially reduce canopy cover, resulting in a loss of shrubby-conifer habitat across the project area. Such risks would increase the chances of mountain quail mortality and habitat losses to wildfire.

Succession would result in an increase in shrubs and conifers, which would create more favorable conditions for mountain quail.

Mountain Quail - Cumulative Impacts The action alternatives would have localized direct and indirect cumulative effects on riparian and upland habitats, which may be utilized by mountain quail, in addition to those produced from past mining, timber harvest, residential development, livestock grazing, recreation, public access, fire exclusion and other habitat impacts.

The No Action alternative would allow stands to transition to higher fire hazard conditions, which would be cumulative to effects from past fire exclusion, loss of large diameter trees, and other human-caused impacts on habitat quality. Stand-replacing fires could potentially reduce preferred shrub-riparian and shrub-forested habitats (refer to fire effects analysis for additional

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-14

details). Due to a measure of uncertainty in estimating intensity of future fire risks to habitat conditions considered important for mountain quail; fire may be adverse from reducing shrub cover in the short term, while promoting shrub growth in the long-term and opening up timber canopy cover. Cumulative effects on mountain quail or its habitat from past timber harvest, human disturbance, residential development, livestock grazing, recreation, mining, fire exclusion, or other activities would occur. The No Action alternative would have no measurable direct or indirect effects on mountain quail or its preferred habitats, current vegetation conditions and trends would continue. The sensitive species determination for mountain quail would be “no impact” for the No Action alternative.

Olive-sided Flycatcher - Alternatives A, B, C For this analysis, olive-sided flycatcher nesting habitat was defined as forested stands with trees greater than 10 inches dbh and canopy cover 10–25%. Foraging habitat consists of shrublands, all seedling/sapling stands (early seral), and all other forest stands with a canopy cover less than 25%.

Tree harvest in all action alternatives would result in an increase in suitable nesting and foraging habitat for olive-sided flycatchers. It is expected that adequate residual large snags and/or live trees for foraging and singing perches will be maintained across the project area. Research has found that tall canopy height, low canopy cover, and clearcuts have been beneficial to olive- sided flycatchers. Nesting birds may be directly harmed if nest trees are removed. Spring burning would increase the risk of directly harming individual nesting birds and may jeopardize nest success.

Proposed treatments would break up the fuel patterns, which in turn could reduce the likelihood of severe fire effects within the project area and effects to olive-sided flycatcher habitat.

Olive-sided Flycatcher – Alternative D (No Action) Natural fuel buildup would occur as stands mature and decline from age and outside agents such as beetles. As a result of this buildup, lethal, stand-replacing fires could become more prevalent (refer to fire effects analysis for additional details). Stand-replacing fires could potentially reduce canopy cover, which would create more favorable conditions for olive-sided flyctcher.

Olive-sided Flycatcher - Cumulative Impacts The action alternatives would result in habitat increases. Such increases add moderately to cumulative increases of existing and potential future olive-sided flycatcher habitat related to previous harvests and post-disturbance harvest projects as well as reasonably foreseeable harvests on private, Forest Service, and State lands in the analysis area.

Increases of existing and future foraging and nesting habitat opportunities would result from this project, the increase would be relatively moderate in the project and analysis area. These acres may burn by wildfires and become high quality post-fire habitat in the future; therefore, the relative amount of anticipated olive-sided flycatcher habitat predicted to be increased from management treatments is relatively minor within the analysis area and relatively inconsequential.

Activities that reduce the potential for wildfire and insect outbreaks reduce habitat for olive-sided flycatchers; however, some treatments would create suitable habitat. Past timber harvest activities have created a patchy landscape across the watershed, which has likely resulted in more suitable habitat than would occur in unlogged habitats. However, advancement of forest

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-15

succession will result in these logged areas becoming unsuitable as trees mature and canopy cover increases.

Across the range of the species, especially the Interior Columbia River Basin, moderate or strong declines in unburned habitats potentially used by olive-sided flycatchers have occurred. However, timber harvest activities have created additional suitable habitats. With continued management emphasis on returning fire (both natural and prescribed) to the landscape and silvicultural treatments favoring more open canopy cover, openings, and early seral conditions, habitat conditions for the olive-sided flycatcher will improve.

The No Action alternative could in effect, have positive cumulative effects from fire effects on olive-sided flycatcher habitat availability. Absence of fuel reduction would add cumulatively to overall risks of eventual fire spread, which could create post-fire and early seral habitats preferred by olive-sided flycatchers. Successional advancement for some stands would result in mid-aged and mature stands with high canopy cover, resulting in loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitats.

Willow Flycatcher - Alternatives A, B, C The primary analysis criteria for willow flycatcher are the protection, enhancement, and maintenance of riparian and shrub patches.

All action alternatives would have direct and indirect effects on the willow flycatcher, particularly actions affecting riparian and aquatic habitats. Such actions include decommissioning of roads in RCAs and stream road crossings. Short term low adverse effects would occur from soil and vegetation disturbance within riparian areas or adjacent to riparian/aquatic habitats. Long-term benefits would occur to willow flycatchers utilizing riparian areas and stream bottoms, primarily from reduced potential for severe intensity wildfires. No timber harvest is proposed to occur in RCAs, which would provide for the primary protection of primary habitats associated with wet meadows, riparian areas, streams, ponds, spring, and seeps.

Prescribed fire would not be ignited within the RCAs, but would be allowed to back into these riparian zones. While there are no plans to ignite prescribed fire burns within the RCAs, there would be some effect from fire backing down into these areas, thus some small amount of tree and shrub habitat and nest of riparian nesting birds would be lost. Refer to Table G-2 for a summary of low severity burning which potentially would occur in RCAs under the various alternatives. Upland actions associated with the project would be expected to place willow flycatchers at some indirect or direct risk for harm to individuals that may be present during treatments and loss of habitats. Indirect effects may occur from upland treatments that affect habitat for prey species utilizing shrub habitats.

Table G-2. Prescribed Burning (acres) within RCAs* Little Salmon River Face Boulder Project Area Alternative Drainages Fall Creek Camp Creek Creek Trail Creek Total Alt. A 144 57 56 18 108 384 Alt. B 144 57 60 18 108 387 Alt. C 82 48 24 14 90 258 * Low intensity burning within RCAs would result in a mosaic of burned and unburned areas, likely resulting in less area being affected than predicted in the table.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-16

In the short term, some riparian habitat could be reduced, thus reducing nesting habitat in a patchy mosaic. In the long-term, however, the shrub layer would return to near pre-treatment levels, with willow flycatcher habitat remaining fairly constant at the landscape level.

All action alternatives identify restoration actions, which would result in some beneficial effects to riparian and aquatic habitat within the project area with the reduction of fuel loading and risks associated with stand replacing fires and adverse effects to riparian habitats. Timber harvest activities and prescribed burning during nesting periods may result in disturbance, displacement, and potential mortality to willow flycatchers.

Willow Flycatcher - No Action From a habitat standpoint, there would be no adverse direct or short-term effects to riparian habitats, as conditions would be expected to remain relatively constant. A continuing buildup of fuels in these areas would lead to an increased risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. For riparian dependent bird species, the effects of such a fire (would likely last for about 10 to 15 years (dependent on burn severity), before the area would have enough plant re-growth to provide adequate habitat for riparian-dependent bird species.

Willow Flycatcher - Cumulative Impacts See cumulative effects analysis for riparian/aquatic dependent habitat guild.

The No Action alternative would have no measurable direct or indirect effects on willow flycatchers or their preferred habitats. However, cumulative effects on individuals or their preferred habitat from past timber harvest, human disturbance, recreation, livestock grazing, mining or other activities would occur. The sensitive species determination for willow flycatcher would be “no impact” for the No Action alternative.

Vaux’s Swift – Alternatives A, B, C The action alternatives could directly impact patches of mature mixed conifer habitats, large tree/mature stands, and existing old growth stands, or patch sizes. Old growth habitat connectivity would remain consistent within historical patterns by retention of riparian corridors. Opening up canopy cover in mature large tree stands would impact potential nesting habitats, particularly areas identified for even aged mechanical treatments. Even aged mechanical treatments would remove 50% to 70% of the canopy cover of mature timber stands. Alternative A (559 acres) and Alternative B (550 acres) proposes similar even aged treatments, and Alternative C proposes to treat 457 acres. These treatments would result in a loss of preferred nesting habitat for Vaux’x Swift, however, foraging areas would increase with vegetation treatments that result in more open canopy cover stands.

Regeneration harvest and thinning can impact goshawks by removing suitable nesting habitat, although it can also create forest edges and in some cases smaller openings that Vaux’s swift that they could use for foraging. The proposed project design spreads potentially affected acres across the entire project area. As a result, Vaux’s swift are likely to experience some habitat loss at a small or site-specific scale. Project activities near an active nest site could cause temporary avoidance or abandonment, depending on the length and intensity of activity

Proposed treatments would break up the fuel patterns, which in turn could reduce the likelihood of severe fire effects within the project area and effects to Vaux’s swift habitat.

Reduction of preferred habitat conditions and stand structure would be similar for Alternatives A (559 acres) and B (550 acres) and would be less for Alternative C (457 acres).

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-17

Also see the Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated Habitat Guild analysis for additional information.

Vaux’s Swift – Alternative D (No Action) No direct effects to old growth stands, replacement old growth stands, or any mixed conifer stands will occur, thus existing old growth habitat patch sizes and connectivity will be maintained. Existing Vaux’s swift habitat would not be harvested under this alternative. In general, nesting habitat would increase and foraging habitat would decrease as forest succession continues to fill in understories and increase stand canopy closure.

Natural fuel buildup would occur as stands mature and decline from age and outside agents such as beetles. As a result of this buildup, lethal, stand-replacing fires could become more prevalent (refer to fire effects analysis for additional details). Stand-replacing fires could potentially reduce nesting habitat across the project area. However, the size and severity of the disturbance could either eliminate or create the various elements of Vaux’s swift habitat.

Vaux’s Swift – Cumulative Impacts See cumulative effects analysis for late seral/old-growth associated habitat guild.

Idaho Giant Salamander - Alternatives A, B, C The primary analysis criteria are protection, enhancement, and maintenance of meadows, riparian areas, and aquatic habitats for the Idaho giant salamander. Uplands are also used by Idaho giant salamander, particularly in areas adjacent to RCAs and riparian habitats.

All action alternatives would have direct and indirect effects on the Idaho giant salamander, particularly actions affecting riparian and aquatic habitats. Such actions include decommissioning of roads, road construction, and road stream crossings. Short-term negligible adverse effects would occur from soil and vegetation disturbance within riparian areas or adjacent to aquatic habitats. No timber harvest or fuels treatments are proposed to occur in RCAs, which would provide for the protection of primary habitats associated with wet meadows, riparian areas, streams, ponds, springs, and seeps.

The Idaho giant salamander occurs in well-forested areas where there is abundant moisture throughout the year. Adults may found in water or on land under logs, bark, rocks and other objects, usually in damp situations not far from a perennial cold stream. Indirect effects from upland actions can also affect water quality and occupied habitats used by Idaho giant salamanders.

Prescribed fire would not be ignited within the RCAs, but would be allowed to back into these riparian zones. Therefore, there could be riparian habitats impacted, refer to previous Table G-2 for a summary of RCA prescribed burning that could take place under the various alternatives. Upland actions associated with the project would be expected to place these species at some indirect or direct risk for harm to individuals that may be present during fuel treatments and temporary loss of preferred habitats and reduction of cover. Indirect effects may occur from upland treatments that affect water quality or provide habitat for prey species.

In the short-term, some riparian habitat could be impacted from prescribed fire and some riparian habitats would be a patchy mosaic of burned and unburned. In the long-term, however, the shrub layer and riparian habitat would return to near pre-treatment levels, with Idaho giant salamander habitat remaining fairly constant at the landscape level.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-18

All action alternatives identify restoration actions, which would result in long-term beneficial effects to riparian and aquatic habitat within the project area, such as road decommissioning.

Idaho Giant Salamander - No Action The No Action alternative would have no immediate, direct negative or positive impacts on the Idaho giant salamander or their habitat. As local stands mature and decline with their associated fuel buildups, more severe localized risks would occur. Such risks may increase the chances of individual mortality and habitat losses due to wildfires, particularly if such fires affected riparian and aquatic habitats, particularly if such fires affected large percentages of a drainage and its associated riparian and aquatic habitats. Successional advancement would improve some riparian habitats.

Idaho Giant Salamander - Cumulative Impacts See cumulative effects analysis for riparian/aquatic dependent habitat guild and cumulative effects analysis for western toad below.

Western Toad - Alternatives A, B, C The primary analysis criteria for western toad are protection, enhancement, and maintenance of riparian and aquatic habitats, which is critical to reproduction. Western toads also use upland habitats the majority of the time, consequently upland treatments would have direct and indirect effects on western toads.

All action alternatives include decommissioning of roads, road construction, road maintenance, and stream crossing within riparian areas. Short-term negligible adverse effects would occur from soil and vegetation disturbance within riparian areas or adjacent to aquatic habitats. Long- term benefits would occur to toad habitat with re-vegetation occurring. No timber harvest or fuels treatments are proposed to occur in RCAs, which would provide for the primary protection of reproduction habitat associated with streams, ponds, spring, and seeps.

Prescribed fire would not be ignited within the RCAs, but would be allowed to back into these riparian zones. Therefore, there could be riparian habitats impacted. Consequently, riparian habitats could be impacted, refer to previous Table G-2 for a summary of RCA prescribed burning that could take place under the various alternatives. Upland actions associated with the project would be expected to place the western toad at some indirect or direct risk for harm to individuals that may be present during fuel treatments and temporary loss of preferred habitats and reduction of cover. Indirect effects may occur from upland treatments that affect water quality or provide habitat for prey species. Bull (2006) notes that reducing coarse woody debris to implement fuel reduction may have negative consequences to western toads. Reducing large down woody debris reduces substrates necessary for some prey species (ants and beetles) and reduces availability of refuge sites used by toads. Toads use squirrel burrows as refuge sites. Fuels treatments may negatively affect squirrels using the area, thus indirect effects may occur from a reduction of squirrel burrows which provide refuge areas for toads.

In the short-term, some riparian non-breeding habitat could be reduced from prescribed fire and some riparian habitats would be a patchy mosaic of burned and unburned. Regeneration harvest with underburning removes overstory trees and ground cover, resulting in warmer and drier exposed soils. Intermediate harvest and burning would retain most of the larger overstory trees, leaving ground-level habitat more protected, with better daytime refugia sites for toads. Based on this species’ ability to occupy a wide variety of habitats, western toad use could still occur, although at lower levels. In the long-term, however, the shrub layer and riparian habitat

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-19

would return to near pre-treatment levels, with western toad habitat remaining fairly constant at the landscape level.

Upland actions such as road construction, road decommissioning, timber harvest, fuels reduction actions, and post-harvest slash treatments would be expected to have discountable direct and negligible indirect effect on western toad reproductive habitat. However, action alternatives do treat the upland areas to varying degrees, which may place toads at some direct risk for harm to individuals that may be present, including minor potential indirect impacts on riparian habitat conditions from changes due to off-site generated silt and water quality impacts.

Implementing the watershed improvement projects associated with the action alternatives would cause a temporary increase in sediment short-term, but there would also be a long-term reduction in sediment. It is not expected that increases in sediment levels would adversely affect western toads, but it is reasonable to think that improvements to overall watershed quality and, particularly riparian habitats, would be beneficial to reproduction for the western toad.

Salvaging dead and dying trees and merchantable green trees would help reduce the risk of high-intensity, large-scale fires in the project area. Fuel loading within RCAs would continue under all action alternatives and could expose toads and toad habitat to intense fires; however, by reducing fuel loads outside of RCAs, fires might not be as destructive to moist environments as under the No Action alternative.

Western Toad - No Action The No Action alternative would have no immediate, direct negative or positive impacts on the western toad or its habitat. As local stands mature and decline with their associated fuel buildups, more severe localized risks would occur. Such risks may increase the chances of individual mortality and habitat losses due to wildfires. Western toad habitat effects from fire may cause loss of shrubs providing security cover, which would result in toads being more susceptible to predation. Successional advancement would improve some riparian habitats.

Western Toad - Cumulative Impacts See cumulative effects analysis for riparian/aquatic dependent habitat guild.

The No Action alternative would have no measurable direct or indirect effects on these species or their preferred habitats. However, cumulative effects on the individuals or their habitat from past timber harvest, human disturbance, recreation, livestock grazing, or other activities would occur. The project area would be more prone for severe wildfire effects to riparian habitats with no fuel reduction treatments. The sensitive species determination for the Idaho giant salamander and western toad would be “no impact” for the No Action alternative.

References Cited in Appendix F

Altman, B. 1997. Olive-sided flycatcher in western North America: Status review. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

Bock, C.E. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis’ woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). University of California Publication of Zoology 92:1-100.

Brennan, L.A. 1990. What happened to the mountain quail in Idaho? Quail Unlimited Magazine 9:42-43, 69.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-20

Brennan, L. A. 1994. Broad-scale population decline in four species of North American quail: an examination of possible causes. Pages 44-50 In Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-247. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bull, E. L. 2006. Sexual differences in the ecology and habitat selection of western toads (Bufo boreas) in northeastern Oregon. Pacific Northwest Research Station La Grande, OR.

Bull, E.L.; C. G. Parks; and T. R. Torgensen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. USDA- Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 55 p.

Brigham, R.M., S.D. Grindal, M.C. Firman, and J.L. Morissete. 1997. The influence of structural clutter on activity patterns of insectivorous bats. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:131-136.

Crampton, L.H. and R.M.R. Barclay. 1996. Habitat selection by bats in fragmented and unfragmented aspen mixedwood stands of different ages. In: Barclay, R.M.R., Brigham, R.M. Bats and Forest Symposium, Oct. 19-21, 1995, Victoria, British Columbia. Canadian Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. Working Paper 23, pp. 238-259.

Crampton, L.H., and R.M.R. Barclay. 1998. Selection of roosting and foraging habitat by bats in different aged aspen mixedwood stands. Conservation Biology 12:1347-1358.

Dixon, R.D. 1995a. Ecology of White-headed woodpeckers in the central Oregon Cascades. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Idaho, Moscow.

Dixon, R. D. 1995b. Density, nest-site and roost characteristics, home-range, habitat-use, and behavior of white-headed woodpeckers; Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame Report No. 93-3-01.

Ericson, J.L. 1993. Bat activity in managed forest in the western Cascade Range. MS thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 1993.

Ericson, J.L., and S. D. West. 1996. Managed forests in the western Cascades; the effects of seral stage on bat habitat use patterns. In: Barclay, R.M.R., Brigham, R.M. Bats and Forests Symposium, Oct. 19-21, 1995, Victoria, British Columbia. Canadian Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. Working Paper 23, pp. 215-227.

Frederick, G.P. and T.L. Moore. 1991. Distribution and habitat of white-headed woodpeckers in west-central Idaho. Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 32 p.

Garrett, K.L., M.G. Raphael, and R.D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed woodpecker (Picoides alborarvatus). In The Birds of North American, No. 252 (A. Poole and F. Gill eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C

Gentry, F.J. and K.T. Vierling. 2007. Old burns as source habitats for Lewis’s woodpeckers in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Condor 109:122-131.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-21

Grindal, S.D., and R.M. Brigham. 1998. Short-term effects of small scale habitat disturbance on activity by insectivorous bats. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:996-1003.

Grindal, S.D., and R.M. Brigham. 1999. Impacts of forest harvesting on habitat use by insectivorous bats at different spatial scales. Ecoscience 6:25-34.

Groves, C., B. Butterfield, A. Lippincott, B. Csuti, and J. M. Scott. 1997. Atlas of Idaho’s wildlife. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Boise, Idaho. 372 pp.

Gutierrez, R.J., and D.J. Delehanty. 1999. Mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus). In Birds of North American, No. 457. (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The Birds of North American, Incorporated, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Hayes, J. P., and S. C. Loeb. 2007. The influences of forest management on bats in North America. Pages 207-236 in Lacki, M. J., H. P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, editors. Bats in Forests: conservation and management. Johns Hopkins University Press. 329pp.

Hayward, G.D., and R. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. Condor 91:476-478.

Heinemeyer, K. S. and J. L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management in the western United States: A literature review and adaptive management strategy. USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, MT. pgs. iii and 12 (108 pp.).

Herman, B., K.P. Reese, and P. Zager. 2002. Spring and summer ecology of mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus) in west-central Idaho. Unpublished report on file at Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Humes, M.L., J.P. Hayes, and M.W. Collopy. 1999. Bat activity in thinned and unthinned, and old-growth forests in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:553-561.

Hutto, R.L., and J.S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-32. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1995. Draft Habitat Conservation Assessment for the Fisher (Martes pennanti) in Idaho. 24 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Lewis’s Woodpecker.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Idaho Comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Idaho Partners in Flight. 2000. Idaho bird conservation plan, version 1.0. Idaho Partners in Flight, compiled by S. Ritter, Hamilton, MT. 166 pp.

Jung, T.S., I.D. Thompson, R.D. Titman, and A.P. Applejohn. 1999. Habitat Selection by Forest Bats in Relation to Mixed-Wood Stand Types and Structure in Central Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(4):1306-1319.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-22

Kalcounis, M.C., K.A. Hobson, and R.M. Brigham, and K.R. Hecker. 1999. Bat activity in the boreal forest: importance of stand type and vertical strata. Journal of Mammalogy 80:673-682.

Kaufman, K. 1996. The lives of North American birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston and New York.

Keinath, D. and M. McGee. 2005, May 25. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/boaraltoad.pdf Kirchner, J.W., Finkel, R.C., Riebe, C.S., Granger, D.E., Clayton, J.L., King, J.G., and Megahan, W.F., 2001, Mountain erosion over 10 yr, 10 k.y., and 10 m.y. time scales: Geology, v. 29, p. 591–594

Krusic, R.A., M. Yamasaki, C.D. Neefus, and P.J. Perkins. 1996. Bat habitat use in White Mountain National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:625-631.

Linder, K.A., and S.H. Anderson. 1998. Nesting habitat of Lewis’ woodpeckers in southeastern Wyoming. Journal of Field Ornithology 69:109-116.

Loeb, S.C., and J.M. O’Keefe. 2011. Bats and gaps: the role of early successional patches in the roosting and foraging ecology of bats. Page 167-189 in CH. Greenberg, B.S. Collings, and F.R. Thompson III, editiors. Sustaining young forest communities. Springer, New York, New York, USA.

Manuwal, D. A. 1983. Avian abundance and guild structure in tow Montana coniferous forests. Murrelet 64(1): 1-11.

Maestas, J.D., R.L. Knight, and W.C. Gilgert. 2003. Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient. Conservation Biology 17:1425-1434.

Medin, D.E. 1985. Breeding bird responses to diameter-cut logging in west-central Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Research Paper INT-355.12 p.

Medin, D.E., and G.D. Booth. 1989. Responses of birds and small mammals to single-tree selection logging in Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Research Paper INT-408. 11 p.

Odell, E.A., and R.L. Knight. 2001. Songbird and medium-sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology 15:1143-1150.

Ormistorn, J.H. 1966. The food habits, habitat and movements of mountain quail in Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Owen,S.F., M.A. Menzel, J.W. Edwards, W.M. Ford, J.M. Menzel, B.R. Chapman, P.B. Wood, and K.V. Miller. 2004. Bat activity in harvested an intact forest stands in the Allegheny Mountains. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 21:154-159.

Patriquin, K.J., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2003. Foraging by bats in cleared, thinned, and unharvested boreal forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:646-657.

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-23

Patla, S. (team leader), K.K. Bates, M. Bechard, E. Crai, M. Fuller, R. Howard, S. Jefferies, S. Robinson, R. Rodrigues, and B. Wall. 1995. Habitat conservation assessment and strategy for the northern goshawk for the State of Idaho, March 3, 1995. 35 p.

Perkins, J.N., and S.P. Cross. 1988. Differential use of some confirerous forest habits by horary and silver haired bats in Oregon. Murrelet 69:21-24.

Reese, K.P., P.J. Nelle, and P. Zager. 1999. Movements, habitat use, and survival of mountain quail (Oreotyx pictus) during fall and winter in west-central Idaho. Unpublished report on file at Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Ritter, S. 2000. Idaho Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1.0. Idaho Partners in Flight.

Saab, V.A. and J.G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. USDA Forest Service Research Paper, RMRS-RP-11.

Saab, V.A. and K.T. Vierling. 2001. Reproductive success of Lewis’s woodpecker in burned pine and cottonwood riparian forests. Condor 103:491-501.

Thomas, D.W. 1988. The distribution of bats in different ages of Douglas-fir forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:619-626.

Thomas, D.W., and S.D. West. 1991. Forest age associations of bats in the southern Washington Cascade and Oregon Coast Ranges. Pages 295-301 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and N.H. Huff (Technical coordinators) Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Tibbels, A.E., and A. Kurta. 2003. Bat activity is low in thinned and unthinned stands of red pine. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 33:2436-2442.

Vierling, K.T. 1997. Habitat selection of Lewis’s woodpeckers in southeastern Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 109:121-130.

Vogel, C.A., and K.P. Reese. 1995. Habitat conservation assessment for mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus). Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Vols. 1-3. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-485. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland OR. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Boulder Creek Vegetation Project EA (DOI-BLM-ID-C020-2017-0007-EA) G-24