Fish Specialist Report for the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation

Fish Specialist Report

for the

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project

Lost River Ranger District Salmon-Challis National Forest Custer County and Lemhi County, Idaho T12N, R25E, Sections 1 and 2; T12N, R26E, Sections 5-8; T13N, R25E, Sections 25 and 36; T13N, R26E, Sections 30 and 31 (Boise Meridian)

Prepared by:

Signature: Date: March 21, 2015

Bart L. Gamett South Zone Fish Biologist Salmon-Challis National Forest

Signature: Date: March 21, 2015

Caselle L. Wood Fish Technician Salmon-Challis National Forest

0 1. Introduction

The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project is located in the Sawmill Canyon drainage approximately 35 miles northeast of Mackay (Figure 1). This document is a specialist report that addresses fish related topics associated with this project. The report is organized into the following sections:

1. Introduction 2. Alternatives 3. Issue Analysis 4. Effects to Fish Species with Special Designations 5. Compliance with the Forest Plan and INFISH

2. Alternatives

This section of the specialist report describes each of the alternatives associated with the project. The Forest is analyzing three alternatives for this project: 1) no action alternative (with wildfire), 2) the proposed action, and 3) helicopter logging alternative. Each of these is described in detail below.

A. No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the Forest Service would not implement the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project. Natural and man caused processes would continue until an agent of change disrupts the vegetation patterns across the management area. Since 2000 the Salmon- Challis National Forest has experienced many agents of change including a mountain pine beetle epidemic, a spruce bud worm epidemic, loss of subalpine fir through a defoliator, and several fires of over 5,000 acres including one that was over 160,000 acres.

Fire behavior modeling of site specific data collected in the Sawmill Canyon watershed indicates a wildfire under a hot summer day will transition into an active plume dominated crown fire. These crown fires were indicated by modeling in nearly every timbered unit proposed to be treated. Although this would suggest 100 percent lethal burn severity across the drainage, differing winds and weather conditions throughout any given 24-hour period would lessen the percent of lethal burn severity. A review of past wildfires in similar terrain, vegetative conditions, and similar burning conditions indicate that 40-50% of the forested ecosystems would incur a lethal stand replacing fire, 18-19% of the forested ecosystem would incur a mixed severity fire (50%+ of the conifers would survive), 16-21% of the forested ecosystem would incur a low severity burn (generally a ground fire with instances of tree torching), and 10-21% of the forested ecosystem would remain unburned.

Shrub steppe communities and riparian zones associated with the forested ecosystems would likely experience high intensity, short duration burns as wildfire moved quickly through these fine fuels. Roads and natural fuel breaks would limit burning to those areas ignited from the spotting and running associated with the wildfire in the forested community.

B. Proposed Action

The proposed action involves implementing the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project using ground based logging techniques. The project includes two primary components: vegetation treatment and road/trail decommissioning.

The vegetation treatment component involves the use of six types of treatments in 29 units covering 420 acres (Table 1, Figure 2). These include:

1 1. Precommercial thinning in 18 units (94 acres) 2. Commercial thinning with aspen release in 2 units (77 acres) 3. Commercial thinning in 2 units (29 acres) 4. Overstory removal in 1 unit (106 acres) 5. Sanitation-salvage in 4 units (81 acres) 6. Group selection in 2 units (33 acres)

None of these vegetation treatments would be within the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) of perennial streams as defined by INFISH.

Approximately 7 to 13 tons per acre of slash would be retained within the timber sale treatment units in order to maintain soil organic material and long-term site productivity as recommend for Douglas-fir and lodgepole forest types. The slash created during mechanical thinning in excess of these amounts would be treated either by piling and burning at the landing or at other locations where machine or hand piles were created within the units. Approximately 7 to 13 tons per acre of slash will be retained within the pre-commercial thinning units as well to provide additional soil organic material by limbing and scattering felled trees. No additional treatment to dispose of excess slash is required on the pre-commercial units because of current existing fuel loading.

The road/trail decommissioning component involves decommissioning 13 sections of road/trail totaling 4.21 miles (Table 2, Figure 3). Road/trail decommissioning will involve a variety of techniques including ripping and seeding, placement of barriers, and full bench obliteration. This component of the project also involves removing two small culverts on Redrock Creek that are no longer needed (Table 2, Figure 3).

C. Helicopter Logging Alternative

The helicopter logging alternative involves implementing the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project with emphasis on helicopter logging techniques. The project includes two primary components: vegetation treatment and road/trail decommissioning.

The vegetation treatment component involves the use of six types of treatments in 28 units covering 401 acres (Table 3, Figure 2). These include:

1. Precommercial thinning in 18 units (94 acres) 2. Commercial thinning with aspen release in 2 units (77 acres) 3. Commercial thinning in 2 units (29 acres) 4. Overstory removal in 1 unit (106 acres) 5. Sanitation-salvage in 4 units (81 acres) 6. Group selection in 1 unit (14 acres)

None of these vegetation treatments would be within the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) of perennial streams as defined by INFISH.

At least two helicopter landings would be required with one of them providing a fueling and service staging zone. Landing locations identified will be straight from the 1AR and 2AR unit off Forest Road #40844. The second location will be up on the flat in the old timber sale off of Forest Road # 40465. Any yarding over major travel routes including Timber Creek Road and Sawmill Canyon Road would require flaggers to stop traffic as the helicopter crosses the road. Flight paths would avoid flying over any private land and the Timber Creek Campground. Minimum landing sizes for processing and yarding would have to be approximately two acres. If a service area and staging is included this area, the landings would be at least two acres but no more than three acres.

Approximately 7 to 13 tons per acre of slash would be retained within the timber sale treatment units in order to maintain soil organic material and long-term site productivity as recommend for

2 Douglas-fir and lodgepole forest types. Approximately 7 to 13 tons per acre of slash will be retained within the pre-commercial thinning units to provide additional soil organic material by limbing and scattering fell trees. No additional treatment to dispose of slash more than 13 tons is anticipated on the pre-commercial units because of current existing fuel loading.

The road/trail decommissioning component involves decommissioning 9 sections of road/trail totaling 2.75 miles (Table 4, Figure 3). Road/trail decommissioning will involve a variety of techniques including ripping and seeding, placement of barriers, and full bench obliteration. This component of the project also involves removing two small culverts on Redrock Creek that are no longer needed (Table 4, Figure 3).

The major differences between the proposed action and the helicopter logging alternative are as follows:

 The helicopter logging alternative would not treat one 19 acre group selection unit (Unit 1GS) which would reduce the total area treated from 420 acres to 401 acres  The helicopter logging alternative would treat nine of the units with helicopter logging instead of ground based logging  The helicopter logging alternative would require fewer roads to be reopened  The helicopter logging alternative would require fewer temporary roads to be constructed  The helicopter logging alternative would require fewer landings  The helicopter logging alternative would require fewer skid trails  The helicopter logging alternative would involve decommissioning 9 sections of road totaling 2.75 miles instead of 13 sections totaling 4.21 miles

3. Issue Analysis

This section of the specialist report is intended to evaluate the effects of the alternatives on fish related issues. However, no issues, including issues associated with fish resources, were identified.

4. Effects to Fish Species with Special Designations

This section of the specialist report evaluates the effects of the alternatives on fish with special designations. These are fish designated as endangered, threatened, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); fish designated as sensitive by the Regional Forester; and fish designated as management indicator species by the Salmon-Challis National Forest.

A. Analysis Area

The analysis area is the area where the proposed action will result in direct or indirect effects to fish or fish habitat. Analysis indicates that the project has the potential to effect fish or fish habitat in the following areas: the area within the units, an area extending 300 feet from the units, the area where roads are being used for the project, an area extending 50 feet from these roads, the area where roads are being decommissioned, an area extending 50 feet from these roads, streams downstream of these roads to the confluence with the next stream, the area where the culverts are being removed, and streams downstream of these areas to the confluence with the next stream. In order to simplify the analysis, the analysis area has been generalized to include the entire area delineated in Figure 4.

The analysis area does not include roads that may be used during the project that are currently open to use by the public since the impacts of travel on these roads have already been considered in the NEPA analysis that authorized motorized travel on those roads.

3 B. Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed Species

There are four ESA listed fish species that occur on and adjacent to the Salmon-Challis National Forest (Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction, updated December 12, 2014 (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#fish); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information, Planning, and Conservation System website, updated January 16, 2015 (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/); Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species, updated February 2013). These are:

 Snake River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) (Endangered) (Federal Register 56FR58619)  Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) (Threatened) (Federal Register 57FR14653)  Snake River Steelhead (O. mykiss) (Threatened) (Federal Register 62FR43937)  Bull Trout (Threatened) (Salvelinus confluentus) (Federal Register 63FR31647)

There are no fish species that are currently proposed for listing under the ESA that occur on the Salmon-Challis National Forest.

Each of these species was reviewed to determine 1) if the species was present within the analysis area, 2) if designated critical habitat was present within the analysis area, and 3) the likely effects of each alternative on the species and designated critical habitat.

Sockeye Salmon Species: Sockeye salmon do not occur within the analysis area.

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat has been designated for Snake River sockeye salmon (Federal Register 58FR68543). Sockeye salmon designated critical habitat is not present in the analysis area.

Effects – No Action Alternative: The lack of sockeye salmon and sockeye salmon designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes the no action alternative from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on sockeye salmon and sockeye salmon designated critical habitat. A biological assessment is only prepared for selected alternatives that involve implementing actions. Since the no action alternative does not involve implementing any actions a biological assessment will not be prepared for this alternative even if it is selected. Therefore, this alternative will not result in any determination in a biological assessment.

Effects – Proposed Action: The lack of sockeye salmon and sockeye salmon designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes the proposed action from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on sockeye salmon and sockeye salmon designated critical habitat. A biological assessment has been prepared for the proposed action and it resulted in a determination of “no effect” for sockeye salmon and sockeye salmon critical habitat (Gamett 2014).

Effects – Helicopter Logging Alternative: The lack of sockeye salmon and sockeye salmon designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes the helicopter logging alternative from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on sockeye salmon and sockeye salmon designated critical habitat. A biological assessment for this alternative would result in a determination of “no effect” for sockeye salmon and sockeye salmon critical habitat.

Chinook Salmon Species: Chinook salmon do not occur within the analysis area.

4 Critical Habitat: Critical habitat has been designated for Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Federal Register 58FR68543). Chinook salmon designated critical habitat is not present within the analysis area.

Effects – No Action Alternative: The lack of Chinook salmon and Chinook salmon designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes the no action alternative from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Chinook salmon and Chinook salmon designated critical habitat. A biological assessment is only prepared for selected alternatives that involve implementing actions. Since the no action alternative does not involve implementing any actions a biological assessment will not be prepared for this alternative even if it is selected. Therefore, this alternative will not result in any determination in a biological assessment.

Effects – Proposed Action: The lack of Chinook salmon and Chinook salmon designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes the proposed action from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Chinook salmon and Chinook salmon designated critical habitat. A biological assessment has been prepared for the proposed action and it resulted in a determination of “no effect” for Chinook salmon and Chinook salmon critical habitat (Gamett 2014).

Effects – Helicopter Logging Alternative: The lack of Chinook salmon and Chinook salmon designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes the helicopter logging alternative from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Chinook salmon and Chinook salmon designated critical habitat. A biological assessment for this alternative would result in a determination of “no effect” for Chinook salmon and Chinook salmon critical habitat.

Steelhead Species: Steelhead do not occur within the analysis area.

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat has been designated for Snake River Basin steelhead (Federal Register 70FR52630). Steelhead designated critical habitat is not present within the analysis area.

Effects – No Action Alternative: The lack of steelhead and steelhead designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes the no action alternative from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on steelhead and steelhead designated critical habitat. A biological assessment is only prepared for selected alternatives that involve implementing actions. Since the no action alternative does not involve implementing any actions a biological assessment will not be prepared for this alternative even if it is selected. Therefore, this alternative will not result in any determination in a biological assessment.

Effects – Proposed Action: The lack of steelhead and steelhead designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes the proposed action from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on steelhead and steelhead designated critical habitat. A biological assessment has been prepared for the proposed action and it resulted in a determination of “no effect” for steelhead and steelhead critical habitat (Gamett 2014).

Effects – Helicopter Logging Alternative: The lack of steelhead and steelhead designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes the helicopter logging alternative from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on steelhead and steelhead designated critical habitat. A biological assessment for this alternative would result in a determination of “no effect” for steelhead and steelhead critical habitat.

Bull Trout Species: Bull trout are present within the analysis area (Figure 5). Sampling has shown that bull trout are present in the following streams within the analysis area: Timber Creek, Redrock Creek,

5 Camp Creek, and Main Fork Little Lost River (Gamett 1999, Corsi and Elle 1989, Gamett and Bartel 2012, Garren et al. 2008).

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat has been designated for bull trout (Federal Register 75FR63898). The following streams within the analysis area contain bull trout designated critical habitat: Timber Creek, Redrock Creek, Camp Creek, and Main Fork Little Lost River (Figure 5). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified nine primary constituent elements associated with bull trout critical habitat. Primary constituent elements are those physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protections. The primary constituent elements for bull trout are:

1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. 2. Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. 3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. 5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will depend on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; streamflow; and local groundwater influence. 6. In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young- of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine sediment, generally ranging in size from silt to coarse sand, embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic of these conditions. The size and amounts of fine sediment suitable to bull trout will likely vary from system to system. 7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph. 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. 9. Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout.

Effects – No Action Alternative: Agency direction requires the Forest Service to analyze the effects of wildfire in the analysis area as part of the no action alternative. Wildfire is a natural process and bull trout and fire have both been present in central Idaho for thousands of years. This suggests at a minimum that bull trout and fire can co-exist but it is even more likely that bull trout are dependent on wildfire to maintain healthy habitats and populations. Wildfires can generate short term conditions that have a negative impact on fish but within a few years habitat conditions can be better for fish than before the fire. It is my opinion that wildfire within the Sawmill Canyon drainage may result in short term conditions that have a negative impact on bull trout but in the long term fire will result in improved bull trout habitat and bull trout populations.

If this alternative is selected, the roads/trails proposed for decommissioning would remain in their current condition and the two culverts proposed for removal would remain in Redrock Creek.

6 Removing roads/trails from the landscape generally has a beneficial impact on watersheds, streams, fish habitat, and fish. Failure to remove these roads/trails would result in the roads/trails continuing to have a negative impact on the watershed, streams, bull trout, and bull trout critical habitat. Likewise, removing culverts from streams generally has a beneficial impact on fish and fish habitat. Failure to remove these culverts would result in the culverts continuing to have an negative impact on bull trout and bull trout critical habitat including the primary constituent elements.

A biological assessment is only prepared for selected alternatives that involve implementing actions. Since the no action alternative does not involve implementing any actions a biological assessment will not be prepared for this alternative even if it is selected. Therefore, this alternative will not result in any determination in a biological assessment.

Effects – Proposed Action: The proposed action involves the use of six types of treatments in 29 units covering 420 acres. None of these vegetation treatments would be within the RHCA of a perennial stream as defined by INFISH. The vegetation treatments were reviewed for effects to bull trout and bull trout habitat. This review considered potential effects to individual bull trout, water temperature, sediment, large woody debris, stream flows, and riparian vegetation. Given the distances between the units and the streams and the nature of the treatments, the proposed vegetation treatments and associated activities should not have any meaningful impact to individual bull trout, water temperature, large woody debris, stream flows, and riparian vegetation.

It is possible that the vegetation treatments could have a slight impact on stream sediment. The proposed action was analyzed by a Forest hydrologist using the WEPP model to determine the probability of sediment entering a stream during the first year following implementation (Deschaine 2015). He found that the average probability of sediment entering a stream in the first year following disturbance was less than 3% and ranged from 0-6%. He concluded that given the unit layout and design criteria it was unlikely that sediment from the units would enter adjacent streams. While it is possible that minor amounts of sediment could enter some streams the probability of this occurring is very low and if it did occur the amounts would be so minor that it would likely not have any adverse impacts on bull trout or bull trout critical habitat including the primary constituent elements.

The proposed action involves decommissioning 13 sections of road/trail totaling 4.59 miles. Removing roads/trails from the landscape generally has a beneficial impact on watersheds, streams, fish habitat, and fish. Therefore, decommissioning these roads/trails would likely have a positive impact on the watershed, streams, bull trout, and bull trout critical habitat including the primary constituent elements.

The proposed action also involves removing two culverts from Redrock Creek. Removing culverts from streams generally has a beneficial impact on fish and fish habitat. Therefore, removing these two culverts would likely have a beneficial impact on bull trout and bull trout critical habitat including the primary constituent elements.

The project is expected to have beneficial cumulative effects on bull trout and bull trout critical habitat. The list of past, ongoing, and foreseeable future activities associated with the project area are found in the environmental assessment. Activities such as dispersed recreation, livestock grazing, and motorized vehicle travel are all generating stream sediment in the project area (B. Gamett, personal observation; Salmon-Challis National Forest, unpublished data). Although unlikely, it is possible that this alternative may generate a minor amount of stream sediment. However, the amount of sediment will be low and will likely not have any adverse impacts on bull trout or bull trout critical habitat. Therefore, there will likely not be any cumulative effects to bull trout or bull trout habitat from sediment. The road/trail decommissioning and culvert removal will help reduce the impact of previous road/trail building. This should result in a beneficial cumulative effect to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat including the primary constituent elements.

7 A biological assessment has been prepared for the proposed action and it resulted in a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for bull trout and bull trout critical habitat (Gamett 2014).

Effects – Helicopter Logging Alternative: This alternative involves the use of six types of treatments in 28 units covering 401 acres. None of these vegetation treatments would be within the RHCA of a perennial stream as defined by INFISH. The vegetation treatments were reviewed for effects to bull trout and bull trout habitat. This review considered potential effects to individual bull trout, water temperature, sediment, large woody debris, stream flows, and riparian vegetation. Given the distances between the units and the streams and the nature of the treatments, the proposed vegetation treatments and associated activities should not have any meaningful impact to individual bull trout, water temperature, sediment, large woody debris, stream flows, and riparian vegetation.

Whereas the proposed action results in a slight possibility of minor amounts of sediment entering streams, this is even less likely under the helicopter logging alternative. The helicopter logging alternative would require fewer roads to be reopened and the construction of fewer temporary roads, landings, and skid trails. This reduces the probability of sediment moving into streams as a result of project activities. The helicopter logging alternative was analyzed by a Forest hydrologist using the WEPP model to determine the probability of sediment entering a stream during the first year following implementation (Deschaine 2015). He found that the probability of sediment entering a stream in the first year following disturbance was zero.

The helicopter logging alternative involves decommissioning 9 sections of road/trail totaling 2.75 miles. Removing roads/trails from the landscape generally has a beneficial impact on watersheds, streams, fish habitat, and fish. Therefore, decommissioning these roads/trails would likely have a positive impact on the watershed, streams, bull trout, and bull trout critical habitat including the primary constituent elements.

The helicopter logging alternative also involves removing two culverts from Redrock Creek. Removing culverts from streams generally has a beneficial impact on fish and fish habitat. Therefore, removing these two culverts would likely have a beneficial impact on bull trout and bull trout critical habitat including the primary constituent elements.

The helicopter logging alternative is expected to have beneficial cumulative effects on bull trout and bull trout critical habitat. The list of past, ongoing, and foreseeable future activities associated with the project area are found in the environmental assessment. The road/trail decommissioning and culvert removal will help reduce the impact of previous road/trail building. This should result in a beneficial cumulative effect to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat including the primary constituent elements.

A biological assessment for this alternative would likely result in a determination of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for bull trout and bull trout critical habitat.

C. Sensitive Species

The current list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species for the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service, which was issued in February 2013, indicates that there are two fish species currently listed as sensitive that occur on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. These are:

 Westslope cutthroat trout (O. clarki lewisi)  Big Lost River mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni)

8 Each of these species was reviewed to determine 1) if the species was present within the analysis area and 2) the likely effects of each alternative on the species.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Species: Westslope cutthroat trout are native to those portions of the Salmon-Challis National Forest within the Salmon River basin but they are not native to the Little Lost River basin (Wallace and Zaroban 2013). Westslope cutthroat trout were introduced into three mountain lakes in the Little Lost River basin by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game in 1988 (Idaho Department of Fish and Game, unpublished data). It is unlikely that these fish were able to move downstream of any of these lakes (B. Gamett, personal observation) and extensive stream sampling indicates that westslope cutthroat trout are not present in the analysis area (Gamett 1999, Corsi and Elle 1989, Gamett and Bartel 2012, Garren et al. 2008).

Effects – No Action Alternative: The lack of westslope cutthroat trout within the analysis area precludes the no action alternative from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on westslope cutthroat trout. A biological evaluation is only prepared for selected alternatives that involve implementing actions. Since the no action alternative does not involve implementing any actions a biological evaluation will not be prepared for this alternative even if it is selected. Therefore, this alternative will not result in any determination in a biological evaluation.

Effects – Proposed Action: The lack of westslope cutthroat trout within the analysis area precludes the proposed action from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on westslope cutthroat trout. A biological evaluation has been prepared for the proposed action and it resulted in a determination of “no impact” for westslope cutthroat trout (Gamett 2013).

Effects – Helicopter Logging Alternative: The lack of westslope cutthroat trout within the analysis area precludes the proposed action from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on westslope cutthroat trout. A biological evaluation for this alternative would result in a determination of “no impact” for westslope cutthroat trout.

Big Lost River Mountain Whitefish Species: The current distribution of the Big Lost River mountain whitefish is limited to the Big Lost River basin (Gamett 2009). The analysis area for this project is not within the Big Lost River Basin and the analysis area does not contain any Big Lost River mountain whitefish.

Effects – No Action Alternative: The lack of Big Lost River mountain whitefish within the analysis area precludes the no action alternative from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Big Lost River mountain whitefish. A biological evaluation is only prepared for selected alternatives that involve implementing actions. Since the no action alternative does not involve implementing any actions a biological evaluation will not be prepared for this alternative even if it is selected. Therefore, this alternative will not result in any determination in a biological evaluation.

Effects – Proposed Action: The lack of Big Lost River mountain whitefish within the analysis area precludes the proposed action from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Big Lost River mountain whitefish. A biological evaluation has been prepared for the proposed action and it resulted in a determination of “no impact” for Big Lost River mountain whitefish (Gamett 2013).

Effects – Helicopter Logging Alternative: The lack of Big Lost River mountain whitefish within the analysis area precludes the proposed action from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Big Lost River mountain whitefish. A biological evaluation for this alternative would result in a determination of “no impact” for Big Lost River mountain whitefish.

9 D. Management Indicator Species

The management indicator species list for the Salmon-Challis Nation Forest was revised in 2004. Bull trout were the only fish species designated as a management indicator species.

Bull trout have a global ranking of G3 and a state ranking of S3; vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Threats to this species include hybridization with brook trout, competitive interactions with rainbow, brown, and lake trout; activities that damage riparian areas and cause siltation of spawning streams, habitat fragmentation, lack of passage through water diversion structures, and habitat loss as a result of climate change (NatureServe 2010).

Despite these designations, a state-wide assessment of bull trout populations found that bull trout in Idaho are presently widely distributed, relatively abundant, and apparently stable (High et al. 2008). The Salmon-Challis National Forest is within two bull trout recovery units; the Salmon River, in which most of the SCNF occurs, and the Little Lost, which includes the Lost River Ranger District. The population of bull trout ≥70 mm in Idaho was estimated to be 1.13 million, with over half of those bull trout occurring within the Salmon River Recovery Unit. The average density of bull trout ≥70 mm in the Salmon River Recovery Unit was 4.4 fish/100 m2. In the abundance analysis, it was found that bull trout were most likely to occur in survey sites in first through third order streams. There was a significant post-1994 increase in abundance for all salmonid species. This increase may be attributable to stream water temperatures, drought, productivity, or some combination of these or other unknown factors.

Bull trout occur on all Ranger Districts on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Bull trout abundance data has been collected on all districts on the SCNF for over a decade. Electroshocking was the most common survey method used; however, snorkeling surveys were also conducted on the north zone of the forest from 1999 to 2004. Monitoring data generally indicates a slightly increasing or static trend.

As discussed in section 4 of this report, bull trout are present within the analysis area for this project.

Determination – No Action Alternative: Based on the analysis completed in section 4 of this report, the no action alternative is not expected to result in a downward trend for this species. Furthermore, it is possible that wildfire burning in the analysis area could result in a long term upward trend for bull trout.

Determination - Proposed Action: Based on the analysis completed in section 4 of this report, the proposed action is not expected to result in a downward trend for this species.

Determination – Helicopter Logging Alternative: Based on the analysis completed in section 4 of this report, the proposed action is not expected to result in a downward trend for this species.

5. Compliance with the Forest Plan and INFISH

This section of the specialist report evaluates each of the alternatives for compliance with the direction found in the Forest Plan and INFISH.

A. Forest Plan

The Challis National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides direction for the management of aquatic resources within the project area. Forest wide management

10 direction, standards, and guidelines that are associated with fish and fish habitat and that are applicable to this project are as follows:

Wildlife and Fish  Emphasize habitat improvement for Threatened and Endangered Species, Forest Service Sensitive, and economically and socially important species.  Prohibit or mitigate activities that will, or have a potential to, increase sediment in spawning gravels 2 percent over existing levels or to a maximum of 30 percent, whichever is lower.

Timber  Treat, revegetate, and close (include various degrees of obliteration) all roads for which there is no present or foreseeable use, or which are causing, or will cause, significant resource problem(s) and/or extensive user conflicts.

Soil, Water, and Air  Ensure that all management-induced activities meet State water quality standards, and Forest water quality goals, including sediment constraints. Conduct nonpoint source activities in accordance with applicable Best Management Practices as referenced in “Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements”; and in accordance with the Forest Service soil and water conservation practices.  Impacts of activities may not increase fine sediment by depth (within critical reaches) of perennial streams by more than 2 percent over existing levels. Where existing levels are at 30% or above new activities that would create additional stream sedimentation would not be allowed. If these levels are reached or exceeded, activities that are contributing sediment will be evaluated and appropriate action will be taken to bring fine sediment within threshold levels.

Facilities – Road Management and Road Construction  Treat, revegetate, and close (including obliteration where needed) all roads for which there is no present or foreseeable use, or which are causing, or will cause, significant resource problem(s) and/or extensive user conflicts, if left without attention.  Do not allow sidecast materials from road construction or maintenance to enter a stream channel.  Impacts of road construction will be minimized through location and design which follows the topography as closely as practicable. Generally, road locations should avoid areas where slopes are over 45 percent, meadow crossings, and riparian areas. A buffer strip of 50 feet plus four times the percent of side slope should be maintained between the toe of the fill and the high water line on all stream channels, where feasible. On side slopes less than 10 percent, a borrow ditch or a borrow pit template should be used to produce a maintainable road.  Seed and fertilize all new cut and fill slopes during periods conducive to germination.

Riparian  Retain at a minimum, 75 percent of natural stream shade provided by woody vegetation.  Develop suitable silvicultural prescriptions to maintain riparian vegetation in as diverse and vigorous condition as possible. Within 100 feet of lake or wetland perimeters, timber harvest should not be programmed. Prohibit mechanical ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of streambanks.

The Forest Plan also provides specific management direction for various management areas. This project falls entirely within the Sawmill Canyon Management Area (Management Area #22). Management direction specific to this area that is associated with fish and fish habitat and that are applicable to this project are as follows:

11 Wildlife and Fish • Improve stream habitat quality, where needed, through coordination with other resource projects.

Forest Plan Compliance Determination No Action Alternative: The no action alternative does not involve implementing any actions. Therefore, a review of this alternative for consistency with Forest plan direction is not needed.

Proposed Action: The proposed action appears to be consistent with Forest plan direction related to fish and fish habitat.

Helicopter Logging Alternative: The helicopter logging alternative appears to be consistent with Forest plan direction related to fish and fish habitat.

B. INFISH

The Forest Service adopted the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) in 1995 as an interim strategy for protecting habitat and populations of resident native fish outside of anadromous fish habitat in eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada. INFISH amended the forest plans for both the Challis National Forest and Salmon National Forest and established specific riparian management objectives, standards and guidelines, and monitoring direction that the forests are required to follow. INFISH also identified priority watersheds where additional measures would be taken to protect inland native fish. This project is within a priority watershed. The standards and guidelines related to this project are as follows:

Timber Management TM-1. Prohibit timber harvest, including fuelwood cutting, in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, except as described below:

a. Where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect damage result in degraded riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuelwood cutting in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas only where present and future woody debris needs are met, where cutting would not retard or prevent attainment of other Riparian Management Objectives, and where adverse effects can be avoided to inland native fish. For priority watersheds, complete watershed analysis prior to salvage cutting in RHCAs. b. Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas to acquire desired vegetation characteristics where needed to attain Riparian Management Objectives. Apply silvicultural practices in a manner that does not retard attainment of Riparian Management Objectives and that avoids adverse effects on inland native fish.

Roads Management RF-1. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT

RF-2. For each existing or planned road, meet the Riparian Management Objectives and avoid adverse effects to inland native fish by:

a. completing watershed analyses prior to construction of new roads or landings in Riparian Habitat Conservation Area with priority watersheds. b. minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. c. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT d. avoiding sediment delivery to streams from the road surface. 1. Outsloping of the roadway surface is preferred, except in cases where outsloping would increase sediment delivery to streams or where outsloping is infeasible or unsafe.

12 2. Route road drainage away from potentially unstable stream channels, filles, and hillslopes. e. avoiding disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths. f. avoiding sidecasting soils or now. Sidecasting of road material is prohibited on road segments within or abutting RHCAs in priority watersheds.

RF-3. Determine the influence of each road on the Riparian Management Objectives. Meet Riparian Management Objectives and avoid adverse effects on inland native fish by:

a. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT b. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT c. closing and stabilizing or obliterating, and stabilizing roads not needed for future management activities. Prioritize these actions based on the current and potential damage to inland native fish in priority watersheds, and the ecological value of the riparian resources affected.

RF-4. Construct new, and improve existing, culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings to accommodate a 100-year flood, including associated bedload and debris, where those improvements would/do pose a substantial risk to riparian conditions. Substantial risk improvements include those that do not meet design and operation maintenance criteria, or that have been shown to be less effective than designed for controlling erosion, or that retard attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, or that do not protect priority watersheds from increase sedimentation. Base priority for upgrading on risks in priority watersheds and the ecological value of the riparian resources affected. Construct and maintain crossings to prevent diversion of streamflow out of the channel and down the road in the event of crossing failure.

RF-5. Provide and maintain fish passage at all road crossings of existing and potential fish- bearing streams.

Fire/Fuels Management FM-1. Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions so as not to prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances where fire suppression or fuel management actions could perpetuate or be damaging to long-term ecosystem function or inland native fish.

FM-2. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT

FM-3. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT

FM-4. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT

FM-5. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT

General Riparian Management RA-1. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT

RA-2. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT

RA -3. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT

RA -4. Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxicants within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. Prohibit refueling within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas unless there are not other alternatives. Refueling sites within a Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

13 must be approved by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management and have an approved spill containment plan.

RA -5. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT

Watershed and Habitat Restoration WR-1. Design and implement watershed restoration projects in a manner that promotes the long-term ecological integrity of ecosystems, conserves the genetic integrity of native species, and contributes to the attainment of Riparian Management Objectives.

WR -2. DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT

INFISH Compliance Determination No Action Alternative: The no action alternative is consistent with INFISH.

Proposed Action: The proposed action appears to be consistent with INFISH.

Helicopter Logging Alternative: The helicopter logging alternative appears to be consistent with INFISH.

14 Salmon

Leadore

Project Area Challis

Stanley

Area of Detail

Mackay

Howe

Couer d' Alene Ketchum Arco

Salmon

Boise Idaho Falls

Figure 1. A general overview of the project area.

15 Legend Unit: Commercial Thin Unit: Commercial Thin - Aspen Unit: Group Selection Unit: Overstory Removal Unit: Post and Poles Unit: Precommercial - Prune Unit: Sanitation-Salvage

Scale P 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles 1S Q 2S O A

3S B C

D E 1GS F

7S G N

H 3P I L 1AR K M J

2AR 2CT

1OSR R

2AR 1CT

Figure 2. The project area showing the vegetation treatment units for the proposed action and the helicopter logging alternative. The helicopter logging alternative includes all of the units except Unit GS1.

16 Legend Road to be Decommissioned Culvert to be Removed Scale 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles

Trail Trail/Start #40459

Road #40460 Unknown 1

Road #40460-B

Road #40459-A

Road #40457

Road #40458

Road #40456 Road #40470

Road #40455

Figure 3. The project area showing the road/trail obliteration and culvert removal for the proposed action and the helicopter logging alternative. The helicopter logging alternative includes all of the roads/trails except road #40470, Trail, Trail/Start 40459, and Unknown 1.

17 Legend Analysis Area Unit: Commercial Thin Unit: Commercial Thin - Aspen Unit: Group Selection Unit: Overstory Removal Unit: Post and Poles Unit: Precommercial - Prune Unit: Sanitation-Salvage Road to be Decommissioned Culvert to be Removed

Scale

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles

Figure 4. The analysis area.

18 Legend Bull Trout - Occupied Habitat Bull Trout - Designated Critical Habitat Analysis Area Unit: Commercial Thin Unit: Commercial Thin - Aspen Unit: Group Selection Unit: Overstory Removal Unit: Post and Poles Unit: Precommercial - Prune Unit: Sanitation-Salvage Road to be Decommissioned Culvert to be Removed Scale 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles

Figure 5. Bull trout occupied habitat and designated critical habitat relative to the analysis area.

19 Table 1. Vegetation treatments associated with the proposed action. Number of Units (Acres) Treatment Unit Designation Treatment Summary Pre-Commercial 18 (94 acres) Reduce tree stocking to allow selected residual trees to grow more vigorously. Residual stand will be Thinning Units A-R spaced 15 feet by 15 feet leaving approximately 200 trees per acre. Remove lower limbs of residual trees to 6’ from ground surface or if tree is less than 12 feet tall only half the limbs will be removed (example 11 foot tree, only remove bottom 5 feet). Lop and scatter dropped trees. Retain 7 to 13 tons of slash/acre for long-term site productivity. If activity exceeds 13 tons/acre a follow up treatment will be implemented to address excess. No activities would occur within the RHCA’s as defined by INFISH which are 300 feet for fish bearing streams, 150 feet for non-fish bearing streams, or within 100 feet of spring, lakes, or wet areas. Implement recreation specialist’s no cut tree buffer recommendations along travel corridors. Treatment will be limited to chainsaw only. All whitebark/limber pine saplings or mature trees will be left if discovered during thinning activity. Commercial Thinning 2 (77 acres) Reduce tree stocking to allow selected residual trees to grow vigorously which will improve tree with Aspen Release Units 1AR and 2AR resistance to disturbance agents. Where live aspen cohorts exist, all conifers within 100 feet will be removed. Between the live aspen stands residual leave trees will be marked with variable tree spacing. Trees will be left in “clumps’ of 2 to 7 trees with 15 feet bole spacing or 5 to 10 feet crown spacing. Distance between clumps will be variable from 30 to 50 feet with an objective to retain approximately 150 to 175 trees per acre across the treatment units. Post-harvest weeding and release of residual stand may be implemented where needed. All large non-marketable, “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees (large diameter trees with crowns that are fading and flattening, and have visible evidence of interior heart rot) will be left as well as any Douglas-fir greater than or equal to 18” dbh excluding the aspen daylight areas. Harvest will be limited to Lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir tree species. If other species are present exclude them from harvest activities. All snags that do not pose a safety hazard during logging operations would be retained in the stand. Place landings where practical adjacent to aspen clones to promote disturbance and regeneration. During harvest operations place landings, skid trails, and temporary roads to avoid areas that contain large trees. Location of routes will consider visual concerns, minimize disturbance to the largest trees present, and minimize soil stability/sedimentation. Implement whole tree yarding to minimize visuals impacts. Angle temporary roads away from main road to reduce visual impacts. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines and employ no cut buffers along travel corridors as recommended by recreation specialists. The treatment will require the following construction activities:

 The construction of 1,100’ of temporary roads into interior landings  The opening of 1,200’ of currently closed road  The construction of 20,125’ of skid trails  The construction of five 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings  The construction of 17,500’ of jack pole fence to deter livestock use of aspen regeneration in Unit 1AR and 2AR  Placement of educational interpretive sign across from Timber Creek campground explaining what treatment methods are being employed to address insect agents in Sawmill Canyon.

The following post-harvest activities will occur:  Post-harvest treatments for noxious weeds for a period of up to five years after sale closure  Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine

Once activities are completed all landings, roads, and skid trails will be ripped and seeded.

20 Table 1 (continued). Vegetation treatments associated with the proposed action. Number of Units (Acres) Treatment Unit Designation Treatment Summary Commercial Thinning 2 (29 acres) Reduce tree stocking to allow selected residual trees to grow vigorously which will improve tree 1CT and 2CT resistance to disturbance agents. Residual trees will be left in “clumps’ of 2 to 7 trees with 15 feet bole spacing or 5 to 10 feet crown spacing. Distance between clumps will be variable from 30 to 50 feet with an objective to retain approximately 150 to 175 trees per acre across the treatment units. All large non- marketable, “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees will be left as well as any Douglas-fir greater than or equal to 18” dbh. Only remove Lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir tree species. If other species are present exclude from harvest activities. All snags that do not pose a safety hazard during logging operation would be retained in the stand. During harvest operations place landings, skid trails, and temporary roads to avoid areas that contain large trees. Location of routes will consider visual concerns, minimize disturbance to the largest trees present, and minimize soil stability/sedimentation. This treatment will create a single story stand of the healthiest and largest diameter trees. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines. The treatment will require the following construction activities:

 The opening of 2,275’ of currently closed road  The construction of 7,700’ of skid trails  The construction of two 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings

The following post-harvest activities will occur:

 Post-harvest treatments for noxious weeds for a period of up to five years after sale closure  Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine.

Once activities are completed all landings, roads, and skid trails will be ripped and seeded. Overstory Removal 1 (106 acres) Remove the large mature overstory trees and release the understory. All large non-marketable, “wolfy” 1 OSR Douglas-fir trees will be left as well as any Douglas-fir greater than equal to 16” dbh and subalpine fire greater than or equal to 8” dbh. Only remove Lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir tree species. If other species are present exclude from harvest activities. All snags that do not pose a safety hazard during logging operation would be retained in the stand. During harvest operations place landings, skid trails, and temporary roads to avoid areas that contain large trees. Location of routes will consider visual concerns, minimize disturbance to the largest trees present, and minimize soil stability/sedimentation. Following harvest, the residual conifer stand would have a 15’ by 15’ spacing resulting in leaving 150 to 175 trees per acre. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines. The treatment will require the following construction activities:

 The opening of 1,800’ of currently closed road  The construction of 36,000’ of skid trails  The construction of six 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings

The following post-harvest activities will occur:

 Post-harvest treatments for noxious weeds for a period of up to five years after sale closure  Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased subalpine fir less than 8” dbh, Douglas- fir and lodgepole pine

Once activities are completed all landings, roads, and skid trails will be ripped and seeded.

Table 1 (continued). Vegetation treatments associated with the proposed action. Number of Units (Acres) Treatment Unit Designation Treatment Summary Sanitation/Salvage 5 (81 acres) Remove trees killed by bark beetles (Douglas-fir beetle and mountain pine beetle) or trees infected with 1S, 2S, 3S, and 7S mistletoe or other diseases agents. Remaining trees will be spaced on a 15 to 25 feet stem spacing leaving approximately 150 to 175 trees per acre. Preferential leave trees would be healthiest and largest in diameter to provide future seed. All large diameter nonmarketable “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees will be retained as well as any Douglas-fir or subalpine fire greater than or equal to 18” dbh excluding daylight thinning areas if aspen is present. Only remove subalpine fire, Lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir tree species. Exclude Engelmann spruce, whitebark and limber pine from harvest if present. All snags that do not pose a safety hazard during logging operation would be retained in the stand. During harvest operations place landings, skid trails, and temporary roads to avoid areas that contain large trees. Location of routes will consider visual concerns, minimize disturbance to the largest trees present, and minimize soil stability/sedimentation. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines. The treatment will require the following construction activities:

 The re-opening and subsequent closing of the closed un-numbered road off the Red Rock Road for 300’ and the construction of 2,500’ of temporary road in place of Trail 4337  The construction of 2,250’ of temporary road  The construction of 18,800’ of skid trail  The construction of eight 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings  The re-contouring of 100’ of existing constructed temporary road in place of Trail 4337and the re-contouring of 600’ of an un-numbered road off of road #40458 leading to Unit 7S once the logging is completed  The re-contouring of 2,250’ of temporary road once logging is completed

The following post-harvest activities will occur:

 Post-harvest treatments for noxious weeds for a period of up to five years after sale closure  Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased subalpine fir, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine

Once activities are completed all landings, roads, and skid trails will be ripped and seeded. Group Selection 2 (33 acres) Remove all live/dead post and pole material and all dead lodgepole pine trees while retaining live non 1GS and 3P post and pole size trees. End results would be clumps of mature trees intermixed with saplings that do not meet post and pole standards. Designated material for removal will be strictly lodgepole pine; all other tree species will be retained. For 1GS this unit will be offered for personal use post and pole gathering until all the easily retrieved material is removed, lasting approximately 5 years maximum. After this time period the timber staff will evaluate remaining material, and if needed, offer up remaining material to commercial purchaser to finish up. For 3P this unit will be offered as a commercial sale. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines and employ no cut buffers along travel corridors as recommended by recreation specialists. The treatment will require the following construction activities:

22 Table 1 (continued). Vegetation treatments associated with the proposed action. Number of Units (Acres) Treatment Unit Designation Treatment Summary  The construction of 5,700’ of temporary road (3,300’ of temporary road over Trail #4109 and 2,400’ over the un-numbered road that exits road #40458 leading into Unit (1GS)  The construction of 7,200’ of skid trail  The construction of two 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings  The re-closing of Trail #4109 back to the original trailhead once logging is completed  The ripping and seeding of non-slope portions of the un-numbered road leading into 1GS and 7S post-harvest

The following post-harvest activities will occur:

 Post-harvest treatments for noxious weeds for a period of up to five years after sale closure  Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased conifers

Once activities are completed all landings, roads, and skid trails will be ripped and seeded.

Table 2. Road/trail decommissioning associated with the proposed action. Route Name Decommissioning Technique Length (miles) 40455 Rip and Seed 0.31 40456 Rip and Seed 0.16 40457 Block Entrance 0.26 40458 Full Bench Obliteration 0.82 40459-A Remove culvert, obliterate first section of road 0.19 40459-A Rip and Seed 0.10 40460 Remove culvert, obliterate first section of road 0.48 40460-B Rip and Seed (North Section that connects to 40460) 0.39 40460-B Full Bench Obliteration first 200 feet (South Section connecting to 40104) 0.04 40470 Located in Unit 1OSR, rip and seed 0.15 Trail Road that goes through A and O, obliterate first 100’ 0.59 Trail/Start 40459 Obliterate the first 100’ 0.44 Unknown 1 Road that goes through Unit B, Rip and seed, if vegetated leave as is 0.28

23 Table 3. Vegetation treatments associated with the helicopter logging alternative. Number of Units (Acres) Treatment Unit Designation Method Treatment Summary Pre-Commercial 18 (94 acres) Force Account or Reduce tree stocking to allow selected residual trees to grow more vigorously. Thinning Units A-R Contract (Ground Residual stands will be spaced 15 feet by 15 feet leaving approximately 200 trees base using per acre. Remove lower limbs of residual trees to 6’ from ground surface or if tree chainsaws) is less than 12 feet tall only half the limbs will be removed (example 11 feet tree, only remove bottom 5 feet). Lop and scatter dropped trees. Retain 7 to 13 tons of slash/acre for long-term site productivity. If activity exceeds 13 tons/acre a follow up treatment will be implemented to address excess. No activities would occur within the RHCA’s as defined by INFISH which are 300 feet for fish bearing streams, 150 feet for non-fish bearing streams, or within 100 feet of spring, lakes, or wet areas. Implement recreation specialist’s no cut tree buffer recommendations along travel corridors. Treatment will be limited to chainsaw only. All whitebark/limber pine saplings or mature trees will be left if discovered during thinning activity. Commercial Thinning 2 (77 acres) Helicopter Log Reduce tree stocking to allow selected residual trees to grow vigorously which will with Aspen Release Units 1AR and 2AR improve tree resistance to disturbance agents. Where live aspen cohorts exist, all conifers within 100 feet will be removed. Between the live aspen stands residual leave trees will be marked with variable tree spacing. Trees will be left in “clumps’ of 2 to 7 trees with 15 feet bole spacing or 5 to 10 feet crown spacing. Distance between clumps will be variable from 30 to 50 feet with an objective to retain approximately 150 to 175 trees per acre across the treatment units. Post- harvest weeding and release of residual stand may be implemented where needed. All large non-marketable, “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees (large diameter trees with crowns that are fading and flattening, and have visible evidence of interior heart rot) will be left as well as any Douglas-fir greater than or equal to 18” dbh excluding the aspen daylight areas. Harvest will be limited to lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir tree species. If other species are present exclude them from harvest activities. All snags that do not pose a safety hazard during logging operations would be retained in the stand. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines and employ no cut buffers along travel corridors as recommended by recreation specialists. The following post-harvest activities will occur:

 The construction of 17,500’ of jack pole fence to deter livestock use of aspen regeneration in Unit 1AR and 2AR  Placement of educational interpretive sign across from Timber Creek campground explaining what treatment methods is being employed to address insect agents in Sawmill Canyon.  Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine

24 Table 3 (continued). Vegetation treatments associated with the helicopter logging alternative. Number of Units (Acres) Treatment Unit Designation Method Treatment Summary Commercial Thinning 2 (29 acres) Helicopter Log Reduce tree stocking to allow selected residual trees to grow vigorously which will 1CT and 2CT improve tree resistance to disturbance agents. Residual trees will be left in “clumps’ of 2 to 7 trees with 15 feet bole spacing or 5 to 10 feet crown spacing. Distance between clumps will be variable from 30 to 50 feet with an objective to retain approximately 150 to 175 trees per acre across the treatment units. All large non-marketable, “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees will be left as well as any Douglas- fir greater than or equal to 18” dbh. Only remove lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir tree species. If other species are present exclude from harvest activities. All snags that do not pose a safety hazard during logging operation would be retained in the stand. This treatment will create a single story stand of the healthiest and largest diameter trees. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines.

The following post-harvest activities will occur:

 Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine. Overstory Removal 1 (106 acres) Helicopter Log Remove the large mature overstory trees and release the understory. All large 1 OSR non-marketable, “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees will be left as well as any Douglas-fir greater than or equal to 16” dbh and subalpine fir greater than or equal to 8” dbh. Limit harvest to lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir tree species. If other species are present exclude from harvest activities. All snags that do not pose a safety hazard during logging operation would be retained in the stand Following harvest; the residual conifer stand would have a 15’ by 15’ spacing resulting in leaving 150 to 175 trees per acre. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines. The following post-harvest activities will occur:

 Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased subalpine fir less than 8” dbh, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine Sanitation/Salvage 5 (81 acres) Helicopter Log Remove trees killed by bark beetles (Douglas-fir beetle and mountain pine beetle) 1S, 2S, 3S, and or trees infected with mistletoe or other diseases agents. Remaining trees will be 7S spaced on a 15 to 25 feet stem spacing leaving approximately 150 to 175 trees per acre. Preferential leave trees would be healthiest and largest in diameter to provide future seed. All large diameter nonmarketable “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees will be retained as well as any Douglas-fir or subalpine fire greater than or equal to 18” dbh excluding daylight thinning areas if aspen is present. Only remove subalpine fir, lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir tree species. Exclude Engelmann spruce, whitebark and limber pine from harvest if present. All snags that do not pose a safety hazard during logging operation would be retained in the stand. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines.

25 Table 3 (continued). Vegetation treatments associated with the helicopter logging alternative. Number of Units (Acres) Treatment Unit Designation Method Treatment Summary The following post-harvest activities will occur:

 Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased subalpine fir, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine Group Selection 1 (14 acres) Tractor log Remove all live/dead post and pole material and all dead lodgepole pine trees 3P while retaining live non post and pole size trees. End results would be clumps of mature trees intermixed with saplings that do not meet post and pole standards. Designated material for removal will be strictly lodgepole pine; all other tree species will be retained. For 1GS this unit will be offered for personal use post and pole gathering until all the easily retrieved material is removed, lasting approximately 5 years maximum. After this time period the timber staff will evaluate remaining material, and if needed, offer up remaining material to commercial purchaser to finish up. For 3P this unit will be offered as a commercial sale. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines and employ no cut buffers along travel corridors as recommended by recreation specialists. The treatment will require the following construction activities:

 The reopening of 3,300 of temporary road over Trail #4109.  The construction of 2,250’ of skid trail  The construction of one 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings  The re-closing of Trail #4109 back to the original trail once logging is completed

The following post-harvest activities will occur:

 Post-harvest treatments for noxious weeds for a period of up to five years after sale closure  Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased conifers

Table 4. Road/trail decommissioning associated with the helicopter logging alternative. Route Name Decommissioning Technique Miles 40455 Rip and Seed 0.31 40456 Rip and Seed 0.16 40457 Block Entrance 0.26 40458 Full Bench Obliteration 0.82 40459-A Remove culvert, obliterate first section of road 0.19 40459-A Rip and Seed 0.10 40460 Remove culvert, obliterate first section of road 0.48 40460-B Rip and Seed (North Section that connects to 40460) 0.39 40460-B Full Bench Obliteration first 200 feet (South Section connecting to 40104) 0.04

26 Literature Cited

Corsi, C. and S. Elle. 1989. Regional fisheries management investigations. Region 6 (Idaho Falls) rivers and streams investigations – Big Lost and Little Lost Rivers, and Birch Creek and Medicine Lodge Creek survey. F-71-R-12. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Deschaine, D. 2015. Sawmill vegetation management project environmental assessment hydrology/soils specialist technical report. Salmon-Challis National Forest, Salmon, Idaho.

Gamett, B.L. 2014. Fish species biological assessment for the Sawmill Canyon vegetation management project. Salmon-Challis National Forest, Mackay, Idaho.

Gamett, B.L. 2013. Fish species biological evaluation for the Sawmill Canyon vegetation management project. Salmon-Challis National Forest, Mackay, Idaho.

Gamett, B.L. 2009. An overview of mountain whitefish in the Lost Streams of Idaho. Salmon-Challis National Forest, Mackay, Idaho.

Gamett, B.L., 1999. The history and status of fishes in the Little Lost River drainage, Idaho. Salmon- Challis National Forest, Mackay, Idaho.

Gamett, B.L. and J.A. Bartel. 2012. South zone bull trout management indicator species monitoring report – Salmon-Challis National Forest – 2011. Salmon-Challis National Forest, Mackay, Idaho.

Garren, D., W.C. Schrader, D. Keen, J. Fredericks. 2008. Fishery management annual report Upper Snake Region 2006. IDFG 08-102. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

High, B., K. A. Meyer, D. J. Schill, and E. R. J. Mamer, 2008. Distribution, abundance, and population trends of bull trout in Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1687-1701.

Wallace, R. L., and D. W. Zaroban. 2013. Native fishes of Idaho. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.