United States Department of Agriculture Orogrande OHV

Forest Service Trail Project

March 2012 Environmental Assessment

North Fork Ranger District Clearwater National Forest

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

North Fork Ranger District Clearwater National Forest Northern Region, USDA Forest Service

March 2012

Responsible Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Kathryn Rodriguez, District Ranger North Fork Ranger District 12730 Hwy 12 Orofino, ID 83544

For further information, contact: Tammy Harding, Interdisciplinary Team Leader Lochsa Ranger Station 903 3rd Street Kamiah, ID 83536

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.”

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents Page Number CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need ...... 1 Proposed Action ...... 2 Desired Condition ...... 3 Existing Condition ...... 3 Tribal Consultation ...... 4 Public Involvement ...... 4 Environmental Issues ...... 4 Regulatory Framework and Consistency ...... 7

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES Alternative Development Process ...... 13 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 13 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 13 Design Features ...... 15 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...... 16 Alternative Comparison ...... 17

CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Recreation ...... 19 Water Quality/Fisheries...... 22 Soils ...... 26 Wildlife ...... 27

CHAPTER 4 OTHER REQUIRED ANALYSIS Effects of Alternatives on Prime Farm Land, Rangeland and Forest 54 land ...... Energy Requirements of Alternatives ...... 54 Effects of Alternatives on Minorities and Women ...... 54 Environmental Justice ...... 54 List of Preparers ...... 54

APPENDICES Maps ...... 55 Federal Consistency Checklist...... 62 Best Management Practices...... 65 References...... 79 Cumulative Effects...... 85

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. Chapter 1 identifies the purpose and need for the proposed action, the scope of the proposed action, and the decisions to be made. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Lochsa Ranger District Office in Kamiah, Idaho. A. Introduction The North Fork Ranger District of the Clearwater National Forest (CNF) proposes to create an Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) loop trail system in the Orogrande Creek area. Encompassing 68 miles (60 miles on National Forest System (NFS) lands and 8 miles on Idaho Department of Lands and Potlatch Corporation lands), this loop would tie into the existing Clarke Mountain OHV trailhead to the north; extend to the Bighorn Weitas Roadless Area boundary to the east, Forest Road 547 to the south, and the Forest Boundary to the west. The route would primarily consist of existing roads and trails. Proposed actions would entail minor amounts of new trail construction, trail reconstruction and changes to travel restrictions on various roads. B. Background Increasing numbers of OHV users, with vehicles having increased off-road capabilities, are visiting the North Fork Ranger District. This increases the possibility of user created routes and subsequent erosion and maintenance issues. The Clearwater National Forest has limited opportunities for OHV users to ride long, primitive trail/road loop-routes that provide access to scenic, rugged country with high elevation vistas. There is an existing system of old logging roads and skid trails in the project area that have been used by OHV’s over the last several years. These routes were used as the starting point to create an OHV loop trail system which would tie into the existing Clarke Mountain OHV trail and trailhead to the south and the Sheep Mountain/Camp 60 OHV Trail to the north. C. Purpose and Need The purpose and need for action is based on management direction in the Clearwater National Forest Plan (CFP) to “provide a range of quality outdoor recreational opportunities within a Forest environment that will meet public needs now and in the

- 1 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment future” (Forest Goal 1.a, CFP p. II-1). The Forest Service would create an OHV loop trail system in the Orogrande Creek area of the North Fork district to provide an enhanced motorized recreational opportunity to a growing segment of recreationists. Purpose: The purpose of this project is to provide a safe, high quality OHV trail experience in a forested setting appropriate for motorized recreation. OHV routes would offer interpretive and educational signing that promotes public understanding of proper use of and enjoyment of Forest resources. Need: There is a need to provide safe routes that are well designed, in locations that would minimize resource damage, and that can be maintained at reasonable cost (Forest Goal 15. a, b, and d, CFP p. II-3 to II-4). Within this area of the district, there are an increasing number of OHV users and they share the roads with other types of vehicles. Some of these roads are busy, mainline roads where vehicles travel at a high rate of speed. Redirecting OHV traffic to other roads would minimize conflicts with traffic and provide for safer passage. The growing numbers of OHV users along with vehicles having increased off-road capabilities can increase the potential for resource damage. A lack of designated loop routes of substantial length can lead to exploring of non-designated off road/trail routes by users. D. Proposed Action This proposal would provide an OHV loop system on 60 miles of NFS roads and trails in the Orogrande Creek area of the North Fork District. The proposed route continues onto 8.7 miles of Roads 5055, 5055A and 669 on lands owned by Potlatch Corporation and Idaho Department of Lands (IDL). These roads are currently open to public access, but public use is subject to rules and regulations determined by the private landowners. This proposal does not propose to conduct any activities except on National Forest lands. This proposal consists of the following activities. Construct 1.7 miles of new trail consisting of 5 short segments (see attached map). Reconstruct 1.2 miles of Trail 17 to accommodate all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). Reconstruct 2.9 miles of Trail 88 to accommodate ATVs. Change travel restrictions on 1.2 miles of Trail 17 to permit ATV traffic Change travel restrictions on 12.6 miles of Forest Roads 5201, 5209, 5214, 5227A, 5235, 5235C, 5240, 5240B and 73005 as shown in Table 1 below. Trail construction standards would include a tread width of up to 6 feet, clearing width of up to 12 feet, and a desired maximum sustained grade of 15 percent. Grades may vary up to 25 percent in short pitches or climbing turns. Drainage dips would be installed on sustained grades, about 100 feet apart. Where needed, vegetation would be cleared on roads and trail tread established. Directional and educational signing may be placed along the routes and at intersections. Interpretive signing would be installed

- 2 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment at points along the route where unique geologic, historic or prehistoric and natural or management processes are evident or took place. This document discusses motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), OHVs, Utility Vehicles (UTVs) and small vehicles. To avoid confusion, the following describes the differences between these vehicles. OHVs are motorized vehicles capable of traveling off the “normal” highway system. Such vehicles include 4x4’s, dirt bikes, motorcycles, trail bikes, snowmobiles, UTVs and ATV’s like three or four wheelers. ATV’s consist of all vehicles with three or more wheels that are less than 50 inches in total width measured at their widest point, with a saddle-style seat that is straddled by the operator and steered with handlebars. “Small Vehicles” are not just defined by width. Specifically, they are ATV’s and motorcycles, but not UTV’s. E. Desired Condition The desired conditions for this landscape are based on Forest Plan direction. Forest wide goals and objectives are met within the project area through the development of motorized recreation opportunities. By providing agency approved facilities such as OHV trails constructed to Forest Service standards, existing user created trails would no longer be utilized, thereby better protecting area resources. F. Existing Condition The Orogrande OHV project area is located on the western boundary of the North Fork Ranger District in T37N and 38N, R7E and 8E. IDL and Potlatch Corporation lands also lie within the western portion of the project area. The closest community is Pierce, Idaho which lies about five miles to the west of the project area. The project area is primarily accessed from Forest Roads 250 and 669. It contains an extensive road system with general vehicular accessibility, a colorful mining history and a relative degree of remoteness. There are low to moderate levels of dispersed camping, hiking, biking, berry picking, firewood gathering, hunting and horse riding in the area. There is limited non-motorized winter recreation because of the absence of plowed road access. In the winter, some of the area receives moderate to heavy snow machine use. From the Canal Creek trailhead north of Pierce, ID, portions of FS Roads 250, 669 and 5055 are part of the 49 miles of regularly groomed area trails in the area used by snowmobilers; all are in Management Area E1 – Timber Management (EA, page 8). OHV use is an extremely popular, fast growing recreational activity on the North Fork Ranger District. The project area currently receives moderate use. Trails 17, 232, 517, 674 (OYM) and Trail 88 (OYS) are the only developed and maintained Forest Service system trails open to motorized use in the project area. The road system is extensive and provides for lengthy excursions. Some of these are busy mainline roads where vehicles travel at a high rate of speed. Partially due to the absence of approved trails, a number of user created trails are scattered about the

- 3 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment project area. G. Tribal Consultation On January 23, 2008, a scoping letter describing the proposed action, and purpose and need was sent to the Nez Perce Tribe. On February 22, 2008, the project was presented and discussed with tribal officials at a Staff to Staff meeting. H. Public Involvement The proposal was first listed on the Clearwater National Forest website (http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/) in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on January 1, 2008. On January 23, 2008, a scoping letter describing the proposed action, and purpose and need was sent to over 300 interested individuals, businesses, organizations and agencies. A legal notice and request for public comment appeared in the Lewiston Tribune on January 24, 2008. The project was also presented to various ATV groups in April and May of 2008. Comments were received from 24 individuals, organizations and agencies. Many who commented stated that the scoping map did not display the proposed route in enough detail to provide helpful comments. On March 16, 2010, after further field work and incorporation of public comments into a more refined proposal, the Forest Service sent another scoping letter out to those who had originally commented on the project. This letter provided a detailed description of project activities and a detailed map of the proposed route. The Orogrande OHV EA was released in January 2011 and a Decision Notice was issued September 2011. The project was appealed and subsequently withdrawn in December 2011. The Orogrande EA has been updated to address public concerns. I. Environmental Issues The proposed action was developed to meet the purpose and need for action and designed to minimize effects on resources. Analysis of public and internal comments for the project identified the following issues and concerns. They were addressed through alternative development, and/or project design features and resource protection measures. These issues are described below. 1. Issues Used to Develop Alternatives to the Proposed Action Development of Motorized Access in Management Area (MA) C8S – Big-Game Summer Range/Timber Management: Some who commented translate Clearwater Forest Plan direction for MA C8S (ROD, pg. 25 and CFP III, pg. 55, Appendix F, pg. 1, 2) to mean that the one mile long section of Trail 17 that lies within MA C8S should be closed to all motorized vehicles. They wanted to see an alternative that did not construct new trail or enter MA C8S. Alternative 3 was developed to address concerns about development of motorized access in MA C8S. This alternative does not propose any reconstruction activities or access changes to Trail 17. This trail is currently open yearlong to motorcycles and has been in place since 1928, long before development of the Clearwater Forest Plan. Under this alternative, access would remain open yearlong

- 4 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment to motorcycles. No reconstruction activities or travel restriction changes would occur. There would be no travel restriction changes on Roads 5240, 5240B and 5227A within MA C8S. These road segments would remain restricted yearlong. Alternative 2 would change travel restrictions on the section of Trail 17 in C8S to open yearlong to small vehicles (ATV and motorcycles, but not utility vehicles). About 1.2 miles of Trail 17 would be reconstructed to accommodate all-terrain vehicles. With few exceptions forest-wide, the projected road building and timber harvest envisioned for MA C8S has not occurred and, given the protections afforded by the Idaho Roadless Rule, is not likely to occur. (Of the 207,500 acres of MA C8S, only around 2,000 acres in scattered chunks were ever roaded or harvested.) Since MA C8S has not been roaded or developed, the requirement to restrict all motorized traffic there is not triggered. Therefore, this proposal to change travel restrictions on Trail 17 and construct 0.4 miles of new trail open to small vehicles within MA C8S is consistent with Forest Plan direction. See page 8 of this document for more information regarding forest plan direction. 2.Issues Used to Develop Design Criteria and/or Mitigation Impacts on Weitas Creek Inventoried Roadless Area: Portions of Trail 17, which is open yearlong to motorcycles, lies within the Weitas Roadless Area. This trail has been in place since 1928. Because of public concerns that any proposed activities within the roadless area could affect roadless area values, this proposal would not enter the roadless area. Alternative 2 would reconstruct 1.2 miles of Trail 17 that lies within management areas E1 and C8S, but outside of the Weitas Roadless Area, and change travel restrictions on that section from open yearlong to motorcycles to open yearlong to small vehicles. Alternative 3 does not propose any activities or changes on Trail 17. 3. Other Issues Carried Through the Analysis Resource Concerns: People expressed concern that proposed activities should protect water quality, fisheries, soils, and wildlife habitats. This project was designed to assure that Forest Plan goals and standards for these resources would be met, as well as other applicable laws and regulations. Potential impacts to these resources are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3 and summarized in Table 3. Law Enforcement: Others who commented thought the proposal would encourage more illegal motorized use and lead to resource damage and subsequently, more law enforcement would be needed. The project purpose and need addresses this concern. The project was designed to provide safe routes that are well designed and in locations where resource damage would be minimized and trails could be maintained at reasonable cost. The Forest Service feels that designated routes and proposed signage would direct traffic, discourage trail pioneering and educate the public about motorized recreational etiquette.

- 5 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

4. Issues decided by Law or Policy, not Affected by the Proposal, or Outside the Scope of the Project Impacts to Cultural Resources: Some were concerned about impacts to cultural or religious sites. Cultural resource surveys were conducted in the proposed treatment areas. In compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clearwater National Forest consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Nez Perce Tribal Historic Preservation Office on the no properties finding of this report in accordance in the terms of the programmatic agreement. Game Retrieval: One commenter wanted the project to incorporate a permit system to enable hunters to retrieve wild game from behind closed gates. This proposal is to provide a safe OHV route for motorized recreation that would minimize user conflicts and restrict resource damage. Incorporation of a permit system for game retrieval is outside the scope of this project. Noxious Weed Treatments: There was concern that potential campsite development in the project area would result in machines being driven off trail, increasing the spread of noxious weeds. No campsites are proposed with this project. The proposed route designations would discourage off trail use. Travel off designated routes will soon be prohibited once the Clearwater National Forest Travel Plan is completed. Ongoing weed treatments would continue in this area. OHV Use on Trail 20: One commenter felt that travel restrictions on Trail 20 should be changed and ATV travel should be prohibited. This trail is not a part of this proposal and is not within the project area; therefore, suggested access changes to that trail are outside the scope of this project. Travel Planning: Some who commented felt that this project should be delayed until the Forest-wide travel management plan is completed. Once the Forest-wide Travel planning process is complete, motorized vehicles will be required to travel only on designated routes. The Travel Plan is evaluating motorized travel on a broad scale (most of the Clearwater National Forest) to implement the national travel rule and require summer motor vehicles to travel only on designated routes. Other projects, like this one, are proceeding concurrently with the Travel Plan and are analyzing road or trail work like construction or reconstruction that is not addressed by the Travel Plan. The Travel Plan did not propose any notable changes to motorized travel that are specific to the Orogrande OHV Project area. Wildlife Security: One commenter felt the Forest Service should enforce seasonal restrictions to prohibit wheeled vehicle access on trails in MA C4 (big game winter range) during the winter months. Impacts from trail use in MA C4 would be minimal because there is little to no access to this area in the winter due to the long travel distances and extreme weather conditions. This trail system receives little to no wheeled vehicle use in winter. In winter, the route within MA C4 is physically very difficult to travel due to deep snow and cannot be traveled in a day. There is no draw for recreation.

- 6 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Climate Change: Others who commented suggested that this proposal would result in the emission of greenhouse gases; therefore, impacts on global warming should be considered. Others felt we should consider the cumulative impacts of promoting fossil fuel consumption. The Forest Service recognizes that vehicles emit greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change; however, this project does not authorize whether or not motorized activity occurs on the District, but rather where it may occur. This project attempts to redirect existing OHV traffic onto safer, well designed routes in locations that minimize resource damage and can be maintained at a reasonable cost. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the general public would meaningfully alter the amount of their motorized use (and corresponding emissions) because of this proposal, whether their preferred use is to drive to this or a different trailhead to hike, tour in a passenger vehicle, or to recreate with off highway vehicles on this or another trail, on or off the forest. Given the limited scope and small scale of this project and the lack of connection between the proposal and changes in public vehicle emissions, we believe further analysis is unwarranted. J. Regulatory Framework and Consistency 1. Forest Plan Direction The Clearwater Forest Plan (CFP), as amended, guides all natural resource management activities by providing a foundation and framework of standards and guidelines for National Forest system lands administered by the Clearwater National Forest. This proposal was developed to provide a safer, high quality recreational OHV routes. The Orogrande OHV Trail System EA is tiered to the CFP and CFP EIS. A complete description of forestwide goals, objectives, and standards are found in Chapter II of the CFP on pages II-1 through II-40. The following forestwide goals and objectives apply to this project area and are relevant to proposed actions. Provide a range of quality outdoor recreational opportunities within a Forest environment that will meet public needs now and in the future. (II-1) Limit motorized use on selected big-game range to minimize effects on big game. (II-2) Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species. (II-2) Maintain, and where appropriate, improve the winter and summer habitat over time to support increased populations of big-game wildlife species. (II-2) Manage watersheds, soil resources, and streams to maintain high quality water that meets or exceeds State and Federal water quality standards, and to protect all beneficial uses of the water, which include fisheries, water-based recreation, and public water supplies. (II-3) Locate, design and manage Forest roads to meet resource objectives and public concerns, and to provide optimal soil and watershed protection. (II-3) Plan, construct and maintain a safe and cost-efficient Forest transportation system that

- 7 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment will achieve Forest Plan resource management goals and objectives. (II-3) Apply transportation planning concepts considering present and anticipated future demands for trails and related facilities as a part of project planning to determine need for retaining trails and appropriate standards. (II-3) Manage use of trails to provide user safety, minimize conflicts between users, and prevent damage or loss of facilities from improper use. (II-4) Area specific standards and guidelines are found on pages III-1 through III-74 of the CFP. Proposed activities would take place on lands that fall within MA C4, C8S and E1. MA direction, specific to this project area, is summarized below. C4 – Key Big Game Winter Range/Timber Management – Manage to provide sufficient forage and cover for existing and projected big game populations and achieve timber production outputs. Manage motorized vehicle use during the winter when big game is vulnerable to harassment, and at any time when conflicts may occur with timber management. Close roads and trails to motor vehicles and off road vehicle use when potential conflicts with big game winter use could occur (III-47). C8S – Big Game Summer Range/Timber Management – Manage to maintain high quality wildlife and fishery objectives while producing timber from the productive forest land. These objectives can be met by modifying standard timber practices, scheduling, and prohibiting most public motorized uses. Wildlife objectives are primarily oriented at elk habitat management but are not to exclude moose habitat on the Powell District. Travel management direction for MA C8S is mostly premised on this MA being developed (new road construction) and harvested during the life of the Forest Plan. With few exceptions forest-wide, this development has not occurred and, given the protections afforded by the Idaho Roadless Rule, is not likely to occur. The Forest Plan does not speak to ATV use in C8S and it is not specifically prohibited. Management Area direction applicable to the current and foreseeable future of MA C8S (Forest Plan, p. III- 55) includes: Prohibit public use of motorized vehicles on all new roads constructed in the management area, except permit snowmobiles during the winter period (December 1 through March 1). Permit trail bike use on trails suitable for trail bikes until the area is roaded, at which time the entire area will be closed to all public use of motor vehicles. E1 – Timber Management – Manage to provide optimum, sustained production of wood products (III-57). Manage for a minimum of 25 percent maximum elk potential habitat effectiveness. When habitat conditions warrant, managers are urged to exceed the 25 percent habitat standard (III-58). Manage a roaded natural setting for dispersed recreation. Manage for all levels of difficulty of ORV use on trails. Regulate use of roads and trail (to motorized vehicles) where needed to accomplish wildlife, watershed objectives, or property values. Manage seasonal and yearlong road closures to provide security for elk to meet area objectives (III-59).

- 8 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Plan Lawsuit Settlement Agreement In February 1993, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society representing nine co- plaintiffs filed two lawsuits against the CFP. On September 13, 1993, the Forest Service signed a settlement with all parties and agreed, in part, to proceed only with those timber sales and/or new road construction projects, which result in “no measurable increase” in sediment yield in drainages currently not meeting Forest Plan standards. These agreements remain in effect until a Forest Plan revision is completed. The Orogrande OHV project would not measurably increase sediment yield because of the implementation of design features and the new route construction is not near any streams. CFP Water Quality Standards Water quality standards in the CFP on pages II-27 through II-29 direct that soil and water resources be managed at levels designed to meet Forest management objectives for watersheds as well as meet Idaho State Water Quality Standards. 2. Watershed and Fisheries Resources Regulatory Framework All Federal and State laws and regulations applicable to water quality would be applied to the Orogrande OHV project, including 36 CFR 219.20, the Clean Water Act, and Idaho State Water Quality Standards, Idaho Forest Practices Act, Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act, and Best Management Practices (BMPs). In addition, laws and regulations require the maintenance of viable populations of aquatic species including the National Forest Management Act (36 CFR 219.19), subsequent Forest Service direction (Fish and Wildlife Policy, 9500-4) and Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2470, 2600). Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act stipulates that states must identify and prioritize water bodies that are water quality limited (i.e., water bodies that do not meet water quality standards). For waters identified on this list, states must develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the pollutants, set at a level to achieve water quality standards. A Sub-basin Assessment and TMDLs have been completed for the Upper North Fork Clearwater River and its tributaries, including Orogrande Creek (IDEQ, 1998). Orogrande Creek was listed as water quality impaired for temperature as it did not meet the state's water temperature standard for cutthroat trout. The TMDL provided an assessment of the shading status for streams the Orogrande Creek watershed. No implementation plan has been completed, but any planned activities need to maintain or improve temperature. Therefore, the Orogrande OHV project would be designed to produce no measurable increase in temperature. The entire TMDL document can be found at the following website: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface- water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/clearwater-river-north-fork-upper-subbasin.aspx 3. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction The contiguous United State distinct population segment of the Canada lynx is listed as threatened (USFWS 2000). Critical habitat has been proposed for the Canada lynx

- 9 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

(USFWS 2008); however, none of the proposed critical habitat is on the CNF. Management of lynx in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM), including the CNF and North Fork Ranger District, is governed by the Record of Decision for the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USFS 2007b), which contains a set of objectives, goals, standards, and guidelines for managing lynx and their habitats in the Northern Rockies. This management direction applies only to mapped lynx habitats on National Forest lands that are presently occupied by Canada lynx. Some specific objectives and guidelines that are applicable to the proposed trail system include: Objective HU 01: Maintain the lynx’s natural competitive advantage over other predators in deep snow, by discouraging the expansion of snow-compacting activities in lynx habitat. Objective HU 02: Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity Objective HU 03: Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas in lynx habitat. Guideline HU G3: Recreation developments and operations should be planned in ways that both provide for lynx movement and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat. Guideline HU G11: Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. 4. Endangered Species Act The USFWS provided an updated species list for the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests on June 30, 2010 (CONS-250c). Listed species that may occur on the North Fork Ranger District include the Canada lynx, gray wolf and bull trout. The species list contained one candidate species, the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). No evidence exists that any other listed or proposed species may occur on the North Fork Ranger District. The Regional Forester approved an updated sensitive species list in February 2011. The only sensitive fish species that occur in the project area are westslope cutthroat and interior redband trout. A Biological Assessment has been completed for the Orogrande OHV Project that documents the project “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx. It also documents a “no effect” determination for the other species. Trail construction and reconstruction would be on ridges, away from streams. Existing OHV use on existing roads poses no sediment concerns. 5. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended A cultural resource inventory was conducted for the proposed project area. No properties eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places were found. In accordance with the Act, the findings of the inventory were

- 10 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment submitted to the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer and the Nez Perce Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for review and comment. Both entities concurred with a finding of “no effect to historic properties”. 6. Executive Order on Environmental Justice Based on experience with similar projects on the North Fork Ranger District and CNF, none of the alternatives would affect minority groups, women, or civil rights. 7. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provisions have been followed as required in 40 CFR 1500. The proposed actions comply with the intent and requirements of NEPA. The EA analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. It also discloses the expected effects of each alternative and discusses the identified issues and concerns. 8. Travel Management (36 CFR 212, 251, 261) The Forest Service regulations for travel management at 36 CFR 212.15 identify criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motorized use. The regulations require the Forest Service to consider: the effects on natural and cultural resources; public safety; provision of recreational opportunities; access needs; conflicts among uses of NFS lands; the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration. The regulations also require the Forest Service to consider the following criteria with the objective of minimizing effects: damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; harassment of wildlife and disruption of wildlife habitats; conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of NFS roads; conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or neighboring Federal lands; compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas; and the speed, volume, composition, and distribution of traffic on roads – compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and surfacing. The proposed actions would comply with the regulations for Travel Management. 9. Executive Orders 11644, 11989 National direction for travel planning, specifically off-road use of motor vehicles on Federal lands, is provided by Executive Order (EO) 11644, “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands” (February 8, 1972), as amended by EO 11989 (May 24, 1977). Section 3(a) of EO 11644 directs the Forest Service to promulgate regulations that provide for designation of trails and areas for off-road motor vehicle use. The regulations require that designation of these trails and areas be based upon protection of National Forest System (NFS) resources, promotion of public safety, and minimization of conflicts among uses of NFS lands. Section 9(b) was added to EO 11644 when it was amended by EO

- 11 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

11989. Section 9(b) specifically authorizes the Forest Service to adopt the policy to designate those areas or trails that are suitable for motor vehicle use and to close all other areas and trails to that use. The proposed actions would comply with the Executive Orders.

- 12 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES A. Alternative Development Process This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered during this analysis. Chapter 2 sharply defines the issues and provides a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public (40 CFR 1502.14). The important difference between alternatives is based upon the driving (or key) issue that is emphasized in each. Alternatives were developed based upon Forest Plan objectives, National and Regional direction and policy, existing conditions and environmental issues. B. Alternative 1—No Action This alternative provides a baseline for comparison of environmental consequences of the proposed action to the existing condition and is a management option that could be selected by the Responsible Official. The results of taking no action would be the current condition as it changes over time due to natural forces. Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. There would be no new trail construction and no changes to the existing road system. Full sized vehicles and OHV would continue to use the same road systems. This would reduce visitor enjoyment and increase safety hazards resulting in adverse impacts to visitor experience and safety. No interpretive or educational signage would be installed to promote the proper use and enjoyment of Forest resources. Because of the lack of approved trails, user created trails could increase the potential for resource damage. C. Alternative 2—Proposed Action Under this alternative, the Forest Service would meet the purpose and need by implementing the activities listed on pages 2 and 3 of this document. Alternative 2 would construct 5 short segments of new trail totaling 1.7 miles that would be open yearlong to small vehicles. These trail segments would connect existing roads and trails and provide additional loop opportunities. This alternative would change travel restrictions on 1.2 miles of Trail 17 from open yearlong to motorcycles to open yearlong to small vehicles. This section of 18 inch wide single track trail would be widened to about 72 inches to accommodate ATV’s. Alternative 2 would reconstruct 2.9 miles of Trail 88 to accommodate ATV travel. Trail 88 currently varies from a single 18 inch track up to about 50 inches wide and lies mostly along the top of a flat ridge and partly on an old logging road. Some steeper sections would be rerouted to locations that are more appropriate. Portions of this trail would need to be widened to the 6 foot trail standard. Travel restrictions on 12.6 miles of Forest roads 5201, 5209, 5214, 5227A, 5235, 5235C, 5240, 5240B and 73005 would be changed from restricted yearlong to all to open yearlong to small vehicles. These are aggregate and native surface roads. Some can be readily traveled by full sized vehicles while others have grown in with brush. All roads - 13 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment are stable with functioning culverts and ditches. Trail construction and reconstruction on all roads and trails discussed above would entail vegetation clearing, trail tread development and installation of appropriate erosion control devices. Directional and educational signing may be placed along the routes and at intersections. Interpretive signing would be installed at points along the route where unique geologic, historic or prehistoric and natural or management processes are evident or took place. D. Alternative 3 – Development of Motorized Access in MA C8S This alternative was developed to address concerns about development of motorized access in MA C8S. Within MA C8S, Alternative 3 would not construct any new trail or reconstruct existing Trail 17 or change current travel restrictions on 2.18 miles of Roads 5240, 5240B and 5227A. Under Alternative 3, travel on Roads 5240B,5227A and a 1.2 mile portion of Road 5240 would remain restricted yearlong. Alternative 3 would construct 3 short segments of new trail totaling one mile that would be open yearlong to small vehicles. These trail segments would connect existing roads and trails and provide additional loop opportunities. As described in Alternative 2, this alternative would also reconstruct 2.9 miles of Trail 88. Like Alternative 2, travel restrictions on Forest roads 5201, 5209, 5214, 5227A, 5235, 5235C, 5240 and 73005 would be changed from restricted yearlong to all to open yearlong to small vehicles. Similar to Alternative 2, directional and educational signing may be placed along the routes and at intersections. Interpretive signing would be installed at points along the route where unique geologic, historic or prehistoric and natural or management processes are evident or took place.

- 14 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Table 1 Proposed Travel Restriction Changes Alt 2 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 3 Road/ Current restriction & Trail # reason for restriction Proposed Miles Proposed Miles restriction affected Restriction Affected 5201 RYA *; wildlife OYS*** 0.15 OYS 0.15 RYA except snowmobiles; 5209 OYS 4.37 OYS 4.37 soil, water RYA except snowmobiles; 5214 OYS 0.41 OYS 0.41 soil, water RYA except snowmobiles; 5227A OYS 0.36 No Change No Change wildlife RYA except snowmobiles; 5235 OYS 1.84 OYS 1.84 wildlife RYA except snowmobiles; 5235C OYS 0.60 OYS 0.60 wildlife 5240 RYA; wildlife OYS 3.08 OYS 1.20 RYA except snowmobiles, 5240B OYS 0.52 No Change No Change wildlife RYA except snowmobiles; 73005 OYS 1.29 OYS 1.29 soil, water, wildlife Total road miles 12.62 9.86 Trail OYM ** OYS 1.2 No Change No Change 17 Total Trail miles 1.2 0 *RYA – Restricted yearlong to all motorized vehicles ** OYM – Open yearlong to motorcycles *** OYS - Open yearlong to small vehicles < 50” (ATVs and motorcycles, but not utility vehicles) E. Design Features Design features for this project are included in the concurrence letters for the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Trail Maintenance Program. Best Management Practices (BMP)’s are also included for minimizing sediment and other impacts. These design criteria have been approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA in minimizing impacts. Given past projects, these design criteria have been found to be effective.

- 15 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

A fisheries biologist or hydrologist would assess and approve any gravel borrowing that may occur. Woody materials that have fallen across trails and extend into stream channels would have only that portion of the material obstructing trail use removed, leaving the portion extending into the stream channel. Instream woody debris would not be cleared without prior review and approval by the unit fisheries biologist. Dirt which is removed from the trail would be placed outside of the normal high water mark or in the trail tread. Trail work on or near stream crossings would be done with emphasis on retention of vegetation for stabilizing banks, minimizing sediment introduction, and providing a stable, non-eroding crossing. Surface water on trails would be reduced through installation of dips, waterbars, pipes, ditches, and/or trenches. Recreation personnel would monitor the routes for noxious weeds during routine trail maintenance. If any unrecorded heritage sites are discovered during the course of project implementation, all project activities in the vicinity of the sites would cease and the District or Forest Archaeologist would be notified. Employ erosion control measures, such as mulching and seeding, on exposed soils to minimize sediment delivery to streams. F. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail Trail 17 Reconstruction in Weitas Roadless area: This project originally proposed to reconstruct a 0.4 mile segment of Trail 17 that lies within the Bighorn-Weitas Roadless Area to accommodate ATV traffic. This trail is currently open yearlong to motorcycles. After review of public comments and field visits by specialists, this alternative was dropped. The project route was altered to avoid the Weitas Roadless Area. Minimizing or eliminating the construction of new ATV trails. One comment suggested an alternative that minimized or eliminated the construction of new ATV trails, stating that this was especially important in Management Area (MA) C8S. The purpose and need of this project is to facilitate OHV traffic to other roads and trails to minimize conflicts with other traffic, reduce resource damage, and better manage recreational use. Alternative 3 would not construct new trail in MA C8S. New roads would not be constructed as part of this project. Proposed access changes on existing roads and trails would only be implemented where analysis determined there would be no impact to various resources (see Chapter 3). With regard to MA C8S, the 1987 Forest Plan envisioned that much of the then roadless country would be developed with road systems and timber harvest and that development was expected to occur in C8S, not in the C1, C6, B2 or A3 MAs. Some of the goals for this MA were set with the expectation that C8S areas would be developed. - 16 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

These goals include closing all new roads to motorized traffic and even closing all trails to motorized traffic once the area had been developed, as mitigation. But the future envisioned for these C8S areas in 1987 has not occurred, and is unlikely to. Thus, rather than a developed “roaded natural” landscape envisioned in 1987, with few exceptions, the forest is looking at a “semi-primitive” landscape with little development to mitigate for. Currently, the trail system in C8S lands receives motorized traffic, primarily motorcycles, wherever the physical condition of the trail permits it. Maintain existing access restrictions or minimize access changes. A commenter suggested an alternative that would minimize changes to current travel restrictions. Specifically, he suggested development of an alternative that would avoid Road 5235 (by using only Road 5226), and avoid Trail 17, by staying along Road 5220. This alternative was not considered in detail because it would not have met the purpose and need to redirect OHV traffic off of mainline roads. Proposed access changes on existing roads and trails were analyzed to determine potential impacts to the various resources that prompted the initial access restriction. Access changes would only be implemented where analysis determined there would be no impact to various resources (see Chapter 3). Alternative 3 does not propose access changes to Trail 17 or Roads 5227A, 5240B and portions of Road 5240. The purpose and need for this project is to provide a safe, well designed, high quality OHV trail experience in a forested setting appropriate for motorized recreation in locations that would contain resource damage, and that can be maintained at reasonable cost----using existing roads for this purpose minimizes needed construction/reconstruction, and efficiently utilizes previously constructed routes having hardened tread surfaces----this effectively confines OHV travel to existing routes while minimizing potential sedimentation and/or off-route resource damage

G. Alternative Comparison The following table presents a comparison of the proposed action to the purpose and need based on indicators established to measure responsiveness. Table 2 Alternative Comparison by Response to the Purpose and Need Purpose and Need Alternative Alternative Alternative Indicators 1 2 3 Provide a safe, high quality OHV trail experience in a forested setting that is appropriate for motorized recreation. Provide safe routes that are well designed and in locations that would contain resource damage and can be maintained at reasonable cost. Miles of new OHV trail 0 1.7 0.99 Trail miles converted from OYM to OYS 0 1.2 0 Road miles changed from RYA to OYS 0 12.6 9.02

- 17 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need Alternative Alternative Alternative Indicators 1 2 3 Miles open seasonally or yearlong to 120 120 116.4 vehicles >50” wide including UTV’s Miles open seasonally or yearlong to 41.8 56.1 54.5 motorcycles and ATVs, but not UTVs.

Table 3 Alternative Comparison by Issue Resource Issue Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 2 3 Issue Indicator Water Quality/Fisheries: Increase in Sediment delivery None No change No change Increase in Stream Temperature None No change No change Soils: Low to Erosion Potential moderate No change No change Wildlife: Management Indicator Species No change No change No change Threatened, endangered & proposed species No change No change No change Sensitive species No change No change No change

- 18 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

This chapter provides a summary of environmental impacts of the alternatives considered in detail. Further analysis and conclusion about the potential effects are available in reports for each resource and other supporting documentation cited in those reports. A. Recreation Resources 1. Affected Environment The Orogrande OHV project area is located on the western boundary of the North Fork Ranger District in T37N and 38N, R7E and 8E. IDL and Potlatch Corporation lands also lie within the western portion of the project area. The closest community is Pierce, Idaho which lies about five miles to the west of the project area. The project area is primarily accessed from Forest Roads 250 and 669. The entire proposed route encompasses an area of about 27,700 acres, mostly National Forest lands and about 2,600 acres of privately owned lands. There are approximately 234 miles of road in the project area with various traffic restrictions (see table 4 below.) This area provides an extensive road system with general vehicular accessibility, a colorful mining history and a relative degree of remoteness. There are low to moderate levels of dispersed camping, hiking, biking, berry picking, firewood gathering, hunting and horse riding in the area. There is limited non-motorized winter recreation because of the absence of plowed road access. In the winter, some of the area receives moderate to heavy snow machine use. Approximately 49 miles of Forest Service roads in the project area (within MA E1) are groomed for snowmobilers. From the Canal Creek trailhead north of Pierce, ID, portions of FS Roads 250, 669 and 5055 are part of the regularly groomed area trails used by snowmobilers. The project area receives moderate motorized trail vehicle use. However, this is an extremely popular, fast growing recreational activity on the North Fork Ranger District. Currently, there are 4.3 miles of trail and 32 miles of roads open to small vehicle use only, in the project area. Approximately 5.5 miles of FS Trails 17, 232, 517, 674 and the northern most portion of Trail 88 are designated for only single-track motorized use in the project area. They receive moderate use. Project area roads provide opportunities for lengthy excursions. Some of these are busy mainline roads where vehicles travel at a relatively high rate of speed. Partially due to the absence of approved trails, a number of user created trails are scattered about the project area. 2. Environmental Consequences a. Alternative 1: No Action. Direct and Indirect Effects OHV recreation opportunities would not change. There would be no trail development

- 19 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment to accommodate OHV recreationists. Full-sized vehicles and trail vehicles would continue to share the same FS roads, potentially creating conflicts and safety hazards. User created trails could increase in the absence of developed and maintained Forest Service system trails. Additionally, no interpretive or educational signage would be installed to promote the proper use and enjoyment of Forest resources. b. Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would increase trail riding opportunities for trail vehicle users by 15.5 miles in the project area. See the table below for detailed information. Approximately 1.7 miles of new motorized trails, consisting of 5 individual segments, would be constructed to connect existing roads and trails, creating loop opportunities. Approximately 1.2 miles of existing single track motorized Trail 17 would be reconstructed to accommodate ATVs. Trail 88 would be reconstructed on 2.9 miles to accommodate ATV travel. Also, travel restrictions on 12.6 miles of roads that are currently closed yearlong to all vehicles would be changed to open yearlong to small vehicles. These new, improved riding opportunities would reduce the potential for full sized vehicles and trail vehicle traffic to occur simultaneously on the busier FS roads, minimizing conflicts with traffic and providing for safer passage. Of the single track trails proposed for conversion to ATV routes, Trail 17 receives the majority of the motorcycle use as it connects to a network of other single track trails open to motorcycles but not ATVs. Widening 1.2 miles of Trail 17 is not likely to discourage motorcyclists from using this trail. Trails would be constructed and reconstructed in accordance with direction in the Forest Service Trails Management Handbook (FSH 2309.18). c. Alternative 3: Proposed Action. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 would construct approximately one mile of new motorized trail, consisting of 3 individual segments, to connect existing roads and trails and create loop opportunities. Access restrictions onTrail 17, and Roads 5240 (8.08 miles), 5240B (0.52 miles) and 5227A (.36 miles) would not change under this alternative. Approximately 2.9 miles of Trail 88 would be reconstructed to accommodate ATV travel. Also, travel restrictions on 9.02 miles of roads that are currently closed yearlong to all vehicles would be changed to open yearlong to small vehicles. These new, improved riding opportunities would reduce the potential for full sized vehicles and trail vehicle traffic to occur simultaneously on the busier FS roads, minimizing conflicts with traffic and providing for safe passage. Trails would be constructed and reconstructed in accordance with direction in the Forest Service Trails Management Handbook (FSH 2309.18).

- 20 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Table 4 - Motorized Recreation Opportunities in the 27,700 acre project area Road and Trail Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 status Existing Road and Proposed Road and Proposed Road and Current restrictions trail miles Trail Miles Trail Miles OYM 5.5 4.3 5.5 OYS 36.3 51.8 46.6 RYA 62.0 49.4 53.0 OSA 22.4 No change No change OYA 97.4 No change No change Undetermined 10.3 No change No change Groomed snow 49.0 No change No change trails RYA – Restricted yearlong to all motor vehicles OYM – Open yearlong to motorcycles OYS - Open yearlong to Small Vehicles (motorcycles and ATV’s but not UTV’s) OSA – Open seasonally to all motor vehicles OYA – Open yearlong to all motor vehicles c. Cumulative Effects The 27,700 acres that encompass the proposed Orogrande OHV trail perimeter were evaluated for cumulative effects. Past activities include timber harvest and road building in the area since the early 1900’s. These activities allowed dispersed camping, berry picking, hunting and firewood gathering to evolve in the area throughout time given availability and access. Present and foreseeable actions considered for cumulative effects consist of the ongoing forest-wide travel planning effort which could affect motorized cross-country travel, seasons of use and types of vehicles that are allowed on roads throughout the Forest; the proposed Lower Orogrande EIS which could approve road decommissioning, culvert replacement, commercial thin and regeneration harvest. The Orogrande OHV Project was considered in the Travel Planning FEIS (1-5). It would not alter the analysis of effects. The effects of off road use in the project area would continue until the Travel Plan is implemented which closes the project area (as well as the entire Forest) to off road use. This implementation is expected in the spring of 2012 and so these effects are short term and minimal due to the steep terrain and dense vegetative cover throughout the majority of the project area. Within, the project area and in areas adjacent to the project area, road and trail access will be managed per the 2005 Travel Guide until the Travel Plan decision is implemented with the exception of road and trail decisions made in this Orogrande OHV project decision. Even after the Travel Planning Decision is implemented, there is the potential that educational and law enforcement efforts may not be one-hundred percent successful resulting in some off road use and use of closed roads and trails within the project area. However, while this use cannot be precisely predicted or quantified, expected occurrences of this illegal off road, trail or road use are anticipated to be low with non- measurable effects due primarily to the steep and densely vegetated terrain as well as - 21 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment the compliance by most road and trail users to the route closures. The Lower Orogrande Project EIS (2012) vegetation management and road obliteration activities could have short term effects to recreation because of log haul traffic on Road 250. Proposed road decommissioning could reduce the number of potential OHV routes; however, most of these roads are brushed in or have restrictions to motorized traffic. Overall, there would be no cumulative effects to any resource as there would be no ground disturbing effects from the Travel Planning EIS; road maintenance activities would have no impacts to fisheries habitat or water quality; Road obliteration would have very limited effects to recreation. Planned timber harvest could open up various areas for future berry pickers and sight seers in the future. B. Water Quality/Fisheries 1. Affected Environment Existing Water Quality The area assessed for water quality and fisheries habitat is various non-fish bearing streams within several drainages including French Creek, Sylvan Creek, Hem Creek, Tamarack Creek and Pine Creek within the Orogrande Creek drainage and Larch Creek and Cabin Creek within the Weitas Creek drainage. This area was chosen because any sediment delivery would only be measurable in this area. OHV routes have the potential to increase erosion and subsequent sediment to streams, dependent upon location of the trails. Increases in sedimentation may affect spawning and rearing habitat for westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout within the Orogrande Creek drainage via changes to substrate and quality and quantity of pool habitats. The methodology used is site observation and utilization of the existing analysis found in the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Trail Maintenance Program (TMBA) that was included as part of the North Fork Clearwater River Watershed BA.1 Beneficial uses identified in the State of Idaho Water Quality Standards for the Project area watersheds include cold-water aquatic life, salmonid spawning, and secondary contact recreation2 (IDEQ 2005). Most of the streams in the project area, with the exception of French Creek and the tributaries to Weitas (Larch, Burnt, and Cabin), are listed as not fully supporting the beneficial uses of cold water aquatic life and salmonid spawning. Water temperature was determined to be the limiting pollutant. No streams in the project area are currently listed as limited by any other pollutant including sediment. Although no streams in the project area watersheds are listed for sediment, IDEQ3 does

1 U.S.D.A. Forest Service – Clearwater National Forest. 2000. Section 7 watershed biological assessment, North Fork Clearwater River drainage, Clearwater River subbasin. Determination of effects of ongoing and proposed activities based on the matrix of pathways and indicators of watershed condition for bull trout. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho. 2 IDEQ 2010a. 2008 Integrated Report. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise, Idaho. 3 IDEQ 2003.Upper North Fork Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads Idaho. Department of Environmental Quality, Lewiston, Idaho. - 22 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment note that Lower Orogrande Creek and its tributary watersheds have been subjected to extensive road building and timber harvesting and some mining activities. According to the Upper North Fork Subbasin Assessment4 and based on the CNF GIS roads layer, this watershed has a historic road density of about 6 road miles per square mile with approximately 36 percent of the roads within 100 feet of a perennial stream. Twenty- six percent of the roads are on high-risk landtypes. IDEQ5 further states that the majority of sediment being delivered from roads is the result of inadequate and/or inappropriate culvert locations and road drainage, and most of the mass failures in the watershed are associated with roads. Existing Fish/Aquatic Species The Orogrande Creek and Weitas Creek drainages provide habitat to four salmonids, bull trout (listed threatened species), westslope cutthroat trout, (sensitive fish species), rainbow trout and brook trout. Specific descriptions of fish populations and habitat conditions for the North Fork Clearwater River drainage, including Orogrande Creek and Weitas Creek within the project area, are documented in the Section 7 Watershed Biological Assessment for the North Fork Clearwater River Drainage.6 In most surveys, bull trout have not been observed upstream of Orogrande Falls; the falls are located within one mile of the North Fork Clearwater River. Two adult bull trout have been recently observed at the confluence of French Creek and Orogrande Creek; some spawning and rearing may be occurring within the Orogrande Creek drainage, but numbers are most likely minimal; high summer water temperatures in the mainstem of Orogrande Creek most likely limit their presence. Bull trout have been observed throughout the Weitas Creek drainage. Although bull trout may migrate into Larch Creek and Cabin Creek drainages with the project area, bull trout have not been observed during surveys and the small stream size and high gradient may limit bull trout presence. The status of the populations of westslope cutthroat trout in the Orogrande Creek drainage vary between tributaries with French Creek showing a very healthy population to the mainstem Orogrande Creek having low densities. Westslope cutthroat trout populations within the Weitas Creek drainage are considered very healthy. Rainbow trout is the dominant salmonid in the mainstem Orogrande Creek; rainbow trout are from previously fish stockings. A few brook trout have been observed in the mainstem Orogrande Creek over the past 15 years, but these observations have been limited. Most of the brook trout are located in a few tributaries and upper Orogrande Creek, upstream of National Forest lands. Existing Habitat Conditions Habitat conditions for aquatic species range from very good in the roadless areas in Weitas Creek and upper Hem Creek within the Orogrande Creek drainage to fair to poor

4 Ibid 5 Ibid 6 U.S.D.A. Forest Service – Clearwater National Forest. 2000. Section 7 watershed biological assessment, North Fork Clearwater River drainage, Clearwater River subbasin. Determination of effects of ongoing and proposed activities based on the matrix of pathways and indicators of watershed condition for bull trout. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho. - 23 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment in some of the heavily roaded drainages (i.e. Pine Creek) within the project area streams. The primary limiting factors within the streams affected by past management actions are below average spawning and rearing conditions due to poor substrate conditions and altered riparian conditions. Past road construction activities and the road networks have caused excessive sedimentation thereby degrading spawning habitat and rearing habitat (lower pool quality and quantity). Riparian alterations via road locations, timber harvest and in some areas mining have contributed to the lower habitat conditions by reducing large woody debris and increasing riparian shade (increased summer water temperatures). Over the past decade, watershed and instream restoration activities have been implemented to improve the adverse effects of previous land management actions in the Orogrande Creek drainage. These activities include road/trail crossing upgrades, road/trail decommissioning, stream channel reconstruction, large woody debris placement, riparian planting, INFISH riparian buffers and the adherence of the INFISH standards and guidelines. The recovery trend for the aquatic resources is expected to be a slow process which will occur over many decades, especially considering improvements to substrate conditions and summer water temperatures. Currently the OHV use of the existing road and trail networks within the Orogrande OHV project area has negligible effects to water quality and the aquatic resources. The locations of the trails outside of the riparian areas make it very unlikely that the trails would have any impact (i.e. sedimentation) to fish bearing streams. Annual road maintenance substantially reduces the probability of road related impacts due to OHV use. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects of the no action alternative would be the continuation of the existing condition. Alternative 2: Proposed Action - Direct and Indirect Effects Overall this project would have minimal effects to the water quality and aquatic resources because (1) the majority of the proposed trail system is located on existing roads which undergo annual reviews and appropriate maintenance, if needed, (2) most of the proposed 1.7 miles of new trail construction (five segments) are located on or adjacent to ridge tops away from any streams, and (3) the reconstruction of 1.2 miles and 2.9 miles of existing Trails 17 and 88 respectively are also located on ridges away from streams. Alternative 3. Direct and Indirect Effects Overall this project would have minimal effects to the water quality and aquatic resources because (1) the majority of the proposed trail system is located on existing roads which undergo annual reviews and appropriate maintenance, if needed, (2) most of the proposed .9 miles of new trail construction (three segments) are located on or adjacent to ridge tops away from any streams, and (3) the reconstruction of 2.9 miles of

- 24 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment existing Trail 88 is located on a ridge away from streams. Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 Short term adverse effects (sedimentation or temperature) are not expected to occur to any streams during new trail construction and reconstruction because soil disturbance and shade removal is expected to be localized and predominately on ridges with no impact to streams. The effects associated with OHV use on the existing roads, trails and new trails are expected to be negligible to the water quality and aquatic resources. Design criteria have been included in this project and the effects are not expected to be any different than those identified in the Trail Maintenance Programmatic Biological Assessment that was included as part of the North Fork Clearwater River Watershed BA.7 Changes in route use-designation are also expected to have little effect on stream sediment and temperature. The type of designated use on an existing route is expected to have little to no effect on stream temperatures or sedimentation since riparian soils and vegetation would not be substantially affected. A Biological Assessment was completed for the Orogrande OHV Trail project that documents the project would have “no effect” on bull trout. The biological evaluation notes that the project would have “no impact” on sensitive fish species in the project area (westslope cutthroat trout). Cumulative Effects The geographic area assessed for cumulative effects was the Orogrande drainage. In the past, there has been extensive road building, timber harvest and mining activity in the area. As stated above, over the past decade, watershed and instream restoration activities involving road decommissioning, improved road maintenance, INFISH riparian buffers and the adherence of the INFISH standards and guidelines has improved water quality and fisheries habitat. Other than ongoing road maintenance and decommissioning activities, the proposed Lower Orogrande EIS is the only other action expected to occur. It would be designed to avoid actions that would affect stream temperature and sedimentation and have negligible impacts to riparian conditions and long-term improvements to instream conditions. There were no cumulative impacts identified which could be assessed either by measuring or by modeling as soil disturbance activities under this project (new trail construction and reconstruction) are so small in scope and intensity, or are located on ridges away from streams and because the duration of the project and its effects are so short. Since there are no direct or indirect effects to stream temperature or sedimentation, there would be no cumulative impacts when other actions are considered.

7 U.S.D.A. Forest Service – Clearwater National Forest. 2000. Section 7 watershed biological assessment, North Fork Clearwater River drainage, Clearwater River subbasin. Determination of effects of ongoing and proposed activities based on the matrix of pathways and indicators of watershed condition for bull trout. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho. - 25 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

C. Soils 1. Affected Environment The analysis area for soils is limited to that portion of the project area that contains the proposed new trail construction, trail reconstruction and road access changes. As defined in the National Soil Handbook (FSH 2509.18) soil quality standards are intended for areas where management prescriptions are being applied, such as timber harvest areas and range allotments. They are not intended to apply to administrative sites or other areas with dedicated uses such as the permanent transportation system, well pads or ski areas, for example. In general, roads and trails are a “dedicated use” for lands that comprise the road prism. In this context, impacts to soil productivity resulting directly from the presence of roads and trails are not evaluated for compliance with Region 1 soil quality standards, because the affected land is managed for transportation uses and is not managed for vegetation production. During storm and flood events in 1995 and 1996, over 860 landslides occurred across the CNF. A survey was conducted to review these landslides and to assess the inherent risk of landslides on the CNF (McClelland et al. 1997). The overall rating for landslide hazard potential for the reconstructed and new trail construction is moderate, primarily due to the Border Zone geologic parent material. Slopes, landforms, and elevations for these trail segments are low or moderate for landslide hazard potential. Landtypes, ecological land units based on similarities in soils, landforms, geologic substrate, geomorphic processes, and plant associations (Cleland et al. 1997) have been mapped for the entire CNF (Wilson et al. 1983). A LTHAZ (landtype hazard) assessment was used to summarize erosion hazard potential for the reconstructed and new trail construction based on landtype properties. The reconstructed and new trail construction are located on landtypes with a low to moderate surface and subsurface erosion potential and a low to high mass wasting potential. However, no landslides have occurred on those landtypes within the project area that have a high mass wasting potential and where trail construction or reconstruction is proposed. Past landslides in the area occurred on breaklands. New trail construction and reconstruction would occur on rolling hills and colluvial midslopes. They are located on gentle slopes, away from streams. Some trail locations are on old existing road beds. Existing roads where travel restriction changes are proposed are aggregate and native surface. Some can be readily traveled by full sized vehicles while others have grown in with brush. All roads are stable with functioning culverts and ditches. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action -Direct and Indirect Effects Except for the 1.7 miles of new trail construction, all proposed routes currently exist as system routes. The FS roads in this proposal are closed to public access, but open to administrative use. Continued use of these routes would not change the current

- 26 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment condition of the soil resources. Currently, these existing roads and trails are stable and do not contribute sediment to streams. Continued uncontrolled OHV use on user created trails, especially in wet conditions, could potentially damage riparian areas and contribute sediment to streams. Alternative 2: Proposed Action -Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects of OHV activity on soils are physical disturbance of the roads and trails. The majority of slopes in the project area are gentle and are not prone to mass wasting. Since no landslides have occurred on those landtypes that do have a high mass wasting potential where trail construction or reconstruction is proposed and these same sites are on rolling hills and colluvial slopes, the risk of mass movement of soils is slight. Opening 12.6 miles of existing roads to small motorized traffic would pose no threat to soil resources as they are stable with culverts and/or water bars. Trail construction and reconstruction would follow Best Management Practices and accepted trail standards as listed in the Forest Service Trails Handbook. The new trail segments would be designed and constructed to “lay lightly” on the land, following contours and conforming to standards for slope grades for motorized trail. By keeping trail grade slopes in accepted ranges (generally from 5 to 15 percent), routing the trail through appropriate soils, designing and constructing drainage structures where needed, and armoring drainage crossings, on-site and off-site erosion would be minimized and inconsequential. Given that trails would be well designed and located, there are no perennial waters directly or indirectly affected by this proposal. Off-site erosion would be minimal. Alternative 3: Direct and Indirect Effects The only difference between action alternatives is the miles of existing roads opened to motorized traffic. Alternative 3 would open 9.02 miles. Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for soils is that portion of the project area that contains the proposed new trail construction, trail reconstruction and road and trail access changes. Past activities consist of road building, logging, dispersed camping, berry picking, hunting and firewood gathering. There are no other future planned activities on these routes. Any cumulative effects of this activity with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the project area are not expected to be detectible. Under either alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects to surface erosion; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. Impacts to soil productivity are not considered under cumulative effects because these areas are managed for transportation and not vegetation production. D. Wildlife This section addresses those issues and resources specifically identified during scoping or where an analysis is required by law, regulation, or agency direction. Those issues and resources consist of the potential effects of the proposed project on:

- 27 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Management Indicator Species, including population viability, with emphasis on effects of motorized use on big game. Comparison of elk habitat effectiveness with Forest Plan standards. Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species, including population viability. Sensitive Species, including population viability. 1. Management Indicator Species (MIS) The analysis area for all MIS except elk is the eight old growth analysis units (OGAUs) that each contains some portion of the proposed trail system. The analysis area covers 77,167 acres. OGAUs were used for the analysis area because they encompass, at a minimum, the home range of one breeding pair of each species. For example, the typical goshawk territory contains 4,000 to 5,800 acres (Reynolds et al. 1992), but can range from 1,200 to 9,900 acres (Kennedy 2003). The analysis area used for elk was the 14 Elk Analysis Units (EAUs) within or adjacent to the project area, which cover 63,257 acres. EAUs were used as the basis for the analysis for elk because Forest direction is to conduct project-specific analysis for elk at the EAU scale. Each species was evaluated for its potential to be affected by the proposed project. Only those species that are suitable MIS for the proposed project are considered further in this analysis. The detailed rationale for these decisions is provided in the Wildlife Report in the project file. a. Elk 1. Affected Environment Elk cover is abundant, with many dense, widely distributed, mid- and late seral stands. Foraging habitat is limited but available in meadows and other natural openings, as well as in recent regeneration harvest units. About nine percent of the analysis area is early seral vegetation. In heavily roaded EAUs, habitat effectiveness is low to moderate and security areas are limited, while habitat effectiveness is high and security areas are broadly available in less roaded EAUs. Elk habitat effectiveness and security areas are shown in Tables 5 and 6 below. Forest Plan standards for elk habitat are currently being met in the analysis area. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on elk or elk habitats because no actions would be taken. Alternatives 2 and 3: Direct and indirect Effects Alternative 2 would have negligible effects on elk and their habitats. Approximately two acres of habitat would be altered by new trail construction. This habitat would remain available to elk, but would not provide the level of forage or cover that previously existed. In the context of the 63,257 acres of the analysis area, the alteration of two acres of habitat would not have any measurable effects on individual elk or the elk population.

- 28 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Individual elk may be disturbed by trail construction, reconstruction, and clearing of overgrown roads that are being opened to small vehicle traffic. This disturbance would last only a short time during project construction. Disturbed animals would be able to move away from ongoing activities and could use nearby undisturbed habitats. Individual elk may also be disturbed by use of the trail system by OHVs; however, this disturbance is not expected to affect their survival or reproduction. These animals would move away from the trails and would not be injured or killed. The introduction of new trails into areas without trails and the increase in use on existing trails has the potential to alter elk habitat effectiveness; however, the amount of change is too small to be detectable by the model. Elk habitat effectiveness would not be measurably altered for any of the 14 EAUs in the analysis area (Table 5). The introduction of new trails into areas without trails, and the increase in use on existing trails, would reduce the extent of security habitats in two of the 14 EAUs in the analysis area (Table 6). The introduction of motorized traffic on Road 5240 in Alternative 2 along with the construction of a new trail in the location of old Trail 1020 in Alternatives 2 and 3, which are both currently closed to motorized use, would reduce the extent of security areas in the Bighorn-Cabin and Larch-Pine EAUs. The loss of security habitat in these EAUs may reduce the value of these areas to elk; however, this effect is not expected to measurably change elk population levels in these EAUs or across the analysis area. None of the alternatives would affect elk habitat effectiveness. Forest Plan standards for elk habitat effectiveness would continue to be met under both action alternatives. Cumulative Effects The analysis area is located mainly on the eastern edge of Game Management Unit (GMU) 10A and includes a small part of the western edge of GMU 10. Based on location, habitat, and anecdotal observations, the elk population in the analysis area better matches the description of GMU 10, rather than 10A. In GMU 10, the elk population is well below objectives, which has been attributed to reduced habitat quality, predation, loss of winter range habitats, and increased vulnerability caused by extensive road networks and overly liberal hunting in the past (Compton 2008a). Past activities contributed to current habitat conditions. Specifically, timber harvest increased the availability of early seral habitats, which provided foraging opportunities, but roads constructed for timber harvest reduced habitat effectiveness and security. Unharvested stands continued to mature, reducing available forage, but increasing cover. More recent road obliteration and storage increased security areas, decreased vulnerability to hunting, and increased habitat effectiveness. Other than the current levels of habitat effectiveness and current availability of security areas, the extent of these effects has not been quantified. Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on elk because there would be no direct or indirect effects to this species from this alternative. The current population trend would not be affected.

- 29 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have negligible cumulative effects on individual elk or elk habitat. The proposed trail system would alter several acres of habitat, while the upcoming Lower Orogrande project may increase foraging opportunities by several hundred acres in part of the analysis area. In the context of the 63,257-acre analysis area, the alteration of approximately one to two acres and increased forage on several hundred acres of habitat would not have any measurable cumulative effects on individual elk or the elk population. The proposed trail system would slightly increase the number of routes open to motorized use, which would slightly decrease elk security, as shown in Table 5. The proposed Lower Orogrande EIS project is expected to reduce the miles of roads open to motorized vehicles, although the extent and location of these changes has not yet been determined. The combination of these two projects should lead to lower density of roads and trails open to motorized use, increased elk habitat effectiveness, and increased elk security, although this conclusion is based on the currently uncertain status of the Lower Orogrande project. Assuming this conclusion is correct; elk habitat conditions and the elk population in the analysis area would at least be maintained and may be improved.

Table 5 Elk Habitat Effectiveness Elk Habitat Effectiveness (%) Current Proposed Change Cumulative Effect EAU and Alternative 1 Alternative 2 and 3 Alternative 2 and 3 Standard Bighorn-Cabin 86 0 86 75 Cache 48 0 48 25 Fir 49 0 49 25 French 39 0 39 25 French Saddle 36 0 36 25 Hem 74 0 74 25 Hemlock 84 0 84 75 Hook 35 0 35 25 Larch 76 0 76 75 Larch-Pine 47 0 48 25 Sylvan 38 0 38 25 Tamarack 25 48 0 48 Ridge Upper Lolo 57 0 57 25 Zoe 87 0 87 75

- 30 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Table 6 Elk Security Areas Elk Security (%) Current Proposed Change Cumulative Effect EAU and Alternative 1 Alternative 2 and 3 Alternative 2 and 3 Bighorn-Cabin 62 -2 60 Cache 1 0 0 Fir 1 0 0 French 0 0 0 French Saddle 0 0 0 Hem 45 0 0 Hemlock 48 0 0 Hook 6 0 0 Larch 41 0 0 Larch-Pine 11 -5 6 Sylvan 1 0 0 Tamarack Ridge 16 0 0 Upper Lolo 27 0 0 Zoe 59 0 0

b. Moose and White tailed deer 1. Affected Environment Some patches of moderate to high quality moose habitat are found along drainages that have a substantial yew component. White tailed deer cover is abundant, with many dense, widely distributed, mid- and late-seral stands. Foraging habitat is provided by early-seral patches. Habitat effectiveness for both species is likely moderate because of the high open road density and lack of security areas. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action -Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on the moose or white tailed deer or their habitats because no actions would be taken. Alternative 2 and 3: -Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 would have negligible effects on moose and white tailed deer and their habitats. Approximately one to two acres of habitat would be altered by new trail construction. This habitat would remain available to moose and deer, but would not provide the level of forage or cover that previously existed. In the context of the 77,167 acres of the analysis area, the alteration of two acres of habitat would not have any measurable effects on individual moose or deer or their populations. Individual moose and deer may be disturbed by trail construction, reconstruction, and clearing of overgrown roads that are being opened to small vehicle traffic. This disturbance would last only a short time during project construction. Disturbed animals

- 31 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment would be able to move away from ongoing activities and could use nearby undisturbed habitats. Individual moose and deer may also be disturbed by use of the trail system by OHVs; however, this disturbance is not expected to affect their survival or reproduction. These animals would move away from the trails and would not be injured or killed. The introduction of new trails into areas without trails, and the increase in use on existing trails, may reduce habitat effectiveness and security habitat for moose and deer. As shown in Table 6, elk security would be slightly reduced; similar effects may occur for moose and deer, although the effects of motorized traffic on moose or deer habitat effectiveness have not been studied to the same extent as elk. Regardless of the actual effect to moose and deer, the slight predicted changes are not expected to measurably change population levels in the analysis area. Cumulative Effects The moose analysis area is located mainly on the eastern edge of GMU 10A and includes a small part of the western edge of GMU 10. No population data for moose have been collected on a regular basis in the region. Some populations appear to be increasing and seem to respond favorably to extensive habitat alteration by silvicultural practices. However, other populations may be displaced or eliminated because they cannot adapt to habitat changes, particularly where yew thickets are eliminated through logging and where increased road densities make moose more vulnerable to harvest (Toweill 2008). Recent tag and harvest numbers and success rates suggest the population in the analysis area is stable or increasing. The white tailed deer analysis area is located on the boundary between Data Analysis Unit (DAU) 2 and 3. The setting of the analysis area is more consistent with that of DAU 2, being more forested and lacking agricultural areas. No population data have been collected on a regular basis in the region. Recent harvest numbers and success rates indicate the population in DAU 2 is relatively large and stable (Compton 2008b). For both species, past timber harvest increased the availability of early seral habitats, which provided foraging opportunities, but roads constructed for timber harvest reduced habitat effectiveness and security. Unharvested stands continued to mature, reducing available forage, but increasing cover. More recent road obliteration and storage increased security areas, decreased vulnerability to hunting, and increased habitat effectiveness. The extent of these effects has not been quantified. Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on moose or deer because there would be no direct or indirect effects to these species from this alternative. The current population trend would not be affected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have negligible cumulative effects on individual moose or moose habitat. The proposed trail system would alter several acres of habitat, while the upcoming Lower Orogrande project may increase foraging opportunities by several hundred acres in part of the analysis area. In the context of the 77,167-acre analysis area, the alteration of approximately one to two acres and increased forage on several hundred acres of habitat would not have any measurable cumulative effects on

- 32 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment individual moose or the moose population. The proposed trail system would slightly increase the number of routes open to motorized use, which would slightly decrease elk security, as shown in Table 6. Similar effects could be projected for moose. The proposed Lower Orogrande project is expected to reduce the miles of roads open to motorized vehicles, although the extent and location of these changes has not yet been determined. The combination of these two projects should lead to lower density of roads and trails open to motorized use, increased moose habitat effectiveness, and increased moose security, although this conclusion is based on the currently uncertain status of the Lower Orogrande project. Assuming this conclusion is correct; moose habitat conditions and the moose population in the analysis area would at least be maintained and may be improved. c. Northern Goshawk 1. Affected Environment Mature forest habitats that provide nesting and foraging opportunities are relatively common and well distributed across the analysis area. Their abundance is unknown, but expected to be moderate because of the relatively large proportion of the analysis area that provides suitable habitat for nesting (27%) and foraging (45%). Goshawks were not observed during project reconnaissance, but these efforts did not target this species, nor are goshawks typically seen by the casual observer. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on the goshawk or its habitats because no actions would be taken. Alternatives 2 and 3: Direct and Indirect Effects Either action Alternative would have negligible effects on the goshawk and its habitats. Approximately seven to twelve miles of new trails, or trails with potentially increased use, are located in goshawk habitat (Table 7). Habitat along these trails would remain available to goshawks, but may be used less than under the current situation. However, there are no known goshawk nest sites along, or near, any of these trails. In the context of the 77,167 acres of the analysis area, the potential reduction in habitat use along these trails is not expected to have any measurable effect on individual goshawks or the goshawk population. Individual goshawks may be disturbed by trail construction, reconstruction, and clearing of overgrown roads that are being opened to small vehicle traffic. This disturbance would last only a short time during project construction. Disturbed individuals would be able to move away from ongoing activities and could use nearby undisturbed habitats. Individual goshawks may also be disturbed by use of the trail system by OHVs; however, this disturbance is not expected to affect their survival or reproduction. These animals would move away from the trails and would not be injured or killed. Cumulative Effects Past timber harvest increased the availability of early seral habitats, which provided

- 33 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment some foraging opportunities, but reduced the amount of late seral habitat available for nesting. Unharvested stands continued to mature, reducing some types of foraging habitat, but increasing nesting and post-fledging habitats, as well as some foraging opportunities. The extent of these effects has not been quantified, except as reflected in the availability of different habitats (Table 7). Current BBS data are insufficient to allow statistical analysis of population trends for the goshawk, either nationally or for the state of Idaho (Sauer et al. 2008); however, based on habitat requirements and trends (Samson 2006a), local populations are likely stable and may be increasing. Habitats on the CNF contribute to a viable population of goshawks at a regional scale (Samson 2006b) (Table 7). Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the goshawk because there would be no direct or indirect effects to this species from this alternative. The current population trend would not be affected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not affect the availability of nesting, post fledgling areas (PFA), or foraging habitats, but would slightly contribute to an ongoing reduction in quality of these habitats caused by past and future timber harvest and road and trail construction and use. The Lower Orogrande project is expected to reduce the miles of roads open to motorized vehicles, although the extent and location of these changes has not yet been determined. The combination of these two projects should lead to lower density of roads and trails open to motorized use, although this conclusion is based on the currently uncertain status of the Lower Orogrande project. No measurable effects to goshawk populations at the local or regional scale, or alteration of current population trend, are expected from the cumulative effects of this alternative, based on the widespread availability of suitable habitats in the analysis area and across the Forest and the minimal incremental effects of this alternative (Table 7). The Forest Plan standards and Forest direction for mature and old growth forest habitats has been met and exceeded in each OGAU and across the analysis area. These habitats would remain available to support the local and regional populations of goshawks under both alternatives. The Forest Plan standards for snag-dependent indicator species are also met in each OGAU and would not change under either alternative. d. Pileated Woodpecker 1. Affected Environment Mature forest habitats that provide nesting and foraging opportunities are relatively common and well distributed across the analysis area. Their abundance is unknown, but expected to be moderate because of the relatively large proportion of the analysis area that provides suitable habitat for nesting (27%) and foraging (58%). Signs of foraging activity can be observed and individual woodpeckers are commonly sighted in mature stands. 2.Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects

- 34 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on the pileated woodpecker or its habitats because no actions would be taken. Alternatives 2 and 3: Proposed Action - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 would have negligible effects on the pileated woodpecker and its habitats. Approximately six to eleven miles of new trails, or trails with potentially increased use, are located in pileated woodpecker habitat (Table 7). Habitat along these trails would remain available to the pileated woodpecker, but may be used less than under the current situation. However, there are no known pileated woodpecker nest sites along, or near, any of these trails. In the context of the 77,167 acres of the analysis area, the potential reduction in habitat use along these trails is not expected to have any measurable effect on individual woodpeckers or the woodpecker population. Individual pileated woodpeckers may be disturbed by trail construction, reconstruction, and clearing of overgrown roads that are being opened to small vehicle traffic. This disturbance would last only a short time during project construction. Disturbed individuals would be able to move away from ongoing activities and could use nearby undisturbed habitats. Individual pileated woodpeckers may also be disturbed by use of the trail system by OHVs; however, this disturbance is not expected to affect their survival or reproduction. These animals would move away from the trails and would not be injured or killed. Cumulative Effects Past timber harvest reduced the amount of late seral habitats that provide the highest quality foraging and nesting sites for this species. Unharvested stands continued to mature, increasing both foraging and nesting habitats. The extent of these effects has not been quantified, except as reflected in the availability of different habitats (Table 7). Current BBS data show that populations of the pileated woodpecker are increasing nationally (Sauer et al. 2008). Idaho state data for this species are insufficient to allow statistical analysis of population trends (Sauer et al. 2008); however, based on habitat requirements and trends (Samson 2006a), local populations are likely stable or increasing. Habitats on the CNF contribute to a viable population of pileated woodpeckers at a regional scale (Samson 2006b) (Table 7). Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the pileated woodpecker because there would be no direct or indirect effects to this species from this alternative. The current population trend would not be affected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not affect the availability of nesting and foraging habitats, but would slightly contribute to an ongoing reduction in quality of these habitats caused by past and future timber harvest and road and trail construction and use. The Lower Orogrande project is expected to reduce the miles of roads open to motorized vehicles, although the extent and location of these changes has not yet been determined. The combination of these two projects should lead to lower density of roads and trails open to motorized use, although this conclusion is based on the currently uncertain status of the Lower Orogrande project. No measurable effects to pileated woodpecker

- 35 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment populations at the local or regional scale, or alteration of current population trend, are expected from the cumulative effects of this alternative, based on the widespread availability of suitable habitats in the analysis area and across the Forest and the minimal incremental effects of this alternative (Table 7). The Forest Plan standards and Forest direction for mature and old growth forest habitats has been met and exceeded in each OGAU and across the analysis area. These habitats would remain available to support the local and regional populations of pileated woodpeckers under both alternatives. The Forest Plan standards for snag- dependent indicator species are also met in each OGAU and would not change under either alternative. e. Pine Marten 1. Affected Environment Suitable mature forest habitats are relatively common, though somewhat limited in the lower elevation, northern and eastern parts of the analysis area. Their abundance is unknown, but expected to be moderate because of the relatively large proportion of the analysis area that provides suitable habitat (41%). Marten were not observed during project reconnaissance, but these efforts did not target this species, nor are marten commonly sighted. 1. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on the pine marten or its habitats because no actions would be taken. Alternatives 2 and 3:-Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 would have negligible effects on the pine marten and its habitats. Approximately 1.5 to seven miles of new trails, or trails with potentially increased use, are located in marten habitat (Table 7). Habitat along these trails would remain available to the marten, but may be used less than under the current situation. In the context of the 77,167 acres of the analysis area, the potential reduction in habitat use along these trails is not expected to have any measurable effect on individual marten or the marten population. Individual marten may be disturbed by trail construction, reconstruction, and clearing of overgrown roads that are being opened to small vehicle traffic. This disturbance would last only a short time during project construction. Disturbed individuals would be able to move away from ongoing activities and could use nearby undisturbed habitats. Individual marten may also be disturbed by use of the trail system by OHVs; however, this disturbance is not expected to affect their survival or reproduction. These animals would move away from the trails and would not be injured or killed. Cumulative Effects Past timber harvest reduced the amount of mature and old growth forest habitat that provides the highest quality habitat for this species. Unharvested stands continued to mature, increasing preferred habitats. The extent of these effects has not been

- 36 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment quantified, except as reflected in the availability of different habitats (Table 7). No specific population data are available for the marten, though it is apparently secure (state rank S4) in Idaho (Digital Atlas of Idaho 2007). Samson (2006b) showed that habitat on the CNF is more than sufficient to contribute to a viable population of the marten at a regional scale (Table 7). Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the marten because there would be no direct or indirect effects to this species from this alternative. The current population trend would not be affected. Alternatives 2 and 3would not affect the availability of suitable habitats, but would slightly contribute to an ongoing reduction in quality of these habitats caused by past and future timber harvest and road and trail construction and use. The Lower Orogrande project is expected to reduce the miles of roads open to motorized vehicles, although the extent and location of these changes has not yet been determined. The combination of these two projects should lead to lower density of roads and trails open to motorized use, although this conclusion is based on the currently uncertain status of the Lower Orogrande project. No measurable effects to pine marten populations at the local or regional scale, or alteration of current population trend, are expected from the cumulative effects of this alternative, based on the widespread availability of suitable habitats in the analysis area and across the Forest and the minimal incremental effects of this alternative (Table 7). The Forest Plan standards and Forest direction for mature and old growth forest habitats has been met and exceeded in each OGAU and across the analysis area. These habitats would remain available to support the local and regional populations of pine marten under both alternatives. f. Belted Kingfisher 1. Affected Environment Habitats are available along some streams in the analysis area, including Orogrande Creek and its larger tributaries. Smaller streams do not provide suitable habitats. Their abundance is unknown, but expected to be present in suitable habitats. Total numbers in the analysis area are expected to be low because of the limited amount of suitable habitat. Kingfishers have been observed along Orogrande Creek. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on the belted kingfisher or its habitats because no actions would be taken. Alternatives 2 and 3: Direct and Indirect Effects Neither alternative would not have any measurable effect on the kingfisher or it is habitats. The proposed trail system would cross suitable habitat on French and Orogrande Creeks; however, the crossing locations are adjacent to Road 250, which has more traffic than is expected on the trail system. These minor changes to existing disturbance levels would not have any measurable effect on individual kingfishers or the

- 37 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment kingfisher population. Cumulative Effects Past road building along streams that support kingfishers (primarily Road 250 road along French and Orogrande Creeks) may have reduced the effectiveness of suitable habitats. Ongoing and future use of these roads would not degrade suitable habitats. Past road- building and other activities, such as timber harvest, may have reduced the quality of stream habitats used by kingfisher prey. Recent road decommissioning and storage have begun to reduce the effects of roads on riparian habitats. Ongoing and future road management activities would continue this trend, leading to long-term improvement in the quality of habitats. INFISH buffers would be implemented for all ongoing and future projects, preventing degradation of habitats. Current BBS data show that populations of the belted kingfisher are decreasing nationally (Sauer et al. 2008). Idaho state data for this species are insufficient to allow statistical analysis of population trends (Sauer et al. 2008); however, the trend here also appears to be downward. Nevertheless, this species is common enough that it is rated as secure (state rank S5) in Idaho (Digital Atlas of Idaho 2007). The kingfisher can also be regularly observed in suitable habitats in and near the analysis area, indicating a relatively robust local population. Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the kingfisher because there would be no direct or indirect effects to this species from this alternative. The current population trend would not be affected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not affect the availability of suitable habitats, but would slightly contribute to an ongoing reduction in quality of these habitats caused by past and future timber harvest and road and trail construction and use. The proposed Lower Orogrande project is expected to reduce the miles of roads open to motorized vehicles, although the extent and location of these changes has not yet been determined. The combination of these two projects should lead to lower density of roads and trails open to motorized use, although this conclusion is based on the currently uncertain status of the Lower Orogrande project. No measurable effects to kingfisher populations at the local or regional scale, or alteration of current population trend, are expected from the cumulative effects of this alternative, based on the minimal effect to existing habitats and the widespread availability of suitable habitats in the analysis area and across the Forest. No specific Forest Plan standards, guidelines, or other regulations apply to the belted kingfisher. Both alternatives would minimize effects to riparian habitats based on INFISH buffers, which would indirectly protect habitats for kingfishers and their prey.

- 38 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Table 7 Habitat Availability and Change for Selected MIS Habitat Change in Threshold Habitat Habitat for a Available Availability Minimum on the Habitat in Habitat on the Viable Clearwater the along Change in Clearwater Population National Analysis Proposed Habitat National in Region Forest Area System Availability Forest 1 (acres)a (acres)b (acres) (miles)c (acres) (percent) Total: 44,853 Total: 12.3 Total: 0 Total: 0 Northern Nesting: Nesting: 4.4 30,146 604,160 Nesting: 0 Nesting: 0 goshawk 20,829 Foraging: Foraging: 0 Foraging: 0 Foraging: 10.2 34,925 Total: 49,165 Total: 10.8 Total: 0 Total: 0 Pileated Nesting: Nesting: 4.4 90,439 337,044 Nesting: 0 Nesting: 0 woodpecker 20,829 Foraging: Foraging: 0 Foraging: 0 Foraging: 10.5 44,471 Total: Pine marten 17,297 809,253 Total: 6.6 Total: 0 Total: 0 31,344 a from Samson 2006b, in which these figures are given in km2. For comparison purposes, all figures have been converted to acres using the formula: 247.1 acres = 1 km2. b from Bush and Lundberg 2008. Note that in each case, the amount of habitat available on the Clearwater National Forest clearly exceeds the amount required to support a minimum viable population at a regional scale. c Only those roads and trails with changed use as part of the proposed action (Alternative 2) are listed here. 2. Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species The USFWS provided an updated species list for the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests on June 30, 2010 (File CONS-250c), which contained two listed species that may occur on the North Fork Ranger District, including the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). The species list contained one candidate species, the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). The yellow-billed cuckoo is not addressed further because of a lack of suitable habitat in or near the analysis area. No evidence exists that any other listed or proposed species may occur on the North Fork Ranger District. Terrestrial species and Canada lynx are discussed in this section. a.Canada Lynx 1. Affected Environment The analysis area was the project area combined with the full extent of the lynx analysis unit (LAU #38) that overlapped with the project area (50,819 acres). This analysis area was selected because the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USFS 2007a) only applies to mapped lynx habitats and because potential effects to lynx and their habitats are best addressed at the LAU scale. Lynx habitats in LAU #38 were compared with the proposed trail system to determine the extent of habitats that may be affected and what those potential effects may be.

- 39 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Based on habitat attributes, the CNF mapped lynx habitats and established Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) for the entire forest. Within the analysis area, 3,231 acres of LAU 38 overlap with the project area. Within this overlap are 1,736 acres of denning habitat, 1,221 acres of foraging habitat, and 274 acres of unsuitable habitat. A portion of the proposed trail system overlaps with lynx habitat, as shown in Table 8. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on lynx or its habitats because no actions would be taken. Alternatives 2 and 3: - Direct and Indirect Effects Actions associated with both alternatives would be limited in scope and duration relative to Canada lynx and their habitats and are not expected to have any measurable effect on individual lynx or the lynx population. As shown in Table 8, slightly less than five miles of the proposed trail system would be located in lynx habitat, and about one mile of that is within habitat that is currently unsuitable. Less than one mile of the proposed trail system in lynx habitat would involve a change from the current use. The proposed changes, to reconstruct single-track motorized trail to accommodate ATVs and allow ATV use on trails currently restricted to motorcycles, are not expected to have any measurable change in the availability of lynx habitats. The clearing width of reconstructed trails would increase slightly, accounting for about ¼ acre of altered habitat over less than one mile of reconstructed trail. This habitat would remain available to lynx. The alteration would not reach to level that the habitat could be reclassified as unsuitable, particularly at the scale of existing lynx habitat mapping, which does not even subtract areas of arterial roads open to full-size vehicles. Allowing ATV use on routes that are currently open only to motorcycles may increase total traffic on these routes, increasing the potential that a lynx on or near the trail could be disturbed by passing vehicles. Though relatively unstudied, some information suggests that lynx can tolerate moderate levels of human disturbance, except perhaps near denning sites (Joslin and Youmans 1999). There are no known lynx denning sites in LAU 38. This change would only occur along Trail 88, which is on the edge of LAU 38, reducing the chances that lynx would be found along the trail. Several studies have suggested that over-the-snow vehicle use and subsequent snow compaction along trails could increase access for competitors and predators of lynx (Joslin and Youmans 1999). There would be no change in the existing groomed snowmobile routes as part of this project. The reconstructed trail segments would not provide any additional access for over-the-snow vehicles in lynx habitat because they would remain narrow (relative to full-size roads) and would not be marked or groomed for winter use. Cumulative Effects Past timber harvest increased the availability of early seral habitats, which provided some foraging opportunities, but reduced the amount of mature forest habitat available

- 40 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment for denning. Unharvested stands continued to mature, reducing the amount of foraging habitat, but potentially increasing denning habitat. Roads constructed for timber harvest introduced human disturbance, including over-the-snow vehicle use, into remote, backcountry habitats. More recent road obliteration and storage have somewhat reduced human disturbance, although many of the closed roads had little use. The extent of these effects has not been quantified, except as reflected in the availability of different habitats, as described above. Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on the lynx because there would be no direct or indirect effects to this species from this alternative. The current population trend would not be affected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not affect the availability of denning or foraging habitats but would minimally contribute to an ongoing reduction in quality of these habitats caused by past and future timber harvest and road and trail construction and use. The proposed Lower Orogrande project is expected to reduce the miles of roads open to motorized vehicles, although the extent and location of these changes has not yet been determined. The combination of these two projects should lead to lower density of roads and trails open to motorized use, although this conclusion is based on the currently uncertain status of the Lower Orogrande project. The existing, groomed snowmobile system avoids lynx habitats in LAU 38. The proposed trail system would not change this situation. Almost all current snowmobile users follow groomed routes. Snowmobile use off the groomed system is rare because of the distance from winter trailheads and the difficulty of travel off groomed routes. No change in the extent of areas of compacted snow, or in the risk of competition with or predation of lynx is expected. No measurable effects to individual lynx or the lynx population at the local or regional scale, or alteration of current population trend, are expected from the cumulative effects of this alternative, based on the widespread availability of suitable habitats in the analysis area and across the Forest and the minimal incremental effects of this alternative. Both action alternatives would comply with applicable Forest Plan standards, ESA requirements, and the NRM Lynx Management Direction. Specifically, Alternatives 2 and 3 would not allow the expansion of snow-compacting activities (Objective HU 01, Guideline HU G11) and would maintain the effectiveness and connectivity of lynx habitats (Objective HU 02, Guideline HU G3). Within lynx habitat, the proposed trail system would use existing roads and trails, rather than developing new trails (Objective HU 03).

- 41 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Table 8 Lynx Habitats – Orogrande OHV System Length Habitat Type Route (miles) Alternatives 2 and 3 Denning Road 547 0.23 No change

Trail 88 0.37 Reconstruct to accommodate ATVs; Change travel restrictions from OYM to OYS Foraging Road 547 2.86 No change

Trail 88 0.21 Change travel restrictions from OYM to OYS

Trail 88 0.15 Reconstruct to accommodate ATVs; Change travel restrictions from OYM to OYS Unsuitable Road 547 1.04 No change

Trail 88 0.01 Reconstruct to accommodate ATVs; Change travel restrictions from OYM to OYS Total 4.86 No change – 4.13 miles Change travel restrictions from OYM to OYS – 0.21 miles Reconstruct to accommodate ATVs; Change travel restrictions from OYM to OYS – 0.52 miles

3. Sensitive Species The analysis area for sensitive species was the nine old growth analysis units (OGAUs) that each contains some portion of the proposed trail system. The analysis area covers 77,167 acres. OGAUs were used for the analysis area because they encompass, at a minimum, the theoretical home range of one breeding pair of each species, with the exception of the wolverine. For example, the average home range size for adult male fishers is approximately 10,000 acres (Ruggiero et al 1994). Wolverines may use a home range in excess of 100,000 acres (Ruggiero et al. 1994); however, the use of an analysis area of this size would dilute the potential effects of the proposed action on other species to the point that they would be meaningless. The Northern Region Sensitive Species List, which contains those species identified as sensitive by the Regional Forester, was last updated in February 2011. This section considers those sensitive species on the list that are known or suspected to occur on the CNF. Only those species that may occur in the analysis area and that may be affected by the proposed project are considered further in this analysis.

- 42 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Suitable habitats were described qualitatively based on current literature and reconnaissance of the analysis area. Population viability for some sensitive species (black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and fisher) has been addressed at the regional level by Samson (2006a, 2006b), who concluded that well-distributed habitats exist in Region 1 and that these habitats are present at levels well in excess of the amounts required to support minimum viable populations. For the other species addressed in this analysis, the best available and applicable population data were used to qualitatively address the issue of population viability. The affected environment for each sensitive species considered in this analysis, including the availability of suitable habitats and abundance of the species are described below. The primary references for information were the CNF web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/clearwater/terra_org/terra.htm) and the Idaho Conservation Data Center (ICDC) (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2009), as applicable. No specific Forest Plan standards, guidelines, or other regulations apply to most sensitive species. The Forest Plan contains a standard to provide habitat for snag- dependent indicator species in accordance with guidelines in Appendix H. This standard would be met under both alternatives and would indirectly provide habitats for some sensitive species. INFISH buffers would protect riparian habitats, indirectly providing protection of habitats for some sensitive species. a. Black Backed Woodpecker, Flammulated owl, Fisher and Fringed Myotis 1. Affected Environment Available habitats for these species are shown in Table 9. Black backed woodpeckers are abundant in recently burned landscapes or other areas of epidemic bark beetle infestation. Habitats are limited to small patches of recent insect mortality in the analysis area. Their abundance in the analysis area is unknown, but expected at endemic levels because of the lack of large habitat patches. Flammulated owls favor mature or old growth ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir with open understory. Available habitats are limited to scattered stands across the analysis area. Their abundance is unknown, but expected to be low to perhaps not present because of the scattered nature of habitat patches and the lack of documented observations. Fisher prefer diverse, moist, mature forests at low to moderate elevations, with high canopy cover, often along riparian areas and abundant large diameter woody debris. High quality habitats are common and well distributed across the analysis area. Fringed Myotis prefer open areas interspersed with mature forest habitats in a mosaic pattern with ample edges and abundant snags. Suitable habitats are scattered across the analysis area. Their abundance is unknown, but expected to be low because of the limited, scattered nature of habitats and the lack of documented sightings. Long-eared myotis lives in coniferous forests in mountain areas, roosts in small colonies

- 43 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment in caves, mines, cliff face crevices, rock outcrops, buildings, bridges, and under tree bark. The long-legged myotis lives in forested mountainous areas, sometimes desert lowlands. It roosts in tree hollows and under bark, in rock crevices, caves, mines, bridges, and buildings. As part of the Northern Region’s survey effort for bats over the last 6 years, these species are known to occur on the forest and are known to occur just south of the project area in the Grouse Creek drainage. It is assumed that these species may utilize habitats in the project area. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to these species because no activities would occur. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects For all species, there would be no loss of habitat, but a slight reduction in effectiveness where routes pass through suitable habitat. There would be a slight chance for increased disturbance of individuals during construction and along trails with increased traffic. Table 9 below displays available habitats for these species. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on these species because there would be no direct or indirect effects. The current population trend would be unaffected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a potential long-term reduction in routes open to motorized use in the analysis area. There would be no measurable effect to the local or regional populations.

- 44 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Table 9 Habitat Availability and Change for Selected Sensitive Species

Habitat Threshold for a Habitat Change in Habitat along Proposed Minimum Available on Habitat in c Habitat Viable the the System (miles) Change in Availability on Population Clearwater Analysis Habitat the Clearwater in Region 1 National Area Alt 2 Alt 3 Availability National Forest (acres)a Forest (acres)b (acres) (acres) (percent) Black-backed 29,405 454,753 2,227 Approximately 0.5 miles 0 0 woodpecker Flammulated 4,695 15,900 1,713 Approximately 0.75 mile 0 0 owl Summer: Summer: 365,710 325 Summer:0 Summer: 0 Summer: 0 Fisher 100,076 Winter: Winter: Winter: approx 3 miles Winter: 0 Winter: 0 686,899 9,482 Fringed Myotis Long eared n/a n/a 3,971 Approximately 0.5 miles 0 0 Myotis Long legged Myotis Western Approximately 1.75 n/a 667,972 30,808 0 0 toad miles Ringneck n/a n/a 956 Approximately 1/5 mile 0 0 snake a from Samson 2006b, in which these figures are given in km2. For comparison purposes, all figures have been converted to acres using the formula: 247.1 acres = 1 km2. b from Bush and Lundberg 2008. Note that in each case, the amount of habitat available on the Clearwater National Forest clearly exceeds the amount required to support a minimum viable population at a regional scale. C Only those roads and trails with changed use as part of the proposed actions are listed here.

b. Harlequin Duck 1. Affected Environment Harlequin duck favor forested mountain streams with gradient less than 3%, shrub cover greater than 50% and minimal human disturbance. Lower Orogrande Creek provides habitat, although human disturbance along Road 250 likely limit breeding attempts. Their abundance in the analysis area is unknown, but expected to be low or perhaps not present because of the high amount of traffic along Road 250 during the breeding season. There has been one documented observation on Orogrande Creek. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to these species because no activities would occur. - 45 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects Trails would cross suitable habitat on Orogrande Creek; however, the crossing location is adjacent to Road 250, which has more traffic than is expected on the trail system. There would be no measurable effect to individuals, if they are present. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on these plant species because there would be no direct or indirect effects. The current population trend would remain unaffected. Alternatives 2 and 3 could have a potential long-term reduction in routes open to motorized use in the analysis area. There would be no measurable effect to the local or regional populations. d. Wolverine 1. Affected Environment Remote, undisturbed habitats are relatively uncommon in this part of the Forest. Nevertheless, wolverines may use portions of the analysis area, though it does not likely provide core habitat for the local population. Abundance is unknown, but expected to be very low based on the lack of remote habitats, balanced against several documented observations near the analysis area. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to these species because no activities would occur. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no loss of habitat, no measurable reduction in habitat effectiveness, and no measurable chance for increased disturbance during construction and along trails with increased traffic because of the rare chance for interaction between individual wolverines and trail users. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects because there would be no direct or indirect effects. The current population trend would be unaffected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have potential long-term reduction in routes open to motorized use in the analysis area. There would be no measurable effect to the local or regional population. e. Coeur d’Alene Salamander, 1. Affected Environment Patches of suitable habitat are located along Orogrande Creek and some of its tributaries, although habitats are not as abundant here as along the North Fork of the Clearwater River. There are several documented observations along Orogrande Creek in and below the analysis area. Salamanders are expected to be found in suitable habitat patches, which are somewhat limited.

- 46 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

2.Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to these species because no activities would occur. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects Trail crossing of Orogrande Creek would use an existing bridge and avoid suitable habitat. All other project activities would avoid suitable habitat. There are no expected interactions between salamanders and trail construction and use. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects because there would be no direct or indirect effects. Current population trend would be unaffected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no expected cumulative effects because no direct or indirect effects are expected. There would be no effect to the local or regional population. f. Western Toad 1. Affected Environment Western toads are found in a diversity of aquatic and moist terrestrial habitats. They prefer ponds, pools, and slow-moving streams. Suitable habitats are common across the analysis area. Documented nearby, they are expected to be relatively common in suitable habitats in and near the analysis area. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species because no activities would occur. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects Trails would generally avoid suitable habitat (riparian and wetland areas). There would be a slight chance for adverse interactions between toads and trail construction and use, primarily injury or mortality of toads in uplands settings. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects because there would be no direct or indirect effects. Current population trend would be unaffected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have potential long-term reduction in routes open to motorized use in the analysis area, which would reduce the risk of injury or mortality in upland settings. There would be no measurable effect to the local or regional population. g. Ringneck Snake 1. Affected Environment The snake prefers forest and shrub habitats; open hillsides with rocks or other debris. Small patches of suitable habitat are scattered across the analysis area. Their abundance is unknown but expected to be low because of the limited, scattered nature

- 47 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment of habitats and the lack of documented observations. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to these species because no activities would occur. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no loss of habitat or habitat effectiveness. There would be a slight chance for injury or mortality of individuals during trail construction and use. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects because there would be no direct or indirect effects. Current population trend would be unaffected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have potential long-term reduction in routes open to motorized use in the analysis area, which would reduce the risk of injury or mortality. There would be no measurable effect to the local or regional population. h. Gray Wolf 1. Affected Environment The western two-thirds of the analysis area lies within the documented territory of the Hemlock Ridge pack, while the eastern edge lies within the range of the Kelly Creek pack. Suitable habitats are present and widespread. There is no known denning or rendezvous sites along the proposed trail system. Abundance is unknown, but expected to be common, based on the widespread availability of suitable habitats and prey. Observations of wolves are common. 2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action - Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species because no activities would occur. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no loss of habitat, but a slight reduction in effectiveness where routes pass through suitable habitat. There is a slight chance for increased disturbance of individuals during construction and along trails with increased traffic. There would be no change in prey availability at the analysis area scale. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects because there would be no direct or indirect effects. The current population trend would remain unaffected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have potential long-term reduction in routes open to motorized use in the analysis area; in part due to the proposed Lower Orogrande project. There would be no measurable effect to the local or regional population. i. Sensitive Plant Species There are no know occurrences of any sensitive plant species that would be affected by the proposed project; however, habitat for the following species may occur in the - 48 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment analysis and several of these species have been documented in or near the analysis area in the past. For more information, please see the BE/BA and the Wildlife Report in the project file. 1. Affected Environment The following sensitive plant species were considered in this analysis because suitable habitat may exist or there are documented occurrences in or near the analysis area. Table 10 Sensitive Plant Species Habitat Species Habitat Deer fern Mid-elevations (3,000 to 4,500 feet) in moist mineral soils of shaded, mature cedar and western hemlock, often near, but not in, riparian areas. Crenulate Drier microsites of damp meadows, boggy areas, and marshy places, moonwort sometimes on old road surfaces, in Idaho often in mature cedar forest. Lance- Wide variety of habitats, wet to moist grassy and rocky slopes, meadows, leaved woods, roadsides, and edges of lakes generally at fairly high elevation. moonwort Mingan A variety of dense forests, open balds, moist meadows, prairies, moonwort riverbanks, alpine areas, sandy sites, lodgepole stands, moist forests, and a brush field. In Idaho typically in or adjacent to old growth cedar forest. Mountain Most often on wet ground in cedar forests, elsewhere in wet to mesic moonwort Engelmann spruce and grand fir. Least Moist meadows or cedar forest, often disturbed. moonwort Green-bug- Soil, humus, or very rotten logs in shady, moist forests. Elevation from on-a-stick low to subalpine. Climate is generally maritime. Clustered Moist, well-shaded western red cedar forests in both riparian and upland lady's habitats, also grand fir and Douglas-fir. slipper Light moss Moist or wet shaded areas, on rock, soil, humus, bark, conifer needles, and decaying wood. Wet sites in humid coniferous forest, occasionally submerged and sometimes along water courses Naked On soil, humus, or rotten logs, often along streams or in damp mnium depressions, occasionally among boulders or talus at cliff bases, in conifer forests, from near sea level to subalpine.

2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action – Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to these species because no activities would occur.

- 49 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects For all species, no occurrences are known in areas of disturbance. Such areas provide suitable habitat for 10 sensitive species. The surveys, while not conclusive, were negative. Also, the amount of suitable habitat to be disturbed is miniscule compared to the amount available. Thus, this project may adversely impact individuals or habitat, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the area or cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects because there would be no direct or indirect effects. Current population trend would be unaffected. Alternatives 2 and 3 would expect no cumulative effects because of a lack of known occurrences; however, the project could contribute to incremental loss and degradation of habitat if currently unknown occurrences are affected. Current population trend would not be measurably affected. E Roadless/Unroaded Areas The purpose of this analysis on the roadless resource is to disclose potential effects to roadless and wilderness attributes and determine if, or to what extent it might affect future consideration for wilderness recommendations. This analysis focuses on the potential effects of project activities on wilderness characteristics as defined in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 (72.1). The analysis for the effects on other roadless resource attributes such as water resources, soils, and wildlife habitat may be found in other sections of this EA. 1. Affected Environment The project area boundary is immediately adjacent (western edge) to the Bighorn- Weitas Roadless Area (B-WRA) (Maps 1 and 2). The B-WRA is 254,800 acres in size. For a more complete description of the Roadless Area, see Roadless Area Conservation National Forest System Lands in Idaho, FEIS, Appendix C, Bighorn-Weitas #306 (USDA- Forest Service, August 2008). The project area is extensively roaded with approximately 234 miles of road. There are 120 miles of road open seasonally or yearlong to vehicles >50 inches wide including UTVs and close to 42 miles of road open seasonally or yearlong to motorcycles and ATVs, but not UTVs. The Clearwater Forest Plan (1987) established Forest-wide multiple use goals, objectives, and management area requirements as well as management area prescriptions. The analysis of roadless lands, documented in Appendix C of the FEIS for the Plan, described each roadless area, the resources and values considered, the range of alternative land uses studied, and the effects of management under each alternative. As a result of the analysis some roadless areas were recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and others were assigned various non- wilderness prescriptions. The B-WRA was assigned to MA A3, C1, C3, C4, C8S, and E1. The proposed action would occur within MA C4, C8S and E1. The uninventoried lands

- 50 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment contiguous to the B-WRA were assigned to MA E1, which is designated as timber producing lands and is the MA overlapping the majority of the project area. The forest plan did not make an “irreversible and irretrievable” commitment of resources to develop. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives on the wilderness characteristics in the roadless area expanse. 2. Environmental Consequences Natural Habitat conditions for aquatic species ranges from very good in the roadless areas of Weitas Creek and upper Hem Creek within the Orogrande Creek drainage to fair to poor in some of the heavily roaded drainages within the project area streams (see Section B. Water Quality/Fisheries). Past road construction activities and the road networks have caused excessive sedimentation, resulting in degraded spawning and rearing habitat. Riparian alterations in the past have also contributed to lower habitat conditions in some areas. Currently, OHV use of existing roads and trails within the project area has had negligible effects to water quality and aquatic resources. There are no developments that reduce the free-flowing condition of rivers and streams in the project area. There are no known occurrences of sensitive plant species in the area that would be affected by the proposed project (see section D, sensitive plants). Though extensively roaded, the project area is still considered somewhat remote. Light pollution from activities in the area would be very minimal to none. Alternative 1: No Action – Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to the natural condition from Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects No roads would be built as part of the project. Trail reconstruction would occur, but within areas already extensively roaded. No facilities would be constructed. There would be minimal vegetation modification on those areas of trail reconstruction. Overall, the project is expected to have minimal effects to water quality and aquatic habitat/resources (Section B. Water Quality/Fisheries), soil resources (Section C. Soils), or wildlife and sensitive plants (Section D. Wildlife) and are thus would not affect long- term ecological processes. Undeveloped As described above, the project area contains an extensive road system with general vehicular accessibility but with a relative degree of remoteness. Most of the project area falls under MA E1- where timber production is emphasized. There is a history of mining (past and current) in the area; dispersed camping; and both motorized and non- motorized uses (see Existing Condition, Chapter 1). Many of the roads identified in the project area were there as part of the existing condition for the 1987 Forest Plan (i.e.,

- 51 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Trail 17). Alternative 1: No Action – Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to the undeveloped portion of this landscape as a result of the no action alternative. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects The purpose and need for this project is to provide a safe, high quality OHV trail experience, in a forest setting, appropriate for motorized recreation. No roads would be built as part of the project. Trail reconstruction would occur, but within areas already extensively roaded. Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation As stated previously, this area is already extensively roaded. Opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation are very limited. The greatest opportunity for solitude exists immediately east of the project area in the B-WRA. A complete description of the B- WRA can be found in Appendix C, Roadless Area Conservation, National Forest System Lands in Idaho (USDA-FS, 2008). The majority of use in this area is vehicular – cars, trucks, ATVs, UTVs, OHVs. The project area would not provide for a high degree of challenge and reliance on outdoor skills, such as those one would expect in a primitive setting. Alternative 1: No Action – Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects from alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects The project area is already roaded, as described previously. There is limited space for a visitor to escape impacts on solitude within the area because of existing road use. While the project does not construct any new roads, it would reroute some traffic and reconstruct some trails for loop opportunities. Special Features and Values Mining has been prevalent in the area for many years. In addition, there are good vistas on some of the roads, especially at the end of road 5214. Along Trail 88 there are very large Douglas fir and grand fir, which will be interpreted as part of this projects education signing. Alternative 1: No Action – Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects to special features and values from Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects Describe the effect proposed activities would have on special features and values. Manageability Affected Environment - The B-WRA would not be impacted by this project. The project area is immediately adjacent to this roadless area and roads have existed along the boundary since the 1987 Forest Plan went into effect.

- 52 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1: No Action – Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects from alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3: – Direct and Indirect Effects The project does not change any roadless area boundary, location or size or shape. Roaded access to the B-WRA already exists. The area immediately to the west of the B- WRA is currently quite roaded. Any existing wilderness attributes within the B-WRA would remain unchanged as a result of this project.

Cumulative Effects Since the project area boundary is immediately adjacent to, and not within the B-WRA boundary cumulative effects to the roadless resource are similar to that of the entire project area as defined previously under Recreation. Effects to unroaded lands are also very minimal as the proposal uses existing roads and trails and does not propose new construction within the roadless resource. Past activities include timber harvest and road building in the area since the early 1900’s. These activities allowed dispersed camping, berry picking, hunting and firewood gathering to evolve in the area throughout time given availability and access. Present and foreseeable actions considered for cumulative effects consist of the ongoing forest-wide travel planning effort which could affect motorized cross-country travel, seasons of use and types of vehicles that are allowed on roads and trails throughout roadless and unroaded areas. The Orogrande OHV Project, including the adjacent B-WRA was considered in the Travel Planning FEIS (1-5). It would not alter the analysis of effects. The effects of off road use in the project area would continue until the Travel Plan is implemented which closes the project area to off road use. This implementation is expected in 2012 and so these effects are short term and minimal due to the steep terrain and dense vegetative cover throughout the majority of the project area. Within, the project area and in areas adjacent to the project area, road and trail access will be managed per the 2005 Travel Guide until the Travel Plan decision is implemented with the exception of road and trail decisions made in this Orogrande OHV project decision. Even after the Travel Planning Decision is implemented, there is the potential that educational and law enforcement efforts may not be one-hundred percent successful resulting in some off road use and use of closed roads and trails within roadless and unroaded areas. Though, this use cannot be precisely predicted or quantified expected occurrences of this illegal off road, trail or road use are anticipated to be low with non- measurable effects due primarily to the steep and densely vegetated terrain as well as the compliance by most road and trail users to the route closures.

- 53 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 4. Other Required Analysis This is not a major federal action. It would have limited context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27), individually or cumulatively, to the biological, physical, social or economic components of the human environment. It would have no adverse effect upon public health or safety, consumers, civil rights, minority groups and women, prime farm land, rangeland and forestland, roadless areas, or to old growth forest options.

A. Effects of Alternatives on Prime Farm Land, Rangeland and Forest land All alternatives are in keeping with the Secretary of Agriculture memorandum, 1827 for prime land. The project area does not contain any prime farm lands or range lands. “Prime” forest land does not apply to lands within the National Forest system. With both alternatives, National Forest lands would be managed with sensitivity to the effects on adjacent lands.

B. Energy Requirements of Alternatives There are no unusual energy requirements for implementing any alternative.

C. Effects of Alternatives on Minorities and Women There are no unusual differences among the effects of any alternative on American Indians, women, other minorities, or the civil rights of any American citizen.

D. Environmental Justice In regard to Environmental Justice Order 12898, the health and environmental effects of the proposed activities would not disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations. There would be no effect from the proposed activities on the treaty rights of the Nez Perce Tribe and local communities.

E. List of Preparers Tammy Harding, Interdisciplinary Team Leader Adam McClory, Recreation Specialist Matt Schweich, Wildlife and Plants Biologist Pat Murphy, Fisheries Biologist Anne Connor, Hydrology Robbin Johnston, Cultural Resources Margaret Kirkeminde, GIS/Maps

- 54 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX A

Map 1 – Alternative 2 -Proposed OHV Trail Route

Map 2 – Alternative 3 – Proposed OHV Trail Route

Map 3 – Alternative 2 - Proposed Trail Construction, Reconstruction and Travel Restriction Changes and Management Areas

Map 4 – Alternative 3 – Proposed Trail Construction, Reconstruction and Travel Restriction Changes and Management Areas

Map 5 – Alternative 2 - Proposed and Existing OHV Routes

Map 6 – Alternative 3 – Proposed and Existing OHV Routes

- 55 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

- 56 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

- 57 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

- 58 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

- 59 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

- 60 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

- 61 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX B – Federal Consistency Checklist

1. Have you identified which land management activities (by nonpoint source category), regulated by the Idaho Water Quality Standards are within the project area? Recreation sites are identified as a nonpoint source activity.

2. Have you identified the state approved BMP's for each nonpoint source activity?

Yes. See Appendix C of this document.

3. For nonpoint source categories not having approved BMP's, have you identified practices that demonstrate a knowledgeable and reasonable effort to minimize resulting water quality impacts?

The identified category has approved BMP’s. See Chapter 2 and Appendix C for project design measures and applicable BMP’s.

4. Have you provided a monitoring plan which, when implemented, will provide adequate information to determine the effectiveness of the approved or specialized BMP's in protecting the beneficial uses of water?

Yes, the Clearwater National Forest hydrologist conducts annual BMP audits of projects on the forest.

5. Have you provided a process (including feedback from water quality monitoring) for modifying the approved or specialized BMP's in order to protect beneficial uses of water?

Yes, see Appendix C of this document.

6. Have you identified the appropriate beneficial uses of water for the water bodies in the project area?

Beneficial uses listed for the project area watersheds include cold-water aquatic life, primary and secondary contact recreation. IDEQ 2008 Integrated Report

7. Have you determined if a Water Quality Limited Segment has been designated within the project area? Yes. Orogrande Creek is listed for temperature.

8. Have you determined if an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) has been designated in the project area?

Yes. There are none.

9. Have you identified the water quality standards and criteria applicable to protecting the "appropriate beneficial uses"?

- 62 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Yes. Stream temperature and instream sediment.

10. Does pre-project planning and design include an analysis of water quality resulting from implementation of the proposed activity sufficient to predict exceedence of water quality criteria for the appropriate beneficial use(s), or in the absence of such criteria, sufficient to predict the potential for beneficial use impairment?

Yes. A Hydrologist and Fisheries Biologist were involved in pre-project planning and design, each providing the documentation and analysis for this project.

- 63 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

- 64 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX C – Best Management Practices

- 65 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Orogrande OHV Project BMPs

BMPs are practices or combination of practices, that are determined by a State (or designated area-wide planning agency) after problem assessment, examination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective, practical (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations) means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (40 CFR 130.2(q)).

Best Management practices as defined by State regulation or agreement between the State and Forest Service include the following for Idaho:

- Idaho Forest Practices Rules and Regulations. - Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards for Stream Channel Alternations. - Idaho Best Management Practices for Road Activities Handbook, Parts I and II.

The Forest Service is required by law to comply with water quality standards developed under authority of the Clean Water Act. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Idaho are responsible for enforcement of these standards. The Clearwater Forest Plan states (Chapter II, p. 27) that the Forest will "apply State water quality standards and Best Management Practices to land-disturbing activities to ensure that State water quality standards are met or exceeded...projects that will not meet State water quality standards shall be redesigned, rescheduled, or dropped.” The use of BMPs is also required in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the State of Idaho as part of our responsibility as the Designated Water Quality Management Agency on National Forest System lands. Idaho water quality standards regulate non-point source pollution from timber management and road construction activities through application of BMPs. The BMPs were developed under authority of the Clean Water Act to ensure that Idaho waters do not contain pollutants in concentrations that adversely affect water quality or impair a designated use. State-recognized BMPs that will be used during project design and implementation are contained in these documents:

 Rules and Regulations Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act, (IFPA), as adopted by the Idaho Land Board (April 2000); and  Rules and Reglation and Minimum Standards for Stream Channel Alterations, as adopted by the Idaho Water Resources Board under authority of the Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act (ISCPA).

The Practices described herein are tiered to the practices in FSH 2509.22. They were developed as part of the NEPA process, with interdisciplinary involvement, and meet State and Forest water quality objectives. The purpose of this appendix document is to: establish the connection between the SWCP employed by the Forest Service and BMP's identified in Idaho Water Quality Standards (IDAHO APA 16.01.2300.05).

Table C-1 – Key Soil and Water Conservation Practices Class* Soil and Water Conservation Practices (FSH 2509.22) 11 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT W 11.02 Soil and Water Resource Monitoring and Evaluation W 11.05 Wetlands Analysis and Evaluation 12 Recreation W 12.10 Management of Off-Road Vehicle Use W 12.11 Protection of Water Quality Within Developed and Dispersed Recreation - 66 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Areas 13 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT E 13.02 Slope Limitations for Tractor Operation E 13.03 Tractor Operation Excluded from Wetlands, Bogs, and Wet Meadows E 13.04 Revegetation of Surface Disturbed Areas E 13.06 Soil Moisture Limitations for Tractor Operation 15 ROADS AND TRAILS A 15.02 General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads and Trails E 15.03 Road and Trail Erosion Control Plan E 15.04 Timing of Construction Activities E 15.05 Slope Stabilization and Prevention of Mass Failures E 15.06 Mitigation of Surface Erosion and Stabilization of Slopes E 15.07 Control of Permanent Road Drainage E 15.10 Control of Road Construction Excavation and Sidecast Material S 15.11 Servicing and Refueling of Equipment S 15.12 Control of Construction in Riparian Areas E 15.17 Regulation of Borrow Pits, Gravel Sources and Quarries S 15.19 Streambank Protection E 15.20 Water Source Development Consistent With Water Quality Protection E 15.21 Maintenance of Roads E 15.22 Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials E 15.23 Traffic Control During Wet Periods E 15.27 Trail Maintenance and Rehabilitation *CLASSES OF SWCP (BMP) A = Administrative G = Ground Disturbance Reduction W = Water Quality Protection E = Erosion Reduction S = Stream Channel Protection/Stream Sediment Reduction

BMP Format Each Soil and Water Conservation Practice (SWCP) is described as follows:

Title: Includes the sequential number of the SWCP and a brief title Objective: Describes the SWCP objective(s) and the desired results for protecting water quality. Compliance: Provides a qualitative assessment of how the implementation of the specific measures will meet Forest Practices Act Rules and Regulations pertaining to water quality. Implementation: This section identifies: (1) the range of site-specific water quality protection measures to be implemented and (2) how the practices are expected to be applied. Effectiveness: Provides a qualitative assessment of expected effectiveness that the applied measure will have on preventing or reducing impacts on water quality. The SWCP effectiveness rating is based on literature & research, administrative studies, and professional experience. The SWCP is rated High, Moderate, or Low based on the following criteria: a. Literature/Research b. Administrative studies - For those SWCPs that have a corresponding Forest Practices Act Rule, information on effectiveness was generated from the Clearwater Forest BMP audits in 1999- 2008. A rating of "high" was assigned where the measure(s) kept sediment from reaching the stream in 100 percent of the sites checked. A rating of "moderate" was assigned where the measure(s) kept sediment from reaching the stream in 90–99 percent of the sites checked. A rating of "low" was assigned where the measure(s) kept sediment from reaching the streams in less than 90 percent of the sites checked. c. Experience (judgment of an expert by education and/or experience) d. Fact (obvious by logical response)

- 67 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Items Common to All Soil and Water Conservation Practices

Responsibility For Implementation: The District Ranger is responsible for insuring the factors identified in the following SWCPs are incorporated into: Timber Sale Contracts through the inclusion of proper B and/or C provisions; or Public Works Contracts through the inclusion of specific contract clauses.

The Contracting Officer, through his/her official representative (Sale Administrator and/or Engineering Representatives for timber sale contracts; and Contracting Officers Representative for public works contracts) is responsible for insuring that the provisions are properly administered on the ground.

Monitoring: Ten percent of all timber sales are monitored by the Forest Hydrologist on an annual basis for implementation and effectiveness of BMP's.

Abbreviations TSC = Timber Sale Contract FPA = Idaho Forest Practices Act TSA = Timber Sale Administrator COR = Contracting Officer Representative PWC = Public Works Contract SPS = Standard Project Specifications SAM = Sale Area Map WQLS = Water Quality Limited Segment RHCA= Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

Orogrande OHV BMPs

11 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

PRACTICE 11.02 - Soil and Water Resource Monitoring and Evaluation

OBJECTIVE: To determine effects of land management activities on soil productivity and beneficial water uses; to monitor baseline watershed conditions for comparison with State standards, Forest Plan standards, and estimation of long-term trends; to ensure the health and safety of water users; to evaluate SWCP's effectiveness; and to determine the adequacy of data, assumptions, and coefficients in the Forest Plans.

EXPLANATION: The Northern and Intermountain Regions will manage watersheds to avoid irreversible effects on the soil resource and to produce water of quality and quantity sufficient to maintain beneficial uses in compliance with State Water Quality Standards. Monitoring and evaluation are needed as feedback mechanisms to compare the results of management activities and SWCPs on soil and water resources with previous conditions, desired end-products, and State standards. To accomplish this, a comparison will be made, on a representative sample basis, of effects on soils and water over time. Previous monitoring and evaluating has included, for example:

a. Bulk density, soil disturbance, and/or tree growth to evaluate soil productivity.

b. Fecal coliform and pH to monitor swimming sites.

c. Sediment, turbidity, and water temperature to evaluate domestic water supplies.

- 68 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

d. Sediment, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, cobble embededness, percent fines in substrate, and channel cross sections to monitor effects on fisheries.

IMPLEMENTATION: Forest Plans will provide watershed monitoring plans that are focused on beneficial water uses such as domestic supplies, recreation, and fisheries, and on soil loss and productivity. Regionally approved monitoring techniques will be used. Specific monitoring plans will be coordinated among adjacent National Forests and with State water quality agencies. Specific monitoring and evaluation plans will include such items as:

a. Monitoring objectives. b. Review of existing data and information. c. Location of monitoring sites. d. Soil and water quality characteristics that are to be monitored and evaluated. e. Type(s) or technique(s) of monitoring. f. Intensity of monitoring (frequency and duration). g. Responsibilities and roles of monitoring personnel. Methodology for analysis and evaluation. i. Estimated cost. j. Report preparation. When changes and effect from management activity are detected, the Forest Service will evaluate their significance and determine appropriate action. Where project level activities will not meet Forest Plan or State standards, they will be redesigned, rescheduled or dropped.

The EPA computerized STORET system is the accepted repository for water quality data collected to monitor and evaluate Forest programs and management activities. Water quality data will be placed in this computer system for storage, manipulation and review.

REFERENCES: FSM 1922, 2525, 2532, and 2554; SWCP Handbook 10.40 Feedback Mechanism; FSH 1909.12, Land and Resource Management Planning Handbook, chapter 6; 36 CFR 219; Solomon, R. A. and Avers, P. E., 1987. A Water Quality Monitoring Framework to Satisfy Legal Requirements. AWRA Symposium on Monitoring, Modeling, and Mediating Water Quality. pp. 231-242; FSH 2509.18, Soil Monitoring Handbook, State Water Quality Standards; for Idaho Forests, Idaho Forest Practices Water Quality Management Plan, 1987; SWCP 12.02, 12.03, and 13.09; S. L. Ponce. 1980. Water Quality Monitoring Programs. USDA, Forest Service, WSDG Tech. Paper - 00002. 66 pp.; for R-4, R-4 Technical Guide for Preparing Water Quality Monitoring Plans, USDA, Forest Service, 1981.

PRACTICE: 11.05 - Wetlands Analysis and Evaluation

OBJECTIVE: To maintain wetlands functions and avoid adverse soil and water resource impacts associated with the destruction or maodificaiton of wetlands.

IMPLEMENTATION: The Regional Forester is responsible for insuring wetland values are considered and documented as an integral part of all planning process. The Forest Supervisor, through use of technical staffs, will determine whether proposed actions should be located in wetlands and, if so, whether there is a practicable alternative. If there are no viable alternatives, the Forest Supervisor must insure that all mitigating measures are incorporated into the plans and designs and that the actions maintain the function of the wetlands. Identification and mapping of wetlands are part of the Forest Planning process.

- 69 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

REFERENCES: EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands; FSM 2527; Maxwell, J. and LaFayette, R., 1986. Guidelines for Making Floodplain and Wetland Evaluations for Land Exchanges. USDA, Forest Service, Southwestern Region Hydrology Note No. 19a.

12 - RECREATION

PRACTICE: 12.10 - Management of Off-Road Vehicle Use

OBJECTIVE: To control Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) use which is causing soil erosion and adverse effects on water quality and to identify corrective measures.

EXPLANATION: Areas or trails where ORV use is causing degradation of water quality or soil erosion should be identified. It should be determined through monitoring and evaluated if degradation is beyond acceptable limits, as defined by Forest Plans.

IMPLEMENTATION: Monitoring results will be evaluated against Forest Plan standards for soil and water resources and the management objectives for the area. If considerable ad adverse effects are occurring or are likely to occur, corrective action should be taken (SWCP 11.03). Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to, redistribution in the amount of ORV use, development of a Forest-wide Travel Plan, signing or barriers to redistribute use, partial closing of areas, rotation of use on areas, closure to causative vehicle types or total closure, and structural solutions such as culverts and bridges.

Closure is done by authority of the Forest Supervisor (SWCP 11.09).

REFERENCES: SWCP 11.02; EO 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands, and EO 11989, Off Road Vehicles on Public Lands; 36 CFR 295.5; FSM 2352 and 2355.

PRACTICE: 12.11 - Protection of Water Quality Within Developed and Dispersed Recreation Areas

OBJECTIVE: To protect water quality by regulating the discharge and disposal of potential pollutants.

EXPLANATION: This practice prohibits placing in or near a stream, lake, or other waterbody, materials or substances which may degrade water quality. The actual safety distance from each water body is at least 100 feet, or greater if warranted by local conditions.

This includes, but is not limited to , human and animal waste, oil, and other hazardous substances. Areas may be closed in order to restrict use in problem areas.

IMPLEMENTATION: Within developed sites, authorized Forest Officers will inform the public of their responsibility through signs, bulletin boards, newspapers or personal contact. Pamphlets, brochures and other material will be used to encourage public cooperation in protecting water quality in dispersed areas. Forest Officers can issue citations to violators.

REFERENCES: FSM 2323, 2332, 2333, 2334, 2335, and 2502; SWCP 11.02 and 11.07; FSH 2309.19, Wilderness Management Handbook.

13 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

- 70 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

PRACTICE: 13.02 - Slope Limitations for Tractor Operation

OBJECTIVE: To reduce gully and sheet erosion and associated sediment production.

IMPLEMENTATION: Recommended provisions and management controls for operating machinery on steep slopes is identified during the NEPA process. These provisions should be included in the contract. The contracting Officer is responsible for ensuring implementation of these contract provisions. For In-Service projects, the project supervisor is responsible for enforcement of management requirements and for identification of additional areas where operations should be limited.

REFERENCES: SWCP 14.07; See references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

PRACTICE: 13.03 - Tractor Operation Excluded from Wetlands, Bogs, and West Meadows

OBJECTIVE: To limit soil damage, turbidity, and sediment production resulting from compaction, rutting, runoff concentration, and subsequent erosion.

IMPLEMENTATION: Application is mandatory on all vegetation manipulation projects unless specifically excluded in the NEPA process. Contract specifications and controls and requirements are identified in the environmental analysis. The project supervisor and/or Contracting Officer are responsible for identifying wetlands and meadows not previously recognized in the NEPA process, and for following management controls and contract provisions pertaining to wetlands and meadows.

REFERENCES: EO 11990, protection of Wetlands; FSM 2527; SWCP 11.05 and 14.16; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

PRACTICE: 13.04 - Revegetation of Surface Disturbed Areas

OBJECTIVE: To protect soil productivity and water quality by minimizing soil erosion.

The factors evaluated are soil fertility, slope, aspect, landtype characteristics, soil water holding capacity, climatic factors, vegetation species characteristics, and project objectives. These are filed determinations and office interpretations made by an interdisciplinary team.

IMPLEMENTATION: The identification of disturbed areas and species mix will be determined during the NEPA process. The responsible Line Officer assigns specific individuals to execute the project. Projects are subsequently monitored to assess the revegetation effectiveness, and need for follow-up action.

REFERENCES: FSM 2522, 2405, 2472, and 7721; SWCP 11.02, 11.03, and 14.13; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

PRACTICE: 13.06 - Soil Moisture Limitations for Tractor Operation

OBJECTIVE: To minimize soil compaction, puddling, rutting, and gullying with resultant sediment production and loss of soil productivity.

- 71 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

IMPLEMENTATION: Contract provisions and management requirements for soil moisture limitations are identified during the environmental analysis. The project supervisor and/or Contracting Officer are responsible for determining when the soil surface is unstable and susceptible to damage and is then responsible for suspending or terminating operations.

REFERENCES: FSM 2522; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3); In R-4: R-4 Technical Guide - Erosion Prevention and Control on Timber Sale Areas, May 1981.

15 - ROADS AND TRAILS.

PRACTICE: 15.02 - General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads and Trails

OBJECTIVE: To locate and design roads and trails with minimal soil and water resource impact while considering all design criteria.

IMPLEMENTATION: during the environmental analysis, an interdisciplinary team will be used to insure that management needs, objectives, requirements, and controls are incorporated in the location and design of roads and trails. Mitigation measures needed to protect soil and water resources will be identified in the NEPA process. Contract provisions will be prepared that meet the soil and water resource protection requirements.

REFERENCES: FSM 7710 and 7720; NFMA; FSH 7709.56, Road Preconstruction Handbook; NEPA; SWCP 15.01; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3); In R-4: R-4 Technical Guide - Erosion Prevention and Control on Timber Sale Areas, May 1981.

PRACTICE: 15.03 - Road and Trail Erosion Control Plan

OBJECTIVE: To prevent, limit, and mitigate erosion, sedimentation, and resulting water quality degradation prior to the initiation of construction and maintenance activities through effective contract administration during construction and timely implementation of erosion control practices.

IMPLEMENTATION: Erosion control objectives and detailed mitigation measures are developed using an interdisciplinary approach during the environmental analysis. These measures and objectives shall be reflected in the contract specifications and provisions for the road or trail. When standard specifications do not provide the degree of mitigation required, special project specifications will be developed by the interdisciplinary team.

Prior to the start of construction, the Purchaser shall submit a schedule for proposed erosion control work as required in the Standard Specifications. The schedule shall include all erosion control items identified in the specifications. The schedule shall consider erosion control work necessary for all phases of the project. The Purchaser's construction schedule and plan of operation will be reviewed in conjunction with the erosion control plan to insure their compatibility before any schedules are approved. No work will be permitted on the project until all schedules have been approved by the Contracting Officer.

The Contracting Officer or Engineering Representative shall ensure that erosion control measures are implemented according to the approved schedule and are completed in an acceptable fashion. Field reviews and on-site inspection by the Line Officer and/or Forest Engineer will identify any additional erosion control measures required to protect the streams that were not recognized

- 72 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment during planning or design. Necessary correction measures shall be implemented immeidately through normal administrative channels.

The following items may be considered as erosion control measures when constructed in a timely manner. To maximize effectiveness, erosion control measures must be in place and functional prior to seasonal precipitation or runoff.

a. Measures to reestablish vegetation on exposed soils. This is usually accomplished by seeding suitable grass and legume species in conjunction with mulching and fertilization. In some situations, treatments may include tree seedling planting or sprigging of other woody species.

b. measures which physically protect the soil surface from detachment or modify the topography to minimize erosion. These treatments may include the use of dust oil or gravel on the road travelway and ditches and the use of mulches, riprap, erosion mats, and terracing on cuts, fills, and ditches. Temporary waterbars in areas of uncompleted roads and trails can be effectively utilized to reduce sedimentation.

c. Measures which physically inhabit the downslope movement of sediments to streams. These may include the use of slash filter windrows on or below the fill slopes, baled straw in ditches or below fillslopes, catch basins at culvert inlets, and sediment basin slash filter windrows may be utilized in live water drainages where fish passage is not required and where peakflows are low.

d. Measures that reduce the amount of soil disturbance in or near streams. These measures may include dewatering culvert installation or other construction sites, and immediate placement of permanent culverts during road pioneering. Temporary pipes should not be allowed unless positive control of sedimentation can be accomplished during installation, use, and removal.

e. Measures that control the concentration and flow of surface and subsurface water. These may include insloping, outsloping, ditches, cross drains, under drains, trenches, and so forth.

REFERENCES: FSM 7721, 7722, and 7723; Timber Sale Contract Provisions B6.31, B6.5, B6.6, and C6.3; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3); In R-4: R-4 Technical Guide - Erosion prevention and Control on Timber Sale Areas, May 1981; Cook, M.J. and J.G. King. 1983. Construction Cost and Erosion Control Effectiveness of Filter Windrows on Fill Slopes. USDA Forest Service Research Note, INT-335; SWCP Handbook 10.40 Feedback mechanism; FSH 7709.56b, Drainage Structures Handbook.

PRACTICE: 15.04 - Timing of Construction Activities

OBJECTIVE: To minimize erosion by conducting operations during minimal runoff periods.

IMPLEMENTATION: Detailed erosion control measures are developed by an interdisciplinary team during the environmental analysis and are incorporated into the contract specifications. Compliance with plans, specifications, and the operating plan is assured by the Contracting Officer and/or Engineering Representative.

REFERENCES: FAR 52.236-15; Timber Sale Contract Provisions C6.3, C6.36, and B6.31; SWCP 15.03; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

- 73 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

PRACTICES: 15.05 - Slope Stabilization and Prevention of Mass Failures

OBJECTIVES: To reduce sedimentation by minimizing the chances for road-related mass failures, including landslides and embankment slumps.

IMPLEMENTATION: In areas with intrinsic slope stability problems, appropriate technical resource staffs must be involved in an interdisciplinary approach to route location. Sufficient subsurface investigation and laboratory testing must be performed to general design parameters and mitigating features which will meet the constraints and requirements developed through the NEPA process.

In contracted projects, compliance with environmental analysis requirements and controls which have been provided for in the specifications is assured by enforcement of the Timber Sale Contract Provisions by the Contracting Officer and/or Engineering Representative.

REFERENCES: FSM 7706.11, 7706.12, 7710, and 7720; Standard Specifications 203, 212, 605, 613, 619, 630, and 631; Timber Sale Contract Provisions B6.31, B6.62, C5.2, C5.4, and C6.36; FSH 7709.11, Transportation Engineering Handbook and FSH 7709.56b, Drainage Structures Handbook; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3); In R-4: R-4 Technical Guide - Erosion prevention and Control on Timber Sale Areas, May 1981.

PRACTICE: 15.06 - Mitigation of Surface Erosion and Stabilization of Slopes

OBJECTIVE: To minimize soil erosion from road cutslopes, fillslopes, and travelway.

IMPLEMENTATION: During the NEPA process, detailed mitigation measures and slope stabilization techniques are incorporated into the design package by the interdisciplinary team. Compliance with environmental analysis controls and requirements is obtained by the Contracting Officer and/or Engineering Representative through the Standard Specifications and/or Timber Sale Contract Provisions.

REFERENCES: FSM 7706.11, 7706.12, 7706.13, and 7720; Standard Specifications 50.4, 203, 204, 206A, 210, 212, 412, 619, 625, 626, 629, and 630; Timber Sale Contract Provisions B6.31, B6.6, B6.62, B6.65, B6.66, C5.2, C5.23, C5.4, C5.441, C5.46, R-1 C6.36, C6.52, C6.6, C6.601, and C6.622; SWCP 15.03 and 15.04; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3); In R-4: R-4 Technical Guide - Erosion prevention and Control on Timber Sale Areas, May 1981.

PRACTICE: 15.07 - Control of Permanent Road Drainage

OBJECTIVE: To minimize the erosive effects of concentrated water and the degradation of water quality by proper design and construction of road drainage systems and drainage control structures.

IMPLEMENTATION: Project location, design criteria, drainage control features, and detailed mitigation measures are determined during the NEPA process by an interdisciplinary approach. Compliance with plans, specifications, and operating plans is assured by the Contracting Officer or Engineering Representative.

REFERENCES: SWCP 15.02, 15.03, 15.06; Timber Sale Contract Provisions B6.6, B6.66, C6.3, C6.6, and C6.601; FSM 7721, 7723, 7706.11, and 7706.12; FSH 7709.56b, Drainage Structures

- 74 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Handbook; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3); In R-4: R-4 Technical Guide - Erosion prevention and Control on Timber Sale Areas, May 1981.

PRACTICE: 15.10 - Control of Road Construction Excavation and Sidecast Material

OBJECTIVE: To reduce sedimentation from unconsolidated excavated and sidecast material caused by road construction, reconstruction, or maintenance.

IMPLEMENTATION: Project location, selected disposal areas, and mitigative measures are developed through the NEPA process, using an interdisciplinary approach. Forest Service supervisors are responsible for insuring that In-Service projects meet design standards and project requirements. For contracted projects, compliance with specifications and operating plans is assured by the Contracting Officer and/or Engineering Representative.

REFERENCES: FSM 7720.3. 7706.11, and 7721; Standard Specification 203; SWCP 15.03, 15.05, 15.06, and 15.09; Timber Sale Contract Provisions C6.221 and C5.4; see reference in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

PRACTICE: 15.11 - Servicing and Refueling of Equipment

OBJECTIVE: To prevent contamination of waters from accidental spills of fuels, lubricants, bitumens, raw sewage, wash water, and other harmful materials.

IMPLEMENTATION: The Contracting Officer, Engineering Representative, or certified Sale Administrator will designate the location, size and allowable uses of service and refueling areas. They will also be aware of actions to be taken in cause of a hazardous spill, as outlined in the Forest Hazardous Substance Spill Contingency Plan (SWCP 11.07).

REFERENCES: SWCP 11.07; Timber Sale Contract Provisions B6.34, C6.341, and C6.34; Standard Specifications 204.42; FSH 2409.15, Timber Sale Administration Handbook; see reference in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

PRACTICE: 15.12 - Control of Construction in Riparian Areas

OBJECTIVE: To minimize the adverse effects on Riparian Areas from roads and trails.

IMPLEMENTATION: Riparian Area requirements are identified during the environmental analysis by the interdisciplinary team. The road or trail project is designed to include site specific recommendations for the prevention of sedimentation and other stream damage from road/trail activities. As appropriated, monitoring and evaluation will be identified in the NEPA documentation. Forest Service supervisors are responsible for insuring that In-Service projects meet design standards and project requirements. On contracted projects, compliance with project requirements, contract specifications and operating plans is assured by the Contracting Officer or Engineering Representative.

REFERENCES: SWCP 11.02, 14.03, and 14.06 FSM 7706.11 7706.12, 7706.14 and 7710; Timber Sale Contract Provisions B6.5, B6.61, C6.51, and C6.52; see reference in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

PRACTICE: 15.17 - Regulation of Borrow Pits, Gravel Sources and Quarries

- 75 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

OBJECTIVES: To minimize sediment production from borrow pits, gravel sources, and quarries, and limit channel disturbance in those gravel sources suitable for development in floodplains.

IMPLEMENTATION: Project feasibility, location, suitability, and the limits for disturbance and sediment production will be identified through the NEPA process using an interdisciplinary approach. Detailed mitigative measures are developed by the design engineer using criteria from the environmental analysis and through consultation with technical resource staffs when needed. Development of borrow pits or gravel sources in the floodplain will be coordinated with State and local agencies.

Special-use permits issued for borrow pits, gravel sources, and quarries will include the above requirements and District Rangers or their representatives are responsible for insuring compliance. Forest Service supervisors are responsible for implementing In-Service projects to design standards. For contracted projects, compliance with management requirements, specifications, and operating plans is assured by the Contracting Officer or Engineering Representative.

REFERENCES: FSM 2511, 2502.1, 7706.11, 7706.12, 7721; FSH 7709.11, Transportation Engineering Handbook, and FSH 7709.56, Road Preconstrcution Handbook; FAR 52.236-09; Standard Specifications 203, 210, 611, 624, 625, 626, and 629; Timber Sale Contract Provision B6.31, B6.6, B6.62, B6.65, and B6.66, C5.2, C5.23, C5.4, C6.36, C6.52, C6.6, C6.601, C6.622; Water Pollution Control Act, 33 USC 466; NEPA; Montana Water Quality Act and Hardrock Atc; Idaho Dredge and Placer Mining Act, Title 47, Ch. 13; SWCP 11.04, 11.05, 15.03; see reference in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

PRACTICE: 15.19 - Streambank Protection

OBJECTIVE: To minimize sediment production from streambanks and structural abutments in natural waterways.

IMPLEMENTATION: Project location and detailed mitigative measures are developed through the NEPA process to meet the objectives and requirements of the management. Forest Service supervisors are responsible for implementing In-Service projects to design standards and management requirements. For contracted projects, compliance with contract specifications and operating plans is assured by the Contracting Officer or Engineering Representative.

REFERENCES: SWCP 15.03; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3); In R-4: R-4 Technical Guide-Erosion Prevention and Control on Timber Sale Areas, May 1981.

PRACTICE: 15.21 - Maintenance of Roads

OBJECTIVE: To maintain all roads in a manner which provides for soil and water resource protection by minimizing rutting, failures, sidecasting, and blockage of drainage facilities.

IMPLEMENTATION: The work is controlled through the Forest Engineer who is responsible for the development of the annual road maintenance plan based on condition surveys. Maintenance levels are established for each road and maintenance performed in accordance with standards. On timber sales, maintenance is a Purchaser responsibility and compliance with standards is assured by the Contracting Officer, Engineering Representative, or certified Sale

- 76 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Administrator. On system roads outside of active timber sales, road maintenance is insured by the Engineering Representative or Contracting Officer.

REFERENCES: FSM 7730.2, 7732, and 7735; FSH 2409.15, Timber Sale Administration Handbook and FSH 7709.15, Transportation System Maintenance Handbook; Timber Sale Contract provision C5.4; SWP 11.09; see references in "Best management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

PRACTICE: 15.22 - Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials

OBJECTIVE: To minimize the erosion of road surface materials and consequently reduce the likelihood of sediment production.

IMPLEMENTATION: Project location and detailed mitigative measures are developed by an interdisciplinary approach to meet environmental analysis criteria. Forest Service supervisors are responsible for insuring that In-Service projects meet design standards and management requirements. On contracted projects, compliance with contract specifications, and operating plans is assured by the Contracting Officer or Engineering Representative.

REFERENCES: Timber Sale Contract; FSH 2409.15, Timber Sale Administration Handbook.

PRACTICE: 15.23 - Traffic Control During Wet Periods

OBJECTIVES: To reduce the potential for road surface disturbance during wet weather and to reduce sedimentation probability.

IMPLEMENTATION: Road closures (SWCP 11.09) and traffic control measures should be implemented on all roads when damage would occur as a result of use during wet weather. Project-associated implementation procedures can be enforced by District personnel. Hauling activity can be controlled by the certified Sale Administrator within active timber sales. The decision for closure is made when the responsible Line Office determines that a particular resource or facility needs protection from use.

Detailed mitigative measures are developed by an interdisciplinary approach as necessary. Forest Service supervisors are responsible for implementing In-Service projects according to design standards. For contracted projects, compliane with plans, specifications, and operating plans is assured by the Contracting Officer or Engineering Representative.

REFERENCES: FSM 7731.4, SWCP 11.09, 13.06, and 14.04; Timber Sale Contract provisions B5.12, B5.22, and C5.12; FSH 2409.15, Timber Sale Administration Handbook; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

PRACTICE: 15.27 - Trail Maintenance and Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVE: to minimize soil erosion and water quality problems resulting from trail erosion.

IMPLEMENTATION: Each District will develop a trail maintenance plan which determines level, timing and frequency of maintenance. The need for closures will be identified through Forest Transportation Planning. Closure is done by authority of the Forest Supervisor (SWCP 11.09).

- 77 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

REFERENCES: SWCP 11.03, 11.09, 15.01, 15.02, and 15.03; FSH 7709.56b, Drainage Structures Handbook; see references in "Best Management Practice" Definition (05--2 and 3).

- 78 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX D – References

- 79 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Burroughs, E.R. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical Report INT-264. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Odgen, UT. July 1989 21 p.

Bush, R., and R. Lundberg. 2008. Wildlife Habitat Estimate Updates for the Region 1 Conservation Assessment. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis Report. Numbered Report 08-04 v1.0, September 2, 2008.

Clayton, James L. 1981. Soil Disturbance Caused By Clearcutting And Helicopter Yarding In The Idaho Batholith. Research note INT-305. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.

Clayton, James L. 1990. Soil Disturbance Resulting From Skidding Logs On Granitic Soils In Central Idaho. Research note INT-436. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah

Clearwater National Forest. 2000. Landslide database corrections. GIS/Oracle databases on file in Orofino, Idaho.

Cleland, David T., et al. 1997. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. Published in Boyce, M.S. Hanley, A., eds, 1997. Ecosystem Management Applications for Sustainable Forest and wildlife Resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. pp. 181-200.

Compton, B. B. 2008a. Project W-170-R-32, Progress Report, Elk, Study I, Job 1, July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Boise, Idaho

Compton, B. B. 2008b. Project W-170-R-32, Progress Report, White-tailed Deer, Study I, Job 3, July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Boise, Idaho.

Curran, M.P., R.E. Miller, S.W. Howes , D.G. Maynard, T.A. Terry, R.L. Heninger, T. Niemann, K. van Rees, R.F. Powers, S.H. Schoenholtz. 2005. Progress Towards More Uniform Assessment And Reporting Of Soil Disturbance For Operations, Research, And Sustainability Protocols. Forest Ecology and Management 220 (2005) 17–30.

Digital Atlas of Idaho. 2007. Located at: http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/index.htm. Accessed September 17, 2007.

Dunne, Thomas and Luna B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Elliot, W. J., D. E. Hall and L. Scheele. 2000. Disturbed WEPP (Draft 02/2000) WEPP Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. Technical Documentation. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.html.

Elliot, W. J., D. E. Hall and L. Scheele. 1999. WEPP:Road (Draft 12/1999) WEPP Interface for Disturbed forest and Range Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. Technical Documentation. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/distweppdoc.html.

Elliot, W.J. and Foltz, M. 2001. Validation of the FS WEPP Interfaces for Forest Roads and - 80 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Disturbances. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Sacramento, California. July30- August 1, 2001.

Fowler, W.B., J.D. Helvey, and E.N. Felix. 1987. Hydrologic and climatic changes in three small watersheds after timber harvest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Res. Paper PNW-RP-379. Portland Oregon.

Froehlich, Henry A. and David H. McNabb. 1983. Minimizing Soil Compaction in Pacific Northwest Forests. Paper Presented at Sixth North American Forest Soils Conference on Forest Soils and Treatment Impacts.

Froehlich, Henry A. and P.W. Adams. 1984. Compaction of Forest Soils. Pacific Northwest Extension Publication, PNW-217. 13 pp.

Howes, S., Hazard, J., Geist, J.M. 1983. Guidelines for Sampling Some Physical Conditions of Surface Soils. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, R6-RWM-146 Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR, 34 pp.

Gerhardt, Nick. 2000. A brief history of water yield and ECA guidelines on the Nez Perce National Forest. Unpublished report available at the Nez Perce National Forest , Grangeville, ID. 4p.

Graham, Russell T., Harvey, Alan E., Jurgensen, Martin F., Jain, Theresa B., Tonn, Jonalea R., Page-Dumroese, Deborah S. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP-477. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 12p.

Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 20.02.01. Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act. Title 38, Chapter B, State of Idaho, Boise, Idaho. Available at: http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa20/20index.htm

Idaho Administrative Code (IAC). 2009. Department of Water Resources. 37.03.02. Beneficial Use Examination Rules. http://adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/rules/idapa37/0302.pdf

IDAPA 37.03.07. Idaho Stream Channel Alteration Rules, State of Idaho, Boise, Idaho Available at: http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa37/37index.htm

IDAPA 58.01.02. Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment requirements. Title 1, Chapter 2, State of Idaho, Boise, Idaho. Available at: http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa58/58index.htm

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2009. Idaho 2008 Integrated Report (303d/305b list). IDEQ, Boise, Idaho. Available at: http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/data_reports/surface_water/monitoring/integrated_report.cfm

IDEQ 2010a. 2008 Integrated Report. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise, Idaho.

IDEQ 2003. Upper North Fork Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads Idaho. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Lewiston, Idaho.

- 81 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Element Occurrence Records. GIS dataset on the Clearwater National Forest, exported August 2009 by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. Jones, R. and P. Murphy. 1997. Watershed Condition, Clearwater National Forest, May 1997. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.

Jones, R. M. 2001. Surface Erosional Processes and Management Practices of the Clearwater National Forest. May 2001. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.

Joslin, G., and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society.

Kennedy, P. L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. 142 pages.

MacDonald, Lee H. 1989. Cumulative Watershed Effects: The Implication of Scale. Paper presented at the 1989 fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, CA.

McClelland, Douglas E.; Foltz, Randy B.; Wilson, W. Dale; Cundy, Terrance W.; Heinemann, Ron; Saurbier, James A.; Schuster, Robert L. 1997. Assessment of the 1995 & 1996 floods and landslides on the Clearwater National Forest, Part I: Landslide assessment. A report to the Regional Forester. US Forest Service, Northern Region. Missoula, MT. 52p.

McNeel, J.F. and T.M. Ballard. 1992. Analysis of Site Stand Impacts from Thinning with a Harvester-Forwarder System. Journal of Forest Engineering (1992) 23-29.

Megahan, W.F. 1980. Nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities in the western United States: Results of recent research and research needs. In, US. Forestry and Water Quality: What Course in the 80s? An Analysis of Environmenta1 and Economic Issues. Proceedings, 92-151. June 19-20, 1980, Richmond, VA. Washington, DC: Water Pollution Control Federation.

NOAA-Fisheries, Environmental and Technical Service Division, Habitat Conservation Branch. 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale.

NOAA-Fisheries. 1998. Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition for Chinook, Steelhead, and Bull Trout, Local Adaptation for the Clearwater Basin and Lower Salmon. (Local adaptation of Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale, 1996).

Patten, R. and Jones, R. 2005. Watershed Response Model for Forest Management. WATBAL Technical User Guide. Clearwater National Forest. Orofino, Idaho.

Powers, Robert F., D. Andrew Scott, Felipe G. Sanchez , Richard A. Voldseth, Deborah Page-Dumroese, John D. Elioff, and Douglas M. Stone. 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and Management 220 (2005) 31–50.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern - 82 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA, Forest Service General Technical Report RM-217. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. 90 pages. Rosgen, D. and H. L. Silvey. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Nancy, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Missoula, Montana.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-254.

Samson, F. B. 2006a. A Conservation Assessment of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, and Pileated Woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. Missoula, Montana. Version September 24, 2006.

Samson, F. B. 2006b. Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten, and Fisher. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, Montana. Version June 6, 2006.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Most Recent Update: 13 October 2007.

Servheen, G., S. Blair, D. Davis, M. Gratson, K. Leidenfrost, B. Stotts, J. White, and J. Bell. 1997. Interagency Guidelines for Managing Elk Habitats and Populations on U. S. Forest Service Lands in Central Idaho.

Tepp, Jeffrey S. 2002. Assessing Visual Soil Disturbance on Eight Commercially Thinned Sites in Northeastern Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Research Note PNW-RN-535.

Toweill, D. 2008. Project W-170-R-32, Progress Report, Moose, Study I, Job 6, July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Boise, Idaho.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule. Final Rule. Federal Register 65(58): 16051-16086.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Final Rule. Federal Register 72(130): 37346-37372.

- 83 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 73(40): 10860-10896.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and to Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Final Rule. Federal Register 74(62): 15123-15188.

USDA Forest Service, 2007a. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Missoula, Montana.

USDA. Forest Service. 2007b. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Record of Decision. Missoula, Montana.

USDA Forest Service – Clearwater National Forest. 2000. Section 7 watershed biological assessment, North Fork Clearwater River drainage, Clearwater River subbasin. Determination of effects of ongoing and proposed activities based on the matrix of pathways and indicators of watershed condition for bull trout. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.

USDA Forest Service. 1981. R1/R4 Guide for Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested Watersheds. Northern and Intermountain Regions.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Clearwater Forest Plan. Clearwater National Forest. Orofino, Idaho.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. FSH 2509.22 - Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. R-1/R-4 Amendment No. 1.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook FSH 2509.25. Northern Region, Missoula, MT. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Clearwater National Forest Landtype Associations. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, ID.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Forest Service Manual. FSM 2500 - Watershed and Air Management. R-1 Supplement No. 2500-99-1. Missoula, Montana.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Soil Management Handbook FSH 2509.18. R1 2509.18-2003-1. Northern Region, Missoula, MT.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol Volumes 1 and 2. Gen. Tech. Reports WO-82a and WO-82b

The Wilderness Society, et al., Plaintiffs v. F. Dale Robertson, et al., Defendants. 1993. United States District Court for the District of Idaho. Stipulation of Dismissal. Civil No. 93-0043-S- HLR.

Wilson, D., J. Coyner, and T. Deckert. 1983. First Review Draft, Land System Inventory of the Clearwater National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, ID. 399p. - 84 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX E – Cumulative Effects Information

- 85 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects Information

Cumulative effects arise from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. The geographic area considered for each resource may differ. A description of the areas used to determine cumulative effects and the rationale for their boundaries are discussed in Chapter Three under each resource discussion. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects boundaries for each resource are briefly described in the table below along with the past, present and foreseeable activities in that analysis area and their potential to contribute to cumulative effects.

1. Effects of Past, Current and Foreseeable Activities on Individual Resources Recreation The cumulative effects analysis boundary encompasses the route which covers an area of about 27,700 miles and contains approximately 234 miles of road. Activities Effect Proposed Action – Contribution to Effects Past timber Provided road access and harvested None; No new road construction or harvest and road timber, creating openings, trails, etc. timber harvest. 1.7 miles of new trail construction Provided recreation access and increased construction would enhance OHV (1920-present) recreation use such as dispersed camping, experience and contribute to visitor berry picking, hunting, firewood safety. Access change to existing gathering roads would not measurably impact resources. Proposed Road Maintain suitable access. Possible short None. No erosion from proposed 250 paving & term road delays during project activities. activities. No long term change in Road 547 recreation patterns reconditioning Proposed Lower Proposed road obliteration and culvert Proposed trail construction, Orogrande replacements would have long term reconstruction and educational signage Project EIS beneficial effects to water quality. Due to would improve recreational INFISH buffer retention and project experience and opportunities. Trails design, there would be no change to may receive more use because stream shading or temperature. Openings obliteration of roads could decrease created by harvest may increase other available OHV access. recreational opportunities for berry picking or hunting. Proposed Travel No ground disturbing activities proposed. None; No measurable change in Planning EIS Travel planning EIS is administrative. erosion. Proposed action considered in Travel Planning EIS Fisheries and Water Quality The cumulative effects analysis boundary is the Orogrande drainage. Activities Effect Proposed Action – Contribution to Effects Past timber Reduced riparian habitat, stream shading, No timber would be harvested with harvest (1940- increased water temperature, reduced fish proposed project. 1995) usage. Some soil erosion in tractor logged areas. Caused loss of stream shading, resulting in increased water temperature, reduced fish usage in warm

- 86 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

areas. Past, present and No change to stream shading or No timber would be harvested with future timber temperature. All current (instream) and proposed project. harvest (1995 to future (riparian) wood retained. Minimal present ) to no effect on sediment due to well vegetated PACFISH/INFISH buffer retention Proposed Lower Road obliteration and culvert No timber would be harvested. There Orogrande replacements would reduce sediment would be no sediment movement into Project EIS input to streams and improve aquatic the river during trail construction and habitats, seasonal road closures would reconstruction due to trail location and increase wildlife security habitat and placement and erosion control retention of default INFISH buffers measures employed during would minimize impacts from construction. commercial thinning and regeneration harvest activities. Past road Reduced riparian habitat and increased None. Proposed project activities construction and sediment to streams. Caused loss of would not contribute sediment to area reconstruction stream shading due to tree removal streams due to trail location and (1954 to present) resulting in increase in water temperature placement and erosion control and sediment in stream channel, blocked measures employed during fish passage and reduced fish habitat. construction. Riparian habitat and road cut and fills are now revegetated resulting in minimal soil erosion. Permanent loss of trees and future wood still exists where roads remain in riparian areas.

Past, current and Reduced road densities, localized short- Long term sediment reductions and future road term sediment. benefits to overall channel conditions. decommissioning Noxious weeds Bare soil areas provide noxious weed None; Erosion control measures, such habitat. Vehicles re-introduce weeds to as mulching and seeding, on exposed the area. soils would minimize sediment delivery. Ongoing district weed treatment program would continue to monitor and treat weeds. Road Road surface disturbance, ditch and None; roads and trails would continue maintenance culvert cleaning increased soil to receive normal maintenance. Trail (ongoing) disturbance causing surface erosion and construction and reconstruction potential instream sediment increases includes design features to minimize where ditchlines empty directly into any erosion or stream sedimentation. streams. Improved water flow reduces road failures and mass soil movement. Soils The cumulative effects analysis boundary for soil erosion potential consists of the specific locations where activities are proposed. Activities Effect Proposed Action – Contribution to Effects Past, current and Soil compaction and reduced productivity Trail construction and reconstruction

- 87 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment future dispersed where these activities take place. activities would direct traffic, reduce recreation potential erosion and better protect soil resources. Erosion control measures, such as mulching and seeding, on exposed soils to minimize sediment delivery to the river. Silt fences would be used during project activities where needed to minimize risk of sedimentation.

Wildlife The cumulative effects analysis area for old growth, management indicator species, threatened, endangered and sensitive species is the project area and immediately surrounding stands. Activities Effect Proposed Action – Contribution to Effects Past timber Reduced the amount of mature and old None; No harvest of old growth, harvest (1940 to growth forest, thus removal of habitats RHCA or TES wildlife habitat. Snag present) (snags, hiding cover, foraging, nesting, habitat maintained within project area rearing) and surrounding stands. Past road Fractured wildlife habitat and disturbance Proposed travel access changes would construction and to individuals. Recently, roads have not affect wildlife security or habitat reconstruction grown in, been stored or effectiveness. Trail construction and (1950-present) decommissioned, creating an improving reconstruction would help discourage trend. off road travel. Proposed Lower Reduce the miles of roads open to Road access changes could slightly Orogrande motorized vehicles. Lower density of decrease elk security. Elk habitat Project EIS roads and trails open to motorized use, conditions and the elk population in increased elk habitat effectiveness and the project area would at least be security deer. No measurable effects to maintained. other TES, MIS.

2. Present and Foreseeable Future Activities

Lower Orogrande OHV EIS – This project is scheduled to be completed in 2011. It would approve road obliteration, culvert replacements, seasonal road closures to increase wildlife security habitat and commercial thinning and regeneration harvest activities. Specifically: Decommission 6 miles of system roads and 65 miles of non-system roads.

 Improve and/or reconstruct up to 5 miles of existing roads to fix erosion problems  Replace 40 undersized culverts  Commercial thin approximately 1,250 acres.  Regeneration harvest approximately 450 acres.  Improve or reconstruct up to 30 miles of existing roads  Recondition up to 60 miles of existing roads

Travel Planning FEIS – This project is scheduled to be completed in 2010. It would designate the routes and areas that would be available for motor vehicle use by type of vehicle and time of year.

- 88 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

3. Past Activities in the Orogrande Creek Drainage

Project Name Acres Type of Activity Year Timber Sale - unnamed 28 Sanitation Salvage 1959 Timber Sale - unnamed 430 Regeneration harvest 1964 Timber Sale – unnamed 281 Regeneration harvest 1965 Timber Sale – unnamed 506 Regeneration harvest 1966 Timber Sale - unnamed 35 Commercial thin 1966 Timber Sale – unnamed 248 Sanitation Salvage 1966 East Fork French 180 Regeneration Harvest 1967 Timber Sale – unnamed 264 Intermediate harvest 1967 Timber Sale – unnamed 163 Sanitation Salvage 1967 Timber Sale – unnamed 350 Regeneration Harvest 1968 Timber Sale – unnamed 30 Sanitation Salvage 1968 Timber Sale – unnamed 46 Precommercial thin 1968 Timber Sale – unnamed 99 Regeneration harvest 1969 French Creek 114 Regeneration harvest 1971 French Creek 50 Sanitation salvage 1971 Timber Sale – unnamed 6 Regeneration harvest 1972 Cottonwood Salvage 385 Sanitation salvage 1974 French Creek 53 regeneration harvest 1974 French Creek 126 Regeneration Harvest 1975 Timber Sale – unnamed 76 Sanitation salvage 1975 French Creek 39 Regeneration harvest 1976 French Creek 275 Regeneration harvest 1977 Timber Sale – unnamed 35 Sanitation salvage 1977 Timber Sale – unnamed 126 Precommercial thin 1977 Blowdown Salvage 20 Regeneration harvest 1978 Cottonwood Skyline 89 Intermediate harvest 1978 French Creek 22 Regeneration harvest 1978 French Creek Salvage 48 Sanitation salvage 1978 Cottonwood skyline 101 Intermediate harvest 1979 French Creek DWP 41 Sanitation salvage 1979 French Creek Salvage 167 Intermediate cut 1979 French Creek Salvage 55 Sanitation salvage 1979 Pine Creek #2 96 Sanitation salvage 1979 French creek DWP 40 Sanitation salvage 1980 French Creek Salvage 20 Intermediate cut 1980 Larch Butte #3 90 Intermediate cut 1980 Pine Creek #2 280 Intermediate cut 1980 Pine Creek #2 50 Sanitation salvage 1980 Timber sale - unnamed 264 Sanitation salvage 1980 French Creek 40 Sanitation Salvage 1981 Hemlock Ridge CP 75 Sanitation Salvage 1981 Pine Creek #2 30 Intermediate harvest 1981 Pine Creek #2 21 Sanitation Salvage 1981 Timber Sale – unnamed 70 Sanitation Salvage 1981 Timber Sale – unnamed 24 Precommercial thin 1981

- 89 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Hemlock Ridge CP 106 Sanitation salvage 1982 Sylvan Creek 131 Intermediate harvest 1982 Sylvan Creek 41 Sanitation salvage 1982 East Fork Salvage 112 Sanitation salvage 1983 Fidelity Salvage 68 Sanitation salvage 1983 Fuzzy One 33 Regeneration harvest 1983 Sylvan Creek 256 Intermediate harvest 1983 Sylvan Creek 22 Sanitation salvage 1983 Sylvan Saddle 32 Regeneration harvest 1983 Sylvan Saddle 75 Intermediate harvest 1983 Tamarack #1 476 Intermediate harvest 1983 Zan cabin 216 Commercial thin 1983 French Creek OSR 77 Regeneration harvest 1984 Fuzzy One 16 Regeneration harvest 1984 Road 5216 28 Regeneration harvest 1984 Tama Helicopter 11 Regeneration harvest 1984 Tamarack #1 138 Commercial thin 1984 Tamarack #1 351 Regeneration harvest 1984 Tamarack #1 140 Sanitation salvage 1984 Timber Sale – unnamed 146 Regeneration harvest 1985 French Creek OSR 148 Regeneration harvest 1985 Fuzzy One 45 Sanitation Salvage 1985 Hem Creek 46 Regeneration harvest 1985 Road 5216 30 Regeneration harvest 1985 Road 5216 32 Commercial thin 1985 Road 5216 17 Sanitation salvage 1985 Three Bear 63 Regeneration harvest 1985 Three Bear 17 Commercial thin 1985 Bear DWP 36 Commercial thin 1986 Bear DWP 79 Sanitation salvage 1986 Timber sale – unnamed 64 Regeneration harvest 1986 French Ford 30 Regeneration harvest 1986 Fuzzy One 19 Regeneration harvest 1986 Fuzzy One 121 Sanitation Salvage 1986 Hem Creek 25 Regeneration harvest 1986 Larch Butte #3 82 Commercial thin 1986 Larch Butte #3 30 Sanitation salvage 1986 Larch Butte #2 7 Regeneration harvest 1986 Road 5216 67 Commercial thin 1986 Road 5216 113 Regeneration harvest 1986 Sunny Salvage 54 Regeneration harvest 1986 Tama Helicopter 176 Regeneration harvest 1986 Three Bear 99 Regeneration harvest 1986 Three Bear 40 Commercial thin 1986 French Ford 59 Regeneration harvest 1987 French Ford 43 Commercial thin 1987 French Ford 21 Sanitation salvage 1987 Hem Creek 43 Regeneration harvest 1987 Hem Creek 53 Commercial thin 1987

- 90 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Hem Creek 117 Sanitation salvage 1987 Larch Butte #2 63 Regeneration harvest 1987 Larch Butte #2 17 Sanitation Salvage 1987 Larch Cree #2 15 Regeneration harvest 1987 Road 5216 129 Commercial thin 1987 Road 5216 97 Regeneration harvest 1987 Three Bear 50 Sanitation salvage 1987 Cabin Sevenmile R/W 208 Regeneration harvest 1988 Crash Salvage` 250 Sanitation Salvage 1988 Road 5216 67 Regeneration harvest 1988 Road 5216 27 Commercial thin 1988 Road 5216 126 Sanitation salvage 1988 Cabin Creek 24 Regeneration harvest 1989 Ford 18 Regeneration harvest 1989 Three Bear 66 Regeneration harvest 1989 Ford 10 Regeneration harvest 1990 Orogrande Face #2 95 Regeneration harvest 1990 Orogrande Salvage 29 Sanitation salvage 1990 Sylvan French 77 Regeneration harvest 1990 Tamarack Ridge 34 Regeneration harvest 1990 The Flats 130 Sanitation salvage 1990 Three Bear 27 Regeneration harvest 1990 Three Elk DWP 22 Sanitation salvage 1990 Larch Creek #2 69 Regeneration harvest 1991 Larch Creek #2 59 Commercial thin 1991 Tama Helicopter 20 Commercial thin 1991 Tama Helicopter 25 Sanitation salvage 1991 Tamarack Ridge 275 Regeneration harvest 1991 Cottonwood Encore 150 Regeneration harvest 1991 Tama Helicopter 86 Regeneration harvest 1992 Three Bear 150 Sanitation salvage 1992 Three Elk DWP 152 Sanitation salvage 1992 Wounded bear 39 Sanitation salvage 1992 Sylvan II 102 Regeneration harvest 1993 Sylvan II 134 Regeneration harvest 1994 Tamarack Ridge 86 Regeneration harvest 1994 French Creek ROW 6 Regeneration harvest 1995 French Fidelity 334 Regeneration harvest 1995 Tama Helicopter 20 Precommercial thin 1996 Tamarack 34 Commercial thin 1996 Tamarack 358 Sanitation salvage 1996 French Mountain Salvage 808 Sanitation salvage 1997 Fuzzy Fir 62 Commercial thin 1997 Sylvan Orogrande Salvage 67 Sanitation Salvage 1997 Tama 40 Commercial thin 1997 Tamarack 63 Regeneration harvest 1997 Tamarack 111 Sanitation salvage 1997 Turkey Track 66 Regeneration harvest 1997 Turkey Track 14 Commercial thin 1997

- 91 -

Orogrande OHV Trail Project Environmental Assessment

Fuzzy Bighorn 31 Commercial thin 1998 Fuzzy Bighorn 48 Sanitation salvage 1998 Sylvan Orogrande Salvage 114 Regeneration harvest 1998 Sylvan Orogrande Salvage 672 Sanitation salvage 1998 Sylvan Orogrande Salvage 26 Salvage harvest 1998 Tamarack 55 Regeneration harvest 1998 French Cabin 42 Commercial thin 1999 French Mountain Salvage 56 Regeneration harvest 1999 French Mountain Salvage 306 Sanitation salvage 1999 Fuzzy Bighorn 70 Regeneration harvest 1999 Fuzzy Bighorn 64 Sanitation salvage 1999 Fuzzy Fir 110 Regeneration harvest 1999 Fuzzy Fir 120 Sanitation Salvage 1999 Sylvan Orogrande Salvage 124 Regeneration harvest 1999 Sylvan Orogrande Salvage 177 Sanitation Salvage 1999 Tamarack 53 Regeneration harvest 1999 Fuzzy Fir 230 Regeneration harvest 2000 Fuzzy Fir 126 Commercial thin 2000 Fuzzy Fir 134 Sanitation Salvage 2000 Tama 76 Regeneration harvest 2001 Tama 38 Sanitation salvage 2001 5201 Salvage 45 Regeneration harvest 2001 Fuzzy Fir 55 Regeneration harvest 2002 5201 Salvage 40 Regeneration harvest 2003 Lookyhere 30 Regeneration harvest 2003 Tama 90 Commercial thin 2005 Tama 14 Regeneration harvest 2006 Tama 68 Commercial thin 2006 Tamarack Bug 61 Regeneration harvest 2006

- 92 -