File Code: 2670 Date: July 29, 2016

Bonners Ferry Ranger District Biological 6286 Main St. USDA Idaho Panhandle Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 Assessment Forest Service National Forests Phone: (208) 267-5806 Fax: (208) 267-6754

Subject: Fisheries Biological Assessment for the Deer Creek Project

To: Mary Farnsworth, IPNF Forest Supervisor

INTRODUCTION Threatened and Endangered species are managed under authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (36 U.S.C. 1531-1544) and the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614). The Endangered Species Act requires that Federal agencies ensure all actions that they “authorize, fund, or carry out” are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species. Agencies are also required to develop and carry out conservation programs for threatened and endangered species. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Policy (F.S.M. 2670) requires a Biological Assessment (BA) to be completed to review programs or activities in sufficient detail to determine how a project or proposed activity may affect any threatened, endangered or proposed species or critical habitat. The biological assessment process is intended to analyze and document activities necessary to ensure proposed management activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or cause adverse modification of critical habitat.

LISTED SPECIES

On February 11, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a list of threatened and endangered species, along with any designated critical habitat that may be present on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a). Endangered fish species on the list include Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) and threatened species include bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Critical habitat was also designated for Kootenai River white sturgeon and bull trout. However, on October 18, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife published a final rule revising the designated critical habitat for bull trout (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010).

LOCATION

The Deer Creek project area is located on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF). The project area centers on the Lower Moyie River corridor, north of Moyie Springs, Idaho, and encompasses portions of the Deer Creek, Skin Creek, Curley Creek, Fry Creek, and Meadow Creek drainages. The project area is approximately 31,000 acres in size, with about 22,682 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands. Most of the project area occurs within Boundary County, Idaho, but a small amount is located within Lincoln County, Montana. See Figure 1 for a map of the project area.

The primary access routes into the project area are from U.S. Highway 2 to Meadow Creek Road, Eileen Road, or the Deer Creek Road. The project area is characterized by moderate to steep terrain. Vegetation within the area has been shaped by natural forces such as wildfire, forest succession, native

insects and diseases, and also by human factors such as fire suppression, timber harvesting and the accidental introduction of non-native forest diseases and insects. Based on local wildfire history data large, high severity fires burned a majority of the area in the 1800’s and early1900’s. The entire Deer Creek project area is located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) as defined by the Boundary County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

Figure 1. Deer Creek vicinity map.

PROPOSED ACTION

Alternative 2 from the Deer Creek EA has been selected and is composed of vegetation and fuels treatments, roadwork, recreation enhancements, and improvements to aquatic resource conditions designed to meet the purpose and need of the Deer Creek project. Further details are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.

Vegetation Management Activities

Vegetation management activities and fuels treatments designed to maintain or improve landscape resiliency, increase resistance to disturbance and reduce wildfire threat on approximately 4,218 acres of National Forest System Lands.

Seedtree Harvest with reserves (1273 acres) – This prescription is designed to encourage the growth and regeneration of white pine and larch by cutting most of the trees except those needed for seed production. These areas will appear very open following treatment, with a small number of widely dispersed trees left for seed production and snag recruitment. Additional “reserves” of tree groups will be left in in various areas of the stand. The “reserves” will be irregularly spaced and will include snags (EA pp. 32-33).

Shelterwood Harvest with Reserves (665 acres) – This prescription is designed to encourage the growth and regeneration of white pine, larch and ponderosa pine. These areas will appear moderately open with an average of 10 to 20 trees per acre and include “reserves” of tree groups in various areas of the stand (EA pp. 32-33).

Seedtree and Shelterwood Harvest with Precommercial Thinning (448 acres) – These prescriptions are designed to remove most of the larger trees that were left to provide shelter and/or seed production in previously harvested areas that have successfully regenerated. This treatment will free the young established seedlings from competition and will reduce the risk of mistletoe infection. Not all of the overstory will be removed from these areas; enough trees will remain to provide recruitment snags and visual variety. The exiting young trees will be thinned along with the overstory removal. The thinning will be the same as described below for precommercial thinning with western larch, ponderosa pine and western white pine as the favored tree species. Mastication and/or machine piling will be used to deal with the fuels resulting from this treatment.

Dry site improvement Harvest (186 acres) – This type of selective cutting treatment will be used to reduce stand density and favor desirable tree species (principally ponderosa pine) on drier sites. Improvement harvest will act to reduce both fuel ladders and crown density, thus reducing the chance of a fire moving into the tree crowns. This type of treatment will also act to improve tree vigor and diameter growth and will accelerate the development of desirable late-successional forest features and result in stands that are more resilient and resistant to disturbance. Following harvest, these areas will appear to have been “thinned” with much (greater than 50 percent) of the overstory canopy remaining.

Smallwood (commercial) thinning (626 acres) – Smallwood thinning will occur in previously harvested areas where the trees are large enough (about 4 to 12 inches at diameter breast height) to be utilized as commercial products. With this treatment, smaller trees of less desirable species will be removed leaving growing space for western larch, ponderosa pine and western white pine. Trees will be removed with ground-based equipment such as a tractor.

Precommercial thinning (325 acres) – This prescription will be applied in young stands of trees that were either planted or regenerated naturally in previously harvested areas. These young trees are beginning to compete with each other for light, water, and nutrients. Thinning out the smaller and less desirable trees will leave more growing room and less competition for western larch, ponderosa pine, and white pine. Cut trees will be too small (generally less than 5 inches at diameter breast height) to produce commercial

3 products. The cut trees will have branches and limbs removed (limb and lop) and left to decay naturally. In critical, high use recreation areas or along property boundaries and open roads the cut trees will be masticated or mechanically piled and burned.

Burn only (695 acres) – Prescribed underburns will be used in several areas that are generally steep, rocky, dry and difficult to access. The underburns will consume surface fuels such as grasses, brush, timber litter and jackpots of down wood. They will also function to maintain or enlarge grass and brush openings and even create some new openings in the tree canopy. This treatment will encourage the rejuvenation and regeneration of desirable early seral vegetation including palatable shrubs. There are four burn only treatment areas; two of which are located within the Buckhorn Ridge Inventoried Roadless Area.

Fuel Reduction Activities

Pre-existing forest fuels and those created by debris left from logging activities would be treated through prescribed underburning or machine piling. In machine-piled units, only fuels in excess of what is desired to meet coarse woody debris and soil productivity objectives would be piled. The piles would subsequently be burned. In precommercial thinning units excess fuels would have limbs and branches removed and left to decompose naturally. In precommercial thinning units, high use recreation areas or along property boundaries and open roads the cut trees would be masticated or mechanically piled and burned.

Table 1 –Vegetation Management and Fuels Treatment Activities in the Selected Alternative

Alternative 2 Vegetation Treatments (Acres) Seedtree with Reserves 1,273 Shelterwood with Reserves 665 Seedtree and Shelterwood Removal with Precommercial Thinning 448 Dry Site Improvement 186 Smallwood Thinning 626 Burn Only 695 Precommercial Thinning 325 Total 4,218

Logging Systems Ground Based 2,225 Skyline 971 Total 3,196

Fuels Treatments Burn Only 695 Underburning 1,575 Machine Pile 1,759 Limb and Lop 188 Total 4,218

Road System Management Activities

Effectively achieving the goals and objectives of the Deer Creek project necessitates actively managing the road system in the project area. The following road management activities will occur to meet project objectives. Figure 1 depicts the locations of specific road treatments and Appendix B lists the proposed treatments by individual road segment.

Road Maintenance – To support large trucks and equipment, we need to perform road maintenance on about 34 miles of existing roads. Maintenance activities would include clearing brush from the road shoulders to improve sight distance, cleaning ditches, and adding gravel to the road surface.

Rock Source Utilization - Three existing rock sources in the planning area would potentially be utilized as gravel sources for this project. Materials suitable for road surfacing, riprap and other road improvements would be excavated from these pits which may necessitate their improvement.

Road reconstruction – Approximately 16 miles of existing roads need more than maintenance to bring them to a standard suitable for safe and efficient hauling of timber. Reconstruction activities will include brushing, blading and shaping the road, improving drainage structures, short stretches of realignment, road widening, and the addition of turnouts.

Temporary Road Construction – We will construct approximately 1.4 miles of temporary road to access several of the vegetation treatment areas. These roads are being constructed just for this project and will be decommissioned (physically removed) when vegetation management activities are complete.

Road Improvement – To reduce sedimentation and improve in-stream habitat approximately 0.9 miles of Forest Service Road 2540 located immediately adjacent to Placer Creek will be stabilized and enhanced. This will involve grading and adding rock the road surface, installing four cross drains and relocating one ditch relief culvert, and replacing an existing culvert where the road crosses Spring Creek with a structure that provides passage for aquatic organisms.

Road Decommissioning – All unclassified roads within vegetation treatment areas that are not improved for hauling harvested timber will be closed through timber sale activities. These unclassified roads are mostly old skid trails or brushed-in spurs. These roads are generally impassable and do not provide legal public access. As with storage, decommissioning will remove any resource risks associated with these routes (e.g. culverts), and the road prism will be left in an impassable state to discourage illegal use.

Road Storage – Approximately 10.4 miles of road within the project area will be placed in storage. Road storage would reduce road maintenance costs and diminish the risk of roads failing and adversely impacting aquatic resources. Stored roads will no longer be drivable. They will be blocked with an earthen berm or a short section of full recontour matching the original slope of the land. Any culverts or mechanical drainage structures will be removed. Potentially unstable slopes will be recontoured, running surfaces will be ripped to encourage water infiltration and re-vegetation, cross ditches will be installed, large woody debris will be placed and exposed soils will be re-vegetated. The majority of the roads that will be stored are either currently restricted, impassable and/or do not currently provide legal access. Stored roads will remain as part of the National Forest Transportation System and could be reopened as needed in the future. Roads stored for replacement of grizzly bear core habitat will remain stored for a minimum of ten years.

Not a Road/Remove from Database (15.9 miles). Field surveys identified multiple linear features contained in the Forest Service Infrastructure Database (INFRA) that are not roads. These linear “routes” are generally old, abandoned skid trails, previously decommissioned roads or air photo misinterpretations and are hydrologically benign and impassable. These routes will be removed from the INFRA data base

in a “bookkeeping” exercise that will not involve any ground disturbing activities.

Table 2 –Road Management Activities in the Selected Alternative

Alternative 2 Road Management Activities (Miles) Maintenance 33.6 Reconstruct and Leave Open 8.8 Reconstruct and Restrict 2.2 Reconstruct and Store 5.6 Decommission with Harvest Activities 3.7 Improvement 0.9 Store 3.1 Temporary Construction 1.4 Add to System and Leave Open 1.8 Add to System and Store 1.7 Not a Road / remove from INFRA 15.9 Grant Easement to the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 1.8 Acquire Easement from the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 0.2

Other Resource Management Activities

Public access and camping opportunities will be improved and resource impacts reduced at Solomon Lake. To accomplish this, Solomon Lake Campground will be reorganized from its current layout. The new layout will provide camping sites on a loop away from the lake edge and boat launch road. Two overnight camping sites will be provided on this loop as well as parking for two to three day use visitors and space to park a small boat trailer. High use areas near the lake and to the northeast of the access road will be rehabilitated. Camping and parking will not be allowed on the lake edge. The existing toilet will be refurbished and will remain at its current location. Short access trails will be developed from the overnight camp sites.

We will maintain and improve the Goat Mountain Trail (#44) from Forest Service Road 627 to the trail junction of Keno Trail (#42) (approximately 10 miles of trail total). Improving the trail will include cutting brush, removing rock, installing erosion control devices, and repairing the trail tread.

To enhance the camping experience at the Meadow Creek Campground we will construct two non- motorized segmented loop trails. One loop will begin near the junction of County Road 34 and Forest Service Road 211, northwest of Meadow Creek Campground. An additional trail segment will return to the existing overlook trail (see Map 1). These trails are intended to add walking or bike riding options for campers. Both additions will enhance the family orientation of the campgrounds by providing near-by, safe activities for a variety of ages and experience levels.

The existing Meadow Creek trail system will be augmented with an additional half mile of trail that will create a loop to the existing overview trail, and a one mile spur trail to the west of the campground that will be suitable for easy walking or mountain biking.

To improve access for winter recreational opportunities in the area we propose to construct a pull through

6 parking lot for snowmobilers. This parking area will be located in an old harvest unit on the west side of the Deer Creek Road (#435) just after it passes into the SW ¼ of Section 19 of T63N, R2E from the south. Creating the pull through parking lot will involve cutting brush and seeding the area with grass. Signs identifying the parking area will be installed after snowfall.

Eroding roads are area contributing sediment at stream crossings at several other locations within the project area. We propose to reduce sedimentation in these areas by adding gravel to the road prisms in these areas which will stabilize them. The gravel will come from natural rock sources in or near the project area.

To improve aquatic organism passage, we will address undersized or failing culverts throughout the planning area. We will continue to work closely with the Union Pacific Railroad to eliminate a partial fish migration barrier on Meadow Creek.

We will treat existing invasive plant (noxious weed) populations along roads and turnouts that will be used for hauling timber. Gravel pits that are be used for the project will also be treated. These treatments will take place both before and after timber harvest activities. Road segments will be treated prior to decommissioning or closure (this includes temporary roads).

As opportunities and funding sources allow, existing weed populations located in or near proposed vegetation treatment units will be treated to control them as well as reduce the likelihood of spread. Follow-up weed treatments will occur as needed to help eradicate new weed invaders and to contain existing weed populations.

Weed treatments will involve a combination of herbicide treatments, biological controls, and mechanical removal. These treatments are described in the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds Environmental Impact Statement (1995) and as directed in the Forest Service “Best Management Practices for Chemical Use” and the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Pesticide Discharge Management Plan.

Management Opportunities

Several opportunities were identified by the interdisciplinary team and analyzed in the Deer Creek EA. For various reasons, we aren’t able to guarantee funding for these opportunities. When funding becomes available, the deciding official will make a decision on implementing these activities. The effects of these activities were still analyzed along with known project activities.

• Add Large Wood to Meadow Creek. The reach of Meadow Creek immediately adjacent to Road 34 lacks large wood for a few hundred feet where the stream is closest to the road. The project would add 15 to 20 logs to the channel to protect the road and improve channel structure.

• Gravel lift on Forest Service Road 34 near Meadow Creek: A continuous gravel lift would be applied to Road 34 to prevent sediment delivery off of the road and into Meadow Creek. This work would focus wherever the road segment is within 20 feet of Meadow Creek.

• Reduce sediment delivery to Solomon Lake by improving the boat launch: Improvements would include adding gravel to the boat launch to stabilize the shoreline. Use bioengineering (e.g. fascines) to stabilize the lakeshore, to minimize trampling and reduce sediment delivery to the lake, and to provide a base to replant with native vegetation.

• Identify and remove unauthorized ATV trails. Prioritize treatment of ATV trails that threaten water quality. One trail of concern parallels an unnamed tributary to Deer Creek. This trail

begins on FS Road 2541 to the west of the bridge over Deer Creek.

• Add large wood downstream of the Deer Creek bridge on Forest Service Road 2541. Large wood would be placed in the channel along the bank and on a gravel bar to improve channel dynamics and enhance fish habitat. This would be accomplished with a series of large wood complexes constructed below the existing bridge crossing.

• Stabilize the stream ford at the outlet of Perkins Lake. This would include add a six inch gravel lift over the existing crossing and consider installing geotextiles for long-term gravel retention.

• Stream and road stabilization on FSR 435 along Meadow Creek and the failing banks downstream of Road 2541 along Deer Creek. In each location, a vegetative fascine will be constructed along the base of the slope adjacent to the stream. Large woody debris (including root wads) would be used to enhance the habitat and strengthen the road/stream stabilization efforts. The base of the treated slopes would have willow twigs placed at the base of the slope. Opportunities to plant with additional native material would be explored. With this effort, we would reduce the sheer stress at the toe of road fills in these locations to near zero and would expect a significant reduction in erosion at those locations.

Design Features

Project design features, mitigation, and monitoring have been included in the Deer Creek EA (p. 24 and Appendix C) as part of the analysis. The purpose of design features is to completely avoid, or to the fullest extent possible, minimize the potential for adverse effects to the resources. Mitigation measures are activities that are required to lessen unavoidable impacts resulting from implementing a certain action(s) of the preferred alternative. The effects analysis in the EA assumes the implementation of design features for soils, rare plants, watershed resources, and fisheries as disclosed in greater detail in the Deer Creek EA (p. 24).

Changes to Alternative 2

My decision incorporates several changes and corrections to Alternative 2 as it was presented in the EA:

The silvicultural prescription for Unit 73 (6.8 acres) in the southwest portion of the project area has been changed to a shelterwood removal with associated precommercial thinning of the younger cohort. The treatment prescription for Unit 73 was incorrectly presented as a small wood thinning in the EA. This error came to light during a field visit with neighboring landowners following up on comments they submitted on the EA (Project File).

Reconstruction has been added to the road management prescription for the entire length of the 2533UL road (0.7 miles). We are adding the 2533UL road to the transportation system, using it to access the western portion of Unit 36 and then leaving it open to provide public access to recreation sites along the Moyie River. The EA failed to mention that reconstruction to improve drainage and reduce long term maintenance requirements of this road segment will occur prior to operations.

Portions of the 34UP road (0.3 miles) located on the southwest side of Dawson Ridge and the 2586UD road (0.1 miles) located south of Perkins Lake will be added to the official transportation system. These existing road segments currently provide access to private lands but were not appropriately treated in the EA (p. 23).

The portion of Unit 21 (71 acres) on Solomon Mountain that was dropped from consideration for vegetation treatment following public scoping (Vegetation Report p. 22) was not accounted for in the treatment acreage totals presented in Tables 1, 2 and 6 of the EA. Corrected acreages are presented in

Table 1 – Summary of Activities in the Selected Alternative portion of the DN.

The area intended to be treated with prescribed fire in Burn Only Unit 2 was understated in the EA as 144 acres. Burn Only Unit 2 actually includes 177 acres. This acreage correction has been made in Table 1 – Summary of Activities in the Selected Alternative portion of the DN.

The 2541UF road (0.35 miles - currently impassable) was proposed for reconstruction, project use and subsequent storage in the EA. In addition to this, a gate will be installed following its reconstruction to prevent unauthorized motorized access in the period of time between its reconstruction and its placement in storage at the completion of project activities. The establishment of the Mission-Moyie BORZ area necessitated this change.

Due to the unpredictability of suitable burn windows in North Idaho, some of the units accessed via the 2536 road system that were proposed for underburning in the EA may ultimately be grapple piled where terrain allows. This will likely expedite the completion of fuels treatments and reduce the amount of time that this road system needs to open for this project.

The interdisciplinary team considered these corrections and changes to Alternative 2 and determined that they fall within the scope of the analysis performed to support the Deer Creek EA (Project File).

Grizzly Bear – Use of Road 2536 that exceeds administrative use levels, and reconstruction/use of non- system roads connecting to this road system, would be scheduled so that the Keno BMU remains compliant with standards of the Motorized Access Management Direction for the IPNF. This may include creation of core habitat elsewhere in the BMU, and placing timing constraints on project activities to accommodate ongoing activities (both on the IPNF and on the Kootenai National Forest) elsewhere in the BMU without exceeding maximum open motorized route density (OMRD) standards

EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION Based on the known distribution of these species, habitat requirements, and habitat availability, Kootenai River white sturgeon and bull trout, and their designated critical habitat (DCH) (Figure 2), would likely not be affected by the Deer Creek Project (Table 3).

Table 3. Threatened and Endangered Species Summary of Conclusion of Effects Species or Species or Likelihood of Determination of Species Habitat Habitat Adverse Effects? Effects Present? Affected?

Kootenai River white sturgeon No No None No Effect

Bull trout No No None No Effect

Kootenai River white sturgeon – In Idaho, the distribution of Kootenai River white sturgeon is limited to the Kootenai River system. The Kootenai River white sturgeon was removed from further analysis because no records indicate this species has ever been collected in the project and cumulative effects area and no suitable habitat or designated critical habitat exists, either. Therefore, the proposed action would have no effect on Kootenai River white sturgeon or their designated critical habitat.

Figure 2. Location of the Deer Creek Project area relative to bull trout distribution and habitat use in the Kootenai River Watershed in Idaho.

Bull trout – Bull trout appear to have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Habitat characteristics including water temperature, stream size, substrate composition, cover and hydraulic complexity have been associated with distribution and abundance (Jakober 1995, Rieman and McIntyre 1993, Pratt 1985). In streams, all life stages of bull trout are associated with some form of cover such as large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders or pools (Fraley and Shepard 1989, Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989, Thomas 1992).

Stream channel equilibrium (stability) is the balance between sediment yield, water yield, and channel morphology that exists within a stream system. Studies indicate that shifts away from channel equilibrium can result in negative changes in the structure and function of stream ecosystems (Bilby and Likens 1980, Schlosser 1982, Fraley and Shepard 1989) and their dependent fish populations. Bisson and Sedell (1982) reported that where stream channels became destabilized, riffles elongate and in many cases extended through former pool locations resulting in loss of pool volume. They suggested that declines in larger, adult bull trout might be the result of their dependency upon deeper water habitats. Maintaining lateral and instream habitat complexity, in association with channel stability, can best provide persistence of bull trout over time (Karr and Freemark 1983, Karr and Dudley 1981, Gorman and Karr 1978).

Stream temperature below 15 º Celsius (Goetz 1989) and substrate composition are important characteristics of suitable bull trout habitats. Bull trout have repeatedly been associated with the coldest stream reaches within basins. The lower limits of many strong bull trout distributions mapped by Lee et al. (1997) correspond to a mean annual air temperature of about 4 degrees Celsius (ranging from 3 to 6 degrees Celsius) and should equate to ground water temperatures of about 5 to 10 degrees Celsius (Meisner 1990). Water temperature can be strongly influenced by land management activities (Henjum et al. 1994).

Vegetation can strongly influence the habitat conditions of bull trout streams. Canopy cover adjacent to streams provides shade and helps to maintain cooler water temperatures during the summer months. During the winter, conifers can also reduce the risk of freezing and the formation of anchor ice by providing insulation (PBTTAT 1998). Large trees that fall into the stream channel can benefit habitat conditions by creating pools, providing cover and shade, introducing nutrients, contributing to channel stability, and dissipating stream energy (Murphy and Meehan 1991).

Bull trout are fall spawners and their preferred spawning habitat generally consists of lower gradient stream reaches with loose, clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989). However, if the substrate and habitat attributes are suitable, spawning can occur in steeper reaches.

Bull trout are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (1973). However, neither the species nor their DCH are known to occur in the project or cumulative effects area.

MANDATORY CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS

The following conservation measures would be included to remove or reduce any potential impacts to the fisheries resource. These measures are mandatory and are necessary to achieve the current determination of effects.

• Design features and mitigation set forth in the fisheries and hydrology reports will be required.

• Inland Native Fish Strategy Standards and Guidelines will be followed.

• Appropriate BMP’s will be followed for all project activities.

• Mitigations set forth in the Programmatic Biological Assessment for actions related to the IPNF Road Maintenance Program will be followed.

STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

This analysis has determined that the risk of any adverse effects on fish, aquatic and riparian habitat, or water quality is low for the project. Additionally, Kootenai River white sturgeon and bull trout and their DCH do not exist in the project and cumulative effects area. Consequently, I have concluded the selected alternative will have no effect on Kootenai River white sturgeon and their designated critical habitat and no effect on bull trout and their designated critical habitat.

Prepared by: Date: July 29, 2016

Sean Stash North Zone Supervisory Fisheries Biologist

Literature Cited

Bisson, P.A. and J.R. Sedell. 1982. Salmonid populations in streams in clearcut vs old growth forests of western Washington. In: Meehan, W.R., T.R. Merrall, J.W. Matthews, Eds. Fish and Wildlife Relationships in Old-Growth Forests. Proceedings of a Symposium. Amer. Inst. Fish. Res. Bios. 121-130.

Bilby, R.E. and G.E. Likens. 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology 61:5 1107-1113.

Fraley, J.J. and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. In: Northwest Science, Vol. 63, No. 4.

Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout Salvelinus confluentus: a literature review. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

Gorman, O.T. and J.R. Karr. 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish communities. Ecology 59:3: 507- 515.

Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perrry, J.C. Bednarz, S.G. Wright, S.A. Beckwitt,, E. Beckwitt. 1994. In: J.R. Karr and E.W. Chu Eds. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries and watersheds. National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington, Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society: 129- 168.

Hoelscher, B. and T.C. Bjornn. 1989. Habitat, densities and potential production of trout and char in Pend Oreille Lake tributaries. Job Completion Report. Project F-71-R-10. Subproject III, Job No. 8. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID.

Jakober, M.J. 1995. Autumn and winter movements and habitat use of resident bull trout and westslope cutthroat in Montana. Master’s Thesis. Montana State University. Bozeman, MT.

Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55-68.

Karr, J.R. and K.E. Freemark. 1983. Habitat selection and environmental gradients: dynamics in the “stable” tropics. Ecology 64:6: 1481-1494.

Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow and J.E. Williams. 1997. Chapter 4: Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. In: T.M. Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide, Technical Eds. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Vol. III. PNW-GTR-405.

Meisner, J.D. 1990. Effect of climatic warming on the southern margins of the native range of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1065-1070.

Murphy, M.L. and W.R. Meehan. 1991. Stream ecosystems. Pages 17-46 in W.R. Meehan, editor, Influences of Forest and Rangeland management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

PBTTAT. 1998 Working Draft. Kootenai River Basin Bull Trout Problem Assessment. Prepared for the Kootenai River Watershed Advisory Group and the State of Idaho. Panhandle Basin Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team.

Pratt, K.L. 1985. Pend Oreille trout and char life history study. Idaho Department of Fish and Game in cooperation with Lake Pend Oreille Club. Boise, ID.

Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. Gen. Tech. Rep. Int-302. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 38 p.

Schlosser, I.J. 1982. Trophic structure reproductive success and growth rate of fishes in a natural and modified headwater stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39: 968-978.

Thomas, G. 1992. Status report: bull trout in Montana. Report prepared for Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, MT.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. Biannual Species List for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, FWS Reference No. 1-9-09-SP-0035 (105.0100). Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office. Spokane, WA.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule. October 18, 2010. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 200: p. 63898-64070.

Appendix A

Measures Designed to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Effects The IDT developed design features to minimize or avoid adverse effects that could have otherwise occurred as a result of implementing the action alternatives. The design features are based on forest plan direction and policy, best available science and site-specific evaluations. Should one of the action alternatives be selected, all of these features would be used (except where exceptions are stated) during the project implementation.

Project implementation includes the physical on-the-ground design of the project completed by layout crews; timber sale contract administration; and reforestation activities such as site preparation and planting. Design features are applied on the ground through physical design as instructed in silvicultural prescriptions, marking guides, and cruise plans. Some features address conditions found on-the-ground during project activities, and are applied through the timber sale contract, which includes both standard and site specific provisions. Design Measures The following specific features would be applied during project implementation. The purpose of these measures is to completely avoid, or to the fullest extent possible, minimize the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The effects analysis assumes their implementation. Aquatics The Deer Creek project will use Best Management Practices (BMPs) as part of the project design and implementation (contract). Many of the BMPs are general (e.g. timing issues) whereas others are site specific (e.g. graveling over predetermined stream crossings). Based on past unbiased implementation monitoring (IDL 2011), it is anticipated that the Forest Service will adhere to all BMPS as prescribed. The following list summarizes the project design features required to help reduce the potential impacts to hydrologic resources in the Deer Creek Project area. More detailed discussion of the effects of measures can be found in the analysis in the discussion for Environmental Consequences associated with the action alternatives.

The following listing of design features responds to specific comments received from the public during scoping as well as concerns raised by the project Hydrologist. The scoping comments focused on protecting domestic water supplies, effects of transportation system on aquatic resources, and reducing sediment delivery. The design features are common to all action alternatives. The intent is that this work is accomplished as part of the larger project and the work is not required to be completed prior to timber hauling. Roads and Culverts Road Decommissioning: Unless circumstances change during implementation that would extend the duration of time a road is needed, roads would be decommissioned within the following timeframes:

Temporary roads or existing road segments proposed for decommissioning that are not needed for post- cutting activities (e.g. fuel treatment) would be decommissioned the same season following cutting activities or no later than the following season. Effectiveness is Moderate to High (Foltz et al 2007)

Other road segments proposed for decommissioning that are needed for post-cutting activities, such as prescribed burning, would be decommissioned within two to five years of cutting activities.

Dust Abatement: Dust abatement would occur regularly during log haul along road segments that are within 100 feet of live water for distances exceeding ¼ of a mile OR as needed to prevent excessive dust from entering streams/lakes.

Adding Relief culverts: Relief culverts, would be installed just upslope on roads draining into stream crossings. The cross drains would be used in specific locations where existing drainage ditches exceed 300 feet between the nearest cross drain and the stream (IDAPA, Title 38, ch. 13.040, sect. 02d. and Johansen et al. 1997). The intent of this design criterion is to reduce the delivery of sediment via a ditchline to a stream.

Clearing of culverts and ditchlines: All culverts and ditch lines associated with haul routes would be cleared and improved, if needed, prior to and after using roads to haul timber. Except in very limited instances, ditchlines would not be scraped, but rather ditchline vegetation would be removed without exposing the soils in the ditch line. If ditches require scraping, BMPs (such as ditch blocks), must be in place to prevent sediment delivery to any potentially affected stream. Effectiveness is HIGH based on IPNF Forest monitoring (see Forest website for past monitoring reports), State BMP audits, for greater than 95 percent compliance by federal agencies (IDEQ 2008; IDL 2011).

Replacing undersized and/or failing and/or damaged culverts: Undersized and/or failing or damaged stream crossing culverts would be replaced prior to using a road for timber hauling. An example of a damaged culvert that needs to be replaced is a ditch relief culvert on Road 435 T63N, T3E, Section 31 above Skin Creek. Effectiveness is HIGH based on IPNF Forest monitoring (see Forest website for past monitoring reports), State BMP audits, for greater than 95 percent compliance by federal agencies (IDEQ 2008; IDL 2011).

Portions of system Roads 2224 and 2225 would be stored as part of the project under various action alternatives. The prescription for each of these roads would be to remove all culverts, deeply rip the road prism, construct deep water bars to facilitate drainage (Luce 1997) and use limited recontouring as prescribed by the hydrologist and wildlife biologist. All stream crossing culverts on these roads would be physically removed from NFS lands. Each crossing would be recontoured and stabilized using native materials such as slash, rock and logs. Disturbed soils would be mulched with native slash and seeded with a botanist approved seed mix. All earth disturbances would be completed when soils are the driest such as in later summer or early fall.

Non-system roads within the project area were addressed under the Transportation Analysis Process (TAPS). Each of the system roads will be assessed by a hydrologist to determine what level of treatment is needed for closure. If a road is brushed closed and has no culverts, no further treatment may be needed. However, if a non-system road has culverts, then that road prescription for closure may include machinery to treat the road prism and remove the culverts. IDAPA (Title 38, Chpt 38, Rule 040.04.03.g) requires that on “abandoned” roads, “all drainage structures must be removed and roadway sections treated so that erosion and landsliding are minimized.”

Road activities that repair or remove drainage structures in perennial streams would take place after July 15th and prior to October 15th when the soil moisture and stream flow tends to be lowest. Appropriate BMPs, including the use of sediment traps during replacements, would be followed to reduce potential impacts of sediment to these streams. Effectiveness is HIGH (Burroughs and King 1985, Seyedbagheri 1996, USDA Forest Service Monitoring Reports 1995 – 2011, Grace and Clinton 2007).

Where tractors access units from existing roads, limit the number of tractor crossings over ditches. Where crossings over existing ditch lines are necessary, the use of temporary culverts or “crossing logs” would be preferred to limit damage to drainage ditches.

If winter hauling is conducted, the following efforts will be required:

• All plowed roads would have drainage openings in the berms every 300 feet or as needed for satisfactory surface drainage. • No snow would be plowed into stream crossings. • All ditchlines would be kept operational. • All culverts on haul routes would be kept open and functioning. Vegetation Treatments All appropriate RHCA buffers, as described in the forest plan would be maintained in the project area. Effectiveness is HIGH based on field observations in 2012 and IPNF Forest Monitoring see Forest website for past monitoring reports.

All action alternatives include precommercial thinning. This noncommercial harvest would be allowed to occur in the riparian habitat conservation area of several project area streams. The following design feature is prescribed for these units:

Sawyers on foot and using chainsaws would be allowed to precommercially thin trees within the riparian habitat conservation areas. Cut trees would be left on the ground and allowed to contribute to the organic composition of the soils in the area. No mechanical equipment (i.e. excavator, harvester, skid steer) would be allowed in the designated riparian habitat conservation areas. Fire Activities As practical, fire lines on slopes in excess of 30 percent would have water bars constructed every 150 to 200 feet to divert water off of slopes and onto the forest floor (IDAPA, Title 38, ch. 13.030, sect. 05.a). Fire lines would not be constructed within RHCAs. (IDAPA, Title 38, ch. 13.030, sect. 04.a). There would be no direct ignition of fuels in the RHCA buffers, however, fire would be allowed to back into the RHCA buffers. Ignition must occur outside the RHCA boundary. The purpose of allowing fire to back into the RHCA is to avoid construction of firelines which deliver sediment to streams. Allowing fire to creep into the RHCA would reduce fuels and not increase sediment delivery to the streams. (IDAPA, Title 38, ch. 13.030, sect. 07.e.ii).

Burning across draws flowing into domestic water sources would be avoided (IDAPA, Title 38, ch. 13.030, sect. 07.f).

Water sources used during fires would be cleared with an Aquatic Specialist prior to use. Screens may be required by Fish Biologist. Effectiveness is HIGH based on field observations in 2012 and IPNF Forest Monitoring see Forest website for past monitoring reports. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are additional site-specific actions developed to minimize effects to resources that may occur despite design features. The action alternatives were designed with input from all resource specialists and were created to reduce or eliminate effects to resources. After establishing a comprehensive list of design features and then analyzing the potential effects of the action alternatives, it was determined that no additional measures were necessary.

Monitoring Activities Monitoring is the process of periodically and systematically gathering and analyzing data to understand trends over time. The most common monitoring is related to implementation (did we do what we said we were going to do?) and effectiveness (did we achieve our desired results?).

Project-level monitoring: If an action alternative is selected for implementation, standard timber sale contract provisions will be used to direct how sale activities are conducted. Other activities performed under contract (such as watershed restoration and road work), are monitored by a contracting officer’s representative (COR) to ensure activities are implemented as designed. For example, sale administrators and other contracting representatives would monitor all timber sales to ensure that activities are conducted in accordance with contract specifications (that activities occur where and when they should to protect resources such as soils and wildlife, that yarding is accomplished as planned and specified in the contract to protect soils, that seedlings are planted at the appropriate spacing, etc.). Some aspects of the project, such as regeneration harvests, are monitored for years after implementation to ensure objectives are met for reforestation. Monitoring of all haul routes and service landings on NFS lands would occur during project implementation, with treatment of identified weed infestations as needed. In addition, the project interdisciplinary team members may periodically review implementation of activities.

In addition, best management practices (BMPs) would be incorporated into many different phases of the project. The district hydrologist and engineering representative would review the location of all proposed temporary roads and all road maintenance to assure compliance with BMPs, and would monitor all temporary and reconstructed roads to ensure that they were built or restored to specifications. A sale administrator would visit each active cutting unit at a frequency necessary to assure compliance with the BMPs and the timber sale contract. Minor contract changes or contract modifications would be agreed upon and enacted, when necessary, to meet objectives and standards on the ground. Monitoring of BMPs has determined that recent projects on the IPNF have been implemented as designed and have achieved the desired objectives.

Forest Plan monitoring: The Forest Plan documents a system to monitor and evaluate Forest activities, addressing the most critical components for informed management of the Forest’s resources within the financial and technical capability of the agency. Monitoring is conducted over the entire Forest on a periodic basis, and the monitoring results are used to guide future projects. The Deer Creek project would be consistent with monitoring requirements identified by the Forest Plan.