United States Department of Final Agriculture

Forest Environmental Assessment Service

May 2017 Dutch Oven Vegetation Management Project

Red River Ranger District Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest Idaho County, Idaho

For Information Contact: Jennie Fischer 104 Airport Rd Grangeville, ID 83530 (208) 983-4048

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

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

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

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

ii Table of Contents

1 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action ...... 5 Changes Between Preliminary and Final Environmental Assessment ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 Existing Conditions ...... 5 1.3 Desired Conditions ...... 8 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 9 1.5 Proposed Action ...... 9 1.6 Decision Framework ...... 10 1.7 Public Involvement...... 10 1.8 Issues ...... 11 1.9 Regulatory Requirements ...... 14 2 Chapter 2: Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...... 23 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 23 2.2 Alternatives Analyzed but Dropped from Consideration ...... 32 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 34 3 Chapter 3: Environmental Impacts ...... 39 3.1 Vegetation ...... 39 3.2 Climate Change ...... 51 3.3 Fuels ...... 56 3.4 Aquatics-Watershed ...... 63 3.5 Aquatics-Fisheries ...... 80 3.6 Heritage ...... 103 3.7 Soils ...... 105 3.8 Wildlife ...... 116 3.9 Scenic Quality ...... 173 3.10 Recreation ...... 184 3.11 Economics...... 185 3.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 188 4 Chapter 4: Other required Disclosures ...... 191 References and Literature Cited ...... 193 Appendix A – Alternative Maps and Treatment tables...... 1 Appendix B – Cumulative Effects ...... 1 Past Activities ...... 1 Ongoing Activities ...... 6 Future Foreseeable Activities ...... 6 Appendix C – Upward Trend Analysis ...... 1 Appendix D – Response to Public Comments ...... 1 List of Those Who Commented on the EA ...... 1 Comments Received and Forest Service Responses ...... 1 Consideration of Other Science/Literature Submitted by the Public ...... 44

iii

This page left intentionally blank,

iv 1 CHAPTER: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Changes Between Preliminary and Final Environmental Assessment ______The following changes were made to the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA) between the preliminary and final version: • Minor editorial changes throughout the document. • Maps were edited for clarity and easy reading. • NEZSED update, FISHSED, and corresponding upward trend requirement • Revisions have been made to the resource effects sections in Chapter 3 in order to present additional analysis and clarify environmental effects largely based on comments received during the 30-day notice and comment period on the preliminary Dutch Oven EA. o Wolverine listed as a proposed spices under the Endangered Species Act o Fisher analysis was updated with best available science o February 18, 2016 landslide and fuel reduction activity on private land within the project area were included in the cumulative effects analysis for affected resources. o Elk Habitat Effectiveness updated, Elk Vulnerability analysis added. • Appendix D – updated. Consideration of Other Science/Literature Submitted by the Public.

1.1 Introduction The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This environmental assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. Additional documentation, including detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Red River Ranger District Office in Elk City, Idaho. 1.2 Existing Conditions The Red River Ranger District of the Nez Perce Clearwater National Forests proposes fuel reduction and vegetation improvement activities on approximately 2,000 acres in the Dutch Oven Project area which is located about four air miles northwest of Elk City, Idaho. The 7,000-acre project area is located immediately adjacent to the Elk City Township in T29N, R7E, Sections 1, 2, 10-16, 21-28, Boise Meridian, Idaho County, Idaho. The project area includes the Trail Creek, Allison Creek, Moose Creek, Dutch Oven Creek and Whiskey Creek drainages, which are tributaries to the South Fork of the Clearwater River as well as Buffalo Gulch which is a tributary to American River. The Elk City Wagon Road runs along the northern project area boundary. Highway 14 provides primary access to Elk City; it traverses the southern boundary of the project area (Figure 1). This is the only paved route that connects Elk City to Grangeville and Kooskia and functions as the primary escape route for residents in the Dixie, Orogrande, and Elk City vicinities. The majority of this roadway abuts timber-type fuels and steep slopes. The river canyon is narrow enough that a fire on either side could restrict access due to extreme heat and fumes. In the event of a wildfire along the river, it is likely that this escape route would become impassable (ICWCMP, 2009). Three parcels of privately-owned lands, totaling 168 acres, lie within the project area boundary. The Mud Springs Ranch is located in the northwest corner of the project area and is accessed by Road 1808A. It

5 consists of a house, multiple outbuildings and a rental cabin. The other two parcels are located in the southeast corner of the project area and are accessed off Highway 14 by Roads 9867A and 9867B. No structures are located on these parcels.

Figure 1. Dutch Oven project area vicinity map

6 The 2009 Idaho County Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Wildfire Mitigation Plan, as amended, categorizes the Dutch Oven project area as WUI. Rural Condition is defined as: A situation where the scattered small clusters of structures (ranches, farms, resorts, or summer cabins) are exposed to wildland fuels. There may be miles between these clusters. The Idaho County Community Wildfire Mitigation Plan was developed in cooperation and collaboration with the organizations, agencies, and individuals of the Idaho County Fire Mitigation Working Group. This group included Idaho County representatives, USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Department of Lands, and the Nez Perce Tribe. City and rural fire protection, law enforcement, fire mitigation specialists, resource management professionals, and hazard mitigation experts also provided input. This group identified the need for mechanical treatments combined with prescribed burning in the Dutch Oven Project area to achieve wildfire resilience and improve forest health (2009 ICWMP, p. 147). The Dutch Oven Project lies within the Elk City West Priority Landscape Area as designated under Section 602 of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2014. Priority Landscapes were identified using the following criteria: location within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), Fire Regime Condition Classes 2 or 3, existing transportation infrastructure, viable wood products, and market industry infrastructure. The National Insect and Disease Risk Map (NIDRM) and 2013 Aerial Detection Survey for Region 1 were used to determine Insect and Disease severity and long-term risk. The Dutch Oven project falls within the South Fork Canyon Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU) and proposed activities are consistent with restoration strategies identified in the South Fork Clearwater Landscape Assessment (1998) for this Ecological Response Unit (ERU) (USDA 1998). Specifically, the Dutch Oven project proposes to restore vegetation patterns in mid-elevation forests and restore ponderosa pine in the lower elevations using timber harvest and prescribed fire (p. 121-124). These activities would reduce wildfire risk in the wildland urban interface (p. 29; USDA 1998), while improving winter and early spring browse (p. 104). This ERU provides winter and summer for elk range (p. 122). The project would also restore aquatic processes with road drainage treatments and other sediment source reduction activities (p. 111, 121). The majority of the project area is comprised of grand fir, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine. Root disease activity and damage is prevalent in grand fir and Douglas-fir with small to large patches of mortality and upwards of 50% canopy reduction expected across the majority of the project area. Ongoing mortality is occurring from mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine, and from root disease in Douglas-fir. Susceptibility to certain pathogens (root rots and spruce budworm) has increased with increases in grand fir and subalpine fir (USDA 1998). Minor inclusions of ponderosa pine occur in the project area, primarily at lower elevations on south and southwest aspects. Fire suppression has created a situation where these stands of large, mature ponderosa pine have substantial amounts of ingrowth in the understory creating continuous vertical structure. The current condition makes these trees susceptible to stand replacing fire. Currently, more than 91% of the project area is at risk of substantially increased tree mortality over the next fifteen years due to insect and disease infestations (2012, National Insect and Disease Risk Map). Successful fire exclusion over the past 70 to 80 years has contributed to greater stand densities and an increase in ladder fuels. More than 50% of the project area lies outside of historic natural fire regimes. Shade tolerant species like grand fir and subalpine fir have increased. Together, these factors have substantially increased the potential fire intensity and resistance to control. The project area is prone to longer fire intervals where mixed severity and stand replacement fire are expected. This risk poses threats to private property and safety and, in some situations, may result in unnaturally severe fires that could cause habitat degradation outside the natural range. Over the past several decades, past harvesting operations have created a mosaic pattern of forest stands at different stages of re-growth ranging from seedlings to old growth. This pattern in conjunction with the road systems create numerous opportunities to develop fuel breaks and anchor points to assist in suppression of uncontrolled wildfires (ICWCMP, 2009).

7 Upward trend analyses are required for Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds, as these watersheds do not currently meet their fish and water quality objectives (Forest Plan, Appendix A). Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, Moose, Creek and Whiskey Creek currently do not meet Forest Plan fishery/water objectives due to sediment. The Forest Plan states that timber management can occur in these watersheds, concurrent with habitat improvement efforts, as long as a positive, upward trend in habitat carrying capacity is indicated. Allison, Moose, and Whiskey Creeks contain designated critical habitat for steelhead trout within the Dutch Oven project area. All of these streams flow into the South Fork Clearwater River which contains designated critical habitat for steelhead trout and bull trout. Buffalo Gulch Creek contains designated critical habitat for steelhead trout downstream of the Dutch Oven project area and flows into the American River which also contains designated critical habitat for steelhead trout and bull trout.

1.3 Desired Conditions The purpose and need for this project was determined after comparing the existing conditions and the desired future conditions described below. The majority of the analysis area is classified as management area (MA) 12 in the Nez Perce Forest Plan (NPFP, 1987). Primary goals for this MA are to manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a sustained yield basis. The existing stand conditions present a challenge to meet concurrent goals including maintaining mature forest canopy, promoting early seral tree species that can tolerate repeated underburning, enhancing resiliency to disturbances, preventing fuel accumulation over time, and providing an appropriate level of timber productivity. Desired conditions for this landscape are based on those found in the Forest Plan, plus Forest-wide goals and objectives (NPFP II-1, 2, 25, 26). Desired vegetative conditions would consist of a diverse and resilient forest structure, with a range of age classes, size classes, habitat complexity (diversity) and disturbance patterns that would more closely emulate the results of low/mixed severity fires. The desired condition is to maintain a range of high quality, early seral habitat across the landscape while retaining large trees. Ladder fuels and fire intervals would be within the normal range across the landscape. The area would provide forest products to support local communities as directed by the Forest Plan. The desired conditions for this area is reduced risk of uncharacteristic or undesirable fire, including crown fire. The project area would be comprised of single and two storied stands primarily consisting of fire- tolerant seral species, such as ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir. These species are desirable because of their relative resilience to fire and are expected to have been more dominant under the natural fire disturbance regimes. The area would be more resistant to crown fires and potential fire behavior would be of lower intensity and severity. Ponderosa pine and western larch are also less susceptible to root disease. Under the desired condition for this area, ladder fuels, vertical vegetation that connects surface fire to the crown fuels of overstory trees, would be sparse and would not contribute toward crown fire initiation. Over much of the project area, flame lengths would be lower, and fires would burn as surface fires, with only small pockets of torching, instead of stand replacing crown fires. Reduced fuels along Highway 14, Road 307, and Road 1808 would allow for egress by residents and visitors and allow access by firefighters in the event of a wildfire. Firefighters would be able to suppress wildfires in the area with direct attack utilizing ground crews and engines. Desired aquatic conditions for the Dutch Oven area are for instream sediment, woody debris and stream and riparian structures to function within normal reference ranges. Stable floodplains, stream banks, and stream channels are desirable. Riparian vegetation would provide shade to the stream and keep stream temperatures within preferred ranges. Under the desired conditions, roads would not contribute sediment

8 to streams, and culverts under these roads would not prevent upstream passage for fish or other aquatic organisms (NPFP, II-19, 20, 21).

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action The primary purpose of this project is to reduce hazardous fuels on approximately 2000 acres of designated Rural Wildland Urban Interface lands adjacent to Elk City. Activities would reduce the potential for, and intensity of, subsequent wildfire and increase the chance for fire suppression strategies and tactics to be successful. There is a need to enhance wildfire suppression capability and provide for public and firefighter safety by reducing the amount of available fuel and implementing strategic treatments to provide safety zones and escape routes. The purpose of this project is also to improve and manage for long-term forest health and the sustainability of early seral species such as ponderosa pine and western larch. There is a need to improve forest resilience to wildfire and insect and disease events. There is a need to create a mosaic of stand conditions across the landscape configured to reduce the extent of continuous fuels and trend the area toward a more diverse and resilient forest structure. There is a need to create a range of age classes, size classes, habitat complexity (diversity) and disturbance patterns that more closely emulate natural low to mixed severity disturbance. Forest management activities are needed to promote early and late seral vegetation to provide needed wildlife habitat, particularly big game. These actions respond to the goals and objectives outlined in the NPFP, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan.

1.5 Proposed Action The actions proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need are briefly described below. • Conduct intermediate harvest on 213 acres. The majority of treatments would remove encroaching grand fir and Douglas-fir from ponderosa pine stands, increase the growth of residual trees, reduce fuel hazards and improve elk winter range. • Conduct regeneration harvest on 945 acres to maintain and/or re-establish long-lived early seral species and reduce fuel hazard in the rural WUI. • Conduct landscape burning on 1,150 acres. This treatment would reduce hazardous surface fuels, increase canopy height, and move the area towards Condition Class One (low departure from the natural historical fire regime). • Complete activity fuel treatments on potentially all remaining harvest units that are not included in landscape burning (876 acres) to reduce activity fuel hazards and in some cases, prepare harvested openings for planting. • Construct approximately 6.1 miles of temporary roads to facilitate harvest. These roads would be decommissioned through obliteration after use. • Decommission approximately 5.5 miles of Roads 307A, 307A1, 78398, 78399, 78399A, 9815D, 9851A, 9852A, 9852B, 9867A, and 9874. • Place 1.4 miles of Road 1808E into long term storage. • Perform road maintenance on approximately 35 miles of roads used for log haul.

9 • Conduct road improvements that include gravel spot treatments, placement of aggregate rock in ditches and on road surfaces, and road reshaping/blading totaling approximately 7 miles on Roads 307, 1808, 9815, 9851, 9867, and 307A. Spot graveling will reduce sediment delivery during project activities. • Recondition 1.3 miles and reconstruct 0.5 miles of Road 9867 to accommodate log haul; (restrict access back to 50 inches or less motorized vehicles for trail use after timber harvest.) • Replace or realign 11 undersized or failing culverts on Roads 1808, 9815, 9851, 9853, 307, 307A, and 9815B.

1.6 Decision Framework The Responsible Official for this project is Forest Supervisor Cheryl Probert. In making her decision, the Responsible Official will review the purpose and need, the Proposed Action and other alternatives, the environmental impacts, and public comment to make the following decisions. • Should fuel reduction, vegetation and watershed improvement treatments in the Project area be completed, and if so, which forested stands should be treated and what silvicultural treatments should be applied? • Should temporary roads be constructed, and if so, how many miles of road should be constructed and where should they be constructed? • If an action is selected, what mitigation measures and monitoring requirements should be applied to the project?

1.7 Public Involvement A need for fuel reduction treatments in this area was originally identified in the 2009 Idaho County Wildfire Protection Plan as the Newsome to Elk City project. This plan was developed collaboratively by the Idaho County Fire Mitigation Working Group which consisted of organizations, agencies and individuals, including local residents. The Dutch Oven project area was designated as a proposed treatment area under the 2014 Farm Bill. The Forest Supervisor and staff worked collaboratively with the Clearwater Basin Collaborative Group (CBC) to select proposed treatment areas in March 2014. The Dutch Oven project was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on October 1, 2014 (http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110117 ). The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping on October 8, 2014. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency presented this proposal to Nez Perce tribal staff members for comment and discussion on November 18, 2013 and November 3, 2014. The Clearwater Basin Collaborative was updated on the status of this project on October 30, 2014. The Proposed Action was initially developed from preliminary issues, concerns and existing conditions that were identified by the interdisciplinary team (IDT). The IDT used comments from the public, other agencies, the Clearwater Basin Collaborative and the Nez Perce Tribe (see Issues section), to develop the scope of the actions, alternatives and effects to consider in the environmental assessment (EA). Many of the issues were addressed through project design criteria and resource protection measures. On October 19, 2015 I provided a draft of the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project EA to all that commented during the combined 30-day comment period including individuals, organizations, industry, and the Nez Perce Tribe. Seven comment letters were received.

10 1.8 Issues The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non- significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non- significant may be found in the project record.

Issues Used to Develop Alternatives to the Proposed Action Several concerns raised during scoping were used to develop alternatives to the Proposed Action.

1.8.1.1 Focus Treatments Around Structures and Private Property A commenter suggested that project activities should consist of fuel reduction treatments on and near private lands within the project area. Specifically, treatments should be limited to within approximately 130 feet (40 meters) of existing structures on the Mud Springs Ranch because fuel reduction activities beyond this range do not reduce the risk of wildfire damage. Alternative 4 was developed to address this.

1.8.1.2 Impacts of Large Openings A commenter was concerned about the potential impacts of large openings (greater than 40 acres) to various wildlife species, particularly elk. They were concerned that these openings could impede dispersal, reduce foraging opportunities and increase vulnerability to predators and/or human harvest relative to smaller forest openings. They suggested that these larger openings be reduced in size and number by dropping areas from treatment or by enhancing riparian buffer widths. Alternative 2 would address this concern. The Dutch Oven Project was scoped in October, 2014. After further field review, some proposed treatment areas were dropped, were reduced in size or proposed treatments were altered due to the presence of unstable soils, water or other resource concerns and in response to comments about potential impacts of specific treatment blocks that were larger than 40 acres. Potential impacts of larger openings would be analyzed in the EA and Regional Office approval for creation of openings larger than forty acres would be obtained during project analysis.

1.8.1.3 Minimize Road Construction There was concern that proposed temporary road construction could impact water quality and soils and contribute to sediment production. One commenter was concerned that road construction would harm wildlife habitat. One commenter requested that temporary roads be located appropriately to protect resources and that other options to accomplish project goals be considered. During field review and project analysis, proposed treatment areas, vegetation treatment types and harvest systems were refined. As a result, proposed temporary road construction dropped from approximately 11 miles to 6.1 miles in the revised proposed action.

1.8.1.4 Watershed Improvement One commenter suggested the project decommission more system roads and all non-system roads to reduce road densities in the area. A project area roads analysis identified all known road decommissioning and long term storage opportunities in the area. Watershed improvement is not part of the purpose and need for this hazardous fuels reduction project. To address upward trend requirements, the Dutch Oven

11 Project proposes road decommissioning, long term storage activities and road improvement activities, and culvert replacements on haul routes. After further field review and in response to public comments, this project also proposes to decommission Roads 9852A, 9852B, and 78399, remove a degraded culvert on Road 9867 and conduct aggregate placement activities on Road 9815 and 307, which are log haul routes. Additionally, various watershed improvement proposals are ongoing in the project area under separate NEPA analyses and are described in the cumulative effects discussions in this document.

1.8.1.5 Upper Lochsa Land Exchange Impacts The 7,000 acre Dutch Oven Project area includes approximately 2,171 acres of federal land proposed for exchange in the Upper Lochsa Land Exchange Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These acres are located adjacent to the western boundary of the Elk City township in T29N, R7E, Sections 1, 12, 13 and 24. The Dutch Oven Project proposes approximately 331 acres of harvest, 147 acres of landscape burning and construction of 1.5 miles of temporary roads on those acres proposed for exchange. If a final decision is reached on the Upper Lochsa Land Exchange before the Dutch Oven project is completed, and the land exchange includes lands within the Dutch Oven project proposal, these lands would be dropped from the Dutch Oven proposal. This project was dropped in 2017.

Issues Used to Develop Design Criteria The Responsible Official reviewed the concerns that were raised during the scoping. These concerns are valuable, but they do not raise unresolved conflicts with the Proposed Action and therefore are not treated as issues. Typically, these concerns have been addressed by incorporating design features.

1.8.1.6 Impacts to Cultural Resources and the Nez Perce Trail Historic Landmark Values Some commenters were concerned that project activities could potentially damage the Nez Perce Trail or other cultural resources. Cultural surveys and required consultation with other regulatory agencies would be completed before project activities would occur. This project would include design measures recommended by the Forest archeologist and timber sale contract provisions to protect historic trails and resources during project implementation. Project design features and tree retention guidelines would be implemented to reduce any visual impacts from harvest activities.

1.8.1.7 Noxious Weeds There was concern that project activities, including temporary road construction and use and post-harvest burning could increase the spread of noxious weeds. This project would include project design measures, monitoring requirements and timber sale contract provisions to minimize the spread of noxious weeds. Temporary roads would be decommissioned after use, removing future motorized use and the potential to spread of noxious weeds by vehicles.

Issues Carried through the Analysis Commenters raised the following issues which were used to identify the level and scope of the analysis, but did not drive an alternative.

1.8.1.8 Resource Concerns The public expressed concern that proposed activities should protect water quality, soils, fisheries and wildlife habitats. They were concerned that timber harvest activities, including the use of roads for log haul, road maintenance activities and culvert replacement and road decommissioning activities could contribute to sediment and that upward trend requirements for area streams would not be met. They

12 requested that some roadwork be completed before any harvest activities take place. Some people wanted to see more watershed restoration work included in the project. Others were concerned about potential impacts to old growth forests. A commenter recommended that western white pine should be planted in harvested areas, where appropriate. This project would be designed to assure that Forest Plan goals and standards for these resources would be met as well as other applicable laws and regulations. Potential impacts to these resources are analyzed in Chapter 3. Design measures described in Chapter 2 of the EA would ensure protection of sensitive areas.

1.8.1.9 Cumulative Impacts The Nez Perce Tribe was concerned that this project, in combination with past and ongoing projects in the South Fork Clearwater River could detrimentally affect tribal treaty resources. Tributaries to the South Fork Clearwater River are extremely important to the Tribe and they have funded and completed many restoration activities within these tributaries. The impacts of past activities, including timber harvest, road construction, mining and grazing would be considered during analysis for all relevant resources. Potential impacts to treaty resources, including wildlife, old growth and fisheries would be addressed.

1.8.1.10 Economic Viability Some people voiced their support for proposed timber harvest activities because they would provide needed economic benefits and stability. Others requested that the economic analysis clearly display project costs and benefits. Others wanted assurances that watershed restoration work proposed with this project would be funded. An economic analysis would be completed for this proposal. Proposed road reconstruction, reconditioning, and maintenance activities are associated with timber harvest. Some road decommissioning will be completed with timber harvest activities; aquatic restoration projects (road decommissioning, culvert replacements, long term storage activities) would be completed as appropriated funds, partnership funds, retained receipts, and RAC funding become available. When sediment reduction activities become NEPA cleared, they are put into a funding pool along with other similar projects across the Forests. The projects are funded based on resource priority on an annual basis and kept on the list until they are funded. The higher the resource priority the quicker the project is funded. The Nez Perce Clearwater Forests have been successful in funding watershed improvement projects. On the Red River District, watershed activities that have occurred include over 106 miles of road decommissioning as well as culvert and bridge replacements for aquatic organism passage. The Forest intends to continue accomplishing watershed restoration as funding allows.

Issues Decided by Law or Policy, Not Affected by the Proposal, or Outside the Scope of the Project Various concerns were raised that are covered by prior environmental review or outside the scope of the project such as use of PACFISH, and monitoring of Best Management Plan (BMP) effectiveness. Forest Plan and/or Regional standards and guidelines for old growth, soils, snags and coarse woody material would be followed. Where appropriate, these standards and guidelines are included as design features.

1.8.1.11 Development of Recreational Opportunities It was suggested that trail management, reroutes and other infrastructure improvements be considered in this project. A commenter requested that Road 1808E be designated as a summer OHV trail to provide loop opportunities. Another stated that this road provides a connection between two snowmobile trails and that proposed treatments should be designed to allow for grooming of a potential snowmobile trail. Road 1808E is currently closed yearlong to large vehicles and open yearlong to vehicles less than 50

13 inches. The Dutch Oven Project proposes to place 1.4 miles of Road 1808E into long-term storage. The road template would be placed into a stable condition that would reduce risk of surface erosion and sedimentation from mass failure. Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) accessibility would be maintained. One commenter suggested that Trail 9867 be extended, using Road 9852, so that it would connect to Trail 1808 to create loop opportunities. Another commenter was concerned that conversion of this route to a motorized trail could degrade wildlife security. Development of motorized recreational trails and roads is outside the scope of this fuel reduction project. The upcoming DRAMVU proposal will address access management on the Forest.

1.9 Regulatory Requirements As part of the analysis for this project, the IDT evaluated alternatives under the laws, regulations and requirements relating to federal natural resource management. Several of the design features presented in Chapter 2 were developed and incorporated to ensure these requirements would be met. The following sections summarize the results of the analysis for those concerns most often noted. Additional details can be found in Chapters 2, 3 and/or the Project Record.

Forest Plan Direction Although the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forest were administratively combined in February 2013, management of the lands formerly within the boundary of the Nez Perce National Forest will continue to be guided by direction found in the Nez Perce Forest Plan (NPFP) until the plan is revised. The NPFP (1987, as amended) guides all natural resource management activities by providing a foundation and framework of standards and guidelines for National Forest System lands administered by the Nez Perce National Forest. Forest wide management direction relevant to this project is found in the Forest Plan on pages II-1 through II-27. Applicable goals are summarized below. Resource values would be protected through cost-effective fire and fuels management, emphasizing fuel treatment through the utilization of material and using prescribed fire (Goal 13, II-2). Protect resource values through the practice of integrated pest management (Goal 14, II-2). Actions to reduce timber losses due to insect and disease will be implemented when compatible with overall management direction. Control actions will generally be aimed at reducing the risk of infestations through silvicultural treatments in high and moderate risk stands. (II-8) The Forest will plan, implement, and maintain a fire management program that minimizes the cost plus net value change (Objective – Protection II-8). The Forest Plan (III-1 through III-67) provides area specific standards and guidelines. Management area direction, management area emphasis and protection goals specific to the Dutch Oven Project area are summarized below (Table 1-1).

14 Table 1-1: Forest Plan Management Areas in Dutch Oven Project, and Management Emphasis

Management Area and % of Management Emphasis Prescription Project Area 01 Minimum Inclusions Provide minimum magaement necessary to provide Management 5% for resource protection and to ensure public safety. Additonal road consturction will be allowed to manage adjacent areas (III – 5) 10 Riparian Inclusions Maintain values for wildlife, fisheries, and water 2% quality (III – 0-33, Amendment #20) 12 Timber Production 63% Manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a sustained yield basis (III – 37-39). Wildfire management strategy is to control, contain, and confine. (III – 38) 16 Winter Range Inclusions Improve the quality of winter range habitat for deer 6% and elk through timber harvesting, prescribed buring, and other management practices (III – 46-48) 17 Visual Inclusion Manage for timber production within the constraints 4% imposed by the visual quality objectives (VQOs) of retention or partial retention while providing for other multiple use resources (III – 49-51) 20 Old Growth Inclusions Provide “suitable” habitat (existing and replacement) 5% for old-growth-dependant wildlife species (III – 56- 57) 21 Moose Winter Range Inclusions Manage the grand-fir Pacific yew plant communities 15% to provide for a continuing presence of Pacific yew “suitable” for moose winter habitat (III – 58-60)

1.9.1.1 Clearwater and Nez Perce Fire Management Plan The Fire Management Plan (2010) provides guidance for implementation of federal fire policy, Forest Service manual direction, and the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan provides specific direction for fire management on each of the Fire management Units (FMU) and Sub-Units (SU) on the Forest. The potential consequences to firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and values to be protected help determine the fire management response for unplanned ignitions. Firefighter and public safety are the first consideration and are always the priority during every management response. The Dutch Oven project lies within the South Fork SU where the fire management emphasis is to suppress fires on Forest Service lands and provide protection on private land inholdings. There are limited areas in this SU where fires could be managed for multiple objectives; none lie within the project area.

1.9.1.2 Region 1 Soil Quality Standards Regional Soil Quality policy (FSM 2554.03) is to design new activities that do not create detrimental soil conditions on more than 15 percent of an activity area. In areas where less than 15 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effect of the current activity following project implementation and restoration must not exceed 15 percent. In areas where more than 15 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration should not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and

15 should move toward a net improvement in soil quality. At least 85 percent of an activity area must have soil that is in satisfactory condition. Approximately 50 acres of soil restoration activities are planned under the Eastside Allotment Range Analysis on the Elk Summit allotment that would treat detrimental impacted areas and provide for soil restoration to improve conditions. The project is also consistent with Nez Perce Forest Plan soil objectives to not significantly impair the long-term productivity of the soil or produce unacceptable levels of sedimentation resulting from soil erosion. The project is consistent with Soil Standards 1, 2 and 3 (FP, II-22). This analysis evaluated the potential for soil displacement, compaction, puddling, mass wasting, and surface soil erosion for all ground-disturbing activities. Analysis determined, and the project was designed to ensure that a minimum of 80 percent of an activity area shall not be detrimentally compacted, displaced, or puddled upon completion of activities. The project would maintain sufficient ground cover to minimize rill erosion and sloughing on road cut and fill slopes and sheet erosion on other activity areas.

National Fire Plan (2000) The Dutch Oven project complies with national fire plan direction to develop projects that respond to the increasing buildup of hazardous fuels and the risk of high intensity wildland fires. This project includes activities that decrease the threat to life, structures, property, and resource values and improves the safety and capabilities of firefighters conducting fire suppression activities. It is consistent with 10 year Comprehensive Strategy (2001) goals to reduce risk of catastrophic wildland fire to people, communities, and natural resources while restoring forest and rangeland ecosystems to closely match their historical structure, function, diversity, and dynamics. The Dutch Oven Project accomplishes these goals by removing or modifying wildland fuels to reduce the potential for severe wildland fire behavior through regeneration harvest and/or underburning in the expanding wildland/urban interface areas.

Idaho County Revised Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Wildfire Mitigation Plan, as amended To address National Fire Plan (2000) direction, the Idaho County WUI Wildfire Mitigation Plan was developed collaboratively by a County Working Group. This plan describes the risks and potential treatments within the wildland urban interface of Idaho County. The Idaho County Wildfire Protection Plan, as amended, categorizes the Dutch Oven project area as a Rural Condition WUI. The eastern Dutch Oven project boundary abuts the Elk City township. Elk City is considered a “Community at risk”, urban wildland interface community near Federal lands that is at high risk from wildfire {Federal Register Volume 66(160)}. Dutch Oven project activities would reduce the threat of wildland fire to people, communities and ecosystems. Proposed activities would provide safe egress and ingress routes for evacuations and emergency response personnel on Highway 14. This group identified the need for mechanical treatments combined with prescribed burning in the Dutch Oven Project area to achieve wildfire resilience and forest health (2009 ICWMP, p. 147).

National Wildland Fire Policy, amended 2001 The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review was chartered in 1994 by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to ensure that federal policies are uniform and programs are cooperative and cohesive. The Dutch Oven Project addresses key points of the policy to: • Address firefighter and public safety as the first priority. • Incorporate public health and environmental quality considerations. • Where wildland fire cannot be safely reintroduced because of hazardous fuel build-ups, some form of pretreatment must be considered, particularly in wildland/urban interface areas.

16 Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2014 (Farm Bill) The HFRA is intended to build on work carrying out fuel treatments in and around communities under the National Fire Plan (http://www.fireplan.gov) and A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (May 2002, http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/11-23-en.pdf). HFRA provides expedited NEPA procedures for authorized fuel-reduction projects on National Forest system lands in the WUIs of at-risk communities. In 2014, new authorities under Section 602 of the HFRA expanded its use and provided new options and tools. The Dutch Oven Project lies within the Elk City West Priority Landscape Area as designated under Section 602 of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2014. Priority Landscapes were identified using the following criteria: location within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), Fire Regime Condition Classes 2 or 3, existing transportation infrastructure, viable wood products and market industry infrastructure. The National Insect and Disease Risk Map (NIDRM) and 2013 Aerial Detection Survey for Region 1 were used to determine Insect and Disease severity and long-term risk.

Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act is the primary legal authority governing air quality management. This Act is enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group coordinates all prescribed burning activities to minimize or prevent impacts from smoke emissions and ensure compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) issued by the EPA. The Forest Service, including the Red River Ranger District, is a member of this Airshed Group. The Dutch Oven Project area is in Montana/Idaho Airshed 13. All post-harvest site preparation and fuel reduction treatments would be conducted according to the requirements of the Montana/North Idaho Smoke Management Unit guidelines.

Clean Water Act Section 313 of the Clean Water Act requires federal agencies to comply with all federal, State, interstate and local requirements; administrative authorities; and process and sanctions with respect to control and abatement of water pollution. Executive Order (EO) 12088 requires the Forest Service to meet the requirements of this Act. Therefore, all State and federal laws and regulations applicable to water quality would be applied, including 36 CFR 219.27; the Clean Water Act; the Forest Plan, including PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) and Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs); Idaho State Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Stream Alteration procedures. The proposed action is consistent with the Clean Water Act in that it would maintain designated beneficial uses of cold-water biota and primary and secondary contact recreation through the implementation of BMPs including PACFISH buffers. No measurable increases in sediment are expected.

Endangered Species Act Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 directs the Forest Service to conserve endangered and threatened species and to utilize its authorities in furtherance of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, and to avoid actions that may cause a species to become threatened or endangered. Direction under FSM 2670, requires the Forest Service to maintain viable populations of all native and desirable non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands. The Forest Service is directed to design activities that contribute to the recovery of listed species in accordance with recovery plans developed as directed by the ESA (50 CFR part 402). As directed by the ESA, biological assessments and consultation under Section 7 of the ESA will be completed for this

17 decision. The action alternative is not expected to result in a jeopardy biological opinion for any listed species. The ESA, as amended, requires threatened and endangered species be protected from “harm” and “harassment” wherever they occur, regardless of recovery boundaries. This project analyzed effects to Canada lynx, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, bull trout and Snake River steelhead and both its critical habitat. All Action Alternatives are consistent with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) and are in compliance with the ESA and FSM 2670.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13168 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 of 2001 authorizes activities including habitat protection, restoration, enhancement, necessary modification, and implementation of actions that benefit priority migratory bird species (Memorandum of Understanding Between USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish & Wildlife Service – 01-MU-11130117-028).

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 These federal executive orders provide for the protection and management of floodplains and wetlands. Any floodplains or wetlands within the analysis area would be identified and avoided.

Executive Order 12898 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) directs each federal agency to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Proposed Action and alternatives would not disproportionately adversely affect minority or low-income populations, including American Indian tribal members.

Executive Order 13112 Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species directs that Federal Agencies should not authorize any activities that would increase the spread of invasive weeds. This project includes design features to limit the spread of invasive species.

Idaho Forest Practices Act The Idaho Forest Practices Act regulates forest practices on all land ownership in Idaho. Forest practices on National Forest System (NFS) lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to water quality (IDAPA 20.02.01). The rules are also incorporated as BMPs in the Idaho Water Quality Standards. Project activities have been designed to be consistent with the Idaho Forest Practices Act.

Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act The Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act regulates stream channel alterations between mean and high water marks on perennial streams in Idaho. Instream activities on NFS lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to the Act. The rules are also incorporated as BMPs in the Idaho Water Quality Standards. Project activities have been designed to be consistent with the Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act.

National Environmental Policy Act National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provisions have been followed as required in 40 CFR 1500. The proposed actions comply with the intent and requirements of NEPA. This environmental assessment

18 analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. It also discloses the expected effects of each alternative and discusses the identified issues and concerns.

National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that projects and activities be consistent with the governing Forest Plan (16 USC 1604(i)). Those findings include the following: 1. Suitability for Timber Production: No timber harvest, other than salvage sales or sales to protect other multiple-use values, shall occur on lands not suited for timber production (16 USC 1604(k)). Guidelines for determining suitability are found in Forest Service Handbook 2409.13. Proposed harvest units are within the productive habitat types as described in Cooper et. Al. 1991. An analysis of suitability for resource management was completed for the Project area. 2. Timber Harvest on National Forest Lands (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)): A Responsible Official may authorize site-specific projects and activities to harvest timber on National Forest System lands only where: a. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(i)). All action alternatives would protect the organic matter, soil porosity, and topsoil through the use of BMP’s and design features. Localized and limited losses would occur on landings, skid trails, and temporary roads, or where the soil is sterilized with fire. However, over the majority of the unit and the landscape, the processes that contribute to productive soils would be preserved. The BMPs and design features assure that no irreversible damage to the watershed or stream channel considerations would occur. b. There is assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within five years after final regeneration harvest (16USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(ii). This conclusion is based on experience and regeneration status reports where 98% of the acres treated since 1976 were satisfactorily stocked within five years of final harvest. c. All alternatives provide protection for streams, stream banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment, through implementation of the PACFISH standards and guidelines, programmatic agreements made with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, BMP’s and project design and mitigations (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iv)). d. The harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it would give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iv)). For this project, harvesting systems were selected to appropriately balance treatment efficiency with minimizing resource impacts. 3. Clearcutting and Even-aged Management (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)): Ensure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting and other cuts designed to regenerate an even aged stand of timber would be used as a cutting method on National Forest System lands only where: a. For clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(i)). The silviculturist has determined that the regeneration harvest proposed for this project is appropriate due to high mortality and low growth rates. These even aged harvest prescriptions would create structure and composition similar to natural successional processes for these habitat types. All proposed treatments meet objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan. b. The interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary has been completed and the potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering and economic impacts on each advertised sale

19 area have been assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale with the multiple use of the general area (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iii)). c. Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iii)). d. Cuts are carried out according to the maximum size limit requirements for areas to be cut during one harvest operation, provided, that such limits shall not apply to the size of areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm (FSM R1 supplement 2400-2001-2 2471.1, 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iv)). Alternative 2 would create openings larger than 40 acres. The Dutch Oven project proposed regeneration in 14 units that individually or cumulatively may exceed 40 acres. Reasons for regenerating these units are to treat strands diagnose with Armillaria and annosus root disease, Indian paint fungus infections, fir engraver beetle, and fir broom rust affecting grand fir; mountain pine beetle and western gall rust affecting lodgepole pine; Armillaria root disease, fir engraver beetle, and Douglas-fir bark beetles affecting Douglas-fir; dwarf mistletoe affecting wester larch and Elytroderma fungus affecting ponderosa pine. Evidence of root disease and insect caused mortality is present in these units. If harvest treatments consist of patch sizes of 40 acres or less, species conversion would be less extensive, insect and disease problems would be left untreated, and areas of each unit excluded by the 40-acre limitation would continue to be subject to mortality and volume loss. e. Such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber resource (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(v)). The NFMA provides that timber harvest and other silvicultural practices shall be used to prevent damaging population increases of forest pest organisms and treatments shall not make stands susceptible to pest caused damage levels inconsistent with management objectives. Harvest of trees provides social and economic benefits. Additional benefits from timber harvest include reducing potential losses attributed to insects and disease, reducing losses from inter-tree competition and manipulating forest vegetation to enhance wildlife habitat and increase vegetation resiliency. For the Dutch Oven Project, the potential short-term and long-term negative effects of proposed activities on adjacent trees were considered. Retention areas were designed to minimize mortality during site preparation activities. Regeneration treatment areas would be restocked within five years. 4. Stands of trees are harvested according to requirements for culmination of mean annual increment of growth (16 USC 1604(m)). 5. Construction of temporary roadways in connection with timber contracts, and other permits or leases: Unless the necessity for a permanent road is set forth in the forest development road system plan, any road constructed on land of the National Forest System in connection with a timber contract or other permit or lease shall be designed with the goal of reestablishing vegetative cover on the roadway and areas where the vegetative cover has been disturbed by the construction of the road, within ten years after the termination of the contract, permit or lease either through artificial or natural means. Such action shall be taken unless it is later determined that the road is needed for use as a part of the National Forest Transportation System (16 USC 1608(b)). Only temporary road construction would occur with this project. 6. Standards of roadway construction: Roads constructed on National Forest System lands shall be designed to standards appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and impacts on land and resources (16 USC 1608(c )). Current and future transportation needs were analyzed in a transportation plan, including a roads analysis, for the project area. The project proposes construction of approximately 6.1 miles of temporary roads to

20 access the area for management. These roads would be obliterated after use. No permanent roads would be constructed.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Federal agencies are required to preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our natural heritage as described in the NHPA of 1966. The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests meet its responsibilities under NHPA through compliance with the terms of a Programmatic Agreement signed between Region 1, the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. A cultural resource inventory was conducted for the proposed project area. In accordance with NHPA, the findings of the inventory were submitted to the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer for concurrence prior to project implementation. Because all project activities would be conducted consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Forest Plan, and the programmatic agreement signed between the Region 1 USFS, the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the implementation of project activities would result in “no adverse effect”.

Tribal Treaty Rights American Indian tribes are afforded special rights under various federal statutes: NHPA; NFMA; Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (43 CFR Part 7); Native American Graves Protection and Reparation Act of 1990 (43 CFR Part 10); Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103141); and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. Federal guidelines direct federal agencies to consult with tribal representatives who may have concerns about federal actions that may affect religious practices, other traditional cultural uses, or cultural resource sites and remains associated with tribal ancestors. Any tribe whose aboriginal territory occurs within a project area is afforded the opportunity to voice concerns governed by NHPA, NAGPRA, or AIRFA. Federal responsibilities to consult with tribes are included in the NFMA; Interior Secretarial Order 3175 of 1993; and Executive Orders 12875, 13007, 12866, and 13084. Executive Order 12875 calls for regular consultation with tribal governments. Executive Order 13007 requires consultation with tribes and religious representatives on the access, use, and protection of sacred sites. Executive Order 12866 requires that federal agencies seek views of tribal officials before imposing regulatory requirements that might affect them. Executive Order 13084 provides direction regarding consultation and coordination with tribes relative to fee waivers. Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to focus on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low income communities, especially in instances where decisions may adversely impact those populations. National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) invite tribes to participate in forest management projects and activities that may affect them. Portions of the Forest are located within ceded lands of the Nez Perce Tribe. These ceded lands are federal lands within the historic aboriginal territory of the Nez Perce Tribe which have been ceded to the United States. In Article 3 of the Nez Perce Treaty of 1855, the United States of America and the Nez Perce Tribe mutually agreed that the Nez Perce retain the following rights: …taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of the territory [of Idaho]; and of creating temporary buildings for curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing horses and cattle… The Dutch Oven project has been presented to the Nez Perce Tribe at quarterly staff-to-staff meetings since April 2013.

21 This page intentionally left blank.

22 2 CHAPTER: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Dutch Oven project. Chapter 2 sharply defines the issues and provides a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. The important difference between alternatives is based upon the driving (or key) issue that is emphasized in each. Alternatives were developed based upon Forest Plan objectives, National and Regional direction and policy, existing conditions, and environmental issues. The Forest Service developed four alternatives, including the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives, in response to issues raised internally or by the public. This provides a range of reasonable alternatives as required in 40 CFR 1502.14(a). 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative 1

2.1.1.1 No Action This alternative provides a baseline for comparison of environmental impacts of the proposed action to the existing condition and is a management option that could be selected by the Responsible Official. The results of taking no action would be the current condition as it changes over time due to natural forces. Current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. The following trends would likely continue: • The area would experience increased fuel loading due to ongoing mortality from insects and diseases. Wildfires would continue to be actively suppressed in this area, consistent with Forest Plan direction. • With the continued absence of fire, multi-storied and multi-aged within-stand structure would continue to increase due to the effects of root disease and bark beetle mortality. • Shade tolerant species would continue to increase while shade-intolerant, early seral species would continue to decrease. The amount of mature structure would continue to increase with slower growth rates. • Instream and riparian processes of habitat development and wood recruitment would continue. Riparian habitat conditions in previously harvested areas would continue to improve as trees grow and age, continuing to provide shade and large woody debris to streams.

Alternative 2

2.1.1.2 The Revised Proposed Action The project purpose and need would be met by implementing the following activities of Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would conduct intermediate harvest on approximately 213 acres. The treatment would primarily remove encroaching grand fir and Douglas fir from ponderosa pine stands. Treatments would improve growing conditions for residual stands, by reducing crown densities and increasing the distance between surface and crown fuels, which would reduce crown fire hazard. Large diameter trees would be favored for retention to provide additional long term structural diversity. Following intermediate harvest, the treatment areas will resemble semi-open, mature generally single-storied forest with variable tree distribution and scattered small openings. On average, tree retention across the area would range between 60 and 110 square feet of basal area per acre (between 76 and 140 trees per acre) based on a 12-inch diameter at breast (DBH) tree. This spacing will provide for an average 40-60% canopy cover which is

23 targeted to support low intensity underburning over time. Where available, western larch, and ponderosa pine will be retained at higher stocking levels to support retention of fire tolerant, early seral species. Grand fir or Douglas-fir could be retained for snag recruitment, vertical diversity, canopy cover and to serve as shelter for wildlife, but should not be reserved for a natural seed source for openings or in areas with active root disease, because root disease becomes more pervasive after harvest (Hagle, USDA, Feb. 2008; Management Guide for Armillaria Root Disease; Pg 14.). In Alternative 2, regeneration harvest is proposed on 945 acres of mature, diseased or insect infested stands composed primarily of mid-seral shade tolerant species. Long lived, early seral species and other large diameter trees would be retained where available for vertical structure, and recruitment of snags and large wood. Post-treatment, the areas will resemble a mosaic of even-aged groups. Regeneration prescriptions include clear cut with reserves retaining 8-25 trees per acre based on a 12-inch DBH tree (6- 20 ft2 of basal area per acre). Seed-tree harvest units will resemble clear-cut with reserve units, with slightly more canopy retention (20% vs. 10% in clear-cut with reserves units), and where desirable seed producing trees would be retained (ponderosa pine and western larch). In shelter-wood units, 19-51 trees per acre would be retained (15-40 ft2 of basal area per acre). The best representatives available of western larch, ponderosa pine, or Douglas-fir (in order of priority) would be retained to provide structure and future snag recruitment, and in some areas desirable seed trees for natural regeneration. All units larger than 40 acres in size are either shelterwood (30% crown retention) or variable density thinning (40-60% crown retention). The 3 to 228 acre openings created by regeneration harvests would create fuel breaks adjacent to Roads 307 and 1808, which are used for access and egress from the project area. Prescribed landscape burning would be implemented on approximately 1,150 acres in selected areas adjacent to and including some proposed timber harvest units (282 acres) to reduce surface and ladder fuels, break up fuel continuity, top-killed shrubs, and create a patchy mosaic that could potentially reduce wildfire size and/severity . These burn-only areas are located primarily on dry sites where low or moderate burn intensity prescriptions would be employed. Some prescribed fires would be ignited by hand, while other areas would require aerial ignition due to dangerous terrain, size of burn area and efficiencies. Some tree mortality is expected, particularly smaller trees and shade tolerant species. A goal of less than 15% mortality of the large diameter overstory canopy within the burn areas is desirable. After harvest, hazardous fuels would be mechanically piled and subsequently burned, or the fuels would be left un-piled and reduced using prescribed fire. This would occur on potentially all mechanically treated units (868 acres) depending on post-treatment conditions. In harvested units with regeneration prescriptions, and where the retained trees consist of mostly ponderosa pine, post-harvest fuels would be left unpiled and reduced using prescribed fire. Units may then be replanted with ponderosa pine, western larch, and western white pine increasing species diversity, insect and disease resistance and fire resiliency. Approximately 6.1 miles of temporary roads would be constructed to facilitate harvest and would be fully decommissioned after use. The 22 road segments range from 0.03 to 1.2 miles long. These roads would be built, used and decommissioned in one year except in rare cases. If these roads should have to overwinter, they would be treated to limit risk of erosion. The temporary roads would be located on gentle slopes, over existing templates where possible and in areas where excavation would be minimized. Proposed temporary road will not cross any live/intermittent stream locations. Temporary roads would be recontoured after use to eliminate erosion potential. During obliteration, 7 to 15 tons per acre slash, stumps or other woody debris would be placed and scattered uniformly on the top of the recontoured corridor. The road prism would then be revegetated.

24 Under Alternative 2, the following watershed improvement activities would be completed to improve hydrologic function, reduce adverse impacts to aquatic habitat, and provide an upward trend in aquatic habitat carrying capacity. Decommission approximately 5.5 miles of roads 9815D, 9851A, 9852A, 9852B, 9867A, 9874, 78398, 78399, 78399A, 307A, and 307A1. These roads are no longer needed for management and would be decommissioned through obliteration or abandonment to (1) decrease soil erosion and instream sediment deposition; (2) help improve channel structure and function; (3) improve hillslope hydrologic processes to a more natural condition; and (4) restore soil productivity. Road obliteration would include recontouring of the road template. All perennial and intermittent stream channel crossings (culverts) would be removed. Disturbed soils would be revegetated with local native transplants and/or seed. Decommissioning roads by obliteration would directly improve soil conditions by decompacting soils and adding wood and other organic matter to the existing road surface. Slope stability and hydrologic function would improve, reducing the potential risk of mass erosion from culvert or fill failures. If a road is currently revegetated and stable with no culverts, it may be abandoned. Roads proposed for decommissioning by abandonment are often ridgetop roads on gentle slopes with few, if any, culverts and where road surveys show minimal risk of soil erosion or mass failure. These roads generally have a narrow disturbed width, have adequate plant and organic cover, and have cut and fill slopes of no more than two feet in height. Abandonment would leave the road in place but inaccessible to any vehicle use. Long-term storage of approximately 1.4 miles of Road 1808E will occur. An analysis determined that this road is not needed for at least twenty years; therefore, it would be placed into long-term storage. The road would be placed into a stable condition that reduces the risk of surface erosion and sedimentation from mass failure. All culverts would be removed and channels and swales would be reconstructed to natural grade to provide a stable condition. Additional practices may include decompaction and outsloping of the road surface or full recontour in unstable areas to assure long-term stability. Roads in long-term storage remain on the Forest transportation system; however, they would be closed to all motorized, wheeled vehicles larger than 50 inches wide. Perform road maintenance on all roads used for harvest activities and log haul to minimize erosion and provide proper drainage. Road maintenance would occur on approximately 35 miles of roads and would consist of surface reshaping and blading, installation of drainage dips and ditch and culvert maintenance. Recondition approximately 1.3 miles of Road 9867 to accommodate log haul. Reconstruct approximately 0.5 miles of Road 9867 to accommodate log haul (access will remain restricted to motorized vehicles less than 50 inches). Activities may include grading and shaping of the road surface, cleaning and reshaping ditches, catch basins and culvert inlets/outlets to achieve positive drainage; replacement or new installations of culverts, repairing soft or unstable roadbed, roadside brushing, minor cut slope and fill slope stabilization, surface gravel placement, and surface compaction. Complete road improvements include gravel spot treatments, placement of aggregate rock in ditches and on road surfaces, and road reshaping/blading to reestablish drainage totaling approximately 7 miles on Roads 307, 1808, 9815, 9851, 9867, and 307A. Spot graveling will reduce sediment delivery during project activities. Replace or realign 11 undersized or failing culverts on Roads 1808, 9815, 9851, 9853, 307, 307A, and 9815B. Along with road improvements, road decommissioning, reconstruction, reconditioning, and maintenance, replacing these culverts would improve hydrologic function and reduce adverse impacts to aquatic habitat by reducing erosion and sediment delivery to streams and/or restoring aquatic connectivity.

25 2.1.1.3 Project Design Measures The following design criteria were developed to eliminate or reduce to acceptable levels the effects of the proposed activities. The effectiveness of each measure is also included, where applicable. Table 2-1: Project design criteria to be applied during implementation Design Feature Applies to Forest Vegetation 1. Small patches of late successional trees and Pacific yew within All harvest units proposed treatment units should not be harvested and should be retained as green tree retention. 2. No harvest of Western red cedar. All harvest units Watershed - Hydrology and Aquatics 3. PACFISH RHCA buffers are to be used to define timber sale unit Harvest activities boundaries. No timber harvest is to occur within 300 feet of fish- bearing streams, 150 feet of perennial non-fish bearing streams, 100 feet of intermittent streams, and 150-foot slope distance from the edge of wetlands larger than one acre. • Effectiveness: High, based on research and past experience (Anderson and Poage 2014; Ott et al 2005; Lee et al 2004; Sridhar 2004; FEMAT 1993; Rashin et al 2006; Clinton 2011; USDA 2006; Sweeney and Newbold 2014; and Smith 2016). 4. Fuels would not be ignited within Riparian Habitat Conservation Fuels treatments Areas (RHCAs), but fire may be allowed to back into these areas with low intensities. • Effectiveness: High, based on Research, PNW Lab,Starkey Project and monitoring on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest 5. Trees would not be removed from RHCAs, except to facilitate Harvest activities anchoring of cable yarding systems. During instream habitat improvement activities, tree felling in RHCAs would occur only where that activity would not affect Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) for shade and wood debris recruitment. • Effectiveness: Moderate, based on experience. 6. Best Management Practices found in Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Harvest activities Forest Practices Act Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code, and Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook 2509.22 would be applied to prevent non-channelized sediment delivery from harvest to streams in the Dutch Oven project area. • Effectiveness: Moderate, based on experience (Craig 2016, personal communication; Connor & Snyder 2016). 7. Temporary road locations would predominantly be located on gentle Temporary roads slopes, over existing templates, and in areas where excavation would be minimized. Out-sloped drainage is preferred where feasible and when safety and discharge to water bodies are not at risk. Temporary roads shall be closed to the public and decommissioned immediately following use. If, for unforeseen reasons, a temporary road has to overwinter, it would be put into a stable condition consisting of out sloping, water barring, and/or seeding or mulching, as specified in the contract. Decommissioning shall consist of recontouring the road

26 Design Feature Applies to prism including all cut and fill slopes to natural ground contour. In addition, from 7 to 15 tons per acre of clearing or logging slash, stumps or other woody debris shall be placed and scattered uniformly on the top of the recontoured corridor to provide a minimum of 70% cover. • Effectiveness: High, based on literature, San Dimas, Road/Water Interaction 8. Scarify and recontour excavated skid trails and excavated landings to Skid trails and landings restore slope hydrology and soil productivity. Apply available slash to the scarified surface. (Slash is considered available when the equipment is able to reach it from the working area.) Decompact non-excavated skid trails and landings that are compacted or entrenched 3 inches or more, to a depth of 4 to 14 inches to restore soil permeability. Scatter 7-15 tons per acre of slash over recontoured and decompacted areas on skid trails and landings to provide 50% to 70% cover. • Effectiveness: Moderate to high, based on research 9. Road decommissioning may include removal of structures at stream Road decommissioning and draw crossings and reestablishment of natural drainages, removal of shoulder fill, decompaction and recontouring of the roadbed, as well as decompaction and recontouring of landings, skid trails, and other disturbed areas adjacent to decommissioned roads. Given the topography of the area, most of the roads would receive the decommissioning treatments unless identified otherwise. a. For every road, all culverts and ditches would be pulled. b. Restore natural gradient on all live stream crossings. c. Disturbed areas would be reseeded with annual rye seed. d. Available downed logs or branches and boulders may be put on the site to discourage use by Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs), to provide structure for retaining any soil movement, and to create a less harsh environment (more shade) for plant reestablishment. e. Road decommissioning through abandonment would include stabilizing and seeding sources of erosion but would leave the road prism intact. • Effectiveness: High, based on experience (Connor and NPT 2014). 10. Known invasive species infestations on or adjacent to the instream or Instream and road road decommissioning work construction sites would be treated prior decommissioning sites to any further ground disturbance. Sites would also be monitored frequently to ensure early detection and treatment of noxious weeds after the earthwork is completed. • Effectiveness: Moderate, based on experience. 11. The standard timber sale clause B6.341 is to be applied throughout All project activities project implementation. Contractors would have spill prevention and containment materials on site to minimize the risk of an accidental spill of petroleum products, as well as to protect water courses and aquatic biota from adverse effects in the event of a spill.

27 Design Feature Applies to • Effectiveness: High, based on experience (Craig 2016, personal communication). 12. Dust abatement would be used on major haul routes to minimize Harvest activities, log sediment input to streams from log hauling activities. haul 13. Remove Culverts or Improve Stream Crossings, in addition to other Culvert and stream measures described, using the following actions: crossing improvement a. For ground-disturbing activities within 300 feet of streams, activities completed activities during low flow conditions. Road work would occur from approximately mid-June through October. Fish passage would be provided at all times during the culvert replacements for Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, or Westslope Cutthroat trout. b. Effectiveness: High, based on experience. c. For instream activities in fish-bearing streams that contain listed species, all instream work would be restricted to the period from July 1 to August 15 to avoid sediment deposition and disturbance. These dates may be site-specifically adjusted through coordination with Central Idaho Level 1 team review and approval. d. Effectiveness: High, based on experience. e. For all instream activities, stream dewatering and diversion, erosion control measures would be employed to avoid or minimize the amount of suspended sediment entering downstream reaches during the improvement or decommissioning activities. Rocking of road surfaces and/or ditches, etc., would also be used as needed road improvement and stream crossings. (Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines) f. Effectiveness: High, based on literature, San Dimas, Road/Water Interaction. g. For all replaced culverts, new structures would be designed to handle a 100 year flow event including debris. They would ensure channel width, flow velocities, substrate condition, and stream gradients approximate of the natural channel and accommodate passage of expected streamflow, debris, fish, and other aquatic organisms. (PACFISH) h. Effectiveness: High, based on experience and literature, San Dimas, Road/Water Interaction i. Suspend instream operations if state turbidity standards are exceeded. This would be a one-time increase of 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) above background levels or 10 days of increase of 25 NTUs above background levels. Operations can be resumed when State standards are met again. • Effectiveness: High, based on research and experience (Foltz et.al. 2008; Connor and NPT 2014). j. Minimize the use of machinery and limit the number of stream crossings by machinery in the stream channel during implementation.

28 Design Feature Applies to k. Effectiveness: Moderate, based on experience. 14. For all instream activities, stream dewatering and diversion, erosion All instream project control measures would be employed to avoid or minimize the activities amount of suspended sediment entering downstream reaches during the operation. Rocking of road surfaces and/or ditches, etc., would also be used as needed when constructing or reconstructing road and stream crossings. • Effectiveness: High, based on literature, San Dimas, Road/Water Interaction. Soils • Effectiveness of 16-28: Moderate to high based on past monitoring and research (Froehlich and McNabb 1983; Graham et al. 1994; Graham et al. 1999; Korb 2004; Neary et al. 2008; Curran 2005). 15. Machine trails for timber harvest and fuel treatments would be Harvest activities and designed to minimize the area of detrimental soil effects- fuels treatments displacement, ruts, compaction, puddling, platy structure, and burn severity disturbance (Froehlich and McNabb 1983). Activity would be designed to stay below 15% areal disturbance of the treatment area. Existing skid trails and landings would be utilized where other resources are not compromised. Methods include designation of skid trails, reuse of skid trails by machines used for piling, and placement of slash on existing skid trails where possible to overlap detrimental effects rather than extending the footprint. 16. Reuse existing disturbance and locate temporary roads on existing Harvest activities and roadbeds in the following units in order to meet Region 1 Soil temporary roads Quality Standards: 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 19B, 20, 30, 40, 42, 43, and 48. 17. Skid trails and landings would be scarified following use for timber Skids trails and landings harvest in order to improve soil productivity. Actions would include scarification and placement of slash, woody material, and/or duff over exposed soil. 18. All temporary roads will be scarified and re-contoured Temporary roads (decommissioned). Reshape cut/fill slopes and crossings to natural contours. Apply available slash to the re-contour surface (slash is considered available where the equipment is able to reach it from the working area where the decommissioning is occurring). 19. Restrict activities when soils are wet to prevent resource damage Harvest activities (indicators include excessive rutting, soil displacement, and erosion). 20. Prescriptions for all harvest units are to retain coarse woody material Harvest activities appropriate to the site for nutrient cycling, maintaining soil moisture, and other soil physical and biological properties after all unit activities. Regional guidance for organic matter recommends following guidelines, such as retaining coarse (> 3” diameter) woody material to maintain soil productivity (Graham et al. 1994). Drier habitat types have wood retention requirements of 7-15 tons for Douglas-fir, grand fir and ponderosa pine types. Coarse woody material helps to reduce surface erosion in the short term and will break down into soil in the long term. Snags or other trees felled for safety reasons are to be left in the unit.

29 Design Feature Applies to 21. In the regeneration units harvested with ground-based equipment, Regeneration harvest live tops should be retained and allowed to overwinter one year. This units small diameter organic material, in addition to down large woody material, would be left for long-term site productivity (Graham et al. 1999). 22. To protect sensitive soils, in prescribed burn units, burn when soil Prescribed burning moisture contents are high, with no ignition occurring within riparian areas. Many of the streams have steep erosive slopes. 23. No ignition should occur within landslide prone areas in prescribed Prescribed burning burn units. Fires would be allowed to back into landslide prone areas. 24. In regeneration units with proposed prescribed burning, the forest Prescribed burning in floor needs to be kept intact and bare soil exposure minimized. regeneration harvest units Where logging systems are ground based, live tops should be left to overwinter prior to prescribe burning activities. Appropriate amounts of coarse woody debris needs to be kept on site following burning. Refer to 20 above for wood retention. 25. Avoid slopes greater than 35% with ground based equipment to Harvest activities reduce ground disturbance. Ground based equipment can operate on slopes up to 45% for short distances. 26. Apply appropriate buffers to wet sensitive soils found during layout Harvest activities (PACFISH buffers) Cultural 27. Known historic properties or sites would be avoided or protected Ground disturbing project during project implementation. activities 28. Halt ground-disturbing activities if cultural resources are discovered Ground disturbing project until an Archaeologist can properly evaluate and document the activities resources in compliance with 36 CFR 800. • Effectiveness: High, based on experience (Craig 2016, personal communication). Wildlife 29. Retain trees with obvious cavities or large stick nests. Harvest activities 30. All snags >15” dbh will be retained within all harvest units to the Harvest activities maximum extent possible, unless felled for safety. Snag or live retention trees felled for safety purposes will be left on site. Snags should be >40 feet tall, snags between 20 and 40 feet tall can be considered (NPNF Forest Plan 1987, Bollenbacher et al. 2009, USDA FS 2010). • Effectiveness: Low-Mod, based on experience. 31. Green trees will be retained on a rolling average across stands Harvest activities proposed for treatment per silvicultural prescription. Tree species can be grouped into clumps or left as scattered individuals throughout the cutting units. • Effectiveness: Low-Mod, based on experience. 32. Maintain a minimum 40-acre yearlong no-treatment buffer (no Ground disturbing project ground disturbing activities) around occupied or recently occupied activities goshawk nest trees, within goshawk territories. • Effectiveness: Moderate, based on research and experience. (Brewer et al 2009)

30 Design Feature Applies to 33. No ground disturbing activities shall be allowed inside known Ground disturbing project occupied goshawk post-fledgling areas from April 15 to August 15, activities unless site-specific monitoring supports earlier or later entry. • Moderate, based on research and experience. (Brewer et al 2009) 34. Maintain existing road closures (consistent with current motor Road management during vehicle restrictions) daily during implementation operations. The all project activities integrity of access management restrictions will be maintained within the planning area for wildlife security purposes. • Effectiveness: Moderate, based on experience. 35. Within units or portions of units that have a live yew component, Harvest activities pacific yew will be retained and scattered throughout the units in patches between ¼ and ½ acres in size • Effectiveness: Moderate, based on experience. 36. Within units or portions of units that have a live Pacific yew Fuels treatments component, post treatment fuels reductions and site preparation will be accomplished through mechanical grapple piling and scarification, not broadcast burning • Effectiveness: Moderate, based on experience. 37. Within units or portions of units that have a live yew component, Harvest activities and Pacific yew will not be slashed, except to provide room for machine fuels treatments pile. Slash piles will not be placed in Pacific yew leave patches. • Effectiveness: Moderate, based on experience. Recreation 38. When timber harvest activity occurs, Trail 9867 and Roads 1808 and Harvest activities 471 will be signed to inform public of closures and alternate routes available. 39. Involve local snowmobile clubs prior to plowing any portion of Harvest activities Roads 1808 and 471 of the groomed snowmobile route. Scenic Quality 40. Foreground screening vegetation along the Elk City Wagon Road Harvest activities #1808 would be protected wherever possible. 41. Location of skyline corridors and skid trails would be designed to Harvest activities reduce visual impacts. 42. Harvest units would be designed so that the edges of the unit emulate Harvest activities the varied, natural edge appearance with a minimum of geometric lines found elsewhere along the South Fork of the Clearwater River.

Within units 14, 15, 16, 33 and 53, that area visible in the foreground viewshed from State Highway 14 and the South Fork of the Clearwater River, healthy, green, over-story trees would be retained in groups that mimic the natural vegetative patterns found throughout the river corridor. Non-native Invasive Plants 43. If determined necessary, desirable vegetation would be promptly Revegetation with native established on all appropriate disturbed areas, using native and non- plants native plant species as approved by the Forest. 44. All seed would be tested weed free by a certified seed laboratory Revegetation with native against the state noxious weed list and documentation of the seed plants

31 Design Feature Applies to inspection test provided to the contract administrator. All straw and mulch used in the project would be certified as free of noxious weed seed. 45. Remove all mud, soil and plant parts from vehicles used in the All equipment used on project area for all project activities to limit the spread of weeds. This NFS for all project applies to ATVs used on and off roads associated with the activities management in the project area, but, does not apply to service or hauling vehicles that would stay on the roadway, traveling frequently in and out of the project area. Range 46. Main roads and trails are needed for livestock access and All harvest activities and management from June to October. The permittee will need to be prescribed burning contacted before operations (fire/logging) to facilitate livestock movement through and out of active areas. 47. Several cattle guards and short wing fences (Roads 1808 and 1199) All harvest activities and help maintain good livestock distribution and will need to be prescribed burning protected from fire/logging damage during implementation or rebuilt following harvest activities. Miscellaneous 48. If the section of the 1808 road from the FS boundary to the terminus Harvest activities with the 1199 road is used for hauling, applicable road maintenance will be coordinated with the BLM.

2.1.1.4 Project Monitoring Requirements The Dutch Oven project would include the following monitoring activities:

• Forestwide, PACFISH compliance monitoring would be conducted annually by the Forest Fisheries Biologist on a sample of projects, in conjunction with BMP audits and reported in the annual Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Both implementation and effectiveness of treatments are monitored. • The project hydrologist/soil specialist would conduct post-harvest monitoring in a sample of the project units as part of the Forest-wide Monitoring Program to assess accuracy of detrimental soil disturbance estimates; effectiveness of project design measures; implementation of Regional soil quality guidelines; and effectiveness of temporary road decommissioning.

2.2 Alternatives Analyzed but Dropped from Consideration Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public scoping comments suggested alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. The following alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for the reasons summarized below.

Alternative 3 – Original Proposed Action Alternative 3 was the Proposed Action sent to the public for initial review and comment in October 2014. Alternative 3 proposed intermediate harvest on 356 acres, regeneration harvest on 1524 acres, and landscape burning on 783 acres. It would decommission approximately 5.1 miles of roads, place 1.4 miles of road into long term storage, improve 2.5 miles and recondition 1.3 miles of road, replace 8 undersized

32 culverts, and replace and realign 5 failing culverts. The revised proposed action is presented as Alternative 2 in this document. Various aspects of Alternative 3 were altered after further field review and in response to public comments for reasons detailed below. Reduction in larger openings: Some of the larger openings (larger than forty acres) proposed in Alternative 3 were reduced in size or removed from the proposal. These treatment areas were dropped, reduced in size, or altered due to the presence of unstable soils, water or other resource concerns and in response to comments about potential impacts of specific treatment blocks that were larger than 40 acres. These revised units are part of Alternative 2. Reduced Temporary Road Construction: Proposed temporary road miles were reduced as treatment areas (described above) were reduced in size or removed from the proposal. Some temporary roads were dropped to address impacts to water quality and contribution of sediment production. Reduced road miles and vegetation treatments are included in Alternative 2. Increased Watershed Improvement Activities: In response to scoping comments, additional watershed improvement activities were added to the revised proposal (Alternative 2).

Alternative 4 – Focus Treatments around Structures and Private Property Alternative 4 was developed to address concerns that treatments should be limited to within approximately 130 feet (40 meters) of existing structures on the Mud Springs Ranch because fuel reduction activities beyond this range do not reduce the risk of wildfire damage. The Forest Service works closely with private landowners in this area. For more than 10 years, the landowner has continued to conduct fuel reduction activities such as thinning, pruning, piling and burning on his property immediately adjacent to the Forest boundary. Because of increasing insect and disease infestations, and declining vegetative health in the project area, these treatments do not address the hazardous fuels risk and vegetative needs discussed in the project purpose and need. This alternative was dropped from consideration because fuels would not be reduced at a scale that would move the area toward desired future conditions. Implementation of this alternative would not reduce the risk of high intensity fire or strategically modify vegetation and fuel loadings to minimize potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities, or be successful with fire suppression efforts.

33 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-2 presents a comparison of the proposed action to the no action alternative based on indicators established to measure responsiveness to the purpose and need. Activity acres and road mileages are approximate.

Table 2-2: Alternative comparison by response to the purpose and need Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Purpose and need: Reduce the potential for, and intensity of, subsequent wildfire in the Project area and increase the chance for fire suppression strategies and tactics to be successful. Fuel Model 2, 8, 10, 11 2, 8 Surface fire flame length (feet) 1.5-9.2 1.5-9 Crown fire flame length (feet) 126-146 NA Canopy Base Height (feet) 2-15 10-20 Surface, Passive Crown, Fire type and Active Crown Surface, Passive Crown Fireline Intensity Low/Moderate/High Low/Moderate Reduce vegetative density (acres) 0 1158 Increase fire tolerant early seral species (acres) 0 945 Purpose and need: Improve and manage for long-term forest health and the sustainability of early seral species such as ponderosa pine and western larch. Acres planted with early seral species 0 400-600

Table 2-3 provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table below provides a comparison of the alternatives in relation to the issues identified in Chapter 1. Table 2-3: Comparison of alternatives by issue and resource indicator Resource Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Fuel Reduction Fuel Model 2, 8, 10, 11 2, 8 Surface fire flame length (feet) 1.5-9.2 1.5-9 Crown fire flame length (feet) 126-146 NA Canopy Base Height 2-15 10-20 Surface, Passive Surface, Fire type Crown, and Passive Crown Active Crown Low/Moderat Low/Moderate Fireline intensity e/High Vegetation Forest Composition (%) • Western Larch 2-4% 12-16% • Ponderosa Pine 0-2% 8-12% • Lodgepole 5-7% 5-7% • Grand Fir 57-65% 42-48%

34 Resource Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 • Douglas-fir 28-35% 25-28% • Subalpine fir 1-3% 1-3% Forest Structure (%) • Structural Stage (%) • 0-5 inches 3-7% 15-22% • 5-15 inches 8-12% 8-12% • 15+ inches 82-88% 45-55% • Vertical Structure (%) • 1-storied 15-20% 25-35% • 2 storied 15-25% 15-25% • 3-storied – continuous storied 60-70% 45-55% Water Quality Percent Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) water yield (in Year 10) • Allison Creek 4 9 • Buffalo Gulch 4 3 • Dutch Oven Creek 4 14 • Moose Creek 4 9 • S Fork Clearwater Face 05 2 5 • S Fork Clearwater Face 06 6 6 • Whiskey Creek 3 4 Sediment yield (percent over base as modeled by NEZSED, in Year 1, Year 10) • Allison Creek 17 78, 18 • Buffalo Gulch 11 13, 13 • Dutch Oven Creek 6 116, 10 • Moose Creek 7 51, 7 • S Fork Clearwater Face 05 17 86, 11 • S Fork Clearwater Face 06 5 61, 7 • Whiskey Creek 7 29, 7 Total Road Density (mi/mi2) • Allison Creek 7.6 6.4 • Buffalo Gulch 4.5 4.5 • Dutch Oven Creek 4.1 3.7 • Moose Creek 3.5 2.7 • S Fork Clearwater Face 05 3.0 3.0 • S Fork Clearwater Face 06 4.3 4.3 • Whiskey Creek 3.4 2.9 Streamside Road Density (mi/mi2) • Allison Creek 8.5 6.5 • Buffalo Gulch 5.4 5.4 • Dutch Oven Creek 1.6 1.6 • Moose Creek 1.1 0.6 • S Fork Clearwater Face 05 10.5 10.5

35 Resource Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 • S Fork Clearwater Face 06 10.1 10.1 • Whiskey Creek 1.6 1.3 Number of Stream Crossings 47 40 Estimated Sediment Delivery at Improved Road-Stream Crossings No change average 72% (WEPP predicted) reduction Number of Stream Crossings Improved No change 11 Improved Fisheries Cobble Embeddedness (FISHSED predicted percent fines) • Allison Creek 64 66 • Buffalo Gulch 76 77 • Dutch Oven Creek 59 60 • Moose Creek 62 63 • Whiskey Creek 60 61 Summer habitat rearing capacity (Percent) • Allison Creek 72 71 • Buffalo Gulch 61 60 • Dutch Oven Creek 77 76 • Moose Creek 74 74

• Whiskey Creek 76 75

Winter Carrying Capacity (Percent, Year 10) • Allison Creek 11.3 10.7 • Buffalo Gulch 7.6 7.3 • Dutch Oven Creek 13.5 13.1 • Moose Creek 12.2 11.9 • Whiskey Creek 13.0 12.7 Fish species presense and density No change No change Threatened and Sentitive Aquatics Species Snake River steelhead trouta NE NLAA Snake River fall Chinook Salmona NE NLAA Bull trouta NE NLAA Westslope cutthroat troutb NI MIIH No adverse Snake River spring/summer Chinook Salmonb NI effect Pacific lamprey b NI MIIH Western pearlshell musselb NI MIIH Soils Soil Productivity • Detrimental Soil Distubrance (acres) 11 118

36 Resource Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Soil Productivity and Soil Stability • Temporary Road construction 0 6.1 Soil Stability • Erosive Soils • Temporary Roads (miles) 0 0.7 • Harvest (acres) 0 154 • Prescribed burning (acres) 0 608 • # of treatment units that do not meet Regional soil standards 0 0 Economics Present Net Value 0 $3,523,136 Resource Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Summary of Effect to Wildlife - Determinations Threatened or Endangered, Proposed Wildlife Speices NE – 1 NLAA - 1 1 Species Present: Cananda lynxa NI – 12 (not present in project area) MI – 10 (western toad, gray wolf, Sensative Wildlife Species Townsend’s big-eared bat, bald NI – 22 22 Species Present or Potential eagle, fisher, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, fringed myotis, flammulated owl, black- backed woodpecker) Threatened and Sensative Wildlife Species Cananda lynx 11 acres treated Acres of denning habitat (4091) No effects 33 acres treated Acres of foraging habitat (11,173) 0 acres treated 8 acres treated Acres of unsuitable habitat (127) Upland habitat changes, Western toad No effects potential disturbance to individuals Short-term disturbance/displacement, Gray wolf potential for improved prey No effects habitat Potential for improved prey Bald Eagle No effects habitat No effect 957 ac treated, short-term Fisher (4617 acres habitat) 0 ac treated disturbance/displacement Townsend’s big-eared bat, Long-eared Potential for loss of roosting No effects myotis, Long-legged myotis, Fringed myotis habitat, displacement 30 acres treated, potential for No effects Flammulated Owl (423 acres habitat) improved habitat, negative 0 ac treated effects – spring activities

37 Resource Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 1100 acres treated, reduction in Black-backed woodpecker (5706 acres No effects snags and insects and disease habitat) 0 ac treated infested trees Management Indicator Species Short Term - No change habitat Summer Elk Habitat Effectiveness 46% effectiveness calculations, Forest Plan objective - 50% No effect disturbance/displacement, habitat Existing - 46% 0 ac treated improvement. Cumulative – 1% increase. Elk – Elk vulnerability. Predicted bull:cow ratios in 20:100 No change. Game Management Unit – 15 IDFG Target : 24:100 The quality of forage/browse species, would be improved by reducing tree densities through No effects harvest and burning activities; Winter Range – Management Area 16 0 acres treated and continuing to reduce the incidence of noxious weeds through the Forest’s noxious weed program. 52 acres of MA21 treated, disturbance/displacement, Moose No effects improved browse habitat, 1097 acres Management Area 21 0 ac treated reduction of habitat in other GF/Pacific yew Pacific yew communities outside MA21 Northern Goshawk 2094 acre treated (811 ac No effects 3584 acres nesting habitat nesting), 0 acres treated 5648 acres foraging habitat disturbance/displacement Pileated Woodpecker 1049 acres treated (128 ac No effects 3577 acres nesting habitat nesting), 0 acres treated 5403 acres foraging habitat disturbance/displacement No effects 1042 acres treated, American Marten (4958 acres habitat) 0 acres treated disturbance/displacement Displacement/disturbance, loss Neotropical Migratory Birds No effects habitat, habitat improvement Old Growth No Effects – 0 ac treated, no No effects MA20 – 342 acres habitat changes to either MA20 0 acres treated Other old growth habitats – 342 acres or other old growth communities aFederally listed (Threatened-T) Species Determination: NE = No Effect, NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect; LAA = Likely to adversely affect. bSensitive (S) Species Determination: NI = No Impact; MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause toward federal listing or reduce viability for population or species.

38 3 CHAPTER: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter provides a summary of the affected environment and the environmental consequences of the alternatives considered in detail. This chapter also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3, in Chapter 2. For all resources, details regarding the affected environment, conclusion about potential effects and applicable Forest Plan and regulatory direction are available in the specialist reports for each resource and other supporting documentation cited in those reports. In addition to the information presented in this document other resources effects were analyzed and are available in the Project Record. In summary, effects to recreation resources, invasive plants, range, and rare plants have been analyzed and would be unaffected or effects have been minimized by the project design. Effects to range management and invasive species have been mitigated (see Project Design Measures 10 and 43-47). Short term effects to recreational use during project activities would be mitigated to reduce effects (see Project Design Measures 38 and 39). The rare plant species, if present in treatment areas, may be impacted by the proposed management activities, but due to low percentage of habitat undergoing potentially harmful treatments there would be no concerns for the overall species viability.

3.1 Vegetation Affected Environment The Dutch Oven project area encompasses 6,964 acres of FS lands and 168 acres of private land. Key vegetation resources include timber stands in an area where prior harvest occurred from the 1950’s through the 1990’s.

3.1.1.1 Analysis Methodology This analysis relies on the comparison of existing conditions to desired conditions at various spatial and temporal scales. The desired future condition was used for comparing the present condition of the Dutch Oven project area and anticipated conditions under the no-action alternative and Alternative 2 over time.

The vegetative desired condition for the Dutch Oven project area was developed prior to any effects analysis. It is based on multiple resource objectives using direction from the 1987 Forest Plan, the proposed 2008 Plan Revision, and the Vegetation Response Unit (VRU) information from the South Fork Landscape Assessment done in 1998 for the Nez Perce National Forest. VRUs are a land classification and mapping system that delineate units of land based on predictable patterns of potential vegetation and disturbance dynamics, predominately fire regimes. The potential vegetation groups used are those developed by Applegate et al. (1992) for northwestern Montana and northern Idaho. VRU descriptions provide an understanding of the desired condition for the landscapes containing the project area. VRU 3 (stream breaklands, grand fir and Douglas-fir) comprises approximately 17% of the project area, VRU 6 (cold basins, grand fir and subalpine fir) comprises 63%, VRU 7 (moist uplands, grand fir and Pacific yew) comprises approximately 18%, VRU 9 (glaciated slopes, subalpine fir and whitebark pine) comprises approximately 0.5%, and VRU 10 (uplands; alder, grand fir, and subalpine fir) comprises approximately 2%. VRUs are used to interpret historic and existing conditions and trends in plant community composition, structure, and process, but lack the ability to provide age ranges for the vegetation communities.

39 To assess existing conditions, common stand exams (CSE) using an intensive measurement criteria, FSVeg database files, aerial photographs and walk-through examinations were used.

Region 1 Vegetation Mapping Program (VMap) data is often used to augment stand exam information. This multi-level, vegetation classification system provides base level data appropriate for project level analysis. For a better understanding of VMap data and its use and limitations see: Numbered Report 09- 03. May, 2009. The Region 1 Existing Vegetation Map Products (VMap). Release 9.1.1. Jim Barber. Dave Vanderzanden. USDA Forest Service.

VMap data, a regional source of vegetation mapping, was collected in 2014 and classified using the Region One Vegetation Council Existing Forested Vegetation Classification System. Stands were recognized, created or re-identified through the current USFS compartmental mapping system, or adjusted using the VMap data. A stand is defined as a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in species composition, arrangement of age classes and condition on a relatively similar site. Additional “walk- through” and CSE inventory information was gathered on individual stands.

Common stand exams (CSEs) were used to verify the assembled VMap informational data, but also to collect data to support silvicultural stand analysis through the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), a growth and yield model designed to model forest stand characteristics over a designated time period. Common stand exams inventory statistically collects current stand conditions, which then enables the Silviculturist to model stand conditions under different simulation.

3.1.1.2 Resource Indicators Analysis indicators are the same for direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Indicators being used to assess forest health are discussed in this section, including forest composition, age class, vertical structure, and patch size. No single indicator is a definitive measure of forest health or resilience. A healthy and resilient forest ecosystem is characterized by: composition, structure, pattern and ecological processes sustainable under current and future conditions.

Forest Composition The indicator of desirable forest composition is the percent of the forest cover type dominated by the long lived early seral species (western larch and ponderosa pine) compared to areas dominated by grand fir, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine. Long lived, early seral species are much more fire tolerant and where managed at the appropriate density, have less ladder fuels and higher crown base heights. The species composition, structure, and function have the desired resistance (prevent impacts and protect valued resources), resilience (capacity of ecosystem to return to desired conditions after disturbance) and response (ability to transition from current to new conditions). Forest composition is measured by percent of area defined by seral classes. This can be defined as early, medium, or late seral habitat type conditions and /or species within these habitats.

Forest Structure Three primary indicators of forest structure are structural stage, vertical structure, and landscape arrangement (patch size.)

Structural Stage Structural stage groups can be defined as young, mature or old structures and are measured by percent of the area in each stand. Structural stage groups are:

• young defined as shrubs and seedling/sapling and poles (0 to 5 inches in diameter);

40 • mature defined as small to medium trees (5 to 15 inches in diameter); and • old defined as large trees (15 + inches in diameter).

While all structural stages are beneficial to the health and resilience of a forested landscape; young and medium structural stages contribute more ground fuels to a forested system while the upper end of the mature to large stands contribute more to ladder and crown fuels.

Vertical Structure Vertical structure is used as a ‘within-stand’ structural arrangement indicator. It is represented by the number of vertical layers present in a stand. The four possible vertical structure classe include single- storied, two-storied, three-storied and continuous vertical structure. Vertical structure classes will be approximated using percentages of diameter groupings within each cover type from VMAP data. Three storied and continuous-storied stands, due to the density of ladder and crown fuels, contribute more fuel loading to a stand than do single or two-storied (seedling and large tree) stands. Managing the vertical structure can reduce the potential of fire spreading up through the crowns and becoming a high-intensity crown fire.

Patch Size Landscape arrangement is discussed through changes in patch sizes of the structural stages. Comparison of current conditions and proposed action to the desired condition is an indicator of resiliency. Patch size, as assessed by fire behavior models, can be used to assess the potential of where ground or crown fires may travel based on the point of ignition.

Current Conditions

3.1.1.3 Forest Type Forested stands within the project area are primarily a grand fir mix where the over-story is a composition of grand fir. Other species dominate in other vegetation types and include over-story compositions of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce, however, these vegetation types are currently a minority on the landscape. Stands are missing a large component of western larch and ponderosa pine is lacking probably due in part to past unrecorded harvest (prior to 1950), or because of fire suppression starting in the mid to late 20th century. Subalpine fir is present occasionally, mostly occurring in stands at the highest elevations in the project area. Table 3-1 shows the current forested vegetation type within the Dutch Oven project area. This data is assembled from the 2014 VMap dataset.

Table 3-1: Current forest vegetation types (VMap) Vegetation Forest Type Total Acres Percent of Forest Project Area Ponderosa Pine Mix 413 6.1% Douglas-fir Mix 687 10.1% Grand Fir Mix 4875 71.7% Lodgepole Pine Mix 126 1.9% Subalpine Fir Mix 73 1.1% Engelmann Spruce Mix 55 0.8% Western Red Cedar Mix 70 1.0% Hardwood Mix 9 < 0.1% Non-Forested 493 7.3% TOTAL 6800 100%

41 3.1.1.4 Forest Composition Forest cover types, as described above under Forest Type, are labeled by dominant tree species present in a stand. The existing vegetative species composition for the Dutch Oven project area is displayed in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Current species composition (CSE) Species Basal Area (Sq.Ft.) Mean Percentage of Basal Area Grand Fir 101.9 58.4% Douglas-fir 49.7 28.5% Lodgepole Pine 9.6 5.5% Engelmann Spruce 5.7 3.3% Western Larch 5.7 3.3% Subalpine Fir 1.2 0.7% Ponderosa Pine 0.3 0.3%

The forest cover types in the project area are a variation of mixed conifer types and shrubs. The break- land and uplands have relic long lived early seral species (western larch and few ponderosa pines) but are currently composed of late seral shade tolerant species. Lodgepole pine is the primary early seral species at higher elevations and in frost pockets. Based on the common stand exams (CSE) data, Table 3-2 shows approximate overall current species composition for the Dutch Oven project based on basal area stocking.

The project area is currently dominated by mid- to late-seral tree species, grand fir and Douglas- fir. Early-seral species (western larch and ponderosa pine), which are more resilient to fire risk and fire conditions, are lacking (3.6% of the project area). Note that ponderosa pine as an overall species is a very small percentage, but approximately 6% of the vegetation type is classified as ponderosa pine (see above in Forest Type above). This indicates that ponderosa pine is present within isolated stand conditions, however it is not consistently present throughout the landscape. The opposite is shown for western larch; it occurs scattered across the landscape but not growing in individualized stands. Ponderosa pine and western larch would be expected to occupy or dominate over 10% or more of the project area. Current levels are below the expected occurrence. Grand fir and Douglas-fir are occupying over 85% of the forest cover, but should be closer to 60 or 65% of the landscape. Lodgepole pine-dominated stands occupy approximately 5% of the project area, which is consistent historically. The bulk of forest types in the project area (75%) are dominated by grand fir. This may demonstrate that without the appropriate amount of fire or harvest disturbance across the project area landscape, shade-tolerant species (i.e. grand fir and Douglas-fir) are dominating on the portion of the project area expected to be occupied by early-seral species.

3.1.1.5 Forest Structure Many stands are converting to multi-storied stands with a more continuous vertical structure, especially in openings resulting from tree removal in past thinning treatments or where pockets of root disease and mountain pine beetle infestations are resulting in tree mortality. This current conversion to a more continuous or three-storied vertical structure throughout the project area is resulting in an increase in ladder fuels and regeneration of tree species that are not fire tolerant.

42 Since the 1950’s, timber harvest has been conducted on 2,019 acres within the approximate 7,000 acres project area. Most of this was regeneration harvest and commercial thinning. Roughly 11% of the project area is occupied by trees 5 inches to 15 inches in diameter 75% being larger than 15 inches in diameter.

Climate change and management of natural resources with a changing climate are both science and social issues. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment (http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/pnwc.shtml) is the most recent and area specific tool available to understand potential changes to northern Idaho. Until more scientific details for this approach are available, a conservative forest management approach based on diversity and resilience that can be adjusted in the short, middle, and long terms (adaptive management) is reasonable. This is the basis for proposed treatments in the Dutch Oven project area.

Age Class Age class distribution is useful in describing the natural disturbance pattern on a landscape. VMap data does not include age class distribution and using size class as an approximation of age can prove inaccurate in areas where trees are small and older due to suppression of growth or other detriments to stand growth such as insects and disease agents. With the exception of stands regenerated in the 1950’s through 1980’s, most stands in the project area were initiated from fire disturbance from 1889 through 1934. At approximately 100-120 years of age stands in the project area are considered mature with culminated growth. Even with the accuracy inconsistency noted above, structural stage or size class can be an alternative measure, keeping in mind that any particular age class cannot be correlated to a specific size or structural class.

Structural Stage (Size Class) Current structural stages and/or size class distributions in the project area are due to past insect and disease activity, fire disturbance, and timber harvest. Structural stage groups for this project are defined as young, mature, and old. Size classes can be described by the average or mean diameter at breast height (DBH) of each stand. For this project, size classes have been divided by diameter groups and classified into a set of ranges. This set of grouped ranges are as follows; < 5 inches DBH, 5 to 9.9 inches DBH, 10 to 14.9 inches DBH, 15 to 19.9 inches DBH and >20 inches DBH. These groups are identified by name respectively; seedling/sapling, pole, small tree, medium tree, and large tree. Table 3-3 shows the current forest structure by forest type and acreage for the project.

The forested habitat consists largely of medium to large trees that would be considered upper mature to old (85% of the acreage) (Table 3-3). The young and early mature tend to be early seral species, ponderosa pine, western larch, and lodgepole pine with the late mature and old being the grand fir and Douglas-fir. This would fit the current species composition conditions noted above in Forest Composition.

Table 3-3: Acreage of current forest size structure Medium Small Tree Seedling/Sapling Pole Tree Large Tree Forest Type 10-14.9” <5” DBH 5-9.9” dbh 15-19.39” >20” dbh dbh dbh Early Structural Stage Young Late-Young Late Mature Old Mature Ponderosa Pine 92 24 3 142 153 Mix Douglas-fir Mix 172 161 37 149 169 Grand Fir Mix 0 120 207 3,982 565

43 Lodgepole Pine 48 34 18 27 0 Mix Subalpine fir Mix 0 0 21 52 0 Engelmann 0 0 0 53 1 Spruce Mix Western Red 1 0 0 31 39 Cedar Mix TOTAL Acreage 313 339 286 4,436 927 Percentage 5.0% 5.4% 4.5% 70.4% 14.7%

Vertical Forest Structure Vertical forest structure is used as a within-stand density indicator. Vertical structure depicts the number of vertical tree layers present in a stand (Berglund et al. 2008). The four possible vertical structures include: single storied, two storied, three storied and continuous vertical structure. Table 3-4 shows the current vertical forest structure of the forested stands within the Dutch Oven project area.

Table 3-4: Current vertical forest density structure Vertical Forest Structure Estimated Acreage of Cover Percent of Landscape Single Storied 1,200 acres 18% Two-storied 1,300 acres 19% Three or Multiple Storied 4,300 acres 63%

Most conifer species tend to grow as single-storied stands when they are in a young tree status. As stands grow and age, the vertical structure tends to take on a multiple storied conditions as late seral species, grand fir and Douglas-fir, become introduced or early seral species are replaced with late seral species. This is consistent with the lack of disturbance to maintain early seral species, again matching the current condition. Since a large percentage of our stands are grand fir or Doulas-fir, and large disturbance events are lacking, more multiple-storied conditions would be expected (Table 3-4).

Most stands in the Dutch Oven project area are becoming multi-storied stands with a more continuous vertical structure. VMap data indicates the average canopy cover is currently 60% or more. Canopy cover is not consistent on the landscape because some small disturbances occur, such as mortality patches caused by insects and disease. Desired conditions include a landscape dominated by single and two storied stands (generally younger) with fewer three-storied and continuous storied stands. An increase in the amount of younger stands could be provided by either larger disturbance events or through harvest activities. The single and two- storied stands are favorable in terms of fuels management as ladder fuels are reduced and crown base heights are raised.

At 100-120 years of age, project area stands are beginning to convert to a more continuous vertical structure. Small disturbance openings are occurring on the landscape, as a result of tree removal in past thinning treatments or where pockets of root disease and bark beetle infestations are resulting in tree mortality, but are not large enough to promote consistent early seral regeneration. Many of the openings are naturally regenerating to non-seral grand fir. This current conversion to a more continuous or three- storied vertical stand structures on the landscape is resulting in an increase in ladder fuels and regeneration of tree species that are not fire tolerant.

In general VRU 6 (grand-fire dominated) comprises 63% of the project area, and would be expected to have about 10-30% of the area in seedling/sapling size classes, 30-45% in pole size classes, 20-40% in

44 medium size classes, and 5-20% in large size classes. The desired condition would be that the majority of the stands would consist of mixed size classes, with early seral western larch and occasional ponderosa pine present. However, using the VMap cover type and size class distribution to approximate both age and structural diversity, 75% is currently in the large size classes in this VRU.

Landscape Arrangement (Patch Size) The landscape arrangement of structures has influence on how some types of fire, insects, or wildlife will move across the landscape. Managing for connected landscapes is seen as a way to increase a landscape’s resilience to change as well as allow wildlife and in some cases plant movement.

The patch size and arrangement of mixed severity fire on the landscape is somewhat different than large stand replacement fire or insect and disease disturbances. Historically, patches varied greatly in size and scope. Patches varied from very small (a few acres) to very large (acres in the thousands). Since the project area is only 6,964 acres, it is conceivable that the entire area could be considered, on a landscape scale, as a single patch. However, the desired condition is a landscape of varied patch sizes, allowing for the natural smaller patches from ecological processes to harvest patterns in the hundreds of acres. The silvicultural goal for the Dutch Oven project includes an approximate minimum patch size of 5 acres to a maximum patch size of 200 acres. Where possible, patches would include connectivity through patchy island retention and variable tree retention.

Environmental Consequences

3.1.1.6 Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No-Action Alternative, no silvicultural or harvest activities would be implemented. The forested acreage within the project boundary would not progress toward the desired conditions outlined. Fire disturbance would most likely be the only ecological process that would trend the landscape toward the desired condition. In the long-term, natural ecological processes such as ecological replacement would occur through insects and disease infestation; however fire disturbance would eventually occur once fire risk reached a high level. The size and severity would be dependent on the landscape condition, possibly leading to major stand replacing fire events.

Five Vegetative Response (VRU) units are represented within the project area: VRU 3 (17%), VRU 6 (63%), VRU 7 (18%), VRU 9 (<1%), and VRU 10 (2%). With the grand fir habitat types (VRU 3, 6, and 7) occupying the majority of the project area the following trends would be expected to occur (Cooper et al. 1991, Smith et al. 1997).

• Within the grand fir dominated VRUs (VRUs 3, 6, 7), which contain 97% of the project area, pathological diseases would be a dominant agent of change. Short-term effects of the No-Action Alternative would include increased mortality of Douglas-fir and grand fir as stands continue to mature and experience in-stand species competition, root diseases, and poor tree vigor and decay. • VRU 9 and 10 involve 3% of the project area. The short-term effects of the No-Action Alternative would include increased mortality of lodgepole pine. Insects will continue to cause deterioration of stands dominated by this species. Current walk through exams indicate that most of the stands containing lodgepole pine will continue to experience a high degree of mortality. • The amount of existing early seral tree species now present in the project area would decline including ponderosa pine and western larch. They would only be maintained or introduced if disturbances are large enough to support regeneration of these species, which would only occur if these early seral species were still present as a viable seed source. Early seral decline is also promoted by the lack of fire and because vertical structure in the stands would become more

45 continuous thus promoting regeneration of more tolerant, mid-seral species with the loss of early seral seed sources. • Insect infestations will also continue to be a dominant agent of change. Because of the increasing pathogen influence on stand conditions within grand and Douglas-fir forests, insects would become a secondary agent attacking weakened trees. Ponderosa pine, and western larch would also be susceptible to insect infestations as these species health decline on the landscape. • The amount of medium to large size class trees within specific stands would decline as root disease and insects cause mortality. Grand fir would remain the dominant species and occupy the growing space left by the mortality of other shade intolerant species. Stands would increasingly become dominated by grand fire and other shade tolerant species. Sub-alpine fir and Engelmann spruce would become shared dominant species and occupy the growing space left by mortality. In the absence of natural disturbance such as fire, regeneration to fill gaps in the canopy would be limited to the same species as the current over-story because western larch, and ponderosa pine will have limited seed sources. Douglas-fir would also gradually become less prevalent due to root disease, bark beetles, and encroachment of other species.

Stands would continue to grow, with an increase in the diameters of trees; however the rate of this growth would slow as over-story trees die and are increasingly replaced by understory (smaller diameter) trees. Canopy cover would be reduced in the short-term, however, vertical structures would continue to move the remaining single and two-storied stands to three-storied and continuous storied stands due to mortality. The landscape would become more homogeneous with continuous vertical structures and multiple ages. While stands would develop old growth characteristics over time, when compared to similar areas 100 years ago, they would have fewer long-lived early seral species, and have more vertical structure and multiple ages earlier in their successional development. Ladder fuels would increase and canopy base heights decrease as the vertical structure becomes more continuous. Ground fuels would increase with increased mortality resulting from insect and disease damage. Generally the landscape would increasingly become less resilient to change or disturbances. Overall, while the numbers represented by current conditions do not show significant departure from desired conditions, the indirect effects of no action and the combination of species compositions and structures would trend to more areas with poorer health, less resistance and less resilience than the current condition or desired conditions.

3.1.1.7 Alternative 2– Direct and Indirect Effects The goal and objective of Alternative 2 would be to reduce ladder fuels and canopy density by treating areas of mature stands that are currently experiencing mortality due to root and stem diseases and bark beetle infestation in areas of grand fir, Douglas fir and lodegpole pine. The treatments are designed to trend the landscape toward desired landscape conditions which would improve long term forest health and resiliency.

Regeneration harvest treatments would focus on treating stands that have culminated in growth, have reach a specified age or condition, or are being affected by pathogens to the point mortality rates are significantly affecting stand health and growth rates. Clear cut with reserves units would retain 8-25 trees per acre based on a 12 inch DBH tree (6-20 ft2 basal area per acre). Post-treatment, these units will resemble a mosaic of even-aged groups. Seed-tree harvest units will resemble clear-cut with reserve units, with slightly more canopy retention (20% vs. 10% in clear-cut wit reserves units), and desirable seed producing trees retained (ponderosa pine and western larch). In shelter-wood units, 19-51 trees per acre would be retained (15-40 ft2 of basal area per acre). If needed following regeneration harvests, stands would receive a site preparation treatment, achieved mechanically or through prescribed fire. In this alternative, 228 acres have been identified in which prescribed fire would be the site preparation method of choice. Reforestation would include a mix of species, generally long lived early seral species that will increase resistance and resilience at the stand level and beginning this trend through the project area.

46 Regeneration would generally be accomplished artificially through planting, but natural regeneration potentially could be used in areas which contain an adequate seed source and supply of early seral species.

Variable density thinning (VDT) will be used to meet project goals and objectives concerning retention of vertical structure and canopy cover. On average, canopy cover retention of greater than 35% is desired across the landscape, even though most stands have reached an age where growth rates are declining. Variable density thinning applications will resemble a more open mature forest habitat retaining larger diameter trees, will enhance the composition of seral species, and will maintain some vertical structure while reducing the hazardous fuel component. Variable density thinning units will retain 76-140 trees per acre (60-110 ft2 of basal area per acre). The best representatives available of early seral species (western larch, ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir; in order of priority) would be retained to provide structure and future snag recruitment, and in some areas desirable seed trees for natural regeneration. If located away from roads, large-diameter western larch with mistletoe could be girdled for snag recruitment to prevent infection of western larch seedlings. While growth may not be maximized, an economically feasible level of timber productivity is provided, while meeting the project’s objective of providing more resilient stand conditions. This treatment would also allow for re-entry to conduct future ecological treatments and product removal within a shorter time period. The long term goal of these areas is to create patchy openings and further promote re-establishment of shade intolerant species. In the short term, the retention of canopy cover will not be uniform across the project area. In areas where canopy cover is higher than the average, trees will be removed in order to reduce ladder fuels associated with dense canopies and raise canopy base height to decrease the potential of crown fire. Desired conditions across the landscape include small patches, ½ to 3 acres in size, with canopy cover less than 10%. In creating these patches, the silvicultural treatment will focus on removing dead and dying trees that contribute to fuel loadings and increase potential of high severity wildfire. In these areas, early seral species will be retained with the harvest treatment removing either single trees or groups of late-seral species, primarily grand fir and Douglas fir infected with root disease. Some natural regeneration may occur in the small openings and would be an acceptable element of incidental structural diversity, but its establishment is not a required outcome of treatment. The site will be appropriately occupied by a mature forest structure, and scattered canopy gaps will contribute to the desired fire resilience quality. Time maintenance prescribed burning will generally inhibit widespread re-initiation of shade tolerant tree seedlings, until such time in the future that larger openings are made available for shade intolerant re-establishment.

Prescribed burning only would occur on approximately 868 acres, mostly along the South Fork Clearwater River breaks in the southern portion of the project area. Hand or aerial ignition would occur during prescription windows either in fall or spring. The intent of this burning would be to reduce understory vegetation in order to reduce the intensity and severity of natural ignitions while improving human safety in the event of fire suppression activities. In harvest units, 282 acres are committed to prescribed fire post-harvest. The remaining acres would be evaluated post-harvest for future fuels treatment needs. Prescribed burning would reduce natural and activity fuels, and to provide sites for natural and artificial (planting) regeneration to re-stock the treated areas with native vegetation. If fuels loads are at higher levels that can be safely managed through burning then mechanical site preparation would be used. In general post- harvest burning would consist of grapple pile or jackpot burning on tractor ground, and under-burning on cable harvest ground.

Desired future conditions are used in conjunction with the project area and landscape species and structure objectives to prioritize treatments to acheive desired conditions on some portion of the landscape. This approach provides for a diversity of habitats and guards against a homogenous landscape structure where a single change agent (i.e. insect, disease, etc.) could cause widespread vegetative mortality and loss of resiliency. No harvest treatments will occur in the RHCAs; thus these areas have a different target stand condition that does not trend those stands toward early seral species conversion at

47 this time. Components within harvest areas that meet overall objectives (desired project area conditions) would be retained; where not present they would be established. Variability will be substantial within treatment areas because the amount of retention would be based on available components. Wildlife, fire/fuels, and visual concerns played a prominent part in maximizing retention on sites while trending the overall area toward the desired future condition.

Post-harvest fuels treatment in harvest units would include whole tree yarding, grapple piling, broadcast burning, pile burning, and jackpot burning. Damaged residual trees and/or undesirable trees may be felled or girdled and retained for vertical structure and snag recruitment. It is important that harvest and post- harvest fuels treatments limit mortality and do not cause further stress to retained trees.

Forest Types Currently cover types are dominated by grand fir and Douglas fir. The desired condition represents a trend toward healthy and resilient vegetative conditions. From the treatments proposed undesired forest vegetative types would move toward to those desired. Table 3-5 shows this estimated change.

The proposed action represents an opportunity to increase western larch and ponderosa pine vegetation cover types which will trend the entire project area towards increased resistance and resiliency. Through implementation of the action alternative, the presence of early seral species will increase across 14 percent of the project area.

Table 3-5: Change in vegetation type Forest Vegetation Current Acreage Acreage After Treatment Types Grand 5,562 (81.9%) 4,617 (67.9%) Fir/Douglas-Fir Ponderosa Pine 413 (6.1%) 1,358 (20%) and Western Larch

Forest Composition Currently the project area is departed from the desired range for forest composition. The dominance type within the resource is currently high in grand fir and Douglas-fir.

Table 3-6: Change in forest species composition Forest Species Current Percentage (Basal Area) Percentage After Treatment Grand Fir 58.4% 50% - 55% Douglas-fir 28.5% 24% - 27% Ponderosa Pine 0.3% 3% - 6% Western Larch 3.3% 5% - 10%

Without the harvest treatments, western larch and ponderosa pine would continue to decline due to inter- stand competition. By implementation of the proposed action, western larch and ponderosa pine will increase by an estimated 4 to 12% due to regeneration favoring these early seral species. This slight increase in early seral species composition will directly result in an increase in resistance and resiliency at the project area scale.

48 Forest Structure Structural Stage Forest size structure is important when describing some types of wildlife habitat, fuel ladders and fire spread, and successional development. Table 3-7 shows the estimated changes in tree size on the Dutch Oven project area landscape following implementation of the proposed alternative. Approximately 20% of the large sized stands would change predominately to seedling/sapling sized stands. This matches the desired condition for young stands, however additional entries and/or a period of time are needed before achievement of the entire range of desired conditions. Future treatments in the medium/large size classes, along with future growth of the seedling/sapling group into the small tree class would be needed over time. The alternative also moved some acreage from the medium/large category to the small tree category. More of this movement could be accomplished by harvesting or removing large trees but this does not meet objectives.

Table 3-7: Change in size structures % after Desired Range Size Structure Size (DBH) Existing % Treatment % Seedling/Sapling < 5” 5% 20% 10-30% Pole 5 – 10” 5% 5% 30-45% Small Tree 10 – 15” 5% 8% 20-40% Medium/Large Tree 15+” 85% 67% 5-20%

Vertical Structure Vertical structure of the project area is currently one storied in previously harvested units and trending toward multi-storied stands where areas have either not been treated previously or have been commercially thinned. Like size structure, vertical structure is also important when describing some types of wildlife habitat, fuel ladders and fire spread, and successional development. On average the canopy cover is greater than 60%.

Vertical structure is changed in the proposed alternative through both the regeneration harvest and VDT harvests. Of the 945 acres of regeneration harvest proposed approximately 2/3 would become a single storied condition, while 1/3 becomes two-storied in the immediate future. Of the 213 acres of VDT treatment, most of the acreage would become a two-storied condition, however some of these acres would remain within the multiple storied condition. Stands with lodgepole pine that are currently 1 or 2 storied would be regenerated back to 1 storied stands. Table 3-8 shows the estimated vertical structure after harvest treatments.

Table 3-8. Change in vertical structures Current Percentage Percentage Vertical Structure (Basal Area) After Treatment Single-storied 18% 26% Two-storied 19% 26% Three/Multiple-storied 63% 47%

Landscape Arrangement (Patch Size) Implementation of the proposed alternative will create approximately 50 to 60 new patches of various sizes. Potentially, patch size variation will be between ½ acre and 200 acres depending on silvicultural

49 objectives and landscape features. Mid to late successional stages would decrease in both numbers and potentially in size, while early successional stages would increase. Where appropriate, increased patch size for the young successional stage (stand initiation) will establish western larch and ponderosa pine. Long-term resiliency would be improved, while fire disturbance in the future adds the potential to provide larger patches to the desired condition in the future.

3.1.1.8 Cumulative Effects The vegetation cumulative effects analysis are is the approximate 7,000 acres project area. The time scale for the cumulative effects analysis is 2023 because at this point all proposed post-harvest planting activities are reasonably expected to be implemented and stands certified as stocked. The effects of past actions are represented as the existing condition of the forest health indicators described earlier. The existing condition represents the need for action and the development of the proposed action. The proposed action represents foreseeable activities which will improve the overall health and resilience of treated stands as they grow to maturity. The effects of the proposed action cumulatively will not vary from the direct and indirect effects within the time scale used for this analysis. Ongoing activities (recreation, road and trail maintenance, and weed management) are not expected to cumulatively affect the forested vegetation. A fuel break is planned in the immediate future around the private Mud Springs Ranch. Treatments include removal of dead and dying trees, removal of trees 8 inches DBH and smaller, removal of brush and ladder fuels, and pruning of overstory trees up to 12 feet above ground. Material would be removed or masticated on approximately 21 acres of land, affecting less than one percent of the project area. Effects would be similar to treatments planned on NFS lands, and would cumulatively be immeasurable in calculations of before- and after-treatment percentages of vegetative indicators.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Laws The proposed activities for the Dutch Oven project meet the regulatory framework for the management of vegetative resources on the Nez Perce National Forest including the Nez Perce Land and Resource Management Plan (1987) and the National Forest Management Act (1976). Diagnosis, prescription development, and forest health analysis was guided by Forest Service regulations and policy including in part Forest Service Handbook 1909.60 and 2409.17; Forest Service Manual 1920, 2020, 2470, 2471, and 2472 and the USDA Region 1 Integrated Restoration and Protection Strategy (2014).

50 3.2 Climate Change This section describes the evidence and rationales why, in this case, we believe additional analysis of this proposal’s effects on climate change are not warranted under NEPA for a proposal of this scope. Nevertheless, as we recognize this is a relatively new public issue and in deference to those who commented, a qualitative analysis of this project’s effects on carbon cycling and storage is provided.

Affected Environment

3.2.1.1 Carbon cycling and storage The importance of carbon storage capacity of the world’s forests is tied to their role globally in removing atmospheric carbon that is contributing to ongoing global warming. As discussed further below, meaningful and relevant conclusions on the effects of a relatively minor land management action such as this on global climate change is neither possible nor warranted in this case (While huge advances have been made in accounting and documenting the relationship between greenhouse gases and global climate change, difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes to natural or human causes at smaller than continental scales (IPCC 2007, pg. 72).). Nevertheless, we recognize that global research indicates the world’s climate is warming and that most of the observed 20th century increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to increased human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

Forests cycle carbon. They are in a continual flux, both emitting carbon into the atmosphere and removing it (sequestration) through photosynthesis. The proposed actions being considered here may alter the rates and timing of that flux within the individually affected forest stands. These changes would be localized and infinitesimal in relation to the role the world’s forests play in ameliorating climate change and indistinguishable from the effects of not taking the action. Nevertheless, in response and deference to those who commented, effects of the proposal on carbon cycling and storage are discussed below. Regional, continental, and global factors related to forest’s influence on global climate change are also briefly discussed to provide context for understanding the nature of these local effects.

3.2.1.2 Efficacy of the Proposed Action in Light of Climate Change A public comment following the release of the preliminary EA for the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management Project stated that “the pre-decisional EA fails to evaluate project impacts to climate change and climate change impacts to forest resources and ecosystem services in the sale area.”

This proposal has several desired outcomes. The effectiveness of achieving those outcomes is presented throughout the EA and underlying analysis (keeping in mind that NEPA requires an agency to take a hard look at the consequences of its actions on the environment, not the other way around).

The interdisciplinary team carefully considered the existing conditions and trends within the area, as well as risks, in designing this proposal to achieve those outcomes. Global climatic warming is not something that is about to happen. It has been ongoing for many decades and the trend is expected to continue into the distant future, continuing to increase risks to our nation’s forests (Dale, et al. 2001; Barton 2002; Breashears and Allen 2002; Westerling and Bryant 2008; Running 2006; Littell, et al. 2009; Boisvenue and Running 2010, Hicke et al 2012). The existing project area conditions and trends are an expression of the local climate (which may or may not parallel ongoing regional, continental, or global trends) as it has interacted with the other local natural and anthropomorphic influences. As such, the ongoing effects of climate change were considered in developing the proposal.

51 This proposal by necessity addresses site specific forest health, fish and wildlife habitat, and vegetation conditions, trends, and risks that exist within the project area today. Nevertheless, those proposed actions are consistent with adaptation actions and strategies recommended for managing forests in light of climate change (Millar, et al. 2007; Joyce, et al. 2008; Ryan, et al. 2008a).

3.2.1.3 Regulatory Direction There are no applicable legal or regulatory requirements or established thresholds concerning management of forest carbon or greenhouse gas emissions.

NEPA requires that agencies consider significant effects of proposed actions on the human environment in our decisions. The purpose of an environmental assessment is, in part, to determine whether there may be significant effects that warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1508.9).

3.2.1.4 Guidance on Consideration of Climate Change in Project Related NEPA

Council on Environmental Quality The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has issued draft guidance for public consideration and comment on “Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 page 8046). This draft guidance is not yet applicable to this analysis. Moreover, CEQ explicitly excluded Federal land and resource management from the draft guidance. Rather, the CEQ solicited public comment on the appropriate means of assessing the greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration that are affected by Federal land and resource management decisions.

Forest Service The Forest Service has prepared agency guidance on “Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis” (http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/climate_change/index.htm). In general, that guidance recognizes that while some actions may warrant qualitative or even quantitative analysis of the effects of an action on climate change, some actions are at such a minor scale that the effects would be meaningless to a reasoned decision.

Other Contextual Considerations Other factors also indicate that, in this case, further analysis is not necessary or warranted.

The top three anthropogenic (human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (from 1970-2004) are: fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and agriculture (IPCC 2007, p. 36). Land use change, primarily the conversion of forests to other land uses (deforestation) is the second leading source of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally (Denman, et al. 2007, pg. 512). Loss of tropical forests of South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia is the largest source of land-use change emissions (Denman, et al. 2007, pg. 518; Houghton 2005).

Unlike other forest regions that are a net source of carbon to the atmosphere, U.S. forests are a strong net carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than they emit (Houghton 2003; US EPA 2013; Heath, et al. 2011). For the period 2000 to 2008, U.S. forests sequestered (removed from the atmosphere, net) approximately 481.1 teragrams (Tg) of carbon dioxide per year, with harvested wood products sequestering an additional 101 Tg per year (Heath et al 2011) (teragram (Tg) = approximately 2.2 billion pounds). Our National Forests accounted for approximately 30 percent of that net annual sequestration. National Forests contribute approximately 3 Tg carbon dioxide to the total stored in harvested wood products compared to about 92 Tg from harvest on private lands (Heath et al 2011). Within the U.S., land use conversion from forest to other uses (primarily for development or agriculture) are identified as the primary human

52 activities exerting negative pressure on the carbon sink that currently exists in this country’s forests (McKinley, et al. 2011; Ryan, et al. 2010; Conant, et al. 2007).

This proposal does not fall within, and is distinguishable from, any of these primary contributors of global greenhouse gas emissions nor is it similar to the primary human activities exerting negative pressure on the carbon sink that currently exists in U.S. forests, namely land use conversion. The affected forests will remain forests, not converted to other land uses, and long-term forest services and benefits will be maintained.

Current Conditions Forests are in continual flux, emitting carbon into the atmosphere, removing carbon from the atmosphere, and storing carbon as biomass (sequestration). Over the long-term, through one or more cycles of disturbance and regrowth (assuming the forest regenerates after the disturbance), net carbon storage is often zero because re-growth of trees recovers the carbon lost in the disturbance and decomposition of vegetation killed by the disturbance (McKinley, et al. 2011; Ryan, et al. 2010; Kashian, et al. 2006).

Forested stands within the project area are primarily a grand fir mix where over-story is a composition of grand fir. Other species dominate in other vegetation types and include over-story compositions of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce. Generally most of these areas are stocked more heavily than desired as described in the Vegetation section of Chapter 3, thus competition for water and nutrients is high and the trees in the area are more susceptible to drought, insects, disease, and fire. At this stage of their development, most of the stands in the project area are estimated to be net carbon sinks. That is, they are likely sequestering carbon faster than they are releasing it to the atmosphere. The strength of that sink has likely been weakened in some stands due to recent scattered tree mortality from root disease and bark beetles.

Environmental Consequences

3.2.1.5 Alternative 1 - Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct human-induced emissions of carbon into the atmosphere under the No Action alternative. Forest stands would likely continue as carbon sinks until the next disturbance event (fire, wind, insect infestation, etc.) occurs. When the next forest stand replacing disturbance event (high tree mortality) occurs, the affected areas would convert to a carbon source condition (emitting more carbon than is being sequestered). This state would continue for up to a decade or more until the rate of forest regrowth, assuming trees regenerate, meets and exceeds the rate of decomposition of the killed trees. As stands continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase (typically peaking at an intermediate age and then gradually declining, but remaining positive) (Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004). Carbon stocks would continue to accumulate, although at a declining rate, until again impacted by subsequent disturbance.

For at least the short term, on-site carbon stocks would remain higher under the No Action alternative than under the Proposed Action. Nevertheless, caution is advised against interpreting carbon inventory maintenance or gains from deferred or foregone timber harvest in any specific forest or stand as affecting atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. This only holds true if harvest does not occur elsewhere in the world to supply the same world demand for timber (Gan and McCarl 2007; Murray 2008; Wear and Murray 2004). The result can be a net carbon impact if the timber is replaced in the marketplace with higher carbon source products such as steel or concrete or is harvested in a manner that does not result in prompt reforestation (McKinley, et al. 2011; Ryan, et al. 2010; Harmon 2009).

53 The long-term ability of these forests to persist as a net carbon sink is uncertain (Galik and Jackson 2009). Drought stress, forest fires, insect outbreaks, ongoing root disease-caused mortality, and other disturbances may substantially reduce existing carbon stock (Galik and Jackson 2009, Hicke et al 2012). Climate change threatens to amplify risks to forest carbon stocks by increasing the frequency, size, and severity of these disturbances (Dale, et al. 2001; Barton 2002; Breashears and Allen 2002; Westerling and Bryant 2008; Running 2006; Littell, et al. 2009; Boisvenue and Running 2010). Recent research indicates that these risks may be particularly acute for forests of the Northern Rockies (Boisvenue and Running 2010). Increases in the severity of disturbances, combined with projected climatic changes, may limit post-disturbance forest regeneration, shift forests to non-forested vegetation, and possibly convert large areas from an existing carbon sink to a carbon source (Barton 2002; Savage and Mast 2005; Allen 2007; Strom and Fulé 2007; Kurz, et al. 2008a; Kurz, et al. 2008b; Galik and Jackson 2009). Leaving areas of forest densely stocked, as in the no action alternative, maintains an elevated risk of carbon loss due to disturbance. Promoting resilience through thinning and promoting asynchrony (heterogeneous conditions) are often suggested as climate change “adaptation actions” because they may increase forest resilience to these multiple stresses, and thus increase the likelihood of sustaining forest carbon benefits in the long- term (Millar, et al. 2007; Joyce, et al. 2008; Ryan, et al. 2008b). The no action alternative foregoes such climate change adaptation actions.

3.2.1.6 Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects In the short term, the action alternative would remove and release some carbon currently stored within treatment area biomass through harvest of live and dead trees and other fuel reduction activities, including prescribed burning. A portion of the carbon removed would remain stored for a period of time in wood products (US EPA 2013; Depro, et al. 2008). Additionally, motorized equipment used during any of the proposed activities will emit greenhouse gasses.

For at least the short term, on site carbon stocks would be lower under the action alternative than under No Action. The amount of carbon stocks retained would be proportional to the number of acres and amount of vegetation treated by Alternative 2. Actions such as those proposed here may, in some cases, increase long term carbon storage over time (Finkral and Evans 2008; North, et al. 2009; Mitchell, et al. 2009) but current research in this field shows highly variable and situational results (McKinley, et al. 2011; Mitchell, et al. 2009; Reinhardt and Holsinger 2010; Ryan, et al. 2010).

The proposed stand vegetation treatments would reduce existing carbon stocks and temporarily reduce net carbon sequestration rates within treated stands, in some areas possibly enough that for the short term the stands would emit more carbon than they are sequestering. These stands would remain a source of carbon to the atmosphere (or weakened sink) until carbon uptake by new and remaining trees again exceeds the emissions from decomposing dead organic material. As stands continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase then gradually decline, but remain positive (Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004). Carbon stocks would continue to accumulate, although at a declining rate, until impacted by future disturbances.

Sustaining forest productivity and other multiple-use goods and services requires that land managers balance multiple objectives. The long-term ability of forests to sequester carbon depends in part on their resilience to multiple stresses, including increasing probability of drought stress, high severity fires, and large scale insect outbreaks associated with projected climate change. Management actions, such as those proposed with this project that maintains the vigor and long-term productivity of forests and reduce the likelihood of insect outbreaks and continued widespread root disease-caused mortality can maintain the capacity of the forest to sequester carbon in the long-term. Thus, even though some management actions may in the near-term reduce total carbon stored below current levels, in the long-term they maintain the overall capacity of these stands to sequester carbon, while also contributing other multiple-use goods and services (Reinhardt and Holsinger 2010).

54 3.2.1.7 Cumulative Effects Neither the No Action alternative or the Proposed Action would have a discernable impact on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or global warming, considering the limited changes in both rate and timing of carbon flux predicted within these few affected forest acres and the global scale of the atmospheric greenhouse gas pool and the multitude of natural events and human activities globally contributing to that pool.

Although not a statutorily defined purpose of National Forest System management, forests do provide a valuable ecosystem service by removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in biomass (Galik and Jackson 2009). U.S. forests are a strong net carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than they emit (Houghton 2003; US EPA 2013; Heath, et al. 2011). For the period 2000 to 2008, U.S. forests sequestered (removed from the atmosphere, net) approximately 481.1 teragrams of carbon dioxide per year, with harvested wood products sequestering an additional 101 teragrams per year. Our National Forests accounted for approximately 30 percent of that net annual sequestration. National Forests contribute approximately 3 Tg carbon dioxide to the total stored in harvested wood products compared to about 92 Tg from harvest on private lands (Heath, et al. 2011).

The total carbon stored on the Clearwater National Forest is approximately 142 Tg, or about thirty-two one hundredths of one percent (0.32%) of approximately 44,931 Tg of carbon stored in forests of the coterminous U.S. (Heath, et al. 2011). The Dutch Oven Vegetation Management Project would affect only a tiny percentage of the forest carbon stock of the Clearwater National Forest, and an infinitesimal amount of the total forest carbon stock of the United States.

Within the U.S., land use conversions from forest to other uses (primarily for land development or agriculture) are identified as the primary human activities exerting negative pressure on the carbon sink that currently exists in this country’s forests (McKinley, et al. 2011; Ryan, et al. 2010; Conant, et al. 2007). The affected forest lands in this proposal would remain forests, not converted to other land uses, and long-term forest services and benefits would be maintained.

55 3.3 Fuels Affected Environment The area considered for assessing the direct, indirect, and cumulative influence of fire and fuels is the approximate 7,000 acre project area. Project activities would have localized effects on fuels and fuel continuity; therefore, the project area is sufficient to display effects. Fire management Forest Plan goals applicable to the project area are to protect resource values through cost effective fires and fuels treatment through timber harvest followed by burning of activity fuels and prescribed burning. The Dutch Oven project area lies with in the South Fork Sub Unit (as defined in the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest Fire Management Plan 2014) where fire management emphasis is to suppress fires on Forest Service lands and provide protection on private land inholdings. The 2009 Idaho County Wildfire Protection Plan, as amended, categorizes the Dutch Oven project area as WUI because numerous private properties, structures, and major ingress/egress routes for both the public and firefighting resources area located in the project area. These rural WUI lands within and surrounding the project area are characterized by a mixed conifer, closed canopy overstory, low canopy base height, high crown bulk density with a dense understory of suppressed, shade tolerant tree and shrub species. This “ladder fuel” condition is conducive to large fire growth by allowing a surface fire to climb into the forest canopy. Should an advancing, high intensity, wildfire approach the project area from the south or southwest, the likelihood of stopping the fire before it crosses the forest boundary would be minimal. In the event that high intensity fire crosses the forest boundary the impacts to private property, BLM lands and the municipal watershed for Elk City could be catastrophic. Direct attack fire control measures would be unsafe, and not likely to be successful. Indirect control measures would rely heavily on aerial support and likely require the use of ground disturbing equipment. Left untreated, fire suppression would cost more, expose firefighters to hazardous conditions, cause resource damage and potentially block safe ingress/egress for the public and firefighters. These conditions are representative of much of the untreated forested areas surrounding the Dutch Oven area.

3.3.1.1 Analysis Methodology Site visits, aerial photo interpretation, and photo plots were used to identify the existing condition of the fuels in the Dutch Oven project area. Photo series for quantifying forest residue guides were used to identify Fire Behavior Fuel Models represented in the project area. The BEHAVE Plus Fuel Model was used to predict fire behavior including fire intensity, rate of spread, flame length, and crown fire potential. Weather data from the Red River weather station site, from 1994 to 2014 was used in the BEHAVE plus model. Detailed descriptions of the fuel models can be found in the project file. A hazard assessment was completed and a hazard level rating assigned to the fuel models and displayed as a percentage of the project area. The hazard assessment is based on fuel models and their associated fire behavior characteristics, in particular, fire intensity (as measured by flame length) and severity (fire type).

3.3.1.2 Resource Indicators The following indicators were used to describe and measure potential fire behavior.

Fire behavior modeling is used to evaluate and rate existing and potential fire behavior. The fuel model hazard ratings are determined by the amount and size of surface fuel loading and the percent of canopy closure in an area.

• Surface fuel loadings (downed wood, needle/leaf fall) affect fire behavior and the ability of crews to control a fire. The higher the amount of surface fuels, the hotter the fire and the higher the risk of a crown fire where ladder fuels are present. Approximately 11% of the proposed

56 treatment units are in Fuel Model 8, 80% in Fuel Model 10, and 9% in Fuel Model 11. Fuel loading average 13, 18, and 29 tons per acre in Fuel Models 8, 10, and 11, respectively. The desired fuel loadings for the project area is less than 5 tons per acre of downed woody material less than 3 inches diameter (fine fuels). • Percent canopy closure is the percentage of area covered by the crowns of live trees. A reduction in the percent of canopy closure would reduce potential for crown fire.

Surface fire flame lengths (which are related to fuel loading) was used to determine the surface fire behavior potential. Suppression tactics are directly related to flame length. Four foot flame lengths are the upper limit at which fires can be effectively attacked using hand crews, and at which handline can be expected to hold a fire. (Andrews 1986). Flame lengths larger than four feet would likely have to be attacked using dozers, engines, and aircraft (NWCG 1993).

Crown fire flame length is the estimated flame length once crown fire or passive crown fire has been initiated (see fire types below).

Canopy base height is the distance between the ground and the bottom of the tree canopy. The closer to the ground that the lower limbs of a tree are, the greater the contribution to ladder fuels. These ladder fuels create a path for ground fire to move into the crowns of the trees. Canopy base heights were measured to estimate crown fire potential. Based on the BEHAVE plus fuel modeling, canopy base heights of less than 10 to 12 feet would contribute considerably to crown fire potential. Surface fuel loading and canopy base height are primary stand characteristics that determine crown fire potential.

Fire types are characterized as crown fires, passive crown fires or surface fires. In a crown fire, the entire fuel complex becomes involved, but the crowning phase remains dependent on heat release from the surface fuels for continuous spread. In a passive crown fire, individual groups of trees torch out, but solid flaming canopy cannot be maintained except for short periods. Surface fires burn along the forest floor consuming litter, killing above ground parts of herbaceous plants and shrubs.

Current Conditions The approximate7,000 acre project area is located about 24 air miles east southeast of Grangeville, Idaho; adjacent to the Elk City Township to the west, and 4 miles west of the actual town of Elk City, Idaho. The project area encompasses several small drainages between Newsome Creek to the west and Whiskey Creek/Elk City Township to the east along the South Fork Clearwater River and south of Forest Service Roads 307 and 1808. The area is accessed by Idaho State Highway 14. A Forest Service Rental Program Cabin and national Historic Building, one private residence along with numerous structures on 87 acres, two additional private properties (on 20 and 61 acres each) and the Elk City Township lie within or directly adjacent to the Dutch Oven project area. The project area lies within historic non-lethal, mixed severity and lethal fire regimes. Successful fire exclusion over the past 60 to 70 years has contributed to greater stand densities and an increase in crown fire potential. Since 1970 there have been 27 fires within the project area that were aggressively attacked and suppressed as small fires, generally 0.1 acre with the largest being 5 acres. Within the project area there have 5 large fires, greater than 50 acres. Fire size ranged from 72 acres in 1934 to 13,080 acres in 1889. All of these large fires have been in the southern half of the project area. Over time, aggressive initial attack has allowed fuel loadings and stand densities to increase, and that has made the stands more vulnerable to large scale catastrophic wildfires. In addition, forests have changed from fire-adapted species to species more susceptible to fire that tend to form unhealthy stands prone to large-scale wildfires, as well as increased outbreaks of insects and diseases. Past timber harvest and fire suppression in the project area have changed the composition of tree species in many of the stands. Shade tolerant,

57 fire-intolerant species such as grand fir and Engelmann spruce, have regenerated the majority of the project area in great numbers. Current fuel accumulations and thick continuous canopy cover caused by high tree densities due to fire suppression are such that a fire could develop into a wildfire that could threaten life and property. Fires that burn in conditions similar to those found in the project area can have flame lengths exceeding four feet, spread at high rates, and in some areas, burn as crown fires. All of these fire behavior characteristics would make any potential wildfire difficult to control, and could limit the ingress and egress for both firefighters and private residents. The Dutch Oven project area has been identified as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) in the 2009 Idaho County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) due to the numerous private properties, structures, and major ingress/egress routes for both the public and firefighting resources. These vegetative conditions are also typical of much of the untreated forested areas beyond and surrounding the project area. In the recent past, several large wildfires threatened WUI areas on private lands or the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. In 2012 the McGuire Fire, located 9 miles south of Elk City burned over 43,600 acres of private and National Forest System lands and caused area road closures from August into October of 2012. Twelve helicopter, 28 airplanes, 35 20-person crews, 490 engines, 7 bulldozers, 12 skidgines, 6 feller bunchers, 19 water tenders, and 10 excavators were all engaged in the firefighting effort. Heavy fuel loadings aided by insect and disease areas contributed to fire severity. The McGuire Fire area is similar fuel types to those in the Dutch Oven project area. In 2003 a series of defensible space projects occurred on the Red River Ranger District, including within this project area near Mud Springs. Following these defensible space projects, Forest Service Fire Management identified a continued need to create areas with reduced risk of uncharacteristic or undesirable fire including the potential for crown fires. The Forest Service Fire Managers identified fuel characteristics in the Dutch Oven project area similar to those found in the 2012 McGuire Fire. In response, the Dutch Oven project has been designed utilizing ridge lines, past project area boundaries and existing road systems to form the project boundary. The project was also designed to increase crown base height, reduce crown bulk density, as well as reduce stand density. Thinning from below, free thinning, and reserve tree shelter woods have the greatest opportunity for reducing the risk of crown fire behavior (Graham et al. 1999). The project area is characterized as Fuel Models 8, 10, and 11. Fuel Models 10 and 11 typically exhibit flame lengths greater than four feet (Anderson 1982) under normal weather conditions. This is over the upper limits at which fires can be attacked with persons using hand tools, and at which handline can be expected to hold a fire (Andrews 1986). There are high levels of insects and disease in those areas categorized as Fuel Model 8. Although flame lengths of Fuel Model 8 are expected to be only 1 foot (Anderson 1982), these areas with high levels of insect and disease are likely to convert to a Fuel Model 10 within 5 to 10 years as trees die and fall. The private parcel in the northwest corner of the project area is 87 acres and consists of a low meadow surrounded by mixed conifer timber. The meadow is green throughout most of the summer, and is considered a Fuel Model 1 or 2. The majority of this parcel though is a Fuel Model 8 due to thinning that had been completed. The other two private property parcels located within the southeast portion of the project area are Fuel Model 10 with areas of Fuel Model 8. The surrounding National Forest System lands are similar with no break in fuel continuity. Surface fuel loadings in proposed treatment areas range from 2.5 to 30 tons per acre. Surface fuels include all dead and down woody materials, litter, grasses, other herbaceous plant materials, and short shrubs, which are often the most hazardous fuels in many forests (Scott et al. 2012). The project area is primarily comprised of grand fir, Douglas-fir, and lodgpole pine (See Vegetation section). Fire suppression has interrupted the natural fire occurrence, and habitats are changing to shade-tolerant species. These species are more susceptible to insects and disease and provide large accumulations of horizontally and vertically

58 continuous fuels. Over the 75 years, fire has been replaced by insect and disease as the most prominent natural agent of change (see Forest Vegetation Section). Ladder fuels are present throughout the project area. Canopy base heights average 2 to 15 feet and would contribute substantially to crown fire potential. Under current conditions, surface, passive, and active crown fire is likely in all vegetation types. Modeling predicts that 72% of the area proposed for treatment would exhibit active or passive crown fire.

Environmental Consequences

3.3.1.3 Alternative 1 - Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct effects to area resources because there are no proposed activities. Indirect changes would occur due to natural events.

Due to the mortality caused by insects and disease, existing surface fuel loadings ranging from 2.5 to 30 tons per acre would continue to accumulate and increase as trees die and fall. In particular, areas previously thinned in the 1980’s and trees impacted by insects and disease would decline over the 10 years, transitioning from a Fuel Model 8 to a Fuel Model 10 (See Table 3-9 below). Increased tree mortality would increase the continuity of surface fuels. Canopy base heights would remain at 2 to 15 feet on National Forest System lands. Currently as vegetation becomes denser, trees fall, and fuels accumulate, fire line intensity and the ability to suppress fires in these timber stands would become increasingly more difficult. Potential flame lengths with current vegetative conditions would be in excess of four feet and would increase over time as a result of larger fuel loadings. Fires that burn in conditions similar to those found in the project area spread at high rates, and in some areas burn as crown fires. This would make direct attack of a potential wildfire with hand crews less effective or not effective at all. Indirect attacks would then be employed and could result in more burned or disturbed areas. All these fire behavior characteristics would make any potential wildfire difficult to control, expose firefighters to hazardous conditions, cause resource damage, and would limit and potentially block safe ingress and egress for both firefighters and the public.

Fire intolerant species, such as grand fir and spruce would continue to increase in the understory. Ladder fuel continuity would increase. This would potentially allow surface fires to transition into the tree crowns, which could change potential fire behavior. Research indicates that flying sparks and embers (firebrands) from a crown fire can ignite additional wildfires ((McCoy et al. 2001 as cited in Norton 2002) ICWPP, 2009). Table 3-9 below describes the fire behavior expected under current conditions in proposed treatment areas.

Table 3-9: Existing fire behavior Proposed Proposed Indicator Intermediate Regeneration Prescribed Fire Harvest Areas Harvest Acres Fuel Model 8, 10, 11 8, 10, 11 2, 8, 10 Surface Fire Flame Lengths (feet) 1.5-9.2 1.5-9.2 1.5-9.2 Crown Fire Flame Length (feet) a 126-146 126-146 128-146 Canopy Base Height (feet) 2-15 2-15 2-15 Fire Type Surface, Passive Surface, Passive Passive Crown, Crown, Active Crown, Active Active Crown Crown Crown Fireline Intensity b Low, Low, Low, low/moderate, low/moderate, low/moderate, moderate, high moderate, high moderate, high

59 a Modeled Crown Length is the estimated length once crown or passive crown fire has been initiated. b Fireline Intensity ratings are low, low/moderate, moderate, or high.

Low intensity fires have flame lengths less than 4 feet. Direct attacks at head and flanks with hand crews, handlines should stop spread of fire.

Low/Moderate fires have flame lengths of 4 to 8 feet. Employment of engines, dozers, and aircraft are needed for direct attack; too intense for persons with hand tools.

Moderate fires have flame lengths of 8 to 11 feet. Control problems, torching, crowning, spotting; control efforts at the head are likely ineffective.

High fires have flame lengths greater than 11 feet. Control problems, torching, crowning, spotting; control efforts at the head are ineffective.

Under the existing conditions, fire modeling suggests that, should a wildfire occur during very high fire danger conditions, high-intensity fires could take place in all vegetation types. The majority of the 169 acre privately owned lands within or adjacent to the project area are Fuel Model 8 or 10. There would be a potential for substantial loss of structures due to direct flame impingement and spotting if a high intensity crown fire were to come from the west or southwest (predominant wind direct during fire season).

Under this alternative, the risk of undesirable wildfire would not decrease. No progress would be made towards the desired condition where flame lengths would be less than four feet and fires would burn as surface fires, with only small pockets of torching and sparse ladder fuels would not contribute to crown fires.

3.3.1.4 Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 would reduce hazardous fuels on WUI lands. The proposed action includes: intermediate harvest on 213 acres, regeneration harvest on 945 acres, after harvest these areas would be mechanically piled and/or subsequently burned or treated with prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuels and prep some areas for planting; and landscape burning on 1,150 acres.

The treatments listed above would effectively reduce surface fire flame lengths, increase crow base height, lower existing fuel concentrations, decrease ladder fuels (brush and small tress), and increase the chance of successful suppression of a wildfire should one occur in the area. Any fire starting in the project area or entering the project area would be confined to the ground, affording a high probability of control using engines, and hand crews resources (Andrews, 1986). After harvest, the area would resemble Fuel Model 8 where fire spread is primarily slow burning with low flame lengths, although fire may occasionally encounter a heavy fuel concentration.

Fuel treatments are not designed to stop fires but rather to modify fire behavior. Firefighters can often use treated areas in effective fire suppression to limit fire spread. Fuel treatments can assist fire managers in burn operation strategies when treatments reduce fire intensity. The recent 806 and Starbucky timber sales have created openings adjacent to the project area. When combined with these past harvest activities, this alternative would create fuel breaks that would reduce the risk of undesirable wildfire, including crown fire. Table 3-10 below describes modeled fire behavior after project activities are completed.

60 Table 3-10: Alternative 2 – Post treatment fire behavior within treatment units Proposed Proposed Indicator Intermediate Regeneration Prescribed Fire Harvest Areas Harvest Acres Fuel Model 8 8 2, 8 Surface Fire Flame Lengths (feet) 1.5 1.5 1.5-9 Crown Fire Flame Length (feet) NA NA NA Canopy Base Height (feet) 10-20 10-20 10-20 Fire Type Surface, Passive Surface Surface Crown Fireline Intensity Low Low Low, moderate

3.3.1.5 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect geographic boundary for fuels is the project area and surrounding forest lands because project activities would have localized effects on fuels and fuel continuity. This area is sufficient to display potential effects of fire starting within the project area and of torching or spoting into the project area from a wildfire that started outside the project area.

The time frame for cumulative effects is 20 years as this is how long the harvested areas could remain effective as fuel breaks. Activities considered for cumulative impacts are those management activities that may increase or decrease fuel loading over time. These activities include fire suppression, timber harvest, and fuels reduction activities.

Forest Plan direction for this area dictates that fire suppression would continue into the future. Past timber harvest on National Forest System lands was generally followed by piling and burning to reduce slash and surface fuels. Since 1950, harvest has occurred on 2,019 acres within the 7,000 acre project area; approximately 1,270 acres of which was regeneration harvest. Regeneration harvest units were restocked by both planting and natural seeding. Later these dense stands of trees were pre-commercially thinned to promote growth and vigor and reduce ladder fuels. In untreated areas, fuel buildup would continue over time, increasing the potential for large, uncontrollable wildfire.

There are no known recent timber harvests or fuels treatments on the private property within the project area; but the land owners are planning to maintain a 21 acre fuel break project for the summer of 2017 by increasing canopy spacing removing ladder fuels The private property is generally a meadow with isolated pockets of conifers and low number of trees, so it is expected that the fuels would accumulated very slowly. There should be no change in expected fire behavior on private lands except what would naturally accumulate through time.

All past activities, including timber harvest, fire suppression and fuel reduction activities such as past hand thinning treatments have been considered under the existing condition and direct and indirect effects. There are no other current or planned management activities on private or National Forest System lands within the project area that would increase or decrease fuel loadings.

The adjacent Starbucky timber sale recently reduced ladder fuels, increased tree spacing, and broken fuel continuity. The Starbucky Restoration Project was directly south and southwest of the Dutch Oven project area and harvested 1055 acres and underburned 330 acres of underburning within 5 miles of the Dutch Oven project area. Prevailing winds track from the south and southwest during fire season so these treatments would break up fuel continuity across the landscape for up to 20 to 30 years into the future. As

61 the landscape scale, they would reduce the probability that a large fire would come from the west, southwest, or south and spot into the project area.

Under the no action alternative, because the Forest Plan direction for this area is to limit the size of wildfires; wildfire suppression would continue into the foreseeable future. There are no other foreseeable actions to consider. Past fire suppression efforts within the project area have been successful; however, fuels and associated hazards would continue to accumulate until initial attack on wildfires may no longer keep fire contained.

Alternative 2 would implement project activities that would reduce the intensity and severity of future wildlfires and facilitate fire suppression activities, which would increase the likelihood that initial attack efforts would be successful.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Laws Direction for fire, fuels, and vegetation management are provided by the Nez Perce Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987), National Fire Plan (2000), 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy (USDI-USDA 2001), Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2014, Federal Wildland Fire Policy (USDI et. al. 2001), National Forest Management Act (1976), Clean Air Act (1963), and Clean Air Act amendments (1997).

A written burn plan to manage prescribed fires would be completed prior to management ignition or signing off as a prescribed natural fire, and natural ignition. A current prescribed fire burn plan does not exist for the analysis area. The fuels treatment activities associated with the action alternative, both activity related and natural, are consistent with Forest Plan (1987) direction.

All proposed treatment areas lie within Management Areas (MA) 1, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 21 (harvest in MAs 1, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 21; landscape burning in MAs 1, 10, 12, 16, 17, and 21) where wildfire management strategies are to control, confine, and contain. Planned ignitions, when within prescription, would be allowed to burn to enhance resource values in all management areas except MA 21 and other units with a live Pacific yew component (Units 01, 01A, and 43) where the following standards apply:

• Generally broadcast burning will not be prescribed. • Do not slash Pacific yew except to provide room to machine pile. • Slash piles should not be placed within patches of pacific yew.

Forest Service manual (FSM) 5150.2 provides fuels management objectives to identify, develop, and maintain fuel profiles that contribute to the most cost-efficient fire protection and use program in support of land and resource management direction in the Forest Plan. Fuels are defined as combustible wildand vegetative materials, living or dead.

The proposed activities of the Dutch Oven Project meet the requirements of the Forest Plan regulatory framework listed above.

62 3.4 Aquatics-Watershed Affected Environment Dutch Oven project area includes 7,000 acres of land encompassing eight Nez Perce NF prescription watersheds (HUC6 as defined in the 1987 Forest Plan) within the Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River (HUC12 #170603050501) and the Lower American River (HUC12 #170603050204) watersheds. Approximately 6,700 acres of the project area is within the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater watershed, and includes Allison Creek, Dutch Oven Creek, Moose Creek, Whiskey Creek, Maurice Creek and portions of S. Fork Clearwater Face 05 and S. Fork Clearwater Face 06. Approximately 300 acres of the project area is within the Lower American River Watershed, including Buffalo Gulch Creek and Maurice Creek prescription watersheds. Overall, these watersheds include 6 perennial and 24 intermittent tributaries that feed into the South Fork Clearwater River (Refer to Figure 2). Impacts to groundwaters outside of municipal watersheds, were not considered in this analysis. There are data gaps in the general site area in IDEQ’s groundwater quality database and no in-house data exists.

63

Figure 2. Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River and Lower American River HUC12 watersheds within the Dutch Oven project area

3.4.1.1 Analysis Methodology

Data Sources Several data sources were used to assess impacts to water resources and develop a Proposed Action that can better ensure water resource protection in accordance to Federal and State laws. These sources include the Nez Perce National Forest Watershed Database, the Nez Perce National Forest Area Soil Survey (USDA Forest Service 1987), the S. Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1998), Idaho Department of Environmental Quality TMDL database, digital information from Nez Perce–Clearwater National Forests and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Cottonwood office GIS data layers, and project-specific field surveys conducted by Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests Aquatics Program and the Nez Perce Tribe Watershed Division. A project-specific field survey of roads completed in 2014 by the Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forests included: condition of road surface, road-related erosion sources, hydrologic connectivity of roads to streams, condition of stream crossing

64 culverts, and road stability. Additionally, the Nez Perce Tribe conducted a project-specific field survey of culverts in 2013 and road surveys in 2015. Project-specific stream surveys were conducted in 2013 by the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests to measure cobble embeddedness, percent fines, width-to-depth ratio, bank angle, bank stability, and number of pieces of large woody debris per mile. Analysis was originally planned and conducted in 2013, then revised in 2016 for final project submittal.

Cumulative effects were diagnosed at a true watershed scale, by querying USFS FACTS 2016 database, USFS Watershed Improvement Tracking 2016 database, SOPA (USFS 2016), Idaho Department of Lands management activities public access database, and personal communication with an interdisciplinary team.

Modelling Conceptual model were used to provide relative estimates of water yield and sediment yield for comparison of management alternatives. Models utilized in the study included NezSED (version 2016). Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP), and Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA). Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) analysis is a tool used to index the relationship between vegetation condition and water yield from forested watersheds. The ECA model evaluates vegetation removal and the resulting potential changes to stream flow, timing, and water yield. The ECA analysis for this project utilized treatment and recovery coefficients from Ager and Clifton (2005) to determine existing and percent increase in ECA at the HUC12 and Nez Perce Forest Plan prescription watershed scales.

The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) runoff and erosion prediction model (Flanagan and Livingston 1995) is a process-based, spatially distributed hydrology and erosion prediction model that was used in this analysis to estimate average annual erosion and sediment delivery at road-stream crossings. Variables considered include specific soil, climate, ground cover, and topographic conditions. The WEPP model was developed by an interagency group of scientists including the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Survey, and the U.S Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and Geological Survey. The model outputs should be considered within plus or minus 50 percent of the true value. Erosion rates are highly variable, and most models can predict only a single value. Replicated research has shown that observed values vary widely for identical plots, or the same plot from year to year (Elliot et al. 1994; Elliot et al. 1995; Tysdal et al. 1999). Additionally, spatial variability and variability of soil properties add to the complexity of erosion prediction (Robichaud 1996).

The NEZSED model (USDA Forest Service1981) estimates the predicted percent increase in sediment yield over base (natural) conditions to evaluate management-caused increases in sediment yields amongst proposed alternatives. Results help predict if The NEZSED model is the Forest’s version of the R1R4 sediment yield guide (Cline et al. 1981), and using NEZSED is a standard in the Nez Perce Forest Plan. The model was last validated in 1995 and 1999 (Gloss 1995; Lentz 1999). The methodology for using the model and its limitations are described in detail in the Forest’s guidance document, Implementation Guide to Appendix A of the Forest Plan (Conroy and Thompson 2011). Sediment yield is calculated based on various factors, including geology, road conditions, harvest age, soil type, slope, and disturbance position (reported as “percent increase over base” conditions). Sediment yield is current conditions (cumulative of base conditions and past management activities), and predicted conditions (cumulative of base conditions, past and proposed activities) for each of the proposed project alternatives. Model outputs should be considered within plus or minus 50 percent of the true value. These percentages of sediment yield over base conditions are then compared to the sediment yield guidelines for prescription watersheds listed in Appendix A of the Forest Plan. This procedure is primarily intended for making relative comparisons of management alternatives, and results should be considered as over-estimates.

65 Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition The Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition was created by NOAA (National Marine Fisheries Service 1996) to evaluate the effects of human actions at the HUC12/10 scale (cumulative prescription watershed scale) on habitat components important to salmonids. ‘High’ designations refer to watersheds considered to properly functioning with high habitat conditions, ‘Moderate’ are watersheds functioning at moderate habitat conditions and potentially at risk, and ‘Low’ are watersheds functioning at low habitat conditions or not functioning properly. The Matrix is used in this analysis to evaluate watershed and streamside road density values as well as channel stability. The regulatory agencies that developed the Matrix did not intend for it to establish minimum management thresholds; rather, to highlight habitat indicators that collectively defined properly functioning conditions. The Matrix is also intended to determine if actions would impair attainment of PACFISH objectives, particularly those that speak to “maintenance or enhancement” of stream conditions. The value of one indicator is not representative of overall watershed condition. Refer to Dutch Oven project Fisheries report and/or Upward Trend Analysis report for further discussion.

3.4.1.2 Resource Indicators

Water Quality and Quantity The balance of water yield and sediment yield in a watershed influences the water quality/quantity of a stream system. Water yield refers to stream flow quantity and timing, and is a function of water, soil, and vegetation interactions. Changes in amount or distribution of vegetation can affect water yield and ultimately alter stream channel conditions. A measure 20-30% equivalent clear-cut area (ECA) is generally recognized as a warning of deleterious effects (Haupt, 1967; Gerhardt, 2000).

Active erosion of the landscape yields sediment to streams and occurs naturally. When an excess of sediment, over the natural (balanced) amount, is delivered to a stream, the stream’s ability to route the sediment out of the system is diminished, sediment deposition occurs, water quality declines, and fish habitat potential is reduced. Harvest, temporary road construction, prescribed fire, and road-related activities have the potential to increase soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Roads influence both water quantity and quality. Roads concentrate surface water and are a source of sediment entering streams.

The Resource Indicators used to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed activities on water quality and water yield are:

• Total road density (miles per square mile) • Streamside road density (miles per square mile) • Number of road-stream crossings • Percent Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) water yield • Sediment yield (percent over base as modeled by NEZSED) • Sediment delivery at road-stream crossings (pounds per year as modeled by WEPP)

Impacts to water resources are assessed at the prescription and true watershed scales. Short-term impacts are defined as those affected the resource within 5 years of implementation. Long-term impacts are those ranging between 5 and 20 years.

Current Conditions Conditions in the eight prescription watersheds are a result of both natural processes and human activities. Past human related activities include mining, grazing, timber harvest, recreation, fire suppression, and

66 road building and maintenance. The most recent ground-disturbing activity on USFS lands within the prescription watersheds of the project area was timber harvest that occurred over a decade ago. Impacts to water quality due to harvesting or prescribed fires, are considered negligible after 6 and 4 years, respectively. The Forest Plan was amended in 1995, following a joint decision (commonly called PACFISH) by the U.S. Forest Service and BLM for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds on Federal lands, including streams within the project area. The interim direction provided by PACFISH identifies and defines Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), establishes Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs), and applies standards and guidelines to RHCAs to meet the RMOs. The PACFISH default RHCAs (buffers) include those areas within 300 feet of fish bearing streams, within 150 feet of non-fish bearing streams, and 100 feet on intermittent streams and wetlands of one acre or less. The RHCA widths exceed state best management practice standards. Past timber harvests with ground disturbing activities have occurred before and after the implementation of PACFISH on USFS and BLM lands within the prescription watersheds in the project area. Prior to the implementation of PACFISH (1950 to 1994), from 1% to 32% of the prescription watersheds were harvested. Since the implementation of PACFISH in 1995, from 0% to 11% of the prescription watersheds have been harvested. Since 1995, timber harvest has not occurred in Allison Creek, Dutch Oven Creek, or Moose Creek prescription watersheds; less than 0.5% of Whiskey Creek prescription watershed has been harvested; and 2% of S. Fork Clearwater Face 05, 3% of Buffalo Gulch, and 10% of S. Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watersheds have been harvested. Since 1995, all timber harvest in Buffalo Gulch watershed as occurred on BLM lands. Areas within the project watersheds have been heavily mined historically. Gold was first discovered in the South Fork Clearwater in 1861, near Elk City. Earlier methods utilized hand tools and sluice and rocker boxes. However, around 1894 hydraulic operations commenced in the subbasin and due to this change, increases in unnatural sediment yield delivery to surface waters began. Mercury was historically used for mining activities in the South Fork Clearwater River and its tributaries. In companion to mercury, cyanide was another common pollutant used to extract fine gold from gravels. Mining disturbance in the Allison Creek prescription watershed is extensive, including inverting streambeds, constructing earthen dam, leaving the stream to define its channel where it has been obscured, and tributaries having been dug up and inverted. According to the 2012 USGS mine inventory, there are no major mining sites in the Affected Area (Gillerman and Bennett, 2015). Mining has been observed in Buffalo Gulch Creek (IDEQ 2012) off U.S. Forest Lands. Recreational mining is focused on the South Fork Clearwater (IDEQ 2012 Recreating Mining Streams interactive map) and no sites are identified within the eight prescription watersheds. No municipal water supplies are within, adjacent to, or downstream of the project area. A search of water rights applications, permits, decrees, licenses, claims, and transfers was made for the areas located in the Dutch Oven project area. One federal (US Forest Service) and two private water rights were identified. Uses included minimum stream flow, stock water, and federal reserved use. The proposed action alternative discussed in this project would not alter any existing water rights claims or decrease the available water relative to these claims. Springs and seeps in the project area have not been inventoried, except Mud Springs. Two seeps were identified along Road 307A during road surveys. Effects to groundwater resources are not being analyzed in this report.

3.4.1.3 Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) The ECA analysis results for the existing condition using treatment and recovery coefficients from Ager and Clifton (2005) are presented in Table 3-11. Existing ECA for the HUC12 Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River watershed is 5%, indicating high watershed condition using the Matrix of Pathways and

67 Indicators. Of this 5% existing ECA, 1%, is attributable to the road system and 4% is attributable to past timber harvest. Existing ECAs presented in Table 3-11 for the smaller Forest Plan prescription watersheds range from 2 to 6%, indicating likely high watershed condition for all prescription watersheds the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system for ECA. Up to 2% of existing ECA in the prescription watersheds is attributable to roads, and up to 5% is attributable to past timber harvest. The ECA contribution from past harvests would continue to decrease as harvested areas regrow, and effects to water yield associated with these past timber harvests would continue to decrease and become immeasurable in time.

Table 3-11: Existing conditions summary of resource indicator for Forest Plan Prescription Watersheds and Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 Watershed Resource Prescription Watershed (HUC12) Indicator Alliso Buffalo Dutch Maurice Moose SF SF Whiskey Whiskey n Gulch Oven Creek Creek Clear- Clear- Creek Creek-SF Creek Creek Creek water water Clearwat Face 05 Face er River 06 Percent ECA 4 4 4 NA 4 2 6 3 5 Total Road 7.6 4.5 4.1 3.2 3.5 3.0 4.3 3.4 3.7 Density (mi/mi2) RHCA Road 8.5 5.4 1.6 0 1.1 10.5 10.1 1.6 4.0 Density (mi/mi2) Number of 4 2 9 0 12 1 7 11 N/A Road-Stream Crossings a Sediment 743 164 325 NA 1,281 1,281 376 795 N/A Delivery at Road-Stream Crossings (lbs/yr) Sediment Yield 17 11 6 10 7 17 5 7 N/A (% over base) Sediment Yield 60% 60% 60% n/a 60% n/a n/a 60% N/A Guideline b NA = Resource indicator not assessed at 6th code HUC watershed scale; n/a = Not Applicable a Crossings under Hwy 14 or on BLM lands not included in calculations. b Forest Plan Appendix A sediment yield guideline to meet fish/water quality objectives.

68 3.4.1.4 Sediment Yield

Sediment yield caused by harvesting, wild and prescribed burning, and road activities were considered in this analysis. Existing sediment yield percent over base (or natural rate) for the prescription watersheds as predicted by NEZSED are presented in Table 3-13, and range from 4% to 17% over base. This indicates all prescription watersheds are currently below Forest Plan Appendix A sediment yield guideline of 60% sediment yield over base. Based on NEZSED calculations, the existing excess sediment yield over base is mainly attributed to the road system. Field-calculated bank stability values support that watershed conditions are moderate to high, which could indicate that exiting percent over base sediment yield estimates are not currently significantly impacting stream channels. Past timber harvest with ground disturbing activities on Forest Service lands in these prescription watersheds has not occurred since the 1990’s, and is no longer considered as having measureable effects. The most recent BLM harvests with ground disturbing activities for a combined total of 120 acres in Buffalo Gulch Creek, Whiskey Creek, and S. Fork Clearwater Face 05 prescription watersheds occurred between 2008 and 2010, and are currently having negligible effects (less than 0.10%) on existing sediment yield as predicted by NEZSED. All estimated sediment yields over natural were calculated as if routed to the South Fork Clearwater River.

3.4.1.5 Total Road Density

A total of 126 road miles are located within the Forest Plan prescription watersheds. Existing total road density in the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed is 3.7 mi/mi2 (Table 3-14). Total road density indicates low watershed condition in the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system. Existing total road densities in the individual Forest Plan prescription watersheds range from 3.0 to 7.6 mi/mi2. Road density values indicate likely low watershed condition for all prescription watersheds with the exception of S. Fork Clearwater Face 05 prescription watershed, which at 3.0 mi/mi2 is in the moderate condition category (NOAA 1998)

3.4.1.6 .Streamside Road Density A total of 19.2 miles of roads are within streamside areas; with 35.7 miles of roads are within the Forest Plan prescription watersheds (Table 3-14). The streamside road miles in the Forest Plan prescription watersheds are greater than the streamside road miles in the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed because S. Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watershed (and Hwy 14 miles located within it) is not entirely contained within the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater HUC12 watershed.

Existing streamside road density in the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed is 4.0 mi/mi2. The streamside road density indicates low watershed condition in the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system.

Existing streamside road densities in the individual Forest Plan prescription watersheds range from to 1.1 to 10.5 mi/mi2. The high streamside road densities of 10.1 and 10.5 mi/mi2 for S. Fork Clearwater Face 05 and S. Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watersheds, respectively, are due to Highway 14 being located adjacent to the S. Fork Clearwater River in these prescription watersheds. Streamside road densities indicate low watershed conditions for Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, S. Fork Clearwater Face 05, and S. Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watersheds, and moderate conditions for Dutch Oven Creek, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds category using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system.

69 3.4.1.7 Number of Stream Crossings There are a total of 47 road-stream crossings on Forest Service lands in the project area. Road-stream crossings by Forest Plan prescription watershed are presented in Table 3-11. Crossings under Hwy 14 and on BLM lands are not included as they are not on lands administered by USFS. The number of crossings in the individual prescription watersheds ranges from 0 to 12, with S. Fork Clearwater Face 05 prescription watershed having the least and Moose Creek having the most. Field surveys conducted in 2013 and 2014 identified 22 road-stream crossings within the prescription watersheds that are problematic due to erosion, sediment delivery, inadequate drainage, undersized culverts, misaligned culverts, or road failure. Proposed Actions were amended to address these current condition concerns.

3.4.1.8 Sediment Delivery at Road-Stream Crossings The WEPP model predictions of existing average annual sediment delivery at road-stream crossings in the prescription watersheds are presented in Table 3-11, and range from an estimated 164 to 1,020 pounds per year. These predictions are estimates with an accuracy of plus or minus fifty percent. The WEPP model does not include modeling for road erosion and sediment delivery that occurs from intercepted stream flow that flows down ruts on the road surface, which occurs at one road-stream crossing in Dutch Oven Creek prescription watershed and one road-stream crossing in S. Fork Clearwater Face 05 prescription watershed. Sediment delivery in these prescription watersheds is therefore higher but of unknown quantity.

Environmental Consequences

3.4.1.9 Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative 1, no proposed management actions and associated vegetation removal or ground disturbance would occur, and therefore there would be no human-caused changes in water and/or sediment yields. Roads would continue to be a source of chronic sediment, and existing road erosion and sediment delivery at road-stream crossings would continue. No Action would prevent or prolong the implementation of needed road restoration and culvert improvements. No Action would have minor to moderate adverse effects on water quality as Allison Creek, Moose Creek, SF Clearwater Face 06, Dutch Oven Creek, Whiskey Creek, and Buffalo Gulch prescription watersheds will lose the benefits of proposed restoration.

3.4.1.10 Alternative 2 – Direct and indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects areas are the eight Forest Plan prescription watersheds in the project area. Proposed vegetation treatment activities may cause short-term negligible to moderate adverse effects and long-term negligible to minor adverse effects to water resources, due to potential increases in sediment yield. Potential increases in sediment yield is mainly attributed to the use of log haul roads. Temporary roads will be decommissioned and increases in sediment yield are predicted to be well below Forest Plan sediment yield guidelines after one year from implementation (2018). Dutch Oven project is designed to produce no measurable increase in bacteria, nutrients, oil and grease, inorganics, sediment, or temperature with project-specific design criteria, riparian area restrictions, and Best Management Practices. In addition, Dutch Oven project restoration activities should maintain or improve water quality, leading to short- to long-term moderate beneficial effects in Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch (within FS boundary), Dutch Oven Creek, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds.

Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) The ECA is used as an indicator of change in water yield or peak flows resulting from vegetation removal and roads. Existing roads are considered permanent openings in ECA estimates. ECA predictions are used to compare alternatives, and are not as absolutes. The ECA water yield indicator serves only as a flag that

70 suggests there may be potential for decreased stream stability due to sustained increased energy in the stream channel. The ECA is used in combination with other indicators such as channel stability (Table 3-12) and channel type to determine hydrologic risk.

Under Alternative 2, ECA is estimated to increase from 5% to 11% in the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed, indicating high watershed condition using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system for ECA.

Estimated ECAs for the smaller prescription watersheds are presented in Table 3-12, with the existing ECAs represented by Alternative 1. ECAs for proposed vegetation removal activities under Alternative 2 are estimated to increase between 0% and 19% in the prescription watersheds in year one. Estimated ECAs under Alternative 2 for Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch, Whiskey Creek, S. Fork Clearwater Face 05, and S. Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watersheds would remain below 15% in year one, indicating High watershed conditions using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system for ECA.

Table 3-12: Percent ECA by alternative for Forest Plan prescription watersheds Prescription Alt 1 Existing Alt 2 Year 1 Alt 2 Year 5 Alt 2 Year 10 Watershed Allison Creek 4 14 11 9 Buffalo Gulch 4 4 4 3 Dutch Oven Creek 4 23 18 14 Moose Creek 4 15 12 9 S. Fork Clearwater 2 7 6 5 Face 05 S. Fork Clearwater 6 9 7 6 Face 06 Whiskey Creek 3 7 5 4 Roads and harvest on BLM lands included in percent ECA calculations.

There are no proposed vegetation treatments in Maurice Creek prescription watershed.

Under Alternative 2, ECA is estimated to increase from 4% to 15% in Moose Creek prescription watershed and from 4% to 23% in Dutch Oven Creek prescription watershed within one year of implementation. Increases over 20% indicate a potential shift in habitat quality from its current high condition to a moderate watershed condition, using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system. Given stream conditions for Moose Creek and Dutch Oven Creek are currently moderately to highly stable (Table 3-12), the ECA values are below the 30% ‘yellow flag’ warning of possible deleterious effects, and associated increases in water yield would not be sustained (ECA values go below preferred 15% before year 10, as presented in 6), water yield increases with the implementation of Alternative 2 are not expected to result in deleterious changes to channel stability in Dutch Oven Creek watershed.

Estimates of increased water yield should be interpreted jointly with estimates of increased sediment yield to better assess potential impacts to water resources.

Sediment Yield Changes Caused by Harvest, Burn, Construction Activities The NEZSED model results are presented in Table 3-13, with existing sediment yield percent over base represented by Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, maximum estimated sediment yield percent over base in the short-term (Alt 2Year 1) ranges from 12% to 118%. In the long-term (Alt 2 Year 10), NEZSED

71 estimated sediment yields percent over base for all watersheds would decrease to below Forest Plan thresholds, though above Alt 1 conditions.

Dutch Oven watershed has the highest increase in roads due to temporary road construction as well as the highest percent of haul routes. This leads to high NEZSED estimates for percent over base sediment delivery in year one from implementation. By year six, sediment yield percent over base has dropped below Forest Plan guidelines. Modelled estimated of increased water yields during the first five years of implementation support that sediment would not deposited long-term. At this time, it is uncertain how any increases in sediment yield will cause scour and associated increases in stream turbidity and/or temperature. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring will provide more observations to access impacts to stream channels. 2017 assessment of the SF Clearwater TMDL will also provide more insight on any input Dutch Oven Creek may be contributing. Dutch Oven Creek, observed to be a low energy stream near the confluence of the SF Clearwater River, and not expected to be delivering significant sediment to the SF Clearwater River.

Allison Creek prescription watershed are also showing above-threshold predicted percent over base sediment yields. Considering a 10% allowable error for the guideline, percent over base estimates are not considered significant. Allison Creek is intermittent and has greater potential for depositing such sediment. In this case, it is most likely that Allison Creek is not contributing to the exceedances in sediment or water temperature in the SF Clearwater TMDL. However, locations of such depositions are unknown and impacts cannot be assessed at this time. Referencing the flow accumulation raster (Figure 6), there are no evident areas of highly concentrated flow. This indicates channel stability would most likely be maintained, and not significantly impacted by predicted increases in sediment yield.

SF Clearwater Face 05 and Face 06 prescription watersheds are also resulting in above-threshold predicted percent over base sediment yields. Considering a 10% allowable error for the guideline, percent over base estimates are not considered significant for SF Clearwater Face 06. The adjacency of these prescription watersheds to Highway 14 and the SF Clearwater River and the implementation of proposed actions, could lead to contributions to the SF Clearwater River. However, BMPs and project design criteria are implemented to mitigate for such impacts.

Contract language includes requirements such as “during periods of accelerated runoff, especially during the spring runoff and periods of heavy rainfall, Purchaser shall inspect and open culverts and drainage structures, construct special cross ditches for road runoff, and take other reasonable measures need to prevent soil erosion and siltation of streams.”

All streams within the project Affected Area are considered low energy streams, and do not have much carrying capacity for introduced sediment. Riparian buffers as well as predicted increased water yields should help distribute above natural sediment yields.

Based on NEZSED results, project implementation will have short term minor to moderate adverse effects and negligible long-term effects to water resources. Short term peaks in sediment yields are attributed to use of haul routes as well as decommissioning of existing roads, which ultimately leads to short- and long-term beneficial effects. No significant effects to water resources are expected with project implementation. See the Aquatics Section for further discussion on impacts to aquatic habitats.

72

Table 3-13: NEZSED sediment yield percent increases over base by alternative (not including road improvements) by Forest Plan prescription watershed Percent Over Base Prescription Alt 2 Year Sediment Yield Watershed Alt 1 Existing Alt 2 Year 1 Alt 2 Year 6 10 Guideline a Allison Creek 17 78 18 18 60 Buffalo Gulch 11 13 13 13 60 Creek Dutch Oven Creek 6 116 11 10 60 Maurice Creek 10 8 8 8 n/a** Moose Creek 7 51 7 7 60 S. Fork Clearwater 17 86 12 11 n/a** Face 05 S. Fork Clearwater 5 61 7 7 n/a** Face 06 Whiskey Creek 7 29 7 7 60 a Forest Plan Appendix A allowable percent sediment yield over base to support meeting fish/water quality objective. ** Fish/water quality objective not specified in Forest Plan Appendix A. Assumptions of 60% could be made, per Appendix A implementation guidance (Conroy and Thompson).

Considering the 10-year trend from project implementation of NEZSED estimates for percent over base sediment yields, it is predicted that all prescription watersheds in the affected area currently estimated as being over Forest Plan sediment guidelines, are below 60% over base thresholds after one year (2018) of project implementation. (Refer to Upward Trend Analysis for additional discussion).

Total Road Density Decreasing road density has the following direct and indirect effects related to physical watershed condition: • Reduces the long-term volume of fine sediment delivered to stream channels from roads. • Reduces volume of water intercepted and redirected from natural flow paths towards stream channels. • Reduces watershed area that is compacted. • Increases watershed area that has productive vegetation. • Reduces risk of mass failures (e.g., slumping cutslopes, road-stream crossing failures).

A summary of total road density by alternative for the Forest Plan prescription watersheds and the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed is presented in Table 3-14. Under Alternative 2, total road density in the HUC6 Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River watershed decreases from 3.7 to 3.4 mi/mi2 by proposed road decommissioning. Total road density would remain above 3.0 mi/mi2 indicating no change in the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed condition by proposed road decommissioning under Alternative 2, and it would remain in the low condition category using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system for total.

Total road density would not change by the proposed road decommissioning under Alternative 2 in S. Fork Clearwater Face 05 and Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watersheds, indicating no change in watershed condition under Alternative 2, and these prescription watersheds would remain in their moderate and low condition categories, respectively, using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system for total road density. Total road density would decrease with proposed road decommissioning

73 under Alternative 2 to below 3.0 mi/mi2 in Moose Creek and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds, indicating a change in watershed condition from the low to moderate condition category for these prescription watersheds by proposed road decommissioning under Alternative 2. Total road density in Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, and Dutch Oven Creek prescription watersheds would decrease by proposed road decommissioning under Alternative 2, leading to long-term beneficial effects to water resources.

Table 3-14: Total road density and streamside road density by alternative for Forest Plan prescription watersheds and Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed Total Road Density Streamside Road Density Watershed (mi/mi2) (mi/mi2) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2 Allison Creek 7.6 6.4 8.5 6.5 Buffalo Gulch Creek 4.5 4.5 5.4 5.4 Dutch Oven Creek 4.1 3.7 1.6 1.6 Maurice Creek 3.2 3.2 0 0 Moose Creek 3.5 2.7 1.1 0.6 S. Fork Clearwater Face 05 3.0 3.0 10.5 10.5 S. Fork Clearwater Face 06 4.3 4.3 10.1 10.1 Whiskey Creek 3.4 2.9 1.6 1.3 Whiskey Creek-S. Fork 3.7 3.4 4.0 3.8 Clearwater River

Streamside Road Density The effects of streamside roads in RHCAs have a much greater effect on watershed conditions than roads in the uplands because the closer proximity increases the likelihood of having an effect. As such, the effects of reducing streamside road density are the same as decreasing upland road density, but have a greater positive result. This effect should be observed over time at locations where roads within streamside areas are decommissioned, and where road-stream crossings are removed. Decreasing streamside road density has the following direct and indirect effects (in addition to those described for upland road density):

• Increases the valley area available for stream channel migration. • Increases stream shading, large woody material recruitment, and nutrient resources.

A summary of RHCA road density by alternative for the Forest Plan prescription watersheds and the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed is presented in Table 3-14. Under Alternative 2, streamside road density would decrease from 4.0 to 3.8 mi/mi2 by proposed road decommissioning. Streamside road density would remain above 2.0 mi/mi2, indicating no change in the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed condition with proposed road decommissioning under Alternative 2, and it would remain in the low condition category using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system streamside road density.

Streamside road density would not change with proposed road decommissioning under Alternative 2 in Buffalo Gulch Creek, Dutch Oven Creek, S. Fork Clearwater Face 05, and Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watersheds, indicating there would be no change in watershed condition in these prescription watersheds by proposed road decommissioning under Alternative 2 using the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system for streamside road density. Buffalo Gulch, S. Fork Clearwater Face 05, and S.

74 Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watersheds would remain the low condition category, and Dutch Oven Creek prescription watershed would remain in the moderate condition category. Streamside road density would decrease by proposed road decommissioning under Alternative 2 to below 1.0 mi/mi2 in Moose Creek prescription watershed, indicating a change in watershed condition by proposed road decommissioning under Alternative 2 from the moderate to high condition category. The streamside road density in Allison Creek and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds would decrease by proposed road decommissioning under Alternative 2, but not below 2.0 mi/mi2 in Allison Creek or 1.0 mi/mi2 in Whiskey Creek, indicating there would be no change in watershed condition in these prescription watersheds; therefore, these prescription watersheds would likely remain in their low and moderate watershed condition categories, respectively.

Number of Stream Crossings A comparison of number of road-stream crossings by Alternative is presented in Table 3-15. Under Alternative 2, road decommissioning would eliminate a total of eight road-stream crossings in the prescription watersheds, corresponding to percent reductions that range from 0% to 33%. Decreasing the number of road-stream crossings would have the following direct and indirect effects:

• Reducing one of the most significant management–related sediment sources in a watershed. • Removing direct flow paths from road ditches and surfaces to stream channels. • Reducing the area of chronic sediment sources. • Reducing the areal extent of soil compaction, which increases water infiltration, thereby reducing runoff, erosion, and sediment delivery. • Reducing the number of likely sources of chronic sediment input into stream channels. • Reducing the number of locations that potentially block aquatic organism passage. • Reducing the number of locations where culverts can be plugged; which reduces the risk of failures that damage watercourses. • Reducing the number of locations that have the potential to divert the stream if the culvert were plugged during runoff events. • Reducing the connectivity of natural watercourses. • Improving the natural passage of instream sediment and large woody debris.

Table 3-15: Number of Road-Stream Crossings in Forest Plan Prescription Watershed by Alternative Prescription Watershed Road Alt 1 Alt 2 % Reduction crossing Allison Creek 4 3 25% Buffalo Gulch Creek 2 2 0% Dutch Oven Creek 9 9 0% Moose Creek 12 8 33% S. Fork Clearwater Face 05 2 2 0% S. Fork Clearwater Face 06 7 7 0% Whiskey Creek 11 9 18% TOTAL 47 40 15% Crossings under Hwy 14 and on BLM lands not included in calculations.

75 Sediment Delivery Changes Caused by Road Improvements at Stream Crossings Under Alternative 2, 22 of the 40 road-stream crossings to be retained in the project area would be improved to reduce road erosion and sediment delivery. Improvements include gravel placement on the road surface and ditch at 22 road-stream crossings, installing five new culverts to provide adequate drainage, eliminating seven road-stream crossing with road decommissioning, improving two road-stream crossings through culvert removal and outsloping the road template for placement into long-term storage, and re-shaping two overly-steepened and sloughing outsloped road-stream crossings.

Road surfacing techniques such as the addition of gravel are used to minimize soil erosion on active roads (Clinton and Vose, 2003; Kochenderfer and Helvey, 1987; Swift, 1984), especially at road-stream crossings [cited in Brown et al., 2013]. Graveling of road surfaces reduces sediment production (erosion) by reducing the surface area of soil exposed to raindrop impact, tire friction, and adverse effects of vehicular weight (Megahan et al. 1991. The gravel material also increases the roughness of the road surface, thereby reducing the runoff rate and volume. The reduction in runoff reduces the transport of sediment from the road surface (Appelbloom, et al., 2002) and within the roadside ditch, and also decreases the rate of further sheet erosion.

Gravel placement on road surfaces has been shown to be effective at reducing sediment production, especially at road-stream crossings (Brown et al., 2013), for 5 to over 13 months (Swift 1984, Burroughs and King, 1989, Kochenderfer and Helvey 1987). Studies have found that graveling road surfaces reduces sediment by 88% to 79%, over an unprotected road during the four-year monitoring period (Burroughs and King 1989). Bare road segments generate 7.5 times more sediment than graveled road segments (Brown et al. (2013). Roads with excessive lengths between water control structures and inadequate surface cover deliver the most sediment (Brown et al. 2013). They concluded that it is necessary to implement BMPs for road segments that are high-risk areas for water quality impairment, and that the use of appropriate Best management practices (BMPs) can minimize sediment contribution from forest roads even in situations where the original road design was not ideal (Brown et al. 2013).

WEPP:Road online interface was used to predict average annual road erosion and sediment delivery with the implementation of these improvements under Alternative 2. A comparison of WEPP:Road predictions of average annual erosion and sediment delivery by alternative for the Forest Plan prescription watersheds is presented in Table 3-16.

WEPP:Road was used to compare effects of alternatives on sediment delivery at the road-stream crossings where improvements are proposed. WEPP estimates average annual sediment delivered from a road segment to a stream (lbs/yr) at the road-stream crossing. Table 3-16 shows by how much road improvements proposed in Alternative 2 would reduce sediment delivery from roads at the proposed sites. The calculations are grouped by Forest Plan prescription watershed.

Table 3-16: WEPP predictions of average annual erosion and sediment delivery for forest plan prescription watersheds by alternative Avg. Annual Road Erosion at Avg. Annual Sediment Delivery to Prescription Stream Crossing (lbs/yr) Stream at Road Crossing (lbs/yr) Watershed Alt 1 Alt 2 % Reduction Alt 1 Alt 2 % Reduction Allison Creek 866 145 83% 743 122 84% Buffalo Gulch 180 85 53% 164 33 80% Creek Dutch Oven Creek 405 206 49% 325 174 46% Moose Creek 1,532 345 77% 1,281 319 75%

76 Avg. Annual Road Erosion at Avg. Annual Sediment Delivery to Prescription Stream Crossing (lbs/yr) Stream at Road Crossing (lbs/yr) Watershed Alt 1 Alt 2 % Reduction Alt 1 Alt 2 % Reduction S. Fork Clearwater 1,275 1,275 0% 376 82 78% Face 06 Whiskey Creek 942 359 62% 795 286 64% TOTAL 4,373 1,288 Ave. 71% 3,684 1,016 Ave. 72%

In total, road improvements would reduce the amount of sediment delivered to streams at the proposed improvement sites by 72%. No adverse effects due to proposed activities at stream crossings are expected.

3.4.1.11 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area is the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed. Lower American River HUC12 watershed would have negligible effects to water quality and water yield, thus cumulative effects were not assessed for Lower American River HUC12 watershed. Cumulative effects were not assessed for Lower Newsome Creek true watershed. A full description of past, present, and future foreseeable actions is presented in Appendix B of the EA. Past harvest and associated road construction have had the most notable management-related impacts. Lack of tree retention in harvest units, harvest in riparian areas, and high severity broadcast burning of slash were common historical timber harvest practices (early 1950s - 1970s). Permanent roads were built to provide access to harvest units. These activities increased sediment delivery; reduced stream shade and tree recruitment to streams; altered water yields; and altered flow and sediment transport processes at improperly sized road-stream crossings. For the most part, adverse watershed effects from historical harvest activities have diminished with natural recovery (e.g. tree growth) in previously disturbed riparian areas. Forest practices have changed over the last few decades. Project design measures, Best Management Practices, and Forest Plan guidelines have been developed in order to reduce ground disturbing activities and subsequent sediment yield. Operating under dry conditions, implementing PACFISH riparian buffers, retention of trees in regeneration harvest units, and limiting ground-based yarding to slopes less than 35 percent are now common practices. Present actions include permitted grazing, mining, recreation, fire suppression, road maintenance, and control of noxious weeds using chemical, mechanical, and biological control methods. Recreational activities produce little to no impacts to water quality or quantity or floodplain/wetland functions. Most effects from recreation are primarily due to associated road use, especially during wet conditions. Effects from grazing include stream bank instability and reduced water infiltration rates in (localized) areas where soil was compacted. Fire suppression activities are infrequent and limited in size, and road maintenance has minimal short-term effects and long-term benefits (Burroughs and King 1989). The following foreseeable future actions may occur on USFS lands in the 6th Code HUC Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River watershed. • Eastside Allotment project: This project includes an adaptive management plan to improve conditions while keeping the current authorized stocking levels. • Allison Creek Dam Ponds: A project has been proposed under Small NEPA for implementation in 2017 or 2018 to remove failing outlet pipes and earthen fill from three impoundment sites in Allison Creek. Access roads to Allison Pond dams would be restricted. Allison Creek watershed currently does not meet Forest Plan objectives for fish and water quality. Proposed activities would restore hydrologic stream channel processes, reduce sediment and

77 improve aquatic conditions in this degraded (below Forest Plan objective) Forest prescription watershed. • Newsome Creek Watershed Road Restoration Project: This decision was approved in June 2014. Implementation is expected in 2018. The southern corner of the Newsome project area overlaps into the northern portion of the Dutch Oven Project. Within the Dutch Oven project area, the Newsome Decision will decommission by abandonment one mile of Roads 307B1, 78388A1, 78389, 78395, and 78397; decommission by obliteration 0.3 miles of Roads 307B1, 307F and 78396; and improve nine miles of Roads 1808, 1808D, 1858, 307, 307B, 307C, 471, 78388, 78388A and 78392 Roads that provide access to this proposed site area will be restricted once the project is completed. The project design criteria is not finalized at this time. Project activities are intended to improve hydrologic function within the watershed. • Denis Brown Fuel Treatment and Pre-Commercial Thinning Project: Implementation is expected in 2017. This project is situated on private land on the northwestern edge (Refer to Figure 2) of the Dutch Oven Creek Project within the Allison Creek prescription (HUC6) watershed. • The Nez Perce Forest is currently analyzing travel route designation changes on the Forest. A Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued in December 2008. A Supplemental DEIS was issued in December 2010. A Final EIS and Record of Decision are expected in 2017. This Decision would restrict motorized cross country travel and designate routes for roads and trails In the short term, the proposed action would remove and release some carbon currently stored within treatment area biomass through harvest of dead trees and other fuel reduction activities, including prescribed burning. A portion of the carbon removed would remain stored for a period of time in wood products (US EPA 2013; Depro, et al. 2008). Additionally, motorized equipment used during any of the proposed activities would emit greenhouse gasses. For at least the short term, on site carbon stocks would be lower under the action alternative than under No Action.Removal of dead and dying trees would reduce onsite carbon stores. The portion removed as timber products may partially delay carbon release relative to onsite decay rates. The affected forest lands in this proposal would remain forests, not converted to other land uses, and long-term forest services and benefits would be maintained.

Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, no proposed management actions and associated vegetation removal or ground disturbance would occur, and therefore there would be no human-caused changes in water and/or sediment yields. Roads would continue to be a source of chronic sediment, and existing road erosion and sediment delivery at road-stream crossings would continue. No Action would prevent or prolong the implementation of needed road restoration and culvert improvements. No Action would have minor to moderate adverse effects on water quality as Allison Creek, Moose Creek, SF Clearwater Face 06, Dutch Oven Creek, Whiskey Creek, and Buffalo Gulch prescription watersheds will lose the benefits of proposed restoration. Alternative 2 The estimated existing ECA from past harvest and the existing road system on USFS and BLM lands in the analysis area is 5%; therefore, effects on water yield from past harvest and the existing road system are at immeasurable levels, and per the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators rating system for ECA, high watershed condition is indicated as ECA is less than 15%. Estimated ECA under Alternative 2 would increase from 5% to 11% in the analysis area due to proposed harvest and temporary road construction. This is below 15% and indicates high watershed condition would remain with the implementation of Alternative 2. Increases in sediment yield percent over base with the implementation of Alternative 2, as modeled by NEZSED are below Forest Plan Appendix A sediment yield guidelines in the long-term for all

78 prescription watersheds, and thus are not expected to be cumulatively significant at the HUC12 watershed scale. It is expected that the temporary increase in sediment yield would not occur all at one time, but would in fact be distributed incrementally over the life of the project; yielding a smaller annual direct effect than is estimated by the model. NezSed results should be considered broad estimates of how real systems may respond, and are best interpreted when used to compare alternatives rather than specific quantities of sediment yield. Road decommissioning may create short-term sediment inputs into streams, as culverts are removed or replaced. Wegner’s (1999; see Project File) monitoring of culvert removals on live channels on the Kootenai NF indicates that instream sediment increases are short-lived, with total suspended sediment resembling background levels within 48 hours after the completion of work. Any deposited sediment would likely remain until the next flushing flow (the next spring runoff or major fall precipitation event). These short-term increases in sediment delivery to streams are outweighed by the long term positive benefits of eliminating chronic sediment sources. The Highway 14 Landslide occurred within the South Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watershed (sub-watershed). It deposited debris and sediment into the South Fork of the Clearwater River. The landslide therefore changed the conditions of sediment yield in the Upper South Fork Clearwater watershed for an indefinite period. Sediment yield is currently higher than the average annual baseline condition. The landslide event is a natural occurrence within the sub-basin and, according to the NEZSED manual and Appendix A guidance documents, can be considered as a temporary addition to the natural annual average baseline. The proposed project would contribute an even smaller short-term percentage increase in sediment yield over baseline to the Upper South Fork Clearwater watershed. Moreover, the proposed harvest area in the South Fork Clearwater Face 06 have been reduced as a consequence of the slide. Therefore, the estimated magnitude of negative direct and indirect effects on sediment yield and water yield in that sub-watershed would be even smaller than originally estimated. Because there was no beneficial effect caused by road improvements in the South Fork Clearwater Face 06, reducing the amount of road improvement work in that prescription watershed would result in no decrease in beneficial effects of the proposed action. When all past, present, and future foreseeable project activities are considered together, it is expected that there would be no significant, adverse cumulative effects to surface or groundwater quality or quantity.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Laws The Nez Perce National Forest Plan, Forest-wide Standards for Water, and Fish/Water Quality objectives listed in the Appendix A and Amendment 20 of the Forest Plan apply to the Dutch Oven project and would be met. See also Fisheries section of the EA for Upward Trend, and Appendix C.

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 regarding Floodplain and Wetland Management direct the Forest to “restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains” and to “minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands.” The Dutch Oven Project does not proposed to occupy floodplains to an extent greater than already exists nor does it propose to modify or impact wetlands. As such, there will be no adverse impacts to floodplains or wetlands, thereby complying with EO 11988 and EO 11990.

Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires federal agencies to comply with all federal, state, interstate, and local requirements; administrative authorities; and process and sanctions with respect to control and abatement of water pollution. Executive Order (EO) 12088 requires the Forest Service to meet the requirements of this Act. Therefore, all state and federal laws and regulations applicable to water quality would be applied, including 36 CFR 219.27; the Clean Water Act; the Nez Perce Forest Plan, including PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) and RHCAs; and Idaho State Best Management

79 Practices (BMPs). To comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, it may be necessary to obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct culvert replacement during road improvement work, and may be necessary when decommissioning road-stream crossings. The Dutch Oven Project is consistent with Idaho Nonpoint Source Management Plan (IDEQ 1999). Proposed cobble embeddedness and sediment monitoring is consistent with the direction provided by IDEQ in Chapter 5 South Fork Clearwater River Sub-basin Assessment and TMDLs (2003) under “Surrogate Sediment Target” section.

The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, which states that management of the National Forests must provide "sustained yields in perpetuity without impairment of the productivity of the land", because watershed functions are not expected to be impaired.

The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the National Forest Management Act because project activities will not irreversibly damage water resources and project design criteria, mitigation measures, and BMPs have been included to protect water resources.

The Idaho Forest Practices Act regulates forest practices on all land ownership in Idaho. Forest practices on NFS lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to water quality (IDAPA 20.02.01). The rules are also incorporated as BMPs in the Idaho Water Quality Standards. The project activities have been designed to be consistent with the Idaho Forest Practices Act.

The Dutch Oven project was designed to meet the Clean Water Act, Idaho State Water Quality Standards, Forest Practices Act, Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act, and Federal Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. All major streams in the project area would improve or maintained water quality conditions, and would continue to support beneficial uses.

3.5 Aquatics-Fisheries Affected Environment Approximately 6,700 acres of the project area is within the Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River (SFCR) subwatershed, and 270 acres are located within the Lower American River subwatershed. The project area includes the Trail Creek, Allison Creek, Moose Creek, Dutch Oven Creek and Whiskey Creek drainages, which are tributaries to the South Fork Clearwater River as well as Buffalo Gulch Creek, which is a tributary to American River (see Figure 2, in the Aquatics-Watershed section). The cumulative effects analysis area for potential impacts to aquatic organisms and their habitat caused by the proposed project would occur only within the project area and in relatively small portions of the Whiskey- SFCR and Lower American River subwatersheds outside of the project area, for a total cumulative effects area of about 8,250 acres.

3.5.1.1 Analysis Methodology and Indicators

Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings Species considered in this section include listed species under the ESA as well as proposed and candidate species for Federal listing and those on the Northern Region Sensitive Species List. The Northern Region Sensitive Species List, which contains those species identified as sensitive by the Regional Forester, was last updated in February 2011.

80 Management Indicator Species Table 3-18 lists each of the aquatic species that have been selected as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Nez Perce Forest Plan (NPNF 1987). Each species was evaluated for its potential to be affected by the proposed project. The MIS analyzed in this document, Westslope Cutthroat trout, summer steelhead trout, and spring Chinook salmon are primarily evaluated qualitatively, but water quality, quantity, and sediment indicators in project area tributary stream are modeled in the Dutch Oven Watershed specialist report.

Essential Fish Habitat Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for salmon also occurs within the project area and must be considered. Consultation with the two agencies is required for projects affecting these species. The project would be designed to have no long term adverse effects on listed species or their habitat.

Fish habitat For most species, suitable habitats were described based on physical presence and access to the project area. Table 3-18 lists each of the species considered in this section; for each species, the table lists its general habitat, whether the species is considered in detail, and a rationale for the level of consideration given. Fisheries/hydrology technicians made observations, sampled streams, and took photographs in the project area during the 2013 and 2014 field seasons.

FISHSED The Nez Perce National Forest portion of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests uses the NEZSED model is used to estimate maximum sediment yield percent over base (i.e., natural) conditions resulting from timber harvest and road work associated with the project (see Aquatics-Watershed section). Based in part on the NEZSED results, the FISHSED model is also run to estimate the resulting fish habitat parameters of cobble embeddedness, summer rearing capacity, and winter carrying capacity. FISHSED modeling is required by the Forest Plan, and predicts changes to cobble embeddedness, summer rearing capacity, and winter carrying capacity using NEZSED estimates of percent sediment yield increase over base. FISHSED is most appropriately used to assess the effects of substantial (greater than 10%) changes in habitat quality, and to compare alternatives.

As the FISHED model, there is considerable uncertainty associated with any conclusions related to this model because of the broad range of assumptions and limited number of data points used in development of the relationships between NEZSED modeled peak sediment yields and cobble embeddedness. It is, however, the only known quantitative attempt in peer reviewed literature to predict changes in stream substrate conditions that result from sediment yield increases. Substrate data from streams on the Nez Perce National Forest were used to develop the model.

The Forest Plan requires the use of the cobble embeddedness indicator in an analysis that considers project effects on aquatic habitat as it relates to fish productivity (i.e. habitat capacity). Cobble embeddedness is a measure of how the rocks in the stream are surrounded, or embedded by, small materials such as silt or sand. Estimates of existing cobble embeddedness in project area streams, combined with NEZSED outputs (see Watershed report) for peak sediment yield, were used to predict changes in summer and winter rearing carrying capacities for trout and salmon using the FISHSED model (Stowell et al. 1983).

The model is run at the Forest Plan prescription watershed level only. The basic model assumption is that an inverse relationship exists between the amount of fine sediment in spawning and rearing habitats and

81 fish survival and abundance. In general, when sediment yields are increased over natural rates, especially on a sustained basis, fish biomass can decrease (Bjornn et al. 1977). FISHSED is most appropriately used to assess the effects of changes in habitat quality when cobble embeddedness changes are modeled to be greater than 10% (Stowell et al. 1983). The FISHSED model is only useful for comparing alternatives (Conroy and Thompson, 2011) and is not designed to predict actual sediment levels. FISHSED calculations and additional information about the model, including assumptions, are in the project file.

3.5.1.2 Resource Indicators The following resource indicator was developed based on both public comment and internal concerns and are associated with proposed road-related watershed improvement activities. Timber harvest was not considered as an issue indicator as monitoring indicates that the retention of PACFISH Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) are adequate to prevent harvest-related sediment from reaching streams (Nez Perce-Clearwater Forest, Draft, 2016; Sugden et al 2012; USDA Forest Service 2009; USDA Forest Service, 2006; Sridhar et al, 2004; Lee, et al 2004; Ott et al 2005; PACFISH, 1995; FEMAT, 1993; Belt 1992).

Deposited Sediment: Excessive amounts of fine sediment, particularly sand, can reduce fish reproduction success by plugging spawning gravels and affecting egg development and/or larval fish emergence (Meehan, 1991; Waters, 1995). Sand bedload can also decrease food production by scouring or burying gravel substrates, and can decrease the amount of fish cover by filling in pools and burying logs (Alexander and Hansen 1983, 1986). The Forest Plan requires that projects in prescription watersheds that have the potential to increase sediment yield (i.e. “entries”), be modeled in both NEZSED and FISHSED. Modeled activities are timber harvest, road decommissioning, road reconstruction, and temporary road construction.

Resource Indicator: FISHSED results for modeled changes in cobble embeddedness and summer and winter rearing capacity

Cobble Embeddedness (FISHSED) The FISHSED model (Stowell et al. 1983) was used to estimate percent cobble embeddedness, which is a measure of how the rocks in a stream are surrounded, or embedded, by fine sediments such as silt or sand. Estimates of existing cobble embeddedness, combined with NEZSED estimates for percent sediment yield over base, are used to predict changes in cobble embeddedness, summer rearing, and winter carrying capacities. Per Appendix A of the Forest Plan, the FISHSED model is only useful for comparing alternatives, and is not designed to predict actual cobble embeddedness levels.

Summer and Winter Rearing Habitat Capacity (FISHSED) The FISHSED model is required by the Forest Plan, and the basic model assumption is that an inverse relationship exists between the amount of fine sediment in spawning and rearing habitats and fish survival and abundance. In general, when sediment yields are increased over natural rates, especially on a sustained basis, fish biomass decreases (Bjornn et al. 1977). FISHSED is most appropriately used to assess the effects of substantial changes in habitat quality when cobble embeddedness is predicted to change more than 10% (Stowell et al. 1983).

Qualitative Discussion of Fish Habitat For most species, suitable habitats are described based on physical presence and access to the project area. A qualitative discussion of the effects of the action alternative to aquatic habitat attributes and aquatic habitat trend within the project area and cumulative effects area was completed for species without modeled habitat.

82 Species Determination Statements Sensitive Species on the current Northern Region Sensitive Species List that are known or suspected to occur on the Forests (Westslope Cutthroat trout, Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, and Western pearlshell mussel) were selected for detailed evaluation if they may occur in the analysis area and were given a determination statement.

Endangered Species Act All aquatic species on the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) list for Idaho County were evaluated (Snake River steelhead trout and bull trout) and were given a determination statement.

Forest Plan Water Quality Objectives and Upward Trend

The Forest Plan Appendix A (1987) specifies water quality objectives for each prescription watershed in the project area, which are expressed as percent fish habitat potential and are 70% because the primary beneficial use is resident fish and planned land management in prescription watersheds in the project area (Table 3-17).

A sediment yield and entry frequency guideline is associated with the water quality objectives. The sediment yield guideline is expressed as the maximum allowable percent over base (natural) sediment yield per entry, and is generally calculated using NEZSED. The entry frequency guideline is expressed as the number of entries (number of years in a decade that the sediment yield guideline can be approached or equaled), where in most instances significant ground disturbing activities such as road construction, reconstruction, or mechanized harvest must occur for an activity to qualify as an entry.

Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, Dutch Oven Creek, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds were each assigned 60 percent over base sediment yield guidelines and three entries per decade. Forest Plan Appendix A did not specify water quality objectives, sediment yield, or entry frequency guidelines for face drainages, and the assumed water quality objective for these drainages (S. Fork Clearwater Face 05 and S. Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watersheds) is 70 percent, which corresponds to a 60 percent sediment yield guideline and three entries per decade guideline. No activities have occurred in any of the prescription watersheds in the past decade on National Forest System lands that qualify as an entry, when considering sediment production.

Water quality objectives are assessed using the Desired Future Condition (DFC) Analysis developed by Espinosa (1992). The water quality objectives specified in Forest Plan Appendix A were originally assessed based on eight DFC parameters, which included substrate condition. Water quality objectives are now assessed based on substrate condition as directed by the Forest Plan Appendix A Guidance document (Conroy and Thompson 2011). Specifically the guidance states the following:

“Of the basin-wide stream survey data collected over the years, the habitat components that appear to be the most repeatable and most reliably differentiate between reference and managed watersheds are measures or estimates of substrate condition, including cobble embeddedness and percent surface fines. In addition, Fish/Water Quality Objectives in Appendix A were originally established based on substrate sediment only (Forest Plan Resource Documentation Report, Stowell 1986).

83 …The portion of the DFC analysis that provides objectives for cobble embeddedness and percent fines by depth would be retained. Collection of measured substrate data, combined with existing legacy data and current PIBO data, where available, would be used to describe the existing condition. Substrate data would be the primary determinant in assessing whether Appendix A Fish/Water Quality Objectives are met.”

Appendix A states that an upward trend (improvement) is required for streams that do not currently meet the water quality objectives. Timber management can occur in watersheds not currently meeting their water quality objectives concurrent with improvement efforts as long as a positive upward trend in habitat carrying capacity is indicated. Data shows that the upward trend requirement applies to Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Creek. Cobble embeddedness was the only parameter used to determine whether or not the water quality objectives were being met. Erosion and sediment delivery from the existing road system has been identified as the primary source of high cobble embeddedness. An upward trend analysis has been completed for these watersheds and can be found in Appendix C.

South Fork Clearwater Face 05 and South Fork Clearwater Face 06 Face prescription watersheds were not assigned fishery/water quality objectives or sediment yield guidelines in the Forest Plan because they are steep, face drainages that were not assigned a beneficial use.

The analysis of expected trend in aquatic conditions is an important component of the aquatic and watershed assessments. Nez Perce Forest Plan Appendix A addresses trends in below-objective watersheds with upward trend direction. Upward trend means that stream conditions determined through analysis to be below the Forest Plan objective will move toward the objective over time. The Forest Plan did not specifically intend that the improving trend be in place prior to initiation of new activities and did not specify a time factor for achieving fishery/water quality objectives in below objective watersheds (Conroy and Thompson 2011). Streams that require an upward trend analysis are those that do not meet Forest Plan objectives (usually based on cobble embeddedness) and are footnoted accordingly in Appendix A (pg. A-7) (Table 3-17).

The Forest Plan Appendix A Guidance document (Conroy and Thompson, 2011) describes how an upward trend can be determined. It is not solely based on cobble embeddedness levels in stream channels. The determination of existing condition and present or future improving trend should be done through a convergence of evidence using stream surveys, monitoring results, watershed condition inventories, literature reviews, predictive modeling and/or professional judgment. At the conclusion of the analysis, it must be demonstrated that an improving trend is either in place and would continue, or that an improving trend would be initiated as a result of past, present and future management activities.

Table 3-17: Forest Plan fish/water quality objectives for prescription watersheds. Fish/Water Existing Fishery Water Quality % Cobble Fishery Prescription Habitat Quality Objective Embeddedness Habitat Watershed Potential Objective (% Habitat (Year)2 Potential % % (1987) Met? Potential)1 (2013)3 Allison Creeka 70% *** 64% (2013) 43% No Buffalo Gulch Creekb 70% 40% 76% (2013) 30% No Dutch Oven Creek 70% *** 59% (2013) 50% No 62% (2013) Moose Creekb c 70% 50% 45% No 53% (1988)

84 Fish/Water Existing Fishery Water Quality % Cobble Fishery Prescription Habitat Quality Objective Embeddedness Habitat Watershed Potential Objective (% Habitat (Year)2 Potential % % (1987) Met? Potential)1 (2013)3 Whiskey Creekb c 70% 45% 60% (2013) 48% No *** Not specified in Forest Plan Appendix A 1 See Forest Plan Appendix A 2 Field-measured cobble embeddedness data from 2013. The actual % cobble embeddedness level is not equivalent to the Fishery Habitat Potential value (%) or the Forest Plan Water Quality Objective. See 3 below. 3 These values were determined by relating field-measured cobble embeddedness values (2013 data, see Project File) to Desired Future Condition (DFC) curves (Espinosa 1992). a Allison Creek is not footnoted in Appendix A and has no upward trend requirement (see ² below), but is included in the analysis since it contains Westslope Cuthroat Trout (MIS,Sensitive) and Steelhead Critical Habitat. b Footnoted in Appendix A. These streams are suffering from lack of diversity and excess sediment from past roading and timber management activities. Timber management can occur in these watersheds, concurrent with habitat improvement efforts, as long as a positive, upward trend in habitat carrying capacity is indicated. c Beneficial use designated by Forest Plan is Resident Fishery.

Current Conditions Fish are present in some project area streams and so the project could potentially affect fish and habitat within and downstream of the project area. Project area tributaries of the South Fork Clearwater River (SFCR, which forms the southern boundary of the project area) which appear to support fish populations are Allison Creek, Moose Creek, upper Whiskey Creek, and upper Buffalo Gulch Creek (Table 3-18). Trail Creek and Dutch Oven Creek (as well as several unnamed streams) appear to be fishless. High gradients in the lower few hundred feet of most SFCR tributaries appear to be at least partially responsible for the lack of fish in these streams, while the culverts carrying these streams under Highway 14 exacerbate this issue and may prevent some species from entering or remaining in streams which do support one or two fish species. Upper Whiskey Creek and Buffalo Gulch Creeks do not have a SFCR- gradient issue, but the portions of these streams which flow through the project area are the very highest headwaters of these streams and so select against the presence of several species present in the SFCR. Within the project area, mineral exploration, mining development activities, and livestock grazing have been identified as a significant activity affecting fish habitat throughout the project area (USDA 1998, pps 30-33) and have been occurring at some level since 1861. Stream surveys in 2013 have documented significant historic mining impacts within numerous drainages (Trail Creek, Allison Creek, Moose Creek, Whiskey Creek, Buffalo Gulch) and include complete alteration of the stream channel, impoundments, flow redirection water conveyance ditches, complete flood plain alteration, soil inversion, and the affects to streams. The Allison Creek prescription watershed appears to have been most heavily impacted by past mining. Mining disturbance in the Allison Creek prescription watershed is extensive, including inverting streambeds, constructing earthen dam, leaving the stream to define its channel where it has been obscured, and tributaries having been dug up and inverted. In some drainages (i.e. Allison Creek and Moose Creek especially) the influence of past mining and stream channel degradation is common. Aquatic habitat data collection in Allison Creek, Moose Creek, Dutch Oven Creek, Whiskey Creek, and Buffalo Gulch occurred most recently in 2013. These data have been used to describe fine sediment conditions in these streams and are described in the Watershed section and Report located in the project

85 record. Maps showing fish distribution (Figure 3) may exaggerate the extent which species are present in headwater areas.

Figure 3. Fish distribution within the Dutch Oven project area and proposed culvert and road activities of Alternative 2 Westslope Cutthroat trout, Snake River steelhead trout, Snake River spring Chinook salmon, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, Bull trout, Pacific lamprey, and Western pearlshell mussel are the only aquatic species with special status likely to occur in the project area and are the only ones included in this analysis. See Table 3-18 for species status.

86 Table 3-18: Species considered for analysis for the Dutch Oven Project Species Status Considered in Rationale this analysis Westslope Cutthroat trout MIS, S Yes Native to the Red River RD, and Oncorhynchus clarki ubiquitous in fishbearing streams in the lewisi project area and most other portions of the South Fork Clearwater River (SFCR) subbasin Snake River steelhead MIS, T Yes Native to the project area, and present in trout the SFCR and possibly in the lower (i.e., Oncorhynchus mykiss larger) portion of Moose Creek (70 FR gairdneri 52630). Likely present in lower Whiskey Creek, downstream of project, but within cumulative effects area Redband rainbow trout S No For the purposes of this report, redband Oncorhynchus mykiss trout are inland and non-anadromous gairdneri rainbow trout which are isolated (on a large geographic scale) from anadromous rainbow trout stocks (i.e., steelhead, May et al. 2012). A relatively isolated population exists above the culvert on Moose Creek, but the culvert is not sufficient isolation to discriminate this population from the SFCR steelhead stock. Snake River MIS, S, Yes Native to the SRCR subbasin and present spring/summer Chinook EFH in the SFCR as migrating and rearing salmon individuals. Possibly present in lower Oncorhynchus tshawytcha Whiskey Creek (but not in the project area) and potentially present (as isolated rearing individuals) in accessible portions reaches of other project fishbearing streams. (70 FR 52630). Snake River fall Chinook EFH Yes Native to the Clearwater River and salmon recently shown to successfully spawn in Oncorhynchus tshawytcha the SFCR downstream of the project area (Arnsberg et al. 2015). Recent evidence of presence of a few adult individuals in the mainstem SFCR. Coho salmon EFH Yes Native to the Clearwater River basin, but Oncorhynchus kisutch considered extinct there in the 1980s. Recent re-introduction to the basin, but not currently known to exist in the SFCR or tributaries within the project or cumulative effects area. Bull trout T Yes Native to much of the SFCR drainage on Salvelinus confluentus the Red River RD, but not known to be currently present in the project area other than as migrating or rearing individuals in the mainstem SFCR. (USFWS 2002).

87 Species Status Considered in Rationale this analysis Pacific lamprey S Yes Native to and present on portions of the Lampetra tridentata SFCR drainage and recently reintroduced to some streams in the subbasin, but not known to occur in project area streams other than, at least as migrating individuals, the mainstem SFCR (Ward et al. 2012). Western pearlshell mussel S Yes No populations known in the project area Margatifera falcate or project subwatersheds, but occurs in portions of the SFCR mainstem (G. Seloske personal observations).

3.5.1.3 Westslope cutthroat trout Westslope cutthroat trout require cold water and relatively low levels of fine sediment to breed and survive (McIntyre and Rieman 1995), so the presence of individuals of the species, especially juveniles, indicates relatively high water quality. Westslope cutthroat trout in the South Fork Clearwater River represent an important metapopulation in the Clearwater River basin and the SFCR subbasin has a high inherent capability to support Westslope cutthroat trout, based on general features such as climate, elevation, relief, and geology. Historically, distribution of Westslope cutthroat trout in the South Fork was probably similar to existing distribution (NPNF 1999). The NPNF fish presence database shows that Westslope cutthroat trout are present in Moose, Allison, and Buffalo Gulch creeks within the project area, as well as in the mainstem of the SFCR.

3.5.1.4 Snake River steelhead trout Populations of rainbow trout (anadromous or resident) require relatively cold water and relatively low levels of fine sediment to breed and survive, so the presence of individuals of the species, especially juveniles, indicates relatively high water quality. The abundance of wild anadromous steelhead in the SFCR basin is also highly affected by migratory conditions in the Snake and Columbia Rivers, and by forage abundance and other rearing conditions in the Pacific Ocean. The MIS designation for the Nez Perce N.F. (USDA 1987) is “summer” steelhead, a life history descriptor in Idaho, where “winter” steelhead do not occur.

Adult anadromous steelhead trout are not known to occupy any of the stream reaches within the Dutch Oven Project area, other than the mainstem SFCR, although they may be present in Whiskey Creek and Buffalo Gulch reaches downstream of the project area. Although generally considered a fish passage barrier, steelhead may occasionally enter Moose Creek, because the culvert which passes the stream under Idaho State Highway 14 includes bolted wooden “steps” designed to lessen gradient and improve the potential for fish passage. No anadromous steelhead were detected in or at the mouth of Moose Creek in 2013 and 2014 (Seloske, personal observation). The NPNF fish presence database shows that resident steelhead may be present in the lower portions of Moose Creek and the upper portions of Whiskey Creek within the project area, but sampling data (USDA 1990) disputes the upper Whiskey Creek presence.

In addition, the SFCR subbasin and all accessible tributaries were designated as critical habitat (CH) for steelhead, initially in 1997, and in a final rule in 2006 (71 FR 834). Within the project area, Moose and Whiskey Creeks are considered by the NMFS as anadromous-accessible tributaries and portions of each are included in the CH designation, while Buffalo Gulch has CH downstream of the project area. Allison

88 Creek is not anadromous accessible (and apparently does not support rainbow trout of any life-history form), but the lower ~1/3 mile is included in the steelhead CH designation.

Steelhead critical habitat and individual ESA-listed anadromous and resident steelhead are present in the mainstem of the South Fork Clearwater River, while steelhead critical habitat (but probably not individual steelhead), and is also present in lower Allison and Moose creeks and in upper Whiskey Creek.

3.5.1.5 Snake River spring Chinook salmon The species is a both a Nez Perce NF MIS species and a USFS Region 1 sensitive fish species. “Pacific salmon” also have designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin, and spring Chinook are included in this designation. Habitat requirements of Chinook salmon vary by season and life stage, and the fish occupy a diverse range of habitats. Populations of Chinook salmon require relatively require cold water and relatively low levels of fine sediment to breed and survive, so the presence of individuals of the species, especially juveniles, indicates relatively high water quality. The abundance of wild Chinook salmon in the South Fork Clearwater River basin is also highly affected by migratory conditions in the Snake and Columbia Rivers, and by forage abundance and other rearing conditions in the Pacific Ocean.

The mainstem South Fork Clearwater River probably supported spawning and rearing as well, but currently provides adult migration and limited juvenile rearing only. Adult traps and juvenile rearing/acclimation facilities are present on the Red River (not far upstream from the project area) and the Crooked River (opposite the project area), so at least a few adult and juvenile spring Chinook salmon are likely present in the project/cumulative effects reach of the South Fork Clearwater River nearly year- around.

Whiskey Creek is the only stream within the project area that the Forests fish species distribution database indicates spawning/rearing for spring Chinook salmon, but any such presence is likely intermittent and weak. None of the South Fork Clearwater River tributaries within the project area would be accessible to adult salmon, and juvenile salmon would have little or no incentive to ascend from the South Fork Clearwater River or lower Whiskey Creek into these streams.

3.5.1.6 Columbia Basin Bull trout The USFWS designated critical habitat (CH) for Columbia River Basin bull trout on November 17, 2010 (75 FR 63898); this designation includes all of the mainstem of the South Fork Clearwater River and the mainstem Clearwater River. Designated bull trout CH in the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River and the lower reaches of several South Fork Clearwater River tributaries is foraging, migrating, and overwintering (FMO) habitat, and does not support spawning or early rearing of bull trout (Figure 3). The upper reaches of a few SFCR tributaries have designated spawning and rearing (SR) or an “unknown” type of CH, and therefore may have some potential for bull trout reproduction in these streams. None of the South Fork Clearwater River tributaries within the project or cumulative effects area are known to support bull trout or are designated as bull trout CH.

Spawning or early rearing populations of bull trout do not exist in the project area, but adult or subadult individuals are likely occasionally present in portions of the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River in the project area except when water temperatures there are at their highest in late summer and early fall. Within the project area, because of the small size of the South Fork Clearwater River tributaries and the impediments caused by gradients and culverts, it is very unlikely that any bull trout individuals would ascend into the project area in any of these streams.

89 3.5.1.7 Snake River fall Chinook salmon Only recently has documentation of fall Chinook spawning or rearing within the South Fork Clearwater River watershed existed. While the large majority of the fall Chinook spawning in the Clearwater River drainage documented since listing has occurred downstream of the North Fork Clearwater River, recent surveys (Adult Technical Team 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011; Arnsberg, et al. 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015) show that fall Chinook spawn at least sporadically in the area between the North Fork to the South Fork Clearwater River confluence, and beyond the critical habitat area in the Middle Fork, Selway, and South Fork Clearwater rivers. Detections of redds in the lower 14 miles of the South Fork Clearwater River have increased from 0 in 2007 to 72 in 2015.

3.5.1.8 Pacific lamprey Similar to anadromous fishes, the distribution and abundance of Pacific lamprey has been reduced by the construction of dams and water diversions as well as degradation of spawning and rearing habitat. The total distribution and abundance of lampreys in the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin is not fully known, but the distribution and abundance are severely reduced from historic conditions. Ammocoetes (juveniles) have been sampled within the last two decades in the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River and in the Red River, and in Newsome Creek near its mouth (Cochnauer and Clair 2009). The current presence of lampreys in the project area is likely limited to the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River.

3.5.1.9 Western Pearlshell Mussel The SFCR drainage of the Forests has not been formally surveyed in for this species, but the Upper South Fork Clearwater watershed is thought to support this species (Lysne and Krouse 2011) and populations have been observed in the mainstem of the South Fork Clearwater River and so the species is probably present in the project area in that stream.

3.5.1.10 Coho Salmon Historically, coho most likely inhabited tributaries in the lower Clearwater River Basin including some in the lower South Fork Clearwater River subbasin. Re-introduction of coho salmon has been undertaken by the Nez Perce Tribe in tributaries of the mainstem Clearwater River. The Forests has no recent records of coho salmon in the South Fork Clearwater River, but the smolt releases (and any natural production) in Clear Creek could certainly produce stray adults that could spawn or attempt to spawn in the South Fork Clearwater River or suitable tributaries.

Environmental Consequences

3.5.1.11 Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on any of the species or species habitats listed above under Current Conditions because no treatments would be conducted. Benefits to water quality and fish habitat quality would not occur from the No Action alternative, and all Forest Plan prescription watersheds would continue to remain below their fishery/water quality objective and the upward trend expected with the implementation these project actions would not occur.

3.5.1.12 Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects The following applies to all fish species analyzed for the Dutch Oven project (Westslope cutthroat trout, Chinook salmon, Snake River steelhead trout, bull trout, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, Western pearlshell mussel, and EFH for spring Chinook salmon and coho salmon) because habitat requirement of these species are similar unless stated otherwise. As noted above, it is unlikely for individuals of any aquatic species with special status under the ESA to occur in the project area, other

90 than in the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River (where both steelhead and bull trout critical habitat are also designated).

Cobble Embeddedness (FISHSED) The Aquatic-Watershed section of the EA presents the NEZSED modeled results for the prescription watersheds, and determined that the proposed project would cause moderate to high increases (2-100%) in short-term (Year 1) sediment yield, while the sediment yield in the long-term (at Year 10) for all of the prescription watersheds would be below the percent over base threshold and some reductions from current.

On the Nez Perce NF portion of the Forests, the NEZSED model is used to estimate maximum sediment yield percent over base (i.e. natural) conditions resulting from timber harvest and road work associated with the project. Based in part on the NEZSED results, the FISHSED model is also run to estimate the resulting fish habitat parameters of cobble embeddedness, summer rearing capacity, and winter carrying capacity. Cobble embeddedness FISHSED results are then related to Desired Future Condition (DFC) curves (Espinosa 1992) in order to derive existing and projected fishery habitat potential values and to compare to Forest Plan Appendix A fish water quality objectives (actually standards in Forest Plan).

Field-measured cobble embeddedness data were collected in 2013 to establish current conditions (Alt 1 values, Table 3-19). These data were then combined with NEZSED outputs for percent over base sediment yield in the FISHSED model to project percent cobble embeddedness of prescription watersheds resulting from the proposed activities (Alt 2 values, Table 23). The model is used to predict changes in cobble embeddedness, and summer and winter rearing carrying capacities for steelhead trout and salmon. FISHSED is most appropriately used to assess the effects of changes in habitat quality when cobble embeddedness and carrying capacity changes are greater than 10% (Stowell et al. 1983). The model documentation (Stowell et al, 1983) states that model outputs are not absolute numbers of high statistical precision and results obtained are to be used in combination with sound biological judgment. The limitations and assumptions about the model can be found in the project file (Stowell et al, 1983). The FISHSED model can only be used to compare alternatives and cannot be used as a trend analysis tool since trend analysis is beyond its capabilities (Conroy and Thompson, 2011).

In the short term, proposed activities are expected to elevate cobble embeddedness in all prescription watersheds, with measurable change expected in Allison Creek (11% increase) and Dutch Oven Creek (18% increase) in year 1 of Alternative 2 (Table 3-20). In Buffalo Gulch and Whiskey Creek, no substantial changes in cobble embeddedness, summer rearing, or winter rearing capacity are expected based on this modeling and on PACFISH and local effectiveness monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2009a; USDA Nez Perce-Clearwater Forest, 2016).

NEZSED/FISHSED modelling primarily addresses vegetation treatments and road work. Soil disturbance from proposed activities would yield higher sediment contribution to stream channels during project implementation. However, BMPs would minimize sediment inputs to streams during implementation and percent over base sediment yield is expected to decline over the long term (i.e. 10 years, see Watershed report and Upward Trend Appendix C).

FISHSED modelling of proposed activities (Alt 2) effects to fish habitat over the 10 year period following implementation indicate an improvement in conditions compared to the first year following implementation. In the long term, FISHSED modelling of proposed activities (Alt 2) effects to fish habitat over the 10 year period following implementation indicate an improvement in conditions compared to the first year following implementation. Proposed activities are expected to elevate cobble embeddedness in

91 all prescription watersheds at 10 years, however only slightly and none of the results indicate measurable change from baseline conditions (i.e. >10%).

In the long term, the FISHSED modeled changes for cobble embeddedness increase by 1-3% under the action alternative for all prescription watersheds except Dutch Oven Creek, in which there are no fish populations. The FISHSED model is most appropriately used to assess the effects of changes in habitat quality when cobble embeddedness changes are greater than 10% (Stowell et al. 1983). Because FISHSED modeling for the action alternative predicts a 1-3% change in cobble, no substantial changes in cobble embeddedness expected based on this modeling and on PACFISH and local effectiveness monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2009a and 2014).

Current road densities and number of stream crossings within the project area were calculated (See Aquatics-Watershed section) to evaluate the effects of existing roads and the road-related restoration activities proposed using the WEPP:Road model. The road improvements modelled in WEPP by the project hydrologist would result in a reduction in sediment delivery in the project area portion of the Whiskey Creek-SFCR of about 72%. This reduction in sediment delivery should result, in the long term, in decreased cobble embeddedness and increase fish carrying capacity.

Table 3-19: FISHSED results percent cobble embeddedness by alternative1, 2 Alt. 2 Alt 1 % Change % Cobble % Change Greater Greater Prescription % Cobble 2013 to Embeddedne 2013 to Alt 2, than 10% than 10% Watershed Embedded- Alt 2, ss year 11** change? 1 change?2 ness (Year) year 102 year 1 Allison Creek 64 (2013) 71 11* Y 3 N Buffalo Gulch 76 (2013) 77 2 N 2 N Creek Dutch Oven 59 (2013) 69 18* Y 2 N Creek 62 (2013) Moose Creek 67 7 N 1 N 53 (1988)

Whiskey Creek 60 (2013) 63 4 N 1 N 1Existing condition (Alt 1) in project area watersheds compared to FISHSED modeled short term values resulting from proposed activities (Alt 2, year 1), and percent change over time. 2Existing condition (Alt 1) in project area watersheds compared to FISHSED modeled long term values resulting from proposed activities (Alt 2, year 10), and percent change over time. *Changes in Cobble Embeddedness greater than 10% are considered to be showing measurable change according to NPNF interpretation of FISHSED modeling results (Stowell et al. 1983). ** Percentage change was calculated by taking the difference between the existing condition (2013) values and the proposed action (Alt 2) values, dividing by the existing condition (2013) values, and multiplying by 100.

Summer and Winter Rearing Habitat Capacity (FISHSED) Based in part on the NEZSED results, the FISHSED model is also run to estimate the resulting fish habitat parameters of cobble embeddedness, summer rearing capacity, and winter carrying capacity. The NEZSED and FISHSED models primarily address vegetation treatments and road work in the uplands. Compared to upland activities, soil disturbed during road obliteration, long term storage, or culvert placement/replacement at stream or seep crossings or in riparian areas would have a greater potential to enter stream channels during project implementation and over time, but Best Management Practices

92 (BMPs) implemented would minimize sediment inputs to streams during instream and riparian work. Road related-activities within RHCAs would also be performed during the dry season, minimizing the potential of soil disturbance. Even with BMPs, however, culvert manipulation would contribute to short- term increases in stream sediment and turbidity levels primarily caused by disturbance of existing instream and road fill sediments during excavation, fill, channel recontouring, and rewatering activities. Monitoring on the Forest has shown that peak sediment input occurs immediately upon culvert manipulation and stream disturbance (during the dry season when work occurs), followed by a decrease in sediment transport and turbidity within several hours due to the increasing distance downstream (typically within 300 feet due to small stream size) and the low flow during the dry season. Minor sediment input is expected to occur over a short time frame (1-5 days per site) as the channel adjusts. Subsequent rain and snowmelt events through the following one or two springs are expected to cause short-term increases in sediment and turbidity at the rehabilitated crossing as vegetation reestablishes and stream channels stabilize.

In the short term, FISHSED modeling indicates decreases in summer rearing capacity in all prescription watersheds, with measurable change expected in Dutch Oven Creek (-12% decrease) in year 1 of Alternative 2. Dutch Oven Creek is not known to be a fish bearing stream. Similarly, modeling indicates decreases in winter carrying capacity in all prescription watersheds, with measurable change expected in Allison Creek (-21% decrease), in Dutch Oven Creek (-30% decrease), and Moose Creek (-14% decrease) in year 1 of Alternative 2 (Table 3-20).

Table 3-20: Short term (Alt 2, year 1), FISHSED results percent summer rearing and winter rearing carrying capacity by alternative, and percent change over time. % Summer Rearing Capacity % Winter Carrying Capacity Prescription % % Watershed Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2 Change** Change** Allison Creek 72 66 -9 11 9 -21* Buffalo Gulch Creek 61 60 -2 8 7 -4 Dutch Oven Creek 77 67 -12* 13 9 -30* Moose Creek 74 70 -5 13 10 -14* Whiskey Creek 76 74 -3 12 12 -8 *Changes in rearing capacity greater than 10% are considered to be showing measurable change according to NPNF’s own interpretation of FISHSED modeling results (Stowell et al. 1983). ** Percentage change was calculated by taking the difference between the existing condition (2013) values and the proposed action (Alt 2) values, dividing by the existing condition (2013) values, and multiplying by 100.

FISHSED modelling of proposed activities (Alt 2) effects to fish habitat over the 10 year period following implementation indicate an improvement in conditions compared to the first year following implementation. This indicates only slight decreases in summer rearing capacity and winter carrying capacity at 10 years in all prescription watersheds, however none of the results indicate measurable change from baseline conditions (i.e. >10%).

The results show all measures of fish habitat carrying capacity (i.e. cobble embeddedness, summer rearing, and winter carrying capacity) returning to levels close to the existing condition and under the 10% change threshold (see Tables 3-19, 3-20, and 3-21).

93 Table 3-21: Long term (Alt 2, year 10), FISHSED results percent summer rearing and winter rearing carrying capacity by alternative, and percent change over time % Summer Rearing Capacity % Winter Carrying Capacity Prescription % % Watershed Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2 Change** Change** Allison Creek 72 71 -2 11 11 0 Buffalo Gulch Creek 61 60 -2 8 7 -1 Dutch Oven Creek 77 76 -1 13 13 0 Moose Creek 74 74 -1 13 12 -1 Whiskey Creek 76 75 -1 12 13 1 *Changes in rearing capacity greater than 10% are considered to be showing measurable change according to NPNF’s own interpretation of FISHSED modeling results (Stowell et al. 1983). ** Percentage change was calculated by taking the difference between the existing condition (2013) values and the proposed action (Alt 2) values, dividing by the existing condition (2013) values, and multiplying by 100. These results may seem incorrect since Alt 1 and Alt 2 values for Prescription watersheds are similar or the same. This is because values have been reduced to no decimal places for the sake of clarity. However, actual values have been considered for correct results (e.g. Allison Creek Alt 2 % winter carrying capacity (10.74) minus Alt 1 (11.35) equals -0.61. This result divided by the existing condition value (11.35) and multiplied by 100 yields -5.37%, rounded to -5% in Table 3-22.

The related prescription watershed fishery habitat potential values resulting from FISHSED modeling of the no action and action alternatives, and comparison to Forest Plan Appendix A fish water quality objectives, can be found in Table 3-22. Existing condition fishery habitat potential values of fish bearing prescription watersheds in the project area do not meet Forest Plan standards of 70% and therefore are required to undergo Upward Trend Analysis according to Forest Plan Appendix A. Upward Trend Analysis is included as a separate appendix to this report. Fishery habitat potential values are shown to decrease compared to baseline conditions following year 1 of the action alternative. Ten years following implementation of proposed activities, fishery habitat potential values are expected to level off or improve compared to Alternative 2, year 1 values.

Table 3-22: Comparison of project area prescription watershed fishery habitat potential values for the no action and action (year 1 and year 10) alternatives compared to Forest Plan Appendix A direction. 1987 Alt 1 Fishery Alt 2, year 1 Alt 2, year 10 Forest Plan Fishery habitat Prescription Fishery habitat Fishery habitat Fishery habitat habitat potential Watershed potential potential potential values potential values e** values e** (%) values ** (%) (%) values (%) (%) Allison Creek* -- 43 35 41 70 Buffalo Gulch* 40 30 29 29 70 Dutch Oven -- 50 38 49 70 Creek* Moose Creek* 50 45 42 45 70 Whiskey Creek* 45 48 46 48 70 *Not currently meeting FP standard (Alt 1) and not projected to meet FP standard (Alt 2) **Calculated by taking cobble embeddedness (FISHSED result) and relating to DFC curves (Espinosa 1992).

94 BMPs for road-related work include dewatering of the site during crossing culvert manipulation and the placement of sediment catching devices (straw bales, brush dams, settling basins) around the work area and in the stream channel. Even with BMPs, however, culvert manipulation would contribute to short- term increases in stream sediment and turbidity levels primarily caused by disturbance of existing instream and road fill sediments during excavation, fill, channel recontouring, and rewatering activities. Monitoring on the Forest has shown, however, that peak sediment input occurs immediately upon culvert manipulation and stream disturbance, followed by a decrease in sediment transport and turbidity within several hours and with increasing distance downstream, typically within 300 feet due to small stream size and the low flow during the dry season when work would occur. Minor sediment input is expected to occur over a short time frame (1-5 days per site) as the channel adjusts. Subsequent rain and snowmelt events through the following one or two springs are expected to cause short-term increases in sediment and turbidity at the rehabilitated crossing as vegetation reestablishes and stream channels stabilize.

The effects of existing roads and proposed, road-related restoration activities have been evaluated using the WEPP:Road model (see Watershed report). Also calculated in the Watershed report are overall road densities, streamside road densities, and number of stream crossings within the project area. The total road density in the Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River HUC 6 under Alternative 2 would be reduced from 3.7 to 3.4 miles/mile2 and that the RHCA road density would decrease from 4.0 to 3.8 miles/mile2. The number of road stream crossings in the project area would be reduced from 47 to 40 (a 15% reduction, and not counting crossings by Highway 14, which is not under Forests management). Of the stream crossings retained, about 55% would be improved (gravelling, etc.) to reduce road erosion and sediment delivery. The road improvements modelled in WEPP would result in a reduction in sediment delivery in the project area portion of the Whiskey Creek-SFCR of about 72%. It is important to note that the predictions made by NEZSED do not take into consideration the 72% reduction in sediment predicted by WEPP:Road model.

Water Yield. The Watershed report addresses the potential for vegetation treatments and road work to increase Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA), which is a measure of the potential for increased water yield as the result of project activities. As noted above, large changes in water yield can decrease streambank stability, thereby increase fine sediment input to streams and potentially affecting water temperature. ECA analysis indicates water yield increases under Alternative 2 in the prescription watersheds and the 6th Code HUC Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River watershed are not expected to cause deleterious changes to stream channel stability or fish habitat quality (see Watershed report).

Temperature. Water temperature can potentially be affected by fine sediment input (which can change stream channel morphology to reduce groundwater input and increase solar radiation) and by vegetative shading (reductions in which can increase solar radiation). Water temperature was measured in lower Allison Creek in 2011 (by the interagency “PIBO” team), when the mean weekly maximum temperature (from July 15 through August 31) was about 14.8 °C. This value, and likely similar values in SFCR tributaries, when taken in context with elevation, stream order, and differences in temperature metrics, are suitable for WCT (Bear 2005) and are indicative of relatively minimal anthropogenic alternation. The effects of RHCA buffers described above demonstrate that the action alternative would minimize effects on sediment transmission and stream shading so that effects on existing stream water temperature should not be measurable.

Species Determination Statements Table 3-23 displays the species determinations statements. The potential effects on individuals as well as stream and riparian habitat discussions from Alternative 2 are described in the following sections below.

95 Table 3-23: Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species preliminary summary of effects for the Dutch Oven project aquatic species

Species Status Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 rationale Westslope cutthroat trout Species may be Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi Sensitive NI MIIH present at project activity sites Snake River steelhead trout Species may be Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened NE NLAA present at project gairdneri activity site Snake River spring/summer Species not chinook salmon present in project Sensitive NI MIIH Oncorhynchus tshawytcha area, no effects to SFCR Snake River fall chinook Species not salmon present in project Threatened NE NLAA Oncorhynchus tshawytcha area, no effects to SFCR Bull trout Species not Salvelinus confluentus present in project Threatened NE NLAA area; no effects to SFCR Pacific lamprey Species not Lampetra tridentata present in project Sensitive NI MIIH area, no effects to SFCR Western pearlshell mussel Species not Margatifera falcate present in project Sensitive NI MIIH area, no effects to SFCR South Fork Clearwater River Tributaries within Dutch Oven Project Area Fish-bearing South Fork Clearwater River tributaries within the Dutch Oven project area would be protected from timber harvest and fuels treatments under Alternative 2 through application of PACFISH buffers. Most project activities, including timber harvest and yarding, would be prohibited in the PACFISH buffer areas. The risk of direct injury or mortality from vegetative management project activities would be low to non-existent. Indirect effects to fish species and habitat is minimal to nonexistent due to implementation of PACFISH buffers. Nez Perce National Forest monitoring has shown that PACFISH buffers are very effective in eliminating impacts on stream channels (Smith 2015). In addition to greatly limiting direct effects to individual fish species, limits to activities in RHCAs should reduce or eliminate potential effects to stream shading from trees, large woody debris recruitment, and fine sediment transmission. The PACFISH RHCAs buffers are intended to protect vegetation, soil, microclimate, and other components of riparian habitat, both for the sake of the riparian areas and their flora and fauna, but also to protect waterbodies and their biota. The default buffer widths can also be made greater based on site conditions. The boundaries of the proposed harvest units in Appendix A may not fully reflect RHCA modifications that would be made during harvest preparations.

In addition to protecting habitat within the RHCAs, PACFISH (USDA FS 1995) notes that the vegetation and debris within riparian buffers act as “filter strips” that are generally effective in protecting streams

96 from sediment carried by non-channelized flow. Activities associated with vegetation management (primarily yarding and road construction/reconstruction), and road obliteration and storage activities would disturb soil at the activity sites. Some of this soil would then have the potential to be transmitted downhill until stabilized by vegetation growth, but because of PACFISH buffers, most of the soil disturbed by the proposed activities would be scores or hundreds of feet or more from stream channels. Vegetation, downed woody material, duff, or topographical features should intercept and stabilize any mobilized soil before reaching a stream. Growth of vegetation on portions of harvest units and road prisms would be enhanced by soil decompaction, fuels treatments, live transplants, duff placement woody debris application or seeding.

The road-related activities of Alternative 2 will take place within stream channels and RCHAs, but the indirect effects of these activities on fish species and habitat would be minimized and mitigated through design features. The impacts of road-related activities within RHCAs would be minimized and mitigated through design features and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Watershed and Soils specialist reports) to reduce potential direct impacts on Westslope cutthroat trout and steelhead. Proposed instream work on non-fish bearing tributaries, where sediment transmission and ensuing temporary high turbidity would likely be diluted and attenuated prior to reaching fishbearing streams (CNF 2009).

Road prisms mostly would cross RHCAs and stream channels relatively perpendicularly, so the area of impact to habitat would be relatively small compared to that of the full amount of RHCAs and stream channels in the project area. Because the area of impact should be relatively small, the reduction in shade and large woody debris recruitment associated with stream crossings of roads should be minor and biologically undetectable at the project area scale.

Some of the road-related activities associated with the action alternative (especially culvert installation and removal during road reconstruction, storage, and obliteration) would take place within stream channels, and in-water work would have some potential to cause direct injury or mortality to individual fish species within the project area. There is also some potential for fuel or other contaminant spills into stream channels from vehicles or heavy equipment used for the road-related activities of the action alternative, including log yarding and hauling. Mitigation measures will be taken to minimize the potential of spills. See Figure 3 to see which streams would be affected by each road-related activity under Alternative 2. Some of the road-related activities associated with the action alternative (especially culvert installation and removal) would take place within stream channels and RHCAs, but the impacts of these activities (chiefly sediment introduction and vegetation removal) would be minimized and mitigated through design features to reduce potential impacts on the habitat of fish species within the project area.

Culvert placement, replacement, or removal at the non-fish bearing sites and streams presumably would not have the potential to directly injure fish species present in the project area streams and fish species that can potentially occur in the project area streams, but harmful amounts of sediment could be transmitted to fish bearing reaches. Mitigation measures will be taken to minimize the potential of harmful amount of sediment entering fish-bearing reaches.

Alternative 2 (vegetation treatments and road work) would slightly increase water yields over the baseline (See Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) analysis in the Aquatics-Watershed section) but would not result in adverse effects on stream channels or habitat quality. The implementation and effectiveness of PACFISH buffers would minimize effects on sediment transmission and maintain stream shading. Effects to existing stream water temperature should not be measureable. It is likely that summer water temperature in the South Fork Clearwater River limits use by aquatic species present within the South Fork Clearwater River tributaries within the Dutch Oven project area, but, as discussed above, RHCA buffers on project area tributaries should eliminate temperature increases in these streams, and so on the South Fork Clearwater River.

97 Project Area South Fork Clearwater River Tributaries Westslope cutthroat trout are present in Allison and Moose Creek. As stated in above in Current Conditions, all redband rainbow trout are considered to be steelhead due to the possibility of anadromy. Steelhead may occasionally enter Moose Creek. Steelhead critical habitat is present in lower Allison and Moose creeks and in upper Whiskey Creek. Westslope cutthroat trout are potentially present in Buffalo Gulch and Whiskey Creek.

Given that the Westslope cutthroat trout population in Allison Creek and Moose Creek is likely robust (see existing condition for more information) and BMPs would be implemented to reduce direct project impacts, the implementation of any of the activities in the action alternative should have no detectable direct impact on the size or persistence of the population

Westslope cutthroat trout individuals would be protected from timber harvest and fuels treatments under Alternative 2 through application of PACFISH buffers. The risk of direct injury or mortality from vegetative management project activities would be low to non-existent.

In the long-term storage and obliteration of roads in riparian areas should benefit Westslope cutthroat trout and steelhead individuals, we well as both fish species habitat, by reducing the potential for injury or mortality caused by motor vehicles and by reducing the potential for transmission of large slugs of fine sediment from culvert or fillslope failure.

Two culverts are proposed to be removed (removal by obliterating a system road) on Allison Creek and Moose Creek., one culvert is a crossings of a fish-bearing stream. A culvert on Allison Creek has been identified which is too steep and too small and is proposed for replacement (Figure 3) on a system road (Road 307) that would be reconstructed and graveled. Westslope cutthroat trout in Allison and Moose creeks and steelhead in Moose Creek would have the potential to be present for the in-water activities associated with this culvert work.

One culvert is proposed to be removed on Buffalo Gulch (removal due to road proposed for long term storage Road 1808E) (Figure 3). Road 1808 would be graveled at the stream crossing and one culvert crossing of a potentially fish-bearing stream (Whiskey Creek) has been identified that is too small and is proposed for replacement (Figure 3). Westslope cutthroat trout (if present in the within the project area) would have the potential to be present for the in-water activities associated with this culvert work.

Direct effects to individual Westslope cutthroat trout should be unlikely or greatly limited due to Westslope cutthroat trout present above the culverts proposed for replacement at a site in Allison Creek and removal at a site in Moose Creek.

Direct effects to individual Westslope cutthroat trout (if present in the project area) should be unlikely or greatly limited due to the culvert sites in Buffalo Gulch and Whiskey Creek because it is high in the drainage (the length of stream channel that would be maintained or improved for aquatic organism passage would be relatively small).

For Westslope cutthroat trout, Alternative 2 of the Dutch Oven project “may impact individuals or habitat by not likely to cause trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for the population or species.”

No appreciable effects on in-stream or riparian habitat would be caused by Alternative 2 for Westslope cutthroat trout and steelhead. The potential for direct effects to a few individual steelhead caused by culvert removal or other road-related instream work would “likely adversely affect” steelhead trout individuals. For designated critical habitat, the effects call would be “not likely to adversely affect.”

98 South Fork Clearwater River within Dutch Oven Project Area The potential indirect effects of the proposed activities within the project reach of the South Fork Clearwater River would be either through changes in fine sedimentation rates, turbidity/suspended sediment levels, or in water yield. Any minor and short-term effects of project activities should be localized in South Fork Clearwater River tributaries within the project area and should not be measurable in the South Fork Clearwater River within or downstream of the project area. Also, even if some short- term effects on these habitat indicators reach the South Fork Clearwater River, it would be overwhelmed or attenuated by the large flow volume or catchment in the South Fork Clearwater River and so should be entirely immeasurable. Summer water temperature in the South Fork Clearwater River likely limits use by fish species that are present, but, as discussed above, RHCA buffers on project area tributaries should eliminate temperature increases in these streams, and so on the South Fork Clearwater River.

South Fork Clearwater River within Project Area Bull trout and designated critical habitat, spring Chinook salmon, fall Chinook salmon, steelhead and designated critical habitat, pacific lamprey, western pearlshell mussel, and Westslope cutthroat trout are present in the South Fork Clearwater River within the project area. The South Fork Clearwater River is Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Coho salmon. Coho salmon is potentially present in the South Fork Clearwater River (see Existing Condition).

No substantial effects on instream or riparian habitat would accrue either in the project South Fork Clearwater River tributary streams and effects on aquatic habitat in the South Fork Clearwater should be even less evident. Effects to the project reach of the South Fork Clearwater River, the remainder of the South Fork Clearwater River, and the mainstem Clearwater River would be discountable to nonexistent. It is very unlikely that instream road/culvert work would affect individual fish species listed above, but it is possible that a contaminant spill from logging activities could enter the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River and harm individual fish species.

The presence of Coho Salmon in the South Fork Clearwater River within the project area is unlikely. No substantial effects on instream or riparian habitat would accrue either in the project South Fork Clearwater River tributary streams and effects on aquatic habitat in the SFCR should be even less evident. It is very unlikely that instream road/culvert work would affect Coho salmon (if present), but it is possible that a contaminant spill from logging activities could enter the South Fork Clearwater and harm individuals (if present). The potential for effects from Alternative 2 on EFH for Coho salmon would be limited to non-existent.

Alternative 2 would be very unlikely to cause direct effects to bull trout and critical habitat, spring Chinook salmon, fall Chinook salmon, steelhead and critical habitat, pacific lamprey, western pearlshell mussel, and Westslope cutthroat trout because no activities are proposed for the South Fork Clearwater, which is the only location where any of the individuals of any lifestage should be present in the project area (except Westslope cutthroat trout and steelhead as discussed above). There should be limited to no effects on EFH for spring Chinook salmon and fall Chinook salmon

The quality of spawning habitat should not be affected by Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would “not likely adversely affect” fall Chinook salmon individuals and designated critical habitat and bull trout and designated critical habitat.

For spring Chinook salmon, pacific lamprey, and western pearlshell mussel, Alternative 2 “may impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause toward federal listing or reduce viability for population or species.”

99 3.5.1.13 Cumulative Effects The past, present, and reasonable foreseeable activities in an analysis area and surrounding non-Federal lands are listed in Appendix B. These activities were used to assess the potential cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternative on each of the resources assessed in this report. The area for cumulative effects analysis is the project area and selected portions of the Whiskey-SFCR and Lower American River subwatersheds outside of the project area. The duration of cumulative effects would be about 10 years for direct effects, while long-term beneficial effects should last indefinitely (unless the project area is subject to future road construction, reconstruction, or a similar large-scale soil disturbing event.) Past activities particularly relevant to this analysis include: placer-mined gold in the SFCR since 1860, Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Nez Perce Tribe have adult capture/spawning and juvenile rearing/acclimation facilities in the SFCR drainage for steelhead and Chinook salmon, Coho salmon and Pacific lamprey have been stocked at points in the past, catchable rainbow trout stocking in the SFCR, and the presence of brook trout in some SFCR tributaries makes it very likely that this species was directly introduced to the drainage sometime in the 20th century. Ongoing and foreseeable activities that might have the potential to affect aquatic species within the cumulative effects analysis area include primarily timber harvest and associated road construction, road obliteration and other rehabilitation, trail maintenance, fire suppression, many forms of recreation including motorized recreational activities, permitted livestock grazing on the Elk Summit allotment, and firewood gathering. Game species (including steelhead, salmon, cutthroat, and rainbow trout) are subject to angling under State regulations, and it would be possible for bull trout to be caught inadvertently in the South Fork Clearwater River. Extensive stream and riparian habitat restoration activities are on-going or planned for the lower Crooked River and Newsome Creek. Future activities considered in the analysis area include the Allison’s Dam/Ponds removal project, and subsequent road maintenance associated with graveled surface roads is planned and should result in reduce sediment input to streams. This should reduce chronic sediment contribution from roads though the project area by removing failing outlet pipes and earthen fill from three sites in Allison Creek.

Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, no cumulative effects would be expected because no ground disturbing activities would occur. No increases in sediment would occur, and there would be no effects to fish or habitat. There would be no effects that could be added to other past, present, reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Alternative 2 Past road construction and maintenance, placer mining, timber harvest, fuels treatments, motorized recreation, livestock grazing, and other human activities, especially within stream channels and in riparian area have presumably reduced the quality of habitat for WCT to some extent, but primarily in the mainstem of the South Fork Clearwater River, Allison Creek, and Moose Creek. Past activities have contributed to current habitat conditions for stream fishes, in the cumulative effects area, and the human hand is evident on much of the landscape, and heavy on the South Fork Clearwater River corridor.

South Fork Clearwater River Tributaries within Project Area The Allison Dam/Ponds project, if implemented in the near future, would likely improve water temperatures in the Allison Creek drainage. Limited cumulative effects could occur under this alternative, associated with immeasurable increase in sediment yield combined with other activities in the project area, including livestock grazing, minerals exploration/development, recreational vehicle routes and use, and wildfire and wildfire suppression actions.

100 Based on distances between project activities and fish-bearing streams, Forest monitoring observations and project BMPs, little to no detectable turbidity should occur in the SFCR the portions of Whiskey Creek or Buffalo Gulch Creek downstream of the project area in the short or long-term as a result of project activities. Any turbidity reaching the portions of these streams below the project boundary should be diluted to a level that would not affect aquatic organisms.

The likelihood of existence of adverse cumulative effects from regeneration and intermediate harvest and fuels treatments to instream sediment and other variables from Alternative 2 is low and the effects to aquatic species present within the project area streams should be negligible. In addition to potential negative effects of the action alternative (present fish species near culvert replacement sites), the proposed culvert removal/replacement, and road obliteration and storage would be of a long-term beneficial effect to aquatic habitats and species by removing potential sediment sources in and around riparian areas. This beneficial effect would likely be greater in magnitude than any short-term adverse effects.

The cumulative effects of this project are not expected to affect local or regional populations of MIS species within project area streams, because they would be limited in time and scale relative to the amount of habitat available to any population present.

South Fork Clearwater River within Project Area Project-caused fine sediment transmission to the South Fork Clearwater River, Whiskey Creek, or Buffalo Gulch Creek should be minimal and undetectable and in all time scales. Species in fish-bearing streams downstream of the project area should not be substantially affected by the proposed activities. Potential effects of sediment from activities of Alternative 2 should be immeasurable beyond the confluence of Trail Creek with the South Fork Clearwater River due to the minor amounts of sediment potentially produced from activities and due to the dissipation of sediment in the higher flows of the South Fork Clearwater River. The beneficial effects are expected to extend (likely immeasurably) to the mainstem of the South Fork Clearwater River and its aquatic resources.

On February 18, 2016 a large landslide occurred at 11T 609986 E 5075867 N, covering Hwy 14 and depositing material into the South Fork Clearwater River. This area had been identified as landslide prone. Addressing this emergency situation involved removing timber from the top of the slide, blasting boulders, and moving heavy equipment to load and haul material offsite. The finer materials deposited by the landslide are not a fisheries concern because 1) the landslide was a natural event and 2) the majority of material was hauled offsite and did not enter the river. The large boulders deposited may constrict flow and present a velocity barrier; hydraulic modelling may resolve this question.

Maintenance of existing roads in the project area watersheds is a current and ongoing activity that has the potential to deliver minor amounts of sediment to streams and maintenance activities would utilize BMPs to minimize the potential for sediment delivery to streams. Ongoing and future use of existing roads and unauthorized motorized recreation would likely continue to degrade suitable habitats to some extent, and large portions of the Whiskey-SFCR and Lower American subwatersheds are well-roaded or otherwise accessible to off-road vehicles. Obliteration, storage, and abandonment may reduce the effects of roads on stream and riparian habitats. Ongoing and future road management activities (including those associated with the proposed project) would continue this trend, leading to long-term improvement in the quality of habitats. RHCA buffers would be implemented for all ongoing and future projects, preventing or greatly minimizing degradation of habitat.

The small difference between the project area and the cumulative effects area, and the likely minimal effects on riparian and instream habitat associated with the action alternative means that cumulative effects for these species would also be minimal and would not affect the ESA effects determinations. The

101 cumulative effects of this project are not expected to affect local or regional populations of MIS species within streams outside of the project area, because they would be limited in time and scale relative to the amount of habitat available to any population present.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Law Spring/summer Chinook salmon, interior redband trout, Westslope cutthroat trout, Pacific lamprey, and western pearlshell mussel are Forest Service Region 1 sensitive species on the Nez Perce National Forest. Snake River steelhead trout, fall Chinook salmon, and Columbia River bull trout are listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened in streams in the Clearwater basin. Spring Chinook salmon, summer steelhead trout, and Westslope cutthroat trout are included in the Nez Perce Forest Plan as Management Indicator Species (MIS). Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).

Forest Service Manual 2670 directs the Forest Service to conserve endangered and threatened species, utilize its authorities in furtherance of the Endangered Species Act, and to avoid actions that would cause a species to become threatened or endangered. FSM 2670 also directs the Forest Service to maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitat distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands.

A Biological Assessment (BA) will be completed for fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act concurrent with Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, as required under the Endangered Species Act, for Alternative 2, prior to signing a Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A Biological Evaluation will be completed for Region 1 sensitive fish species. Effects to sensitive fish are not expected to result in a loss of viability or a trend towards federal listing. Effects to listed fish are not expected to result in a jeopardy ruling in any Biological Opinion under normal Section 7 consultation procedures based on the analysis of effects in both the watershed and fisheries sections of Chapter 3.

The Dutch Oven project is in accordance with applicable requirements of section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and it implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 600.920). This EA evaluated the potential effects of the activities proposed under the project in the South Fork Clearwater River drainage on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). There should be limited to no effects on EFH for these species under either alternative.

The South Fork Clearwater River TMDL Implementation Plan (South Fork Clearwater River Watershed Advisory Group-SFCRWAG 2006), states human-caused sediment in the South Fork Clearwater River at Stites should be reduced by approximately 25%. Under Alternative 2, predicted reductions in average annual sediment delivery at the road-stream crossings would contribute to this 25% target reduction stated in The South Fork Clearwater River TMDL Implementation Plan. In addition to complying with The South Fork Clearwater River TMDL Implementation Plan, the 46% to 84% reductions in average annual sediment delivery predicted for the road-stream crossing improvements under Alternative 2 would result, with time, in decreased cobble embeddedness and increased fish habitat carrying capacity as excess deposited sediments are flushed and less sediment is delivered.

Adherence to the Forest Plan direction related to upward trend in fishery habitat carrying capacity for Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds is expected in the long-term (20 years from implementation) due to project restoration activities. Prescription watershed conditions are expected to improve with the implementation of the proposed action over the long-term, compared to the no-action alternative over a 20 year period. Analysis results do not indicate fish habitat carrying capacity upward trend in Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, Whiskey Creek and Moose Creek prescription watersheds in the short term (1 to 5 years from implementation). See the Upward Trend Analysis in Appendix C of the Dutch Oven Environmental Assessment for full details.

102

3.6 Heritage Affected Environment The scope of the analysis for cultural resources includes the entire Dutch Oven project area and considers the effects of all proposed activities within treatment areas and routes to and from those areas for their potential effects to cultural resources. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, a cultural resource inventory was conducted for the project area to identify historic properties and findings were submitted to the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review and comment.

3.6.1.1 Regulatory Framework All project activities to be conducted will be consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and the programmatic agreement signed between the Region 1 U.S. Forest Service, the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

3.6.1.2 Analysis Methodology Data presented are a result of reviewing existing information available for the proposed project located on National Forest System lands on the Red River Ranger District of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. Documents reviewed include the completed Heritage Resource Inventory Reports for the Dutch Oven project, historic property site records, and historic forest maps.

3.6.1.3 Resource Indicators Indicators used for cultural resources in the Dutch Oven project area are the number of sites impacted by proposed project activities.

Current Conditions There are 29 known cultural resource sites present in the project area. These sites include historic trails/roads, historic mining sites, earthen dams, historic cabins, and a fire lookout. Only eight sites are present within any proposed treatment activity. Six sites have been determined to be historically significant and eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A total of 76 cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the Dutch Oven project area vicinity.

Environmental Consequences

3.6.1.4 Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects The 29 known cultural resource sites would continue to exist in their present location. There would be no known direct, indirect, or cumulative effects upon cultural resources if no action was taken. Natural deterioration through environmental processes would occur.

3.6.1.5 Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects Six known sites that are present within proposed treatment activities have been impacted in the past to varying degrees through road construction and continued maintenance, previous timber harvest, and natural environmental impacts. Avoidance of the six eligible NRHP sites is required by implementing the mitigation measures/design criteria listed in Chapter 2. By following the design features (Chapter 2),

103 implementing the proposed action alternative would result in a “no adverse effect” upon these six historically significant cultural resource sites.

3.6.1.6 Cumulative Effects Implementation of proposed activities would result in “no adverse effect.” Thus, there is little potential for project activities to produce or contribute to negative effects that would be cumulative with other actions.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Laws All project activities to be conducted will be consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and the programmatic agreement signed between the Region 1 U.S. Forest Service, the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

104 3.7 Soils Affected Environment

3.7.1.1 Regulatory Framework The Nez Perce Forest Plan objective for soils is to manage the soil resources to maintain long-term productivity. The objective is that management activities on NFS lands would not impair the long-term productivity of the soil or produce unacceptable levels of sedimentation resulting from soil erosion. The proposed action is consistent with Nez Perce Forest Plan standard for soils.

Region 1 has one Forest Service Manual (FSM) supplement related to soil management applicable to the Dutch Oven project, the Region 1 Soil Quality Standards, FSM Soil Supplement 2500-14-1. Except for this regional supplement, national FSM direct applies. The Regional Soil Quality Standards require that detrimental management impacts to the soil resource are less than 15% of an activity. In areas where more than 15% detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration should not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality.

The Region 1 Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22 Watershed Conservation Practices handbook provides direction in Region 1 for the implementation of Watershed Conservation Practices or Best Management Practices (BMPs). Implementation of BMPs would minimize effects of management activities on soil and water resources and protect water-related beneficially uses. The BMPs are designed to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act and State of Idaho Water Quality Standards.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 recognizes the “fundamental need to protect and where appropriate, improve the quality of soil, water, and air resources.” The NFMA directs management of soil and land productivity to avoid “substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land . . . And . . . to maintain or improve soil quality.”

The Idaho Forest Practices Act (1974) assures the continuous growing and harvesting of forest trees and to maintain forest soil, air, water, vegetation, wildlife, and aquatic habitat. All National Forest System lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to water quality (IDAPA 20.20.01). The Idaho Forestry Best Management Practices are measures included in the Idaho Forest Practices Act that have been determined to be the most effective and practical means of preventing and reducing pollution inputs from forest practices in order to achieve water quality goals.

3.7.1.2 Analysis Methodology Soil resources on the project area have been reviewed using soil survey data, data in GIS, and field reconnaissance. During the summer of 2014, all units proposed for harvesting treatment were surveyed. Portions of areas proposed for prescribed burning were also visited. For the soil resource, the treatment unit serves as the “analysis area” as there is no expected influence to soil characteristics outside of unit boundaries from proposed activities. Modern practices have allowed managers to reduce the impacts of certain activities, it is essential to examine existing soil quality and to ensure that soil productivity is maintained with in desired and ecologically sustainable levels. In order to evaluate soil quality, a site- specific assessment of soil quality indicators was conducted within the analysis area.

The sampling protocol was the U.S. Forest Service Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (Page- Dumroese et. al. 2009). This soil effects protocol is designed to conform to Regional standards and the Regional standards are designed to comply with the National Forest Management Act and conform to the Soil Quality Standards (SQS) in the Nez Perce National Forest Plan. Disturbance classes of 2 or 3 were

105 considered detrimental in the analysis except where evidence suggested only short term disturbance with robust recovery. In each unit the following indicators were examined: (1) present detrimental soil disturbance (defined as a decrease in soil porosity, or increase in soil bulk density, that impairs site productivity); (2) percent cover by category: rock, wood, vegetation, and litter; (3) down woody debris (tons per acre); (4) litter and duff depths; (5) percent of rock in the uppermost soil horizon, and; (6) noted slope stability issues, erosion concerns and other soil issues. The natural soil bio-physical resiliency of each unit was assessed to gain insight that will tie current conditions to proposed treatments and cumulative effects.

Data Assumption and Limitations The estimate of detrimental conditions found within the project area is likely higher than actual. The field soil survey methodology has been found to overestimate the amount of detrimental soil (Page-Dumroese et. al. 2006a; Miller et. al. 2010). The estimation of detrimental soil disturbance assumes that BMPs (USDA 2012) would be implemented and that soil recovery would occur over time.

Scientific Uncertainty and Controversy Site and soil productivity relies on complex chemical, physical, and climate factors that interact within a biological framework. For any given site and soil, a change in key soil variable (i.e., bulk density, soil loss, nutrient availability, etc.) could lead to changes in potential soil productivity. Defining the threshold at which productivity is detrimentally disturbed has been the subject of much discussion and controversy. Powers (1990) notes that the rationale for the 15% limit of change in soil bulk density was largely based on the collective judgment of soil researchers, academics, and field practitioners; as well as the ability to detect change in productivity through the current monitoring methods. Thus the soil quality guidelines are set to detect a decline in potential productivity of at least 15%. This does not mean that the Forest Service tolerates productivity declines up to 15%; rather it recognizes the complexity of detecting detrimental soils.

Currently, soil quality standards are being studied by a cooperative research project called the North American Long-Term Productivity Study. The 5-year results were recently published (Page-Dumroese et. al. 2006b; Flemming et. al. 2006 Sanchez et. al. 2006). The study is ongoing and provides the best available science to resource professionals. To date, there has been no reduction in tree growth noted as a result of compaction or organic removal in plots with soils typical of the analysis area.

The NFMA guidelines are to “ensure that timber will be harvested from National Forest System lands only where soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged”: The detrimental soil disturbance in this analysis would not result in substantial and permanent impairment. Detrimental soil damage is reversible if chemical, biological, and physical soil processes (for example organic matter, moisture, top soil retention, and soil biota) are in place and time is allowed for recovery.

3.7.1.3 Resource Indicators Soil productivity and soil stability are the two resource indicators (Table 3-24).

Soil Productivity Past management activities in the project area have caused detrimental soil disturbance (e.g. compaction, displacement, erosion, and organic matter loss) and decreased soil productivity. The Region 1 Soil Quality Standards require that detrimental disturbance does not exceed 15% of an activity area and that coarse woody material retention is appropriate to the habitat type.

106 Soil Stability Surface erosion (e.g., sheet, rill, and gully erosion) and mass wasting erosion events (e.g. landslides) can impact soil productivity, water quality, and channel morphology. Soil erosion can result in decreased soil productivity at a site due to the loss of surface soils. Surface soils in the project area contain higher organic matter and volcanic ash-derived mineral content compared to the subsurface soils. Removal of vegetation and/or ground disturbance associated with timber harvest or fire can increase erosion on certain landtypes.

Table 3-24: Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Detrimental Soil Acres of Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DSD) Soil Productivity Disturbance Soil Productivity and Soil Miles of new temporary road New temporary road Stability Acres of proposed harvesting and prescribed Soil Stability Erosive Soils burning on erosive soils. Miles of new temporary road on erosive soils.

Current Condition The majority of the soils within the Dutch Oven project area are derived from Volcanic ash influenced loess over granite. This ash was deposited by Mt. Mazama 7,000 years ago. Volcanic ash is enriched with organic matter, has a high water holding capacity, and provides an excellent germination substrate for many native plant species. Ash is vulnerable to compaction, displacement and erosion due to its uncohesive nature. The soil texture was generally loamy with pockets of sandy loam where the ash cap is missing and the granitic parent material is exposed or mixing with the ash cap.

3.7.1.4 Soil Productivity Detrimental soil disturbance was found from past logging, mining and burning activities and included compacted skid trails, soil mixing, loss of organic matter and/or evidence of soil burning. Disturbance from past logging operations was found in units 1, 1A, 2, 5, 7A, 7B, 10, 22, 40, 42, , 42B, 42C, 42D, 43 and 52. Most of the detrimental soil disturbance found was 5% of the unit or less. Unit 43 did have higher detrimental soil disturbance (8%) from a combination of mining and past logging activities.

Rates of coarse woody debris (CWD) averaged 15 tons/acre and ranged from 1-44 tons/acre. Coarse woody debris for these forest types is normally between 7 and 15 tons/acre (Graham et al. 1994). Coarse woody debris, both standing (future recruitment) and down is important for site resiliency and recovery. Coarse woody debris also has an effect on erosion, water holding capacity, regeneration and other soil properties. Organic matter (litter and duff layers) averaged 4 cm within the proposed harvest units. The average optimum level of fine organic matter is 21 to 30 percent (Graham et al. 1994), which equates to 2 to 6 centimeters of surface litter and humus, depending on forest type. Optimum levels of fine organic matter relate to ectomycorrhizae fungus, which is a good indicator of healthy forest soil (Graham et al 1994).

3.7.1.5 Soil Stability (Landslides and Erosion) A small portion of the harvesting units are mapped as old landslide deposits (Landtype 50CUU). Within unit 14 there are 10 acres mapped as an old landslide. This area is not landslide prone and there are no other mapped landslide prone areas proposed for harvesting treatment within the Dutch Oven project area. Within the prescribed burning units, there are approximately 321 acres of mapped landslide prone soils present.

107 Erosion hazard is a rating of the relative susceptibility of exposed soils to sheet and rill erosion. Erosion hazards are most important in the prescribed burn blocks in the Dutch Oven project area because these areas are more likely to have a loss of ground cover following treatment. There are a few of the soil types within the harvest units that are mapped with high or very high erosion hazard as well (Soil Specialist Report, 2015). The majority of the soils have a moderate erosion hazard when bared, but proposed harvesting treatments will not expose bare soil to a great degree (less than 15% aerial extent per unit) and project design features would ensure organic matter and coarse woody debris will be on the soil surface following treatments.

The potential for soil erosion also exists with existing roads (Cacek 1998). The dominant processes in roaded areas are surface erosion from bare soil areas of roads, including the cutslope, fillslope, and travelway. Also erosion hazards are determined based on no soil cover. All prescribed fire and thinning units will have adequate soil cover following treatments.

Environmental Consequences Research shows that ground disturbance from harvest activities can range from 4 to over 40 percent, depending on equipment used, method and season of operation, and silvicultural prescription (Archer 2008, Clayton 1987, Clayton 1990, Tepp 2002, Sullivan 1998, Reeves et al. 2001). For estimating the potential amount of increased detrimental disturbance created by proposed activities, the following assumptions were made for ground-based skidding, skyline yarding, temporary road construction, and prescribed burning: • Detrimental soil impacts from proposed ground based skidding are estimated at eight to twelve percent (average 10 percent) of an activity area based on use of designated skid trails (Archer 2008, Reeves et. al. 2011). Disturbance is generally limited to main skid trails and landings. Soil disturbance can be minimized by using existing skid trails and/or by designating the locations of new skid trails (Froelick and McNabb 1983). • Estimated detrimental soil impacts from proposed skyline yarding are four percent of an activity area and disturbance is mostly concentrated at landings. • Estimated detrimental soil impacts from proposed areas of jammer, or tong-throwing logging are zero percent of an activity area. Many units are proposed for tractor and jammer harvesting. The percent of the units that will be jammer logged is unknown; there for, the percentage of disturbance used in these units will be for tractor harvesting (10%). • Temporary road construction is estimated to impact an area with an average 25 feet width. This is based on the assumption of a running road surface 12-15 feet wide and an additional area 3-6 feet in width cleared of vegetation on each side of the road where the soil would likely be displaced and the organic litter layer disturbed and/or removed. (3 acres of soil disturbance/mile of temporary road construction). • Activity generated slash piled along road sides and in landings would be treated using sale of biomass materials, chipping, or burning. Treatment of slash is already incorporated in the estimates discussed above, because piles occur on areas where soils are already displaced or compacted. • Estimated detrimental soil impacts of prescribed burning activities is two percent of an activity area.

108 Table 3-25: Potential Detrimental Soil Disturbance within Harvest Units Final DSD Current Acres of Acres of with Detrimental Alt 2 Temp Temp Logging Additional Unit Acres Soil Activity Road Road System* Mitigations Disturbance DSD (%) Inside Outside if needed DSD (%) Unit Unit (%) 01 Tractor 6 3 10 0 0 13 01A Tractor 9 3 10 0 0 13 02 Cable 10 3 4 0 0 7 04 Tractor 16 0 10 0.06 0 10 05 Tractor 54 5 10 0.63 0.9 12# 07A Cable 26 2 4 0 0 6 07B Cable 20 2 4 0 0 6 09 Tractor/Jammer 19 0 10 1.02 0 10# 10 Tractor/Jammer 88 2 10 0 0 12 10A Tractor/Jammer 12 0 10 0.21 0.06 12 10B Tractor/Jammer 53 0 10 0.45 0 11 10C Tractor/Jammer 3 0 10 0 0 10 11 Cable 7 0 4 0 0.18 6 11A Cable 45 0 4 0 0 4 11B Cable 16 0 4 0 0 4 12 Tractor 4 0 10 0.36 0 10# 13 Tractor 3 0 10 0.3 0 10# 14 Tractor 66 0 2 4.89 0.57 12# 14A Tractor 6 0 2 0.69 0 12# 15 Cable 62 0 6 0 0 6 16 Cable 12 0 6 0 0 6 18A Tractor 14 0 10 0 0 10 18B Tractor 21 0 10 0 0 10 19A Tractor/Jammer 18 0 10 0.48 0 13 19B Cable 11 0 4 0.48 0.33 13# 20 Tractor 7 0 10 0.84 0 10# 21 Cable 41 0 4 0.84 0 6 22 Tractor/Jammer 4 3 10 0 0 13 24 Tractor 54 0 10 1.8 0.54 14 26 Tractor 10 0 2 0 0 12 27 Tractor/Jammer 21 0 2 0 0 12 28 Tractor 6 0 2 0 0 12 29 Cable 9 0 4 0 0 4 30 Tractor/Jammer 17 0 10 1.29 0 10# 31 Cable 14 0 4 0.03 0 4 32 Cable 24 0 4 0.39 0 6

109 Final DSD Current Acres of Acres of with Detrimental Alt 2 Temp Temp Logging Additional Unit Acres Soil Activity Road Road System* Mitigations Disturbance DSD (%) Inside Outside if needed DSD (%) Unit Unit (%) 32A Cable 4 0 4 0 0 4 33 Tractor/Jammer 97 0 12 0 0 12 33A Tractor/Jammer 5 0 10 0.09 0 12 34 Cable 52 0 4 0 0 4 40 Tractor 9 5 10 0 0 13# 41 Cable 17 0 4 0 0 4 42 Tractor/Jammer 19 3 10 0.42 0 10# 42A Tractor 10 3 10 0 0 13 42B Tractor/Jammer 6 3 10 0 0 13 42C Tractor/Jammer 13 3 10 0 0 13 42D Tractor/Jammer 5 3 10 0 0 13 43 Tractor/Jammer 44 8 10 0 0 14# 46 Tractor 34 0 12 0.21 0 13 48 Tractor/Jammer 8 0 12 0.63 2.25 9# 49 Cable 4 0 4 0 0 4 50A Tractor 18 0 10 0 0 10 50B Tractor 9 0 10 0 0 10 51 Tractor/Jammer 10 0 10 0 0 10 51A Tractor/Jammer 5 0 10 0 0 10 52 Tractor/Jammer 2 3 10 0 0 13 53 Tractor/Jammer 36 0 10 1.05 0 13 Calculations of detrimental disturbance are made within the following equations: • Cumulative DSD = Existing DSD + Project DSD • Project DSD = Temporary Road DSD + Activity DSD – Mitigations • Temporary Road DSD = (Acres of Temp Road/Activity Area) x 100 • Activity Area = Harvest Unit + Acres of Temp Road Outside of Unit • Activity DSD = (Activity Area – Acres of Temp Road) x Harvest Type • Harvest Type . Cable logging at 4 percent DSD . Tractor logging and Tractor/Jammer at 10 percent DSD . Prescribed burning add 2 percent DSD • Acreage of New Disturbance within 15% Standard • New Disturbance = (Activity Area x 15%) – Existing DSD (Ac) –New Temp Road Ac

110 • Mitigations and notes • #Reuse existing DSD (Tractor logging only) . Re-use DSD = Mitigated DSD1 + Mitigated DSD3 or . Re-use DSD = Mitigated DSD2 + Mitigated DSD3 . If existing DSD is less than 5% • Mitigated DSD1 = Activity DSD – Existing DSD . If existing DSD is between 5% and 15% • Mitigated DSD2 = Activity DSD – (0.5 x Existing DSD) . Re-use of existing templates for temporary roads • Mitigated DSD3 = Temp. Road DSD – Existing Template DSD • Existing Template DSD = (Acres of Existing Template/Activity Area) x 100 • * Harvesting systems for many of the units will utilize tractor jammer operations within the same unit. The estimated percent DSD from jammer operations is zero, so units that have tractor/jammer are likely overestimated in total DSD following treatments. Alternative 2 would tractor yard 840 acres and cable yard 319 acres. Prior soil impacts in the 55 proposed treatment units range from 0 to 8% in all units. When combined with proposed activities, detrimental soil impacts would remain within Regional soil quality standards that limit impacts to 15% of an activity area for all units currently within 15%. The estimated DSD from the proposed activities would remain at or below the Regional Standard of 15% for all units. Re-use of existing disturbance is necessary in the units marked with the symbol # in Table 3-25.

3.7.1.6 Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative 1, no harvest activities would occur, ecological trends and current levels of detrimental disturbance would continue. No adverse impacts to soils related to this project would occur as no additional ground disturbing activities would be implemented. Recovery of impacted soils would continue through natural means (freeze/thaw cycles, root penetration into compacted soils, etc.). Litter and duff accumulations would continue to increase, unless removed by wildfire. Overall, trends towards increased soil productivity on those units with existing levels of detrimental soil disturbance would occur gradually over time.

3.7.1.7 Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed activities would have long- and short-term direct negative effects on forest soils. However, by implementing the soil design features prescribed here in the project will meet the Region 1 Soil Quality Standards as well as the Forest Plan standards, and will therefore not have a significant impact to soils.

Regeneration and intermediate timber harvest treatments, utilizing cable, tractor, and tractor/jammer logging systems; landscape burning, post-harvest fuels treatments, temporary roads and landings were analyzed in detail.

Road maintenance, road improvement, and culvert installation are not considered with determining extent of detrimental soil disturbance (FSH 2509.18). Road improvement activities would occur under the proposed action. Road improvements may include activities such as clearing vegetation, blading, and adding gravel. These activities would be limited to currently disturbed road prisms and would not

111 contribute additional soil disturbance. The road activities in the proposed action would occur and therefore not improve road drainage and reduce the risk of erosion and of mass failures.

Soil Productivity Timber harvest and fuel treatments would maintain an ecologically functional soil on at least 85% of the any activity unit meeting the Region 1 SQS. Re-use of existing skid trails, landings, and temporary road beds is important in units 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 19B, 20, 30, 40, 42, 43, and 48. Design features and harvest techniques would be used to improve soil quality and meet regional soil quality standards following treatments. Within harvest units, localized areas with detrimental levels of soil compaction, displacement, and other physical disturbances would reduce the ability of soils to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide thus affecting the ability of soil organisms to survive. Outside of temporary roads, landings and skid trails, large areas (greater than 100 square feet) with detrimental levels of soil disturbance are not expected because of project design features (see Chapter 2), standard operating procedures, and timber sale contract provisions. In addition, favorable habitat for soil organisms would be maintained outside of designated skid trails as limited soil disturbance is expected off these skid trails. Any reduction of productivity attributable to soil organisms would be short-term (less than 5-years). Microorganisms would continue to populate the soil, contributing towards site productivity through nutrient cycling and reforming soil aggregates. Any project effects would not be adverse to soil productivity because nutrient replenishment, forest floor, and humus stores would remain on the site (Busse et. al. 2009). Harvest operations remove biomass and site organic matter and thus affect nutrient cycling. The exact amount of nutrients lost from a particular site will vary with forest types and particular site conditions (Grier et. al. 1989). The amount of nutrients present in the trees will also vary with stand age and development of the humus layer.

The impacts of burning depend on levels of fire severity. Slash piles will result in the highest severity from higher temperatures in a concentrated area. Prescribed fire is proposed on approximately 1,150 acres within the Dutch Oven project area. Prescribed burning will occur following harvest treatments in units 14, 14A, 15, 16, 26, 27, 28, 33, 46, and 48. Prescribed fire can increase available nitrogen for one to two years (Choromanska and DeLuca 2002). Burning slash piles could create high temperatures in concentrated areas and would lead to volatilization of nitrogen, loss of phosphorus and potassium (DeBano 1981). If little layers and organic matter are kept intact throughout the rest of the stand, nutrient losses would be minimal from burning slash and would be localized. Nitrogen-fixing plants can colonize sites following fire and help restore nitrogen in the ecosystem (Newland and DeLuca 2000: Jurgensen et. al. 1997). Following fire, soil erosion can increase, which could also reduce the nutrient pool (Megahan 1990). Generally, if plants colonize sites following fire, nutrient levels can reach pre-fire levels quickly (Certini 2005). Charcoal deposited following fire also adds carbon to the soil (DeLuca and Aplet 2008).

Indirect effects of soil nutrient loss include reduced growth and yield and increased susceptibility to pathogens, such as root rot disease (Garrison and Moore 1998; Garrison-Johnson 2003) and insect infestation (Garrison-Johnson et. al. 2003 and 2004). Precipitation (Stark 1979) and weathering of rocks will continue to make additional nutrients available on site. Annual needle leaf, and twig fall, forbs, and shrub mortality will continue to recycle nutrients as well.

Soils and overall site productivity can be adversely affected by weeds. Noxious weeds impact soils by shifting plant species composition with below ground implications to soil biota. Noxious weeds are not affecting soil productivity in the proposed activity units since their population is currently restricted to the road system or isolated patches.

112 Soil Stability No landslide prone or high mass wasting areas were identified in the field survey. Areas mapped as landslide prone were found to be stable. Landtype erosion hazards used to assess the effects of the proposed activities on soil stability and erosion potentials indicate an overall increase of erosion potential for the proposed action. There are approximately 608 acres (54% of the proposed prescribed burn units) of area mapped with erosive soils within the prescribed burn areas. Ground cover and coarse woody debris will be important components with these areas following treatment in order to reduce erosional processes.

Temporary Roads Temporary road construction causes soil compaction, displacement, and reduced soil hydrologic and biologic function. Mileage of new temporary road is used as an effects indicator. Approximately 6.1 miles of new temporary road is proposed for this project.

New constructed temporary road rehabilitation will be used to recover this area as soon as thinning operations are complete. Recovery will likely be slower than other thinning-related disturbance given the high traffic expected during harvest. Current temporary road construction practices address the potential negative impacts with stringent rehabilitation effects where temporary road templates are restored to contour. Top soil is conserved and replaced where possible to further recovery. Road fill is converted in slash for biological and site amelioration.

Hydrological recovery is expected within the first 10 years with soil infiltration rate lowers than natural forest rates (Luce 1997; Foltz and Mallard 2003). For the long term, infiltration rates improve over time as freeze/thaw and plant roots improve soil porosity though rates would remain lower than adjacent natural forest soil (Switalski et. al. 2004). Soil biological function restores forest floor and native plant communities returns.

Landings Detrimental effects from landing construction could include soil compaction, littler, loss of coarse woody debris, increased potential for erosion, nutrient losses, loss of soil hydrologic and biologic function and possible weed incursion.

Log landings are expected to be 0.25 to 0.5 acres in size. Existing landings sometimes receive minor blading or small tree removal in order to be prepared for use. Erosion control measures would be used if needed to avoid soil movement from landing sites during maintenance and construction therefore resulting sedimentation is expected to be minimal. All landings will be rehabilitated and returned to pre- implementation conditions.

Subsoiling has been shown to be effective tool in treating compacted soils in soil textures found in the project area that are susceptible to compaction including loams and silt loams found in the project area (Kolka and Smidt 2004). Landing subsoiling has been shown to be effective at reducing soil bulk density as long as soil moisture levels are not high (Carr 1989).

3.7.1.8 Cumulative Effects For the soil resource, the area for consideration is the unit because effects on soils are site specific. Past activities are considered as the current condition of the soil resource. Harvesting and prescribed fire activities would overlap in time and space with past, ongoing, or foreseeable activities except where past disturbance has occurred. Existing soil conditions are discussed above. There are no other thinning

113 activities proposed within the current proposed units; therefore no cumulative effects from thinning or prescribed fire will occur. Active fire suppression has protected much of the Dutch Oven project area over the past decades but has resulted in increased fuel loading. The proposed thinning would reduce future potential fire behavior. The benefits of fires with lower intensity and severity would include a reduced potential of excessive soil heating and sterilization as well as the development of hydrophobic conditions that tend to increase sediment movement, flooding, and possible instability (de Dios Benavides and McDonald 2005; Neary et. all. 2005). Disturbance from fire suppression of small wildfires is usually limited to hand tools, with minor impacts to the soil resource. Machine line using heavy equipment is also built during wildfire suppression. These machine lines are rehabilitated following suppression activities. During fire suppression, closed roads may be reopened for access and incorporated as fire line. As part of the post- fire work, the areas of disturbance are rehabilitated and roads are returned to the previous condition in most cases. All developed roads built in the past have a long term effect on soil productivity due to compaction and displacement. The maintenance for residence access, recreation, and forest management calls for ongoing use, which results in compaction and displacement through the project area. Road maintenance on 35 miles of road and road maintenance improvements on 2.9 miles of road include culvert installation, blading, and brushing. Anticipated results from decommissioning 5.5 miles of road, long term storage of 1.4 miles of road, and access conversion of 1.3 miles of road would also provide for improvements in hydrologic function that otherwise may be prolonged as soil compaction persists. The entire Dutch Oven project area is within the Elk Summit Grazing allotment. The proposed treatment units are subject to cumulative grazing impacts that are limited to area where the cattle bed, lounge, trail, or access water. These areas are mostly small in aerial extent. Impacts include compaction, removal of ground cover, and displacement. Grazing will continue in the foreseeable future and compaction would be limited to the grassy portions of the project area. Approximately 50 acres of soil restoration activities are planned under the Eastside Allotment NEPA. Soil restoration activities will improve the condition over time by decreasing compaction and increasing organic matter. Areas of disturbed soil provide an optimal location for weed establishment and subsequent invasion (Ditomaso 2000). Noxious weed monitoring and treatment would therefore occur as needed and would follow guidelines established in the Upper Clearwater Cooperative Weed Management Area (USDA Forest Service 1998, 2008). Effects to soil resources were analyzed in the document and its adaptive strategy. No additional affects to soils beyond what was analyzed for and disclosed in the document are expected to occur.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Laws The Nez Perce Forest Plan objective for soils is to manage the soil resources to maintain long-term productivity. The objective is that management activities on NFS lands would not impair the long-term productivity of the soil or produce unacceptable levels of sedimentation resulting from soil erosion. The proposed action is consistent with Nez Perce Forest Plan standard for soils.

Region 1 has one Forest Service Manual (FSM) supplement related to soil management applicable to the Dutch Oven project, the Region 1 Soil Quality Standards, FSM Soil Supplement 2500-14-1. Except for this regional supplement, national FSM direct applies. The Regional Soil Quality Standards require that detrimental management impacts to the soil resource are less than 15% of an activity. In areas where more than 15% detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration should not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality.

114 The Region 1 Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22 Watershed Conservation Practices handbook provides direction in Region 1 for the implementation of Watershed Conservation Practices or Best Management Practices (BMPs). Implementation of BMPs would minimize effects of management activities on soil and water resources and protect water-related beneficially uses. The BMPs are designed to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act and State of Idaho Water Quality Standards.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 recognizes the “fundamental need to protect and where appropriate, improve the quality of soil, water, and air resources.” The NFMA directs management of soil and land productivity to avoid “substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land . . . And . . . to maintain or improve soil quality.”

The Idaho Forest Practices Act (1974) assures the continuous growing and harvesting of forest trees and to maintain forest soil, air, water, vegetation, wildlife, and aquatic habitat. All National Forest System lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to water quality (IDAPA 20.20.01). The Idaho Forestry Best Management Practices are measures included in the Idaho Forest Practices Act that have been determined to be the most effective and practical means of preventing and reducing pollution inputs from forest practices in order to achieve water quality goals.

115 3.8 Wildlife This section details species-and issues specific-information relative to habitat management and compliance with the Nez Perce National Forest Plan, Endangered Species Act, and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670.

This analysis specifically addresses:

• Mature and old growth forest habitats, as well as compliance with Forest Plan direction • Threatened/endangered species • Sensitive species, known or expected to inhabit the project area • Management indicator species

Due to lack of suitable habitat and lack of confirmed species in or near the project area, there are no known or anticipated effects to the northern Idaho round squirrel, grizzly bear, common loon, black swift, ringneck snake, peregrine falcon, wolverine, harlequin duck, long-billed curlew, mountain quail, bighorn sheep, white-headed woodpecker, Coeur d’ Alene salamander, yellow-billed cuckoo (a candidate threatened species) or pygmy Nuthatch; therefore; these species are not discussed further. Proposed activities would have “No Effect” on the northern Idaho ground squirrel, grizzly bear, and yellow-billed cuckoo and “No Impact” on sensitive wildlife species because there is no suitable habitat and/or no confirmation of species use in or near the project area.

The wildlife report in the project file provides more information about those species that have been dropped from detailed discussion due to lack of suitable habitat and lack of confirmed species use in or near the project area.

Affected Environment

3.8.1.1 Analysis Methodology

Wildlife Species and Habitat Forest Service vegetation data and computer mapping tools were used to identify potentially affected habitat in the project area. Existing habitat condition was determined by extracting information from Forest Service databases; aerial photo interpretation; field reconnaissance; Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, data tables, and analyses of satellite imagery; VMAP 2014 dataset; stand exams (2014), and data presented in the South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USDA 1998).

Wildlife observation databases were reviewed to establish the presence of wildlife species in the project area. Habitat relationships were used to model available habitat in and near the project area. The models used are based on existing vegetation, as modified from recent vegetation management projects, using the Region 1 VMap database (2014) for the Dutch Oven project area. The advantage to using Northern Region’s Existing Vegetation Mapping Program (VMap) is that provides a forestwide geospatial database of existing vegetation. Large areas can be evaluated for lifeform, tree dominance, tree size class and tree canopy cover class (Ahl and Brown 2015). A 2015 accuracy assessment of VMap derived Lifeform, Tree Canopy Cover, Dominance Type (DOM_40), and Tree Size for the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest yielded 91%, 88%, 84%, and 99% overall accuracy respectively (Brown 2015). This database has breakpoints in vegetation species dominance that drive the dominance classification, and classes of tree sizes and canopy closure that may or may not directly correspond to all known literature describing wildlife habitat associations. It is the best available data set for the project area, however. Where stand exam data and aerial imagery interpretation indicated otherwise, the classifications can be updated. In

116 general, the model classification breaks are very close to breaks known in other wildlife-habitat relationship models. For example, if a size class breaks at 8.9 inches dbh, the VMap model break at 9.9 inches is deemed suitably close. The models are found in Appendix E of this document.

Information for certain MIS and sensitive birds species has been synthesized from the Northern Region Land Bird Monitoring Program with data available from the avian science center (http://www.cfc.umt.edu/asc/) as well as The North American Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et. al. 2001 http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs/html).

A Conservation Assessment of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, and Pileated Woodpecker in the Northern Region (Samson 2006a) was reviewed. This document is a literature review for species habitat preferences and provides information on the amount of habitat for these species on the forest and across the Region.

The conservation assessment addressed in Samson 2006a for the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker is based on a principle-based approach to population viability analysis. The methods and background for this principle-based approach using point observation data and vegetation inventory information based on FIA data was to build wildlife habitat relationship models to analyze short-term viability. Dispersal distance and the principles of Representation, Redundancy, and Resiliency were used to assess long-term viability issues. The principle- based approach to develop the conservation assessment was utilized due to the limitations of population viability analysis in estimating minimum viable population numbers through either models or real numbers (Samson 2006b). Refer to the Samson 2006 Conservation Strategy for additional information and background on the methods and approach used to address viability at the forest and regional scales (Samson 2006a, 2006b).

Population trend information for elk and moose was synthesized from data available from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game research reports (http://fishandgame.gov).

Elk Habitat

Forest Plan direction says to use "Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho" (Leege 1984) to manage for and to assess the attainment of summer elk habitat objectives in project evaluations (NPNF standard #6 page II-18) (see Appendix B of the Forest Plan, same as Leege 1984). Until such time as the Forest Plan is revised, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho" (Leege 1984) will be used to assess elk habitat in this analysis. Leege 1984 only takes into account the effects of roads. Servheen et al. 1997 updated Leege 1984 summer elk habitat by adding the effects of trails and elk vulnerability. Both of these models take into account road densities; livestock; quality, quantity, and distribution of cover, forage, and security areas. All of these attributes were include in the elk habitat effectiveness model calculations for both the existing condition and post-implementation conditions for each alternative analyzed in detail. Open road density, livestock use, and size and distribution of cover and forage areas are considered in the guidelines. Security areas are defined as areas greater than 250 acres and greater than ½ mile from a motorized route. The project area contains all or portions of the Moose Ridge elk analysis unit (0305068081). The Moose Ridge elk analysis unit is assigned a 50% effectiveness habitat objective in the Nez Perce Forest Plan.

The number of cattle and the time period that cattle are competing for resources with elk was reviewed and adjusted between the draft and final EA, because the elk analysis unit is smaller than the allotment. The original analysis assigned all of the livestock grazing across the entire allotment to the one part that was within the elk analysis unit. In the final analysis, this has been corrected to apportion the grazing

117 according the amount of the allotment overlapping with the elk analysis unit. This raised the existing EHE from 40% to 46%.

The Dutch Oven project is compliant with the Forest Plan by using Leege 1984 to run EHE calculations. The EHE calculations for the Dutch Oven project use both road and trail information and uses the coefficients from the NPNF access management guide (1988) and is compliant with the FP by using Leege 1984 and adjusted NPNF/IDFG coefficients for roads and trails. These coefficients from the access guide are designed to be used in calculating summer elk habitat effectiveness for project analyses (USDA 1988 pgs. II-1—II-4, IV-2—IV-4). The EHE calculations also follow guidance from Servheen 1997 by adding trails to the EHE calculations.

Wildlife Security for this project is based on Leege’s 1984 (NPNF Appendix B) and Hillis’ et al. 1991 definition: an area of at least 250 contiguous acres that are more than ½ mile from an open road (motorized trails were also included in defining security for this project). The security analysis conducted for the Dutch Oven project also used on-the-ground knowledge of local conditions and adjusted the security model to account for motorized access on closed roads and trails. This security patch is larger and encompasses one and a portion of the other security areas identified by Dohmen 2006. The reason for the differences is the on-the-ground knowledge and site-specificity associated with the Dutch Oven project of motorized/non-motorized access on roads and trails and updates to the roads and trails access restriction database (INFRA).

The Interagency Guidelines for Managing Elk Habitats and Populations on U.S. Forest Service Lands (Servheen et al, 1997) provide the basis, rationale, calculations, and measures for evaluating projects effects on elk vulnerability (EV). The Game Management Unit (GMU) is the scale at which the EV model should be applied however management activities at smaller scales should be considered given their effects on EV components such as hunter access.

Old Growth Forest Plan Appendix N (page N-2) states “Old-growth stands will be identified through the use of stand exam information, aerial photos, and field reconnaissance.” The effects analysis on old growth habitat was done by overlaying GIS layers if identified Forest Plan Management Area (MA) 20 and other old growth and replacement old growth forest habitat with GIS layers showing proposed vegetation treatments and temporary road construction. Forest Plan requirements for snag habitat management would be achieved by implementing Region 1 snag and green retention guidelines (Bollenbacher et. al 2009). On a forest-wide scale, the amount of old growth habitat for the Nez Perce National Forest was summarized using Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data (Bush et. al. 2010).

3.8.1.2 Resource Indicators The effect on species and their potential habitat, measured in acres, is the primary indicator used in the analysis. For species without modeled habitat, a qualitative discussion of habitat conditions and effects to such habitat (such as amount and distribution of similar size class patches, amount of available habitat, security habitat) is the indicator used in the analysis.

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species A determination statement for all species that are known or suspected to occur or habitat that occurs in the project area has been considered for evaluation as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.

118 Sensitive Species Indicators for species on the current Northern Region Sensitive Species List that are known or suspected to occur or have occurring habitat in the project area are as follows:

• For species with modeled habitats: amount of available habitat; • For species without modeled habitats: qualitative discussion of habitat trend; • For species: determination statement.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Idaho Species of Conservation Concern The Forest Plan identifies 10 potential wildlife MIS; indicators for MIS that occur or habitat occurs within the project area are below:

• For elk: summer habitat effectiveness; • For all big game and furbearer species: refer to Wildlife Security indicator; • For species with modeled habitats: amount of available habitat; • For species without modeled habitats: qualitative discussion of habitat trend.

Wildlife Security Security areas are places where wildlife can retreat for safety when affected by disturbance. The wide- spread availability of off-road vehicles has facilitated a reduction in wildlife security. Technology and capability of off-road vehicles continues to increase, allowing increased levels of cross country travel. The effectiveness and the quality of available security areas are compromised by motorized vehicles behind gates and barriers and impacts species such as elk, moose, fisher and pine marten. The wildlife security indicator is the amount of security habitat (those areas >250 acres in size greater than ½ mile from open roads and motorized trails) (mainly discussed under the elk section). The analysis area for security is the elk analysis unit and the project area.

Old Growth Habitat The quantity, quality, and distribution of MA 20 and old growth had been verified within the approximate 7,000 acre project area. Current Forest Plan direction is to maintain at least 10% of the forested acres across the forest as old growth habitat (Forest Plan, Appendix N). The potential effects of the proposed project on MA 20 and old growth forest habitats, as well as compliance with Forest Plan standards, will be analyzed. The old growth habitat indicator is the amount of Forest Service lands designated as MA 20 and the amount of Forest Service lands designated as old growth forest habitat.

Environmental Consequences

3.8.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species The U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requires the Forest Service to analyze threatened species for which there may be suitable habitat in a project area. In Idaho County, the USFWS has indicated that there may be suitable habitat for Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis). On February 4, 2013 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a proposed rule to list the distinct population segment (DPS) of North American wolverine in the contiguous United States as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. On August 13, 2014 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew this proposed rule. In April 2016, the Service has once again decided to consider a proposed rule to list the DPS of North American wolverine within the contiguous United States as threatened.

119 Canada Lynx The Canada lynx was listed as a threatened species under the ESA in 2000. The Nez Perce National Forest is recognized as secondary, unoccupied Canada lynx habitat and none of the Nez Perce National Forest has been identified as critical habitat by the USFWS (USDA Forest Service 2007a, p. 3-5; USDA Forest Service 2007b, pp. 7 and 29; USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). Lynx populations occur at naturally low densities and very few museum or trapping records exist for Idaho County (McKelvey et al. 2000). The lynx has a global rank of G5 (secure) and an Idaho State ranking of S1 (critically imperiled) (NatureServe 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]); (Digital Atlas of Idaho 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]). Current Condition The Dutch Oven project is located on the edge of one lynx analysis unit (LAU3020404). The majority of the project area is not within mapped lynx habitat (lower elevation habitats). Table 3-26 displays the current estimates for denning, foraging, and unsuitable habitat in the LAU associated with the Dutch Oven project.

Table 3-26: Lynx habitat within LAU 3020404 LAU Name LAU Total Acres of Denning Habitat Foraging Unsuitable Acres Habitat Acres (%) Habitat Acres Habitat Acres (%) (%)a 3020404 18,899 15,391 4,091 (27%) 11,173 (73%) 127 (1%) a Unsuitable habitat is areas that have had past timber harvest that regenerated forest stand structure at the time of mapping lynx habitat for the forest (2000-2002, updated 2004).

No Canada lynx sighting records have been reported in the project area (IDFG 2012). Two sightings have been recorded over 5 miles away from the project area. The sightings are reported by people with unknown ability to correctly identify species (bobcat vs. lynx) and are over 10 years old. Lynx surveys conducted on the Forest in 2007 and 2013 found no evidence of lynx (Ulizio 2007, Stone et al. 2013). At this time and based on new information presented by the USFWS (U.S. FWS letter dated December 10, 2012), the Nez Perce National Forest will consider lynx to be occasionally present or transient. This does not suggest that lynx are breeding, denning, or rearing young on the Nez Perce National Forest, but that lynx may occasionally move through the Nez Perce National Forest during dispersal events.

The following analysis will evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the project on transient or dispersing lynx. The areas that are not designated as core lynx areas are considered peripheral areas, which are important in providing habitat to support lynx during dispersal movements or other periods, which then allow lynx to return to core areas (USDA FS 2007 NRLMD ROD p.p. 31-32; U.S FWS Biological Opinion, p. 59). These peripheral areas have secondary habitat and would include the Nez Perce National Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) established standards and guidelines for the management of lynx. Standards are management requirements used to meet desired conditions. Standards were used in those situations where it was desirable to provide sideboards for project activities. Guidelines were used for those risk factors that may have possible adverse effects to individual lynx. The NRLMD states, “When National Forests are designating management actions in unoccupied mapped lynx habitat they should consider the lynx direction.” Based on this direction, the habitat analysis evaluates the management direction in the NRLMD.

120 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effect to lynx or their habitat. This alternative would have no short-term indirect effects on transient Canada lynx because no treatments would be conducted. Forest succession would continue in the analysis area, as modified by natural processes. Existing younger patches would continue to grow and mature. Insect infestations and root rot would continue to causing numerous dead trees to fall to the ground, which may provide quality denning habitat if downed logs are densely layered. The long term indirect effect on lynx of Alternative 1 is not predictable because the events and processes that might affect forest succession in the analysis area are either unknown or highly variable in frequency and size.

Alternative 2 Approximately 53 acres of lynx habitat would be treated under Alternative 2 (denning-11 acres, foraging- 33 acres, unsuitable-8 acres Regeneration harvest on 27 acres would render these areas as unsuitable habitat for approximately 20-25 years until these areas grow to a height and density that lynx prey species prefer. The amount of denning substrate would not be adequate to provide denning habitat for lynx in these newly created stands. Intermediate harvest would occur in about 26 acres of lynx habitat.

It is unlikely that the Alternative 2 would have adverse impacts to transient lynx since the Lynx Conservation Assessment Strategy (Ruediger et. al. 2000) described resident lynx as being generally tolerant of humans and their management activities in forested landscapes. There is limited information on how transient lynx react to changes in landscape connectivity, data does indicated that vegetation management does not impact resident lynx or transient lynx. Alternative 2 maintains adequate habitat for transient lynx and would have minimal direct or indirect impacts on transient lynx.

Alternative 2 is consistent with the NRLMD. In treatment units, habitat connectivity may be disrupted at a local level by regeneration harvest or intermediate harvest treatments, but overall landscape connectivity would continue to allow lynx movements through the landscape in conjunction with riparian areas as well as in mature and old growth forests. Alternative 2 would not regenerate more than 15% of lynx habitat in LAU3020404 (Table 3-27) (VegS2).

Table 3-27: Regeneration harvest associated with the Dutch Oven project in lynx habitat (LAU 3020404) Total Lynx Unsuitable Habitat Changed to Regeneration Total habitat in Habitat Unsuitable – harvest associated Unsuitable LAU (Acres) (%)¹ Regeneration harvests with other projects Habitat (%)4 (Acres) (Acres) (%)² within the past 10 years (Acres)³ 15,391 127 (1%) 27 (<1%) 0 127 (1%) 1 Acres are mapped as lynx habitat that do not provide sufficient vegetation to be used by snowshoe hare and lynx (as of 2004 mapping effort). No additional regeneration harvest allowed if more than 30% of lynx habitat in an LAU is in a stand initiation structural stage that does not provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. 2 Amount of mapped lynx habitat within the LAU that would change to unsuitable due to proposed timber harvest (regeneration cuts). Harvest activities would occur in what is modeled as lynx habitat. 3 Amount of lynx habitat within the LAU that has changed to unsuitable due to regeneration harvest that has occurred in the past 10 years. 4 Total amount of lynx habitat that would be considered to be unsuitable habitat due to past and proposed regeneration harvest. No more than 15% of lynx habitat on NFS lands in an LAU may be changed by regeneration harvest in a 10 year period.

121 The potential for a transient lynx to be present while implementation is occurring is extremely low as the Nez Perce National Forest is not considered to be occupied by lynx. Direct impacts are considered negligible for transient lynx as less than 1% of lynx habitat would be treated. If a transient lynx were present nearby when proposed activities take place, minor short-term disturbance impacts are possible. A direct effect related to disturbance would be individuals moving to avoid treatment areas during implementation. Disturbance to individuals would not significantly interrupt critical life history factors. Overall, the short-term direct impacts are anticipated to be outweighed by the indirect, beneficial impacts to lynx by improving habitat quality over the mid- and long-term.

No pre-commercial thinning would occur in lynx habitat under any alternative and complies with NRLMD VEG S5.

Though forest roads can change landscape connectivity for many wildlife species, preliminary information suggests lynx do not avoid roads (Ruggiero et al. 2000). Alternative 2 does not propose new construction of permanent roads. New temporary roads will be recontoured after use, so a short-term loss of habitat connectivity can be anticipated.

No landscape burning, road and watershed improvements, road maintenance, temporary road construction, or road decommissioning activities would occur in lynx habitat and therefore would not have an impact on lynx or lynx habitat.

The proposed action for the Dutch Oven project was evaluated for consistency with the NRLMD Standards for Vegetation (VEG) Management activities and practices from the Record of Decision (USDA FS 2007) and further evaluated in Table 3-28.

Table 3-28. Dutch Oven project consistency with the NRLMD Standards for Vegetation (VEG) Management activities and practices NRLMD Standards for Vegetation NRLMD Consistency Management Currently about 1% of LAU 3020404 is in an unsuitable stage and are not considered provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. These areas were VEG S1 - If more than 30 percent of the lynx regenerated from past timber harvest. habitat in an LAU is currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter Regeneration harvest across approximately 27 snowshoe hare habitat, no additional habitat may acres of lynx habitat would set these stands back be regenerated by vegetation management to the stand initiation phase, which would not projects. provide winter snowshoe hare habitat for about 30 years. No LAU would exceed the 30% standard for lynx habitat not providing winter snowshoe hare habitat (Table 3-27). Timber management activities will not regenerate more than 15% of lynx habitat in an LAU in a ten- VEG S2 - Timber management projects shall not year period. Recent past timber harvest (last 10 regenerate more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on years) and current proposed timber harvest NFS lands in an LAU in a ten-year period. activities would regenerate approximately 1% in LAU 3020404 (Table 3-27). VEG S5 - With relatively rare, specific No pre-commercial thinning is proposed in lynx exemptions, pre-commercial thinning will not habitat within the Dutch Oven project area. occur in lynx habitat.

122 VEG S6 - With relatively, rare, specific exceptions, vegetation management projects will not reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story or There are no multi-storied stand conditions within late successional forests. Exception 3 allows for treatment units. incidental removal during salvage harvest (e.g., removal due to location of skid trails) as long as VEG S1 is met.

Cumulative Effects The area for assessing cumulative effects on lynx is LAU. The period for this analysis includes the short- term (5 to 7 years), during which the direct and indirect effects of the project would occur, and the long- term (up to 150 years), the amount of time required for stands to develop into mature or older condition and snags to develop into a condition that provides denning habitat for lynx.

The past and ongoing activities are described in detail in Appendix B and have contributed to current habitat conditions. Past insect outbreaks, fires, fire suppression, and timber harvest have left a mosaic of habitats on the landscape, but they are not characteristic of the patterns that occurred historically under a more natural disturbance regime. The majority of past harvest units have created simple, uniformly- shaped, small to medium-sized patches (<40 acres), lacking snags and large fire-resistant trees. Past activities may have altered the availability of denning habitat, forested connectivity, and prey habitat for lynx. Open roads facilitate access for trappers and firewood cutters. Road construction and mining has fragmented and degraded riparian and ridgetop areas that provide important travel corridors. Foreseeable activities that might have the potential to affect lynx within or adjacent to the project area include the DRAMVU project and the Upper Lochsa Land Exchange, as well as ongoing recreation and firewood gathering. Access restrictions associated with the reduction of cross country travel associated with the DRAMVU project and road decommission with the Newsome watershed project would help in alleviating the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers and improve wildlife security. Ongoing road/trail maintenance, grazing, weed management and other recreational activities are not expected to affect lynx.

Alternative 1 No cumulative effect are expected from Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect effects because no actions would occur.

Alternative 2 All past vegetation management projects and the impacts to lynx habitat have been incorporated and are shown in Table 3-26. Cumulatively, there would be a short-term displacement/disturbance of prey species with the implementation of activities. Trees would be removed that over time would have provided denning substrate for lynx. Foraging habitat may increase with the reduction in overstory canopy; however, this may be limited until the stands reach the height and density that prey species prefer.

Access restriction associated with the reduction of cross country travel associated with the DRAMVU project would help to alleviate the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers and in some instances improving security. Ongoing permitted cattle grazing is not expected to change lynx habitat conditions. Timber management activities associated with Alternative 2 would not regenerate more than 15% of lynx habitat in an LAU in a ten-year period (Table 3-27). Harvest activities from these projects would increase unsuitable habitat in LAU 3020404 by less than 1%. Project related impacts are considered to be minor in terms of the amount of lynx habitat being treated within the LAU and the lack of confirmed sightings in the project area.

123 Activities proposed in Alternative 2 are consistent with the standards and guidelines in the NRLMD. There appears to be little risk to lynx populations on the Nez Perce National Forest resulting from implementation of the Dutch Oven project. The actions taken in the project are fully compatible with recovering lynx and consistent with maintaining habitat.

Conclusion Alternative 1 will have “No Effect” on transient Canada lynx.

The proposed federal actions described for Alternative 2 are “Not Likely to Adversely to Affect” transient Canada lynx and/or its habitat. This determination is based on:

• All objectives, standards and guidelines in the 2007 NRLMD would be met. • If transient lynx are present, negligible, short-term direct effects may occur related to disturbance (noise and mechanize equipment) during implementation of vegetation treatment. Although treatments are proposed in modeled lynx foraging and denning habitat, the amount of habitat being treated within the LAU is negligible. • Travel habitat would be maintained across the LAU. Lynx, if present, are potentially transient animals traversing across the forest, thus no long-term impacts to individual lynx and their habitat are anticipated. • Forest roads generally have low speeds and are gravel, and do not pose a threat to lynx. No permanent road construction is proposed. Any new temporary roads constructed will be re- contoured after use. • Lastly, the proposed Federal actions, described under Alternative 2, are not occurring within designated critical habitat, so the project would have no effect on critical habitat.

The Dutch Oven project is consistent with those activities and effects considered in the “Programmatic Biological Assessment for Activities that are Not Likely to Adversely Affect Canada Lynx”.

Wolverine Wolverines are opportunistic scavengers, and prey on small mammals, and consume fruits, berries, and insects (USFWS 2013a). Large game, deer and elk, are moderately abundant in the vicinity of the project area. In a Montana study, elk and deer made up 12 and 27 percent, respectively, of the winter diet (Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995). Hares, marmots, and other small rodents are widely reported as food sources (ibid). It is believed they are largely active in the night, although it is variable (ibid). Recent fires in and adjacent to the high elevations of the project area boundary have increased potential elk and deer forage habitat and quality.

Home ranges vary between sexes and age, and male home ranges may be dependent on female presence and reproductive status (USFWS 2013a). Food availability and distribution also affect home range size (ibid). Male home ranges in Idaho were about 588 square miles; females, 148 square miles (ibid). It is thought that the large home range for their size reflects their life history, namely as scavengers that require a large area in which to search for food. Population densities are low, and in Idaho are estimated at one per 76 square miles (Copeland 1996).

Wolverines are believed to be relatively intolerant of human disturbance, yet the converse has been observed, as well (USFWS 2013a). Initially, research indicated that wolverine presence was negatively related to human activity, but that may be a result of their habitat preference and that humans avoid that same geographical space (remote areas) (ibid). Across its range, there is little human activity in habitats where the wolverine is found (ibid). Recreational use may be the most frequent use of potential wolverine habitat in the project area (recreational vehicle use year round and hunting).

124 Recent research has highlighted the importance of persistent spring snow cover as a primary requirement of wolverine habitat and a predictor of suitable habitat. Deep snow cover is required for denning females as it provides security and thermal over for young (USFWS 2013a). Females often have alternate den sites and use them as they find a need to move, be it disturbance, snowmelt, or other reasons (ibid).

Current Condition In reviewing persistent snow conditions within the project area, there is no wolverine habitat within the Dutch Oven project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects In May of 2014, while the wolverine was initially proposed for listing, Region 1 of the U.S. Forest Service developed a Programmatic Biological Assessment (Programmatic) for activities routinely conducted on National Forest Service Lands within the Northern Region including the Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forest. This Programmatic relied on analysis presented in the Federal Register for the development of the original 2013 proposed rule and incorporated a category for timber harvest; roads and road maintenance; silvicultural activities; prescribed fire; and watershed restoration. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s finding in the 2013 proposed rule was that timber harvest; roads and road maintenance; silvicultural activities; prescribed fire; and watershed restoration were not a threat to the distinct population segment (DPS) of North American wolverine. On May 23, 2014 the Service agreed with the U.S. Forest Service determination that the actions included in the Programmatic represented no jeopardy to the DPS of the North American wolverine. On June 15, 2016 the Service issued a memo to the Regional Forester confirming that the May 2014 concurrence letter regarding the Programmatic remains valid. Per FSM 1909.15 Section 18.1 the Responsible Official has reviewed this project for compliance with the Programmatic and has determined that the project falls under the Programmatic Biological Assessment for activities which represent no jeopardy to the DPS of North American wolverine.

3.8.1.4 Sensitive Species The Northern Region Sensitive Species List, contains those species identified as sensitive by the Regional Forester, was last updated in February 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011). This section considers those sensitive species (or their habitats) on the list that are known or suspected to occur on the Nez Perce National Forest within the vicinity of the Dutch Oven project area.

Western Toad The analysis area for the western toad is the project area. Western toads use moist areas such as streams, ponds, and lacks for breeding, foraging, and overwintering habitat. They prefer shallow areas with mud bottoms and high temperature areas, often in sites with vegetation present for breeding. A wide variety of upland habitats are used during non-breeding times. Riparian areas serve as migratory or dispersal corridors. Important upland habitat structure needed includes down woody debris where individuals can access moist microhabitats during the hot daytime summer hours to avoid desiccation. The western toad is apparently secure (G4/S4) across its range and in Idaho (Digital Atlas of Idaho 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]; [G4/S3] NatureServe 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]). Declines in abundance have been reported throughout the species’ range due to disease and parasites. Current Condition The western toad is a sensitive species on the Nez Perce National Forest and is known to occur on the Nez Perce National Forest. A few ponds resulting from old mining activities area scattered through the project area. The only amphibian known to occur in these ponds is the Columbia spotted frog. Since western toads use a variety of habitat, breeding and non-breeding use could occur in the project area.

125 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no effects to the western toad because no vegetation treatments would occur with this alternative and current vegetative process would continue.

Alternative 2 Proposed harvest and slash treatment activities are likely to alter existing non-breeding habitat for western toads for the short-term. Regeneration harvest and prescribed burning remove 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 wide variety of habitats, western toad use could still occur, in low levels. If adult western toads were present, individual mortality could occur during harvest and associated road management activities, or prescribed burning. The PACFISH buffers would protect suitable breeding sites in all streams, ponds, springs, or seeps. Individual toads occupying roadside ditches that hold water could be affected by seasonal dry-up or site-specific road reconstruction if they occurred while tadpoles were still dependent on water availability.

Proposed watershed improvement activities would cause a temporary increase in sediment short-term, but there would be a long-term reduction in sediment. It is not known if sediment levels affect western toads, but it is reasonable to think that improvements to overall watershed quality would be beneficial to this water-dependent species.

Cumulative Effects The geographic area for assessing cumulative effects for western toad is the Dutch Oven project area, because this direct and indirect effects of the project would occur in this area. The timeframe for the cumulative effects assessment is 20 years. This is because it is the typical length of time for dense shrub and young conifer to re-establish following stand replacing disturbance and toads are associated with moderate to dense undergrowth, slow moving streams, and mud bottomed shallow pools.

The past and ongoing activities listed in Appendix B have contributed to the current habitat conditions. Past timber harvest, livestock grazing, and road construction may have contributed to degradation and loss of western toad habitats. At the same time, road construction and past mining activities have created small habitat patches in roadside ditches and other areas of ponded water. Since 1995, PACFISH buffer implementation has minimized the effects of activities on toads and their habitats. The effects of these activities on toads and their habitats have not been quantified.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the west toad because there would be no direct or indirect effects.

Alternative 2 Cumulative impacts considered for Alternative 2 include ongoing recreational activities, grazing, road and trail maintenance, watershed restoration activities, Eastside Allotments Range Analysis, changes associated with the upcoming DRAMVU project, private land fuels treatments, and the Upper Lochsa Land Exchange. For western toads, regeneration harvest with underburning removes overstory trees and ground cover, resulting in warmer and drier exposed soils. Short term, these activities could increase the risk of toad injury and mortality, as well as degrade some habitats. There may be the long-term losses of suitable non-breeding habitats in areas treated by regeneration harvest. There would also be a loss in

126 riparian breeding habitat for the toad associated with the Allison pond removal project and the Upper Lochsa Land Exchange. There would be long term benefits to toad habitats from other watershed restoration activities to reduce sediment and the reduction of off-road vehicles associated with the DRAMVU project that would contribute to improved watershed conditions. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to remove substrate for toads to hide under. No measureable effects to western toad populations at the local or regional scale, or alteration of current population trend, are expected from the cumulative effects of Alternative 2, based on the limited extent of effects to suitable habitats and protection of the highest quality habitats by PACFISH buffers. Conclusion Although individuals or localized populations can be affected, none of the proposed alternatives should affect populations of western toads at the project or Forest level.

All alternatives would comply with applicable Forest Plan standards pertaining to riparian habitats. The PACFISH buffers that would protect the highest quality toad habitats have been incorporated by amendment into the Forest Plan. All alternatives would implement these buffers as required by the Forest Plan. Alternative 1 would have “No Impact” on the western toads, while Alternative 2 “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the populations or species”.

Gray Wolf The analysis area for the gray wolf is the project area. The gray wolf occupies diverse habitats, from open meadows to heavily forested stands. Wolves occupy broad territories and travel extensively in search of prey. Wolf populations have multiplied dramatically throughout the state of Idaho and have been removed from the list of threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The gray wolf has a global rank of G4/G5 (apparently secure) and an Idaho State ranking of S3 (vulnerable) (NatureServe 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]); S1 (critically imperiled) (Digital Atlas of Idaho 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]).

Current Condition Three aspects of wolf habitat were reviewed: security of dens and rendezvous sites, prey base (elk), and security from human disturbance. The Dutch Oven project area supports primarily year round habitat for big game species. Wolves are known to inhabit the project area, there are no known den or rendezvous sites in the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Potential effects of the alternatives are associated with changes in big game habitat and exposure to human disturbance.

Alternative 1 No vegetation treatments, including timber harvest, prescribed fire, or associated road activities (temporary road construction and road reconstruction) would occur; no thermal or hiding cover would be reduced from harvest activities. No watershed improvement activities or any other disturbances would occur to alter movements or displace wolves or their ungulate prey species with in the project area.

Alternative 2 The temporary increase of human activity in the planning area associated with vegetative treatments and watershed improvements could increase the possibility of human-wolf interactions. The construction of

127 temporary roads and reconstructed roads could displace wolves and/or their prey during construction and use.

There is little risk of direct or indirect effects to individual wolves from any of the action alternatives because of their high mobility in large territories. Wolves in the analysis area are expected to avoid areas of active treatment.

Timber harvest and burning in some stands would reduce available overstory cover for wolves and big game species. Under Alternative 2, certain portions of the project area would improve elk forage habitat. There could be a minor effect on the habitat use patterns of prey species due to disturbance and displacement, but their population levels or availability as prey would not be affected.

Proposed road and watershed improvements, temporary road construction, and road decommissioning activities would not have an appreciable effect on wolves or their habitat. Road decommissioning activities would improve security for wolves and their prey.

Based on the nature and duration of Alternative 2, the mortality risk for wolves would remain low. Key wolf habitat areas, such as den sites, rendezvous sites, or whelping sites, would not be affected.

Cumulative Effects The area for assessing cumulative effects is the Dutch Oven project area because the direct and indirect effects of the project would occur in this area. The timeframe for cumulative effects is 20 years, which is about the time it takes for new plantations to restore elk hiding cover in the harvested areas.

The Dutch Oven project area contains established human activities and developments including roads, timber harvest, home sites, grazing, and recreational opportunities. 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.

Cumulative effects considered include ongoing recreational activities, road and trail maintenance, watershed restoration activities, and the Eastside Allotment Range Analysis, DRAMVU, private land fuels treatments, and the land exchange.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the gray wolf because there would be no direct or indirect effects.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2, in combination with reasonably foreseeable projects are not expected to measurable affect populations of the gray wolf and, therefore, would not affect visibility of wolf populations. Alternative 2 is consistent with the gray wolf management strategies in that the activities would help maintain ungulate populations and minimize risks of human-induced wolf mortality. It is unlikely that individual wolves would be impacted by the project activities, and effects on wolf populations would be small to negligible at the project and Forest levels. Conclusion All alternatives would comply with applicable Forest Plan standards. It is concluded that Alternative 1 would have “No Impact” on wolves.

128 Wolves have an extremely high fecundity rate, are highly mobile, and have sustained some habitat connectivity with large populations in Canada. While other factors outside of the Forest Service’s control (poaching, illegal poisoning, ungulate availability, etc.) may have negative effects on wolves, the actions taken on the Nez Perce National Forest are consistent with maintaining habitat for wolves at all scales. Based on all of the information presented above, there appears to be little risk of loss of population viability on the Nez Perce National Forest. An effects determination for the gray wolf under Alternative 2 “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the populations or species”.

Bald Eagle Bald eagles are known to use the South Fork Clearwater River as winter habitat. Bald eagles use in the Dutch Oven project area is generally limited to lower elevation sites generally within ¼ mile of the South Fork Clearwater River during winter seasons. Bald eagles are not known to nest along the South Fork Clearwater River. Perch/roost sites on large ponderosa pine trees are located along the South Fork Clearwater River where visibility is good to see locate large ungulate carcasses. Rangewide status of the bald eagle is apparently secure (G4/G5) and statewide status indicates it is vulberable (S3) (NatureServe, Accessed December 31, 2014; Digital Atlas of Idaho, Accessed December 31, 2014).

Current Condition Depending on snow and ice condition during the winter, bald eagles can be seen along the South Fork Clearwater River as high up as the mouth of Newsome Creek. Bald eagle use of the project area is generally limited to lower elevation sites generally ¼ mile of the South Fork Clearwater River during winter seasons.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No vegetation treatments would occur with this alternative and current vegetative processes would continue. Alternative 1 would continue to allow incremental replacement of ponderosa pine by Douglas- fir and other, more shade tolerant trees. There would be no direct or indirect effects from Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 Harvest and prescribed burning activities would improve forage conditions for big game and result in a net benefit to bald eagles. Harvest and burning activities are not expected to impact roost sites along the South Fork Clearwater River. Roosting elsewhere would likely be in sheltered draws and side canyons where PACFISH buffers would result in these habitats and are not expected to be affected by harvest activities.

Direct effects to bald eagles may occur as a result of disturbance from logging and prescribed burning operations. Disturbances associated with harvest such as falling trees, vehicle traffic, and other noise is not as critical based on observations of eagle behavior, habitat use within the project area, the type of disturbance involved, and the availability of roost/perch sites and foraging habitat elsewhere along the South Fork Clearwater River. The majority of the treatments units are over ¼ mile above the South Fork Clearwater River except units in the southern end of the project area. Activities associated with the Dutch oven project would not occur during the winter (November through March) at times when bald eagles are not known to occur along the South Fork. It is assumed that all activities within ¼ mile of the South Fork Clearwater River would occur between April and beginning of November.

Prescribed burning activities that occur along the South Fork Clearwater River would occur at times when eagles are not present, April or later in the year.

129 No road improvements, temporary road construction, or road obliteration would occur with ¼ mile of the South Fork Clear Water River. No impacts from these activities to the bald eagle are expected.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for the bald eagle is the Dutch Oven project area. The timeframe for cumulative effects is 20 years because that is the time it takes for new plantations to restore forage in the harvest and prescribed burn areas.

The past and ongoing activities listed in Appendix B have contributed to current habitat conditions. Past timber harvest, mining, livestock grazing, and road construction may have contributed to changes in bald habitats. More recently, PACFISH buffer implementation has minimized the effects of activities on eagles and their habitats. Cumulative impacts considered include grazing, recreational activities, road and trail maintenance, watershed restoration activities, and the upcoming Eastside Allotment Range Analysis, the DRAMVU project, and the land exchange.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the bald eagle or their habitat because there would be no direct or indirect effects.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2, in combination with reasonably foreseeable projects, are not expected to measurable affect populations of the bald eagle as activities are expected to be conducted at times with the bald eagles are not present in the project area and the surrounding area.

Conclusion The project proposal is consistent with the bald eagle management strategies in that activities would help maintain and improve ungulate and fish habitats. It would be unlikely that individual eagles would be impacted by project activities, and effects on bald eagle populations are expected to be small to negligible at the project and Forest levels.

All alternatives would comply with applicable Forest Plan standards pertaining to riparian habitats. The PACFISH buffers that would protect the highest quality bald eagle habitat have been incorporated by amendment into the Forest Plan. All alternatives would implement these buffers as required by the Forest Plan. Alternative 1 would have “No Impact” on the bald eagle, while Alternative 2 “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the populations or species”.

Fisher The fisher is a management indicator species (MIS) and sensitive species on the Nez Perce National Forest. Fisher habitat is well distributed across the Northern Region and the Nez Perce National Forest. The Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (IDFG 2005) summarizes fisher habitat in Idaho as a mosaic of mesic (moist/wet) 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 generally associated with mature coniferous forests with large trees and coarse woody debris (Samson 2006a). In Idaho, fisher prefer old growth and mature forests in the summer, old and young forests in the winter, and riparian areas in general (ibid). Old and large trees can provide denning and resting sites, as can accumulations of woody debris (USFWS 2011). Canopy cover of at least 40 percent

130 appears important (USFWS 2011, Lofroth et al. 2011). In Idaho, fishers inhabit mountain ranges and riparian areas up to about 6,500 feet (Jones 1991).

According to Sauder (2014), fisher select landscapes with highly connected patches of mature forest (≥50%) and small amounts of open areas (≤5%). Fishers appear able to use "many different habitats for hunting as long as these areas provide overhead cover at either the stand or patch scales" (Weir and Harestead 2003, p. 9). Sufficient overhead cover in foraging habitat may be provided by either tree or shrub cover. Although fisher home ranges are consistently characterized by moderate to high proportions of mid- and late seral forests, there are few overarching patterns of selection for particular seral conditions or species compositions (Sauder and Rachlow 2014). Raley et al. (2012) hypothesized, and Sauder and Rachlow (2014) support, that when fishers select home ranges, they benefit from including a diverse array of available forest conditions by increasing access to a greater diversity and abundance of prey species while still attaining habitat features important for reproduction and thermoregulation.

Some researchers found that fishers did not select dry forest types with large representation of ponderosa or lodgepole pines (Schwartz et al. 2013, Olsen et al. 2014). Many authors mention that fisher avoids open areas (Powell 1993, Buskirk and Powell 1994, Weir and Corbould 2010, Schwartz et al. 2013, Sauder 2014, and Sauder and Rachlow 2014). Examples of such open areas include, grassy openings, meadows, and recently logged areas within the past 12 years. Fisher has a global rank of G5 (widespread, abundant, and secure) and an Idaho State ranking of S1 (critically imperiled) (NatureServe 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]; Digital Atlas of Idaho 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]). In Idaho, the species occurs in the northern and central parts of the state. Samson (2006b) stated that there is enough habitat within the Northern Region and on the Nez Perce National Forest to maintain viable populations of fisher.

Fisher distribution is thought to be similar to historic levels in the Northern Rocky Mountains (USFWS 2011). Western populations remain at low levels (USFS 2015). In Idaho, fishers are found in the Salmon River Mountains and north (USFWS 2011). Fisher use of the project area, in particular riparian zones, is likely. It is unlikely that they utilize dry forest types found on project area ridges except for low saddles for crossing between areas of more suitable habitat.

Current Condition Fisher are known to occur within the Dutch Oven project area based on wildlife surveys conducted in 2013 and 2014. For this analysis, potentially suitable habitat was determined using a model (Sauder 2014) that combines 3 models of fisher habitat including: a climate model (Olson et al. 2014), a landscape-scale model (Sauder and Rachlow 2014), and a home range scale model (Sauder and Rachlow 2015). The Sauder (2014) model identifies relative probability of fisher occurrence and is continuous across the landscape.

The methods for estimating the number of acres of suitable habitat within the project area was determined using a combination of the Sauder (2014) model and existing vegetation data modeled by the Region 1 existing vegetation mapping program (R1-VMap) (Barber et al. 2011). The Sauder model is considered the best available science for a landscape scale analysis of fisher habitat in Region 1 but is better applied at a subwatershed level or larger that approximates the home range of a female fisher (6th level Hydrological Unit Code; J. Sauder, pers. comm.). For this reason, stand-scale vegetation characteristics were selected within the area considered as “probable habitat” by the Sauder (2014) model. The GIS query within probable habitat was based on R1-VMap. Stands classified as having a mature, mesic-mixed conifer forest (determined by the species with the greatest abundance of canopy cover, basal area, or trees per acre) were selected and intersected with “probable habitat” by the Sauder (2014) model. Section criteria for mature forests are those areas greater than 15” dbh. Open areas are those areas with <=10%

131 canopy cover (Sauder 2014 pg. 29), which includes grass/forb, shrub, sparse vegetation, urban, transitional forest, as well as recent (within 15 years) high intensity fires and regeneration harvest.

The analysis of potentially suitable habitat is not intended to determine absolute acres but to assess the potential habitat impacts of proposed projects.

Figure 4. Fisher habitat

132 Using the GIS layer from Sauder’s 2014 model, the Dutch Oven project area and surrounding 6thHUC watersheds were used for the analysis. This is based on the size of the project area being smaller than the home range of a female fisher (~12,000 acres). Those watershed on the west side of the Elk City Township were used for the analysis (Lower Newsome Creek, Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River, Elk Creek, and a small portion of the Lower American River watershed) (Figure 4). The following table displays the amount of probable habitat and amount of mature to open areas (west side of Elk City Township).

Table 3-29. Fisher habitat by HUC12 (West Side Township) Location (acres - FS Amount of Amount of Amount of Amount of Administered Land Probable Probable Probable Probable Only) Habitat Habitat in Habitat in Open Habitat in Mature Forest Areas Other Structure

Dutch Oven Project 6781 ac 5351 ac (79%) 472 ac (7%) 924 ac (14%) Area (6800 acres)

Elk Creek Watershed 6606 ac 5335 ac (81%) 315 ac (5%) 955 ac (14%) (6968 acres)

Lower American River 134 114 ac (85%) 3 ac (3%) 16 ac (13%) Watershed (2 acres)

Lower Newsome Creek 17,108 ac 12,737 ac (74%) 443 ac +14 ac 3895 ac (23%) Watershed (17,977 fire (3%) acres)

Whiskey Creek-SF 10,274 ac 8197 ac (80%) 592 ac (6%) 1430 ac (14%) Clearwater River Watershed (10,326 acres)

Total Acres Combined 34123 ac 26,383 ac (77%) 1353 ac + 14 ac 6297 ac (18%) West Side Watersheds fire (4%) (35534 ac)

Based on the combined west side watersheds, approximately 77% of the probable habitat is in a mature forest structure and 4% is considered open. Based on Sauder’s 2014 research, this larger watershed (home range size of female fisher) meets the complex forest pattern that fisher tend to occupy (≥50% mature forest arranged in connected, complex shapes with few isolated patches, and open areas comprising ≤5% of the landscape) (Sauder pers. Comm. 2015).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1

133 No vegetative treatments or watershed improvements would occur with this alternative. No temporary road construction would occur; nor would cover be reduced from harvest activities. There would be no direct or indirect effects to fisher under Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 Regeneration harvest treatments would reduce the quality of denning and foraging habitats in the short- term because the amount of snags, down log, and other components of structural diversity would be reduced as it can take over 100 years for suitable conditions to be restored. Removing downed woody material, snags, and canopy cover used by fisher and their prey could reduce suitable habitat short-term. Fishers do not forage in openings and would avoid using newly harvested units except perhaps along the edges of units. The proposed intermediate harvest may retain enough structure and overstory canopy to be used by fisher. . Intermediate harvest methods are designed to retain the larger diameter trees to promote vertical structure, species composition, and live snag recruitment. Tree retention in intermediate harvested areas would range between 60 and 110 square feet of basal area per acre (between 76-140 trees per acre) based on a retention of greater than 12-inch diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) trees. This spacing will provide for an average 40-60% canopy cover.

The effects of harvest and burning to fisher would be relative to the amount of habitat modification. Approximately 931 acres (14%) of probable fisher habitat within the Dutch Oven project area will be harvested; 827 acres of regeneration harvest and 202 acres of intermediate harvest. Approximately 827 acres of mature forest (>15” dbh) will be harvest within the Dutch Oven project area, increasing the amount of open openness from 7% to 9%. Within the Lower Newsome Creek watershed, 1 acre mature forest would be treated and 827 acres in the Whiskey Creek-SF Clearwater River watershed. This increases the amount of openness in the Whiskey Creek-SF Clearwater River watershed from 6% to 14%. Within the combined watersheds, 931 acres of regeneration harvest equates to an additional 3% of open areas. Of that 931 acres, 827 is in a mature forest structure (>15” dbh). This amounts to 2194 acres of open areas or 6%. According to Sauder (2014) and Sauder and Rachlow (2014), increasing the amount of open areas, even small changes, can have large effects on the probability of fisher occupying an area. Increases of openness from 5% to 10% can reduce the relative probability of occupation of fisher in an area by 39%. The Dutch Oven project will increase the amount of open areas in the larger combined watersheds by 2%, from 4% to 6%. The amount of mature forest structure will decrease from 77% to 75%. This slight change is not expected to have large increases in the probability of fisher occupying the larger 35,000+ acre combined watershed surrounding the project area.

The changes in habitat availability within the Dutch Oven project area would not affect the ability of fisher to occupy the project area now or in the future. Alternative 2 would not harvest trees in RHCAs. Connectivity along riparian habitat corridors would remain intact under Alternative 2. No treatments are proposed in old growth. Minor impacts may occur to habitat from landscape burning activities and individuals or clumps of trees may be torched, therefore opening the canopy and creating a mosaic landscape.

Road and watershed improvements, temporary road construction, and road decommissioning activities would not have an appreciable effect on fisher or their habitat. Construction and obliteration of temporary roads would result in temporary reduction in cover and forage. This reduction in vegetation would be of a short duration as these sites would be revegetated.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for fisher is the old growth analysis unit (OGAA03050501). This area was selected because effects would be diluted at a larger scale. The time frame for cumulative effects is 150

134 years. The amount of time required for stands to develop into mature or older vegetative state and snags to develop into a condition that provide habitat for old growth and snag dependent species is 150 years.

The past and ongoing activities are described in detail in

135 Appendix B and contribute current habitat conditions. Past insect outbreaks, fires, fire suppression, and timber harvest have left a mosaic on habitats on the landscape, but they are no characteristic of the patterns that occurred historically under a more natural disturbance regime. Many areas are missing snags, downed wood, and residual large tree components that provide the structural diversity and cover preferred by fishers. Past activities may have altered the availability of denning habitat, forested connectivity, and prey habitat for fisher. The loss of medium and large trees from timber harvest has reduced the older forest component that is important to fisher year-round. Open roads across the project area facilitate access for trappers and firewood cutters, potentially decreasing fisher populations and habitat components for fisher and their prey. Road construction and mining have fragmented the landscape and degraded riparian areas that provide travel corridors.

Foreseeable activities that might have the potential to affect fisher within or adjacent to the project area include the DRAMVU project, private land fuels treatments, Newsome watershed project, and the land exchange, as well as ongoing recreation and firewood gathering.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the fisher or their habitat because there would be no direct or indirect effects.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would add moderately to forest fragmentation levels in the project area, which would be cumulative to past, present, and other foreseeable harvest activities in these drainages. Alternative 2 would reduce fuels at relatively moderate levels, potentially contributing to less fire risks to old growth and late seral habitats. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to reduce foraging habitat for the fisher within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal. Access restrictions associated with the DRAMVU project and road decommissioning with the Newsome watershed project would help in alleviating the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers and improve wildlife security. There would be a short-term displacement/disturbance with the implementation of activities associated with the Dutch Oven project and other future projects in the surrounding area. Sufficient habitat would remain unaffected by the proposed actions to continue to support fisher and the species they represent within the watershed and across the forest.

Conclusion Under Alternative 1 there would be no activities or disturbances to alter movements or temporarily displace fisher within the project area. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to fisher or their habitat. It is determined that there would be “No Impact” to fisher or their habitat under Alternative 1.

Fisher habitat would remain available within the project area in untreated mature forest stands. Fisher habitat is well distributed across the Northern Region and Nez Perce National Forest. Based on monitoring results and widely scattered incidental sightings, local fisher population trends remain relatively stable on the Forest. At the project level, fisher could be affected. However, at the Forest level and across the range of the species, the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions appear small to negligible. The change in habitat availability within the project area (up to 14 percent within the project area) would negatively affect the fisher. However, at the large landscape surrounding the project area (combined watersheds-Whiskey, Newsome, Elk Creeks, SF Clearwater River), the Dutch Oven project is not expected to affect the ability of fisher to occupy the area now or in the future, nor would it affect the availability of habitat at the Forest or regional levels. It is determined that proposed activities “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the populations or species”.

136 Townsend’s big-eared bat, Long-legged Myotis, Long-eared Myotis, Fringed Myotis Townsend’s big-eared bats occur in a wide variety of habitat types and forage in many areas, including grasslands, shrublands, vegetated stream corridors, forests, and along roadways that provide easy flight "tunnels" through forested habitat. They use snags, caves, buildings and rock crevasses for daily roosting and for maternity roosts, and are very susceptible to disturbance at those sites. Open water is also important habitat for bats. Townsend’s big-eared bat has a global rank of G4 (not rare, apparently secure) and an Idaho State ranking of S3 (vulnerable) (NatureServe, Accessed December 31, 2014; S2 (imperiled) Digital Atlas of Idaho, Accessed December 31, 2014).

The long-eared myotis lives in coniferous forests in mountain areas, roosts in small colonies in caves, mines, cliff face crevices, rock outcrops, buildings, bridges, and under tree bark. The long-legged myotis lives in forested mountainous areas, sometimes desert lowlands. It roosts in tree hollows and under bark, in rock crevices, caves, mines, bridges, and buildings. Both species are ranked as G5 Secure/S3 Vulnerable (NatureServe, Accessed December 31, 2014; Digital Atlas of Idaho, Accessed December 31, 2014).

In Idaho, the fringed myotis is associated with grasslands, xeric shrublands, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and mixed xeric forests (IDFG 2005). Maternity colonies, day roosts, and night roosts for the fringed myotis are found in caves, buildings, underground mines, rock crevices, tree hollows and bridges. Roost trees tend to be large diameter snags in early to medium stages of decay. The fringed myotis has a global rank of G4/G5 (apparently secure/widespread, abundant, and secure) and an Idaho State ranking of S2 (imperiled) (NatureServe, Accessed December 31, 2014; S1-critically imperiled-Digital Atlas of Idaho, Accessed December 31, 2014).

In 2006, the Northern Region recognized the need for additional documentation of bats on Forest Service lands; therefore, surveys were conducted across the Region on selected Ranger Districts in 2005 through 2007. Surveys were conducted on the Nez Perce National Forest during this time period and found that 9 different species of bats occur on the Forest. Current Condition The project area provides foraging habitat and large diameter snags for roosting. There are no caves, mines, rock crevasses or buildings suitable for roosting sites within treatment units. There are no known winter summer roosting, summer roosting, or summer maternity sites identified within the project area. Large diameter snags that are hollow may provide roost sites.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No vegetative treatments would occur with this alternative and current vegetative processes would continue. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to bats or their habitat.

Alternative 2 Roosting sites in mines, caves, and buildings would not be affected by the activities in Alternative 2.

Intermediate harvest in the action alternative would reduce the number of snags and live trees that could become snags over time, decreasing roosting opportunities. Timber harvest also has the potential to injure or kill any bats that are roosting in snags and hollow trees that are felled during treatment activities.

137 Regeneration harvest methods would create new openings or enlarge existing human-induced openings on the landscape, potentially providing new edges for foraging bats. Regeneration units would be devoid of snags and have few green trees making these areas unsuitable as habitat for bats.

Underburning could eliminate some snags, but create others and would have no net effect on availability of roosting sites. However, newly created snags from burning activities would not have the sloughing bark or cavities that are necessary for snag roosting bats. Landscape burning activities could directly produce scattered dead trees, but most would likely be of smaller diameter and of limited value to bats to be used at roost sites.

Western larch and ponderosa pine trees would be retained under Alternative 2, which would provide structural diversity and future snags. These trees represent the best available roosting habitats for the long-eared and long-legged myotis. In addition, PACFISH buffers would be retained and would provide habitat over the long term.

Proposed road and watershed improvements, temporary road construction, and road decommissioning activities would not have an appreciable effect on bats or their habitat. Cumulative Effects The area for assessing cumulative effects on bats is the Dutch Oven project area, since the direct and indirect effects of the project would occur in this area. The time frame for cumulative effects is 100+ years because it takes this long to develop habitats with an adequate large diameter dead wood component.

Activities considered include those that would decrease woody debris levels, both live and dead. This includes timber harvests of all types. Past activities have contributed to current habitat conditions. Specifically, timber harvest decreased the availability of mature forest that provided the highest quality habitats for these species. Fire suppression may have promoted a denser, mixed species stands which may have increased the amount of suitable roosting habitats.

The past and ongoing activities listed in Appendix B have contributed to the current habitats conditions. Past timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, fires, fire suppression, grazing, and mining activity have likely affected Townsend’s big-eared bat, long-eared, long-legged, and fringed myotis habitat in the project area. Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on Townsend’s big-eared bat, long-eared, long-legged, and fringed myotis because there would be no direct or indirect effects to mature forest. The current population trends would not be affected.

Alternative 2 Timber harvest in Alternative 2 may contribute to additional losses of suitable habitats that was caused by past timber harvest. However, effects to Townsend’s big-eared bat, long-eared, long-legged, or fringed myotis populations at the local or regional scale, or alteration of current population trend, are not expected to be measurable from the cumulative effects of Alternative 2, based on the amount of suitable habitats remaining inside the project area outside of the harvest units and Forestwide. Access restrictions associated with the reduction of cross country travel associated with the DRAMVU project would help in alleviating the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers. The removal of the Allison ponds would eliminate areas that may be used as potential foraging sites. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to reduce roosting habitat with the removal of dead and dying trees for bats within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal. None of the

138 existing structures (mines, buildings) would be disturbed by this or other projects proposed in the project area. Project activities should have minimal effects on bat populations at the project or Forest level. Conclusion All alternatives would comply with applicable Forest Plan standards pertaining to snag and green tree retention.

It is concluded that Alternative 1 would have “No Impact” on Townsend’s big-eared bat, long-eared, long-legged, or fringed myotis because there would be no direct or indirect effects. The current population trends would not be affected.

Timber harvest in Alternative 2 may contribute further to the loss of suitable habitats that was caused by past timber harvest. No measurable effects to Townsend’s big-eared bat, long-eared, long-legged, or fringed myotis populations at the local or regional scale, or alteration of current population trend, are expected from the cumulative effects of Alternative 2, based on the amount of suitable habitats remaining inside the project area outside of the harvest units and forestwide. It is concluded that Alternative 2 “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the populations or species” within the planning area or range wide.

Flammulated Owl The flammulated owl is widely distributed in western North America, breeding from southern British Columbia through the highlands of Guatemala. The flammulated owl is considered a sensitive species within the Northern Region of the Forest Service. They are small, cavity-nesting, predominantly insectivorous owls that are neotropical migrants (Hayward and Verner 1994, Powers et al. 1996). In Idaho, the species has been reported from most of the state's mountain ranges (Groves et al. 1997b p. 119), and is known to occur on the Nez Perce National Forest (Shepherd and Servheen 1992 p. 7). Habitat for flammulated owls occurs on the Forest, primarily along the Salmon, South Fork Clearwater, and Selway Rivers.

Flammulated owl habitat is characterized by open-grown, fire-climax, mature to old growth ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir forest (Reynolds and Linkhart 1992 p. 166, Shepherd and Servheen 1992). Such habitat is likely preferred because it offers both suitable nesting cavities (usually excavated by northern flickers or pileated woodpeckers) and highly available prey. Flammulated owls need dense foliage for roosting (Hayward and Verner 1994). Roost sites can be found in multi-layered, mixed-conifer forests with a ponderosa pine component, or flammulated owls may use Douglas-fir or ponderosa pine trees with a sprawling form that provide pockets of dense foliage. Nesting territories are documented between 20- 60 acres in size, but flammulated owls have been known to forage as much as 0.5 miles from their nest (USFS 1992).

The flammulated owl estimated population level is at the state population target noted in “Partners in Flight Continental Priorities and Objectives for Idaho” (Rosenberg 2004). The flammulated owl has a global rank of G4 (apparently secure) and an Idaho State ranking of S3 (vulnerable) (NatureServe, Accessed December 31, 2014; Digital Atlas of Idaho, Accessed December 31, 2014). The flammulated owl estimated population level is at the state population target noted in “Partners In Flight Continental Priorities and Objectives for Idaho” (Rosenberg 2004). Samson (2006b) stated that there is enough habitat within the Northern Region and on the Nez Perce National Forest to maintain viable populations of flammulated owls.

139 No BBS trend data exists for the species (Sauer et al. 2014). Flammulated owls are almost strictly nocturnal, and BBS data are inadequate to establish trends. Because of the ecology and natural history of this species, it is unlikely that the sample size would increase with more BBS routes.

Current Condition Flammulated owl surveys have been conducted lower down in the South Clearwater drainage resulting in mixed results. Owls have not been surveyed for in the project area but there is habitat in the project area for this species.

For this analysis, flammulated owl habitat is defined as mixed ponderosa pine and mixed Douglas-fir habitats consisting of large trees (>= 15” dbh) and >= 40% canopy cover. Approximately 423 acres of large diameter mixed ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitats occur in the project area. However, the best quality habitat is within ½ mile of the South Fork Clearwater River as these patches may be large enough to support a breeding pair or two. The rest of the habitat is small isolated patches scattered throughout the project area and not in a large enough quantity to be considered suitable habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects The effects to flammulated owls and their habitat are for activities that are occurring within ½-1 mile of the South Fork Clearwater River where the potential for the highest quality habitat for flammulated owl is within the project area.

Alternative 1 No vegetative treatments would occur with this alternative and current vegetative processes would continue. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to flammulated owls or their habitat.

Alternative 2 Approximately 30 acres (8%) of flammulated owl habitat is proposed for regeneration harvest under Alternative 2. Regeneration harvest would eliminate suitable habitats from treated areas in both the short- term and long-term because forest cover would be reduced to an amount that owls don’t use. The few remaining trees in regeneration treatment units would not provide sufficient structural diversity to support flammulated owls. The harvested areas would also be devoid of snags, an important nesting attribute.

Landscape burning activities in flammulated owl habitat has potential to kill grand fir and Douglas fir seedlings and open the understory for new shrub growth which improves habitat for prey species and foraging habitat for flammulated owls. Individual trees or groups of larger diameter trees may be killed, opening up the overstory canopy and potentially improving nesting and roosting habitat, depending on the amount of fire-killed trees. Burning in the fall has the potential to improve flammulated owl more so than burning in the spring due to the potential for killing more of the undergrowth. Burning in the spring also has the potential to negatively impact this species because there is the potential to disturb and displace breeding owls, thus reducing reproductive success. Harvest and burning activities that occur during the nesting period would increase the likelihood of direct mortality to nestlings and could disturb mating and nesting behaviors.

Proposed road and watershed improvements, temporary road construction, and road decommissioning activities would not have an appreciable effect on flammulated owls or their habitat.

Cumulative Effects The geographic area for assessing cumulative effects for flammulated owls is the Dutch Oven project area, since the direct and indirect effects of the project would occur in this area. The time frame for

140 cumulative effects is 150 years which is the approximate amount of time required for stands to develop into a mature or older vegetative state and snags to develop into a condition that provides habitat for old growth and snag dependent species.

The past and ongoing activities are described in detail in the

141 Appendix B have contributed to current habitat conditions. Active fire suppression in former fire-climax ponderosa pine communities and timber harvest of mature and old growth ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch are the two most important cumulative impacts affecting flammulated owls.

Large wildfires in the low elevations of the project area in the early 1900s has created conditions that are not favorable to the flammulated owl as these stand are young and have a lot of undergrowth. Fire suppression efforts may have contributed to increased understory growth and denser mid-canopy trees, making foraging more difficult for flammulated owls. Across national forest and private lands, selective cutting and past timber harvest of large-diameter, mature and old growth Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and western larch has removed suitable nesting, foraging, and snag habitat components.

Fire suppression, prescribed fire, road/trail maintenance, noxious weed treatment, and recreation activities, would continue under all alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the flammulated owl or their habitat because there would be no direct or indirect effects.

Alternative 2 Timber harvest in Alternative 2 may contribute to additional losses of suitable habitats that was caused by past timber harvest, wildfires, and fire suppression. Access restrictions associated with the reduction of cross country travel associated with the DRAMVU project would help in alleviating the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers. The Upper Lochsa Land Exchange is an anticipated future project and many of the acres included in the land exchange provide habitat for the flammulated owl, especially mature and older forest communities. Effects to flammulated owl populations at the local or regional scale, or alteration of current population trend, are not expected to be measurable from the cumulative effects of Alternative 2, based on the amount of suitable habitats in the project area, habitat remaining outside of the harvest units and across the forest.

Conclusion It is concluded that Alternative 1 would have “No Impact” on flammulated owls because there would be no direct or indirect effects. The current population trends would not be affected.

Timber harvest in Alternative 2 may contribute further to the loss of suitable habitats that was caused by past timber harvest and fire suppression. However, effects to flammulated owl populations at the local or regional scale, or alteration of current population trend, are not expected to be measurable from the cumulative effects of Alternative 2, based on the amount of suitable habitats in the project area, habitat remaining outside of the harvest units and across the forest. No measurable effects to flammulated owl populations at the local or regional scale. It is concluded that Alternative 2 “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the populations or species”.

Black-backed Woodpecker The analysis area for black-backed woodpeckers is the Dutch Oven project area. Black-backed woodpeckers are somewhat nomadic and would move to large areas with fire-killed dead and/or dying trees or infected with bark and wood-boring beetles. Black-backed woodpeckers are habitat specialists that respond opportunistically to dramatic changes in forest structure and composition, such as fire and insect outbreaks (Dixon and Saab 2000, Powell 2000). Population spurts associated with large fires and insect epidemics may be necessary for maintaining black-backed woodpecker populations. They are

142 frequently seen inhabiting burned areas, harvested areas, or beetle-killed forests. Nest sites are located in cavities of dead or live trees containing heartrot near water. Forage trees tended to be small, with mean dbh being 12 inches. Goggans et al. (1988) found black-backed woodpeckers foraged and roosted in mature and overmature stands of lodgepole pine and lodgepole pine-dominated mixed-conifer stands. Forage trees ranged in size from 8-20 inches dbh, with a mean dbh of 14 inches.

Black-backed woodpeckers feed in concentrations of dead and dying trees, and are often seen feeding in areas where there have been recent fires or insect outbreaks. Black-backed woodpeckers will also forage in stands undergoing bark beetle outbreaks, but density estimates in these stands are substantially lower than in post-fire forests (Powell 2000). Such sites provide the limited habitat conditions required for nesting and feeding. Black-backed woodpecker numbers decline about five years after a fire or beetle outbreak, paralleling the decline in bark beetle larvae.

The black-backed woodpecker has a global rank of G5 (widespread, abundant and secure) and an Idaho State ranking of S3 (vulnerable) (NatureServe, Accessed December 31, 2014; Digital Atlas of Idaho, Accessed December 31, 2014). Black-backed woodpeckers are not listed as a species of greatest conservation need for the state of Idaho (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005-Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy). The black-backed woodpecker estimated population level is at the state population target noted in “Partners in Flight Continental Priorities and Objectives for Idaho” (Rosenberg 2004). Samson (2006b) states that there is enough habitat within the Northern Region and on the Nez Perce National Forest to maintain viable populations of black-backed woodpeckers.

The National Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a national bird occurrence monitoring program coordinated by the US Geological Survey. These routes are used to monitor long-term changes in populations as part of the national Breeding Survey effort (Sauer et al. 2005). Although single survey routes do not have an adequate number of data points to show population trend individually (by route), they do indicate if black-backed woodpeckers were detected or not, and when combined with the other routes, they provide a measure of relative statewide population trend. Nationally, there is a long-term upward trend in the population of black-backed woodpecker of greater than 0.69% per year over a 46-year period (1966- 2012). For the state of Idaho, the BBS data shows a long-term upward trend in the population of 2.57% per year since 1966.

Current Condition Black-backed woodpeckers are known to occur on the Red River District in both fire created and insect infested habitats.

For this project, habitat is defined primarily as ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine forests with diameters greater than 5 inches dbh. Approximately 399 acres of primary habitat occurs in the project area. Other mature, mixed conifer forested areas are also considered habitat. There is approximately 5,307 acres of mixed conifer stands greater than 10”dbh. Based on the mapped habitat there is enough habitat for several pairs of black-backed woodpeckers. The last fire in the project area was in 1992 with the lower ½ of the project area burning in 1889.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No vegetative treatments would occur with this alternative and current vegetative processes would continue. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to black-backed woodpeckers or their habitat.

143 As forest succession and fire suppression occur in overstocked stands, trees become more susceptible to attack from insects and disease. This increases the amount of foraging and nesting resources available to black-backed woodpeckers. As the insect and disease outbreak advances, standing and down dead material would increase which in turn increases the risk of stand-replacing fires. If a fire event were to occur, wood-boring beetle populations would spike causing a coincident spike in black-backed woodpeckers for one to six years post burn. Without a fire event, the insect outbreak would eventually peak and subside. Grand fir and other more shade tolerant species that currently exist in the understory of stands with dead and dying trees would continue to grow, perhaps eventually causing the longterm loss of the early seral tree species black-backed woodpeckers prefer (e.g., lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine).

Alternative 2 Proposed harvest and slash treatment activities to reduce fuel levels would reduce habitat for black- backed woodpeckers. Not only would the habitat they are using be modified, the patchiness of the remaining habitat would increase.

Alternative 2 would modify about approximately 1,100 acres (23% of existing habitat) of black-backed woodpecker habitat. Regeneration harvest would eliminate black-backed woodpecker habitats from treated areas in both the short-term and long-term because snags used for nesting and foraging (and mature trees that could become snags) would be removed during harvest. The remaining trees in each treatment unit would not provide substantial foraging or nesting opportunities.

Intermediate harvest would reduce the quantity of nesting and foraging habitats in the short-term because snag, down logs for foraging and nesting would be reduced. The number of trees available to die and become snags and logs in the long-term would also be reduced.

Landscape burning activities could directly produce scattered dead trees, but most would likely be of smaller diameter, but may still be of limited value to this species.

Proposed road and watershed improvements, temporary road construction, and road decommissioning activities would not have an appreciable effect on black-backed woodpeckers or their habitat.

Disturbance from harvest, burning, and road improvement activities could displace woodpeckers and other species during the nesting season or deter use of some areas that could be used as nesting, foraging, or roosting areas while activities occur. This could directly affect the reproductive success of individuals and cause mortality of young if a nesting tree is felled.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for the black-backed woodpecker is the Dutch Oven project area, since the direct and indirect effects of the project would occur in this area. The time frame for cumulative effects is 80+ years which is about the time when forested stands begin to thin themselves and create snags either though natural processes or active management. Dead and dying trees attract the insects that black-backed woodpeckers feed on. Activities considered for cumulative effects are those that remove existing or future dead or dying trees that would provide foraging habitat for black-backed woodpeckers.

The past and ongoing activities are described in detail in

144 Appendix B have contributed to current habitat conditions. Specifically, timber harvest decreased the availability of mature forest habitats that are most susceptible to fire, insects, and diseases. Some of the past harvest and fire suppression has directly reduced the amount of suitable habitat, while other harvest may have reduced the availability of stands that could develop into suitable habitat through fire, insect, or disease-related mortality in a relatively short period of time. Past timber harvest activities have created a patchy landscape across the watershed which has likely resulted in larger black-backed woodpecker home ranges than would be the case in unlogged habitats. Larger home ranges affect the energy reserves of animals as they must travel greater distances for their daily needs. Many past timber activities left few snags on the landscape that could be utilized for black-backed woodpecker foraging, nesting, or drumming sites.

Fire suppression, prescribed fire, road/trail maintenance, noxious weed treatment, and recreation activities, would continue under all alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would retain current habitat levels. Future wildfire in the watershed would contribute to an increase in suitable habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. The current population trend would not be affected.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 could potentially create scatterings of dead trees but would also eliminate some habitat for this species and these actions would be cumulative to past, current and reasonably foreseeable actions. Alternative 2, in combination with ongoing and future activities (Upper Lochsa Land Exchange, DRAMVU and firewood gathering); in the project area would contribute to the loss of suitable black- backed woodpecker habitats in the project area. Fire suppression activities would continue to prevent fire- killed habitat for all alternatives. Within the project area, untreated stands would continue to die and create snags, providing low amounts of habitat. Access changes associated with the DRAMVU project and the reduction of cross country travel would help in alleviating the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to reduce nesting and foraging habitat within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal. Future activities such as the Newsome watershed project, Eastside Allotments Range Analysis, and Allison pond removal would have no effect on the black-backed woodpecker.

Conclusion Within the project area, untreated stands would continue to die and create snags, providing low amounts of habitat. Under Alternative 1 there would be no activities or disturbances to alter movements or temporarily displace black-backed woodpeckers within the project area. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to black-backed woodpeckers or their habitat. It is determined that there would be “No Impact” to black-backed woodpeckers or their habitat under Alternative 1.

Other areas of the forest have insects and disease outbreaks. In addition, other areas of the Forest have and will burn, thus creating habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. Black-backed woodpeckers are capable of responding quickly to favorable conditions created by large, intense fires and insect outbreaks, and they can move several miles to take advantage of such opportunities. Black-backed woodpecker habitat would remain available within the project area in untreated mature forest stands. Black-backed woodpecker habitat is well distributed across the Northern Region and Nez Perce National Forest. At the project level, Black-backed woodpeckers could be affected. Individual woodpeckers may be disturbed by project activities under Alternative 2; however, this disturbance is not expected to affect their survival. Individuals would move away from areas of active treatment. Sufficient habitats are available outside the treatment units to support the local woodpecker population during project implementation. The change in

145 habitat availability within the project area (up to 23 percent) would not affect the ability of Black-backed woodpecker to occupy the project area now or in the future, nor would it affect the availability of habitat at the Forest or regional levels. None of the alternatives is expected to cause any measurable change to the current low level of use of the project area by black-backed woodpeckers. At the Forest-wide scale, proposed treatments would not affect the viability of the black-backed woodpecker because there is a large amount of available habitat Forest wide, there is a low-density use by black-backed woodpeckers in insect and disease outbreaks, and snags would be retained throughout the area in untreated stands. It is determined that proposed activities “May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the populations or species”.

3.8.1.5 Management Indicator Species Management indicator species were designated for the Nez Perce National Forest in the 1987 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987a). The following species analyzed are MIS designated in the Forest Plan: elk, moose, northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, and American martin.

Elk

Elk is a management indicator species for commonly hunted big game species on the Nez Perce Forest. Elk are habitat generalists and use a diversity of forest types and structures that provide forage and hiding cover. They use meadows and early seral communities for foraging in spring through early summer. Elk forage more under the forest canopy from late summer through fall. During the winter, they rely upon low elevation, warm aspect, and snow free or snow limited areas for foraging, although adult bulls often winter at much higher elevations than cows and immature elk. The project area is located in Game Management Unit (GMU) 15. Elk populations in this GMU are near or above objectives, with cow numbers being stable or slightly increasing and bull numbers increasing (Boudreau 2013).

Elk are sensitive to disturbance. Road access and intensity of disturbance is generally thought to be more influential to elk than habitat parameters (Unsworth et al.1993). Studies indicate that elk respond less to constant non-stopping vehicle traffic than to slow vehicle traffic that stops periodically (Leege 1984).

Roads built into elk habitat increase hunter access, increasing elk vulnerability to harvest (Unsworth et al.1993). Other literature on elk modelling has suggested models on road effects (Rowland et al. 2000, Rowland et al. 2005), size of elk unit to be analyzed (Rowland et al. 2005, Unsworth et al. 1998) and other elk habitat considerations. The forest is currently undergoing Forest Plan revision, and the above literature as well as future work will be considered in the development of a structure for analyzing elk on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. For this analysis, we considered the travel management changes being made under the future Designated Routes and Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) project, in assessing elk vulnerability. The DRAMVU decision will restrict use on some roads seasonally in the project area it will also close the entire Forest to off-road motor vehicle use.

Current Condition Elk are known to occur in the project area. The majority of the analysis area is considered summer range for elk. Summer range overlaps with wintering areas, but animals tend to move to higher elevations as the snow melts and additional forage becomes available. Important habitat components on spring, summer, and fall range include foraging sites, hiding cover, calving areas, rutting and security areas. Herbaceous and browse forage availability and abundance in most old timber harvest units is declining. Some shrub species in the oldest units have attained small tree status and are mostly unavailable for forage. Tree canopy cover is increasing, causing a decrease in available forb, grass, and shrub forage. Hiding cover is available in forest stands mid-seral or older. Younger forest stands provide patches of hiding cover.

146 Forage is mainly in open old harvest units, open coniferous forests, and shrublands and comprises about 12% of the project area.

The project area contains all or portions of the Moose Ridge elk analysis unit (0305068081). The Moose Ridge elk analysis unit is assigned a 50% effectiveness habitat objective. The current condition for this elk unit is 46% which is below the Forest Plan objective. This is mainly due to road densities, size and distribution of forage, and the amount of security within the elk unit. The current condition as measured by elk habitat effectiveness levels is further impaired by the lack of effectiveness road closures and maintenance of closure devices such as gates and barriers on roads that are closed yearlong or seasonally to motorized vehicles. Thus, wildlife security in the project area is lacking.

Since the beginning of road construction, wildlife security has been declining, making elk and other wildlife species vulnerable to hunting and trapping mortality. Additionally, the wide-spread availability of off-road vehicles has facilitated a reduction in wildlife security. Technology and capability of off-road vehicles continues to increase, allowing increased levels of cross country travel. The effectiveness of some road restriction is compromised as evidenced by motorized vehicle tracks behind gates and barriers (field review). This reduces the quality of available security areas and impacts wildlife species.

Winter range is primarily below 4,500 feet in elevation on southerly aspects and includes grasslands, brushfields, and timbered lands. Generally, winter range receives less snow and is located at lower elevations than summer range. During winter, cow elk seem to prefer shrub habitats, while bull elk favor more open timber types (Unsworth et al. 1998). Older bulls also tend to use higher elevation benches or ridges with heavier snowfall compared to habitat used by younger bulls and cows (Unsworth et al. 1998).

Quality forage is an important component of elk winter range. Elk forage on grasses, forbs, and the tips of twigs from some woody vegetation. Shrub fields and conifer forests provide a higher proportion of winter forage than grassland sites. Species such as redstem ceanothus, serviceberry, mountain maple, choke and bitter cherry, and syringa provide much of the winter forage available to elk.

The Nez Perce Forest Plan (1987) designates Management Area 16 (MA 16) as big game winter range. MA 16 provides about 402 acres for elk winter range in the project area. The goal for MA 16 is “manage to increase usable forage for elk and deer on potential winter range.” Other MAs (timber, recreation, wild and scenic) would offer general elk habitat. MA16 is concentrated along the breaks of the South Fork Clearwater River and consist more of an open ponderosa pine grassland environment being that it is a southerly aspect. Noxious weeds and other invasive plant species, along with increased tree densities in low elevation, dry forest communities, are creating a downward trend in the quality of MA16 winter range in the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No vegetative treatments would occur with this alternative. No temporary road construction would occur, nor would thermal or hiding cover be reduced from harvest activities. Under this alternative there would be no activities or disturbances to alter movements or temporarily displace elk within the project area.

The current condition for EHE in this elk unit is 46%, which is below the Forest Plan objective of 50%. This is mainly due to road densities, size and distribution of forage, and the amount of security within the elk unit.

There would be no short-term changes to summer elk habitat under this alternative. Summer elk habitat potential would be maintained as depicted by the existing condition, at least short-term. As a result of fire suppression, succession will continue. Open patch sizes will continue to decrease as ingrowth fills and matures in old openings; conifers will encroach in grasslands. This process decreases the nutritional value

147 and availability of transitional and summer forage. If wildfires were to occur in the area, forage areas could be replenished, but existing cover would decrease. As insect and disease activity continues, areas that currently provide cover will become too open to serve that function. As numerous dead trees fall to the ground, debris may become too deep for elk to move through in certain areas. There would be no direct effects to elk winter range under this alternative, as no project activities would occur. There would be continued deterioration of MA16 winter with increased tree densities, canopy closure, and the presence of noxious weeds.

Alternative 2 Forest Plan objectives for elk habitat effectiveness are currently below the Forest Plan objective for this area and would not change as result of this project. However, forage conditions are expected to improve in both summer and winter ranges while cover is reduced, but these changes still won’t meet the Forest Plan objective.

Elk habitat effectiveness levels would not change under Alternative 2. Direct effects to elk habitat effectiveness would be from shifts in the distribution of cover and forage, roadwork and increased traffic. During implementation of the action alternative EHE percentages may temporarily drop below the existing condition due to human activity in the area and the change in cover and forage. Upon completion of the project activities, the Moose Ridge EAA would return to 46% EHE. Though the EAA is below the Forest Plan objective, it is trending towards the established level, by improving forage conditions and not increasing motorized activities in the project area or changing the seasons of motorized use. The obliteration of 6 miles of system road would not improve EHE conditions as these roads are already closed yearlong. Security areas would not be reduced, but they may be temporarily compromised by the temporary increase in human activities during implementation of the project activities.

Harvest treatments and fuels treatments would be beneficial by increasing forage production in treated areas by reducing tree densities in lower elevation, dry forest communities, while at the same time reducing cover. Moist sites, such as wet meadows, ponds, seeps, and springs, are important to elk and would be protected by RHCA buffers as part of project implementation. Calving habitat within the project area is primarily in conjunction with saddles, benches, and draw thickets among the steep terrain near water. Action alternatives would not significantly impact calving habitat except if activities occur during the calving season (May 15 to June 15).

Ranglack et al. 2016 suggests that the effects of motorized routes may be small be inconsequential to nutrition when it comes to elk distribution. Alternative 2 would create an additional 895 acres of early- seral habitats. This in an increase of approximately 16% within the project area, thus improving forage quality and biomass for the next decade across the project area.

Prescribed burning activities to reduce natural fuel levels has the potential to also improve forage conditions for elk by stimulating growth of grasses and shrubs and removing decadent material. This would be an improvement in both summer and winter habitats. Spring burns may not be intense enough to kill the undergrowth of decadent shrubs and young conifers, therefore not improving habitat conditions to any great degree. In addition, burning in the spring at times when young of the year are born can cause undue stress and possibly even cause injury or mortality of the newborn calves hiding in the slash and undergrowth.

These low elevation communities are adapted to burning in the late summer/early fall. Late summer/fall burns may be better suited in obtaining the desired results of rejuvenating prey species habitat, reducing the shade-tolerant tree species undergrowth, and producing long-term results which result in fewer losses of large ponderosa pine to wildfire.

148

Elk could be subject to short-term disturbance effects under the Alternative 2. Short-term indirect effects would be limited to displacement from noise associated with project activities if individuals are within the area at the time of work. However, disturbance of individuals during project implementation is not expected to substantially interfere with normal breeding or feeding behavior. As mitigation, existing access restrictions will be maintained on forest roads in the planning area during implementation of this project.

Several papers discuss the impacts of roads (particularly open roads). Elk tend to avoid areas with high open densities, use areas with closed canopies away from open roads, and the vulnerability of elk during the hunting season (Rowland et al. 2000, Rowland et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005, McCorquodale 2013, Naylor 2009, Ranglack 2016). Elk vulnerability to hunting may increase somewhat in the short-term with the loss in cover as trees are removed and potentially increase the vulnerability of elk to human visibility and thus slightly increase the potential for human-caused mortality (Rowland et al. 2000, Rowland et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005). This is also dependent on topography, vegetation retention, or road location. Open road densities within the project area are approximately 2.82 miles per square mile. This would reduce to 2.53 miles per square mile following project activities (a reduction of 0.11 mi/mi2). There would be a decrease of miles of open roads by 1.16 miles, thus a 3% reduction in open road densities in the project area. Open road densities within the Moose Ridge elk unit are 2.31 miles per square mile and would reduce to 1.84 miles per square mile following implementation of activities associated with the Dutch Oven project. This is below what Rowland et al. 2000 consider high open road densities (2.41 miles per square mile). By maintaining existing road access restrictions and reducing total road densities, as well as not increasing the amount of open roads, elk habitat would be maintained (Frair et al. 2008).

Elk Vulnerability is used to estimate the effects of open road and hunter densities on vulnerability of bull and cow elk related to mortality during the fall hunting season(s) and resultant predictions of bull:cow ratios which are an indication of effects of bull and cow mortality. Comparing elk vulnerability calculated bull:cow ratios with target and surveyed bull:cow ratios within game management units provides an estimate of how current and project road densities move bull:cow ratios toward or away from fish and game population objectives. Table 3-30 shows that predicted bull:cow ratios are within Idaho Department of Fish and Game objectives for elk.

Table 3-30. Target and predicted Bull:cow ratios Management Game Mgmt. Target Surveyed Elk vulnerability predicted zone Unit (GMU) bull:cow ratios bull:cow ratios bull:cow ratios Elk City 15 18-24:100 20:100 18.1

There are approximately 1.3 miles of open motorized road and trail densities (only includes Forest Service roads and trails) within GMU 15. The Dutch Oven project would be reducing open road densities by 0.11 mi/mi2. Because elk vulnerability is calculated at the game management unit scale (Servheen et al. 1997), the reduction in open road densities from the Dutch Oven project would not be detectable at the game management unit. Thus, there would be no change in elk vulnerability from the Dutch Oven project.

Approximately 11% of the Moose Ridge elk unit provides security. Security areas are those areas that elk go to in times of stress. Serveheen et al. 1997 suggests that the term security area is adequate and that the term security cover should not be used. There is a large, 650-acre security patch behind yearlong closed roads. Approximately 68 acres (10%) of the security area is identified for harvest. Harvest patches within the security area are less than 40 acres and are within distances that elk would travel to forage in these newly created early-seral habitats (Wisdom 2005). Cover along these closed roads would be

149 temporarily reduced until shrubs and trees grow to a height to obscure elk from being visible from roads. Motorized access in this area would not change as a result of this project, thus security would be maintained and the vulnerability of elk during the hunting season would not change because there is no increase in open motorized routes, especially through security areas. The total miles of roads on the landscape would be reduced by approximately 6 miles within the project area and 4 miles within the elk unit. The roads that are identified for decommissioned are roads that are already closed yearlong to all motorized used, thus the amount of security would associated with the project would not change.

There will be no new road construction roads occurring as part of this project. Temporary roads constructed for harvest activities would be closed to public motorized use and obliterated after use and would not add to existing road densities within the project area or watershed.

Prescribed burning activities has the potential to also improve forage conditions for elk by stimulating growth of grasses and shrubs. This would be an improvement in both summer and winter habitats. However burning in the spring at times when young of the year are born can cause undue stress and possibly even cause injury or mortality of the newborn calves hiding in the slash and undergrowth.

Proposed road and watershed improvements are not expected to impact elk. Cumulative Effects The geographic boundary for assessing cumulative effects on elk summer habitat effectiveness is the Moose Ridge elk analysis unit associated with the project area. The timeframe for cumulative effects is 20-30 years, which is about the time it takes for new plantations to restore elk hiding cover in the harvest areas.

The past and ongoing activities summarized in detail in the Appendix B and have contributed to current habitat conditions. Past fires, fire suppression, and timber harvest across the analysis area have resulted in a complex matrix of forested interior habitat, edge, ecotones, 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. Some of these stands have been pre-commercially thinned in the last couple of years, thus reducing hiding cover. Past timber harvest and road building has also narrowed or severed forested connections. Harvest activities has removed hiding and screening cover along open and closed roads, and human population and access are dramatically increased over historical conditions. Fire suppression has cause dense, depauperate conditions of mid-successional forests.

Noxious weed treatments would occur in the project area under the current weed management plan in the future. Reducing the incidence of weeds, especially in winter range improves forage conditions for elk. Ongoing maintenance of road and trails is considered routine and ongoing, with virtually no effects to the habitats through which they pass.

Ongoing permitted cattle grazing can reduce the quality and quantity of forage available for elk and other big game species.

Numerous recreational opportunities across the project area, including big game hunting, can cause displacement or mortality of elk. Road construction increased open road density and caused the loss of security areas, increasing vulnerability to hunting and decreasing habitat effectiveness. Motorized recreation and dispersed-camping activities would change in the future, but the effects to elk and their habitats would be limited to designated existing routes and dispersed-camping areas following implementation of the DRAMVU project. The main change with the DRAMVU project is that the Forest would be closed to cross-country, motorized travel. In addition, there may be changes in the amount of open roads and that could contribute to the reduction of motorized access, which would increase security,

150 decrease vulnerability, and increase habitat effectiveness. Watershed restoration/improvement projects are considered to be beneficial by improving wildlife habitat conditions and increasing security via road decommissioning (Newsome project).

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on elk because there would be no direct or indirect effects. Alternative 2

The Dutch Oven project would increase forage while reducing cover as a consequence of the proposed treatments. Temporary roads would be built in these alternatives and would remain closed to public access. The project activities would disturb elk during the period of implementation. Elk would move away from these areas, but may return during hours of darkness to forage on the lichens or younger leaves on the felled trees. Upon completion of the timber sales, all temporary roads would be decommissioned. Security areas would be retained. Indirect effects may be increased pressure on elk from wolves and other predators, due to the reduction of canopy and hiding cover from harvest and burning activities. The effects of livestock grazing, wildfires, fire suppression, and predator management would be similar to existing conditions.

Access changes within and adjacent to the project area (DRAMVU) would also contribute to the ongoing trend of reduced motorized access, which would increase security, decrease vulnerability, and increase habitat effectiveness. The DRAMVU project would close the forest to cross-country travel, thus improving security. In addition, the DRAMVU project would seasonally close several roads that were open yearlong, thus increasing potential elk habitat effectiveness from 46% to 47%. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to change forage species available to elk and reduce cover within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal. Ongoing permitted cattle grazing can reduce the quality and quantity of forage available for elk. The incidence of noxious weeds in the project area also reduces the quality of forage for elk in the drier habitat communities.

The project would meet Forest Plan Goal for MA-16 by improving the quality of winter range habitat for elk by reducing trees densities and improving the quality of forage/browse species through harvest and burning activities. Conclusion At the project and elk analysis units, elk populations could be impacted by the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. However, elk in the area tend to be stable or increasing, and the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in and around the Moose Ridge elk unit appears negligible.

Forest Plan objectives for elk habitat effectiveness are currently slightly below the forest plan objective for this area and would not change as result of this project. However, forage conditions are expected to improve in both summer and winter ranges while cover is reduced, but the changes are not enough to change the calculations in the model. Maintaining existing road closures, not increasing the amount of open roads, and decreasing overall total road densities would maintain elk habitat and decrease the energy expenditure and disturbance from motorized vehicles. Even though there would be improvements in the quality and quality of forage, a reduction in cover, and a reduction in total road densities from activities associated with this project, the magnitude of these changes are not enough to cause a change that is detectable in the elk habitat effectiveness or elk vulnerability calculations. There would be an increase of

151 1% in elk habitat effectiveness by seasonally closing yearlong open roads that are associated with the DRAMVU project, which would be in addition to access changes being proposed with the Dutch Oven project. The amount of elk security within the elk unit would not change.

Winter range conditions, especially the quality of forage/browse species, would be improved by reducing tree densities through harvest and burning activities and continuing to reduce the incidence of noxious weeds through the Forest’s noxious weed program.

Motorized access in the project area would decrease slightly. Motorized access into elk security would not change as a result of this project, thus security would be maintained. Approximately 10% of the security area is identified for harvest and the size of these opening are within distances that elk would travel to forage in these newly created early-seral habitats. Cover along both open and closed roads would be temporarily reduced until shrubs and trees grow to a height to obscure elk from being visible from roads. The amount of time for cover to regrow may not be as necessary where topography or road location do not already reduce visibility.

Moose Moose are very dependent during the winter upon old-growth grand fir forest types with an understory of Pacific yew. The project area does contain grand fir–Pacific yew communities and moose have also been observed foraging on other shrubs and aquatic vegetation in the project area. In Idaho, moose occur mainly in mountainous conifer forest. Forest vegetative types used by moose include grand fir and subalpine fir. Winter habitat is the most limiting habitat component for moose. Winter range is characterized by double-canopy coniferous forests, which intercept significant amounts of snow and also provide palatable evergreen forage. Fire suppression likely increased frequency and extent of Pacific yew, but timber harvests within the same areas has reduced the extent of yew communities. Pacific yew was typically slashed and burned during the course of regeneration timber harvest practices prior to 1987 (Crawford 1983 and Stickney 1980). From 1987 to 1991, timber harvest and burning were constrained in areas allocated to moose winter range. Forest fragmentation from harvest has reduced patch size and interior conditions, and isolated Pacific yew stands.

No population data for moose have been collected on a regular basis in the region. Some populations appear to be increasing and seem to respond favorably to extensive habitat alteration by silvicultural practices. However, other populations may be displaced or eliminated because they cannot adapt to habitat changes, particularly where yew thickets are eliminated through logging and where increased road densities make moose more vulnerable to harvest (Toweill 2011.Even though population levels and trends are unknown, moose populations are large enough to support hunting in many areas of the Clearwater Region and state of Idaho. The moose populations in Unit 15, which encompasses the project area, are not large enough to support a hunting season anymore. Moose hunting was discontinued in Unit 15 starting in 2013 as a result in a decline in the population. Moose are secure (G5/S5) in Idaho and across their range (NatureServe 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]; [G5/S4] Digital Atlas of Idaho 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]). Current Condition The Nez Perce Forest Plan designated MA21 as grand fir/Pacific yew communities to be managed for moose winter range. The goal in MA21 is to manage the grand fir-Pacific yew plant communities to provide for a continuing presence of Pacific yew "suitable" for moose winter habitat. Management standards and practices for timber harvest and fire management in MA21 are design to help maintain suitable winter habitat and are found in the Nez Perce National Forest Plan (1987; III-59). In addition, moose winter range can also be found in vegetation response unit 7 (VRU 7), grand fir/Pacific yew communities.

152 There is approximately 1097 acres of MA21 and 1272 acres of VRU 7 in the project area. Approximately 251 acres (23%) of currently mapped MA21 has been harvest from 1960 through 1999 and 595 acres (47%) of VRU 7 has been harvested from 1950 through 1999 with regeneration harvest methods (131 acres of overlap between MA21 and VRU 7).

The Pacific yew in the project area is being heavily browsed and in some cases is beyond the reach of moose. In other instances the pacific along the edges of openings is thriving, while some of the yew in heavily closed canopy forest overstory is declining in stature. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No vegetative treatments would occur with this alternative. No temporary road construction would occur, nor would thermal or hiding cover be reduced from harvest activities. Under this alternative there would be no activities or disturbances to alter movements or temporarily displace moose within the project area.

Overall, the existing condition would not change under this alternative. Continued fire suppression activities and forest succession would result in a decline in younger stands and openings used by moose during summer. Conifer-shrub and mountain shrub cover types would decline in amount and distribution, as would the size of open patches as ingrowth fills and matures in old openings. Mature and old growth forests with a Pacific yew understory would remain intact barring a wildfire. However, the Pacific yew is being browsed heavily and in some cases the yew is beyond the reach of moose. In other instances, the Pacific yew along the edges of openings is thriving, while some of the yew in heavily closed canopy forest overstory is declining in stature.

The long-term impact of forest succession is an increased likelihood of stand-replacing fires which would result in the loss of potential moose habitat. Wildfires would also increase the quality and quantity of early-seral shrub/young forest environments that moose tend to forage in.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would cause short-term disturbance to individuals during implementation. Short-term indirect effects would be limited to displacement from noise associated with project activities if individuals are within the area at the time of work. Disturbance of individuals during project implementation would not cause, or is unlikely to cause injury or decrease productivity, by interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior but may temporarily alter habitat use patterns.

Regeneration harvest is proposed on approximately 48 acres (11%) of MA21 under Alternative 2 and commercial thin would occur on 4 acres of MA21 (<1%) with about 1.6 miles of temporary road construction. About 30% overstory cover consisting of 19-51 trees per acre would be retained in shelterwood harvest units that overlap with MA21 and other grand fir/Pacific yew habitat types not designated as MA21. Approximately 20% of the overstory cover consisting of 15-25 trees per acre would be retained in seedtree harvest units. If harvest is to occur in grand fir/Pacific yew habitat types and MA21 area, shelterwood harvest types are one of the preferred harvest methods as this allows Pacific yew to persist with a reduction in the overstory shading. Prescribed burning activities in the spring at times when young of the year are born can cause undue stress and possibly even cause injury or mortality of the newborn calves hiding in the slash and undergrowth. Prescribed burns in harvest units would stimulate sprouting of moose browse species. The production of forage species would also improve as canopies are opened. Moist areas, such as ponds, streams, and seeps, which are used by moose during summer months, would be protected by PACFISH buffers and the fact that no harvest activities would occur inside RHCAs. Alternative 2 would reduce summer and winter cover for moose. Moose would benefit from

153 increased forage production resulting from vegetation treatments, including regeneration harvest and prescribed burning.

Approximately 122 acres (10%) of moose habitat in VRU 7 is slated for harvest with about 0.75 miles of temporary road construction. Fifty-four acres (5%) is slate for a regeneration harvest type (9 acres clearcut, 36 shelterwood, 9 seedtree) and 68 acres (5%) for a commercial thin. Both timber harvest and temporary road construction may reduce the incidence of Pacific yew in certain areas across the project area where harvest and temporary road construction occur on top of Pacific yew stands. Up to 5% MA21 and 10% VRU 7 may be impacted as a result of these activities.

Proposed road and watershed improvements are not expected to impact moose. Road decommissioning would be beneficial.

Alternative 2 complies with applicable Forest Plan standards pertaining to moose winter range and the presence/persistence of Pacific yew. Based on the information presented there appears to be little risk of loss of population viability on the Nez Perce National Forest.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for the moose is Dutch Oven project area, since the direct and indirect effects of the project would occur in this area. The timeframe for cumulative effects is 20 to 30 years, which is about the time it takes for new plantations to restore moose forage and hiding cover in the harvest areas.

The past and ongoing activities summarized in detail in

154 Appendix B have contributed to current habitat conditions. Past timber harvest has resulted in the loss of medium and large trees, thus creating early-seral summer forage conditions for moose. Timber harvest increased the availability of early seral habitats, which provided foraging opportunities. Past timber harvest and broadcast burning in Pacific yew communities has eliminated the pacific yew component. Road construction increased open road density and caused the loss of security areas, increasing vulnerability to hunting and decreasing habitat effectiveness. More recently, roads have been stored or decommissioned, causing a trend toward increased security, decreased vulnerability, and increased habitat effectiveness. Other than the current open road density, security areas, and habitat effectiveness, the extent of these effects has not been quantified.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on moose because there would be no direct or indirect effects.

Alternative 2 This project would increase forage while reducing cover as a consequence of the proposed treatments. These actions are not expected to have any measurable effect on the moose population in the analysis area. Access changes within and adjacent to the project area (DRAMVU, Newsome watershed project) would also contribute to the ongoing trend of reduced motorized access, which would increase security, decrease vulnerability, and increase habitat effectiveness. The Allison pond removal project would reduce the amount of ponded forage environment for moose, yet may also improve the upland forage base for moose. Human disturbance as it relates to wildlife security and human-induced mortality is the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable action with the greatest effect on moose in the planning area. Alternative 2 would decommission roads and maintain current access restrictions. The timing of road construction and reconstruction, timber harvest, and burning could delay the effectiveness of road improvements. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to reduce foraging habitat by removing the understory vegetation and reduce cover within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal.

Conclusion All alternatives would comply with applicable Forest Plan standards pertaining to moose winter range and the presence/persistence of Pacific yew (FP pg. III-59). The majority of the regeneration harvest types are shelterwood which is the preferred method harvest type and none of the clearcuts are over 20 acres in size. All indications are that healthy populations are well distributed across the western states, Idaho, and the Nez Perce National Forest. Based on the information presented there appears to be little risk of loss of population viability on the Nez Perce National Forest.

Northern Goshawk Northern goshawk was selected as a Nez Perce Forest management indicator species to represent old forest dependent species. Nesting habitat is the most restrictive requirement necessary for goshawk presence. Nests are generally constructed in the largest trees of dense, mature stands with high canopy closure (60-95 percent) and sparse groundcover, near the bottom of moderate slopes, and near water (Squires and Reynolds 1997, Hayward and Escano 1989, Hayward et al. 1990, Bull and Hohmann 1992, Moser 200).

Goshawks are rated secure across its range (global rank G5) and are apparently secure (state rank S4) in the state of Idaho (Digital Atlas of Idaho 2014, accessed December 31, 2014; S3 vulnerable NatureServe 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]). Population trends were reviewed across a larger scale on January 2, 2015, from the USGS – Patuxent Wildlife Research Center’s North American Breeding Bird Survey web

155 site (Sauer et al. 2011 http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html). For the entire United States, the BBS data shows an upward trend in the northern goshawk population of 2.03% per year since 2002 (2002-2012) and survey-wide, an increase of 2.99% per year. In the United States for years 1966-2009, northern goshawks are categorized as a “declining species”, based on non-significant trends. Local populations are likely stable and may be increasing. Habitats on the Nez Perce National Forest contribute to a viable population of goshawks at a regional scale (Samson 2006b).

Current Condition Goshawks are known to occur on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. As a result of surveys conducted for goshawks in 2013 and 2014, two goshawk territories have been identified within the Dutch Oven project area. For this analysis, goshawk nesting habitat is defined medium and large trees (>15” dbh) with >60% canopy cover. There is approximately 3,584 acres of potential nesting habitat in the project area for goshawks. Approximately 5,648 acres are considered potential goshawk foraging habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No vegetative treatments would occur with this alternative and current vegetative processes would continue. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects to goshawks or their habitat would occur.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would treat approximately 1094 acres (20%) of goshawk habitat, of which about 811 acres is considered as nesting habitat, primarily using regeneration harvest types. Regeneration harvest methods tend to eliminate nesting habitat by reducing stand structure and canopy cover. The few remaining trees in each treatment unit would not provide suitable nesting sites or the structural diversity that is important in supporting high densities of goshawk prey (Reynolds et al. 1992). Based on a study in northern Idaho (Moser 2007, pg. 18), it was determined that timber harvest activity within a nest area did not appear to affect goshawks until the nesting habitat in the territory fell below 39%. Based on information obtained from the siviculturists, regeneration harvest types (clearcuts, seedtree, shelterwood) have 30% canopy cover or less remaining post-harvest. This is below the 39% cover threshold observed by Moser (2007). As stated above, 20% of the nesting habitat would be reduced with timber harvest as the canopy cover and amount of trees remaining would be below what goshawks would use for nesting. Foraging opportunities would increase in these areas.

Intermediate harvest would reduce the quality of nesting and foraging habitats in the short-term because the amount of snags, down logs, and other components of structural diversity would be reduced. However, this type of treatment has potential long-term benefits in all of these habitat types that may outweigh the short-term effects. One of the primary benefits, particularly in the dense, mid-aged stands typical of the analysis area, is decreased density of trees in the understory (Kennedy 2003). An open understory facilitates prey identification and capture because goshawks hunt primarily by sight (Reynolds et al. 1992). However, opening up forested stands can also increase competition and predation by other raptors, such as great horned owls (Kennedy 2003). In the long-term, tree growth would increase canopy density, which would in turn reduce predation risk and competition. Down wood and other structural components would also increase, benefiting prey populations.

The construction of temporary roads for harvest would temporarily eliminate available nesting and foraging habitat. However, these roads would be decommission and would be revegetated, but it would take decades for full revegetation of the roads.

Within a goshawk home range, it is desirable to retain 240 acres of nesting habitat per home range (~5000 acres). After harvest, there would be about 2,770 acres of nesting habitat remaining in the project area;

156 enough habitat to support the 2 known goshawk territories within the project area. No-harvest buffers would be placed around known and any additional nests that are found during layout or implementation of the project. These buffers along with requiring that no work activities occur during the breeding and brood rearing timeframes would lessen the impacts to goshawks and their young.

Most of the new harvest units are adjacent to previous harvest units creating extremely large forest openings over several hundred acres in size, which are devoid of standing snags and down wood. This reduces the likelihood that goshawk will use the openings in harvested areas, due to the loss of large diameter trees and snags used as perch site in foraging areas.

No treatments are planned in MA20. Even though mature or over-mature areas may be harvested, large- diameter, oversized trees would be retained in harvest units to provide structural diversity. Sufficient habitat would remain unaffected by the proposed actions to continue to support goshawks and the species they represent within the project area and across the forest. There would be no detectable or quantifiable effect on goshawks due to the retention of MA20, mature/over-mature recruitment stands, and PACFISH riparian buffers.

Individual goshawks may be disturbed by project activities under Alternative 2; however, this disturbance is not expected to affect their survival or reproduction. Individuals would move away from areas of active treatment and would not be injured or killed. Sufficient habitats are available outside the treatment units to support the local goshawk population during project implementation. Mitigation measures protecting nest stands and reducing the level of disturbance to nest and fledgling areas during breeding and brood rearing would reduce the disturbance or loss of productivity during implementation.

Proposed road and watershed improvements, and road decommissioning activities would not have an appreciable effect on goshawk or their habitat. Landscape burning activities could directly produce scattered dead trees, but most would likely be of smaller diameter and may be of limited value to this species. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for the northern goshawk is the old growth analysis unit (OGAA03050501). This area was selected because effects would be diluted at a larger scale. The time frame for cumulative effects is 150 years which is the approximate amount of time required for stands to develop into a mature or older vegetative state and snags to develop into a condition that provides habitat for old growth and snag dependent species.

The past and ongoing activities are described in detail in

157 Appendix B have contributed to current habitat conditions. Past insect outbreaks, fires, fire suppression, and timber harvest have left a mosaic of habitats on the landscape, but they are not characteristic of the patterns that occurred historically under a more natural disturbance regime. Most harvest units are simple, uniformly-shaped, small to medium-sized patches (<40 acres), without snags or large fire-resistant trees. Snags, down wood, and residual large tree components that provide the structural diversity preferred by goshawks once a stand regenerates are no longer present.

Past activities may have altered the availability of nesting habitat, forested connectivity, and prey habitat for goshawk. The loss of medium and large trees from timber harvest has reduced the older forest component that is important to goshawk year-round. Foreseeable activities that might have the potential to affect goshawk within or adjacent to the analysis area include the DRAMVU and Upper Lochsa Land Exchange projects, as well as ongoing firewood gathering.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would retain current habitat levels. Future wildfire in the watershed would contribute to an increase in suitable habitat for northern goshawks. The current population trend would not be affected.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would add moderately to forest fragmentation levels in the project area, which would be cumulative to past, present, and other foreseeable harvest activities in these drainages. Alternative 2 would reduce fuels at relatively moderate levels, potentially contributing to less fire risks to old growth and late seral habitats. Access restrictions associated with the reduction of cross country travel associated with the DRAMVU project would help in alleviating the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers, along with the Newsome watershed project. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to improve foraging habitat and reduce cover for nesting habitat within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal. Conclusion Based on the available information for several indicators including habitat data, inventory and monitoring data, and population trend data, information suggests a stable or increasing northern goshawk population trend in the Nez Perce Forest. The habitat is abundant and well distributed across the forest. Available data support the conclusion that local goshawk population trends, are relatively consistent with larger scale analyses conclusions including the North American Breeding Bird Survey Trend results cited above. Overall goshawk populations continue to remain relatively healthy and stable or slightly increasing. Although individual birds or pairs could be disturbed by project activities, none of the proposed alternatives should affect populations at the local or watershed level. There would be no detectable or quantifiable effect on goshawks due to the retention of MA20, mature/over-mature recruitment stands, and PACFISH riparian buffers. Woody debris would continue to accumulate and be created as trees age and die. Based on the amount of habitat on the Nez Perce National Forest and in the Region (Samson 2006a, 2006b), habitat for the northern goshawk is abundant and well distributed on the Forest and within Region 1. There is sufficient habitat to support viable populations of northern goshawks in the project area and Forest-wide. At the Forest level and across the range of the species, the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions appear small to negligible. Even though project activities may reduce some habitat that this species prefers, populations are not likely to be affected at the Forest level or across the range of the species. Forest Plan (1987) standards would be met for this species.

Pileated Woodpecker The pileated woodpecker was selected as a Nez Perce Forest management indicator species to represent old forest and snag dependent species. The pileated woodpecker is a common year-round resident in

158 Idaho coniferous forests and occupies habitats throughout the Nez Perce National Forest. Pileated woodpeckers are associated with mature and older forests for nesting but also younger forests that have scattered, large, dead trees for foraging (Bull and Jackson 1996). Pileated woodpeckers appear to seek out microhabitats with a higher diversity of tree species and higher densities of decadent trees and snags than are available across a landscape (Carpenter and Keating 1979, Savignac et al. 2000, Aubry and Raley 2002). Through their selection of large dead and damaged trees, pileated woodpeckers may serve as a good indicator of ecological function rather than just the age of a stand or forest (Bonar 2001).

Population trends were reviewed across a larger scale on January 2, 2015 from the USGS – Patuxent Wildlife Research Center’s North American Breeding Bird Survey web site (Sauer et al. 2011 http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html). For the entire United States, the BBS data shows an upward trend in the pileated woodpecker population of 1.25% per year since 2002 (2002-2012) and survey-wide, an increase of 1.88% per year. In the United States for years 1966-2009, pileated woodpeckers are categorized as an “increasing species”, based on significant trends. The pileated woodpecker is rated secure across its range (G5) and apparently secure (S4) in the state of Idaho (NatureServe 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]; [G5/S4] Digital Atlas of Idaho 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]). Current BBS data show that populations of the pileated woodpecker are increasing nationally (Sauer et al. 2011). Idaho state data for this species are insufficient to allow statistical analysis of population trends (Sauer et al. 2011); however, based on habitat requirements and trends (Samson 2006a), local populations are likely stable or increasing. Habitats on the Nez Perce National Forest contribute to a viable population at a regional scale (Samson 2006b).

Current Condition Pileated woodpeckers were evident and documented in the project area during project field review. There are approximately 5,403 acres of pileated woodpecker habitat within the Dutch Oven project area. here is about 3,577 acres of nesting habitat with average tree size greater than 20 inches dbh and canopy cover >60% in mixed conifer habitat (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, and western red cedar). Foraging habitat (including nesting habitat) consisting of mixed conifer forest that are greater than 10 inches dbh and greater than 25% canopy cover are well represented (5,403 acres) within the approximate 7,000-acre project area. Retention of large, seral tree species is an important component for maintaining habitat for this species in managed forests. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No vegetative treatments would occur with this alternative and current vegetative processes would continue. In general, mature, high-canopied habitat would increase as forest succession continues to fill in understories and increase stand canopy closure. In predominantly mixed conifer stands, additional trees would die as a result of insect and disease activity, and dead trees would eventually fall to the ground. There would be no direct or indirect effects to pileated woodpeckers or their habitat.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would treat approximately 1049 acres (20%) of pileated woodpecker habitat, of which about 128 acres is considered as nesting habitat, primarily using regeneration harvest types. Most of the new harvest units are adjacent to previous harvest units creating large forest openings over several hundred acres in size, which are devoid of standing snags and down wood.

Timber harvest has been shown to reduce reproductive success of pileated woodpeckers (Bull et al. 2007). Regeneration harvest would eliminate habitats from treated areas in both the short-term and long-term because snags used for nesting and foraging (and mature trees that could become snags) would be

159 removed. The few remaining trees in each treatment unit would not provide substantial foraging or nesting opportunities.

Intermediate harvest types would also reduce the quality of nesting and foraging habitats because the amount of snags and down logs would be reduced in the short-term and because the number of trees available to die and become snags and logs in the long-term would also be reduced. Treated areas may retain some snags and down logs, providing a low-density source of foraging and potential nesting sites.

The construction of temporary roads for harvest would temporarily eliminate available nesting and foraging habitat. However, these roads would be decommission and would be revegetated, but it would take decades for full revegetation of the roads.

No treatments are planned in MA20. Even though mature or over-mature areas may be harvested, large- diameter, oversized trees would be retained in harvest units to provide structural diversity. Sufficient habitat, including PACFISH buffers, would remain unaffected by the proposed actions to continue to support pileated woodpeckers and the species they represent within the project area and across the forest.

Proposed road and watershed improvements and road decommissioning activities would not have an appreciable effect on pileated woodpeckers or their habitat. Landscape burning activities could directly produce scattered dead trees, but most would likely be of smaller diameter and may be of limited value to this species.

Individual pileated woodpeckers may be disturbed by project activities under Alternative 2; however, this disturbance is not expected to affect their survival or reproduction. Individuals would move away from areas of active treatment and would not be injured or killed. Sufficient habitats are available outside the treatment units to support local pileated woodpeckers during project implementation.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for pileated woodpecker is the old growth analysis unit (OGAA03050501). This area was selected because effects would be diluted at a larger scale. The time frame for cumulative effects is 150 years which is the approximate amount of time required for stands to develop into a mature or older vegetative state and snags to develop into a condition that provides habitat for old growth and snag dependent species.

The past and ongoing activities are described in detail in

160 Appendix B and have contributed to current habitat conditions. Specifically, timber harvest decreased the availability of mature forest habitats that are most susceptible to fire, insects, and diseases. Some of the past harvest and fire suppression has directly reduced the amount of suitable habitat, while other harvest may have reduced the availability of stands that could develop into suitable habitat through fire, insect, or disease-related mortality in a relatively short period of time. Past timber harvest activities have created a patchy landscape across the watershed which has likely resulted in larger home ranges than would be the case in unlogged habitats. Larger home ranges affect the energy reserves of animals as they must travel greater distances for their daily needs. Many past timber activities left few snags on the landscape that could be utilized for pileated woodpecker foraging, nesting, or drumming sites. Past activities may have altered the availability of nesting habitat. The loss of medium and large trees from timber harvest has reduced the older forest component that is important to pileated woodpecker year-round.

Fire suppression, prescribed fire, grazing, road/trail maintenance, noxious weed treatment, and recreation activities, would continue under all alternatives.

Foreseeable and ongoing activities that might have the potential to affect pileated woodpecker within or adjacent to the analysis area include the DRAMVU project, Newsome watershed project, the Upper Lochsa Land Exchange and ongoing firewood gathering. Many of the acres included in the land exchange provide habitat for the pileated woodpecker, especially mature and older forest communities.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would retain current habitat levels. Future wildfire in the watershed would contribute to an increase in suitable habitat for pileated woodpeckers. The current population trend would not be affected.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would add moderately to forest fragmentation levels in the project area, which would be cumulative to past, present, and other foreseeable harvest activities in these drainages. It would reduce fuels at relatively moderate levels, potentially contributing to less fire risks to old growth and late seral habitats. Access restrictions associated with the reduction of cross country travel associated with the DRAMVU project and road decommissioning under the Newsome project would help in alleviating the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to reduce foraging and nesting habitat within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal.

Conclusion Based on the available information for several indicators including habitat data, inventory and monitoring data, and population trend data, information suggests a stable or increasing pileated woodpecker population trend in the Nez Perce Forest. The habitat is abundant and well distributed across the forest. Available data support the conclusion that local pileated woodpecker population trends, are relatively consistent with larger scale analyses conclusions including the North American Breeding Bird Survey Trend results cited above. Overall, pileated woodpecker populations continue to remain relatively healthy and stable or slightly increasing.

Although individual birds or pairs could be disturbed by project activities, none of the proposed alternatives should affect populations at the local or watershed level. There would be no detectable or quantifiable effect on pileated woodpecker due to the retention of MA20, mature/over-mature recruitment stands, and PACFISH riparian buffers. Woody debris would continue to accumulate and be created as trees age and die. Based on the current level of insect and natural fire activity on the Nez Perce National Forest and in the Region (Samson 2006a, 2006b), habitat for the pileated woodpecker is abundant and well distributed on the Forest and within Region 1. There is sufficient habitat to support viable

161 populations of pileated woodpeckers in the project area and Forest-wide. At the Forest level and across the range of the species, the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions appear small to negligible. Even though project activities may reduce some of the components that this species prefers, populations are not likely to be affected at the Forest level or across the range of the species. Forest Plan (1987) standards would be met for this species.

American Marten The American marten (also known as the pine marten) was selected as a Nez Perce Forest management indicator species to represent trapped species and high-elevation old-growth forests. Marten inhabit dense, moist to wet coniferous forests that support abundant vole populations (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). They prefer higher-elevation, mature subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce forests with large woody debris, and well-developed canopy cover (Kujala 1993). Marten avoid openings greater than 150 feet from cover. Existing project area openings do not inhibit use of the area by marten. American marten are apparently secure (G5/S5) in Idaho and across their range (NatureServe 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]; [G4/S4] Digital Atlas of Idaho 2014 [accessed December 31, 2014]). Samson (2006b) showed that habitat on the Nez Perce National Forest is more than sufficient to contribute to a viable population of the marten at a regional scale.

Current Condition American marten have not been observed in the project area, but they are suspected to occur. Marten habitat is defined as mixed conifer forest (lodgepole pine, grand fir, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce) that are greater than 10” diameter and with greater than 40% canopy cover. There is approximately 4,958 acres of habitat for marten in the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No vegetative treatments or watershed improvements would occur with this alternative. No temporary road construction would occur, nor would cover be reduced from harvest activities. Under this alternative there would be no activities or disturbances to alter movements or temporarily displace marten within the project area. As a result, there would be no effect on marten or their habitat.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would modify approximately 1,042 acres (21%) of marten habitat with the majority of the habitat being treated with a regeneration harvest. Harvest treatments would reduce the quality of denning and foraging habitats because the amount of snags, down logs, and other components of structural diversity would be reduced. However, adherence to snag and down woody debris design criteria would reduce the impacts to this species and retain future denning sites.

No treatments are planned in MA20. Even though mature or over-mature areas may be harvested, large- diameter, oversized trees would be retained in harvest units to provide structural diversity. Sufficient habitat, including PACFISH buffers, would remain unaffected by the proposed actions to continue to support marten and the species they represent within the watershed and across the forest. Connectivity along riparian habitat corridors would remain intact under Alternative 2.

There may be minor impacts to habitat from landscape burning activities as individuals or clumps of trees may be torched, therefore opening the canopy and creating a mosaic landscape.

162 Temporary road construction and obliteration of these temporary roads would be a short-term loss of cover with the loss of vegetation associated with temporary roads. This reduction in vegetation would be of a short duration because these sites would be revegetated.

Marten could be subject to short-term disturbance effects under the Alternative 2. Short-term indirect effects would be limited to displacement from noise associated with project activities if individuals are within the area at the time of work. As mitigation, all current access closures would be maintained as part of the proposed project.

Proposed road and watershed improvements, temporary road construction, and road decommissioning activities would not have an appreciable effect on marten or their habitat.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for marten is the old growth analysis unit (OGAA03050501). This area was selected because effects would be diluted at a larger scale. The time frame for cumulative effects is 150 years which is the approximate amount of time required for stands to develop into a mature or older vegetative state and snags to develop into a condition that provides habitat for old growth and snag dependent species.

The past and ongoing activities are described in detail in

163 Appendix B and contribute to current habitat conditions. Past insect outbreaks, fires, fire suppression, and timber harvest have left a mosaic of habitats on the landscape, but they are not characteristic of the patterns that occurred historically under a more natural disturbance regime. Snag, down wood, and residual large tree components that provide the structural diversity preferred by marten once a stand regenerates is no longer present. Past activities may have altered the availability of denning habitat, forested connectivity, and prey habitat for marten. Across the project area, open roads facilitate access for trappers and firewood cutters, potentially decreasing marten populations and the downed logs important for marten and their prey species. Road construction and mining has fragmented and degraded riparian areas that provide important travel corridors.

Foreseeable activities that might have the potential to affect marten within or adjacent to the project area include the DRAMVU project, private land fuel breaks, Upper Lochsa Land Exchange, and the Newsome watershed project, as well as ongoing recreation and firewood gathering.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the marten or their habitat because there would be no direct or indirect effects.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would add moderately to forest fragmentation disturbance levels in the project area, which would be cumulative to past, present, and other foreseeable harvest activities in these drainages. It would reduce fuels at relatively moderate levels, potentially contributing to less fire risks to old growth and late seral habitats. Open roads to motorized vehicles facilitate access for trappers and firewood cutters, potentially decreasing marten populations and the downed logs important for marten and their prey species. Access restrictions associated with the reduction of cross country travel associated with the DRAMVU project and road decommissioning with the Newsome watershed project would help in alleviating the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers and improve wildlife security. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to reduce foraging and denning habitat within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal.

Conclusion Marten habitat is well distributed across the Northern Region and Nez Perce National Forest. Based on monitoring results and widely scattered incidental sightings, local marten population trends remain relatively stable on the Forest. Marten habitat would remain available within the project area in untreated mature forest stands. There would be no detectable or quantifiable effect on marten due to the retention of MA20, old growth, mature recruitment stands, and PACFISH riparian buffers. Woody debris would continue to accumulate and be created as trees age and die. At the project and watershed levels, marten could be affected. At the Forest level and across the range of the species, the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions appear small to negligible.

3.8.1.6 Neo-tropical Migratory Birds Forest landbirds include all the avian species, sometimes collectively termed “neotropical migratory birds” and “resident songbirds.” This group of birds is not treated separately by species, because they are an extremely diverse group of species, with widely disparate habitat requirements. In 1988, an amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.” To carry out this mandate, the USFWS published “Birds of Conservation Concern 2002,” which recommends that its lists be consulted in accordance with E.O. 13186. In addition,

164 numerous birds are protected by Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) nongame status and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Currently, there are no Nez Perce Forest Plan standards specific to migratory birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act covers many ground-nesting and shrub-nesting birds. Some migratory birds are covered by state hunting regulations; others are protected by non-game status by the IDFG. Neotropical migrant birds use coniferous forest habitats in the U.S. during the summer breeding season but migrate to southern latitudes to spend winters in habitats as far south as Mexico and South America. Tropical deforestation and other environmental effects related to bird wintering grounds are thought largely responsible for declines in some neotropical migrant bird populations. Current Condition There are approximately 243 bird species breeding in Idaho, and about 119 of those species are neotropical migrants (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). In their Idaho Bird Conservation Plan, Idaho Partners in Flight (2000) identified several high priority species that use lodgepole pine and mid to high elevation mixed conifer habitats (three-toed woodpeckers, olive-sided flycatcher, Hammond’s flycatcher, ruffed grouse, black-backed woodpeckers, and varied thrush), and low elevation mixed conifer forests (flammulated owl, dusky flycatcher, western tanager, brown creeper, Williamson’s sapsucker, northern goshawk, and sharp-shinned hawk).

Environmental Consequences - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No vegetative treatments would occur with this alternative and current vegetative processes would continue. This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on migratory birds.

Alternative 2 Regeneration harvest would reduce core habitat for species that exclusively use densely forested areas. A reduction of core habitat may reduce nesting habitat. A potential increase in predation and nest parasitism could potentially result over time depending on the amount the overstory canopy is opened. Alternative 2 would reduce forest canopies and add some degree of fragmentation and edge habitats.

The planned actions would create patches of new forest that would favor habitats for bird species associated with early forest succession and edge habitats. The retention of large trees within treatment and/or forested riparian habitats would provide habitat for species (woodpeckers, flycatchers, soaring raptors, and owls) associated with standing trees (for foraging/hunting, nesting and perching). Patches of middle-aged and mature forest would provide for species associated with dense forest canopies for forest hawks. By leaving large, windfirm live trees and snags, pockets of down wood, and planting trees, additional feeding and nesting habitats for songbirds could be created. By reducing fuel loads and creating openings across the landscape, the risk of stand-replacing fire would be reduced locally.

Riparian areas will be managed separately from upland habitat by implementing PACFISH buffers that benefit species dependent on interior habitat with dense forest canopies. No timber harvest is planned in RHCAs, so these habitats would remain available to birds. Similarly, seeps, springs, and wet areas would be buffered with no timber harvest, leaving these areas intact for songbirds. Existing habitat would remain for those species that prefer mature forests in untreated areas in the project area. Individual birds or local populations could be impacted by timber cutting should harvest occur during the breeding season.

Individual birds or local populations could be impacted by timber cutting and prescribed burning should these activities occur during the breeding season, thus reducing reproductive success. Harvest and burning

165 activities that occur during the nesting period would increase the likelihood of direct mortality to nestlings and could disturb mating and nesting behaviors.

The construction of temporary roads for harvest would temporarily eliminate available nesting and foraging habitat. However, these roads are primarily associated with harvest units and would be decommissioned and revegetated following harvest activities. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for migratory birds is the Dutch Oven project area, since the direct and indirect effects of the project would occur in this area. The timeframe for cumulative effects is approximately 10 years in the short-term which is about the time it takes for new plantations to restore vegetative conditions conducive to bird species that prefer early successional stages. The long-term timeframe is 100-150 years which the approximate amount of time required for stands to develop into a mature or older vegetative state and snags to develop into a condition that provides habitat for old growth and snag dependent species.

The past and ongoing activities and effects of such activities are described in detail in Appendix B and contribute to current habitat conditions. These activities include timber harvest, road construction, road maintenance, recreational uses, fire suppression, grazing, mining, and firewood cutting among other activities. The most important cumulative effects to neotropical migrants have been associated with fire suppression at the landscape scale. Timber harvest and mining have had substantial negative effects at the stand and subwatershed scales. Timber harvest with its fragmentation and the lack of fire on the landscape has resulted in a change in the habitat for some Neotropical migrant birds. Some habitats would be lost as a result of timber harvest and fuels treatments for species using denser forested canopies. Continued fire suppression would allow succession to continue and increase the amount of mature timber in the area. However, continued fire suppression would also increase the fuel build-up in the area, thereby increasing the eventual likelihood of a large-scale wildfire, which could result in a loss of the habitat for many neotropical migrant birds.

Foreseeable activities that might have the potential to affect marten within or adjacent to the project area include the DRAMVU project and the land exchange, as well as ongoing recreation and firewood gathering.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would retain current habitat levels. The current population trend would not be affected.

Alternative 2 The removal of both live and dead trees under Alternative 2, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities, would remove foraging and nesting sites and would constitute habitat losses. This would cumulatively add some fragmentation effects to the forested landscape but the net impacts to bird species would be relatively minor, given historical impacts of fire regimes, overall insect- driven disturbance, and tree death throughout the analysis area. Woodpecker populations and secondary cavity-nesters in particular are likely to be affected by the removal of dead and dying trees and prescribed burning for fuel reduction purposes. In addition, foraging habitat may be increased for those species that prefer more open canopied forests or early-seral forest conditions. Harvests that occur during the nesting period would increase the likelihood of direct mortality to nestlings and could disturb mating and nesting behaviors.

Retaining seral tree species (ponderosa pine, larch, and Douglas-fir) components and increasing the development of large overstory trees would benefit most neotropical migrants. Maintaining a variety of

166 snags in various states of decay and sizes would also help maintain existing populations of neotropical migrants. Access restrictions associated with the reduction of cross country travel associated with the DRAMVU project would help in alleviating the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to increase foraging and nesting habitat for some bird species and reduce foraging and nesting habitat for others within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal.

Conclusion There are no Nez Perce Forest Plan standards specific to migratory birds. This project would meet regulations pertaining neotropical migratory birds. At the project and watershed level, the cumulative effects of the proposed project may affect individuals or local populations of some bird species. At the Forest level and across the range of these species, effects would be expected to be small to negligible. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to reduce snag habitat within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal.

3.8.1.7 Old Growth Habitat This section describes the existing conditions for the project area and assesses the potential effects of the proposed project on Management Area 20 (MA20) and other old growth forest habitats. MA20 are those areas that are to be managed as old growth habitat for old growth dependent species (FP pg III-4, III-56, and III-57).

Old growth forest habitats are those areas that are managed to provide old growth habitats in accordance with Appendix N of the Forest Plan. These areas identified as old growth may be contained within Management Area 20 or within other management areas. The intent is to maintain at least ten percent of the forested acres in each prescription watershed or combination of watersheds (old growth analysis units- OGAAs) as old growth habitat. The amount and distribution of old growth is verified as part of project planning efforts.

The project area is within one old growth analysis areas (OGAA03050501). The old growth analysis area associated with this project is approximately 6689 acres and was used to analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project and to assess compliance with Forest Plan standards Appendix N. Current Conditions Forest Plan Management Area 20 There is approximately 342 acres of MA20 old growth associated with the project in OGAA03050501. Patches of MA20 are concentrated in Moose Creek and the headwaters of Dutch Oven Creek.

Old Growth Habitats The most recent Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data (Bush et al. 2010) indicate that approximately 13 percent of the Nez Perce National Forest is old growth (90 percent confidence interval between 10.4 and 15.6 percent) (based on Green et al. 1992 definitions). Approximately 17% of the Nez Perce National Forest meets the Forest Plan definition of old growth (15 trees per acre greater than 21 inches dbh) (90% Confidence interval = 14.4-20.2%). Based on this information, the Nez Perce National Forest is above the Forest Plan minimum standard of 10% old growth forest-wide.

In OGAA03050501, approximately 342 acres (5%) of old growth habitats was identified using field visits, stand exam data collected in 2014 as part of the Dutch Oven project, and aerial photo interpretation. Other unharvest areas, including riparian areas, account for the 5% replacement old growth. The majority of the identified old growth habitats are mixed conifer forest types. The objective

167 was to identify old growth for long-term habitat management, therefore lodgepole pine dominated areas were not considered for old growth habitat.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would not affect MA20 or old growth forest habitats because no vegetation treatments would be conducted. In the long-term, these habitats may have a higher risk of loss to large-scale wildland fires in the absence of treatment due to ingrowth of trees in the understory and the amount of insects and disease in the project area.

Alternative 2 Forest Plan Management Area 20 There would be no effects to MA20 as there would be no harvest or landscape burning activities occurring in MA20 areas. There is also no temporary road building in MA20 stands. Road decommission would occur in one of the MA20 patches in Moose Creek. This road bisects the MA20 patch and by decommissioning and vegetating the disturbed area would reduce the fragmentation caused by the road.

Old Growth Habitats Based on stand exam data, several units (5, 43, and 33) contain a sufficient number of large diameter trees to meet Forest Plan and North Idaho old growth definitions, but after field visits to these units, large portions of the stands do not contain large diameter trees or logs and one unit has been harvested so the stands as a whole are not considered to be fully functioning as old growth. These stands are identified to be treated with a shelterwood harvest type. Approximately 19-51 trees per acre and a 30% canopy cover would be retained in these units for structural diversity and snag recruitment.

Prescribed burning for natural fuels as well as for slash disposal would only occur in one stand (unit 33) near the South of the Clearwater. Prescribed fire activities in this stand would perpetuate an open overstory of large diameter, seral tree species. This would improve site conditions for the remaining trees and improve/maintain low elevation forage/browse habitat for big game species.

Short segments of temporary road are needed to harvest in these stands. These temporary roads would be decommissioned after harvest. Temporary road construction and harvest activities have the potential to disturb/displace wildlife species in the vicinity of the area due to the noise.

No road decommissioning or watershed improvement activities would occur in stands that have old growth attributes.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for old growth is the old growth analysis unit associated with the Dutch Oven project. This area was selected because effects would be diluted at a larger scale. The time frame for cumulative effects is 150 years which is the approximate amount of time required for stands to develop into a mature or older vegetative state and snags to develop into a condition that provides habitat for old growth and snag dependent species.

The past and ongoing activities listed in

168 Appendix B have contributed to the current distribution and condition of mature and old growth forest habitats. Past timber harvest, fire, fire suppression, and recreational activities have altered habitat characteristics in the project area by reducing the amount and distribution of large and medium trees, snags, and down wood, and by creating numerous, small patches across the landscape. Some of the past regeneration harvest may have directly reduced the amount of old growth forest habitat, while other regeneration harvest in mature forest habitat would have reduced the availability of stands that could develop into old growth habitat in a relatively short period of time. The large scale wildfires in the late 1800s and early 1900s may also contribute to the low amount of over-mature/old growth habitats in the project area.

Ongoing and foreseeable activities that might have the potential to affect wildlife species associated with old growth forests within the analysis area include the access changes associated with the DRAMVU project, the Upper Lochsa Land Exchange, recreational activities, and firewood gathering.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on MA20 or old growth forest habitats in the short-term because there would be no direct or indirect effects to this resource from this alternative. In the long-term, in the absence of treatment, large-scale wildfires may burn in the analysis area, reducing the extent of old growth forest habitats; however, the potential for this to occur is not considered reasonably foreseeable because of the long fire-return intervals in this forest type. Loss of snags and down logs to public firewood cutting would continue along open roads in these habitats.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would not harvest in MA20. Alternative 2 would harvest in stands that have large, old trees. Through snag and green tree retention, structural diversity and large diameter trees would be left in those units that have old growth attributes. Due to past harvest and wildfires, the Dutch Oven project area is lacking the over-mature/old growth conditions. In reviewing the Newsome Watershed Assessment (2002, pg 4-69), about 32% of that watershed may qualify as old growth, thus compensating for the low amount of old growth in the Dutch Oven project area.

Conclusion Existing data shows that OGAU3050501 currently meets the Forest Plan standard of five percent existing old growth and the remainder in replacement old growth. The analysis area would continue to meet Forest Plan standards and direction with regard to MA20 and old growth forest habitats. Due to the amount of potential old growth in the Newsome Creek drainage, this area may compensate for the Dutch Oven area that is low, yet meets the Forest Plan minimum for old growth and replacement old growth habitats. Nez Perce Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards for old growth, snags and riparian habitats help conserve habitats for species using old growth habitats. The actions taken on the Nez Perce National Forest are consistent with maintaining old growth habitat and the species that use these communities.

3.8.1.8 Snag Habitat Snags play an important role in creating biodiversity on the landscape by providing holes for birds and small mammal habitat and decaying trees that are infested with insects that woodpeckers, other birds, and some rodents prey on.

Large-diameter snags of western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, quaking aspen, and paper birch are favored tree species for nest sites for many wildlife species that utilize snags. Large-diameter snags provide nest habitat for the greatest variety of cavity nesters and stand longer than smaller snags.

169 Although most cavity nesters select for the largest snags available in a geographic area, a few species like the black-backed, downy, and three-toed woodpeckers prefer smaller trees. Larger and taller snags have greater volume and are more likely to have the appropriate amount of decay than smaller ones at the preferred heights for nest excavation and foraging (Bull et al. 1997: 21-31).

Current Conditions An analysis of snag densities for the Northern Region has been conducted by Bollenbacher et al. (2009) using Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data. The FIA survey is a general purpose, national inventory that is designed for strategic assessments (Czaplewski et al. 2003). FIA provides a representative sample of all forests, regardless of their classification. The estimated average number of snags per acre on the Nez Perce National Forest outside of Wilderness/Roadless with diameter at breast height (dbh) 10 inches and larger ranges from 7.5 to 11.9 and snags per acres greater than 20 inches dbh ranges from 1.4 to 2.8 (Table 3-31). With the current mountain pine beetle epidemic on the Forest, the number of smaller diameter snags is increasing.

Table 3-31: Estimates of snags per acre for land managed by the Nez Perce National Forest (outside wilderness/roadless), including 90 percent confidence intervals 90% confidence interval 90% confidence interval Snag criteria Estimated mean lower bound upper bound Snags per acre 7.5 snags/ac 9.6 snags/ac 11.9 snags/ac >10” dbh Snags per acre 3.3 snags/ac 4.4 snags/ac 5.7 snags/ac >15” dbh Snags per acre 1.4 snags/ac 2.1 snags/ac 2.8 snags/ac >20” dbh

The primary threats to species using snag and downed wood habitats are the removal of live and dead trees for timber production or firewood. Along with fragmentation and habitat loss due to timber harvest and stand-replacing wildfires after decades of fire suppression, intense, large-scale wildfires tend to consume already existing snags and down wood that are in the later stages of decay.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 No vegetative treatments would occur with this alternative and current vegetative processes would continue. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to snag associated species or their habitat.

Alternative 2 Treatments that include tree harvest to improve forest health, reduce fuels, and reduce the incidence of insects and disease would reduce habitat for many snag dependent species. Not only would the habitat they are using be modified, we would also increase the patchiness of the remaining habitat.

Snags may be left standing in treatment areas to the extent they do not jeopardize worker or public safety. Safety is paramount and snags in harvest units may be removed. Snags would generally be available in riparian buffers and across those parts of the analysis area that are not treated. In intermediate harvest units, sufficient live trees would be left to ensure future snag recruitment (76-140 trees per acre >12 inches dbh remaining after harvest.) In regeneration units, some live trees would be retained, in part to provide for future snag recruitment. The remaining trees and snags in each treatment unit would not provide suitable nesting, denning, and/or foraging sites or the structural diversity that is important for

170 many wildlife species. It is assumed that in regeneration units (clearcut and seed tree) there could be approximately 8-25 trees per acres greater than 12 inches dbh remaining after harvest and approximately 19-51 trees per acre greater than 10 inches dbh remaining in shelterwood units (see Forest Vegetation section). It is also assumed that there would be very few, if any, snags remaining after harvest in regeneration units.

Prescribed burning activities is expected to additionally reduce the number of snags retained in harvested areas and is expected to kill some green tree replacement trees, as well in prescribe burn units not associated with harvest units.

Proposed road and watershed improvements, temporary road construction, and road decommissioning activities would not have an appreciable effect on snag habitat.

Nez Perce Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards for old growth, snags and riparian habitats help conserve habitats for species using dead wood habitats.

Snag retention guidelines would comply with the Forest Plan. Riparian areas would not be harvested thus snag densities would be in excess of the Forest Plan and habitat for snag associated species would be met in the project area and surrounding landscape.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for the snag analysis is Dutch Oven project area, since the direct and indirect effects of the project would occur in this area. The time frame for cumulative effects is 100 years because it takes this long to develop mature habitat with an adequate dead wood component.

The past and ongoing activities are described in detail in the EA and have contributed to current habitat conditions. Many of the past harvest may have directly reduced the amount of snag habitat. Snags are continually being lost during harvest activities for safety reasons, as well as firewood cutting. Snags are also constantly being lost and created resulting from natural wildland fires and other natural disturbances. Some of these snags fall and provide much needed ground structure and habitat. With fire suppression and succession, the density of snags may have increased, but the size of the snags has decreased, which may not be beneficial to many wildlife species that depend on large-diameter snags and logs. Access restrictions associated with the reduction of cross country travel associated with the DRAMVU project would help in alleviating the loss of snags and logs taken by firewood gatherers.

Increased fuel loads from fire suppression increase the chance of large-scale wildfires, which could remove acres of already existing snags across the landscape. Fires would also create additional snags, in addition to the current insect and disease situation.

Alternative 1 The No Action alternative would produce no additional effects to snag dependent wildlife species or their habitat, as compared to past activity levels. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects and therefore no cumulative effects on snag habitat. Existing vegetation would not be altered.

Alternative 2 Regeneration harvest creates areas practically devoid of snags or down wood within a given area, especially when the new units are adjacent to old units.

For Alternative 2, cumulatively, there would be a long-term change in the amount of dead and dying trees that provide nesting and foraging substrate within harvest units. There would be displacement/disturbance

171 of snag associated wildlife species with the implementation of activities. Private land fuels treatments has the potential to reduce snag habitat within the treatment buffers. The effects from private land fuels treatment activities are expected to be minimal.

Conclusion Existing data shows that OGAU3050501 currently meets the Forest Plan standard of five percent existing old growth and the remainder in replacement old growth. The analysis area would continue to meet Forest Plan standards and direction with regard to MA20 and old growth forest habitats. Due to the amount of potential old growth in the Newsome Creek drainage, this area may compensate for the Dutch Oven area that is low, yet meets the Forest Plan minimum for old growth and replacement old growth habitats. Nez Perce Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards for old growth, snags and riparian habitats help conserve habitats for species using old growth habitats. The actions taken on the Nez Perce National Forest are consistent with maintaining old growth habitat and the species that use these communities.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Laws The Nez Perce Forest Plan (Forest Plan) is the principal policy document relevant to wildlife management on the Nez Perce National Forest. The Forest Plan contains goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for management of wildlife species and habitats. Consistency with the Forest Plan and environmental law can be found in the Conclusion sections at the end of each wildlife species environmental consequences section.

The Dutch Oven project is compliant with the Forest Plan by using Leege 1984 to run EHE calculations. The basic difference between Leege 1984 and Servheen 1997 is Servheen 1997 adds trails to the calculations where Leege is based on road data, plus Servheen adds an elk vulnerability computation. The EHE calculations for the Dutch Oven project uses both road and trail information and uses the coefficients from the NPNF access management guide (1988) and is compliant with the FP by using Leege 1984 and adjusted NPNF/IDFG coefficients for roads and trails. The EHE calculations also follow guidance from Servheen 1997 by adding trails to the EHE calculations.

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 directs that all federal departments and agencies seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the Endangered Species Act and to avoid actions that may cause a species to become threatened or endangered. Forest Service Manual 2670 direction also calls for the Forest Service to maintain viable populations and desirable non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitat distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands.

Three principle laws relevant to wildlife management on National Forest System lands are the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the National Environmental Policy Act. These laws require the Forest Service to maintain viable populations of all native and desirable non-native wildlife species.

Regional Foresters provide a list of sensitive species for each National Forest. Forests are required to assure that sensitive populations do not decline or trend towards listing under the Endangered Species Act (FSM 2670.22). This analysis incorporates the effects on terrestrial species. The streamlined process for doing biological evaluations for sensitive species focuses on two areas:

• Incorporating the effects of sensitive species in this EA and • Summarizing the conclusions of effects on the biological evaluations for sensitive species in a determination of effects.

172 Executive Order (E.O.) 13186 “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” (January 10, 2001) pertains to the conservation of migratory birds. In 1988, an amendment to the “Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act” required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.” To carry out this mandate, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published “Birds of Conservation Concern 2002,” which recommends that it lists be consulted in accordance with E.O 13186. In addition, numerous birds are protected by Idaho Department of Fish and Game nongame status and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Currently, there are no Nez Perce Forest Plan standards specific to migratory birds.

3.9 Scenic Quality Affected Environment Dutch Oven project proposed activities would be visible in foreground, middleground, and background views from the State Highway 14, Elk City Wagon Road #1808, and Forest Road #471 which accesses the Elk Summit Lookout. Other roads and trails within the project area do not have significant recreation use and are not considered sensitive travel corridors. This report analyzes the visual impacts of proposed management activities to determine whether the activities would meet forest plan standards for scenic quality. Visual simulation techniques are used to analyze these visual impacts. Numerous viewpoints were reviewed to determine the short and long term impacts to scenery within the resource area.

3.9.1.1 Analysis Methodology Although the Visual Management System (PF Doc. VIS-R02) has been replaced by the Scenery Management System (PF Doc. VIS-R01), this analysis uses terminology used in the forest plan which was developed and written under the former. A crosswalk between the two systems is found in Agricultural Handbook 701, Appendix A (PF Doc. VIS-R01). Visual quality objectives (VQOs) are based on the area seen from sensitive viewpoints such as travel corridors, urban areas where the forest background scenery is important and other features where there may be a high visual sensitivity level. These visually sensitive viewpoints are outlined in the 1987 Nez Perce National Forest Plan. A variety of tools were used in the visual resource analysis including analyzing VQO maps, field visits and visibility modeling.

Using ArcMap 10.2 (ESRI Inc., 1999-2009), GIS shapefiles of harvest units were overlaid on spatially rectified VQO displaying scenic variety class, distance zones and sensitivity levels, and quality objectives across the area of interest. Original VOQ maps were prepared for the 1987 forest plan using the process outlined in the Agriculture Handbook Number 462 (1976; PF Doc. VIS-R02).

Treatment units and their associated VQOs were evaluated in relation to visually sensitive viewpoints identified in the forest plan to determine the extent to which proposed activities would likely be seen, and the likelihood that those activities would adversely affect VQOs. VQO maps prepared under the forest plan are very general in nature. Scenic class and sensitivity level can provide a general understanding; however, the maps can’t always illustrate how visible specific treatments would be from locations of concern, or the extent to which treatments are likely to stand out or blend with existing scenic features.

Initial field reconnaissance was done to further assess the visibility of potential treatments in the context of the current landscape. Points on VQO maps with direct line of site to treatment units were identified. Units were observed from these locations, using unit maps. Proposed harvest activities are found in all viewing zones when viewed from key viewpoints. To assist in determining unit visibility, the analysis

173 used Google Earth (Google Inc. 2016). Treatment units for each alternative were imported into Google Earth and draped over the landscape. Units were then viewed from ground level or “street view” at a variety of representative sensitive locations, including: State Highway 14, Elk City Wagon Road #1808, FR #471 (Elk Summit Lookout Access). This 3-D modeling gives a different perspective on how visible a given area is from a specific geographic location. A limitation of using Google Earth for determining visibility is that near view screening from adjacent trees cannot be taken into consideration. For instance, if you are on a trail or road, the 3-D imaging cannot place you down amongst the trees, where your view might be obscured by trees and other vegetation in the foreground. These areas were then field verified and digital photography was compared to the Google images to determine the final effect on the visual resource.

After establishing relative sensitivity of affected areas when viewed from key viewpoints, Agricultural Handbooks 462 and 701 were used as references to determine if proposed activities were likely to modify the landscape to the extent that visual quality objectives could not be met.

Figure 5. Critical viewpoints included for the Dutch Oven Project.

174 3.9.1.2 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The geographic scope of the scenery analysis for the Dutch Oven Project includes areas visible from key locations both within and outside the area of interest. The spatial context takes in both the South Fork of the Clearwater River to the south and the Elk City Wagon road to the north. Key visual points bounding the visual resource area include the components of both these road corridors. Table 3-32 and Figure 5 show all key viewpoints or viewing corridors and their sensitivity levels identified in the 1987 Nez Perce National Forest Plan that are relevant to the Dutch Oven Project’s scenic quality analysis. Direct and indirect effects analysis focuses on the viewshed and viewpoints from which the proposed activities can be seen, and the extent proposed treatment units affect the visual quality objectives assigned to that piece of ground. The cumulative effects area is similar to that for the direct and indirect effects, except that it takes into account the whole viewshed, as opposed to focusing on the individual units and surrounding area. The temporal scope of the analysis is limited to the 30 to 35 years following harvest activities. This time period is the length of time openings created by regeneration harvest are likely to be evident given the growing conditions of the area.

3.9.1.3 Issue Indicators Visual Quality Objectives provide measurable standards for scenery management in conjunction with demands for goods and services from the forest. Visual resource management is integral to all management areas and implied in all management goals. The forest plan standard relevant to the project area for the Dutch Oven project area visual resources are:

1. Meet adopted visual quality objectives (VQOs). Exceptions occur in unusual situations: these are identified through the project planning process involving an interdisciplinary team. Mitigation measures should be developed for areas when VQOs are not met. 2. The visual resource has been evaluated based on visual sensitivity levels assigned to travel routes, use areas and water bodies in and adjacent to the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests. Adjustments in the VQO boundaries based on project level analysis would conform to principles in FSM 2380.

The analysis considers the character and appearance of the surrounding natural landscape and the VQOs of areas proposed for treatments as assigned under the current forest plan. VQOs are a desired level of scenic quality and diversity of natural features based on physiological and sociological characteristics of an area, and refers to the degree of acceptable alterations of the landscape. Management activities such as commercial timber harvest and road construction can alter the scenic character of the landscape. There is a potential concern that activities proposed could adversely affect visual resources.

Effects to the visual resource are discussed in general terms; however, the indicator used to measure effects is whether or not VQOs are achieved. Visual quality objectives for the Dutch Oven Project are listed in Table 3-32. Below is a brief description of each objective level.

• Preservation: In general, human activities are not detectable to the visitor. • Retention: Human activities are not evident to the casual Forest visitor. • Partial Retention: Human activities may be evident, but must remain subordinate to the character of the landscape. • Modification: Human activities may dominate the characteristic of the landscape but must, at the same time, utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture. • Maximum Modification: Human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape, but should appear as natural occurrences when viewed as background.

175 Current Conditions The Dutch Oven area of interest is located approximately 4 miles west of the community of Elk City, Idaho. The analysis area is part of the Bitterroot Mountain range and has one moderately sized river, the South Fork of the Clearwater, and numerous smaller tributaries. The moderately steep canyon walls are covered with coniferous vegetation intermingled with rock outcrops and open grass areas. The South Fork is a river course with moderately large rock features and fairly slowly flowing river. The smaller tributaries have no distinctive visual features. The South Fork of the Clearwater River is an eligible Wild and Scenic River identified in the 1987 Nez Perce National Forest Plan. Scenery is one of the proposed Outstandingly Remarkable values identified as having High importance for this river (See also Wild and Scenic River section of the EA). Most of the central portion of the analysis area is Management Area 12 where VQOs are Modification and Maximum Modification. Along State Highway 14 and the South Fork of the Clearwater River is an area of Management Area 17, Timber/Visual Quality and Sensitivity. Within this area the direction is to “manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a sustained yield basis while meeting visual quality objectives of retention or partial retention on those areas of medium to high visual sensitivity. This management area consists of intermingled acreages of lands similar to those found in management areas 12 and 17. The heterogeneous spatial mix of these lands is the primary reason for identifying them as unique management areas.”

Figure 6. View of State Highway 14 with timbered hillside above the roadway. Above the canyon walls the landscape is less steep with more of the rolling uplands visible to the viewer traveling the interior roads. The vegetation in the South Fork River corridor is mixed coniferous species with some deciduous vegetation along the river’s edge, especially surrounding the private residences that are located along the river. Many of the river corridors and much of the lower elevation areas have significant populations of western redcedar. Other mixed conifers, composed mostly of grand fir and Douglas fir, are found across the rolling hills adjacent to the streams. There are beach areas and some distinctive rock outcrops along the river corridor. While most of the hillsides have a continuous canopy of coniferous vegetation there are areas of open grass, rock outcrops and patches of deciduous shrubbery along the steeper hillsides.

176

Figure 7. Views of FR 471 near Elk Summit Lookout. The edges of the roadway are heavily vegetated with few views of the surrounding landscape. Recreation users visiting the Dutch Oven project area participate in recreation pursuits including dispersed recreation activities such as berry-picking, dispersed camping, driving for pleasure, historical exploration and enjoying the various winter and summer trails. Elk Summit Lookout is located just outside the project area and is a popular stop for visitors. It is accessed by FR 471. There is evidence of past harvest activities within the area of interest. Most of these past harvest activities are still visible but have vegetated to the point that they often don’t appear as distinctive openings. While some openings are still evident, they do not tend to dominate the existing landscape character. These openings are in various stages of regeneration but most would take at least 10 to 15 years to appear as only natural timber stands without man-made openings. In the northern portion of the area there are a number of large openings found across the rolling uplands above the river canyon. Most of these are not visible from any sensitive viewpoints. These units meet the VQO of Maximum Modification in the middle ground and background viewing zone from FR 1808. These openings are not visible from the river corridor. Larger natural openings can be found along the South Fork of the Clearwater and are a result of rocky soils, dry conditions and vegetative cover.

177

Figure 8. Evidence of past harvest is found throughout the area of interest. While some of the past harvest units appear man-made with straight lines and geometric shapes, many have re-vegetated to the point where many no longer appear as obvious man-made openings.

Figure 9. The slopes above the South Fork of the Clearwater and State Highway 14 has large natural openings caused by rock outcrops and open grassy vegetation. During the winter of 2015 a large slide occurred along State Highway 14. This created a large area that no longer has vegetation and continues to have smaller rock fall and slide issues. This area will probably remain unstable for years to come. The slide area is visible from the highway and the river from both directions.

178 Environmental Consequences

3.9.1.4 Alternative 1 - Direct and Indirect Effects With no harvest activity planned to occur under alternative 1 (no action) there would be no direct or short- term effects to the scenic condition of the area. The openings in forest cover that are visible as a result of past forest management would continue to recover tree growth, and over time would fill in unnatural appearing openings. The existing man-made openings would remain visible for another 10 to 15 years. There is some evidence of insect and disease activity within the project area. Dead and dying trees, which would appear as individual and groups of dead trees scattered across the landscape will be found throughout the area. This may increase further risk of wildfire as the amount of dead and dying vegetation increases. While for some, this may have a negative impact on the scenic quality of the area, these activities are considered natural processes, and the resource area would continue to meet assigned VQOs.

3.9.1.5 Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects Design features used to reduce the visual impact of the harvest areas include retention of vertical structure within the harvest units and edge treatments that emulate natural openings in areas visible from critical viewpoints and travel corridors. Leave trees that provide vertical structure within the harvest area may be both live and dead trees emulating the same structure that would remain after a natural mixed-severity wildfire. These leave areas would range from ¼ to 3 acres in size and may include leave areas adjacent to unit boundaries. Unit boundaries would be shaped and feathered to reduce any unnatural geometric shapes or straight edges that appear as a man-made feature on the landscape.

This analysis is mainly concerned with the landscape that can be observed from viewpoints identified in the forest plan. (See Table 3-32 and Figure 5) Proposed activities that are blocked from these viewpoints by terrain are considered to be in compliance with VQOs. Proposed management actions that have concern from a scenic resource standpoint are evaluated for how they conform to naturally occurring features that exist or could be created by natural events. Many of the proposed management features have short term visual effects, but would not have long-term scenic effects. Road maintenance is an example of a management action that rarely has a long-term effect on scenic resources. All road maintenance activities have few if any effects to scenic quality. All temporary roads proposed would be removed after use. After these roads are removed there would be minimal evidence of the change and they would meet the VQOs for the area. All watershed improvements would have a positive long term effect on scenic quality by improving the quality of water features in the area.

The Dutch Oven area of interest is located within the foreground, middle ground and background viewsheds of the South Fork of the Clearwater River, State Highway 14, the Elk City Wagon Road, and their associated recreation facilities. All of the proposed units would be visible from one or more of the viewpoints found within and surrounding the area of interest.

State Highway 14 – Following the South Fork of the Clearwater River from Newsome Creek Road to the forest boundary, there are numerous views of the units located on the south-facing portion of the slope. These units include 14, 15, 16, 33, 46, and 53. All these units lie across major ridgelines that are roughly perpendicular to the river corridor. The lower portions of these ridgetop units fall within the Retention VQO and the upper portions are generally within the Modification VQO. Harvesting would occur, but more stand structure would be retained in the lower portions of the units that fall within the Retention VQO. Design measures to retain stand structure and group leave trees to appear as natural openings will be needed to meet the VQO of Retention in the foreground.

179

Figure 10. View from Highway 14 looking west. Harvest areas would be found on the top of the ridgeline, but would be screened by foreground vegetation. Harvesting would occur along ridgelines, but would use natural breaks and retention of groups of trees to more closely emulate the natural openings found within the drainage. Existing roads would be used so no new roads would be evident. Changes would be visible, but would mimic natural openings and be designed to reduce the visual impact of the harvest methods so the openings would not dominate the existing landscape character of the area of interest. With design features in place, these units would meet the VQO of Retention in the foreground and middleground viewing zones from State Highway 14. Areas designated as Management Area 17 along the roadway would also be designed to meet the VQO of Retention.

Elk City Wagon Road and FR 471 Road – Intermediate harvest units 07A and 07B and regeneration harvest units 50A and 50B are located adjacent to FR 471. The existing vegetation along this road is very dense creating a narrow visual corridor. The openings created by these units will change the existing appearance of the area, with the addition of openings along the roadway, but it will add visual interest by opening views away from the roadway. The proposed units will meet the VQO of Maximum Modification for this area.

Figure 11. Forest Road 471. Unit 50 will be located on the left, removing vegetation along the roadway creating more open views. The Elk City Wagon Road is a significant travel corridor for recreation use and while it has a foreground VQO of Maximum Modification it will have retention of vegetation for 100 feet on either side of the road. The road passes through units 01, 02, 04 and 05. As with the views from FR 471, the dense vegetation restricts views from the roadway. Within the foreground zone, harvest activities can be visible, but will not dominate the existing landscape character. Retention of live trees along the roadway as screening

180 vegetation and use of design measures for development of unit boundaries will be critical to maintain the viewing in the foreground. This activity will meet the VQO of Maximum Modification in the foreground and middle ground.

Figure 12. Views of units 1 and 2 along Elk City Wagon Road. The remaining harvest units are located along roadways that are not visually sensitive. All units will meet the VQO of Maximum Modification for these areas. Most of this area is within Management Area 12 and will meet the VQOs of Modification and Maximum Modification.

3.9.1.6 Cumulative Effects Openings created by timber harvest activities from past projects are still evident within the area of interest. Although most openings have regenerated, some still appear as distinctive openings with lineal edges. A few well-defined geometrically shaped openings are found across the rolling uplands above the river corridor. Smaller and less noticeable openings are still visible along the ridgeline above the South Fork of the Clearwater River from viewpoints along State Highway 14, but these are rarely noticeable. Harvest activities began in the area in the 1950s, with the most recent harvest units occurring in the 1990s including the Chocolate Moose Timber Sale and in 2013 subsequent thinning of those plantations. Other management activities such as pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, salvage logging, road construction, and road maintenance have not had a significant visual impact on the viewsheds within the area of interest and therefor have not had a long term effect.

181

Figure 13. View of plantation growth of past harvest units in the foreground. Viewpoint located along FR 471 road looking south toward the South Fork of the Clearwater drainage. There are no proposed or ongoing timber harvest projects in the Dutch Oven project area. The area will continue to evolve, with past harvest activities becoming less noticeable with time.

Other past, present and future activities including tree planting, public use, road reconstruction and maintenance, trail construction and maintenance, precommercial timber stand improvements, and private land activities would have no significant effect on the visual condition of the area of interest because they do not create large enough man-made openings to alter the inherent landscape character to the degree that it would become a dominate visual element within the viewshed.

There has been tree removal from private lands within the analysis area, but most of this activities is screened by topography or vegetation and does not impact the scenery of the area. The large slide that occurred in 2015 along State Highway 14 did impact the scenery of the highway and river corridor. There is one unit adjacent to the slide, unit 48, but limited harvest of this area would not change the scenic character of the area.

There would be no man-made change in the scenic quality of the area of interest in alternative 1 in the short term. The existing man-made openings would continue to re-vegetate and within 10 to 15 years would no longer appear as distinctly as openings. Alternative 1 would not change the existing landscape character of the geographic area encompassed within the Dutch Oven area of interest.

Past harvest activities are visible throughout the area of interest. Most proposed units within the Dutch Oven project will be also be visible to some extent from the road, trails and recreation sites within the area of interest, but the impact will be within the visual quality guidelines. Openings will be visible but will reflect the size and shape of natural fire activity. In critical viewshed more stand structure will be retained and logging activities such as skyline logging pathways will be minimize. Given the aspect and growing history of the area, the openings created by this proposal would no long appear as openings within 30 to 35 years, but should appear as an area that has experienced the natural process of wildfire rather than man-made, geometric openings that are evident today.

182 Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Laws With implementation of the design features, Alternative 2 would meet the forest plan Visual Quality Objectives found in Table 3-32 of the Scenic Quality report.

The following table outlines the visual quality objectives listed in the 1987 Nez Perce National Forest Plan. The desired condition for scenic quality within the area of interest would be to retain the existing landscape character and maintain the designated visual quality objectives of Retention, Partial Retention, Modification, and Maximum Modification from travel corridors and use areas.

Table 3-32. Listing of key viewpoints, their sensitivity level and visual quality objectives found within the Dutch Oven Project area. Viewpoints or viewing corridors come from the 1987 Nez Perce National Forest plan. View Point or Foreground Middleground ¼ Background Viewing Sensitivity Level 0 – ¼ mi. mi. – 3 mi. 3 mi. – 5+ mi. Corridor Maximum U.S. Highway 14 1 Retention Modification Modification Partial Retention/ Elk City Wagon Maximum Maximum 2 Maximum Road #1808 Modification Modification Modification Maximum Maximum Maximum FR 471 2 Modification Modification Modification Elk Summit Maximum Maximum Maximum 3 Lookout Modification Modification Modification Maximum Maximum Maximum Dutch Oven Traila 3 Modification Modification Modification a A sensitivity level of 3 with a corresponding VQO of Maximum Modification in the foreground viewing zone from these corridors is appropriate for this trail.

183 3.10 Recreation Affected Environment The area considered for assessing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternative is the approximate 7,000 acre project area.

3.10.1.1 Analysis Methodology Inventory and analysis methods for recreation were done with GIS and on-site visits.

Current Conditions No developed or dispersed recreation sites are present within the Dutch Oven project area. The project are includes 2.6 miles of Trail 9867 which is open to ATV/motorcycle yearlong and connects Highway 14 via Forest Road 9815. Roads 1808 and 471 are part of the 25B groomed snowmobile trail system and comprise 5.7 miles of groomed trail within the project are. These trails comprise a larger system of 300 miles of groomed snowmobile trails outside of the project area.

Environmental Consequences

3.10.1.2 Alternative 1 - Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct effects to recreation values and opportunities.

3.10.1.3 Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 would affect portions of Trail 9867 that lies along harvest units in the short term, during reconstruction and harvest activity time periods only. Forest Roads 1808 and 471 will be used as haul routes while conducting the timber sale and potentially plowed in the winter months which could affect the groomed snowmobile routes. An alternative route does exist by using Road 1199 which is also part of the groomed snowmobile network and allows access north of the project area. Project design features will limit effects to the snowmobile routes with signs to inform users and communication with local snowmobile clubs. No direct effects to recreation values are expected.

Cumulative Effects Foreseeable future actions pertaining to recreation opportunities include travel management and designated routes of motor vehicle use (DRAMVU) on roads and trails of the Nez Perce National Forest. Forest Roads 1808, 471 and Trail 9867 are included in this travel management plan. Effects from this action combined with effects from the Dutch Oven project cannot be analyzed as a decision for the DRAMVU travel management project has not yet been made.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Laws No regulatory requirements pertaining to recreation is pertinent to this project. The Forest Plan documents goals, standards and guidelines for recreation opportunities. The proposed action is in compliance with the Nez Perce National Forest Plan.

184 3.11 Economics Affected Environment The Dutch Oven project area is located within Idaho County, Idaho. The economic analysis area includes local towns and communities influenced by the timber sale activities. These towns include Grangeville, Kamiah, Kooskia, Orofino, Pierce, Weippe, and Lewiston, Idaho.

3.11.1.1 Analysis Methodology The Nez Perce National Forest Plan FEIS, p. IV-26 and 27, describes the economic impacts of implementing the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 1987a and 1987 as amended). This analysis tiers to the Forest Plan EIS Appendix B in its entirety and specifically pages B-51 through B-142, which address the economic analysis process and values placed on non-consumptive items such as recreation opportunities, community stability, cultural resources, habitats, and populations. This economic analysis will not revisit the information presented in the Forest Plan and will focus only on those costs and revenues associated with implementing the proposed activities in the Dutch Oven project area.

The Forest Service MicroIMPLAN model was used to derive the indirect and induced economic effects. Direct economic effects were derived from mill surveys conducted by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana. The response coefficients found in the table were developed for the 1997 Clearwater National Forest Timber Sale Program Information Reporting System (TSPIRS). TSPIRS is a reporting system developed jointly with the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Forest Service, which has been reviewed and approved by Congress.

The coefficients from the Forest Service Micro IMPLAN model to derive the indirect and induced economic effects are:

• Harvest Related Jobs Generated: 13.5 per 1.0 MCCF • Harvest Income to Communities: $383,406 per 1.0 MCCF • Federal Income Tax Generated: $57,511 per 1.0 MCCF • Total Gross Receipts: $95,968 per 1.0 MCCF

The Region One gate 1 and 2 spreadsheet and the Quicksilver model with Nez Perce-Clearwater N.F. area factors were used to determine sale feasibility and appraised value. The Quicksilver model uses recent transactional evidence based on local timber sales to determine sale value. The timber stand data base and extensive field reviews were used to determine timber volume and species composition; these are the two primary factors determining gross value of a timber sale. Net value depends on costs for logging system, haul distance, slash disposal, planting, and cost of mitigation activities. The cost estimates for this sale are based on recent similar sales in the vicinity.

3.11.1.2 Resource Indicators Indicators used for cultural resources in the Dutch Oven project area are the number of sites impacted by proposed project activities.

Timber Harvest Jobs and Income Jobs and income generated from the project contributed to community stability.

185 Sale Feasibility Sale Feasibility is represented by the Present Net Value (PNV). An alternative with a positive PNV has stumpage values exceeding costs, where as an alternative with a negative PNV has costs in excess of stumpage values and may require supplemental funding to complete all activities.

Current Conditions In a report for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, titled "Rural Communities in the Inland Northwest," communities are characterized in terms of their ability to manage change and adapt to it in positive, constructive ways ­ "community resiliency," which is a function of community conditions like economic structure, infrastructure, civic leadership, cohesiveness, and amenities.

Resiliency ratings for Idaho County (Kooskia and Grangeville) and Clearwater County (Orofino, Pierce, and Weippe) are low. However, preliminary findings from a study recently completed by University of Idaho sociologists working on the Columbia River Basin assessment show that many timber-dependent communities tend to be more resilient and able to tolerate change than is commonly assumed. The resiliency rating for Nez Perce County (Lewiston) is high. The towns of Grangeville, Orofino, Weippe, Pierce, and Lewiston all show high to very high historic employment in the wood products manufacturing industry.

As of December 2014, Idaho County had an unemployment rate of 5.1% and Clearwater County is at 8.6% (highest in Idaho). The Idaho State average unemployment is 3.7% and the National average is 5.6%. In addition, counties dependent on federal timber receipts to help fund schools and highways find that this source is depleting, so they have relied more heavily on taxes to bolster their income, to the detriment of low-income families and the unemployed who feel that timber harvest should contribute more.

Environmental Consequences

3.11.1.3 Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative harvests no timber, generates no revenues, and incurs no expenses from timber sale preparation and administration. No jobs or individual income are generated. The only expense incurred with Alternative 1 is the cost of preparing the environmental analysis.

Alternative 1 would not provide any local economic benefit and would have a negative PNV of ($430,000) due to costs expended during NEPA planning. Alternative 1 would generate no revenues, provide no merchantable forest products and does not support direct or indirect economic activity, such as local employment.

3.11.1.4 Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects Eight known sites that are present within proposed treatment activities have been impacted in the past to varying degrees through road construction and continued maintenance, previous timber harvest, and natural environmental impacts. Avoidance of the six eligible NRHP sites is required by implementing the mitigation measures/design criteria listed in Chapter 2. No mitigation measures are required for the two sites determined NRHP ineligible.

Timber Harvest Jobs and Income Table 3-33 displays the Job and Income consequences of implementing the timber harvest alternatives. The Forest Service MicroIMPLAN model was used to derive the indirect and induced economic effects.

186 Table 3-33: Timber Harvest Jobs and Income Community VOL Federal Total Gross Alternative Jobs Sustained Harvest (CCF) Income Tax Receipts Income Alternative 1 0 0 0 0 0 Alternative 2 43,175 583 $16,553,554 $2,483,037 $4,143,418

Sale Feasibility Each Alternative produces a different level of benefits and costs associated with the timber harvest, road work, fuel treatment, reforestation, mitigation measures (skid trail decompaction), and other related timber harvest activities. This part of the economic analysis focuses on the relative differences in these benefits and costs between alternatives by displaying Predicted Bid Rates and Present Net Value (PNV). The Predicted Bid Rate is the amount based on recent bidding that the Nez Perce N.F. anticipates the timber would sell for. The PNV is the anticipated selling value minus the costs to implement the sale.

Information provided by the economic model is used as a tool to understand the relative monetary differences between alternatives rather than to predict actual values for each alternative, since the variables may change between now and the time the timber sells.

In the event the deciding official selects “No Action” there would be no cost associated with implementing the NEPA decision, so the PNV is zero. However, this alternative makes no effort to offset the costs of doing the NEPA analysis and contributes nothing to the local economy. Insect and disease mortality will continue to spread throughout the proposed treatment areas, further decreasing recoverable economic timber value in the area. Should a large (100+ acre) wildfire start as a result of the fuel buildup from the anticipated tree mortality, fire suppression costs exceeding $300,000 should be expected (for comparison, the 350 acre Granite fire of 2011, which occurred in the same habitat with increased mortality, cost $2.2 million).

Alternative 2 is predicted to generate enough stumpage value to cover all of the sale costs, plus reforestation, while retaining value before additional deterioration from insect and disease infestations occurs.

Alternative 2 would use a combination of Forest Service burning and machine scarification for the reforestation site preparation. These two items are the largest single cost activities and the economic effect is proportional to the amount of acres treated. To reduce the effect of reforestation costs, natural regeneration should be implemented where possible and where it meets the project purpose and need. One contributing factor to the sale’s efficiency is that the harvest units are relatively large in size and focused in a localized area, which reduces mobilization costs.

Alternative 2 would have a positive Present Net Value (PNV) of $3,523,136. This does not include pre- decisional NEPA costs of roughly $430,000 which are not a direct outcome of the NEPA decision and therefore not included in the economic analysis. Table 3-34 displays the predicted stumpage and present net value for each alternative.

Table 3-34: Predicted Stumpage and Present Net Value Appraised Alternative Volume Reforestationb Implementationc PNV Totala 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 43,175 CCF $4,536,829 $708,460 $909,675 $3,523,136

187 21,578 MBF a Appraised value predicted high bid includes skid trail decom and road costs associated with the harvest. b Reforestation costs include site preparation burning and planting costs with overhead. c Implementation costs include presale, engineering and administration costs. NEPA costs are not included in this cost total.

3.11.1.5 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area is Clearwater, Idaho, Lewis, and Nez Perce Counties in Idaho. The timber sale logging contract would last about 5 years and is proposed to sell in 2017. Post harvest reforestation and site preparation work would continue for up to 3 years following harvest for a total of 8 years of activities.

Past actions in the analysis area include road building and timber removal activities. The Dutch Oven project is the only proposed timber harvest in the analysis area and includes temporary road construction to provide timber harvest access. Sold or foreseeable local sales affecting the same communities and contributing to the long term timber flow to these communities include Moonshine, Ruby, Miller Time, French LiQ, Festus, Adams Camp Stewardship and Crown Royal.

Prescribed burning is planned in association with the previously mentioned timber sale projects. Prescribed burning is mostly handled internally by the Forest Service. Forest Service employees are supported by local community services. The prescribed burning proposed under other projects in the area can be handled with the normal Forest Service workforce and therefore, would not have a cumulative effect on the local communities.

Alternative 1 Since this alternative does not propose any timber harvest or road decommissioning it would not contribute cumulatively to the local community jobs and income. It would maintain current unmanaged use and related income. It potentially could contribute toward future firefighting costs as the insect infested trees die and create excessive fuel loadings susceptible to wildfire ignitions.

Alternative 2 Added to the Forest 5-year timber sale plan, this alternative would create the same amount of jobs and income. However, this activity is not expected to generate an excessive amount of jobs or income from timber harvest or road work to cumulatively effect the local communities beyond the past three year employment averages.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Law The Dutch Oven project complies with Forest Plan direction to develop cost effective projects and it complies with NFMA by emphasizing resource management over timber volume output.

3.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers Affected Environment The South Fork Clearwater River has been identified in the Nez Perce Forest Plan as an eligible Wild and Scenic River (USDA-FS 1987, as amended). There are approximately 7.5 miles of the South Fork Clearwater River in the Dutch Oven project area. The area considered for assessing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of both alternatives 1 and 2 the South Fork Clearwater River Corridor. The South Fork is considered an eligible Wild and Scenic River with Fisheries, Geology, Recreation and Scenery identified as Outstandingly Remarkable Values (Nez-Perce Forest Plan P-1). It also classifies the

188 eligibility of the South Fork under the “recreational” classification along the entire 60 mile corridor. “Recreation” river areas are those rivers, or sections of rivers, that are readily accessible by road or railroad, and that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversions in the past (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Section 2 (b3)).

Analysis Methodology Inventory and analysis methods for effects to the Eligible WSR were done with GIS and on-site visits.

Current Conditions The Forest Plan identified one stream segment (60 miles) within the project area as being potentially eligible for WSR designation – South Fork Clearwater River. Eligible WSRs do not have a unique management area designation in the Nez Perce Forest Plan. Management direction for potentially eligible streams is contained in Forest-wide Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 1987b, pg. II 22-23) as amended by Forest Plan Amendment No.1 and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 80, Section 82.5). Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segments in the Nez Perce NF Approx. Potential Potential Stream Segment Number of Outstandingly Source Classification Miles Remarkable Values1 South Fork Mouth to F, G, R. S 1987 Forest Clearwater confluence with Red Recreational 63 Plan River River 1Note: C = Cultural, F = Fisheries, G = Geologic, R = Recreation, T&E = Threatened and Endangered Species or Habitat, S = Scenic, V = Vegetation, W = Wildlife

Environmental Consequences

3.12.1.1 Alternative 1 - Direct and Indirect Effects The Dutch Oven area is currently experiencing increasing occurrences of insect and disease activity creating areas of dead and dying vegetation. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), there would be no short term direct or indirect effects to the listed Outstandingly Remarkable Values, but long term the area would continue to experience insect and disease activity and would continue to have a high potential for wildfire activity.

3.12.1.2 Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects The Outstandingly Remarkable Values considered for this analysis are: Fisheries, Geology, Recreation and Scenic.

There are portions of five shelterwood timber harvest units (units 14, 15, 16, 33 and 53) with associated construction of temporary road segments that are within ¼ mile of the SF of the Clearwater River. The seven temporary road segments within the ¼ mile river corridor total 1.4 miles. There are 126 acres of the shelterwood units that are within the ¼ mile corridor. The shelterwood harvest prescription proposed for these openings would retain 30% of the canopy cover and would focus on leaving large healthy trees. Design measures to feather the edges of units, use burning in some areas to emulate fire effects commonly found in the area, and retention of existing vegetation in patterns similar to the existing stand structure of the area would be used to maintain the Visual Quality Objective of Retention for this area. The Retention VQO is the appropriated visual quality objective for retention of the existing landscape character as required by the Wild and Scenic River Act. Temporary road construction would be restored after use so that the temporary roads would not be evident in the long term.

189 Harvest using these design measures would create openings that protect the scenic quality of the river corridor in the short and long term. The removal of the dead and dying vegetation in the area would enhance the scenic quality of the corridor over the long term by creating a healthier, more resilient forest environment. These actions would serve to protect the Scenic Outstanding proposed Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV). See Scenic Resources Section of the EA.

There are no activities proposed in this project that would modify the existing geology of the river corridor. There are some temporary roads proposed within the ¼ area north of the river corridor, but these roads will be restored when harvesting activities are completed, leaving no long term change to the geologic character of the area. The direct and indirect effects of this project will protect the geologic resource as a recognized ORV.

The direct and indirect effects of this project will protect and potentially enhance the Fisheries resource as a recognized ORV. See Aquatic Section of the EA.

The project would not affect recreation opportunities along the South Fork of the Clearwater River. There are no proposed activities that would impact dispersed recreation sites or trails within ¼ mile of the river corridor. Within the project area there are trails and dispersed recreation sites that may be effected by harvest but they are outside of the river corridor. All of the existing trails and dispersed recreation sites are north of the river corridor and harvest activities would therefore not affect recreation use along the river. Given the direct and indirect activities proposed in this project, the recreation portion of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values would be protected. See the Recreation Section of the EA.

3.12.1.3 Cumulative Effects As indicated above, direct and indirect effects from both alternatives considered in detail are expected to be localized, limited in scope, and/or of short duration and not expected to have a cumulative effect on Outstandingly Remarkable Values associated with the South Fork of the Clearwater River that would preclude it from its eligibility status.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Laws The proposed action is in compliance with the Nez Perce National Forest Plan with regards to Wild and Scenic River standards.

Summary

In order for a river to be considered as an eligible Wild and Scenic River it must possess at least one ORV and be free flowing. The scope of this project would not affect the eligibility of the South Fork of the Clearwater River. The Nez Perce Forest Plan allows for road construction and timber harvest in eligible Wild and Scenic River corridors. Harvest methods will be conducted in a manner which protects, to the greatest extent possible, the identified ORV’s. Activities within the eligible waterway are consistent with the interim protection measures stated within Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 80. Additional information regarding landscape burning activities, visuals, and fisheries are discussed within the appropriate sections of the project report. Mitigation measures regarding landscape burning will avoid direct ignition of fuels in RHCA’s within the eligible corridor, while allowing prescribed fire to back into these areas with low intensities. The proposed management actions and alternatives would not have irreversible effects of the potential “Recreation” classification of the South Fork Clearwater River’s eligibility or free flowing characteristics.

190 4 CHAPTER: OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

This is not a major federal action, it will have limited context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27), individually or cumulatively, to the biological, physical, social or economic components of the human environment. It will have no adverse effect upon public health or safety, consumers, civil rights, minority groups and women, prime farm land, rangeland and forestland, roadless areas, or to old growth forest options.

Effects of Alternatives on Prime Farm Land, Rangeland and Forest Land

All alternatives are in keeping with the Secretary of Agriculture memorandum, 1827 for prime land. The project area does contain any prime farm lands or rangelands. “Prime” forest land does not apply to lands within the National Forest system. With both alternatives, National Forest lands would be managed with sensitivity to the effects on adjacent lands.

Energy Requirements of Alternatives

There are no unusual energy requirements for implementing any alterative. With relation to national and global petroleum reserves, the energy consumption associated with the individual alternatives, as well as the differences between alternatives, is inconsequential.

Effects of Alternatives on Minorities and Women

There are no unusual differences among the effects of any alternative on American Indians, women, other minorities, or the civil rights of any American citizen.

Environmental Justice

Based on experience with similar projects on the Salmon River Ranger District and Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, the Selected Alternative will not negatively affect minority groups, women, or civil rights; it is likely to benefit economically depressed communities. Based on the analysis, all action alternatives comply with Executive Order 12898. Timber harvesting and future timber yields contribute to the timber supply for the wood products industry and ultimately, consumers of wood products. This project is expected to provide job opportunities in local communities from the timber harvest, road improvement, aquatic restoration and reforestation activities. Some of these communities include minority populations that may benefit from the economic effects. The economies of the local communities are depressed and have experienced loss of over 150 jobs in two sawmill closures in the past 8 months. This project will have a positive effect on economically depressed communities, some of which are within the Nez Perce Tribe reservation. Small or minority owned businesses will have the opportunity to compete for work involved in the timber harvest and restoration activities. Consultation and Coordination The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non- Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

191 Federal, State, and Local Agencies: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) Board of Idaho County Commissioners

Tribes: Nez Perce Tribe

Organizations Clearwater Basin Collaborative Friends of the Clearwater Idaho Conservation League Lewis & Clark ATV Club

Individuals: Dick Artley Dennis Baird Harvey Dale Gregg Winkler

192 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED General United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (USDA Forest Service).

1987a. Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. USDA-FS, Northern Region, Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. 174 pp. + appendices.

1998. South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment. Volumes 1 and 2. USDA-FS, Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID.

2012. National Insect and Disease Risk Map

2016. Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) Draft Record of Decision. USDA, Forest Service, Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, Kamiah, Idaho.

2017. Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) – Final EIS. USDA, Forest Service, Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, Kamiah, Idaho.

Forest Vegetation Hagle, S.K. 2008. Management Guide for Armillaria Root Disease. Forest Health and State Forestry Organizations. USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Coeur d’Alene Field Office

Climate Impacts Group. University of Washington. Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Accessed June 29, 2015. http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/pnwc.shtml

Climate Change Allen, C.D. 2007. Interactions across spatial scales among forest dieback, fire, and erosion in northern New Mexico. Ecosystems 10: 797-808.

Barton, A. M. 2002. Intense wildfire in southeastern Arizona: transformation of a Madrean oak-pine forest to oak woodland. Forest Ecology and Management 165: 205-212.

Boisvenue, C. and S.W. Running. 2010. Simulations show decreasing carbon stocks and potential for carbon emissions in Rocky Mountain forests over the next century. Ecological Applications 20(5): 13-2-1319.

Breashears, D.D., and C.D. Allen. 2002. The importance of rapid, disturbance-induced losses in carbon management and sequestration. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11:1-5.

Conant, R.T., K. Paustian, F. García-Oliva, H.H. Janzen, V.J. Jaramillo, D.E. Johnson, S.N. Kulshreshtha. 2007. Chapter 10 Agricultural and Grazing Lands. In: CCSP, 2007. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [King, A.W., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M. Fairman, R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, A.Z. Rose, and T.J. Wilbanks (eds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA, 242 pp. http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/saps/sap2-2

193 Dale, V.H, L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience 51:723–734.

Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P.M. Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S. Ramachandran, P.L. da Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy and X. Zhang. 2007. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Depro, B.M., B.C. Murray, R.J. Alig, and A. Shanks. 2008. Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation: Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008) 1122–1134.

Finkral, A.J. and A.M. Evans. 2008. Effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 2743-2750.

Galik, C.S. and R.B. Jackson. 2009. Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 2209–2216.

Gan, J. and B.A. McCarl. 2007. Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation, Ecological Economics 64 (2007), pp. 423–432.

Harmon, Mark E. 2009. Testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of the Committee of Natural Resources for an oversight hearing on “The Role of Federal Lands in Combating Climate Change”, March 3, 2009. Includes attachments.

Heath, L.S., J.E. Smith, C.W. Woodall, D.L. Azuma, and K.L. Waddell. 2011. Carbon stocks on forestland of the United States, with emphasis on USDA Forest Service ownership. Ecosphere 2(1):art6 doi:10.1890/ES10-00126.

Hicke, Jeffery A., Craig D. Allen, Ankur R. Desai, Michael C. Dietze, Ronald J. Hall, Edward H (Ted) Hogg, Daniel M. Kashiam, David Moore, Kenneth F. Raffa, Rona N. Sturrock, and James Vogelmann. 2012. Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the United States and Canada. Global Change Biology (2012) 18, 7-34, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2496.2011.02543x

Houghton, R.A. 2003. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850-2000. Tellus B: 378-390.

Houghton, R.A. 2005. Aboveground forest biomass and the global carbon balance. Global Change Biology 11: 945-958.

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.C. Moser, R.P. Neilson, K. O’Halloran, and D.L. Peterson. 2008. National Forests. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate- sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the

194 Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3-1 to 3-127. Available online at: http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap4-4/sap4-4-final-report-Ch3-Forests.pdf

Kashian, D.M., W.H. Romme, D.B. Tinker, M.G. Turner, and M.G. Ryan. 2006. Carbon storage on landscapes with stand-replacing fires. BioScience 56: 598-606.

Kurz, W.A., C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, E.T. Neilson, A.L. Carroll, T. Ebata, and L. Safranyik. 2008a. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452: 987-990.

Kurz, W.A., G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, C.C. Dymond, and E.T. Neilson. 2008b. Risk of natural disturbances makes future contributions of Canada’s forest to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 1551-1555.

Littell, J.S., D. McKenzie, D.L. Peterson, and A.L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications 19: 1003-1021.

McKinley, D.C., M.G. Ryan, R.A. Birdsey, C.P. Giardina, M.E. Harmon, L.S. Heath, R.A. Houghton, R.B. Jackson, J.F. Morrison, B.C. Murray, D.E. Pataki, and K.E. Skog. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. In press. Ecological Applications.

Millar, Constance I., Nathan L. Stephenson, and Scott L. Stephens. 2007. Climate Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications: Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 2145- 2151.

Mitchell , S.R., M.E. Harmon, and K.E.B. O’Connell. 2009. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 19: 643- 655.

Murray, B.C. 2008. Leakage from an avoided deforestation compensation policy: Concepts, empirical evidence, and corrective policy options. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, NC. 32p.

North, M., M. Hurteau, and J. Innes. 2009. Fire suppression and fuels treatment effects on mixed-conifer carbon stocks and emissions. Ecological Applications, 19(6), 2009, pp. 1385–1396.

Pregitzer, K.S. and E.S. Euskirchen. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10: 2052-2077. Available online at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118805398/PDFSTART

Reinhardt, E. and L. Holsinger. 2010. Effects of fuel treatments on carbon-disturbance relationships in forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecol. Manage. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.015.

Running, S.W. 2006. Is global warming causing more, larger wildfires? Science 313: 927-928.

195 Ryan, M.G., D.M. Kashian, E.A.H. Smithwick, W.H. Romme, M.G. Turner, and D.B. Tinker. 2008a. Joint Fire Science Program Project Number: 03-1-1-06. Final Report on Carbon cycling at the landscape scale: the effect of changes in climate and fire frequency on age distribution, stand structure, and net ecosystem production. Unpublished report for BLM Agreement/Task Order Number: 1422RAH03-0041 available online at: http://www.firescience.gov/projects/03-1-1- 06/project/03-1-1-06_03-1-1-06_final_report.pdf

Ryan, M.G., S.R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, and W. Schlesinger. 2008b. Land Resources. In: The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC., USA. 362 pp. Available online at: http://www.sap43.ucar.edu/documents/SAP_4.3_6.18.pdf

Ryan M.G., M.E. Harmon, R.A. Birdsey, C.P. Giardina, L.S. Heath, R.A. Houghton, R.B. Jackson, D.C. McKinley, J.F. Morrison, B.C. Murray, D.E. Pataki, and K.E. Skog. 2010. A Synthesis of the Science on Forests and Carbon for U.S. Forests. Issues in Ecology, Report Number 13. 17 p.

Savage, M. and J.N. Mast. 2005. How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after crown fires? Can. J. For. Res. 35: 967–977.

Strom, B.A. and P.Z. Fulé. 2007. Pre-wildfire fuel treatments affect long-term ponderosa pine forest dynamics. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16: 128-138.

US EPA 2013. Chapter 7. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry, in Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2011. The entire report is available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

Wear, D.N. and B.C. Murray. 2004. Federal timber restrictions, interregional spillovers, and the impact on US softwood markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Volume 47, Issue 2, March 2004, Pages 307-330.

Westerling, A.L. and B.P. Bryant. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change: 87(Suppl. 1): S231-S249.

Fuels Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. Gen. Tech. Rep.INT-122 Ogden, UT; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain forest and Range Experimental Station.

Andrews, P. L. 1986. BEHAVE: Fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system — BURN Subsystem, Part 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-194. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 130 p.

Idaho County 2009. Idaho Revised Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Idaho County, Grangeville, Idaho.

Graham, Russell T.; Harvey, Alan E.; Jain, Theresa B.; Tonn, Jonalea R. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in Western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p.

196 Stephens, Scott L.; McIver, James D.; Boerner, Ralph E.J.; Fettig, Christopher J.; Fontaine, Joseph B.; Hartsough, Bruce R.; Kennedy, Patricia L.; Schwilk, Dylan W. 2012. Effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. Bioscience 63:549-560.

Aquatics Arnsberg, B., P. Groves, F. Mullins, D. Milks. 2014 Snake River fall Chinook salmon spawning summary. Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho Power Company, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. January 2015, 7 pp.

Bear, E.A., T.E. McMahon, and A.V. Zale. 2007. Comparative thermal requirements of Westslope Cutthroat trout and rainbow trout: implications for species interactions and development of thermal protection standards. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136:4, 1113-1121.

McIntyre, J. D. and B.E. Rieman. 1995. Westslope Cutthroat trout. Pages 1-15 in Young, M. K., editor. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-256, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Hydrology Ager, A.A. and C. Clifton. 2005. Software for calculating vegetation disturbance and recovery by using the equivalent clearcut area model. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-637. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 11 p.

Burroughs, E.R. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical Report INT-264. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Odgen, UT. July 1989. 21 p.

Cline, R., G. Cole, W. Megahan, R. Patten and J. Potyondy. 1981. Guide for Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested Watersheds. USDA Forest Service. Northern and Intermountain Regions.

Conroy, B. and Thompson, K. 2011. The Implementation Guide to Appendix A of the Nez Perce National Forest Plan. Unpublished report on file at the Nez Perce National Forest.

Haupt, H.F. 1967. Unpublished memorandum from Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station dated January 16, 1967.

Flanagan, D. C., and S. J. Livingston. 1995. WEPP User Summary. NSERL Report No. 11, W. Lafayette, IN: National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. 131 pp.

IDAPA 20.02.01. 2015. Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act. Title 38, Chapter B, State of Idaho, Boise, Idaho. Available at: http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/20/0201.pdf

Johnson,Craig. BLM Cottonwood Office, 2015

Nez Perce National Forest Watershed Database, the Nez Perce National Forest Area Soil Survey (USDA Forest Service 1987

South Fork Clearwater River Watershed Advisory Group. 2006. South Fork Clearwater River TMDL Implementation Plan.

197 Stowell, F., A.Espinosa, T.C. Bjornn, W.S. Platts, D.C. Burns, and J.S. Irving. 1983. Guide for Predicting Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields in Idaho Batholith Streams. USDA Forest Service, Northern and Intermountain Regions.

USDA Forest Service. 1981. R1/R4 Guide for Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested Watersheds. Northern and Intermountain Regions.

USDA Forest Service, 2009. PACFISH INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring Program for Streams and Riparian Areas, 2009 Summary Report. http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/feu/pibo/2009_pibo_em_annual_report_final.pdf

USDA Forest Service, 2014. PACFISH Buffer and Temporary Road Monitoring, Lochsa Ranger District, unpublished data. Available at the Supervisors Office Annex #1, Kamiah, ID.

Soils Archer, V. 2008. Clearwater Soil Monitoring: Soils Report. Orofino, ID.

Busse, M.D., P.H. Cochran, W.E. Hopkins, W.H. Johnson, G.M. Riegel, G.O. Fiddler, A. W. Ratcliff, and C.J. Shestak. 2009. Developing resilient ponderosa pine forests with mechanical thinning and prescribed fire in central Oregon’s pumice region. Can. J. For. Res. 39:1171-1185.

Carr, T. 1989. An evaluation of forest soil tillage using the winged subsoiler on landings in the Prince George Forest District: A Pilot Study. Contract Report Silviculture Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. 24p.

Certini, G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia 143:1-10.

Choromanska, U. and T.H. DeLuca. 2002. Microbial activity and nitrogen mineralization in forest mineral soils following heating: evaluation of post-fire effects. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34: 263-271.

Clayton, J.L.; Kellogg, G ; Forester, N. 1987. Soil disturbance Tree-growth relations in central Idaho clearcuts. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-372. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 6p.

Clayton, J.L. 1990. Soil disturbance resulting from skidding logs on granite soils in Central Idaho. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-436.

DeBano, L.F. 1981. Water repellant soils: a state-of-the-art. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-46, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA. 21 pp. de Dios Benavides-Soloria, J., and L.H. MacDonald. 2005. Measurement and prediction of post-fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. Int. J. of Wildland Fire 14:457-474.

DeLuca, T.H., and G.H. Aplet. 2008. Charcoal and carbon storage in forest soils of the Rocky Mountain West. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6(1): 18-24.

DiTomaso, J.M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts and management. Weed Science 28(2): 255-265.

198 Fleming R.L., R.F. Powers, N.W. Foster, J.M. Kranabetter, D.A. Scott, F. Ponder Jr., S. Berch, W.K Chapman, R.D. Kabzems, K.H. Ludovici, D.M. Morris, D.S. Page-Dumroese, P.T. Sandborn, F.G. Sanchez, D.M. Stone, and A.E. Tiarks. 2006. Effects of organic matter removal, soil compaction, and vegetation control on 5-year seedling performance: a regional comparison of Long-Term Soil Productivity sites. Can. J. For. Res. 36:529-550.

Foltz, R.B, and E. Maillard. 2003. Infiltration rates on abandoned road-stream crossings. Paper Number 035009. ASAE Annual International Meeting. Las Vegas, Nevada. 11p.

Froehlich, H.A. and D.H. McNabb. 1983. Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific Northwest Forest. Presented at Sixth North American Soils Conference. 35p.

Garrison, M. T. and J. A. Moore. 1998. Nutrient management: a summary and review. In: Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Garrison-Johnston, M. T., J. A. Moore and G. J. Niehoff. 2001. Cooperative Supplemental Report 98: 5.

Garrison-Johnston, M. 2003. Geologic controls on tree nutrition and forest health in the Inland Northwest. Presented at GSA Ann. Mtng, Seattle, WA. 9 pp.

Garrison-Johnston, M., T.M. Shaw, L.R. Johnson, and P.G. Mika. 2004. Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Cooperative, Presentation at the Potassium Meeting, IPNF, Coeur d’Alene, ID, April 23.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgenson, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP-477. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13p.

Graham, R.T., T.B. Jain, and A.E. Harvey. 1999. Fuel: Logs, sticks, needles, duff and much more. In Proceedings, Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop. Crossing the millennium: integrating spatial technologies and ecological principles for a new age in fire management. L.F. Neunschwander, K.C. Ryan, G.E. Gollberg, and J.D. Greer (editors). Boise, Idaho.

Grier, C.C., K.M. Lee, N.M. Nadkarni, G.O. Klock, and P.J. Edgerton. 1989. Productivity of forest of the United States and its relation to soil and site factors and management practices: A review. PNW- GTR-222. United Stated Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Jurgensen, M.F., A.E. Harvey, R.T. Graham, D.S. Page-Dumrose, J.R. Tonn, M.J. Larson, and T.B. Jain. 1997. Impacts of timber harvests on soil organic matter, nitrogen, productivity and health of inland northwest forests. Forest Science 43: 234-251.

Kolka, R.K. and M.F. Smidt. 2004. Effects of forest road amelioration techniques on soil bulk density, surface runoff, sediment transport, soil moisture and seedling growth. Forest Ecology 202: 313-323.

Luce, C.H. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest roads. Restoration Ecology 5 (3):265-270.

Megahan, W. F. 1990. Erosion and site productivity in Western Montana forest ecosystems. In: Proceedings, Management and Productivity of Western Montana Forest Soils. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- 280. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station: 146-150.

199 Miller, R.E., J.D. McIver, S.W. Howes, and W.B. Gaeuman. 2010. Assessment of soil disturbance in forests of the interior Columbia River basin: A critique. USDA Forest Service Gen Tech Report PNW-GTR-811. 154 p.

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, eds. 2005 (revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p.

Newland, J.A., and T.H. DeLuca. 2000. Influence of fire on native nitrogen-fixing plants and soil nitrogen status in ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir forests in western Montana. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:274-282.Niehoff, J., 2002, Soil NEPA Analysis Process and Source of Soil Disturbance Model Coefficients, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, unpublished report. Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, A. Abbot, T. Rice, J, Tirocke, S. Farley, and S. DeHart. 2006a. Monitoring Changes in Soil Quality from Post-fire Logging in the Inland Northwest. Forest Service Proceedings. RMRS-P-41. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station:605-613.

Page-Dumroese, D. S., M. F. Jurgensen, A.E. Tiarks, F. Ponder Jr., F.G. Sanchez, R.L. Fleming, J.M Kranabetter, R.F. Powers, D.M. Stone, J.D. Elioff, and D.A. Scott. 2006b. Soil physical property changes at the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compaction. Can. J. For. Res. 36:551-564.

Page-Dumroese, D., A. Abbot, T. Rice. 2009. National Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Volume 1 and 2: Rapid Assessment, Supplementary methods, statistics, data storage. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 95p.

Powers, R.F. 1990. Are we maintaining the productivity of forest lands? Establishing guidelines through a network of long term studies. Paper presented at Symposium of Management and Productivity of Western Montane Forest Soils, Boise ID, April 10-12, 1990. 13p.

Reeves, D. D. Page-Dumroese and M. Coleman. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance associated with timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-89 Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 12 p.

Sanchez, F.G., A.E. Tiarks, J.M. Kranabetter, D.S. Page-Dumroese, R.F. Powers, P.T. Sanborn, and W.K. Chapman. 2006. Effects of organic matter removal and soil compaction on fifth-year mineral soil carbon and nitrogen contents for sites across the United States and Canada. Can. J. For. Res 36:565- 576.

Stark, 1979. Nutrient losses from timber harvesting in a larch/Douglas fir forest. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. INT-231.

Sullivan, T. E. 1998. Monitoring soil physical conditions on a national forest in Eastern Oregon: A Case Study. 9 p.

Switalski, T.A., J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road removal. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2(1): 21-28

200 Tepp, J.S. 2002. Assessing visual soil disturbance on eight commercially thinned sites in northeastern Washington. Res. Note. PNW-RN-535. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 20p.

USDA Forest Service.

1998, 2008. Upper Clearwater Cooperative Weed Management Area.

2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. 177 p.

USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Handbook 2509.18

Wildlife Avian Science Center. University of Montana. Access June 29, 2015. http://www.cfc.umt.edu/asc/

Brewer, L. T., R. Bush, J. E. Canfield, A. R. Dohmen. 2009. Northern Goshawk Northern Region Overview: key finding and project considerations. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 54 pages.

Bollenbacher , B., R. Bush, and R. Lundberg. 2009. Estimates of snag densities for Northern Idaho Forests in the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, Montana. 47 pp.

Boudreau 2013

Bull, E. L., and J. A. Jackson. 1996. Pileated woodpecker, Dryocopus pileatus. The Birds of North America, No. 148.

Bull, E. L., N. Nielsen-Pincus, B. C. Wales, and J. L. Hayes. 2007. The influence of disturbance events on pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management: 243:320-329.

Bush, R., R. Lundberg, J. Weston. 2010. Estimates of old growth and snag diversity on the Nez Perce National Forest, August 2, 2010. USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Missoula, MT. Report 10-11 v3.0.

Buskirk, S. W., and L. F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. Pages 7–37 in L.F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254.

Digital Atlas of Idaho. 2014. Digital Atlas of Idaho: Idaho’s natural history online. Available online at http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/index.htm. (Accessed: December 2014).

Dixon, R. D. and V. A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed woodpecker, Picoides arcticus. The Birds of North America, No. 509. 20 pp.

Dohmen, A. 2006. Evaluation report: terrestrial wildlife habitat. Northern Region, Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho.8 pp.

Frair, J. L., E. H. Merrill, H. L. Beyer, J. M. Morales. 2008. Thresholds in landscape connectivity and mortality risks in response to growing road networks. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1504- 1513.Goggans, R., R. D. Dixon, and L. C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed and black-

201 backed woodpeckers. Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/USDA, Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 49pp.

Groves, C., T. Frederick, G. Frederick, E. Atkinson, M. Atkinson, J. Shepherd, and G. Servheen. 1997b. Density, distribution, and habitat of flammulated owls in Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 57(2):116- 123.

Hayward, G. D., and J. Verner, technical editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253, Fort Collins, CO. 214 pp. Pages 10, 14, 25, 40.

Hayward, G. D., T. Holland, and R. Escano. 1990. Goshawk habitat relationships. Pages 19-28 in N. M. Warren. Old-growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Northern Region, Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region.

Hayward, G. D. and R. E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in Western Montana and Northern Idaho. The Condor 91:476-479.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Idaho comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. Available online at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs.cfm

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2012. GIS layer – Wildlife observations, on file at the Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forests.

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

Kennedy, P. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf.

Kujala, Q. J. 1993. Winter habitat selection and population status of pine marten in southwest Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 58 pp. Pgs, xi, 51.

Leege, T. 1984. Guidelines for evaluating and managing summer elk habitat in northern Idaho. Idaho Department of fish and Game Wildlife Bulletin No. 11, Boise, ID.

McCorquodale, S. M. 2013. A brief review of the scirntific literature on elk, roads, and traffic. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 27 pp.

McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, Y.K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. Pages 207-264 In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk and others. 2000. Ecology and Conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480 pp.

NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: December 31, 2014)

202 Naylor, L. M., M. J. Wisdom, R. G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioral responses of North American elk to recreational activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(3):328-338.

Powers, L. R., A. Dale, P. A. Gaede, C. Rodes, L. Nelson, J. J. Dean, and J. D. May. 1996. Nesting and food habits of the flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) in southcentral Idaho. Journal Raptor Res. 30(1):15-20.

Ranglack D., B. Garrott, J. Rotella. 2016(a). Security areas for maintaining elk on publicly accessible lands during archery and rifle hunting seasons in southwestern Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Department of Ecology. Technical Report. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1640.8567.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA, Forest Service General Technical Report RM- 217. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. 90 pages.

Rosenberg, K. V. 2004. Partners in flight continental priorities and objective defined at the state and bird conservation region levels – Idaho. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 30 pp.

Rowland M. M., M.J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, J. G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 672-684.

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, M. A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of roads on elk: Implications for management in forest ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek [and others]. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk [and others]. 2000. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Co. 480 pp.

Samson, F. B. 2006a. Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten, and Fisher. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, Montana. Version June 6, 2006.

Samson, F. B. 2006b. Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten, and Fisher. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, Montana. Version June 6, 2006.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 3.23.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Servheen G., S. Blair, D. Davis, M. Gratson, K. Leidenfrost, B. Stotts, J. White, J. Bell. 1997. Interagency guidelines for managing elk habitats and populations on U.S. Forest Service lands in central Idaho. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. U.S. Forest Service. 1987.

203 Shepherd, J. F. and G. Servheen. 1992. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) surveys and habitat sampling on the Clearwater, Red River and Salmon River Ranger Districts, Nez Perce National Forest. Idaho Dept of Fish and Game. 23 pp.

Squires, J. R., and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis. The Birds of North America, No. 298. 32 pp.

Toweill, D. 2011. Project W-170-R-34, Progress Report, Moose, Study I, Job 6, July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011. Boise, Idaho.

Unsworth, J. W., L. Kuck, E. O. Garton, B. R. Butterfield. 1998. Elk habitat selection on the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4):1255-1263.

United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (USDA Forest Service).

1992. Interim management recommendations, sensitive species, March, 1992. Unpubl. Report. 15 pp.

2002. Newsome Creek Ecosystem Assessment at the Watershed Scale. Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID.

2007a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Volume 1. Northern Region, Missoula, MT. March. 534 pp.

2007b. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Record of Decision. Northern Region, Missoula, MT. March. 71 pp.

2010. Wildlife technical report for the 2010 Boise National Forest Plan Amendment to implement a forest wildlife conservation strategy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Volume 1 pg. 116.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

2006. Occupied mapped lynx habitat amendment to the Canada Lynx conservation agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU-110115600-013. Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 18 pp.

2007. Biological Opinion for the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. March 23, 2007. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Montana Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Correspondence with the Forest Service re: lynx consultation considerations for the Little Slate Project. Boise, ID. 3 pp.

Ulizio, T., Squires, J., Claar, J. 2007. Nez Perce National Forest 2007 Lynx Surveys Final Report. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 5pp.

Wisdom, M. J., B. K. Johnson, M. Vavra, J. M. Boyd, P. K. Coe, J. G. Kie, A. A. Ager, N J. Cimon. 2005. Cattle and elk responses to intensive timber harvest. Pages 197-216 in Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

204 APPENDIX A – ALTERNATIVE MAPS AND TREATMENT TABLES

Appendix A – Page A-1

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A – Page A-2

Figure A-1: Alternative 2 – Proposed silviculture treatments, landscape burn units, road and culvert treatments.

Appendix A – Page A-1

This page is intentionally left blank .

Appendix A – Page A-2 Table A-1: Dutch Oven project Alternative 2 - Vegetation treatment units Proposed Timber Harvest Unit Acres Prescription Logging System 01 6 Regeneration Tractor 01A 9 Intermediate Tractor/Jammer 02 10 Regeneration Cable 04 16 Regeneration Tractor 05 54 a Regeneration Tractor 07A 26 Intermediate Cable 07B 20 Intermediate Cable 09 19 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 10 58 a Intermediate Tractor/Jammer 10A 12 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 10B 83 a Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 10C 3 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 11 7 Intermediate Cable 11A 45 Intermediate Cable 11B 16 Intermediate Cable 12 4 Intermediate Tractor 13 3 Intermediate Tractor 14 66 a Regeneration Tractor 14A 6 a Regeneration Tractor 15 62 a Regeneration Cable 16 12 a Regeneration Cable 18A 14 Regeneration Tractor 18B 21 Regeneration Tractor 19A 18 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 19B 11 Regeneration Cable 20 7 a Regeneration Tractor 21 40 a Regeneration Cable 22 4 a Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 24 54 a Regeneration Tractor 26 10 Regeneration Tractor 27 21 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 28 6 Regeneration Tractor 29 9 Regeneration Cable 30 17 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 31 14 Regeneration Cable 32 24 Regeneration Cable 32A 4 Regeneration Cable 33 97a Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 33A 5 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 40 9 Regeneration Tractor 41 17 Regeneration Cable 42 29 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 42B 6 Intermediate Tractor/Jammer 42C 13 Intermediate Tractor/Jammer

Appendix A – Page A-3 Proposed Timber Harvest Unit Acres Prescription Logging System 42D 5 Intermediate Tractor/Jammer 43 44 a Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 46 34 a Regeneration Tractor 48 8 a Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 49 4 Regeneration Cable 50A 18 Regeneration Tractor 50B 9 Regeneration Tractor 51 10 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 51A 5 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer 52 2 Intermediate Tractor/Jammer 53 36 Regeneration Tractor/Jammer Proposed Prescribed Burn Units Unit Acres Prescription A 413 Landscape Prescribed Burn B 183 Landscape Prescribed Burn C 275 Landscape Prescribed Burn D 164 Landscape Prescribed Burn E 100 Landscape Prescribed Burn F 14 Landscape Prescribed Burn a Regeneration treatment unit or combination of units exceeds 40 acres in size. 7 openings total

Table A-2: Alternative 2 – Road Access Prescriptions Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Road Access Prescription Comments Miles % Miles %

Rds 1808F, and parts of SH Open Yearlong to 18.99 35% 18.99 35% 14, 307, 471, 1808, 1808A, All Vehicles 1858, 9852, 9868

(Y-4) Restricted Yearlong Rds 1808E, 9815A, 9815C, for Motor Vehicles > 50” in 10.93 20% 9.58 18% 9815E, and parts of 9815, width 9867 (Y-2) Restricted Yearlong 21.96 40% 18.23 33% All remaining roads for All Motor Vehicles (B) Decommissioned 1.76 3% 6.84 12% See list in table above Rd 9867B and parts of Private Roads 1.21 2% 1.21 2% 1808A, 9867

Appendix A – Page A-4 Table A-3: Alternative 2 associated road actions. Road Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Comments Road Segment Miles Access Status Status Access Rx on Action Mileposts Rx Spot gravel, 1808 2.97-8.50 5.5 EX Open Open No change Culvert Reconstruct 307 0.0-3.2 3.2 EX Open Open No change Add gravel Spot Gravel, 307A 0-1.45 1.75 EX Y-2 Y-2 No Change Culvert Re-contour 307A 1.45–2.58 1.13 EX Y-2 DE(R) B last half of road Re-contour 307A1 0.55–0.86 0.31 EX Y-2 DE(R) B last third of road 307B1 0.00–0.06 0.06 DE(A) B DE(A) B No change 9815 0.0-1.48 1.48 EX Y-4 Spot Gravel Y-4 No change 9815D All 1.16 EX Y-4 DE(R) B 9851 0.0-1.19 1.19 EX Y-2 Spot gravel Y-2 No change 9851A All 0.44 EX Y-2 DE(R) B 9852A All 0.36 EX Y-2 DE(R) B 9852B All 0.18 EX Y-2 DE(R) B 9853A 0.94–0.99 0.05 DE(R) B DE(R) B No change 9867 0.83-1.19 0.5 EX Y-4 Reconstruct Y-4 No change Recondition 9867 1.19-2.45 1.3 EX Y-4 Y-4 No change Spot Gravel Accesses 9867A All 0.19 EX Y-4 DE(A) B Private Lands 9874 All 0.56 EX Y-2 DE(R) B 78395 All 0.26 DE(A) B DE(A) B No change 78396 All 0.41 DE(A) B DE(A) B No change 78397 All 0.58 DE(A) B DE(A) B No change Re-contour 78398 All 0.4 DE(A) B DE(R) B abandoned road 78399 All 0.41 EX Y-2 DE(R) B 78399A All 0.34 EX Y-2 DE(R) B DE(R) = Decommission, EX = Existing road DE(A) = Decommission, Abandon Re-contour

Appendix A – Page A-5 Table A-4: Alternative 2 stream crossing improvements Road ID Crossing Proposed Action South Fork Clearwater Face 307 Replace/upsize 1 culvert 06 tributary 307 Allison Creek Replace/realign/upsize 1 culvert 307A Allison Creek Replace/realign/upsize 1 culvert 1808 Whiskey Creek tributary Replace/upsize 1 culvert 9815 Whiskey Creek Replace/realign/upsize 1 culvert 9815 Dutch Oven Replace/upsize 1 culvert 9815 Dutch Oven tributary Replace/upsize 1 culvert South Fork Clearwater Face 9815B Replace/upsize 1 culvert 06 tributary 9851 Moose Creek tributary Realign 1 culvert 9851 Moose Creek tributary Replace/upsize 1 culvert South Fork Clearwater Face 9853 Replace/upsize 1 culvert 06 tributary

Appendix A – Page A-6 APPENDIX B – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects arise from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions were considered for each resource to determine the cumulative effects associated with implementing the Dutch Oven project. The spatial extent of the cumulative effects analysis area and the activities considered can differ for each resource analyzed. A description of the areas used to determine cumulative effects and the rationale for their boundaries are discussed in Chapter 3 under each resource. Existing conditions are a result of past and current activities in the analysis area. Past management activities and effects as well as current practices and potential effects are described below.

Past Activities Wildfire and Fire Suppression Approximately 3500 acres of the 7,000 acre project area burned in 1889. Approximately 400 acres burned again in 1917, 800 acres in 1922 and then 72 acres in 1934. Since then, all fires have been contained at less than 10 acres. There have been 29 small fires (<10 acres) within the project boundary since 1970; the last fire start in the project area occurred in 2013.

Prescribed Fire Broadcast burning of activities fuels following timber harvest has been the most common form of prescribed burning. This has been followed by planting.

Timber Harvest Known timber harvest has occurred in the 7,000 acre project area since the 1950’s. A total of 2,019 acres have been harvested of which 12 acres were regeneration harvested in the 1950’s, 595 acres were regeneration harvested in the 1960’s, 186 acres were regeneration or commercial thinned in the 1970s, 562 acres were regeneration harvested or commercial thinned in the 1980s. Approximately 663 acres were regeneration harvested in the 1990’s under the Chocolate Moose Timber Sale and subsequently planted. In 2013, approximately 285 acres of these plantations from the Chocolate Moose Timber Sale area were pre-commercially thinned. The majority of the 7,000 acre project area lies within the 14,542 acre Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River (170603050501) USGS HUC 6 watershed. This HUC 6 watershed includes the following Forest Plan prescription watersheds: Moose Creek, Allison Creek, and Dutch Oven Creek. It also contains 2 South Fork Clearwater River Face drainages which have no specific Forest Plan standards that could constrict management activities. They have no upward trend requirement. A very small portion (<100 acres) of the project area lies within the 15,611 acre Lower American River (170603050204) USGS HUC 6 watershed. This HUC 6 watershed contains the Buffalo Gulch and Whiskey Creek Forest Plan Prescription watersheds. Portions of these prescription watersheds lie within the project area. At the USGS HUC 6 watershed scale, known timber harvest has occurred in the Whiskey Creek –South Fork Clearwater River watershed since the 1950’s on 2902 acres. Of those, approximately 1,954 acres occurred within the project area of which approximately 12 acres were harvested in the 1950’s, 523 acres were harvested in the 1960’s, 186 acres were harvested in the 1970’s, 562 acres were harvested in the

Appendix B – Page B-1 1980’s. In the 1990’s, approximately 663 acres were harvested in Chocolate Moose Timber Sale discussed above. In the 15,611 acre Lower American River USGS HUC 6 watershed, there have been approximately 1,682 acres of timber harvest. Of those, approximately 65 acres of timber harvest has occurred in the Dutch Oven project area; primarily during the 1960’s. There are no other ongoing or proposed timber harvest in the Dutch Oven project area or the Whiskey Creek –South Fork Clearwater River watershed or Lower American River watershed. Differences between past and current practices Across the forest, management through the 1980’s emphasized low cost harvest methods in order to provide low-cost wood products. Logging practices were less regulated and more impactive than current practices. Harvest units were placed where access was easiest and volumes were high. In many cases, this occurred within riparian areas adjacent to streams. The removal of the largest, oldest trees also reduced hiding cover, foraging, nesting and rearing habitat for many wildlife species. Activities reduced habitats available to riparian and upland species including snag and old growth dependent species. Past timber harvest increased the availability of early seral habitats, which provided some foraging opportunities, but reduced the amount of mature forest habitat available for denning. Traditional regeneration harvesting simplified habitats by removing habitat elements/legacy trees and snags that require 150-200 years to develop. Previously harvested areas lack habitat complexity and structural elements necessary to maintain a full complement and diversity of wildlife species. Some of these changes have been beneficial by increasing or maintaining ungulate forage and early seral conditions preferred by some bird species and some small mammals. Cheap, labor-intensive logging methods such as short-distance jammer systems, and tractor logging were favored, resulting in soil erosion, compaction, and sediment input into streams. Streams were sometimes used as a method to transport logs from the harvest site, causing impacts to both aquatic and riparian habitat. Much of the timber harvest was conducted using clearcut methods. These activities caused a reduction of riparian habitats, increased ECA, and some soil erosion in tractor logged areas. This caused a loss of stream shading resulting in increase in water temperatures, reduced fish usage in warm areas. There was bank destabilization in some locations due to the removal of streamside vegetation, with potential increases in stream sediment at these locations. Currently, protection of mature and old growth forest habitats, along with the use of PACFISH buffers minimize the effects to sensitive species and their habitats. Because of PACFISH buffer retention, there is no change to stream shading or temperature. There is minimal to no effect on sediment due to well vegetated buffers. All current (instream) and future (riparian) wood is retained. Adherence to downed woody debris and snag requirements retains adequate amounts of large woody debris and snags for travel, resting, hiding cover, prey habitat, hunting and denning. Current harvest prescriptions retain trees to address issues such as wildlife habitat, watershed conditions, visual quality, soil productivity and forest health. The prescriptions include retention of snags for cavity nesters, retention of standing live and dead down wood for soil nutrition and wildlife habitat, and maintaining sediment filtering vegetation near riparian areas. Improved logging systems reduce the threat of environmental harm. The use of best management practices and forest plan standards and guidelines also helps to reduce impacts associated with logging. Monitoring during and after the sale provides valuable feedback for future sales.

Road Construction Approximately 53 miles of roads have been constructed in the project area. Road construction occurred from 1895 to 1991. The majority of the roads were built to provide access for timber harvest and mining.

Appendix B – Page B-2 In 1998, approximately 1.5 miles were decommissioned; there are currently 52 miles of system roads in this area. Road densities in the project area are 4.6 mi/mi².

Table B-1: Past road construction by watershed Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River Year Roads Road Miles (170603050501) HUC 6 watershed Built Moose Creek 1895 to 1991 10.9 Allison Creek 1895 to 1991 8.5 Dutch Oven Creek 1919 to 1991 6.5 South Fork Clearwater Face 06 1920 to 1991 12.5 Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River (170603050501) HUC 6 watershed Buffalo Gulch 1935 to 1965 0.9 Whiskey Gulch 1895 to 1991 8.5 South Fork Clearwater River Face 05 1927 to 1991 5.2

The 14,542 acre Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River (170603050501) USGS HUC 6 watershed includes the following Forest Plan prescription watersheds: Moose Creek, Allison Creek, and Dutch Oven Creek. It also contains the South Fork Clearwater River Face drainage 06 which have no specific Forest Plan standards that could constrict management activities. It has no upward trend requirement. Approximately 88 miles of road were constructed in the Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River USGS HUC 6 watershed. Four miles have been decommissioned. There are currently 84 miles of road within this HUC 6 watershed. Road densities are 3.7mi/mi². A very small portion (<100 acres) of the project area lies within the 15,611 acre Lower American River (170603050204) USGS HUC 6 watershed. This HUC 6 watershed contains the Buffalo Gulch and Whiskey Creek Forest Plan Prescription watersheds as well as the South Fork Clearwater River Face drainage 05. Small portions of these prescription watersheds lie within the project area. Approximately 56 miles of roads were constructed in the Lower American River USGS HUC 6 watershed. Five miles have been decommissioned. There are currently 51 miles of road within this HUC 6 watershed. Road densities are 2.08 mi/mi². Differences between past and current practices Most of the current road work in the project area consists of routine maintenance and repairs. Past road construction may have resulted in a reduction of \riparian habitat and increase of sediment to streams. Roads caused loss of stream shading due to tree removal resulting in increased water temperature and sediment in stream channels, blocked fish passage and reduced fish habitat. In some cases, riparian habitat and road cut and fills have re-vegetated resulting in minimal soil erosion. Permanent loss of trees and future wood still exists where roads remain in riparian areas. Roads fracture wildlife habitat and cause disturbance to individuals. Motorized access reduced big game security.

Forest Service Best Management Practices are used during all road construction/reconstruction activities on the Forest. Special road construction and surfacing techniques are sued to prevent or control surface erosion and thus sediment delivery into streams. Aggregate surfacing is increasingly used as a direct result of research studies showing reductions in sediment potential of 80 to 90 percent from the travelway. Highly erosive or unstable slopes are avoided. Slash filter windrows below the toe of constructed fills are a very effective sediment mitigation technique (Burroughs and King, 1989) utilized wherever appropriate. Overall sediment mitigation levels of up to 80% for road development are currently achieved.

Road crossings (culverts) are located at more stable sites and are designed to mimic the stream itself, rather than just move water quickly through the site. Roads are located well away from streams and

Appendix B – Page B-3 riparian areas wherever practicable; and the numbers of crossings are minimized. In the past, when a road was no longer needed it was simply abandoned. Many of these abandoned roads continued to erode or experience fill failures due to a lack of maintenance. In many cases, they developed into chronic sediment sources for local streams. Current decommissioning practices restore unneeded roads to a “hydrologically neutral” condition. This involves the removal and recontouring of all stream crossings and wet areas. Recontouring hillslopes also occurs where deemed necessary to provide for slope stability. Woody material and duff from the surrounding area are placed on the decommissioned surface to provide nutrients to the soil and erosion control. Standardized travel management prescriptions keep motorized vehicles off unsurfaced roads during wet seasons, reducing sediment delivery.

Grazing The 7,000 acre Dutch Oven project area lies within the 19,128 acre Elk Summit grazing allotment. This allotment is active. Up to 150 cow/calf pairs (795 AUM’s) are allowed on this allotment from June 16 to October 15. From 1950’s through 1990’s approximately 5,302 acres of timber harvest occurred in the Elk Summit allotment. The majority of harvest occurred in the 1960s. Wildfire has burned on 6,254 acres. There were also 28 small fire starts that involved less than 50 acres. Approximately 61 miles of system roads were constructed within the allotment; primarily in the 1930s and 1960s for mining and timber harvest. Approximately two miles of road decommissioning has occurred; therefore there are currently 59 miles of system road in this allotment. There are approximately 40 miles of motorized and/or non- motorized trails in the grazing allotment. Differences between past and current practices Where cattle access to streams is not managed, cattle can trample and browse on streamside vegetation. This results in the loss of vegetation and a decrease in bank stability. The removal of vegetation also allowed stream temperatures to increase due to increased sun exposure. Where cattle cross streams, banks can slough, creating an input of sediment into the stream. Riparian fencing, reduction in permitted livestock numbers and administrative actions have avoided most impacts and reduced effects. Various methods are used to manage cattle and limit damage such as fencing to better contain cattle and limit damage to streams or other sensitive areas, regulating seasons of use and making adjustments in stocking levels to protect forage, and manage forage utilization.

Mining Elk City was established in 1861 when gold was discovered. Quartz lode operations began in 1902 and dredging in 1935. Mining activities were curtailed during World War II. The effects of past mining are still visible today. Differences between Past and Current Practices Mining-related activities include construction of access roads, digging of exploration trenches, construction of portals, shafts, mine and mill buildings, settling ponds, water impoundment sites and power corridors. Past mining activities removed woody debris from stream channels and reduced channel stability through riparian vegetation removal, and streambank and hydraulic mining. This input large quantities of sediment into streams contributing to a reduction in water quality and aquatic habitat. Mining continues to the present time on a much smaller scale. Currently, there are no large commercial mines on the Forest. Most are recreational miners who work their claims on a part time basis.

Current mining activities require annual operating plans that are approved by Forest officials before operations begin. Federal and State permits, specific operating conditions, and mitigation measures designed to protect threatened fish species and their habitat are implemented. They typically include instream work period restrictions and regulations on the type and size of equipment that can be used instream. The Forest has been very successful in working with the miners to minimize impacts to streams.

Appendix B – Page B-4 In addition, various stream bank stabilization and mine reclamation projects have been implemented to correct past practices.

Small-scale Suction Mining The Small-Scale Suction Dredging Decision Notice and Findings of No Significant Impact was signed on July 1, 2016; on the North Fork, Red River, and Salmon River Ranger Districts of the Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forest and Bureau of Land Management. Alternative 2, as described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) was selected. The decision allows the programmatic approval of up to a maximum of 35 small-scale suction dredging operations in any year; 20 in Orogrande and French Creeks and 15 in the South Fork of the Clearwater River (SFCWR). The EPA and IDWR approved and issued permits for the suction dredging actions.

Following the decision in 2016, twenty-one Plans of Operations for Mining Activities on Forest Systems Lands (POO) for placer mining were approved. Eleven POOs were approved for the South Fork of the Clearwater River and implemented over 30 day periods, in specific approved mining reaches (2 approved by the BLM). The decision included specific design criteria and mitigation measures for the operations, including monitoring. Dredging activities were approved in the South Fork Clearwater River from July 15th to August 15th, - consistent with IDWR and EPA regulations. The location of the dredging activities each year is dependent on the specific approved mining reaches of the river described in the approved POO. The dredge operations may be in the South Fork Clearwater River, from the confluence with Green Creek to the confluence of Red and American Rivers.

In 2016, monitoring of twenty suction dredge operations (nine on the SFCWR) was completed. Forests staff did not observe and were not notified of any unauthorized suction dredging in the project areas described in this report, or elsewhere on Forests-managed public lands in 2016. Despite substantial effort by Forests staff and a generally cooperative response from miners, full compliance with the terms and conditions of the consultations for suction dredging on the NP-CNF was not always achieved. The shortfalls in this effort were almost entirely in the form of record-keeping and monitoring information quality, rather than in substantive effects to fish or fish habitat, however. Potential unanticipated effects to fish and fish habitat from authorized suction dredging appeared to be minor and/or brief in 2016. Adequate screening of dredge intake hoses was initially not provided by several miners, but, where this issue was observed, Forests staff provided firm instructions not to operate until this was remedied, and screening was improved promptly in all cases. No interaction between dredging sites and redd construction was observed. Dredging outside of authorized and delineated reaches is described above and generally did not result in effects to channel elevations and substrate composition beyond that anticipated in the consultations. A few dredge holes were not or were inadequately filled, but these should be transitory and not entirely adverse stream channel features. To the extent that efforts are necessary to improve fish and fish habitat protection in 2017, the experience of the 2016 season should result in better organization and effectiveness of Forests staff.

Project mitigation measures and inspections appear to be very effective in eliminating or minimizing effects at all temporal and spatial scales. However, it seems evident that frequent and standardized inspections, consistent feedback to the miners, and enforcement of the mitigation measures are necessary to maintain the mitigation effectiveness. Reach delineation, monitoring, inspection, and reporting of the 2016 operations required substantial time and attention from Forests staff, and modifications will be suggested/made to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation and monitoring efforts.

General future effects of the approved suction dredging activities would be direct and indirect temporary (one-month dredging season of any one year) and short term (one to ten years) to aquatic species and habitat, water quality and some wildlife species and habitat. State water quality standards would not be exceeded.

Appendix B – Page B-5 In the SFCWR, implementation of 15 approved POOs could occur annually in a one-month dredging season over the next 10 years (2016-2025).

Aquatic Restoration Activities Various aquatic restoration projects have been completed to improve aquatic habitat and curb chronic sediment delivery. This includes culvert removal and replacement, road outsloping, installation of driveable dips or drainage outlets. In the project area, in 1998, approximately 1.5 miles of roads were decommissioned in the Dutch Oven project area. Portions of 2 USGS HUC 6 watersheds lie in the project area. At this larger scale, five miles of roads have been decommissioned in the Lower American River USGS HUC 6 watershed. Four miles of roads have been decommissioned in the Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River USGS HUC 6 watershed.

Highway 14 Landslide of 2016 and clean up On February 18, 2016 a large landslide occurred, covering Highway 14 and depositing material into the South Fork Clearwater River. This area had been identified as landslide prone. Addressing this emergency situation involved removing timber from the top of the slide, blasting boulders, and moving heavy equipment to load and haul material offsite. The finer materials deposited by the landslide are not a fisheries concern because 1) the landslide was a natural event and 2) the majority of material was hauled offsite and did not enter the river. The large boulders deposited may constrict flow and present a velocity barrier; hydraulic modelling may resolve this question. Stabilization was completed in 2016.

Ongoing Activities Recreation Activities Camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, and firewood cutting are ongoing in the project area. Firewood cutting is permitted on open roads under the Firewood Woodcutting Permit system. There is one trailhead (Elk Summit Trail 815) that lies on the project area boundary and one dispersed campsite near the headwaters of Moose Creek.

Road and Trail maintenance Various levels of maintenance on roads and trails in the project area.

Weed management Forestwide, integrated weed management under the guidelines of the Upper Clearwater River Cooperative Weed Management Area (USDA Forest Service 1998, 2008) is conducted.

Mining Activities

The Forest Service and BLM have approved up to 15 suction dredging permits in South Fork Clearwater River for activity July 15th to August 15th, annually. Approved Plans of Operation could occur annually in a one-month dredging season over the next 10 years (2016-2025).

Future Foreseeable Activities Newsome Creek Watershed Road Restoration Project This decision was signed in June 2014. Implementation is expected 2019. The southern corner of the Newsome project area overlaps into the northern portion of the Dutch Oven Project. The Newsome Creek

Appendix B – Page B-6 Watershed Road Restoration decision authorizes watershed improvement activities to improve fisheries habitat in Newsome Creek by reducing sediment delivery to streams and improving hydrologic function within the watershed. The Decision authorizes decommissioning 71 miles of road through re-contouring, decommissioning through abandonment 3 miles and improving 95 miles of road. The Decision will install one full size vehicle bridge across the West Fork of Newsome Creek on Road1834 and one trail bridge across Newsome Creek on the Easter Mine Trail 824.

Within the Dutch Oven project area, the Newsome Decision will decommission by abandonment one mile of Roads 307B1, 78388A1, 78389, 78395, and 78397; decommission by obliteration 0.3 miles of Roads 307B1, 307F and 78396; and improve nine miles of Roads 1808, 1808D, 1858, 307, 307B, 307C, 471, 78388, 78388A and 78392.

Eastside Allotment EA This proposed project was scoped in December 2011. This project is currently on hold. The proposed action would incorporate adaptive management strategies on 7 active grazing allotments on the forest. Proposed activities are designed to continue to improve trends in rangeland health, vegetation, watershed conditions, and in ecological sustainability relative to livestock grazing. The Eastside Allotment EA is considering soil restoration on up to 50 acres within that portion of the Elk Summit Allotment that lies within the Dutch Oven Project area (Elk Summit Area #2). Soil restoration activities would be completed over a 6 year period.

Allison Dam Pond Removal CE This project proposes to remove failing outlet pipes and earthen fill from 3 sites in Allison Creek which lie within the Dutch Oven Project area. Activities would occur approximately 200 yards upstream of Road 307A, 150 yards southeast of Road 307/987 junction and southwest of the end of Road 9874. Proposed activities would occur in 2017.

Allison Creek does not meet Forest Plan objectives. Proposed activities would restore hydrologic stream channel processes, reduce sediment and improve aquatic conditions in this degraded (below Forest Plan objective) Forest prescription watershed.

DRAMVU The 2005 Travel management Rule requires each National Forest to designate those roads, trails and areas where motorized travel will be permitted, while minimizing effects on resources and values identified in the Nez Perce Forest Plan. The Nez Perce Forest is currently analyzing travel route designation changes on the Forest. A Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (DRAMVU) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued in December 2008. A Supplemental DEIS was issued in December 2010. The proposed Draft Record of Decision (USDA, Forest Service 2016) would restrict motorized off- road motorized vehicle use and designate routes for roads and trails on the Nez Perce National Forest, including the entire Dutch Oven project area. The draft decision also proposes a reduced season of use on roads and trails in this project area. Effects from these actions have been considered. A Final EIS and Record of Decision are expected in 2017.

The Dutch Oven Project proposes to decommission approximately 5.08 miles of roads (Roads 307A, 307A1, 78398, 78399, 78399A, 9815D, 9851A, 9852A, 9852B, and 9874). About 3.73 miles of these roads, are currently restricted yearlong to all vehicles (307A, 307A1, 9851A, 9852A, 9852B, 9874, 78399, 78399A). About 1.35 miles of these roads are currently open yearlong to < 50” vehicles (9851D, 9867A). Road 1808E (1.2 miles) is proposed to be placed into long term storage (closed to motorized use). The Draft DRAMVU decision would designate motor vehicle use on roads and trails in the Dutch Oven project area, and proposes a change in the season of use.

Appendix B – Page B-7 Private Land Fuel Treatments Twenty one acres of private land may be treated along the National Forest boundary in 2017. A fuel break will be created that would be 100 feet or 150 feet wide depending on the location. All dead or dying trees, trees 8” DBH or smaller, and all brush and ladder fuels within the fuel break would be removed. All down woody material within the fuel break including logs, brush piles, limbs, forest debris and stumps would be masticated. All live trees would be pruned to 12 feet above ground level, or 1/3 of the live crown.

Appendix B – Page B-8 APPENDIX C – UPWARD TREND ANALYSIS

Appendix C – Page C-1 Upward Trend Analysis for prescription watersheds that are not currently meeting Fishery Water Quality Objectives and Habitat Potential (Nez Perce Forest Plan Appendix A) for the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project Upward trend analyses are required for Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds, as these watersheds do not currently meet their fish and water quality objectives (Forest Plan, Appendix A). Fish and water quality values are based on measured cobble embeddedness and predicted increases on natural sediment yields. Nez Perce Forest Plan Appendix A addresses below objective watersheds with Upward Trend direction. Upward Trend means that stream conditions will move toward the Forest Plan Appendix A fish and water objectives over time. According to the Implementation Guide to Forest Plan Appendix A (Conroy and Thompson 2011), for “all habitat components except sediment, the improving trend should be continuously upward, with no temporary downturns or reduction in the rate of improvement.” Upward Trend direction allows timber harvest or other sediment-producing activities to be implemented, as long as an Upward Trend in habitat carrying capacity is produced, presumably through implementation of watershed and stream restoration projects. The Forest Plan does not require that the improving trend be in place prior to initiation of new activities nor set a temporal boundary for achieving objectives (Conroy and Thompson 2011).

The following evaluation includes upward trend assessments for Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds. Maurice Creek, South Fork Clearwater Face 05 and Face 06 prescription watersheds do not have water quality objectives and are not discussed in this analysis. Dutch Oven Creek prescription watershed does not have an Upward Trend requirement and is not discussed in this analysis. Refer to the Fisheries and Water Resources Specialist Reports.

Proposed Dutch Oven Project Activities – Alternative 2

The Dutch Oven Project proposes a variety of activities to improve watershed health and function and help to maintain upward trends in project area streams. These activities are described in Table C-1.

Table C-1 - Summary of Watershed Improvement Projects proposed in Dutch Oven Project.

Activity Quantity Description

System Road 5.5 miles Road decommissioning practices vary depending on the potential of Decommissioning landslides and other erosion conditions associated with the road, the land type the road is on, and its proximity to fish bearing streams. While some roads can be abandoned, most roads require full decompaction and slope recontouring. For this project, 0.2 miles of road would be abandoned and 5.3 miles would be obliterated. All system roads proposed for decommissioning would be recontoured. A minimum of 3 stream crossings would be removed. A total of 0.21of these miles occur within PACFISH RHCAs.

Non-system Road 0 miles Non-system roads are old skid trails, jammer roads, or temporary roads Decommissioning used for past harvest activities.

Road Storage System 1.4 miles Roads needed for long term management but not needed in the short Roads term (<10 years) would be stored. One culvert will be removed and the roads placed in a hydrologically stable condition. Where culverts are removed, stream banks are sloped back, and stream channels are restored. No motorized access would be allowed on these roads.

Appendix C – Page C-2 Road 7.0 miles Portions of the total length would be treated as needed. Consists of Recondition/Improvement standard maintenance, such as road blading, brushing, cleaning of culverts, removal of small cutslope failures, application of rock in wet spots and removal of obstructions such as trees, rocks, etc. Aggregate (gravel) placement will occur along the entire length.

Road Reconstruction 1.8 miles Portions of the total length would be treated as needed. Includes spot aggregate placement, blading, brushing and removal of obstructions, reshaping of drainage dips and road bed, and replacement or addition of cross drain culverts.

Vegetation management activities and temporary road construction are also proposed as part of the Dutch Oven Project. The activities by alternative are shown in Table C-2. Log haul is the activity that has the highest risk of contributing sediment to streams outside of road decommissioning and culvert removals and replacements.

Table C-2 – Vegetation Management and Temp Road Construction Activities

Activity Alt. 2 Description Salvage harvest would remove dead and dying trees while leaving 14-28 standing trees per acre and retaining 17-33 tons/acre of downed woody material. Small patches of late successional trees and Pacific yew within proposed treatment units should not be harvested and should be retained as Harvest (acres) 1,158 green tree retention. Trees would not be removed from RHCAs, except to facilitate anchoring of cable yarding systems. During instream habitat improvement activities, tree felling in RHCAs would occur only where that activity would not affect Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) for shade and wood debris recruitment. Temporary roads would constructed to provide for log removal. They would

be obliterated within 1 years of harvest and would not be open to motorized Temporary Road vehicles after use. Temporary road locations would predominantly be located Construction (miles) on gentle slopes, over existing templates, and in areas where excavation would be minimized. Out-sloped drainage is preferred where feasible and when safety and discharge to water bodies are not at risk. Temporary roads shall be closed to the public and decommissioned immediately following use. If, for 6.1 unforeseen reasons, a temporary road has to overwinter, it would be put into a stable condition consisting of out sloping, water barring, and/or seeding or mulching, as specified in the contract. Decommissioning shall consist of recontouring the road prism including all cut and fill slopes to natural ground contour. In addition, from 7 to 15 tons per acre of clearing or logging slash, stumps or other woody debris shall be placed and scattered uniformly on the top of the recontoured corridor to provide a minimum of 70% cover.

Dust abatement would be used on major haul routes to minimize sediment input to streams from log hauling activities. Contractors would have spill Log Haul 33 prevention and containment materials on site to minimize the risk of an (miles of road) accidental spill of petroleum products, as well as to protect water courses and aquatic biota from adverse effects in the event of a spill.

Appendix C – Page C-3 Project design features, fully described in Chapter 2, would be used in conjunction with all activities in order to reduce or eliminate sediment delivery to streams and affects to aquatic habitats. They include in part: PACFISH buffer retention including around landslide prone areas, erosion control during culvert removals and replacements, dust abatement on all haul roads, log haul timing restrictions to dry or frozen road conditions, no temporary road construction or swing trails in RHCAs and therefore no temporary roads or swing trails with stream crossings or hydrologic connectivity to streams. The project would implement best management practices (BMPs) from the Idaho Forest Practices Act and Soil and Water Conservation Handbook and the 2012 National Best Management Practices to prevent non-channelized sediment delivery to streams from harvest units and road building and maintenance. Past Activities Contributing to Upward Trend Tools for accomplishing an upward trend include limiting new disturbances, allowing natural recovery to occur, and/or implementing activities that would improve aquatic conditions.

• Past timber harvest with ground disturbing activities on Forest Service lands in these prescription watersheds has not occurred since the 1990’s, and is no longer having an effect on sediment yield as predicted by NEZSED. Since the implementation of PACFISH in 1995, zero to 11% of the prescription watersheds have been harvested. Since 1995, no timber harvests have occurred in Allison Creek, Dutch Oven Creek, Moose Creek prescription watersheds. Also less than 0.5% of Whiskey Creek, 2% of S. Fork Clearwater Face 05, 3% of Buffalo Gulch, and 10% of S. Fork Clearwater Face 06 prescription watersheds have been harvested. Since 1995, all timber harvest in Buffalo Gulch watershed has occurred on BLM lands. Imagery dating back to 1992 shows most streams retained buffers of 50’ or wider. Buffers retained after 1995 were 150’ wide on perennial non-fish bearing streams and 300’ on fish bearing streams as per PACFISH standards. Recent buffer monitoring on the Clearwater National Forest showed no delivery of sediment to either the buffer or to streams after harvest and burning treatments (Smith, 2016). • Road maintenance and improvements are designed to keep roads in optimum conditions for travel as well provide for adequate drainage and surfacing to protect the road from excessive and unwanted surface or ditchline erosion. • Road position and surfacing greatly reduces the risk of sediment delivery to streams. Project area roads are mostly located on or near ridgetops and have relatively few stream crossings, or are graveled which helps to diminish their contributions of sediments or other contaminants to streams. A study by Swift (1984) showed that placement of crushed rock reduced sediment production by 70 percent from the unsurfaced condition. • Road access management contributes to an upward trend through road use restrictions that limit access to roads particularly during the wet fall and spring seasons when sediment is most likely to be delivered to streams. • Facilities management, such as the regular maintenance of developed recreational areas and of on-forest public restrooms prevents human-caused ground and/or water contamination.

Upward Trend Assessment by Prescription Watershed An Upward Trend assessment was conducted for each of the Forest Plan Prescription watersheds functioning below water quality/fisheries objectives. Alternative 1 (no action) was compared to Alternatives 2 (maximum alternative) for the short-term (0-5 years) and long-term (>5-20years). Number ranges for each of the ratings were based on the relative affect at the prescription watershed and subwatershed scale. The Upward Trend determination is calculated by assigning a value to the Low,

Appendix C – Page C-4 Moderate, and High rankings (L=1, M=2, H=3) defined for each resource indicator in the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition (NOAA 1998). The rankings are set to be negative or positive, either contributing to the degradation or improvement of aquatic/watershed conditions, respectively (Conroy and Thompson, 2011). A Low ranking is given to those activities expected to have a negligible effect both at the subwatershed and watershed scale. Activities rated as Moderate are expected to have a significant local effects at the subwatershed scale. Activities rated as High are expected to have a significant effect at the watershed scale, both in scope and magnitude. For Upward Trend analysis, watersheds are defined as the Nez Perce Forest Plan prescription watersheds. The Forest Plan states that field-based monitoring be used to establish whether the improving trend is being achieved. The Forest Plan’s Aquatic Monitoring Plan requires that implementation, compliance, and effectiveness monitoring be conducted for all projects. However, for the sake of this pre- implementation analysis, models such as ECA, WEPP, and NEZSED were used to estimate potential increases in water and sediment yields to analysis potential increases in sediment delivery to streams. These models hold a prediction error of plus or minus fifty percent. Refer to the Fisheries and/or Water Resources Reports for additional information on aquatics effects analysis

Surface Erosion Modelling:

NEZSED model results were used to analyze Upward Trend for surface erosion caused by vegetation treatments and road activities for each prescription watershed. NEZSED modeling predicts that within 6 years of project implementation, all prescription watersheds will meet the Appendix A sediment yield guidelines (refer to Table C-3 below), indicating that any unnatural increases in sediment yields would occur only in the short-term.

Table C-3: NEZSED sediment yield percent over base by alternative by Forest Plan prescription watersheds Prescription Percent Over Base Watershed Alt 1 Existing Alt 2 Year 1 Alt 2 Year 6 Alt 2 Year 10 Sediment Yield (2017) (2022) (2026) Guideline a Allison Creek 17 78 18 18 60 Buffalo Gulch Creek 11 13 13 13 60 Moose Creek 7 51 7 7 60 Whiskey Creek 7 29 7 7 60 a Forest Plan Appendix A allowable percent sediment yield over base to meet fish/water quality objective. ** Fish/water quality objective not specified in Forest Plan Appendix A. Assumptions of 60% could be made when none designated, but are not to be considered an objective.

Appendix C – Page C-5 Table C-4: NEZSED estimates of percent over base sediment yield for Dutch Oven Project NEZSED % over base sediment yield estimates for Dutch Oven Project 90 80 70 60 Forest Plan threshold 50 ALLISON CREEK 40 BUFFALO GULCH 30 20 MOOSE CREEK 10 WHISKEY CREEK 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Sediment Yield % Over Base Rate(T/yr) Year

Upward Trend regarding surface erosion is considered when future sediment yields are predicted to go below existing sediment yields. Long-term NEZSED-predicted sediment yields do not go below existing condition percentages over base, indicating that Upward Trend for surface erosion would not achieved. However, the Nez Perce Forest Plan does not require that sediment yield be at a continuous Upward Trend nor that it be established prior to project implementation.

In the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition (NOAA 1998), designations for negative Low, Moderate, and High impacts to surface erosion due to vegetation treatments were based first on percent of watershed area being harvested, with Low being less than 35%, Moderate being between 35 and 50%, and High being greater than 50%. The percent change from existing management- caused sediment yields, using NEZSED results, were considered. Proposed harvest/fire activities estimated to have a percent increase greater than fifty percent were considered High (-), between twenty five and fifty were considered Moderate (-), and between 10 and 25 were considered Low (-). These are conservative designations, as a greater than 50% increase from existing conditions does not necessarily correlate to degradation of the watershed. The logic is, since current conditions are not meeting estimated baseline conditions (Refer to Table C-3), a greater than 50% increase from existing estimated sediment yields would indicate conditions are moving away from desired future conditions and would require increased mitigation and/or remediation. Scale and magnitude of surface erosion are averaged for the final designation. For instance, a watershed undergoing 40% harvesting (-M = -2) with a percent increase in management-caused sediment yields of 60% (-H = -3), would be designated a conservative H (-).

Positive (beneficial) values to surface erosion due to vegetation treatments were considered where planting is proposed, following timber harvest. When harvesting is greater than 35% of the watershed area, beneficial effects are considered negligible. All proposed harvesting is less than 35% of the watershed area. When total harvesting is equal to or less than 35% of the watershed area and the ratio of regeneration units to total management units in each watershed is greater than or equal to 75%, between 50 and 75%, or less than 50%, beneficial effects on surface erosion are designated as (+) High, (+) Moderate, and (+) Low, respectively. These are conservative designations, as 2016 NEZSED is incapable of differentiating between clearcut, clearcut with reserves, seedtree, and shelterwood units; all are classified as clearcut although all proposed harvesting will leave reserves (Refer to Section 3.1.3.2 of EA). The logic with these designations is that, because regeneration harvest treatments will focus on

Appendix C – Page C-6 treating stands that have culminated in growth, have reached a specified age or condition, or are being affected by pathogens to the point mortality rates are significantly affecting stand health and growth rates, that the long-term effects of these actions at the watershed scale are beneficial. Positive and negative effects are averaged for the final matrix designation.

Table C-6 shows sediment yield percent change in existing management-induced sediment yields due to overall proposed road activities. In NEZSED, effects of harvesting and prescribed fires are assumed to be negligible after six years and 4 years, respectively, after implementation. The slight increase noticed for Whiskey Creek watershed from 2019 to 2020 is due to the decommissioning of temporary roads located outside of harvest units. These activities ultimately lead to lower management-caused sediment deliver over time.

Table C-5: Percent over existing sediment yields due to harvest/fire activities as calculated by NEZSED

% over Existing management-induced Sediment Yield due to proposed harvest/burn activities 2500

2000

1500 ALLISON CREEK BUFFALO GULCH 1000 MOOSE CREEK WHISKEY CREEK 500 % over Existing% sediment yield

0 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 Year

Appendix C – Page C-7 Table C-6: Percent over Existing sediment yields due to Road Activities as calculated by NEZSED % change from Existing management-induced sediment

400 yields due to proposed roads activities

350

300

250 ALLISON CREEK 200 BUFFALO GULCH % Change 150 MOOSE CREEK 100 WHISKEY CREEK 50

0 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 Year

For roads analysis of sediment yield, temporary roads, road construction/improvement, drainage or culvert improvements, and decommissioning were assessed separately. In the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition (NOAA 1998), designations for Low, Moderate, and High impacts to surface erosion due to road activities were based on both the percent decrease (i.e. road decommissioning) or increase (i.e. temporary roads) in road density and/or the percent change from existing management- caused sediment yields, using NEZSED results. Percent changes from existing management-caused sediment yields greater than 50% are High (-), between 25 and 50% are Moderate (-), and between 10 and 25% are Low (-). When the road system is being increased by more than 20%, effects are assumed to be High (-), between 10 and 20% are Moderate (-), and when less than 10% are L (-). When the road system is being reduced by more than 20%, effects are assumed to be High (+), between 10 and 20% are Moderate (+), and when less than 10% are L (+). The effects of temporary roads versus new permanent roads are analyzed separately. WEPP model results were used to analyze effects on surface erosion due to culvert improvements. Final results on effects on surface erosion due to vegetation treatments are included below in prescription watershed upward trend analysis sections.

Utilizing the NEZSED-derived percent over base sediment yield values, FISHSED modeling was employed to predict cobble embeddedness for each prescription watershed with confirmed fish presence in the first year following Alternative 2 (Table C-7). Cobble embeddedness in Allison Creek is expected to increase by 11% under the action alternative, while Buffalo Gulch, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Gulch prescription watersheds show increases of less than10% and therefore are not considered to be substantial enough to signify increases in CE (Stowell et al. 1983).

Appendix C – Page C-8 Table C-7. Cobble Embeddedness: Existing condition (Alt 1) in project area watersheds compared to FISHSED modeled short term values resulting from proposed activities (Alt 2, year 1), and percent change over time. Alt 1 Alt. 2 % Change Greater than % Cobble % Cobble Prescription Watershed 2013 to Alt 2, 10% Embedded- Embeddedness year 1 change? ness (Year) (year 1)

Allison Creek 64 (2013) 71 11* Y Buffalo Gulch Creek 76 (2013) 77 2 N 62 (2013) Moose Creek 67 7 N 53 (1988) Whiskey Creek 60 (2013) 63 4 N *Changes in Cobble Embeddedness greater than 10% are considered to be showing measurable change according to NPNF interpretation of FISHSED modeling results (Stowell et al. 1983).

FISHSED modelling of proposed activities (Alt 2) effects to fish habitat over the 10 year period following implementation indicate an improvement in cobble embeddedness conditions compared to the first year following implementation and are not measurably different than the existing condition (see Table C-8). Long term Alternative 2 FISHSED results show all measures of fish habitat carrying capacity (i.e. cobble embeddedness, summer rearing, and winter carrying capacity) returning to levels close to the existing condition and under the 10% change threshold (see Tables 3-19, 3-20 and 3-21 in the Fisheries Section). Proposed activities are expected to slightly elevate cobble embeddedness in all prescription watersheds at 10 years, however none of the results indicate measurable change from baseline conditions (i.e. >10%). FISHSED modeling indicates only slight decreases in summer rearing capacity and winter carrying capacity at 10 years in all prescription watersheds, however none of the results indicate measurable change from baseline conditions (see Tables 3-19, 3-20 and 3-21 in the Fisheries Section). Table C-8. Cobble Embeddedness: Existing condition (Alt 1) in project area watersheds compared to FISHSED modeled long term values resulting from proposed activities (Alt 2, year 10), and percent change over time. Alt 1 Alt. 2 % Change Greater than % Cobble % Cobble Prescription Watershed 2013 to Alt 2, 10% Embedded- Embeddedness year 10 change? ness (Year) (year 10)

Allison Creek 64 (2013) 66 3 N

Buffalo Gulch Creek 76 (2013) 77 2 N

Dutch Oven Creek 59 (2013) 60 2 N

Moose Creek 62 (2013) 63 1 N

Whiskey Creek 60 (2013) 61 1 N *Changes in Cobble Embeddedness greater than 10% are considered to be showing measurable change according to NPNFinterpretation of FISHSED modeling results (Stowell et al. 1983).

Appendix C – Page C-9 All current (2013 data) and predicted (Alternative 2, year 1) fish habitat potential values fall below Forest Plan Appendix A Fishery/Water Quality objectives (See Table C-9). However, habitat carrying capacity for prescription watersheds returns to (or slightly below) existing condition 10 years following Alternative 2 implementation. Since fishery habitat potential is ultimately derived from NEZSED results (via FISHSED CE results and Espinosa 1992 DFC curves) these values do not consider reductions in sediment at road-stream crossings (72% reduction) as modeled by WEPP (see Watershed Report). Therefore, when considering the WEPP-modeled 72% sediment reduction in conjunction with the return of habitat carrying capacity levels to existing condition after 10 years, support for an upward trend in habitat conditions exists.

Table C-9. Comparison of project area prescription watershed fishery habitat potential values for the no action and action (year 1 and year 10) alternatives compared to Forest Plan Appendix A direction. 1987 Alt 2, year 1 Alt 2, year 10 Alt 1 Fishery Fishery Fishery Fishery Forest Plan Prescription Habitat Habitat Habitat Habitat Fishery Habitat Watershed Potential e** Potential Potential e** Potential ** Potential e (%) (%) value (%) (%) (%)

Allison Creek* -- 43 35 41 70 Buffalo Gulch* 40 30 29 29 70 Dutch Oven -- 50 38 49 70 Creek* Moose Creek* 50 45 42 45 70 Whiskey Creek* 45 48 46 48 70 *Not currently meeting FP standard (Alt 1) and not projected to meet FP standard (Alt 2) **Calculated by taking cobble embeddedness (FISHSED result) and relating to DFC curves (Espinosa 1992).

Appendix C – Page C-10 Allison Creek watershed Upward Trend Analysis

Proposed/Future Actions that will support Upward Trend: • One culvert will be upsized and one culvert will be upsized and realigned in Allison Creek. The proposed actions are based on field reconnaissance. Replacing culverts with those designed to handle 100-year flow events will reduce the risk of culvert plugging and failure with subsequent sediment input to streams. • Approximately 2.7 miles of haul route will be graveled. • Newsome Creek Road Restoration project was approved in 2014 and is to be implemented in 2018. This project will decommission approximately 1.2 miles of existing roads. • Approximately 1 mile of system road will be decommissioned (Refer to Table C-1). • Allison Creek Dam Ponds Project has been proposed under Categorical Exclusion NEPA for implementation in 2017 to remove failing outlet pipes and earthen fill from three impoundment sites in Allison Creek. Access roads to Allison Pond dams would be restricted.

Table C-10: Dutch Oven Project - proposed action potential effects in Allison Creek watershed Characterist Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Process Action ic Short- Long- Short- Long Explanations Affected Indicator term term term -term < 13% of watershed area undergoing vegetation treatment. -M in the short-term, because proposed harvesting/prescribed fires lead to a >50% increase from estimated existing non-natural (i.e. roads) sediment Pulse and Surface yields in the first year. Within 1 year of Chronic -M -L erosion implementation, harvest/fire-induced sediment Sediment yields are almost a 50% decrease from existing. Approx 93% is regeneration Vegetation harvesting. So average effects on surface Treatments erosion are conservatively (-) Moderate in the short-term and negligible in the long-term. Mass No vegetation treatment, temporary roads or Pulse failure swing trail construction on landslide prone or sediment risk high mass wasting areas. Infiltrati Increase in post-fire runoff is expected given on, Hydrologic the percentage of moderate to high burn -L -L runoff, process severity throughout much of the drainage. peaks Increased to -M due to new land scarring. All temporary roads were considered as being Pulse and Surface decommissioned after 4 years of Chronic -M erosion implementation. Therefore, increased Sediment Temporary sediment delivery due to temporary roads will Road have long-term effects. Construction Infiltrati Compacted soils could limit infiltration and on, Hydrologic concentrate flow. Roads would be -L -L runoff, process decompacted, recontoured, and revegetated peaks post project activities.

Appendix C – Page C-11 Characterist Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Process Action ic Short- Long- Short- Long Explanations Affected Indicator term term term -term Pulse and Haul routes were considered here. Year 10 Surface Chronic -H -M still shows elevated sediment levels (see erosion Sediment NEZSED), so Alt 2 long-term is -M Road Reconstruction Infiltrati No change from baseline predicted. on, Hydrologic

runoff, process peaks Alt1short: no haul, no road improvement. Alt 1 long: no road improvements over time. Alt 2 Pulse and Surface short: same as no action, but haul occuring, Chronic -L -L -M -L erosion Alt 2 long same as no action, road still slowly Sediment Road contributes sediment, but contractor required Improvement to treat road to original condition Infiltrati Gravel placement would slow overland flow on, Hydrologic and reduce runoff. -L -L +L +L runoff, process peaks Pulse and Alt 2 short term small pulse up to 2 years Surface Chronic -L -L -L +L erosion Road Sediment Decommissioni Infiltrati Compacted soils allow for increased overland ng and Storage on, Hydrologic flow. Once roads are decompacted and -L -L +L +L runoff, process recontoured infiltration would increase and peaks concentrated overland flow would diminish. Pulse and Potential for increased sediment delivery at Surface Chronic -L -L -L +L stream crossings during removal until erosion Sediment crossings are revegetated (2 years). Mass Risk of culvert failure and associated Pulse failure -L -M +L +M sediment contribution would be reduced over sediment risk the long term. Culvert Infiltrati Short and Long term reduction in the routing Upgrading and on, Hydrologic of runoff to streams. -L -L +L +L Removal runoff, process peaks Fish Habitat Upgrade of culvert on NFSR 307A. -H -H +H +H Passage Availability Disturba Temporary displacement of fish during culvert Fish nce to -L replacement. Displacement Fish

Total -10 -11 -7 +4

Allison Creek watershed Upward Trend Summary: There is insufficient data to quantitatively assess whether or not Allison Creek watershed is currently on an Upward Trend. Mining disturbance in the Allison Creek prescription watershed is extensive, including inverting streambeds, constructing earthen dam, leaving the stream to define its channel where it has been obscured, and tributaries having been dug up and inverted. Stream surveys in 2013 have documented significant historic mining impacts to Allison Creek, including complete alteration of the stream channel,

Appendix C – Page C-12 impoundments, flow redirection water conveyance ditches, complete flood plain alteration, soil inversion, and the affects to streams. The reduction of mining activities and existence of longstanding streamside vegetative buffers in combination with proposed road and culvert restoration would help to contribute toward an improvement in habitat conditions over time.

Table C-10 displays the Upward Trend Analysis for Allison Creek watershed. Overall, negative short- term effects to achieving an Upward Trend were determined for both Alt 1 (No Action) and Alt 2 (Proposed Action, year 1). The negative effects in Alt 2 (year 1) were lesser than the No Action, due to the proposed road restoration and culvert replacements. Alternative 2 would have beneficial effects in the long term, would be an improvement compared to existing conditions, and is projected to result in an upward trend in habitat conditions. Over time, the current condition will worsen with the No Action alternative

Buffalo Gulch watershed Upward Trend Analysis Proposed Actions in support of an Upward Trend: • Based on field reconnaissance recommendations, 1 culvert will be removed from upper Buffalo Gulch Creek. Replacing culverts with those designed to handle 100-year flow events will reduce the risk of culvert plugging and failure with subsequent sediment input to streams. • Approximately 0.86 miles of road will be converted from system to long-term storage (Refer to Table C-1). Table C-11: Dutch Oven Project proposed action potential effects in Buffalo Gulch watershed Characterist Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Process Action ic Short- Long- Short- Long Explanations Affected Indicator term term term -term Per NEZSED results, harvest/fire-induced Pulse and increases in sediment yield from existing Surface Chronic -L -L conditions are negligible. Less than 1% of the erosion Sediment watershed is being harvested, all of which is regeneration. Vegetation No vegetation treatment, temporary roads or Treatments Mass Pulse swing trail construction on landslide prone or failure risk sediment high mass wasting areas. Infiltration Increase in post-fire runoff is expected given Hydrologic , runoff, -L -L the percentage of moderate to high burn process peaks severity throughout much of the drainage. Pulse and No proposed temporary roads in Buffalo Surface Chronic Gulch watershed. Temporary erosion Sediment Road Infiltration No proposed temporary roads in Buffalo Construction Hydrologic , runoff, Gulch watershed. process peaks Pulse and Haul routes were considered here. Short term Surface Chronic -M -L effects at sub-watershed scale. erosion Road Sediment Reconstructio Infiltration Implementation of BMPs would prevent n Hydrologic , runoff, change from baseline. process peaks

Appendix C – Page C-13 Characterist Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Process Action ic Short- Long- Short- Long Explanations Affected Indicator term term term -term Alt1short: no haul, no road improvement. Alt 1 long: no road improvements over time. Alt 2 short: same as no action, but haul occuring, Pulse and Surface however, smaller length of haul road relative Chronic -L -L -L -L erosion to watershed size. Alt 2 long same as no Road Sediment action, road still slowly contributes sediment, Improvement but contractor required to treat road to original condition Infiltration Gravel placement would slow overland flow Hydrologic , runoff, -L -L +L +L and reduce runoff. process peaks Pulse and Long term storage will yield benefit due to no Surface Chronic -L -L -L +L traffic. Road erosion Decommissio Sediment ning and Infiltration Road storage would allow for concentrated Hydrologic Storage , runoff, -L -L +L +L overland flow to diminish. process peaks Pulse and Potential for increased sediment delivery at Surface Chronic -L -L -L +L stream crossings during removal until erosion Sediment crossings are revegetated (2 years). Risk of culvert failure and associated Mass Pulse -L -M +L +M sediment contribution would be reduced over failure risk sediment the long term. Culvert Infiltration Short and Long term reduction in the routing Hydrologic Upgrading , runoff, -L -L +L +L of runoff to streams. process and Removal peaks Culvert is relatively high in the drainage and Fish Habitat the length of stream channel that would be -L -L +L +L Passage Availability improved for aquatic organism passage would be relatively small. Disturbanc Fish Temporary displacement of fish during culvert -L e to Fish Displacement replacement.

Total -8 -9 -3 +4

Buffalo Gulch watershed Upward Trend Summary: There is insufficient data to quantitatively assess whether or not Buffalo Gulch watershed is currently on an upward trend. Monitoring conducted by the BLM in 1995, measured cobble embeddedness to be 65% and spawning gravels had 48% fine sediment less than 6.3 mm (BLM 1995a). The Forest Service measured cobble embeddedness to be 76% in 2013 (Refer to Table C-7). However, these measurements were collected at two different sites and are not comparable; therefore, an existing upward trend cannot be determined. Forest Service observations from 1999 state that limiting habitat factors included high levels of deposited sediment, high summer water temperatures, and a lack of good quality pools (USFS 1999). Stream surveys in 2013 have documented significant historic mining impacts within Buffalo Gulch watershed, including complete alteration of the stream channel, impoundments, flow redirection water conveyance ditches, complete flood plain alteration, soil inversion, and the affects to streams.

Appendix C – Page C-14 The reduction of mining activities and existence of longstanding streamside vegetative buffers in combination with proposed road storage and culvert upgrade would help to contribute toward an improvement in habitat conditions over time.

Table C-11 displays the Upward Trend Analysis for Buffalo Gulch Creek watershed. Overall, negative short-term effects to achieving an upward trend were determined for both Alt 1 (No Action) and Alt 2 (Proposed Action, year 1). The negative effects in Alt 2 (year 1) were lesser than the No Action, due to the proposed road storage and culvert replacement. Alternative 2 would have beneficial effects in the long term, would be an improvement compared to existing conditions over the long term, and is projected to result in an upward trend in habitat conditions. Over time, the current watershed condition will worsen with the No Action alternative. Moose Creek watershed Upward Trend Analysis

Proposed Actions in support of an Upward Trend: • Based on field reconnaissance recommendations, the proposed action includes the removal of 1 culvert in lower Moose Creek and 3 culverts from three unnamed sub- tributaries. One new culvert will be installed and another realigned on FS Road 9851 near upper Moose Creek. Replacing culverts with those designed to handle 100-year flow events will reduce the risk of culvert plugging and failure with subsequent sediment input to streams. • One culvert is to be replaced on Highway 14 and Moose Creek in 2018. • Approximately 2.1 miles of system road will be decommissioned (Refer to Table C-1). • Approximately 0.87 mile of haul route will be graveled. • Newsome Creek Road Restoration project was approved in 2014 and is to be implemented in 2018. This project will decommission approximately 0.17 miles of existing roads.

Table C-12: Dutch Oven Project proposed action potential effects in Moose Creek Watershed Characterist Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Process Action ic Short- Long- Short- Long Explanations Affected Indicator term term term -term < 14% watershed area undergoing vegetation Pulse and Surface treatment, with ~88% for regeneration. No Chronic -L -L erosion increased effects on sediment yields after two Sediment years from implementation. Vegetation No vegetation treatment, temporary roads or Mass Pulse Treatments swing trail construction on landslide prone or failure risk sediment high mass wasting areas. Infiltration Increase in post-fire runoff is expected given Hydrologic , runoff, -L -L the percentage of moderate to high burn process peaks severity throughout much of the drainage. Increased in short term due to new land Temporary Pulse and scarring, but in the long term all temp roads Surface Road Chronic -M considered decommissioned in first year, so erosion Construction Sediment effects negligible after 3 years of implementation.

Appendix C – Page C-15 Characterist Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Process Action ic Short- Long- Short- Long Explanations Affected Indicator term term term -term Compacted soils could limit infiltration and Infiltration Hydrologic concentrate flow. Roads would be , runoff, -L process decompacted, recontoured, and revegetated peaks post project activities. Pulse and Haul routes were considered here. Short term Surface Chronic -M -L effects at sub-watershed scale. erosion Road Sediment Reconstructio Infiltration Implementation of BMPs would prevent n Hydrologic , runoff, change from baseline. process peaks Alt1short: no haul, no road improvement. Alt 1 long: no road improvements over time. Alt 2 short: same as no action, but haul occuring, Pulse and Surface however, smaller length of haul road relative Chronic -L -L -L -L erosion to watershed size. Alt 2 long same as no Road Sediment action, road still slowly contributes sediment, Improvement but contractor required to treat road to original condition Infiltration Gravel placement would slow overland flow Hydrologic , runoff, -L -L +L +L and reduce runoff. process peaks Pulse and Decommissioning here is full obliteration and Surface Chronic -L -L -L +M recontouring and is 6.5% of total road length erosion Road Sediment in Moose Creek watershed. Decommissio Compacted soils allow for increased overland ning and Infiltration Hydrologic flow. Once roads are decompacted and Storage , runoff, -L -L +L +L process recontoured infiltration would increase and peaks concentrated overland flow would diminish. Pulse and Potential for increased sediment delivery at Surface Chronic -L -L -L +L stream crossings during removal until erosion Sediment crossings are revegetated (2 years). Risk of culvert failure and associated Mass Pulse -L -M +L +M sediment contribution would be reduced over failure risk sediment the long term. Culvert Infiltration Short and Long term reduction in the routing Upgrading Hydrologic , runoff, -L -L +L +L of runoff to streams. and Removal process peaks Culvert replacement at the Moose Creek site Fish Habitat -H -H +H +H (NSFR 9851) could affect one or more miles Passage Availability of fish bearing stream. Disturbanc Fish Temporary displacement of fish during culvert -L e to Fish Displacement replacement.

Total -10 -11 -4 +7

Appendix C – Page C-16 Moose Creek watershed Upward Trend Summary: There is insufficient data to quantitatively assess whether or not Moose Creek watershed is currently on an Upward Trend. Stream surveys in 2013 have documented significant historic placer mining impacts on Moose Creek, including complete alteration of the stream channel, impoundments, flow redirection water conveyance ditches, complete flood plain alteration (including removal of riparian trees), soil inversion, and the affects to streams. Proposed road and culvert restoration would contribute towards improved conditions over the existing condition.

Table C-12 displays the Upward Trend Analysis for Moose Creek watershed. Overall, negative short-term effects to achieving an upward trend were determined for both Alt 1 (No Action) and Alt 2 (Proposed Action, year 1). The negative effects in Alt 2 (year 1) were lesser than the No Action, due to the proposed and culvert treatments. Alternative 2 would have beneficial effects in the long term, would be an improvement compared to existing conditions over the long term, and is projected to result in an upward trend in habitat conditions. Over time, the current watershed condition will worsen with the No Action alternative.

Whiskey Creek watershed Upward Trend Analysis

Proposed Actions in support of an Upward Trend: • Based on field reconnaissance recommendations, 1 culvert will be upsized and 1 culvert will be upsized and realigned in upper Whiskey Creek. Replacing culverts with those designed to handle 100-year flow events will reduce the risk of culvert plugging and failure with subsequent sediment input to streams. • Approximately 0.33 miles of system road (NF Road 1808E) will be converted to long term storage (Refer to Table C-1). • Approximately 1.17 miles of system road (NF Road 9815D) will be decommissioned (Refer to Table C-1). • Approximately 1 mile of system road will be graveled.

Table C-13: Dutch Oven Project proposed action potential effects in Whiskey Creek watershed Characterist Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Process Action ic Short- Long- Short- Long Explanations Affected Indicator term term term -term Approx 7% of watershed area is being Pulse and harvested, with ~32% for regeneration. Surface Chronic -L Sediment yields do not increase current erosion Sediment management-caused over base sediment yields. Vegetation No vegetation treatment, temporary roads or Treatments Mass Pulse swing trail construction on landslide prone or failure risk sediment high mass wasting areas. Infiltration Increase in post-fire runoff is expected given Hydrologic , runoff, -L -L the percentage of moderate to high burn process peaks severity throughout much of the drainage. Temporary Pulse and No temporary roads proposed. Surface Road Chronic erosion Construction Sediment

Appendix C – Page C-17 Characterist Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Process Action ic Short- Long- Short- Long Explanations Affected Indicator term term term -term Infiltration No temporary roads proposed. Hydrologic , runoff, process peaks Pulse and Haul routes were considered here. Short term Surface Chronic -M -L effects at sub-watershed scale. erosion Road Sediment Reconstructio Infiltration Implementation of BMPs would prevent n Hydrologic , runoff, change from baseline. process peaks Alt1short: no haul, no road improvement. Alt 1 long: no road improvements over time. Alt 2 short: same as no action, but haul occurring, Pulse and Surface however, smaller length of haul road relative Chronic -L -L -L -L erosion to watershed size. Alt 2 long same as no Sediment Road action, road still slowly contributes sediment, Improvement but contractor required to treat road to original condition Infiltration Gravel placement would slow overland flow Hydrologic , runoff, -L -L +L +L and reduce runoff. process peaks Pulse and Decommissioning here is full obliteration, Surface Chronic -L -L -L +L with a short term pulse, but long term erosion Road Sediment benefits. Decommissio Compacted soils allow for increased overland ning and Infiltration Hydrologic flow. Once roads are decompacted and Storage , runoff, -L -L +L +L process recontoured infiltration would increase and peaks concentrated overland flow would diminish. Potential for increased sediment delivery at Pulse and Surface stream crossings during removal until Chronic -L -L -L +L erosion crossings are revegetated (2 years), and long Sediment term benefits afterwards. Risk of culvert failure and associated Mass Pulse -L -M +L +L sediment contribution would be reduced over failure risk sediment the long term. Culvert Infiltration Short and Long term reduction in the routing Upgrading Hydrologic , runoff, -L -L +L +L of runoff to streams. and Removal process peaks Culvert is relatively high in the drainage and Fish Habitat the length of stream channel that would be -L -L +L +L Passage Availability improved for aquatic organism passage would be relatively small. Disturbanc Fish Temporary displacement of fish during culvert -L e to Fish Displacement replacement.

Total -8 -9 -5 +3

Appendix C – Page C-18 Whiskey Creek watershed Upward Trend Summary: Whiskey Creek watershed is currently below fishery water quality objectives and was also below objectives in 1989, according to the Chocolate Moose Project EA. There is insufficient data to quantitatively assess whether or not Whiskey Creek watershed is currently on an upward trend. Stream surveys conducted in 2013 have documented significant historic mining impacts within Whiskey Creek, including complete alteration of the stream channel, impoundments, flow redirection water conveyance ditches, complete flood plain alteration, soil inversion, and the affects to streams. Proposed road and culvert restoration would contribute towards improved conditions over the existing condition.

Table C-13 displays the Upward Trend Analysis for Whiskey Creek watershed. Overall, negative short- term effects to achieving an upward trend were determined for both Alt 1 (No Action) and Alt 2 (Proposed Action, year 1). The negative effects in Alt 2 (year 1) were lesser than the No Action, due to the proposed road and culvert treatments. Alternative 2 would have beneficial effects in the long term, would be an improvement compared to existing conditions over the long term, and is projected to result in an upward trend in habitat conditions. Over time, the current watershed condition will worsen with the No Action alternative.

Conclusion The Nez Perce Forest Plan (1987) requires Upward Trend analyses for Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds, as these watersheds do not meet fishery water quality objective (Forest Plan, Appendix A). An existing, or current, upward trend in fish habitat carrying capacity (aka % fishery habitat potential) was not determined for Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch, Moose Creek, or Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds due to insufficient data. Based on limited data, it can be assumed that habitat conditions in the project area prescription watersheds are not trending upward at this time. The Forest Plan does not require that an upward trend be established prior to management actions. In Alternative 2, short-term (<5 years) increases in sediment yield are expected with the implementation of the Dutch Oven Project, primarily due to log haul roads and road decommissioning. It is expected that the temporary increases in sediment yield would not occur all at one time, but would be distributed incrementally over the life of the project; yielding a smaller annual direct effect than is estimated by the NEZSED model (refer to Water Resources specialist report for discussion on model limitations). With proposed road restoration and culvert improvement activities, reductions in sediment yield over base will be observed in the long-term (>5 - 20years) according to NEZSED estimates. Regional implementation monitoring of culvert activities have shown in-stream sediment levels to return to natural conditions within 48 hours after the completion of work (Wegner 1999). These short-term increases in sediment delivery to streams are outweighed by the long term positive benefits of eliminating chronic sediment sources. Restoration and road maintenance activities are predicted to bring these watersheds below Appendix A sediment yield guideline thresholds (i.e. 60%) 6 years after project implementation (Refer to Table C-3) and close, or equal to, current fishery habitat potential values (Refer to Table C-9). It should be noted that these NEZSED derived data do not take into account the 72% reduction in sediment delivery at road- stream crossings in the project area portion of the Whiskey Creek-SFCR as modeled by WEPP (see Water Resources and Fisheries specialist reports). This reduction in sediment delivery should result, in the long term, in decreased cobble embeddedness and improvements in fish habitat conditions. No timber harvest is to occur within 300 feet of fish-bearing streams, 150 feet of perennial non-fish bearing streams, 100 feet of intermittent streams, and 150-foot slope distance from the edge of wetlands larger than one acre. In addition, standard timber contract mitigation, Best Management Practices for

Appendix C – Page C-19 Water Quality, and project specific design criteria (Refer to Section 2.1.2.2 of EA) will be implemented to prevent and reduce management-caused sediment delivery to streams. In conclusion, upward trend analysis results indicate improvements in fish habitat conditions over the long term, but not the short term, for Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch, Moose Creek, and Whiskey Creek prescription watersheds with the implementation of Alternative 2 and associated watershed restoration activities. In contrast, habitat conditions are expected to worsen over time with the no action alternative. The Forest Plan does not require that the improving trend be in place prior to initiation of new activities nor set a temporal boundary for achieving objectives (Conroy and Thompson 2011). Ultimately, an upward trend determination should be subsequently confirmed through implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Refer to Chapter 2 of the EA for further discussion on proposed monitoring.

Appendix C – Page C-20 APPENDIX D – RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS The 30-day comment period for the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment (EA) began on October 27, 2015, with the publication of a legal notice in the Lewiston Morning Tribune. The EA was made available on the project webpage of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest at: http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/project/?project=45632. All comments were considered during the planning process for the Dutch Oven project. The Responsible Official considered comments about the EA when choosing the selected alternative. The selected alternative responds to the issues and concerns brought forward by the public and other agencies.

List of Those Who Commented on the EA

Seven comment letters were received on the Draft EA from the following individuals, tribes, agencies, businesses, and organizations (Table D-1). The project record includes the entire letter or comment that was submitted.

Table D-1. List of those who commented on the Draft EIS. Letter Name, Organization, and Date Comments Received or Mailed Number 01 Bob McGuire, 10/23/2015 02 Richard Artley, 11/10/2015 Idaho County Commissioners (ICC), James Chmelik, R. Skipper Brandt, 03 Mark Frei, 11/10/2015 04 Jonathan Oppenheimer, Idaho Conservation League (ICL), 11/18/2015 05 Gary MacFarlane, Friends of the Clearwater (FOC), 11/18/2015 06 Anthony Johnson, Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), 11/23/2015 07 Jim McIver, Lewis-Clark ATV Club (LCATV), 11/23/2015

Comments Received and Forest Service Responses

Public comments and Forest Service responses are provided below by topic. All comments on the Draft EA were reviewed and the substantive comments within each letter were summarized and the interdisciplinary team’s responses, by topic. In some cases, similar comments from different commenters were grouped together. Original comment letters/emails and content analysis of these are located in the project record. Although not a requirement for EAs, the responses provided here are intended to discuss all major points of view. Statements may have been summarized or paraphrased to reduce paperwork. Written comments are those submitted to the responsible official or designee during a designated opportunity for public participation (§218.5(a)) provided for a proposed project. Written

Appendix D – Page D-1 comments can include submission of transcriptions or other notes from oral statements or presentation. For the purposes of this rule, specific written comments should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider.

PURPOSE AND NEED 1. I endorse the Dutch Oven project.

Response: Thank you for your comment.

2. The purpose and need statements fail to incorporate any considerations to actually achieve these desired conditions.

Response: The purpose and need was determined only after comparing the existing condition and the desired condition. The Dutch Oven project is a fuels reduction project and for this reason has a focused purpose and need. The alternatives were developed to respond to the purpose and need in order to achieve desired conditions.

3. Alternative 2 appears to incorporate only mitigation measures that mitigate the negative impacts associated with the proposal. As a result, we encourage you to revisit the project’s purpose and need, to incorporate direction to meet the aquatic desired conditions and to include additional actions to achieve those conditions.

Response: Project design features were developed with prominent consideration to resource conditions found in the project area. The project was designed to avoid undesirable cause-effect relationships and potential effects to resource conditions that would lead to a determination of a significant effect. These design features were developed from past projects, have been verified by field surveys, and will be used to limit possible adverse effects to soils, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and culturally significant areas. The Dutch Oven project is a fuels reduction project and for this reason has a focused purpose and need. As watershed improvement is not part of the purpose and need of the Dutch Oven project, road decommissioning, long term storage, and road activities associated with treatments units (road improvements and culvert replacements) will address the upward trend requirement of the Nez Perce Forest Plan. Additional watershed improvement activities were added in response to scoping comments. Various other watershed improvement proposals are ongoing and planned in the future in the project area under separate NEPA analyses such as road abandonment, decommissioning, and road improvement in the Newsome Creek Watershed Road Restoration Project.

4. There is a plethora of research that dispels the following myths: fuel amounts, due to overgrown forests, are the main driver of fire severity; these forests did not experience stand- replacing fires as part of the natural fire regime; pine beetles increase fire severity; and logging outside of 40 meters from structures is effective. As examples, we refer you to Baker and Williams 2015, Williams and Baker 2014, Baker et al. 2007, Pierce et al. 2004, Baker and Ehle 2001, Sherriff et al. 2014, and Kaufmann et al. undated.

Appendix D – Page D-2 Response: The purpose and need of the Dutch Oven project was developed by comparing the existing condition and the future desired conditions (EA, Chapter 1). The desired condition for the Dutch Oven project area was directed by goals and objectives found in the Forest Plan. The best available science was used for analyzing the effects of the proposed action to the existing condition of the Dutch Oven project area. References, including best available science that is relevant to the project area, are located in the project record to the support the analysis and decision to be made by the Responsible Official.

The proposed action (including fuels reduction greater than 40 meters from structures) would reduce fuels at a scale that would move the project area toward desired future conditions and would not reduce the risk of high intensity fire or strategically modify vegetation and fuel loadings to minimize potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities or increase the likelihood of suppression success.

The 2009 Idaho County Wildland Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan categorizes the Dutch Oven Project area as WUI due to the numerous private properties, structures, and major ingress/egress routes for both the public and firefighting resources. The group made up of many different Federal and State agencies, county representatives, city and rural fire protection, law enforcement, fire mitigation specialist, resource management professionals, and hazard mitigation experts, identified the need for mechanical treatments combined with prescribed burning within the Dutch Oven Project area. (2009 ICWMP. P. 147) Implementation of this project would allow the Forest Service more opportunities, and a greater chance of success, to keep fire from burning on to private property by creating areas within the landscape that would exhibit decreased fire behavior. These areas could then be managed by direct or indirect attack. This would also allow fire manager and fire fighters of a large incident to work safer and more cost effective.

There are small disturbance openings present that result from tree removal in past thinning treatments or where pockets of root disease and bark beetle infestations are resulting in tree mortality, but are not large enough to promote consistent early seral regeneration. Many of the openings are naturally regenerating to non-seral grand fir. Early seral decline is also promoted by the lack of fire across the landscape and because vertical structure in the stands would become more continuous thus promoting regeneration of more tolerant, mid-seral species with the loss of early seral seed sources. Current conditions will result in increased mortality of Douglas-fir and grand fir as stands continue to mature and experience in-stand species competition, root diseases, and poor tree vigor and decay (EA pgs XX). Current conditions with fuel loadings would result in fires that burn in conditions similar to those found in the project area can have flame lengths exceeding four feet, spread at high rates, and in some areas, burn as crown fires (EA pgs XX). All of these fire behavior characteristics would make any potential wildfire difficult to control, and could limit the ingress and egress for both firefighters and private residents (Anderson 1982).

An alternative analyzed but dropped from consideration was to focus treatments around structures and private property (within 40 meters of structures). This alternative was dropped from consideration because it would not reduce fuels at a scale that would move the area toward desired future conditions and it would not reduce the risk of high intensity fire or strategically

Appendix D – Page D-3 modify vegetation and fuel loadings to minimize potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities or increase the likelihood of suppression success.

Please check the literature consideration section for a review of the scientific literature provided.

5. The desired conditions in the EA don’t track with those in the forest plan in spite of the disingenuous and misleading narrative on page 4. Simply put, the non-NEPA analyses cannot set new management direction until NEPA and NFMA compliance are met. This includes the non-NEPA analyses such as the local fire plan and the South Fork analysis.

Response: Desired conditions for the Dutch Oven project area are based on those found in the Forest Plan, including Forest-wide goals and objectives (NPFP II-1, 2, 19-21 26, 26). The Dutch Oven project was evaluated under the laws, regulations, and requirements described in the Regulatory Requirements relating to federal natural resource management. Design features were developed and incorporated to ensure these requirements would be met, including NEPA and Forest Plan to comply with NFMA.

The Idaho County Revised Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan is to be used as a guide for planning as related to the National Fire Plan and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests developed the Fire Management Plan (FMP) as a support tool that provides a framework for decision making in response to wildland fire(s). FMPs do not make decisions. Instead, they provide fire management information, organized by Fire Management Units, and derived from Forest Plans. The National Fire Plan (NFP) was developed in August 2000 with the intent of actively responding to severe wildland fires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity for the future. The NFP addresses five key points: firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and accountability. The NFP provides technical, financial, and resource guidance and support for wildland fire management across the United States. In response to the risks posed by heavy fuels loads, such as those in the Dutch Oven project area -- the result of decades of fire suppression activities, sustained drought, and increasing insect, disease, and invasive plant infestations -- the National Fire Plan established an intensive, long-term hazardous fuels reduction program.

The purpose of the South Fork Clearwater Landscape Assessment (1998) was to characterize the ecological and social conditions in the South Fork Clearwater Subbasin and to provide a context for future forest management decisions on National Forest lands. The assessment focuses on the diversity, distribution, and abundance of plant and animal species, watershed conditions, transportation needs, and human uses and trends on National Forest lands.

6. This timber sale will likely be followed closely by other timber sales, spouting the same ruse about fires. The nearby and recent Crooked American Project, which overlays the Orogrande Community Project and the Orogrande Defensible space project are proof that the real reason for these timber sales in not fuel reduction because the supposed fuel reduction has taken place twice and planned for third time in that area, all within a short time frame.

Response: There is no regulatory requirement that limits the purpose and need of projects in areas adjacent to each other. The Crooked River Defensible Space project, American River-

Appendix D – Page D-4 Crooked River project, and Orogrande Community Protection project are all near private land, structures, and within WUI areas and do indeed have a similar purpose and need based on the WUI characteristics of the project areas. The past project development of the Crooked River Defensible Space project, American River-Crooked River project, and the Orogrande Community Protection project is outside the scope of the Dutch Oven project.

7. The primary purpose of the proposed action is to reduce hazardous fuels across an area which naturally generates high fuel loads. A project area dominated by surface fires and "only small pockets of torching, instead of stand replacing crown fires" (EA, Desired Conditions, p. 4) does not appear to be consistent with the ecology and recommended management of the Fire Group Seven stands (Smith and Fischer 1997), which dominate the area. Forest diseases, insect outbreaks, and high-severity fires are, to varying extents, a natural component of these stands. Early records of forest conditions near the project area reference stands of grand fir "badly spotted with decay incident to its great age" (Leiberg 1900, p. 380).

Despite improvement in the justification for the project from scoping, the proposed project still appears to generalize, across the project area, a desired condition more appropriately restricted to portions of the area in Fire Group Two. The Tribe recommends that the desired conditions and proposed project be refined to eliminate project elements intended to establish a low-severity fire regime within cool, moist habitat types within the project area.

Response: The primary purpose of this project is to reduce hazardous fuels on approximately 2000 acres of designated Rural Wildland urban Interface lands adjacent to Elk City. Activities would reduce the potential for, and intensity of, subsequent wildfire and increase the chance for fire suppression strategies and tactics to be successful. (EA p.4-5). This is planned by limiting wildfires from having established long duration crown fires which would compromise ingress and egress, by creating mosaic patterns of treated ground across the landscape.

Due to the years of fire suppression within the project area the landscape has changed to tree composition and fuel loading more reprehensive to Fire Group 7. By treating areas in mosaic patterns allows for stand conditions across the landscape to reduce the extent of continuous fuels and trend the area toward a more diverse and resilient forest structure. It is stated in the EA that there is a need to promote early and late seral vegetation to provide needed habitat for wildlife habitat. (EA p.5) In Smith and Fischer 1997 p.88 and p,89, when talking about Fire Group 7 it states that “Seral tree species are not well represented” and that “Regeneration and suspended woody fuels form fuel ladders into the tree crowns, enhancing the potential for crown fire, if ignition occurs.” This literature focuses on different habitat types and comprise them into Fire Groups for Northern Idaho Forest. Consistent with analysis on describing current conditions.

8. The purpose and need does not reflect what should be the prime goal of this timber sale. Change the purpose and need goal to indicate the reason for the projects is to reduce the chance of WUI homes burning. Fuels reduction would then be an alternative.

Response: The Dutch Oven project is a fuels reduction project. The purpose of the project is to reduce hazardous fuels on approximately 2000 acres of designated Rural Wildland urban

Appendix D – Page D-5 Interface lands adjacent to Elk City by limiting wildfires from having established long duration crown fires which would compromise ingress and egress, by creating mosaic patterns of treated ground across the landscape. Activities would reduce the potential for, and intensity of, subsequent wildfire and increase the chance for fire suppression strategies and tactics to be successful. The purpose of this project is also to improve and manage for long-term forest health and the sustainability of early seral species such as ponderosa pine and western larch that are more fire resilient species.

There is a need to enhance wildfire suppression capability and provide for public and firefighter safety by reducing the amount of available fuel and implementing strategic treatments to provide safety zones and escape routes. There is also a need to improve forest resilience to wildfire and insect and disease events. There is a need to create a mosaic of stand conditions across the landscape configured to reduce the extent of continuous fuels and trend the area toward a more diverse and resilient forest structure by creating a range of age classes, size classes, habitat complexity (diversity) and disturbance patterns that more closely emulate natural low to mixed severity disturbance. Forest management activities are needed to promote early and late seral vegetation to provide needed habitat for wildlife habitat, particularly big game.

Alternative 2 will meet the purpose and need of the Dutch Oven project and move the project area to the desired conditions described in Chapter 1 of the EA.

9. Remove all text from the NEPA document that infers action should be taken as part of the Dutch Oven timber sale to reduce the occurrence of natural disturbance events or include literature provided by commenter of how natural disturbance events benefit natural resources and define the resources.

Response: See response to comment 8 above. Literature provided by the commenter was considered and can be found in the project record. Many references provided by the commenter are electronic links to the source documents, some of which are broken or no longer valid. In any case, the quotations are not tied to specific propose actions, as suggested under 40 CFR 1503.3(a) and 36 CFR 218.2. Rather, they are individual statements gathered together to support a general point of view or position. For numerous past projects since 2009, interdisciplinary teams have been responding to all of the quotations in each attachment submitted during project comment periods. Since past responses have been similar for each project and nothing new was found in the current attachments, the responses made on past projects are incorporated by reference as the official response for the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project. (See literature considered in this Appendix and project record).

TREATY RIGHTS AND TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES

10. The Forest has a trust responsibility to ensure that its actions are fully consistent with the 1855 Treaty, executive orders, departmental regulations, and other Federal laws implicating the United States’ unique relationship with the Tribe.

Appendix D – Page D-6 Response: American Indian tribes are afforded special rights under various federal statutes: NHPA; NFMA; Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (43 CFR Part 7); Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (43 CFR Part 10); Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103141); and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA). Federal guidelines direct federal agencies to consult with tribal representatives who may have concerns about federal actions that may affect religious practices, other traditional cultural uses, or cultural resource sites and remains associated with tribal ancestors. Any tribe whose aboriginal territory occurs within a project area is afforded the opportunity to voice concerns for issues governed by NHPA, NAGPRA, or AIRFA.

Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments;” Executive Memo, April 29, 1994 “Government-to-Government Relationship;” and Executive Memo, September 23, 2004, “Government-to-Government Relationship” recognize the unique legal relationship between the United States and Indian tribal governments and also direct Federal agencies to have a process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials.

Trust responsibility arises from the United States' unique legal relationship with Indian tribes. It derives from the Federal Government's consistent promise, in the treaties that it signed, to protect the safety and well-being of the Indian tribes and tribal members. The Federal Indian trust responsibility is now defined as a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation, on the part of the United States, to protect tribal lands, assets, resources, and reserved rights, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. This responsibility requires that the Federal Government consider the best interests of the Indian tribes in its dealings with them and when taking actions that may affect them. The trust responsibility includes protection of the sovereignty of each tribal government (FSM 1563.8b 2). The Forest Service best serves the Federal Government’s trust responsibility by:

• Ensuring our actions never diminish the rights of Indian tribes and tribal members; • Ensuring Forest Service program benefits reach Indian tribes and tribal communities; • Observing and enforcing all laws enacted for the protection of tribal cultural interests; • Observing the principles of consultation whenever our policies, decisions, or other actions have tribal implications; and • Treating NFS resources as trust resources where usufructuary rights exist.

The Dutch Oven project area is located within ceded lands of the Nez Perce Tribe. These ceded lands are federal lands within the historic aboriginal territory of the Nez Perce Tribe which have been ceded to the United States. In Article 3 of the Nez Perce Treaty of 1855, the United States of America and the Nez Perce Tribe mutually agreed that the Nez Perce retain the following rights:

…taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of the Territory [of Idaho]; and of creating temporary buildings for curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing horses and cattle…

The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest is committed to fulfilling the Forest Service’s trust responsibilities to Native Americans, to honoring rights reserved in the Nez Perce Treaty of 1855, and to strengthening our government-to-government relationship with the Nez Perce Tribe.

Appendix D – Page D-7 The Forest Service manages and provides access to ecosystems that support Tribal traditional practices. The Dutch Oven project has been presented to the Nez Perce Tribe at quarterly staff- to-staff meetings since April 2013.

DESIGN MEASURES

11. In designing the silvicultural prescriptions for the project area, the Tribe recommends retaining structural elements, like dominant trees and an abundance of snags, which most closely mimic conditions expected from a mixed-severity fire event. A number of studies have evaluated the density and sizes of snags and green trees resulting from mixed-severity fires within the habitat types present within the project area. These data should be used to develop prescriptions which reflect the NRV for these important forest attributes following such a disturbance, alongside those other attributes (like species composition and size class distribution) more typically associated with NRV-constrained management. In some stands, additional green trees could be retained during treatment and subsequently girdled to simulate the snag-creating effects of a natural fire while ensuring the safety of work crews during treatment. The addition of this single project design element would substantially improve wildlife habitat outcomes associated with the proposed treatments. NPT 11/23/2015

Response: The purpose and need includes improvement and management for long-term forest health and the sustainability of early-seral species such as ponderosa pine and western larch. Early-seral species will be retained where available, but may not be abundant in some areas due to past mining operations and harvest activities, especially where selective logging of western larch occurred. These trees will not be girdled to make more snags, due to their limiting numbers. Grand fir and Douglas-fir will be retained for snag recruitment, vertical diversity, canopy cover, and to serve as shelter, but will not be reserved as a natural seed source near openings or in areas with active root disease. Large-diameter dominant trees will be retained in areas not affected with root disease. The primary purpose of this project is to reduce hazardous fuels, enhance wildfire suppression capability, and provide for public and firefighter safety by reducing the amount of available fuel. Creation of more snags would not meet this purpose. Snag numbers will be retained according to Forest Plan requirements. In addition, design measures are incorporated into the project to retain snags and green tree replacement snags (EA, Chapter 2, design features 32 and 33).

12. Indicate in the final EA that all newly constructed temporary roads will be obliterated after use by returning the ground to the natural angle of repose and eliminate the running surface.

Response: This has been included into the project design (EA, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.2.1, page 22 and design measure 7). Design measure 9 for decommissioning would be applied for temporary road obliteration.

13. Assure that actions are taken (i.e. timber sale redesign or additional mitigation) eliminate or significantly reduce the predicted adverse effects to soils and wildlife.

Response: Specific project design features and applicable soil and water protection Best Management Practices have been included for soils resources and wildlife habitat.

Appendix D – Page D-8

14. If additional mitigation is included, please describe the mitigation effectiveness on the resource being mitigated.

Response: Mitigation effectiveness is included where applicable in Chapter 2 of the EA and in the resources analysis in Chapter 3 and specialist reports.

ALTERNATIVES

15. The EA fails to adequately consider a range of alternatives to the proposed action.

Response: NEPA does not require an agency to consider alternatives that are infeasible, ineffective, or inconsistent with the basic objectives for the management of the area. Project design eliminated issues and limited alternatives. The EA provides detailed descriptions of and rationale for the elimination of alternatives from detailed study. To comply with NEPA, federal agencies must take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of certain proposed actions. The Dutch Oven EA, Chapter 3 provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental effects to all relevant resources based on the best available science.

The project is consistent with 36 CFR 220.7(2) which states that the EA shall briefly describe the proposed action and alternative(s) that meet the need for action. No specific number of alternatives is required or prescribed. Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.14(a), the Dutch Oven Project rigorously explored and objectively evaluated all reasonable alternatives, and for those alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discussed the reasons for their having been eliminated.

16. The EA does not indicate, in a quantitative fashion, the probability of increased severity fire under the no-action alternative and the impacts from such an event. While the science does not support such conclusion, at the very least, the EA should have projected this possibility.

Response: The analysis methodology in the Fuels analysis and the use of BEHAVE Plus was used to model predicted fire behavior. With no action the fuels would continue to accumulate and increase the continuity of surface fuels and ladder fuels. This would make any potential wildfire difficult to control, expose firefighters to hazardous conditions, cause resource damage and would limit and potentially block safe ingress and egress for both fire fighters and the public. In addition, it states that “Under the existing conditions, fire modeling suggests that, should a wildfire occur during very high fire danger conditions, high-intensity fires could take place in all vegetation types. There would be a potential for substantial loss of structures due to direct flame impingement and spotting if a high intensity crown fire were to come from the west or southwest. (EA p.53-54)

17. We encourage the Forest to consider alternatives that retain more canopy to contribute to the habitat needs of fisher, to consider alternatives that incorporate additional watershed restoration work. ICL 11/18/2015

Appendix D – Page D-9

Response: The Dutch Oven project is a fuels reduction project and for this reason has a focused purpose and need. The purpose and need of the project is to reduce hazardous fuels and to improve and manage for long-term forest health. See response to Comments 39-42, 51, 54, and 58 that address fisher habitat.

In response to scoping comments, additional watershed improvement activities were added to the revised proposal (Alternative 2) that was analyzed in the EA.

18. The EA notes on page 2: The 2009 Idaho County Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Wildfire Mitigation Plan, as amended, categorizes the Dutch Oven project area as WUI. Rural Condition is defined as: A situation where the scattered small clusters of structures (ranches, farms, resorts, or summer cabins) are exposed to wildland fuels.

Interestingly, the EA notes on page 1 that only the private parcel on the northwest of the timber sale project area has structures and that the other parcels have "no structures" on them. However, this alternative was dropped from analysis.

Response: The Dutch Oven project area is only a portion of much larger WUI area (The 2009 Idaho County Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Wildfire Mitigation Plan, as amended). Alternative 4 that was analyzed but dropped from consideration was developed to only focus treatments around private property (40 meters). These actions alone would not reduce fuels at a scale that would move the area toward desired future conditions and would not reduce the risk of high intensity fire or strategically modify vegetation and fuel loadings to minimize potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities or increase the likelihood of suppression success.

Large wildfires that get established within the Red River Ranger District typically move in southwest to northeast pattern. The entire eastern boundary of the project is the Elk City Township and has private property and scattered structures. A fire starting on the north side of the South Fork Clearwater between Crooked River and Newsome could potentially impact the Elk City Township. By reducing fuels and modifying vegetation in the planned treatment areas firefighters would have more options to suppress wildfires before private property is impacted.

19. Other options should have been considered including no temporary road construction. If indeed the purpose and need for safe ingress and egress along roads is the primary reason for this project, then there is absolutely no need for 6.1 miles of temporary roads.

Logging road construction causes significant ecological harm. Please analyze an action alternative in detail that does not construct any new roads (temporary or system).

Response: Temporary road constructions facilitates treatment of units in order to provide the safe ingress and egress of the area and is necessary to meet the purpose and need. The proposed action was refined and resulted in reduction of treatment acres and temporary road miles. Project design features specific to temporary road construction minimize impacts. Best Management Practices have also been included in project design. No new system road construction is

Appendix D – Page D-10 proposed. All of the temporary roads planned are within the units except for two sections of temporary road on the 9815B road and the 9877 rd. These two section extend out the already established roads to reach the unit which will help in the removal of the harvested trees. All of the temporary roads will be removed, de-compacted, and re-contoured. Planned treatment units and landscape prescribed burn areas were designed to create conditions to reduce risk of uncharacteristic or undesirable fire, including crown fire. In addition, ladder fuels and vertical vegetation would be treated which would contribute to a lower potential of having established crown fire. The reduction of fuels throughout the project area and along Highway 14 and Forest Roads 307 and 1808 would allow for safer egress and ingress of the public and firefighters. Units that are not along the main road system will assist with decreasing fire behavior in those treated areas, which will give firefighters more options to suppress wildfires with direct attack utilizing ground crews and engines. The temporary roads that will be created will assist in the removal of fuels and in turn help change fire behavior over the landscape. This is necessary to meet the safe egress and ingress objectives of the purpose and need of the project.

20. IDT members claim No Action will result in the increased probability of severe wildfires. Analyze a Dr. Cohen alternative in detail.

Response: See response to Comment 12. The primary context of these comments pertain directly to Dr. Cohen’s research on home flammability and survivability of structures during wildfire. The overriding reason for the Dutch Oven project and the purpose and need for vegetation treatments is two-fold: to respond to the deteriorating forest health conditions across the landscape and the increasing risk of high-intensity wildland fire which can threaten life, structures, property and resource values and to improve the safety and capabilities of firefighters conducting suppression activities. As such, the exact locations of homes and structures within the WUI are irrelevant. Because of increasing insect and disease infestation, heavy fuel loadings, high stand densities and ladder fuels, limiting fuel reduction treatments to areas directly adjacent to private property would not reduce the risk of potential crown fire.

Proposed fuel treatments are not designed to stop fires, but rather to modify fire behavior. Firefighters can often use treated areas in effective fire suppression to limit fire. Research indicates that flying sparks and embers (firebrands) from a crown fire can ignite additional wildfires over one mile away during periods of extreme fire weather and fire behavior ((McCoy et al. 2001 as cited in Norton 2002) ICWPP, 2009). Under the existing conditions, fire modeling suggests that, should a wildfire occur during very high fire danger conditions, high-intensity fires could take place in all vegetation types. “Firebrands that result in ignitions can originate from wildland fires that are at a distance of 1 kilometer or more.” (Cohen, 1999).

Because of increasing insect and disease infestations, treatments solely adjacent to private properties are not sufficient to reduce the risk of potential crown fire. Because this alternative would not address the hazardous fuels risk and vegetative needs discussed in the purpose and need for this project, it was dropped from consideration. Furthermore, this proposal would not reduce the fuels at a scale that would move the area toward the desired future condition. It would not reduce the risk of high intensity fire or strategically modify vegetation and fuel loadings to minimize potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities or increase likelihood of

Appendix D – Page D-11 suppression success. It would not reduce fuels along critical egress roads used by residents and visitors or allow access by firefighters in the event of a wildfire.

The Dutch Oven Project (Alternative 2) would reduce overall fuel loadings and fire intensity and decrease the risk to life, property, natural resources and fire suppression crews while providing better opportunities of management success should a wildfire occur. The proposed treatments in the Dutch Oven project are designed to create an open, patchy structure to improve stand resilience to wildfire, provide vertical structure for wildlife habitat, and promote a higher species composition of shade intolerant tree species (western larch and ponderosa pine) as would have been present on the site under a natural disturbance regime.

21. We do not agree with decommissioning 5.1 miles of roads 307a, 307a1, 78398, 9815d, 9815a, 9852a, 9874, and 9867a. We believe these should be put into long term storage as they may be needed for fire suppression in the future or possibly provide OHV recreational opportunities.

Response: See response to Comment 73. During project development the interdisciplinary team evaluated all forest system roads within the project area for future management needs and development opportunities. The majority of existing system roads were identified as essential for public recreational use, wildfire suppression response and for future management activities. Critical improvements were identified to maintain a viable road infrastructure and promote overall sediment reduction and aquatic habitat improvement. Only those roads which were identified as having a high failure potential and/or currently impassible with no future management needs were recommended for storage or decommissioning.

22. How many acres will be treated by each method of regeneration harvest? Clarify shelterwood and variable density thinning units and acres. Clarify on map where prescribed burning will occur. 868 acres will be burned outside of harvest units; of the 282 acres of harvested units within landscape burning will harvest occur before or after burning?

Response: Regeneration harvest would occur on 945 acres and would focus on treating stands that have culminated in growth, have reach a specified age or condition, or are being affected by pathogens to the point mortality rates are significantly affecting stand health and growth rates. Clear cut with reserves would occur on 49 acres, seed-tree harvest would occur on 129 acres, and shelter-wood would occur on 768 acres. Shelterwood units would retain 19-51 tree per acre (15- 40 ft 2 basal area per acre). Intermediate harvest (also referred to as variable density thinning) would occur on 213 acres where 76-140 trees per acre based on 12 inch diameter at breast height (DBH) tree. This spacing will provide for an average 40-60% canopy cover which is targeted to support low intensity underburning over time. Where available, western larch, and ponderosa pine will be retained at higher stocking levels to support retention of fire tolerant, early seral species (EA, Alternative 2, page 22). Landscape burning units are displayed in the EA in Appendix A. The 282 acres of harvest units that are included in the landscape burn units will be prescribe burned after harvest. These units are all shelter-wood harvest units (14, 14A, 16, 26, 27, 28, portion of 33, and 46) with the exception of unit 48 which is seed-tree harvest. This landscape burning will provide the site preparation for regeneration by planting.

Appendix D – Page D-12 23. Are there plans to salvage large diameter trees with harvest units that are prescribed burned if mortality of greater than 15% occurs?

Response: Alternative 2 does not plan to re-enter units and harvest after landscape burning occurs. The Nez Perce Forest Plan provides entry limitations for harvest operations per watershed. Prescribed fire would be planned to be burnt under the right conditions to limit the mortality of large diameter trees as much as possible. During firing operations lighting patterns would be used to create a blacking and flanking type fire and limit long runs of head fire. Ignitions would occur in a continuous line along the uphill control lines and along the control lines of the flanks by personnel on the ground. Ignition within the unit would be ignited by a combination of hand lighting and helicopter lighting in which ridges would be used and allow for fire to back and flank downhill and into the drainages. Some additional ignition by helicopter or personnel on the ground could be used to even up the fire as it backs down the slope. Under these conditions with the current ladder fuels and heavy fuels, large diameter trees may be killed by the prescribed fire is expected. This method of burning should produce a mosaic pattern across the burn unit and limit areas to small-to-moderate sized pockets of defoliated trees.

If while burning we did create a large amount of dead large diameter due to the burn, we would have to look at the feasibility of removing the trees, make sure we were not causing in additional damage to the landscape, and make sure we were not going over our entry limitations.

24. What percentage of small diameter conifer and brush are planned to be killed with prescribed fire? If the goal is not obtained are there provisions to retreat all or part of the area?

Response: The intent of landscape burning would be to reduce understory vegetation in order to reduce the intensity and severity of natural ignitions while improving human safety in the event of fire suppression activities. Landscape burning would result in 10-20 feet of canopy base height (ladder fuels); compared to the existing condition which is 2-15 feet. Canopy base heights of less than 10 to 12 feet contribute considerably to crown fire potential (EA, Fuels Section, page 56). During burning operations a mosaic pattern would form as fire is allowed to back and flank its way down the hill sides. This mosaic pattern would provide for a high percentage or a very amount of small diameter conifer and brush to be removed or reduced. One of the goals of prescribed fire is to break up the continuity of fuels and mimic a low to moderate wildfire behavior. To prevent the possible need to retreat any of the landscape burn areas soon after the planned ignition, we would be looking for areas that prescribed fire is not burning and try to establish fire in these areas with hand or aerial ignition as the burn progresses. Prescribed fire, when burned under the desired conditions, could remove or reduce 50% to 75% of the natural ground fuels in the 1hr to 100hr categories, and increase the canopy base height over roughly the same percentages. Many variables come into play when burning and knowing an exact percentage is very difficult. These landscape burns would be revisited in the future to be burnt again to maintain the desired effects.

25. The Tribe appreciates the Forest reducing the amount of temporary roads and slightly increasing the amount of restoration projects from scoping to the EA.

Appendix D – Page D-13 Response: Thank you for your comment. In response to scoping comments temporary roads and harvest acres were reduced by 5.1 miles and 722 acres (also reducing openings greater than 40 acres). Landscape burning was increased by 367 acres. Additional watershed improvement projects include another 4.5 miles of spot graveling and 0.4 miles of road decommissioning by obliteration. See Alternatives Considered but eliminated from detailed study in Chapter 2.

AQUATICS/WATERSHED/FISHERIES 26. While we appreciate that some actions are proposed under Alternative 2 to reduce erosion and sediment delivery from existing roads, we are concerned that these measures are not consistent with Forest Plan direction. While we appreciate that some level of road-related sediment may result from the project, the EA fails to illustrate how the project meets Forest Plan requirements to contribute to an upward trend in aquatic conditions.

Response: Please see the Upward Trend Analysis appendix of the Dutch Oven EA.

Existing condition of the prescription watersheds does not meet Forest Plan direction. That is to say that the current fishery habitat potential value (%) of each watershed falls below the Forest Plan Appendix A direction of 70% Fishery Water Quality Objective (% Habitat Potential). The proposed action would elevate percent over base sediment yield (see NEZSED discussion in Watershed Report) in prescription watersheds above the 60% Forest Plan guideline and would therefore qualify these actions as “entries.”

As Forest Plan Appendix A states in the footnotes (i.e. 2/), Timber management (“entries”) can occur in these watersheds, concurrent with habitat improvement efforts, as long as a positive, upward trend in habitat carrying capacity is indicated. While NEZSED and FISHSED results do not indicate improvements in habitat carrying capacity in the short term (Year 1), in the long term (i.e. 6 to 20 years) we expect sediment yield from proposed and cumulative activities to drop well below the Forest Plan sediment yield guideline or 60% over base (Table 3-13, Watershed report) and expect cobble embeddedness, summer rearing, and winter carrying capacities to return to existing condition levels.

Also, NEZSED and FISHSED are only part of the upward trend analysis (see Upward Trend Analysis appendix to the EA). Models such as ECA and WEPP were also used to estimate potential increases in water and sediment yields to analyze potential increases in sediment delivery to streams. The WEPP model is not included within NEZSED analysis, but was considered in the Upward Trend Analysis. The WEPP model predicts that Alternative 2 will result in a 72% reduction in average annual sediment delivery at stream crossings in project area watersheds compared to the no action alternative (Table 3-16, Watershed Report).

We also considered factors such as the amount of time vegetative buffers have been in place in project area watersheds as well as the positive effects that culvert replacements would have on fish passage, distribution, and life history (e.g. more available over wintering habitat).

As all of the previously mentioned factors were taken into consideration in the Upward Trend Analysis for each alternative, results indicated that Alternative 2 would result in an upward trend in habitat conditions compared to Alternative 1 (no action) over the long-term (i.e. 20 years).

Appendix D – Page D-14 Forest Plan does not have specific direction on the amount of time an upward trend in habitat conditions must be demonstrated.

27. We are concerned that the project would result in sediment increases in the range of 4-53% (EA, page 85). While we believe the 53% figure may be a typo and should actually read 5.3%. The EA dismisses these increases by arguing that long-term increases would be slight and “essentially unmeasurable” at only 1-4% at Year 10 (The citation provided for this analysis is listed as “Traeumer (2015)” yet no such reference is included in the References and Literature cited section, EA, pages 162-170.). The EA goes on to indicate that because FISHSED models indicated changes less than 10% that “no substantial changes in cobble embeddedness [are] expected…” (EA, page 86). At the same time, the EA indicates (page 86) that sediment delivery in the “project area portion of the Whiskey Creek-SFCR” will decrease by “about 72%”.

Response: The citation refers to the Water Resources specialist report, which is located in the project file. On Table D-2 below, presents NEZSED results by watershed. NEZSED has been re- run since the last comment period. The table (included below for ease of reference) shows Dutch Oven Creek at 116% increase over base sediment yield in the first year of the project.

Table D-2. NEZSED sediment yield percent over base by alternative by Forest Plan prescription watersheds Prescription Percent Over Base Watershed Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2 Alt 2 Sediment Yield Existing Year 1 Year 6 Year 10 Guideline a Allison Creek 17 78 18 18 60 Buffalo Gulch 11 13 13 13 60 Creek Dutch Oven 6 116 11 10 60 Creek Maurice Creek 10 8 8 8 n/a** Moose Creek 7 51 7 7 60 S. Fork 17 86 12 11 n/a** Clearwater Face 05 S. Fork 5 61 7 7 n/a** Clearwater Face 06 Whiskey Creek 7 29 7 7 60 a Forest Plan Appendix A allowable percent sediment yield over base to support meeting fish/water quality objective. ** Fish/water quality objective not specified in Forest Plan Appendix A. Assumptions of 60% could be made, per Appendix A implementation guidance (Conroy and Thompson).

NEZSED estimates that sediment yield in prescription watersheds would return to the existing condition (or slightly above or below), within 10 years of project completion. NEZSED does not show a substantial long-term (i.e. 10 years) increase from existing condition. The long-term percent over base is equal to (or slightly above or below) the existing percent over base. The EA

Appendix D – Page D-15 describes how NEZSED results do not reflect all of the proposed action watershed improvement activities. NEZSED is not capable of accounting for the long-term decreases in sediment yield that would be caused by permanent road improvements at stream crossings. The hydrologist used WEPP to model the effect of stream-crossing improvements on sediment yield and found large decreases (i.e. 72% reduction) in sediment for all watersheds with proposed watershed improvement projects.

FISHSED results incorporate current condition cobble embeddedness and the NEZSED sediment yield percent over base values for a given year following implementation. Long term Alternative 2 FISHSED results (i.e. 10 years after implementation) show all measures of fish habitat carrying capacity (i.e. cobble embeddedness, summer rearing, and winter carrying capacity) returning to levels close to the existing condition and under the 10% change threshold. Stowell et al. (1983) states that FISHSED is most appropriately used to assess the effects of changes in habitat quality when cobble embededdness changes are modeled to be greater than 10%. See Tables 3-19, 3-20 and 3-21 in Fisheries Section.

Short term FISHSED (i.e. 1 year following implementation of the proposed action) models changes in fish habitat carrying capacity greater than 10% in Allison Creek, Dutch Oven Creek, and Moose Creek (see Tables in the Fisheries Report). It should be noted the Dutch Oven Creek does not support fish. Also, as FISHSED outputs (i.e. CE, summer rearing, and winter carrying capacity) are modelled incorporating NEZSED results (percent over base sediment yield), this model does not consider the 72% reduction in sedimentation at road stream crossings predicted by WEPP modeling either.

28. It is unclear whether and how the FISHSED and WEPP analyses interrelate and whether other portions of Whiskey Creek, outside the project area, were considered as a component of this analysis?

Response: The WEPP analyses show an average 72% reduction in sediment inputs as a direct result of the proposed road crossing work (EA, page 71). The same work will provide a variety of other benefits as well, listed on EA page 70 for crossings and page 68 for road obliterations. These perpetual benefits are considered to offset the short-term impacts predicted by FISHSED. However, to validate these predictions a field monitoring component was added, which would involve sampling multiple stream sites in the project area for changes in surficial substrates, particle sizes, and residual pool depths. We would sample this suite of sediment-related variables once prior to and once after the proposed activities.

FISHSED results are not based on WEPP results. The FISHSED model uses NEZSED results as its inputs. NEZSED is unable to model the effects of stream-crossing improvements on sediment yield. The FISHSED results do not reflect the beneficial effect of stream-crossing improvements on fish habitat. WEPP is generally thought to make better predictions of road-related sediment than NEZSED. However, NEZSED and WEPP results cannot be directly compared, because of inherent differences in their designs.

Other portions of Whiskey Creek, outside the project area, were considered as a component of this analysis, because the analysis area is on an entire watershed basis. The direct and indirect

Appendix D – Page D-16 effects analysis areas are by Forest Plan prescription watersheds. Because the project area overlaps with Whiskey Creek watershed, the entire Whiskey Creek watershed was included in the analysis. The cumulative effects analysis area is the entire Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed.

29. The FISHSED analysis indicated a decline in both summer rearing and winter carrying capacity. Again, while the declines may not be severe (>10%) it is apparent that Alternative 2 further contributes to declining habitat conditions in the project area.

Response: FISHSED does not incorporate the 72% average sediment reductions that were found using WEPP. FISHSED itself is not able to include sediment reductions from the proposed road crossing improvements. The sediment reductions predicted by WEPP would clearly lessen the net impact of the project even further in the short term and cause a net benefit in the long term. We have completed a separate Upward Trend Analysis document which considers impacts from each proposed activity as well.

30. The EA does not recognize that stand-replacing fires are part of these forest types and that there are significant long-term benefits from these large fires. Indeed, the analysis of watersheds, soils and fish habitat are inaccurate because it fails to recognize the difference between pulse impacts like stand-replacing fire—which have long-term benefits—versus press events like roads and continuous logging.

Response: In regards to water quality, NEZSED analysis recognizes differences between fire-, road-, and harvest-driven changes in sediment yield. Based on research data, NEZSED assumes that fire related increases in sediment last on the order of only 4 years, and any one logging project produces sediment increases that persist for 6 years. The NEZSED sediment yield analysis accounts for ongoing elevated sediment from past harvests by including all harvests that happened within the analysis area in the last 6 years. Both fire and harvest increase the sediment delivery to streams. The time scale of effects is of the same order of magnitude (i.e. less than 10 years). Road effects on sediment yield, on the other hand, are significantly different than fire effects. The chronically persistent nature of sediment delivery from roads is accounted for in NEZSED, because the model assumes a constant sediment yield from roads every year.

In regards to water quantity, Equivalent Clearcut Acres (ECA) recognizes the difference between fire and roads effects, by classifying roads as permanent features with 0% canopy cover (largest possible effect on water yield). As for harvest and fire effects on water quantity, ECA accounts for both planned and past harvest effects according to a canopy recovery rate based on forest type. Therefore, continuity of effects from harvest is captured by ECA. Under ECA, fire and logging have similar effects on changes in water yield, i.e. both fire and logging reduce interception, infiltration, and transpiration. Revegetation treatments accelerate the canopy recovery process compared to a severe fire. However, the proposed project does secure effects that are more similar to wildfire effects on water yield than the no management action (full canopy cover).

The sediment inputs from the proposed culvert replacements are considered a pulse impact (with long-term benefits) whereas the road decommissioning is removal of a press event.

Appendix D – Page D-17

31. The EA clearly shows that the area is not meeting forest plan requirements for fish habitat. It also shows the action alternative would worsen cobble embeddedness (table 21), and that is based on a model NEZSED (FISHSED), which underestimates sediment yield and is not the appropriate tool. Regardless, there is no upward trend. The project, as designed, cannot go forward.

Response: This is addressed in responses to comments 26-30. See response to comment 27 especially for information on current and projected (i.e. modeled) cobble embeddedness. NEZSED/FISHSED model conservative (i.e. “worst case”) scenarios by modeling all project effects to sediment yield within the first year following implementation of the proposed action. In reality, project activities will take place over several years and the peaks in percent over base sediment yield that we report in year 1 are likely to be less severe and spread out over time. See response to comment 26 for more information on Upward Trend.

Aside from NEZSED/FISHSED, other tools used to analyze effects of the action alternative include ECA and WEPP. See response to comments 26 through 29 for more information on WEPP. We have also changed the proposed action based on input and comments. Alternative 2 modified ultimately modified the proposed action to reduce the number of larger opening, lessen the amount of temporary road construction, and include additional watershed improvement projects (see Chapter 2 of the EA).

32. Upward trend is not a projected upward, rather one that is shown. It is based upon monitoring, not projected modeling (NOTE: The EA states WEPP is too data intensive and given the problems with NEZSED, it appears that modeling is not complete due to lack of data or flawed models). The aquatic restoration projects are designed to show a modeled upward trend. The EA (page 10) notes the agency intends to do the project, as funding allows. Where will the funding come from for this project?

In other words, the allegation that this proposed project meets the upward trend requirement of the Forest Plan is not based upon data. There is no factual basis for this contention. The agency merely projects, using admittedly faulty models, success. This is the same failed management strategy—the check is in the mail—that has been employed since plan revision. The “managed” streams do not meet objectives. How can the public trust the agency when the requirements in Appendix A are twisted to mean recovery might occur at a later date, which never comes? You have had 28 years to meet forest plan objectives and are far from meeting them.

Response: The Water Resources specialist report describes how the data intensive issue was resolved. The USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station developed custom interfaces to WEPP so that the model can be applied to assess site-specific management options.

Indeed, monitoring data reported in the Water Resources specialist report shows that cobble embeddedness in Moose Creek has gone up since 1988. Although some harvest took place in that watershed between 1988 and 2013, the report identified the existing road system as the primary cause of high cobble embeddedness. The actions proposed under Alternative 2 are designed to

Appendix D – Page D-18 reduce erosion and sediment delivery caused by the existing road system. In addition to model results, peer reviewed research articles, which are based on data collection, show the ability of the designs to effectively reduce sediment delivery from roads.

WEPP and NEZSED, although limited in their accuracy, are based on actual data of both watershed-specific existing condition data and data about project types and treatment types. NEZSED is based on site-specific data about road and stream positions, past harvest activities, slope and land-type samples. WEPP goes further by including regional climatological data. The expected results of project types, such as ground based versus cable logging or native surface versus graveled surface roads, and mitigation treatments, such as road decommissioning, are based on research data.

Based on these data, the objective of modelling is to take into consideration the general degree of effects of various actions and make a comparison between alternative actions not for predicting specific quantities of sediment yielded.. Although inherent uncertainty limits the models’ ability to predict sediment transport with high accuracy, models are able to accurately reflect the direction and relative magnitude of trends.

The quality of Forest project decisions could benefit by dedicating more resources to monitoring and evaluation of project mitigation strategies. Project specific monitoring for sediment deposition and temperature are not proposed with this project. The Forest also maintains a gauge station where total suspended sediment and cobble embeddedness are also collected quarterly. A PIBO site also exists on Allison Creek. Additionally, the USFS Regional Office as well as IDEQ assigns random Best Management Practices (BMPs) audits to the Ecosystems Services team on an annual basis. BMP monitoring and evaluation methods and reporting have only recently become standardized. The Washington Office published the first “National Best Management Practices Monitoring Summary Report” in December 2015. It is available to the public via the World Wide Web (FS-1070). PACFISH compliance monitoring is also required by the Regional Office.

33. The degraded condition of the habitat and the fact that the logging will increase sediment would have negative impacts on listed fish species--bull trout, steelhead and fall Chinook-- and on sensitive aquatic species.

Response: Sediment is addressed in responses to comments 26-30. Because the proposed work follows PACFISH recommendations for riparian buffers and BMP guidelines for all activities, no net impacts are expected to other habitat characteristics. In fact, the net effect of the proposed activities is expected to be positive over the long term, as outlined in our separate Upward Trend Analysis document (Appendix C). Monitoring has shown that PACFISH RHCA retention is effective at eliminating sediment delivery to streams from timber harvest activities (Smith 2016).

34. What are the cumulative impacts of adjacent timber sales in the South Fork drainage on water quality and fish habitat? The South Fork is not meeting Forest Plan or even Clean Water Act requirements, yet it is critical habitat for steelhead and bull trout. Thus, the determinations are off for aquatic species.

Appendix D – Page D-19 Response: The estimated cumulative effects of adjacent timber sales in the South Fork drainage on water quality are small. The cumulative effects analysis area is the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed. The estimated existing ECA from harvest and roads on USFS and BLM land in the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River HUC12 watershed is 5%. This is well below the threshold for changes to channel structure. Outside of Dutch Oven, the BLM and USFS are not planning any other harvest activities in the Whiskey Creek-S. Fork Clearwater River watershed.

According to the water resources specialist report, percent sediment yield over base does not exceed Forest Plan Appendix A sediment yield guidelines for any of the prescription watersheds, and thus is not expected to be cumulatively significant at the HUC12 watershed scale. It is expected that the increase in sediment yield caused by harvest would not occur all in one year, but would in fact be distributed incrementally over the life of the project; this translates into a smaller annual cumulative effect than is modeled.

Buffalo Gulch Creek, Whiskey Creek, and S. Fork Clearwater River are listed as water quality impaired for temperature in the 2012 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report (IDEQ 2014). The means of achieving the IDEQ effective shade targets is through restoring and protecting riparian vegetation and narrowing stream channel widths (IDEQ et al. 2004). South Fork Clearwater River is listed as water quality impaired for sediment in the 2012 IDEQ 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report (IDEQ 2014). The South Fork Clearwater River TMDL Implementation Plan (South Fork Clearwater River Watershed Advisory Group-SFCRWAG 2006), states human-caused sediment in the South Fork Clearwater River at Stites should be reduced by approximately 25%. The most commonly acceptable approach to controlling non-point sources of sediment is to limit pollutants from reaching the water is through a combination of best management practices and filtering of runoff using riparian vegetation and floodplains (SFCRWAG 2006).

Timber harvest BMPs meet the TMDL implementation plans for both water temperature and sediment. These BMPs include no harvest in riparian buffers, fully decommission skid trails, limit ground-based harvest to areas with less than 35% slope, and locate temporary roads on gentle slopes.

Stream crossing improvements would reduce the amount of historically chronic sediment coming from the project area. However, the South Fork drainage encompasses an area much larger than just the project area watershed. So while reductions in sediment coming from roads in the Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater watershed would reduce some of the sediment in the South Fork, it is unlikely that the Dutch Oven project, by itself, would correct the sediment issues in the South Fork.

Sediment is addressed in responses to comments 26-30. Because the proposed work follows PACFISH recommendations for riparian buffers and BMP guidelines for all activities, no net impacts are expected to other fish habitat characteristics. In fact, the net effect of the proposed activities is expected to be positive for fish habitat carrying capacity, as outlined in our separate Upward Trend Analysis document.

Appendix D – Page D-20 35. It is stated in the draft EA that the NEZSED, FISHSED and WEPP models do have their limitations with accuracy, which we understand. What is difficult to understand is even with the significant reduction in sediment from the road work, the bottom line is that Table 4, page 34 shows cobble embeddedness increases and summer/winter habitat rearing capacity decreases, putting into question whether the upward trend requirement is being met.

Response: See response to comment 26 for information on upward trend. The change in cobble embeddedness as reported by FISHSED does not reflect the reduction in chronic sediment from stream-road crossing improvements, as reported in the scientific literature and estimated by WEPP. See response to comments 27 and 28 for a more detailed explanation of the relationships between NEZSED, FISHSED, and WEPP.

36. An evaluation of total road density and streamside road density is shown in Table 13, page 63 and discussed on pages 64-70. Although both total road density and streamside road density decreases from project activities, it is stated that when evaluated against the Matrix of Pathways and Indictors rating system, the majority of the watersheds are still above 3.0 miles per square mile with a low watershed condition and "not properly functioning" rating (Allison Creek, Buffalo Gulch Creek, Dutch Oven Creek, S. Fork Clearwater Face 05, and S. Fork Clearwater Face 06).

The EA states that a transportation plan was completed for the project area that identified road actions and treatments. The Tribe suggests the Forest re-evaluate this transportation plan in an effort to potentially identify further road projects that will reduce sedimentation and cobble embeddedness and increase summer/winter habitat carrying capacity, clearly showing the Forest Plan upward trend requirement.

Response: The transportation plan, included a roads analysis, was completed for the Dutch Oven project area and served the purpose of analyzing current and future transportation needs for Forest management. Road decommissioning, under the current Alternative 2, brings two of the eight prescription watersheds from Not Properly Functioning to Functioning at Risk under the Road Density Indicator. Although the other six watersheds would still have a Road Density Indicator of Not Properly Functioning due to road density, further road projects have been identified and proposed that would reduce sedimentation and cobble embeddedness and increase summer/winter habitat carry capacity. Under Alternative 2, 55% of road-stream crossings in the project area would be improved to reduce road erosion and sediment delivery to streams. The total number of road-stream crossings would be reduced by 15% under Alternative 2 (see Watershed Report, Table 3-15).

Another ongoing projects, Lower Newsome Creek Watershed Road Restoration project, will also be completing road decommissioning in Newsome Creek watershed in the future. Within the Dutch Oven project area, the Newsome Decision will decommission by abandonment one mile of Roads 307B1, 78388A1, 78389, 78395, and 78397; decommission by obliteration 0.3 miles of Roads 307B1, 307F and 78396; and improve nine miles of Roads 1808, 1808D, 1858, 307, 307B, 307C, 471, 78388, 78388A and 78392 (See Appendix B- Cumulative Effects).

Appendix D – Page D-21 37. The Tribe has concerns about the amount of increased road use and potential sediment generation associated with timber harvest operations. Based on the amount of timber to be harvested, we estimate approximately 4,300 round trips by log trucks. Additionally, there will be increased traffic to the area by other heavy equipment needed to carry out operations and daily trips during harvest activities by logging and Forest personnel.

In order for instream sedimentation levels to decrease in the long-term and the 72% estimated average annual reduction of sediment delivery at road-stream crossing realized, it will be critical that these actions and the improvements made are held in place during project implementation as well as after project completion.

The Tribe recommends that roads in the project area are evaluated during project implementation and upon completion of the entire project. If any of the improvements are not holding up or have been compromised, the roads are improved again to ensure they are in the same condition as to immediately after improvements and before haul began.

Response: The comment correctly states that stream crossing improvements would attain 72% reduction in sediment, as predicted by the WEPP model, only if the improvements are not destroyed by heavy logging equipment and traffic.

The Contracting Officer routinely monitors road conditions, and the timber sale contract requires contractors to maintain and repair roads during and after haul through contract authority and contract provisions. If the road improvements are exposed to logging traffic, the standard Road Maintenance Requirements of C5-31 would support monitoring and maintenance during- and post-haul. The relevant specifications are found under T-101 Surface Blading and T-113 Aggregate Surface Repair. Surface blading is keeping the native or aggregate surfaced road in a condition to facilitate traffic, minimize additional future maintenance, reduce erosion, and provide proper drainage. Surfacing repair is patching potholes or small areas of broken asphalt or imported aggregate surfaces and asphalt dikes. It includes preparing the area to be patched and furnishing and placing all necessary materials, including base, and other work necessary to patch the surfacing, including paved shoulders.

The following provisions and authorities protect road improvement measures. In USFS Timber Sale Contract Division B (FS-2400), relevant provisions are included, specifically under B5.0- Transportation Facilities (B5.1 Authorization, B5.12 Use of Roads by Purchaser, and B5.3 Road Maintenance) and under B6.0-Operatations (B6.22 Protection of Improvements, B6.222 Protection of Property, B6.3 Control of Operations, B6.6 Erosion Prevention and Control, and B6.67 Erosion Control Structure Maintenance).

The EA includes a design criterion specifically applicable to mitigating traffic effects: “dust abatement would be used on major haul routes to reduce sediment input to streams from log hauling activities”. This specification is also described in C5.31 T-103 Dust Abatement.

In general, there are five other design criteria that describe how the Forest would control road- related sediment during project implementation. In addition, the mitigation measures referred to in the fifth design criterion describe how the Forest would also control road-related sediment for the long-term, by design:

Appendix D – Page D-22

1. For all instream activities, stream dewatering and diversion, erosion control measures would be employed to avoid or minimize the amount of suspended sediment entering downstream reaches during the improvement or decommissioning activities. Rocking of road surfaces and/or ditches, etc., would also be used as needed road improvement and stream crossings. (Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines) a. Effectiveness: High, based on literature, San Dimas, Road/Water Interaction. 2. For all replaced culverts, new structures would be designed to handle a 100 year flow event including debris. They would ensure channel width, flow velocities, substrate condition, and stream gradients approximate of the natural channel and accommodate passage of expected streamflow, debris, fish, and other aquatic organisms. (PACFISH) a. Effectiveness: High, based on experience and literature, San Dimas, Road/Water Interaction 3. Suspend instream operations if state turbidity standards are exceeded. This would be a one-time increase of 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) above background levels or 10 days of increase of 25 NTUs above background levels. Operations can be resumed when State standards are met again. 4. Minimize the use of machinery and limit the number of stream crossings by machinery in the stream channel during implementation. a. Effectiveness: Moderate, based on experience. 5. Best Management Practices found in Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code, and Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook 2509.22 would be applied to prevent non-channelized sediment delivery from harvest to streams in the Dutch Oven project area. a. Effectiveness: Moderate, based on experience.

SOILS

38. The soils analysis is not clear on detrimentally disturbed soils. There is no showing that either the forest plan or regional standards will be met. Instead, the EA relies on unproven soil restoration measures to appear to meet the standards. What isn't reported is the percent disturbance after road construction and logging but before the restoration measures.

Response: Detrimental soil disturbance calculations are displayed in the effects table located in the project file. The effects table displays the current detrimental soil disturbance levels, the predicted additional detrimental soil disturbance as well as the final soil disturbance percentages following treatment and mitigation. The mitigation proposed in order to meet Regional and Forest Plan Standards is to reuse existing skid trails and existing disturbance. Within the master effects table, there is an effects tab. In Column T of the effects tab, the estimated detrimental soil disturbance without mitigation is displayed by proposed treatment unit. Column X shows the detrimental soil disturbance following treatment with mitigations and shows that all the units are meeting Regional and Forest Plan Standards with regards to detrimental soil disturbance.

Appendix D – Page D-23

39. The EA is also unclear on soil stability claiming that there are no landline prone areas in the area but mapped areas. Why wasn't an alternative developed to eliminate landslide prone areas from the timber sale and burning project?

Response: Mapped potentially landslide prone areas do exist within the proposed harvesting units. Each polygon that was mapped as an area with the potential to be landslide prone was field verified and it was determined that the area was an old landslide deposit and is stable at this time. Approximately 321 acres of potential landslide prone areas were mapped within the prescribed burning units. A project design feature was developed to ensure no ignition occurred in these mapped areas and that prescribed fire would only back into the landslide prone areas. Prescribed burning is not expected to affect the slope stability in these areas.

ARCHEOLOGY

40. The Heritage section of the Environmental Assessment (p. 96) does a poor job of describing the potential impacts on historic properties by the proposed actions. The EA has conflicting statements about the cultural resource inventory work performed for the proposed actions and how many significant properties are present in the project area.

Response: No description of project related impacts are discussed on page 96. Rather the information presented in the EA document is a summary extracted from the completed specialist report. Under the heading Current Conditions within the preliminary EA document on page 96, the word “significant” should not be present within the first sentence, it is a typographical error. There are a total of 29 known sites within the project area. However there are only 8 known cultural resource sites present within the currently proposed treatment units. Six of those sites were described as being significant (eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]). It is those six sites that were further discussed within the Heritage section of the EA document. Based on the cultural resource reports and additional field surveys it has been determined that only 6 NRHP eligible historic cultural resource sites are located within the Area of Potential Effect (APE, proposed treatment areas) for this project. These sites will be avoided as described in project design features in Chapter 2 and the Cultural Resources specialist report. There will be no adverse effects to the 6 significant cultural sites because they will be avoided and/or will have site specific mitigation measures applied to them to avoid project effects.

41. The FS also failed to consult with the Nez Perce Tribe about whether the proposed area of potential effect (APE) was adequate.

Response: The Forest Service is not required to consult with the Nez Perce Tribe in determining and documenting the area of potential effects for undertakings located off of reservation land (36 CFR 800.4(a)(1)). The Dutch Oven project was presented to the Nez Perce at quarterly staff-to- staff meetings on April 11, 2013, June 8, 2013, and Nov. 3, 2014. No outstanding heritage resource concerns were discussed at these meetings.

Appendix D – Page D-24 42. The report says that, "[i]n accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, a cultural resource inventory was conducted for the project area to identify historic properties and findings were submitted to the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review and comment." The report then goes on to say only existing records were reviewed.

The EA states that 29 known significant sites are located within the project areas, but only 8 within proposed treatment areas, including historic trails/roads, historic mining sites, earthen dams, historic cabins, and a fire lookout. However, this is inconsistent with the determination that 2 sites of the 8 sites are not NRHP eligible, which is the NFS standard for significance.

The EA states that 76 cultural resource inventories have been conducted in the project area "vicinity," but fails to define what this means. Is the project "vicinity" the overall 7,000 acre project area, or the much smaller APE? While 76 sounds like an impressive number of previous cultural resource surveys in the project vicinity, it does not convey what percentage of the 7,000 acres has been inventoried or the quality of the work. The Forest Service has also made no effort to identify sacred sites or historic properties of religious or cultural significance to the Nez Perce Tribe, so also failed to address any concerns the Tribe may have about these resources.

Response: Yes a cultural resource inventory was conducted of the Dutch Oven area through a contract. Additional background information was also reviewed and that is described under the Analysis Methodology heading. The information in the EA document does not say that only existing records were reviewed to generate the Heritage report.

See response above for comment 32. The word “significant” is a typographical error and should not have been included in that sentence. There are a total of 29 known sites within the project area. However there are only 6 known sites present within the currently proposed treatment units. These six sites were described as being significant (eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]). It is those six sites that were further discussed within the Heritage section of the EA document.

The statement about the number of previous cultural resource inventories is referenced from the cultural resource inventory project completed by Adams in 2014. The records search consisted of a formal database search completed by the Idaho SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer) in June, 2014 and a review of records (heritage maps, reports, site records, etc.) on file at the Nez Perce Forest office in Grangeville. No information was presented by Adams regarding the percentage of acres or the quality of the work from those 76 inventories investigated within the current Dutch Oven project area. These previous inventories were conducted by multiple agencies including the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Idaho Department of Transportation. All of these reports would have been submitted to the Idaho SHPO to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest provided scoping letters to all interested planning participants, including the Nez Perce Tribe, in a letter dated Oct. 8, 2014. The Forest then

Appendix D – Page D-25 presented this project to the NP Tribe at quarterly meetings since November 3, 2014. To date, there have been no cultural resource related issues or concerns identified and communicated to the Forest regarding this project.

43. The Southern Nez Perce Trail runs along salvage units 01, 02, 04, 05, and 07 and is expected to be used as an access road. There are likely significant tribal resources in this area, and the FS should work with the Tribe to identify any resources-providing funding if necessary- before project implementation.

Response: Field surveys were conducted on June 30, 2015 in units 4 and 5 in an attempt to locate the SNPT. No evidence of the SNPT was found within these two proposed treatment units. Field surveys were completed within units 1 and 2 and found that no prehistoric cultural materials or artifacts were discovered within the survey areas or have been previously recorded in the Dutch Oven Analysis Area (Adams 2014:13). Adams (2014:15) also goes on to say that survey for the Southern Nez Perce Trail was performed on June 22, 2014. The exact location of the trail is not known…no evidence of ruts or swales was observed along this segment. Disturbance from logging and other recent forest management were noted along the segment. According to our records, the SNPT is not present within units 1, 2, or 7, thus this project will not impact that resource. Proposed treatment units have also been modified since 2014. Currently, the Southern Nez Perce Trail (according to our records) is no longer present within proposed treatment units 1 and 2 thus it will be avoided by activities associated with this project.

The Tribe has an obligation to inform the Forest Service of Tribally significant resources in the proposed project area. Once those concerns have been communicated to the Forest, then we will coordinate with the Tribe to protect those interests.

44. The analysis says that the 6 NRHP eligible sites must be avoided, and that this will result in a no adverse impact determination. The Tribe cannot provide a meaningful response or challenge to this without seeing the cultural resource compliance report that was supposedly sent to SHPO for approval. Without the report, we don't know what sites the FS has identified, much less what the existing impacts are or potential impacts might be.

Response: The six cultural sites that were identified as significant (NRHP eligible) and discussed within the EA document are the historic Elk City Wagon Road, the Southern Nez Perce trail, a historic mining road, two historic mining sites, and a historic cabin. These are the only known NRHP eligible cultural sites present within proposed treatment areas to be avoided. By avoiding these sites by all project activities, there will be no impacts to those sites.

WILDLIFE HABITAT 45. With regard to fisher, 21% of available habitat in the project area would be logged, with 82% of that harvest representing regeneration harvest (EA, page 128). The EA goes on to suggest that intermediate logging prescriptions “may retain enough structure and overstory canopy to be used by fisher,” but fails to illustrate how these speculative determination was reached.

Appendix D – Page D-26 46. Pertinent local research is available and should be considered in order to revisit the determination that the project “would not affect the ability of fisher to occupy the project area now or in the future” (Sauder and Rachlow, 2014).

Response: The fisher analysis was updated to include the latest research from Sauder 2014. According to Sauder (2014), fisher select landscapes with highly connected patches of mature forest (≥50%) and small amounts of open areas (≤5%).

Intermediate harvest methods are designed to retain the larger diameter trees to promote vertical structure, species composition, and live snag recruitment. Tree retention in intermediate harvested areas would range between 60 and 110 square feet of basal area per acre (between 76- 140 trees per acre) based on a retention of greater than 12-inch diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) trees. This spacing will provide for an average 40-60% canopy cover.

47. While we recognize that the desired conditions for the project may run counter to desires to promote multi-age stands with widespread decadence, disease and defects, the conclusions reached with regards to fisher appear to run counter to local scientific findings. As a result, we encourage you to revisit these conclusions, and to consider additional measures to minimize the potential impact to fishers, and to incorporate specific design features to retain suitable habitat for fishers across the project area.

Response: Design measures include criteria for snag retention. Large diameter trees will be retained, where available, within treatment units to promote vertical structure, species composition, habitat diversity, live snag recruitment, and future down woody debris, which are component important to fisher. The fisher analysis was updated to include the latest research from Sauder 2014. Fisher habitat (mature:openness ratio) was assessed at a larger scale than the project area (i.e. watershed(s)) to approximate the home range size of a fisher.

48. Monitoring of MI and TES species has not been done on the Nez Perce National Forest for over 10 years as per the Forest Plan. This makes any wildlife analysis very suspect. We don’t know if Forest Plan standards are effective in what they were intended to do.

Response: There are various amounts of population data provided for different management indicator species. Some of the population trend data is at the project scale and some is at larger scales. The project file includes a forest plan monitoring report (2005-2012) that summarizes the population trends, or habitat for those populations on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. For management indicator species (MIS), the recent Forest wildlife monitoring report (2015), addresses the species and their habitats on the Forest and relates that to the Regional level. There are observation records for some species, some of which are incidental while others are part of survey efforts, which can inform us as to what species are found in the forest habitats. Furthermore, the Forest-level monitoring assessment (USFS 2015) describes stable or increasing population trends for the species included in the project report analysis, and uses the best available scientifically-based resources for assessing these populations.

Appendix D – Page D-27 49. The analysis is not based upon field research, but stand exams, which may give very inaccurate views of habitat.

Response: Exam data from FSVeg is the preferred data source for vegetative information utilized in the development of wildlife habitat models because it represents an accurate documentation of the vegetation within a specific stand. However, stand exam coverage is not complete for the entire Forest. To compensate for the gaps in FSVeg data, the Region 1 Existing Vegetation Mapping Program (VMap) was used. The advantage to using Northern Region’s Existing Vegetation Mapping Program (VMap) is that provides a forestwide geospatial database of existing vegetation. Large areas can be evaluated for lifeform, tree dominance, tree size class and tree canopy cover class (Ahl and Brown 2015). All wildlife models are based on information gleaned from scientific literature and research as to wildlife habitat preferences. In general, the model classification breaks using VMap are very close to breaks known in other wildlife-habitat relationship models. For example, if a size class breaks at 8.9 inches dbh, the VMap model break at 9.9 inches is deemed suitably close.

50. Cumulative impact analysis is weak and activities looked at in the analysis of other resources are ignored in the wildlife section. In essence, the best available science has not been used. For example, Schultz (2010) examined Forest Service wildlife analyses and found several problems, including the reliance on Sampson, which is the basis of much of the cumulative impacts analysis in the EA. She criticized the agency’s failure to set meaningful thresholds and the assumption that habitat losses are not significant. The EA also does not explain other caveats or weaknesses in the work it cites, such as Sampson’s, in terms of viability for long- term persistence.

Response: Depending on the cumulative effects boundaries for the different species and list of past, present, future activities, the projects discussed in the cumulative effects sections for wildlife may not necessary be the same between species, nor would they be the same cumulative effects boundaries or list of projects when compared to other resources. The cumulative effects section in the wildlife section was based on activities notes in Appendix B of the EA.

The wildlife analysis reviews state, regional, and national population data and information (research, literature, project or forest level surveys/monitoring, petition to list species under the ESA documents, websites [breeding bird surveys, harvest reports, species rankings, etc.]) to draw conclusions about wildlife populations and/or trends. Habitat is modeled for many species of TES and MIS species suspected or known to occur in the project area and for some of these species there is habitat information beyond the project (subbasin, forest, or region). Having information pertaining to habitat at a larger scale (Samon 2006), assists with drawing conclusions to rarity or abundance of habitat locally or at a larger scale as well as with assessing effects. In addition, based on case law, it is appropriate for the agency to pursue measurements of habitat availability as a proxy for population/viability assessments (Inland Empire Public Lands Council v.USFS 1995, Lands Council v. McNair 2008).

51. The lynx analysis admits that lynx habitat would be affected. A May Affect, but Will Not Adversely Affect determination has been made. Why this determination and not another determination given the loss of lynx habitat from the project?

Appendix D – Page D-28

Response: The EA and wildlife report provide the rationale for the ‘May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect’ Canada Lynx determination (EA, Section 3.8.2.1). Programmatic consultation was completed for this project and applies the appropriate screen, as well as the rationale for the ‘May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect’ determination.

52. The EA does not discuss the adequacy of the NRLMD nor does it discuss the recent federal court decision in Montana that affects lynx and how the agency is supposed to deal with lynx habitat. Connectivity for lynx and other species is important and this timber sale in conjunction with other timber sale in the South Fork will have negative impacts on connectivity.

Response: The wildlife analysis in the EA, and wildlife report in the project record disclose the standards and guidelines used to evaluate the consistency with the NRLMD. The EA complies with the NRLMD. Discussing the relevancy or adequacy of the NRLMD is outside the scope of this project.

53. Alternative 2 supposedly helps wolves because it helps elk. Yet, the project does not meet elk habitat guidelines (Moose Ridge EAU). Further, we should expect a decline while the timber sale is being done, as the roads built and used for the project would further decrease elk security. There is no indication in the EA this was considered.

Response: The EA and wildlife report have been updated to include the short-term effects to elk and elk habitat due to project activities. Elk habitat effectiveness levels would not change under Alternative 2. Direct effects to elk habitat would be from shifts in the distribution and abundance of cover and forage. Cover would decrease and forage would increase as a result of timber harvest activities and the loss of overstory cover from temporary road building. Elk habitat effectiveness is not expected to change during implementation as the effects of building temporary roads and the increase of human activity are of short-duration. In addition, the temporary roads are closed to the public. The EHE effectiveness model is not able to detect small changes in the addition of temporary roads that are closed to the public and the subtraction of yearlong closed temporary and permanent roads through road decommissioning. Upon completion of the project activities, temporary roads would be decommissioned and the Moose Ridge EAA would remain at 46% EHE. Though the EAA is below the Forest Plan objective of 50%, it is trending towards the established level, by improving forage conditions and not increasing motorized activities in the project area or changing the seasons of allowable motorized use. The obliteration of 6 miles of system road would not improve EHE conditions as these roads are already closed yearlong. Security areas would not be reduced, but they may be temporarily compromised by the temporary increase in human activities during implementation of the project activities.

54. There is no alternative that meets elk habitat standards. Thus, this project does not meet the Forest Plan.

Response: Forest Plan direction says to use "Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho" (Leege 1984) to manage for and to assess the attainment of

Appendix D – Page D-29 summer elk habitat objectives in project evaluations (NPNF standard #6 page II-18) (see Appendix B of the Forest Plan, same as Leege 1984). Until such time as the Forest Plan is revised, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho" (Leege 1984) will be used to assess elk habitat. The Dutch Oven project is compliant with the Forest Plan by using Leege 1984 to run EHE calculations. The purpose and need is not to improve the existing condition related to the elk habitat objectives.

See also response to comment # 62. Additional analysis was completed to evaluate the effects to elk habitat, see EA, Chapter 3, Section 3.8 Wildlife, Elk.

55. The EA inconsistently states, “Even though population levels and trends are unknown, moose populations are large enough to support hunting. Moose hunting is not allowed in Unit 15, which encompasses the project area.”

Response: Many moose populations are large enough to support hunting in many areas of the Clearwater Region and state of Idaho. Moose hunting was allowed in Unit 15 up until a couple of years ago. Speculation is that predation by wolves has caused the decline in moose populations such that hunting is not allowed in Unit 15 anymore. The EA has been updated to clarify the status of moose hunting in Unit 15.

56. The EA further states that Forest Plan standards would be met for moose. However, that is not clear. The Peek guidelines are the best available science for moose. Previous studies of moose habitat on the Nez Perce National Forest have documented the importance of dense understories of Pacific yew stands under old-growth grand fir communities (Pierce and Peek 1984). The importance of these habitats has been documented in the Forest Plan with a special management area (MA-21) and local habitat management guidelines that have been developed based on that past research (Peek et al. 1987). The guidelines suggest that no more than 45% of MA 21 should be in age classes younger than 90 years and that no more than 14% should be logged in any 30-year period. How much MA21 in the project area has been logged in the past 30 years?

Further, MA-21 has a standard that only lands under 35% slope are suitable for timber harvest and that only 5% of the suitable acreage can be harvested each decade. Suitable lands (those under 35% slope) are to be managed on a 210-year rotation with no more than 5% of stands open to harvest logged per decade. Harvested stands are to be managed to maintain 50% of the live Pacific yew component. Patch size should be no larger than 20 acres and 5 to 10 acres is preferred.

Response: Forest Plan standards for moose pertain to timber harvest and prescribing burning activities in Management Area 21 (MA21). Project design measures 37-39 are design to reduce the impacts to moose and pacific yew communities in MA21. These design measures are taken from the Nez Perce Forest Plan pg III-59. The EA and wildlife report have been updated to disclose amount of past harvest by decade in MA21 and amount of proposed treatment in MA21 and other moose winter habitat. The project is compliant with Forest Plan standards.

Appendix D – Page D-30 Pacific yew will be retained within treatment Units. Regeneration treatment areas will resemble a mosaic of even-aged groups, inclusive of the Pacific yew patches. Units containing Pacific yew will be piled and scarified, but not broadcast burned, to protect the yew component. Pacific yew will not be slashed, and slash piles will not be placed in Pacific yew leave patches. Refer to Project Design Measures #1, #37, #38, and #39. See also response to Comment #66.

57. The fisher analysis needs to include the latest research done in the Clearwater Basin by Sauder and others. Given the high level of accidental trapping of this species in the region, it is of grave concern. The EA admits 21 percent of fisher habitat would be logged in the area. That is a tremendous amount.

Response: The fisher analysis was updated to include the latest research from Sauder 2014. According to Sauder (2014), fisher select landscapes with highly connected patches of mature forest (≥50%) and small amounts of open areas (≤5%). Fisher habitat (mature:openness ratio) was assessed at a larger scale than the project area (i.e. watershed(s)) to approximate the home range size of a fisher.

58. The EA does not differentiate between the two what many scientists now consider as separate marten species in North America based upon genetic studies, Martes americana and Martes caurina. Their ranges tend to meet somewhere in the northwestern Montana and northern Idaho. To what species (or subspecies) do the marten belong or are they both found in the project area? We have similar concerns about the adequacy of the habitat analysis for marten as we do for fisher.

Response: The EA considered effects to marten and fisher habitat, regardless of subspecies. The distinction between subspecies was not relevant to assessing habitat and project impacts. Both marten and fisher are found in the project area. See also response to Comment 57.

59. Problems in habitat analysis exist for the goshawk and pileated woodpecker. The latest science is not used in coming up with habitat estimates (see for example Moser 2007 and Bull et al. 2007). Further, there is no indication that any surveys have been conducted.

Response: On page 144 of the EA, it states that “As a result of surveys conducted for goshawks in 2013 and 2014, two goshawk territories have been identified within the Dutch Oven project area.”

The EA and wildlife report has been updated to include the Moser 2007 goshawk reference. The pileated woodpecker section already included reference to Bull et al. 2007.

60. Marten, fisher, pileated woodpecker and goshawk all rely on ancient forests or old growth. The EA states that no MA 20 would be logged, but it is unclear whether there is enough MA 20 in the project area that meets the Forest Plan definition of old growth and how that relates to the Forest as a whole.

Response: MA20, a forest plan allocation of old growth, can be used assess the amount of old growth in a watershed or combination of watersheds (old growth analysis units, OGAAs) per

Appendix D – Page D-31 forest plan direction. However, there is additional areas that may contain old growth attributes that are outside of MA20 that are used in combination with MA20 to meet the old growth standards of 5% existing old growth per OGAA.

In Section 3.8.2.5 of the EA, it states that “In OGAA03050501, approximately 342 acres (5%) of old growth habitats was identified using field visits, stand exam data collected in 2014 as part of the Dutch Oven project, and aerial photo interpretation. Other unharvest areas, including riparian areas, account for the 5% replacement old growth.”

The EA also states, Bush et al. 2010 indicate that approximately 13 percent of the Nez Perce National Forest is old growth (90 percent confidence interval between 10.4 and 15.6 percent) (based on Green et al. 1992 definitions). Approximately 17% of the Nez Perce National Forest meets the Forest Plan definition of old growth (15 trees per acre greater than 21 inches dbh) (90% Confidence interval = 14.4-20.2%). Based on this information, the Nez Perce National Forest is above the Forest Plan minimum standard of 10% old growth forest-wide.

If less than 5% old growth exists in a drainage, in essence, the forest plans allows us to borrow the excess old growth in adjacent drainages. In the “The Newsome Creek Watershed Assessment (2002) states that about 32% of that watershed may qualify as old growth, thus compensating for the low amount of old growth in the Dutch Oven project area.” Thus, forest plan standards of 5% existing and 5% replacement old growth per watershed or combination of watersheds (old growth analysis units, OGAAs) is met.

61. The EA also dismisses grizzly bear analysis. While it is highly unlikely there are grizzlies in the project area, the Forest Plan requires the Forest Service to positively protect habitat and includes the bear in its list of MIS. How does this EA comply with the Forest Plan?

Response: The grizzly bear is an MIS because it is listed by the USFWS. Officially, the USFWS does not consider any portion of the Forest to be permanently occupied by grizzly bears at this time, and there has been no evidence of a population. The project area does not fall within the Selway-Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. The project area does not contain potential habitat for grizzly bears, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not consider this a species that may be present on the Nez Perce National Forest. The project is in compliance with the Forest plan regarding grizzly bear as an MIS. The project file includes a forest plan monitoring report (2015) that summarizes USFWS grizzly bear monitoring.

62. The EA relies upon an outdated metric for evaluating elk habitat impacts. The EA quantifies impacts and benefits to summer range elk habitat (Elk Habitat Effectiveness, or EHE) based upon guidelines developed by Thomas Leege in 1984 ("Guidelines for evaluating and managing summer elk habitat in northern Idaho"). More recent peer reviewed literature has documented that these guidelines fail to account for the spatial configuration of roads within a project area, an important determinant of summer range elk habitat quality (Rowland et al. 2000). The Forest Service acknowledged ongoing scientific progress on these issues when it participated in the development of Servheen et al.'s 1997 "Interagency guidelines for evaluating and managing elk habitats and populations on U.S. Forest Service lands in central Idaho". This and more recent studies (ex. Unsworth et al. 1998, Rowland et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005) have greatly expanded our understanding of the direct and indirect

Appendix D – Page D-32 effects of roads, motorized recreation, nutrition, livestock grazing, and other factors on the distribution and health of elk populations.

Notably, the differing methodologies of Leege 1984 and Servheen et al. 1997 were the subject of recent litigation (Friends of the Clearwater et al. v. US. Forest Service 2015). In that case, plaintiffs argued that the Forest Service's reliance on Leege's 1984 guidance was inappropriate following development of the 1997 document which more accurately reflected the best available science for evaluating impacts to summer range elk habitat. The plaintiffs prevailed, with U.S. District Judge Lodge noting that "when the Forest Service itself creates and adopts an updated more accurate measuring standard, that is the best science that must be considered" (Memorandum Decision and Order, p. 23).

At a minimum, the Forest Service should use the Servheen et al. 1997 guidelines to evaluate impacts to elk on summer range. More appropriately, however, the Tribe recommends use of the large volume of elk research generated by the Forest Service's own Starkey Experimental Forest (Rowland et al. 2000, Wisdom 2005) as a basis for a more scientifically defensible and complete analysis of impacts to elk generated by this project. This new analysis should evaluate habitat quality and quantity in addition to disturbance from the road network and timber harvest activities and elk vulnerability to hunters during and after timber harvest, all of which are factors that can significantly impact the exercise of the Tribe's treaty-reserved hunting rights.

Response: Forest Plan direction says to use "Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho" (Leege 1984) to manage for and to assess the attainment of summer elk habitat objectives in project evaluations (NPNF standard #6 page II-18) (see Appendix B of the Forest Plan, same as Leege 1984). Until such time as the Forest Plan is revised, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho" (Leege 1984) will be used to assess elk habitat.

The Dutch Oven project (Alternative 2) is compliant with the Forest Plan by using Leege 1984 to run EHE calculations. The basic difference between Leege 1984 and Servheen 1997 is Servheen 1997 adds trails to the calculations where Leege is based on road data, plus an elk vulnerability computation. The EHE calculations for the Orogrande project uses both road and trail information and uses the coefficients from the NPNF access management guide (1988) and is compliant with the FP by using Leege 1984 and adjusted NPNF/IDFG coefficients for roads and trails. The EHE calculations also follow guidance from Servheen 1997 by adding trails to the EHE calculations.

The EA and wildlife report has been updated to reflect use of more recent scientific literature (See Chapter 3, Section 3.8 Wildlife, Elk). The forest reviewed and considered the literature submitted in this comment (See Table D-4 and D-5).

Other literature on elk modelling has suggested models on road effects (Rowland et al. 2000 & 2005), size of elk unit to be analyzed (Rowland et al. 2005, Unsworth et al. 1998) and other elk habitat considerations. The forest is currently undergoing Forest Plan revision, and the above

Appendix D – Page D-33 literature as well as future work will be considered in the development of a structure for analyzing elk on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest.

63. The Tribe is concerned that summer habitat quality for elk within the project area is below the 50% effectiveness habitat objective. Unfortunately, the EA does not provide any information regarding how far below objective this area is. The Tribe recommends that this information be added to the EA. We further recommend that the project be amended to promote an upward trend in appropriate metrics for elk based on an updated elk analysis. This may be best accomplished by reducing motorized route densities in key areas (such as Road 9852 south from its junction with Road 9867), minimizing sight lines and cover losses adjacent to motorized access points, modifying livestock use of the project area, or a combination of these steps guided by the outcome of an updated elk analysis.

Response: The EA had been updated to depict current EHE conditions (46%). Though the EAA is below the Forest Plan objective (50%), it is trending towards the established level, by improving forage conditions and not increasing motorized activities in the project area or changing the seasons of motorized use. The obliteration of 6 miles of system road would not improve EHE conditions as these roads are already closed yearlong.

64. The proposed action would harvest 21 % of fisher habitat within the project area (EA, Fisher, p. 128). The EA does a good job identifying the historic factors which have contributed to degraded fisher habitat conditions within the project area. Unfortunately, the proposed action would exacerbate this trend. The claim that "the change in habitat availability within the project area (up to 21 percent) would not affect the ability of fisher to occupy the project area now or in the future” (EA, Fisher, p. 129) is not supported by recent research (Weir and Corbould 2010; Sauder and Rachlow 2014).

Response: The fisher analysis was updated to include the latest research from Sauder 2014. According to Sauder (2014), fisher select landscapes with highly connected patches of mature forest (≥50%) and small amounts of open areas (≤5%). Fisher habitat (mature:openness ratio) was assessed at a larger scale than the project area (i.e. watershed(s)) to approximate the home range size of a fisher.

OLD GROWTH 65. The Tribe is similarly concerned that this proposed project will reduce or hinder progress towards enhancing the extent of late-seral forest in the area. Old growth levels are low within the project area (EA, Old Growth Habitat, p. 154), yet this project appears likely to further erode late-seral structure in an effort to reduce wildfire severity and promote the establishment of early-seral species. A lack of treatment within MA20 stands is necessary but not sufficient to reverse this trend. While some active management may be needed to promote the development of late-seral structure, it is important to the Tribe that economic, fuels reduction, and tree species composition goals not undermine progress toward late-seral restoration outside ofMA20 areas. For this reason, the Tribe recommends that the desired conditions within the project area be amended to more clearly identify late-seral conditions as an important historical component of the project area.

Appendix D – Page D-34

Response: The purpose and need of the project is to reduce hazardous fuels and to improve and manage for long-term forest health, but does not include restoration of late-seral conditions. No treatments will occur in designated old growth (342 acres in Management Area 20 of the Forest Plan) or in other stands that contain old growth characteristics (342 acres). Other areas proposed for treatment were dropped from the proposed alternative because old-growth attributes are present. In addition, the Newsome Watershed Assessment (2002, pg 4:69) states that about 32% of that watershed may qualify as old growth, thus compensating for the low amount of old growth in the Dutch Oven project area.

Large diameter trees will be retained, where available, within treatment units to promote vertical structure, species composition, habitat diversity, live snag recruitment, and future down woody debris.

FUELS/FIRE ECOLOGY

66. There is no quantification of the important ecological role fire plays in these forests. When the ecological importance of fire of fire is mentioned in the EA, it is usually in context of fire suppression having eliminated fire. The irony is, the Forest Service position is past fires that should have burned would have brought ecological benefits whereas future fires that might possibly burn will only bring ecological devastation. The Forest Service’s dogma leads to an inadequate and subjective EA.

Response: The Forest Service is not suggesting that implementation of this project would reduce the threat or occurrence of wildfires in this area, in fact we acknowledge that fire is a natural process and function of wildlands. Implementing this project would allow those processes to occur with a reduced risk of damaging private property and increasing human safety.

67. Numerous studies show fire severity is a function of climate in the northern Rockies. Large, stand-replacing fires are normal in this area. Trying to turn a mixed conifer stand in north- central Idaho into an open ponderosa pine stand like those found in the southwest is ridiculous. Even the vegetation analysis in the EA admits the area is mixed conifer.

Response: Early-seral species will be promoted within the project area by retention and by planting, including ponderosa pine and western larch. The purpose is to promote a forest that is more resilient to disturbances such as wildfire, insects, and disease. These species are more resistant to fire, root disease, and stem decays than shade-tolerant tree species which currently dominate the area. The intent is to increase the amount of early-seral species while decreasing the amount of shade-tolerant species, creating mixed-conifer stands that are more diverse and sustainable. After harvest, units will resemble a mosaic of even-aged groups. Within this mixed conifer project area there are areas where Ponderosa Pine are present, and habitat types that support ponderosa pine. In these areas Ponderosa Pine will be encouraged. The majority of the project area is comprised of mixed conifer habitat types. Within these areas western larch is present and this early seral tree species will be encouraged within the harvest areas. One of the

Appendix D – Page D-35 objectives is to reduce the late succession shade tolerant species that have encroached and are now creating ladder fuels that threaten older early seral tree species. These older early seral species will function as seed trees for natural regeneration within the harvest units. According to the Vegetation Specialist in the Dutch Oven EA ponderosa pine vegetation type makes up 6.1% of the project area now, and with treatment it is predicted that it will increase by 4% to 6%. The proposed action will increase early seral tree species (ponderosa pine and western larch) by about 14% in the project area. The remaining vegetation type percentages would remain unchanged by the activities (Dutch Oven EA, pg. 47).

68. Clarify areas proposed for burning, method of treatments and post fire vegetation objectives.

Response: Please refer to the treatment activities table and prescription summary in Chapter 2; and the table in Appendix A of the EA for specific individual unit treatments. All regeneration units greater than 40 acres have been identified.

WUI – Wildland Urban Interface

69. Another factor that needs to be considered when looking at the so-called WUI is that Jack Cohen’s research clearly shows that for town or structure protection, anything beyond about 40 meters is ineffective. In other words, the WUI is in reality, about 40-meters wide.

The evidence suggests that wildland fuel reduction for reducing home losses may be inefficient and ineffective. Inefficient because wildland fuel reduction for several hundred meters or more around homes is greater than necessary for reducing ignitions from flames. Ineffective because it does not sufficiently reduce firebrand ignitions (Cohen, 1999).

Response: The 2009 Idaho County Wildland Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan categorizes the Dutch Oven Project area as WUI. The group made up of many different Federal and State agencies, county representatives, city and rural fire protection, law enforcement, fire mitigation specialist, resource management professionals, and hazard mitigation experts, identified the need for mechanical treatments combined with prescribed burning within the Dutch Oven Project area. (2009 ICWMP. P. 147) Implementation of this project would allow the Forest Service more opportunities, and a greater chance of success, to keep fire from burning on to private property by creating areas within the landscape that would exhibit decreased fire behavior. These areas could then be managed by direct or indirect attack. This would also allow fire manager and fire fighters of a large incident to work safer and more cost effective.

Cohen also states, “To be effective, given no modification of home ignition characteristics, wildland vegetation management would have to significantly reduce firebrand production and potentially extend for several kilometers away from homes” (Cohen, 1999).

70. Research done on Forest Service thinning projects shows the vast majority of it is not done in areas that need it. The areas that most benefit from thinning are private lands. What peer- reviewed studies do you have that show this kind of thinning actually works in this area?

Appendix D – Page D-36

Response: The Forest Service is not responsible nor allowed to manage private property. Implementation of this project would allow the Forest Service more opportunities and greater chance of success to keep fire from burning on private property.

The references below show that a combination of Mechanical Treatment and Prescribed Fire decrease fire behavior, limit mortality of fire tolerant tree species. This in turn creates areas that fire fighters can use to suppress the spread of fires more safely and more cost effective.

1. Stephens, Scott L.; McIver, James D.; Boerner, Ralph E.J.; Fettig, Christopher J.; Fontaine, Joseph B.; Hartsough, Bruce R.; Kennedy, Patricia L.; Schwilk, Dylan W. 2012. Effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. Bioscience 63:549- 560.

2. Prichard, S. & Peterson, D. (2010). Do fuel treatments reduce fire severity?evaluating effectiveness in the 2006 Tripod Complex fires. [PDF File]. Retrieved from https://www.firescience.gov/projects/07-1-2-13/project/07- 1-2-13_prichard_finalreport_march2010.pdf

3. Graham, Russell T.; Harvey, Alan E.; Jain, Theresa B.; Tonn, Jonalea R. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in Western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p.

71. We believe the project needs to be much bigger than just the WUI but also believe an effort should be made (contacting private landowners) to coordinate treatments to improve protection on private property.

Response: The proposed Dutch Oven treatment areas were identified based upon an interdisciplinary approach that evaluated existing conditions, potential restoration opportunities and applicable resource concerns. These areas were further refined based upon public comments received and effectiveness of meeting the project purpose and need. Attempts were made throughout the scoping process to contact individual property owners residing within the project boundary. Through these discussion additional treatment areas were identified more specifically adjacent to the Mud Springs private inholding. Prior to implementation additional coordination will occur with landowners to facilitate treatment activities.

VEGETATION

72. The Tribe further recommends that the proposed project's silvicultural prescriptions be refined to better balance both early- and late-seral restoration goals. If treatment is desired to meet competing resource management goals, consider understory thinning or other practices which better preserve late-seral structure.

Appendix D – Page D-37 Response: The purpose and need of the project is to reduce hazardous fuels and to improve and manage for long-term forest health, but does not include restoration of late-seral conditions (see response to Comment #57). Understory thinning is not desirable in units containing root disease. Variable density thinning and shelterwood harvests are proposed on approximately 142 acres; where late-seral structure will be retained within these units. Late seral structure will also be retained within the project area in MA20 and other stands that contain old growth characteristics. (see response to Comment #57).

73. The Tribe recommends that the Forest Service embrace the snag creation and retention proposal described above to help ensure the persistence of important habitat elements within the project area. The Tribe further recommends that this project be redesigned to account for the landscape configuration needs of fisher. The Forest Service should seek and incorporate the guidance of regional fisher experts in amending the project to achieve this important forest restoration goal.

Response: The primary purpose of this project is to reduce hazardous fuels, enhance wildfire suppression capability, and provide for public and firefighter safety by reducing the amount of available fuel. Design measures are incorporated into the project to retain snags and green tree replacements (EA pg. 28-29, design features 32 and 33; and also see Comment #7).

The fisher analysis was updated to include the latest research from Sauder 2014. Fisher habitat (mature:openness ratio) was assessed at a larger scale than the project area (i.e. watershed(s)) to approximate the home range size of a fisher. Large diameter trees will be retained, where available, within treatment units to promote vertical structure, species composition, habitat diversity, live snag recruitment, and future down woody debris.

74. The Tribe recommends that the Forest Service employ silvicultural practice, like shelterwood harvests, which best allow Pacific yew to persist within treatment units.

Response: Pacific yew will be retained within treatment units. Regeneration treatment areas will resemble a mosaic of even-aged groups, inclusive of the Pacific yew patches. Units containing Pacific yew will be piled and scarified, but not broadcast burned, to protect the yew component. Pacific yew will not be slashed, and slash piles will not be placed in Pacific yew leave patches. Refer to Project Design Measures #1, #37, #38, and #39. See also response to Comment #56.

75. Document and mapping clarification: Is there an estimate of how many acres will be treated by each harvest method, please clarify treatment areas to be thinned versus regeneration and identify treatment areas over 40 acres?

Response: Please refer to the treatment activities table in Chapter 2 and detailed prescription summary in Appendix A of the EA for specific individual unit treatments. All regeneration units greater than 40 acres have been identified.

76. We believe that only treating dry sites may not produce the fire protection that is being advertised.

Appendix D – Page D-38

Response: Agreed, a comprehensive fuels assessment strategy was incorporated into the Dutch Oven project design and spatial development of treatment opportunities. The landscape as a whole was evaluated based upon departure from historic fire patterns and vegetative conditions. Treatment options were then developed for both dry and moist habitat conditions to better reflect desired fuels objectives and longer term land management plan goals.

77. Eliminate ALL proposed clearcut units. If you must regenerate the areas explain to the public why and use a silvicultural RX that will not affect the visual character of the area in any way. Provide data and text demonstrating that soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged by shelterwood silvicultural prescriptions. Provide data and text demonstrating that shelterwood silvicultural prescriptions are appropriate to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan.

Response: Regeneration harvest including shelterwood, seedtree and clearcutting with reserves is proposed for use in stands such as those identified within the Dutch Oven EA where there is a high occurrence of tree mortality due to insect and disease or culmination of growth resulting in widespread collapse and fuels accumulations. Proposed regeneration methods would retain 6-51 trees per acres consisting of healthy western larch, ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir, (in order of priority) where available. Co-dominant trees would be preferred for retention including clumps and/or exclusion areas to provide additional structure and habitat diversity. Additional trees would be retained throughout the project area to meet minimum requirements for nutrient cycling or wildlife snags.

78. The predecisional EA fails to evaluate project impacts to climate change and climate change impacts to forest resources and ecosystem services.

Response: Climate change related effects are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA. The Dutch Oven project promotes overall forest health and modifies the effects of wildfire using a combination of mechanical and non-mechanical restoration treatments as described in the Proposed Action.

RECREATION

79. Motorized recreation opportunities without fail are reduced and/or greatly diminished with no attempts to mitigate impacts. What could this project do to promote recreation that would be realistic consideration?

Response: The primary purpose and need for the Dutch Oven project identified excessive hazardous fuels accumulations and deteriorating vegetative conditions as critical factors emphasizing the need for proactive treatments within the project area. Recreational opportunities were evaluated but no changes were proposed from current management levels. Existing travel management prescriptions were maintained. Decommissioning of some incidental spurs provided an additional resource restoration benefit from an increase in wildlife habitat conditions, reduction of sediment delivery and long term soil productivity. Additionally, given the roads are

Appendix D – Page D-39 currently impassible there would be no significant impact to recreational opportunities or for fire suppression response.

80. Include discussions, information and data in Chapter 3 showing the effects to recreation and scenery that will result from logging, road construction and burning that will occur as part of this project. If you feel recreation and scenery will not be affected, please describe why.

Response: Recreation and visual management objectives are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA. Specific project design features are included to minimize impacts to recreation and visual quality. Recreation and Visual resources reports are in the project record and were not included in the preliminary because recreation.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 81. We encourage you to more fully detail potential cumulative effects to old growth, aquatics, wildlife, water quality and sensitive species and to provide discussion about the proximity of other projects, including but not limited to the Crooked River Restoration Project, South Fork Clearwater Dredge Mining, American-Crooked River Project, Whiskey South and any other nearby Forest Service timber sales, wildfires, private land logging and development, restoration projects, mining projects or other activities that may contribute cumulative effects in the impacted watersheds or adjacent wildlife habitat.

Response: Appendix B of EA describes the activities considered for cumulative effects. Cumulative effects to old growth, aquatics, wildlife, and water quality are in resource reports and Chapter 3 of the EA, including the Small-Scale Suction Dredging project. The effects of the Crooked River Valley Restoration Project, American River and Crooked River Project, and Whiskey South are all outside the cumulative effects boundary and/or effects do not overlap in time and space for resources analyzed.

82. We point out that the EA indicates that “[t]he Forest has been very successful in working with the miners to minimize impacts to streams” (EA, page 179). Based on our experience this has not been the case. Specifically we reference the report of Clint Hughes (Mineral Inspection Form, dated July 22, 2015 re: Poe, Erlanson, Stickley, Monahan/Etc.). That mining, which occurred in close proximity to the project area referenced numerous illegal mining operations in the South Fork Clearwater River, into which the project area drains. According to that report, none of the operations were conducted consistent with the description above, that “miners…minimize[d] impacts to streams.” We encourage you to incorporate Mr. Hughes report into the project file and have attached a low-resolution version of that report to our comments.

Response: Mining operations in the South Fork Clearwater River are outside of the Dutch Oven project area. The cumulative effects analysis area, at most for hydrology and fisheries is the Whiskey Creek-South Fork Clearwater HUC12, and portions of the Lower American River HUC12; not the entire South Fork Clearwater sub-basin. These mining operations are outside of the cumulative effects boundary for aquatics and watershed resources and were not referred to in

Appendix D – Page D-40 the activities considered for cumulative effects. See Appendix B- Cumulative effects for a description of the past and ongoing mining activities considered for all resources.

83. The Tribe continues to be concerned about the cumulative effects of this project and how the upward trend will be met. Tributaries to the South Fork Clearwater River are extremely important to the Tribe. Many restoration projects are either ongoing or have been completed by the Tribe. Since 1997, the Tribe, in full partnership with the Forest has spent funds and resources on restoration activities. The Tribe would like assurance from the Forest that this proposal will not have a negative impact on treaty resources or tribal restoration efforts.

Response: The Forest welcomes the Tribe to voice concerns about specific restoration sites that may benefit from specific protection measures. Peak flows and water quality are not expected to change significantly, according to the ECA and NEZSED analyses. The EA identified chronic sediment from roads as the primary cause of excess sediment deposition in the project area streams. Upward trend would be met by road improvements, especially at stream-road crossings.

84. The South Fork Clearwater River is in a currently degraded state due to past management activities including logging, roading, mining, grazing, and agricultural activities. These activities caused the river to be listed on the 1998 §303( d) TMDL list for temperature and sediment. The Forest has deferred evaluating the continued use of this land for livestock grazing on the Elk Summit grazing allotment, but is currently analyzing a multitude of proposed mining projects on other streams that drain into the South Fork.

The Tribe disagrees with the statement on page 179 of the EA, "[t]he Forest has been very successful in working with the miners to minimize impacts to streams." Specifically, the illegal (and unauthorized by the Forest Service) suction dredging on the South Fork Clearwater River is close to the Dutch Oven project area.

Response: Percent effective shade targets were established in the TMDL as surrogate measures necessary to achieve temperature criteria, with a percent increase effective shade target of 24 percent for forested tributaries of the S. Fork Clearwater River (IDEQ et al. 2004). The means of achieving these effective shade targets is through restoring and protecting riparian vegetation, and narrowing stream channel widths (IDEQ et al. 2004). The most commonly acceptable approach to controlling non-point sources of sediment is to limit pollutants from reaching the water through a combination of best management practices and filtering of runoff using riparian vegetation and floodplains (SFCRWAG 2006). It is true that the proposed action does not propose any changes to grazing or mining permits and therefore grazing could potentially continue to affect the temperature and sediment load. However, by abiding by riparian area buffer requirements, the proposed action would not add any additional negative effects to temperature TMDLs.

Like wildfire, harvest would temporarily add to the South Fork Clearwater sediment load, but the additional load would be small relative to the South Fork drainage and road improvements would result in an overall reduction in sediment in the long-term. As stated in the analysis: Cumulative effects were not assessed for the Lower American River HUC12 watershed, because the amount of proposed action in that watershed are so small that they would make a negligible contribution

Appendix D – Page D-41 to sediment load. See the cumulative effects section of the Water Resources specialist report for specific numbers. DEQ requirements, USACE requirements, Forest Plan sediment yield thresholds by prescription watershed would govern mining and grazing planning. These permit evaluations are included in the draft program of work for 2016 and 2017.

Mining operations in the South Fork Clearwater River were considered in the Dutch Oven project as a past and ongoing action, see Appendix B and cumulative effects section by resource. Please see response to Comments #81, and 82 and Appendix B.

MONITORING

85. The Tribe has concerns that the monitoring is lacking is areas and how the reporting of results occurs. There have not been an annual Nez Perce Monitoring and Evaluations report published on the website since 2004.

The Tribe recommends that the following monitoring also occur: • Temporary roads will be inspected by the Sales Administrator to verify that erosion and stormwater controls are implemented and functioning prior to log hauling, and are appropriately maintained during and after the hauling. • Implementation monitoring or road reconstruction and reconditioning activities will occur prior to hauling on any reconstructed segments on which hauling is scheduled to occur. The monitoring would verify that the implementation of proposed activities and design criteria has addressed sources of sediment and reduced sediment delivery from these sources prior to hauling activities commencing and following project implementation. • Cobble embeddedness monitoring on Whisky, Allison, Dutch Oven, Buffalo Gulch, and Moose creeks. It is suggested to be done once during project implementation, after project completion, and 3 years after project completion, or an alternative frequency to evaluate and determine if instream sediment conditions and upward trend requirements were met. • Temperature monitoring. • Evaluation of treatment of invasive plant species monitoring is conducted by the noxious weed program.

The Tribe requests that the results of these monitoring efforts be reported to the Tribe in a timely fashion.

Response: The Sales Administrator and/or Engineering representative monitors road reconstruction and reconditioning implementation prior to haul and inspects proposed activities and design criteria for proper sediment mitigation prior to haul and following project implementation.

Implementation monitoring is a standard contract procedure to complete applicable road maintenance prior to commencing haul unless determined by Contracting Officer that expedited

Appendix D – Page D-42 removal is necessary to reduce insect and disease mortality or to facilitate other resource protection measures.

Monitoring pre-haul and post-haul sediment deposition in streams is part of the proposed action. Monitoring turbidity during instream operations is part of the design measures. Temperature is unlikely to change as a result of this project, because of riparian buffers required by BMPs, so temperature monitoring was not included in the proposed action.

BMP monitoring and evaluation has only recently become standardized under the National BMP Monitoring program. The Nez Perce Clearwater is required to perform BMP audits and report to the national program. The program summary report for 2013-2014 was just published in December 2015 and is available to the public (FS-1070).

Appendix D – Page D-43 Consideration of Other Science/Literature Submitted by the Public

Members of the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project interdisciplinary team are considered proficient in their field of study by way of academic achievement, agency training, years of professional experience, and in some cases, certification programs. Team specialists identified the methods used in their analyses and referenced the scientific sources upon which their analyses were based (refer to the References section in the EA). In their analyses, team specialists discussed responsible opposing science and viewpoints and provided science-based rationale to support their conclusions. They also addressed any incomplete or unavailable information. This section has three groups of submitted literature that was considered and is presented in Tables D-3, D-4 and D-5.

Opposing Science and Viewpoints All of the opposing science and viewpoints were submitted by Dick Artley, who regularly comments on vegetation management projects on the Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forests as well as many other national forests across the nation. Since 2009, his comments have included an extensive list of numbered attachments; nine separate attachments were received for the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project. The title of each attachment consists of a general statement or viewpoint that is followed by 6 to 99 individual quotes (depending on the Attachment #), often taken out of context, from various newspapers, editorials, magazines, scientific papers and other publications that presumably Mr. Artley believes support the title statement. The individual quotations are followed by electronic links to the source documents, some of which are broken or no longer valid. In any case, the quotations are not tied to specific propose actions, as suggested under 40 CFR 1503.3(a) and 36 CFR 218.2. Rather, they are individual statements gathered together to support a general point of view or position. For numerous past projects since 2009, interdisciplinary teams have been responding to all of the quotations in each attachment submitted during project comment periods. Since past responses have been similar for each project and nothing new was found in the current attachments, the responses made on past projects are incorporated by reference as the official response for the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project. Attachment 17 is in Table D-3 with IDT consideration and rationale. In conclusion, the IDT has reviewed the submitted attachments and still stand by the analysis in the EA, as, unlike the attachments, it focuses on the site specific cause-effect relationships of the alternatives for each resource area considered in detail. Tables D-3 summarizes each submitted attachment, including an overview of past responses or rationale for dismissal, and the past projects affected:

Table D-3. Literature considered an referenced to Past projects Attachment Title and Attachment Overview Past Project File 1 Respected Scientists Reveal the Certainty that Powell Divide EA (2010) Natural Resources in the Forest are Harmed Middle Bugs EA (2013) (and some destroyed) by Timber Harvest Doc Denny Vegetation Project Activities EA (2013) A large majority of the 88 opposing viewpoints Upper Basin EA (2013) contained in this attachment were found to be Lower Orogrande EIS (2015) generalized opinions or not applicable to the proposed action. Others, when viewed in their entirety, were found to support the science used in the analysis.

Appendix D – Page D-44 Attachment Title and Attachment Overview Past Project File The Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project EA describes the effects of timber harvest for all applicable resources. Best available science, cited throughout the EA, was used in the analysis of those affects. 3 Harvesting Trees to Reduce Fuels is not only Adams Camp Wildfire Protection Ineffective at Reducing the Risk of Fire Project EA (2013) Damage to Human Structures but Harms the Forest Ecosystem Almost half of the 62 opposing viewpoints are duplicates of those contained in Attachment #1. Although a few of the viewpoints were found to support the science used in the analysis, most of them either applied to areas far outside the project area (i.e. Lake Tahoe or Canada) or were generalized opinion pieces, having no connection to the proposed actions. The Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project cites scientific literature that supports the reduction of fuel loads to prevent the potential for severe fire behavior. Post fire Wildfire is a Natural Disturbance Event that Not applicable to the Dutch Oven treatments Benefits many Natural Resources in the Forest Vegetation Management project. attachment in Spite of the Fact it Kills Conifer Tree Species (Attachment 4) Fire Restores the Countless other Resources in a Post-Fire Landscape by Killing them and Allowing the Decomposition Process to Proceed 101 opposing views of post wildfire logging were provided in forms of generalized opinion pieces, having no connection to the proposed actions, news articles regarding research, and some peer reviewed literature. The literature and references provided are not relevant to the Dutch Oven project and therefore were not considered. The Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project does not propose to harvest in areas recently burned by wildfire. 5 Insect Activity is a Beneficial Natural Powell Divide EA (2010) Disturbance Event in the Forest Very few of the 26 opposing views were found to support the science used in the analysis; the majority of the viewpoints and sources do not apply to this project because they do support the purpose and need of the project and/or applied to areas far outside the project area (i.e. South Dakota and Colorado). Most of the literature cited was not peer reviewed as well. The Dutch Oven Vegetation Management

Appendix D – Page D-45 Attachment Title and Attachment Overview Past Project File project is a fuels reduction project that proposes to reduce hazardous fuels and shift species composition to early seral, fire-tolerant species. 8 The Natural Resources in the Forest Benefit Powell Divide EA (2010) from Fire Little Slate EIS (2012) Although a few of the 34 opposing viewpoints were found to support the science used in the analysis, most of them either applied to areas far outside the project area (i.e. Alaska, Minnesota, Canada), discussed post-fire salvaging that is not a part of this project, or were generalized opinion pieces having no connection with the proposed actions. As stated in the purpose and need of the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project, this project aims to reduce hazardous fuels to prevent the potential for severe wildfire, that if allowed to occur would have few resource impacts. 11 Application of Dr. Cohen’s Fine Fuels Adams Camp Wildfire Protection Removal Methods Project EA (2013) There are 12 Dr. Cohen sources for 50 opposing views that support fuels reduction projects do not protect homes from wildfire damage in WUI areas. Most of the viewpoints provide limited applicability to the Dutch Oven project, because the exact location of homes within a WUI is not relevant, many sources are about home ignition, and the research is not consistent with the purpose and need. 14 Dead and Dying Trees are Important to the Middle Bugs EA (2013) Survival of many Natural Resources in the Forest and should not be Removed to Provide Opportunities for Corporate Profit or to Produce a Private Industrial Tree-Farm Almost half of the 11 opposing views were found to support the project analysis. Those remaining contained general information having no direct connection with the proposed actions. The Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project would adhere to Forest Plan standards for snag retention (refer to design measure #31 and 32 in the EA) that would retain, after harvest, sufficient snags (and live green tree recruitment snags), for various species of wildlife habitat.

Appendix D – Page D-46 Literature Submitted on the Preliminary EA Table D-4 summarizes the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project IDT Service consideration of publications that were provided during the preliminary EA comment period and which were directly referenced in the comments, or determined to either have some relevance to the analysis or indicate there is a difference of opinion within the body of the science. NEPA states that comments on the EA shall be as specific as possible (40 CFR 1503.3 Specificity of Comments). Some of the following documents are considered non-substantive comments that do not warrant further response. In either case, the following table explains the consideration given by the IDT.

Table D-4. Literature considered from comments. How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? Baker, William J. 2009. Fire Ecology in Not used Although the author references many Rocky Mountain Landscapes. Island scientific studies; this is not scientific Press. 605 pages. peer reviewed literature. Many of the sources cited in this book were utilized in the Dutch Oven project. Baker states that the available scientific data show that infrequent episodes of large fires followed by long interludes with few fires led to naturally fluctuating landscapes, and that the best approach is not to try to change or control fire but to learn to live with it. Baker argues that the most effective action is to rapidly limit and redesign people-nature interfaces to withstand fire, which he believes can be done in ways that are immediately beneficial to both nature and communities. Forest Plan direction for this management area is to contain and suppress wildfire. The Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project area lies within a Rural WUI. Baker, W. L., T. T. Veblen, and R. L. Limited The Dutch Oven project area is currently Sherriff. 2007. Fire, fuels and applicability dominated by mid to late-seral tree restoration of ponderosa pine–Douglas species, grand fir and Douglas-fir. This fir forests in the Rocky Mountains, literature specifically applies to USA. J. Biogeogr. (2007) 34: 251–269. ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests. Baker, W. L., and D. Ehle. 2001. Limited The Dutch Oven project area is currently Uncertainty in surface-fire history: the applicability dominated by mid to late-seral tree case of ponderosa pine forests in the species, grand fir and Douglas-fir. The western United States. Can. J. For. Res. project area lacks early seral species, 31: 1205–1226. western larch and ponderosa pine, which are more resilient to fire risk and fire conditions. Western larch and ponderosa pine will also continue to decline due to inter-stand competition. Approximately 6% of the forest vegetation type is

Appendix D – Page D-47 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? classified as ponderosa pine within the Dutch Oven project area. The proposed action would result in 6-14% of the project area of the forest vegetation type classified as ponderosa pine and western larch. Successful fire suppression and timber harvest in the last 70 years have resulted in shade-tolerant, fire-intolerant species such as grand-fir and Engelmann spruce. Baker, W. L and Mark A. Williams. Not applicable Dry ponderosa pine currently comprises Bet-hedging dry-forest resilience to only 0.3% of the basal area within the climate-change threats in the western project area, occurring within isolated USA based on historical forest stands, but not consistently present structure. 2015. Frontiers in Ecology throughout the landscape. Only 6% of and Evolution. January 13. the project area is classified as ponderosa pine mix, and 10% as Douglas-fir mix. The majority of the project area contains mesic forest dominated by shade-tolerant species. Beetle Mania. Biodiversity Unable to locate The website link provided does not work. Conservation Alliance. Laramie, WY. reference Unable to locate reference. http://www.voiceforthewild.org/clearcu tting/beetle_mania.html Black, S.H. [et al.]. 2010. Insects and Unable to locate Based on the short excerpt provided, this roadless forests: a scientific review of reference article appears to be about thinning to causes, consequences and management reduce possible insect infestation and that alternatives. National center for is not relevant to this project; the purpose conservation science and policy, and need of the project is to reduce Ashland OR. hazardous fuels. The website link http://nccsp.org/files/Insect%20and%2 provided does not work. Unable to locate 0Roadless%20Forests.pdf reference. Black, S.H.; Kulakowski, D.; Noon, Not applicable This paper focuses on treatments of bark B.R. DellaSala, D.A. 2013. Do bark beetle infested lodgepole and Engelmann beetle outbreaks increase wildfire risks spruce in Colorado. The Dutch Oven in the central U.S. Rocky Mountains? Vegetating Management project planning Implications from recent research. area, located in Idaho, and has less than Natural Areas Journal. 33(1): 59-65. 3% of lodgepole and Engelmann spruce http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3375 combined. Treatment of lodgepole pine /043.033.0107 and Engleman spruce due to bark beetle infestation is not in the purpose and need. Bond, Monica, Lee, Derek. Ph.D., Outside scope This article disputes that removing dead Bradley, Curtis and Hanson, Chad, of this project trees larger than 61 cm (24 inches) does Ph.D., Influence of Pre-Fire Tree not effectively reduce higher-severity Mortality on Fire Severity in Conifer fires. The Dutch Oven Vegetation Forests of the San Bernardino Management project does not propose to Mountains, California. remove dead or live large legacy trees.

Appendix D – Page D-48 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? The Open Forest Science Journal, 2009, 2, 41-47 http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publ ications/papers/Bond_et_al.pdf Daily Camera. 2013. CU-Boulder Not applicable This is not scientific peer reviewed researchers see an upside to pine beetle literature. This is a news article. kill. January 15. http://www.dailycamera.com/cu- news/ci_22378043/cu-boulder- researchers-see-an-upside-pine-beetle C T V. c a News. 2010. Could pine Not applicable This is not scientific peer reviewed beetles actually reduce forest fire risk? literature. This is a news article. September 12. http://www.ctvnews.ca/could-pine- beetles-actually-reduce-forest-fire-risk- 1.551560 Denver Post. Pine beetles’ role in fire Not applicable This is not scientific peer reviewed risk devalued. literature. This is a newspaper article. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_65 20740 Evans, C. 2012. Verdict’s still out on Not Applicable This is not scientific peer reviewed pine beetle kill fire effects. Colorado literature. It is an article in a college arts and science. magazine. http://artsandsciences.colorado.edu/ma gazine/2012/10/verdicts-still-out-on- pine-beetle-kill-fire-effects/ Frey, D. 2010. Logging won’t halt Not relevant to This is not scientific peer reviewed beetles, fire, report says. NewWest.net. the project literature. The excerpt is from an article March 3. reporting on a report by an Oregon-based http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/lo conservation group, National Center for gging_wont_halt_beetles_fire_report_s Conservation Science and Policy, which ays/C41/L41/ states efforts to log beetle-killed trees will not reduce fire risk or beetle outbreaks. The report authors encourage fuels projects that are focused around the edges of communities. The Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project purpose and need does not include an objective to reduce fire risk or to reduce beetle outbreaks; but to improve forest resilience to wildfire and insect and disease events and create a range of age classes, size classes, habitat complexity (diversity) and disturbance patterns that more closely emulate natural low to mixed severity disturbance. Gable, E. 2010. Battling beetles may Not applicable This article discusses the mountain pine not reduce fire risks – report. Land beetle epidemic in Colorado. The Dutch

Appendix D – Page D-49 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? Letter. March 4. Oven Vegetation Management project http://www.xerces.org/2010/03/04/battl purpose and need does not include an ing-beetles-may-not-reduce-fire-risks- objective to reduce beetle outbreaks; report/ however, the proposed action would make the forest more resilient to beetle attack. Hanson, Chad, Ph.D. In defense of the Not applicable This is an essay from an environmental Bark Beetle: a keystone species of magazine and is not scientific peer Western forest ecosystems. October 14, reviewed literature. This essay is about 2015. logging California forests and whether http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewi forests with higher numbers of dead trees ld/commentary/in-defense-of-the-bark- from bark beetles burn more intensely, beetle.html and over and over again they have found no such increase in fire activity. The Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project is a hazardous fuels reduction project. Project design features leave snags with harvest units for wildlife habitat. Hart, Sarah, Ph.D., Schoennagen, Limited Mountain pine beetle attacks, while Tanya, Ph.D., Veblen, Thomas, Ph.D., applicability occurring on the Forest, are not a large and Chapman, Teresa, Ph.D., Area part of the Dutch Oven Vegetation burned in the western United States is Management project planning area unaffected by recent mountain pine because lodgepole pine is not a large beetle outbreaks. Published in the percentage of the forest vegetation. proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, December 15, 2015. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/14/43 75.abstract Kaufmann, M. R., L. Huckaby. And P. Limited This is a study on natural fire and tree Gleason. Undated. Ponderosa pine in applicability recruitment patterns in unlogged forests the Colorado front range: long on the front range in Colorado. The Dutch historical fire and tree recruitment Oven project area is located in north- intervals and a case for landscape central Idaho and is not in an unlogged heterogeneity. ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir landscape. Leege T. A. 1984. Guidelines for Applicable and Forest Plan Standard to use Leege 1984 to evaluating and managing summer elk consistent with evaluate elk summer habitat. habitat in northern Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin this project and No. 11. Idaho Department of Fish and the Forest Plan. Game, Boise, ID. Peek, J.M., D.J. Pierce, D. C. Graham, Applicable Moose use a variety of habitat from early- and D.L. Davis. 1987. Moose habitat successional stages during summer and use and implications for forest mature or older closed-canopy forests management in North-central Idaho. with a Pacific yew understory during the Proceedings – Second International fall and winter. This project is designed Moose Symposium. Swedish Wildlife to retain Pacific yew in treatment units Research, Biltrevy, supplement 1, part (see design criteria). one, 1987. pp. 195-199.

Appendix D – Page D-50 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? Pierce, D.J., and J.M. Peek. 1984. Applicable Moose use a variety of habitat from early- Moose habitat use and selection successional stages during summer and patterns in north-central Idaho. J. mature or older closed-canopy forests Wildl. Manage. 48:1335-1343. with a Pacific yew understory during the fall and winter. This project is designed to retain Pacific yew in treatment units (see design criteria). Pierce, J. L., G.A. Meyer and A. J. T. Limited Ponderosa pine currently comprises only Jull. 2004. Fire-induced erosion and applicability 0.3% of the basal area within the project millennial scale climate change in area, occurring within isolated stands, but northern ponderosa pine forests. Nature not consistently present throughout the 432: 87-90. landscape. Only 6% of the project area is classified as ponderosa pine mix. Rowland M. M., M.J. Wisdom, B. K. Applicable and This paper looked as using distance bands Johnson, J. G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution consistent with from open roads to identify elk habitat and and modeling in relation to roads. Journal this project. use. of Wildlife Management 64(3): 672-684. The EA has been Female elk selected areas away from open updated. roads during spring and summer. Habitat effectiveness more to do with spatial pattern of roads than road density. Elk were able to select areas away from roads and still occur in high numbers in areas with high open road densities (1.5 km/km2, 2.41 mi/mi2). Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Applicable and Primary effects of roads is fragmentation. Johnson, M. A. Penninger. 2005. Effects consistent with This paper summarized general effects of of roads on elk: Implications for this project. roads. Elk avoid areas near open roads; are management in forest ecosystems. Pages The EA has been vulnerable to mortality from harvest and 42-52 in Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, updated. vulnerability increases as open road density The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long- increases; elk exhibit stress and increase term studies of elk and mule deer. movements at higher road densities with Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of traffic. the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Benefits of road closures: decreased energy Communications Group, Lawrence, expenditure and disturbance from motorized Kansas, USA. vehicles; increase in effective habitat; increased hunting opportunities; decrease vulnerability. Sauder, J.D., Rachlow, Janet L. Both Considered Consistent with analysis. Potentially forest composition and configuration suitable habitat was determined using a influence landscape-scale habitat model (Sauder 2014) that combines 3 selection by fishers (Pekania pennanti) models of fisher habitat including: a in mixed coniferous forests of the climate model (Olson et al. 2014), a Northern Rocky Mountains. Forest landscape-scale model (Sauder and Ecology and Management 314 (2014) Rachlow 2014), and a home range scale 75–84. Department of Fish and model (Sauder and Rachlow 2015). The Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho, Sauder (2014) model identifies relative Moscow, ID 83844-1136. probability of fisher occurrence and is continuous across the landscape.

Appendix D – Page D-51 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? Schwartz, M.K., DeCesare, N. J., Considered Consistent with analysis, in that at the Jimenez, B. S., Copeland, J. P., Dutch Oven project area, fisher could be Melquist, W. E. Stand- and landscape- affected; however at the large landscape scale selection of large trees by fishers scale the Dutch Oven project is not in the Rocky Mountains of Montana expected to affect the availability of and Idaho. Forest Ecology and fisher habitat. Management 305 (2013) 103–111. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 E. Beckwith Ave., Missoula, MT 59801, USA. Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA. Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 441136, Moscow, ID 83844-1136, USA Servheen G., S. Blair, D. Davis, M. Applicable and Updated Leege 1984 on evaluating elk Gratson, K. Leidenfrost, B. Stotts, J. White, consistent with summer habitat. Used both the Leege and J. Bell. 1997. Interagency guidelines for this project. Servheen elk model. managing elk habitats and populations on Elk vulnerability The scale at which elk vulnerability is U.S. Forest Service lands in central Idaho. has been calculated is at the game management unit. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain calculated and the The EA has been updated to include an elk Research Station. U.S. Forest Service. EA updated to vulnerability discussion. 1987. include this. Sherriff, R. L., R.V. Platt, T. T. Veblen, Not applicable This literature focuses on ponderosa pine T. L. Schoennagel, and M.H. Gartner. and dry mixed-conifer forests of the 2014. Historical, observed, and Colorado front-range. Ponderosa pine modeled wildfire severity in montane currently comprises only 0.3% of the forests of the Colorado front range. basal area within the project area. The PLOS ONE: 9:9 17 pages. majority of the project area contains mesic forest dominated by shade-tolerant species. Shoemaker, J. NASA Satellites Reveal Limited Mountain pine beetle attacks, while Surprising Connection between Beetle applicability occurring on the Forest, are not a large Attacks, Wildfire. A NASA publication, part of the Dutch Oven Vegetation September 8, 2010. Management project planning area http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur because lodgepole pine is not a large es/beetles-fire.html percentage of the forest vegetation. Simard, M.; Romme, W.H.; Griffin, Unable to locate The website link provided does not work. J.M.; Turner, M.G. 2011. Do mountain reference Unable to locate reference. A duplicate of pine beetle outbreaks change the literature submitted, correct link, probability of active crown fire in consideration, and rationale is in next lodgepole pine forests? Ecological line. Monographs. 81(1): 3-24. http://esa.org/papers/pdf/emon-81-01- 04_3.24.pdf

Appendix D – Page D-52 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? Simard, M, Ph.D., Romme, William, Not applicable Not part of the purpose and need for the Ph.D., Griffin, Jacob, Ph.D. and Turner, Dutch Oven Vegetation Management Monica, Ph.D., Do mountain pine project. beetle outbreaks change the probability of active crown fire in lodgepole pine forests? Published by the Ecological Society of America, 2011. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10. 1890/10-1176.1 Smith, J. K., & Fischer, W. C. (1997). Considered This literature focuses on different habitat Fire ecology of the forest habitat types types and comprise them into Fire Groups of northern Idaho. US Department of for Northern Idaho Forest. Consistent Agriculture, Forest Service, with analysis on describing current Intermountain Research Station. conditions. Unsworth, J. W., L. Kuck, E. O. Garton, B. Applicable and Elk use different types of habitat depending R. Butterfield. 1998. Elk habitat selection consistent with on the season and type of animal. In general on the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. this project. a shift from low to higher elevation, sunny to Journal of Wildlife Management cool sites, south to north aspects and well- The EA has been 62(4):1255-1263. drained to wet site. Elk in summer and fall updated. used timber habitats. Elk in winter used shrubs, clearcuts and open timber habitats. In the spring, elk followed the greenup and used open canopies. In roaded environments, elk used more closed-canopy areas. The wildlife analysis discusses summer and winter range and the roaded environment. Williams, M. A. and W. L. Baker. 2014. Limited This article focuses on dry forests defined High-severity fire corroborated in applicability as mid-elevation forests that include historical dry forests of the western ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer United States: response to Fulé et al. forests. Ponderosa pine currently Global Ecol. Biogeogr. comprises only 0.3% of the basal area within the project area, occurring within isolated stands, but not consistently present throughout the landscape. Only 6% of the project area is classified as ponderosa pine mix. Wisdom, M. J., B. K. Johnson, M. Vavra, J. Applicable and This paper summarizes known effects or M. Boyd, P. K. Coe, J. G. Kie, A. A. Ager, consistent with roads and harvest to elk and then N J. Cimon. 2005. Cattle and elk this project. compares to their study. responses to intensive timber harvest. The EA has been Elk and other ungulates thrive in early-seral Pages 197-216 in Wisdom, M. J., technical updated. forests, due to high amount of palatable editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of forage species in open-canopy areas. long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of Small areas receive more use than large areas. the North American Wildlife and Natural Elk primarily use areas within 300 feet of a Resources Conference, Alliance forest edge. Use decrease as distance increase Communications Group, Lawrence, from the edge. However, it is suggested elk Kansas, USA. are more prone to use large harvest units in areas where there are large natural openings.

Appendix D – Page D-53 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? Elk show increasing avoidance of areas near road with increasing rates of motorized traffic. Access restrictions increased survival of elk. Elk use habitat with higher canopy closure in areas with higher road densities. Elk vulnerability = susceptibility of elk to being killed during the hunting season. The removal of timber opens the landscape, making elk more visible and more vulnerable to hunters. The increased number of roads enhances opportunity for hunters to access the landscape. Following harvests that reduce overstory canopy, a release of the understory positively alters forage biomass, quality and phenology. Elk selected areas with greater security while near roads.

Results from their study. Elk responded to periods of timber harvest by changing their distribution in an area, cattle didn’t. However, this did not change animal performance (weight gain) in either elk or cattle. No evidence that elk avoided cutting units or the mainline roads during and after harvest. It’s possible that elk became habituated to the constant traffic. This is in contrast to the less predictable and diverse forms of motorized traffic that occurs when roads are open to the public, which presumably contributes to elk avoidance of open roads. Increased visibility and access associated with timber harvest increases vulnerability of elk to being killed by hunters. Timber sales should focus on designing projects to minimize elk vulnerability to hunting and provide a forage availability over space and time. Manage for and retain security areas. Restrict motorized access after harvest to prevent an increase in vulnerability to harvest by hunters. Wuerthner, George. 2006. Wildfire: A Not used This book discusses various approaches Century of Failed Forest Policy. Island to fire management in Australia and the Press. United States with regards to sustainable forest management. This book questions the effectiveness of commercial tree harvesting treatments and livestock grazing for fuel reduction. The Dutch

Appendix D – Page D-54 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? Oven Vegetation Management project was developed, consistent with current science and with site specific field review of local conditions. Treatments were developed consistent with Forest Plan direction for the area. The area lies within a Rural WUI. Wuerthner, G. 2010. Pine beetles are Not applicable This is not scientific peer reviewed accomplished ecosystem engineers. literature. This is an opinion piece written Bozeman Daily Chronicle. March 29. for a newspaper. http://bozemandailychronicle.com/opin ions/guest_columnists/article_bf43fc58 -3ac3-11df-aa79-001cc4c03286.html Wuerthner, George. Bark Beetles and Not applicable This is not scientific peer reviewed Forest Fires: Another Myth Goes Up in literature. This is an opinion piece written Smoke. July 28, 2015. for a newspaper. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/ 28/bark-beetles-and-forest-fires- another-myth-goes-up-in-smoke/

Literature Submitted During the Pre-decisional Administrative Review Period Table D-5 summarizes literature brought forth by the Nez Perce Tribe during the Pre-decisional administrative review period (objection filing period) for the Dutch Oven Vegetation Management project Final EA and Draft Decision Notice/FONSI (March 2017).

Table D-5. Literature considered from the objection filing period. How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? Ciuti, S., J. M. Northrup, T. B. Muhly, Applicable and High elk vigilance results in less time S. Simi, M. Musiani, J. A. Pitt, M. S. consistent with spent foraging. Elk are more vigilant Boyce. 2012. Effects of humans on this project. when elk herd size is small, closer to behavior of wildlife exceed those of roads, there is increased traffic, and natural predators in a landscape of fear. human disturbance includes hunting. PLoS ONE 7(11):e50611. Elk decreased their feeding time when Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050611. closer to roads. Road traffic volumes of at least 1 vehicle every 2 hours induced elk to be more vigilant with a subsequent loss in feeding time. Other environmental factors, natural predators and reproductive status of females, were not important to vigilance.

Appendix D – Page D-55 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? The highest levels of vigilance were recorded on public lands where hunting and motorized recreational activities were cumulative. Unhunted populations with similar human disturbance levels had the lowest levels of elk vigilance. This project proposes reduced road access and should reduce elk vigilance, improving time spent foraging and in elk security. Cook J. G., R. C. Cook, R. W. Davis, Applicable and Nutritional value of browse is highest in L. L. Irwin. 2016. Nutritional ecology consistent with early seral forest stages found in of elk during summer and autumn in this project. regeneration harvest areas. Elk forage the Pacific Northwest. Wildlife value in harvest units declines after 10-15 This project Monographs 195:1-81. years, and digestible energy in browse of increases the late seral stage habitats is not sufficient to amount of early- meet the energy needs of lactating cow seral habitat. elk in summer and fall. Not all portions of this project Thinning resulted in increased DP, but no area would be change in digestible energy in elk forage. treated at the Forage quality increases with elevation same time. and moisture, although the lower Burning would elevations studied were lower than most not be elk use in this project. conducted all at Forage quality decreases from summer to once. Burn fall. units outside of harvest units Digestible energy is highest in forbs and may occur shrubs and lowest in coniferous trees and multiple time ferns. over the life of Although the study areas are not directly this project to comparable, the forage quality trends by meet desired management type, seral stage, season and conditions/objec elevation are likely applicable. tives. Dohmen, A. 2006. Evaluation report: Considered. A collaborative effort of the Wildlife terrestrial wildlife habitat. Northern Scoping Working Group including USFS, Region, Nez Perce National Forest, comment. USFWS, ID F&G, and the Nez Perce Grangeville, Idaho.8 pp. Tribe for Forest Plan revision. Provides a description of road buffering, based on research, and resultant relative security rankings at the 6th code HUC level. Topographical influences were not taken in to account. Resultant security areas

Appendix D – Page D-56 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? were based on the work of Hillis et al. 1991 i.e. 250 acres or more in size. The Dutch Oven security patch is larger and encompasses one and a portion of the other security areas identified by Dohmen 2006. The reason for the differences is the on-the-ground knowledge and site- specificity associated with the Dutch Oven project of motorized/non-motorized access on roads and trails and updates to the roads and trails access restriction database. Frair, J. L., E. H. Merrill, H. L. Beyer, Considered, not Movement modelling to predict elk J. M. Morales. 2008. Thresholds in incorporated population level responses to roads. landscape connectivity and mortality into analysis Mortality risk and emigration effects of risks in response to growing road because roads were greatest at road densities networks. Journal of Applied Ecology consistent with greater than 1.5 km/km2 (2.41 mi/mi2) 45:1504-1513. other science after which road effects saturate the used. landscape. The model predicted that road densities of <0.5 km/km2 (0.8 mi/mi2) result on the highest probability of elk occurrence. The model is best used to evaluate the effects of population level redistribution at the landscape scale. “Disassociating roads from foraging habitats (i.e. clear cuts) or managing human access to roads may maintain effective elk habitat at substantially higher road densities.” Long R. A., J. L. Rachlow, j. G. Kie. Considered, not At the coarse scale, elk selected for 2007. Effects of season and scale on incorporated burned stands and avoided unburned response of elk and mule deer to habitat into analysis stands in spring. manipulation. Journal of Wildlife because Conversely, they avoided or used at Management 72:1133-1142. consistent with availability burned stands and selected for other science unburned stands in summer. used and analysis of Summer use was associated with effects. topography, proximity to roads, stand size and shape, and presence of cattle. Elk summer use of unburned stands was negatively associated with cattle presence.

Appendix D – Page D-57 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? They recommend maintaining a diversity of treated and untreated (late successional) areas on the landscape to provide better long-term foraging opportunities. Habitats at Starkey Experimental station are not representative of this project area. Elk were confined to the study area by fences and may not represent the activities of free ranging elk in this project area. Habitat recommendations related to fire distribution on the landscape may be valid to this project. This project will accomplish some of the recommended management in this study. Long R. A., J. L. Rachlow, J. G. Kie, Considered, not Burned areas provide high quality forage M. Vavra. 2008. Fuels reduction in a incorporated for elk in years 2-5 post-burn. western coniferous forest: effects on into analysis Burned areas provide better forage quantity and quality of forage for elk. because opportunities for elk in spring and control Rangeland Ecology and Management consistent with areas provide better forage in summer. 61:302-313. other science used and Best management is to maintain a mosaic analysis of of burned and unburned habitats on the effects. landscape. This study looked at protein and digestibility, but not energy content, an important factor for forage selection by elk. This study has relevant content, but doesn’t provide a complete picture for forage quality assessment relative to elk. The forage quality response to fire treatment is likely applicable. Harvesting and burning in some areas of this project, and not in others should achieve some of the benefits highlighted in this study. Long R. A., J. L. Rachlow, J. G. Kie. Considered, not Cow elk in spring prefer mechanically 2009. Sex-specific responses of North incorporated thinned and burned stands of fir/douglas American elk to habitat manipulation. into analysis. . fir 4 years post-burn, and use as available Journal of Mammalogy 90:423-432. However, the 2 and 3 years post burn as compared to Dutch Oven untreated control stands. They avoid project would unburned stands in spring. create a mosaic

Appendix D – Page D-58 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? of untreated Bull elk in spring avoid burned areas and areas and newly prefer untreated forest stands. created early- In summer, unburned stands were seral habitat and preferred by both cows and bulls, and other thinned burned stands were used variably, either stands for elk to as available or avoided by cows and use by either sex bulls. and at different times of the Habitats at Starkey Experimental station year. are not representative of this project area. Elk were confined to the study area by fences and may not represent the activities of free ranging elk in this project area. This project area effects are not concerned with sex specific use, but overall elk population responses to the habitat treatments. McCorquodale, S. M. 2013. A brief Considered, not Reviewed effects of roads on elk. review of the scirntific literature on elk, incorporated Heart rates are increased when exposed to roads, and traffic. Washington into analysis gunshot noise, humans disembarking Department of Fish and Wildlife. 27 because from stopped vehicles, vehicles on pp. consistent with secondary roads, and motorcycles. other literature used and Fecal glucocorticoid (stress hormones) analysis of levels increased with density and use of effects of the primary roads and indicated more stress Dutch Oven during non-hunting periods. Snowmobile project to elk use in a National Park setting also and elk security produced higher fecal glucocorticoid areas. levels. By inference elk energy budgets are negatively affected as a result of Small change in decreased foraging times and increased open road movements away from disturbance (see densities. also Naylor 2009 and Ciuti et. al 2012). Access Home ranges, daily movements decrease restrictions on with decrease of road densities. closed roads would not Elk use near open roads was consistently change. less than expected based on features elk selected in the same habitats away from roads. There is a difference in avoidance between sexes with bull elk winter, spring and fall home ranges away from roaded areas and cow elk avoiding roaded areas during spring and fall (see Montgomery 2013).

Appendix D – Page D-59 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? Elk vulnerability increases with increasing road densities. Montgomery R. A., G. J. Roloff, J. J. Considered, not Authors found that elk avoid primary and Millspaugh. 2012. Importance of incorporated secondary roads, and that bull elk were visibility when evaluating animal into analysis more sensitive to road use intensity than response to roads. Wildlife Biology because cow subherds. Bulls used areas closer to 18:393-405. consistent with primary roads if adequate screening cover other science was present. Cows selected for areas of used. higher forage quality in areas of tertiary roads, while bulls chose security over forage quality for all road types. Study was in Custer State Park in South Dakota, in habitat, topography and road use intensities not representative of this project area. Although actual measurements may not be relevant to this project area, the general concepts may still apply. Naylor, L. M., M. J. Wisdom, R. G. Considered, not Effects of motorized and non-motorized Anthony. 2009. Behavioral responses incorporated off road recreation. of North American elk to recreational into analysis Researched the disturbance (travel times activity. Journal of Wildlife because effects vs resting or feeding) to elk from ATV Management 73(3):328-338. of motorized use, mountain bikes, horses, and hiking routes are on trails and primitive roads. ATV, included in the mountain bike, hiking and horseback summer elk resulted in the greatest levels of model. Access movement times respectively (morning restrictions on was generally greater than evening). ATV closed roads disturbance resulted in decrease feeding would not times presumably as a result of hiding change. until disturbance ended, while resting was Disturbance decreased and foraging increased when effects from exposed to mountain biking and hiking implementing so, presumably, elk could replace lost the Dutch Oven calories related to some project was disturbance/movements. The research did included in the not evaluate shifts in habitat use. EA. Ranglack D., B. Garrott, J. Rotella. Applicable, Elk select areas on private land that 2016(a). Security areas for maintaining used as restrict access to hunters, have higher elk on publicly accessible lands during background forage quality (cow elk only), are further archery and rifle hunting seasons in information. from roads, and have higher relative southwestern Montana. Bozeman, MT: canopy cover up to a maximum. Archery Elk security and Montana State University, Department hunters have greater impacts to elk effects to this of Ecology. Technical Report. DOI: security than rifle hunters. area are 10.13140/RG.2.1.1640.8567.

Appendix D – Page D-60 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? included in the The private land component doesn’t EA. apply to this project. This project will Same as: Ranglack, D.H., K.M. positively affect elk forage quality and Proffitt, J.E. Canfield, J.A. Gude, J. quantity. Road densities in this project Rotella, and R.A. Garrott. 2017. area will reduce slightly, thus reducing Security Areas for Elk During Archery hunter access and elk vulnerability. and Rifle Hunting Seasons. Journal of Retained canopy cover within this project Wildlife Management (in press) area exceeds recommended minimums for elk security. Study recommended public land security areas during rifle season with >9% canopy cover that are greater than 1,535m (0.95 miles) from motorized routes, and are >20.23km2 (7.8 mi2, 5000 ac) in size. The scope of the project is too small to provide the recommended elk security areas address in this paper. Motorized access into the security patch in this project area would not change, thus security would be maintained. Ranglack D., B. Garrott, J. Rotella, K. Considered, not Ranglack et al. 2016 found that nutrition Proffitt, J. Gude, J. Canfield. 2016(b). incorporated was the primary factor affecting summer Evaluating elk summer resource into analysis elk distribution within home ranges. selection and applications to summer because Motorized routes also affect elk summer range habitat management. Bozeman, consistent with resource selection, but the magnitude of MT: Montana State University, other literature the effects of motorized routes was small Department of Ecology. Technical used. relative to nutrition. Report. DOI: I Project The best fit model showed that the effects 0.13140/RG.2.1.4262.2966. increases the of strong selection for areas of high amount of early- nutritional value may mask or offset the seral habitat, potential negative effects of motorized thus improving routes on elk selection within their home nutritional value range. of forage plants The best fit model found the highest to elk. nutrition values were in areas associated Small decrease with 20-30% canopy cover. in open road Population-specific resource selection densities. models may be poor predictors of Access resource selection outside the area in restrictions on which they were generated. closed roads would not change.

Appendix D – Page D-61 How Literature cited by commenters Forest Service rationale/comments considered? Rumble, M. A., L. Benkobi, R. S. Considered, not Movements of elk during archery and Gamo. 2005. Elk responses to humans incorporated rifle hunting seasons in areas of high road in a densely roaded area. into analysis. density. Intermountain Journal of Sciences Project Road densities within the study area were 11(1-2):10-24. increases the 3.2 km/km2 (5.15 mi/mi2) During the amount of early- archery season, elk were closer to seral habitat, primary and secondary roads than before thus improving the season however these distances were foraging areas still >700 m to > 1 km (0.43 to 0.62 for elk. miles). During the firearm elk and firearm Small decrease deer seasons, elk moved away from in open road primary and secondary roads. Based on densities. foraging models, elk may require 0.5 hr Access of additional foraging time to restrictions on accommodate greater movements closed roads resulting from human activity. would not change. The study is from the Black Hills. The study areas vegetation (78% PIPO), topography, elevation, and climate is different from that of the Dutch Oven Project Area. The movement of elk from human disturbances is similar to other literature used.

Appendix D – Page D-62