Boise National Forest

Home , Boise National Forest

PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND United States RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Department of Agriculture Forest Service January FIVE YEAR EVALUATION REPORT 2011 FY 2004 – 2008*

*Because this evaluation is being conducted in fall 2010, this report will include some discussion and data from 2009 and 2010 when it is pertinent.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. FOREST PLAN FIVE-YEAR EVALUATION REPORT ORGANIZATION ...... 4

III. 5-YEAR EVALUATION RESULTS: TABLE IV-1...... 4

Item 1: Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 4

Item 2: Conditions on the land ...... 5

Land and Resource Condition Changes ...... 5 Public Perception Changes ...... 6 Recreation-related ...... 6

Resource Project-related ...... 6

Item 3: Meeting Objectives, Applying Standards and Guidelines ...... 6

Forest Plan Amendments: ...... 7 Forest-wide Non-significant Amendments ...... 7

Project-specific non-significant Amendments ...... 13

Forest-wide Significant Amendments ...... 13

Item 4: Prescriptions and Effects ...... 13

Item 5: Compliance of Suited Timber Lands ...... 14

Item 6: MIS Population Trends ...... 15

Item 7: ACS Priority Subwatershed Objectives ...... 16

Item 8: Endangered Species Act ...... 18

Item 9: Mitigation Measure Effectiveness ...... 18

IV. 5-YEAR EVALUATION RESULTS: NEED FOR CHANGE ...... 20

I. INTRODUCTION The Payette National Forest (NF) is located in west central Idaho in Adams, Idaho, Valley, and Washington Counties (see Figure 1). The Forest is bordered on the south by the Boise National Forest, on the east by the Salmon-Challis National Forest, on the north by the Nez Perce National Forest, and on the west by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in Oregon. The Forest Supervisor’s Office is located in McCall, Idaho, approximately 100 miles north of Boise. The Forest is comprised of five ranger districts—Council, Weiser, New Meadows, McCall, and Krassel. The Forest is an administrative unit of the Intermountain Region (Region 4) of the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Regional Forester’s office is in Ogden, Utah.

In 2003, the Payette NF completed revision of its 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter, called the 1988 Forest Plan). The Regional Forester signed the Record of Decision for the revised Forest Plan on July 25, 2003. The revised Plan (hereafter also called the Forest Plan) went into effect September 7, 2003. The Forest Plan defines a strategy for the next 10-15 years and describes desired conditions for Forest ecosystems. It sets goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that emphasize maintaining and restoring watershed conditions, species viability, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and healthy, functioning ecosystems.

The 2003 Record of Decision was appealed in 2003 and, in March 2005, the Regional Forester was reversed on the decision to implement the direction found in the revised Plan regarding bighorn sheep management. The Payette has been working at responding to the instructions. In July 2010 the Forest Supervisor issued a decision revising direction for management of domestic sheep grazing and bighorn sheep habitat. The July 2010 decision has been appealed and is currently in the appeal resolution process.

The Forest is also proposing to modify, delete, and add to current Forest Plan direction in response to new information and / or changed conditions concerning wildlife habitat. This effort is called the “Wildlife Conservation Strategy” or WCS. The Payette issued a draft EIS with draft revised Forest Plan direction in January 2011. A final EIS and decision are expected towards the end of 2011. Additionally, the Forest has also been actively working on revising the Travel Plan, and has issued decisions governing summer (snow-free) travel for the entire Forest. The Forest Supervisor signed a decision covering winter travel management for the Payette NF in November of 2010. This decision was reversed on appeal in February 2011.

After implementation of the 1988 Forest Plan, it was evident that forest plans need to be dynamic to account for changes in resource conditions such as large scale wildfire or listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), new information, and changed regulation and policies such as the roads analysis policy. To accomplish this, the 2003 Forest Plan has embraced the principles of adaptive management.

This five-year review provides an evaluation of the information gathered over the first five years1 of plan implementation. Evaluation is more than reporting facts and figures. Forest plan evaluation summarizes how forest plan decisions have been implemented, how effective the implementation has proved to be in accomplishing desired outcomes, what we learned along the way, and how valid our assumptions are that led us to decide what we did in the plan. In short, the five-year evaluation report is critical to evaluating whether there is a “need to change” our Forest Plan. The five-year monitoring report included a discussion of the results of the data gathered over the first five years of plan implementation and how that data relates to accomplishment of a sampling of Forest Plan objectives (USDA Forest Service 2009). This five-year evaluation report summarizes whether that information indicates a need for change in Forest Plan direction.

1 In some cases, the evaluation includes analysis of data gathered through 2009.

Figure 1. Location Map – Payette National Forest

II. FOREST PLAN FIVE-YEAR EVALUATION REPORT ORGANIZATION Chapter IV of the Forest Plan identifies elements related to National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and other pertinent laws and regulations that are reported on an annual or five year basis. This evaluation report will address the evaluation expectations with five year evaluation reporting requirements (USDA Forest Service 2003: p. IV-5, Table IV-12). Table IV-1 in the Forest Plan identifies the regulatory evaluation expectations that must be reported on an annual basis or five year basis. Section III of this evaluation report will address those elements in Table IV-1 with a “yes” in the “Five-Year Evaluation Report” column.

Table IV-2 of the Forest Plan identifies questions and indicators that will be monitored annually to determine the success of the Forest Plan management strategy in progressing toward desired conditions. The monitoring elements with a five year reporting period were covered in the 2008 Payette National Forest Plan Annual Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2009).

Section III of this report will provide an evaluation of any need for change based on the monitoring results posted in the 2008 Payette National Forest Plan Annual Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 20093).

III. 5-YEAR EVALUATION RESULTS: TABLE IV-1 Item 1: Monitoring and Evaluation A program of monitoring and evaluation shall be conducted that includes consideration of the effects of National Forest Management on land, resources, and communities adjacent to or near the National Forest being planned and the effects upon National Forest management from activities on nearby lands managed by other Federal or other government agencies or under the jurisdiction of local governments [36 CFR 219.7(f)]

The 2003 Forest Plan does provide for a program of monitoring and evaluation. The Forest has published a detailed monitoring report each year since implementation of the 2003 Forest Plan began (See Payette National Forest Plan Annual Monitoring Reports available online at the Payette National Forest public website http://www.fs.usda.gov/payette ). The Forest’s annual monitoring program typically includes a full ID Team field review of a variety of projects across the Forest to determine if: projects have met their intended objectives; the effects of implementing the projects were within the anticipated range of effects documented in NEPA documents; mitigation measures, including applicable Forest Plan

2 USDA Forest Service 2003. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Payette National Forest. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

3 USDA Forest Service 2009. 2008 Payette National Forest Plan Annual Monitoring Report. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

standards and guides, were incorporated into the project and successfully implemented on the ground; mitigation measures and Forest Plan standards and guides were successful in achieving the intended resource protection; and projects implemented were consistent with the assigned Forest Plan management prescription. Results of these project reviews are included in the annual monitoring reports.

Item 2: Conditions on the land The Forest Supervisor shall review the conditions on the land covered by the plan at least every 5 years to determine whether conditions or demands of the public have changed significantly [36 CFR 219.10(g)]

Land and Resource Condition Changes The vegetative baseline used for the Forest Plan reflected conditions through 2000. The multi-scale vegetation analysis completed for the Forest Plan was updated as part of the Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS, discussed in item 3 below), and is based on current conditions. Initiated in 2006 and completed in 2008, the update compared the current condition of macrovegetation to estimates of the historical range of variability (HRV) (Morgan and Parsons 20014). These updated conditions include changes resulting from unplanned wildland fire and planned forest management activities. Since 2000, the Forest has experienced extensive wildfire, affecting more than 800,000 acres (35 percent) of lands within the Forest’s administrative boundary. These fires have ranged from high-severity, stand-replacing fires to low-severity forest underburns. Additionally, about 26,000 acres (1 percent) were treated mechanically for vegetation management purposes.

The Forest is currently in the process of completing a Vegetation Classification, Mapping, and Quantitative Inventory (VCMQ) of existing vegetation. The VCMQ focus addresses the need for a regionally complete and consistent vegetation classification system that will support the production of mid-level vegetation maps across NFS lands, and a regional plot summary database for FIA and other quantitative inventory data. This includes the vegetation attributes needed to model wildlife habitat. Production is underway for a mid-level vegetation map for the Forest depicting the geographic distribution, extent, and patterns of vegetation types and/or structural characteristics. The map is expected to be completed during FY 2011 with accuracy assessment continuing into FY 2012.

The Forest is also collecting forested vegetation data in an intensified grid. This data will be used to update forested vegetation mapping across the Forest as part of the VCMQ process. Forested data collection is expected to be completed by November 2012.

4 Morgan, P., and R. Parsons. 2001. Historical range of variability of forests of the Idaho Southern Batholith Ecosystem – Revised Final Report.

Public Perception Changes

Recreation-related In 2003 and again in 2008, the Forest completed National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM). The NVUM program provides science-based estimates of the volume and characteristics of recreation visitation to the National Forest System, as well as the benefits recreation brings to the American public. Completed in 5-year cycles, the NVUM program helps the Forest Service to manage its recreation resources in such a way that best meets the needs of visitors while maintaining the quality of the natural resource base. Results of the 2008 NVUM are summarized below. Results of the 2008 NVUM have been analyzed and are available on the web at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/ .

In 2008, there were approximately 883,200 recreation visits to the PNF according to the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report published in 2009 (USDA 20095). Based on the NVUM survey results, the most popular activities pursued on the SNF include the following: viewing natural features (31.1% of all visitors participated in this activity); viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc. (27.9%); fishing (27.1%); hiking or walking (26.9%); relaxing (23.8%); and downhill skiing or snowboarding (14.8%).

Overall, the 2008 NVUM found that visitor satisfaction on the Forest was very high, with less than 5% of survey participants expressing less than satisfactory opinions with the type and/or condition of services provided by the Forest. Based on results of the 2008 NVUM, it does not appear that there has been a significant change in conditions or demands of the public relative to the Forest’s recreation program.

Resource Project-related The Forest has analyzed and issued decisions on 149 resource management projects since October 2003. All of these projects involved some level of public involvement. While we have heard a variety of strong viewpoints on the issues being analyzed, there is no evidence of a trend indicating that the Forest’s management strategy is not meeting the needs of most members of the public. In general, the public continues to be polarized on many issues pertaining to resource management. Issues which were at the forefront during this five-year planning cycle include travel management, bighorn sheep and domestic sheep management, road obliteration for resource reasons, and minerals management.

Item 3: Meeting Objectives, Applying Standards and Guidelines At intervals established in the plan, implementation shall be evaluated on a sample basis to determine how well objectives have been met and how closely management standards and guidelines have been applied. Based upon this evaluation, the interdisciplinary team shall recommend to the Forest Supervisor such changes in management direction, revision, or amendments to the forest plan as are deemed necessary [36 CFR 219.12(k)]

5 USDA Forest Service. 2009. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results – Payette National Forest. Intermountain Region. McCall ID.

The Forest has included a section on Forest Plan objectives with annual accomplishment requirements in its annual monitoring reports. A review of the results of the monitoring reports indicates that the Forest is making good progress on most of these objectives. Inadequate funding levels do appear to be the biggest factor in not making more progress in objectives.

Forest Plan Amendments:

Forest-wide Non-significant Amendments

Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Revised Wilderness Management Plan In November of 2003 the Forest Supervisors for the Bitteroot, Nez Perce, Payette, and Salmon-Challis National Forests signed a Record of Decision amending their respective Forest Plans with direction for the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. The management direction found in The Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 20036) is appended to the 2003 LRMP document Management Area 14 direction found on page III-274 (USDA Forest Service 2003).

Domestic Sheep / Bighorn Sheep

Need for Change The Intermountain Region Forester received five appeals of the 2003 Forest Plan decision to implement Alternative 7 as described in the ROD, with appellants contending that the Regional Forester violated NFMA and the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) Act on the Payette National Forest by allowing grazing of domestic sheep within or near the range of bighorn sheep, thus threatening the viability of bighorn sheep through disease transmission. The HCNRA Act provides direction for the “administration, protection, and development” of the HCNRA (16 USC §460gg-4).

On March 9, 2005, the Chief of the Forest Service (Chief) concurred that the effects analyses and cumulative effects discussion pertaining to bighorn sheep presented in the FEIS did not adequately address viability and reversed the Intermountain Regional Forester’s 2003 decision to approve revised management direction for the Hells Canyon Management Area (MA) as it pertained to bighorn sheep and its habitat. The Chief stated that allowing continued domestic sheep grazing in or near occupied bighorn sheep habitat threatened the viability of bighorn sheep populations within the Hells Canyon area and across the Payette National Forest.

The HCNRA and Hells Canyon MA are two separate and distinct delineations on a map. Only a small portion of the Hells Canyon MA overlaps into the HCNRA. However, the HCNRA does extend alongside the western boundary of the Hells Canyon MA for a considerable distance. Bighorn sheep have repeatedly been documented, in the Hells Canyon telemetry data, traversing back and forth across the boundaries of these two areas and have been present within domestic sheep and goat allotments on the

6 USDA Forest Service. 2003. The Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

Payette National Forest during the permitted grazing season. Since the Chief instructed the Payette National Forest to conduct a viability analysis at the planning unit scale, the entire Payette National Forest was analyzed, which affected the Salmon River Mountain bighorn sheep population.

To address the issue of bighorn sheep viability, the Regional Forester was instructed to reanalyze bighorn sheep viability on the Payette National Forest; amend the FEIS accordingly; and evaluate and adopt, as necessary, changes to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 20037) management direction for the Hells Canyon MA and adjacent areas. In July 2010 the Forest completed the analysis and the Forest Supervisor issued the final SEIS and ROD regarding the Forest Plan amendment.

Wildlife Conservation Strategy As described in item two above, the Forest is in the process of completing a forested vegetation WCS. The WCS will include priorities for vegetation treatment to move vegetation towards desired conditions. Because management prescriptions assigned on the Payette outside of Wilderness are predominantly restoration based (64% of the non-Wilderness portion of the Forest is assigned to restoration based MPCs), preliminary results of analysis completed for the WCS indicate that there may be a need to change the assigned management prescription 5.2 “Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes” to 5.1 “Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes” or 3.2 “Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources”. Similarly, preliminary model reruns indicate there may be a decrease in projected ASQ and TSPQ. The average level of wood products produced by the Forest over the first five years of plan implementation is lower than projected for ASQ and TSPQ in the 2003 LRMP. 2004 – 20.1 MMBF, 2005 – 5.6 MMBF, 2006 – 9.3 MMBF, 2007 – 35.9 MMBF, 2008 – 30.7 MMBF, 2009 – 5.9 MMBF. The final WCS, anticipated to be released in 2011, will include updated ASQ and TSPQ numbers.

The 2003 Forest Plan included management direction for wildlife based on the analysis in the 2003 FEIS. During the 2003 Forest Plan revision process, wildlife habitat families8 that had declined from historical conditions were identified, and management direction was developed for these families based on habitat conservation and restoration needs. However, a comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS) that included a spatial prioritization for maintaining and/or restoring one habitat area over another was not finalized in the 2003 Forest Plan. Instead, this strategy was to be completed during the life of the Forest Plan under Forest Plan wildlife objective WIOB03. This objective called for developing a

7 USDA Forest Service 2003. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Payette National Forest. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

8 A collection of focal species that share similarities in source habitats, with the similarities arranged along major vegetative themes. 8

strategy to prioritize wildlife habitat maintenance and restoration, using information from sources such as species habitat models (USDA Forest Service 2003, p. III-269).

When completed, any changes to direction selected in the decision for the WCS will be integrated into the Forest Plan via the following components (USDA Forest Service 200710):

 Forest Plan goals to maintain and restore wildlife habitat resources (Forest Plan Chapter III, Forest- wide Management Direction)  Conservation principles and indicators for wildlife resources (Forest Plan Chapter III, Forest-wide Management Direction; Forest Plan, Appendix E)  Forest Plan objectives, standards, and guidelines for management of wildlife resources (Forest Plan Chapter III, Forest-wide Management Direction and Management Area Description and Direction)  Planning period priorities for habitat families and species of greatest conservation concern (Forest Plan Chapter III, Forest-wide Management Direction; Forest Plan, Appendix E)  Findings from a multi-scale analysis of watersheds within the Interior Columbia Basin (ICB) and Forest (Forest Plan, Appendix E)  Identification of the appropriate type of restoration and long-term (15+ years) priorities for vegetation and habitat restoration (Forest Plan Chapter III, Forest-wide Management Direction; Forest Plan, Appendix A)  Monitoring and adaptive management provisions to track baseline changes and address data limitations and uncertainties (Forest Plan Chapter 4). The WCS will complement the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Idaho CWCS) (IDFG 200511) by building on the broad-scale conservation needs identified in the Idaho CWCS for the Forest area. The Idaho CWCS provides a framework for conservation partners to jointly implement a long-term approach to habitat restoration and conservation that will benefit species of greatest conservation need (IDFG 2005). Conservation partners include state, Federal, and tribal agencies; local governments; conservation organizations; universities; industry; and private landowners (IDFG 2005).

The WCS and proposed Forest Plan amendments rely on the vegetation baseline updates, which reflect vegetative conditions through 2007. These conditions include changes resulting from unplanned wildland fire and planned forest management activities. Since 2000, the Forest has experienced extensive wildfire, affecting more than 800,000 acres (35 percent) of lands within the Forest’s administrative boundary. These fires have ranged from high-severity, stand-replacing fires to low-

9 USDA Forest Service 2003. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Payette National Forest. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

10 USDA Forest Service 2007. Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

11 Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Idaho comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise ID.

severity forest underburns. Additionally, about 26,000 acres (1 percent) were treated mechanically for vegetation management purposes.

The purpose of the project is to complete a comprehensive WCS for the Forest and amend the 2003 Forest Plan to integrate the recommendations of the WCS.

The long-term goal of the WCS will be to maintain or restore a representative, resilient, and redundant network of habitats across the Forest that will provide for a diversity of terrestrial wildlife species and be consistent with overall multiple-use objectives. Short-term emphasis will be placed on restoring habitats associated with species believed to be of greatest conservation concern, such as the wolverine (Figure 2) and white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) (Figure 3). This short-term approach will prioritize habitats in need of restoration. The long-term component Figure 2. Wolverine of the strategy will address restoring habitats for the composite of wildlife species in forested habitats across the Forest and will be integrated with priority habitat restoration where and when practicable. Figure 3. White- headed Need for Change Woodpecker Forest Plan amendments for the WCS are necessary because of the needs listed below:

1. The need to develop a more comprehensive and diverse strategy for wildlife conservation that relies on scientifically accepted conservation concepts (Appendix 1) and associated principles. The 2003 Forest Plan wildlife standard WIST01 is a “threshold that represents the minimum percent of a landscape area retained in the large tree size class…for assuring the viability of terrestrial wildlife species” (USDA Forest Service 2003a, p. A-312). This standard is no longer considered an appropriate “threshold” for wildlife habitat conservation based on local agency expert reviews of best available science including Fahrig (200113), Fahrig (200314), and Schulte

12 USDA Forest Service 2003. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Payette National Forest. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

13 Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conversation. 100:65-74.

14 Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology. Evolution and Systematics. 34:4887-515.

et al. (200615). 2. The need to shift 247,000 acres from commodity production emphasis to a restoration emphasis. Desired conditions for areas within Management Prescription Category (MPC) 5.2 in the 2003 Forest Plan fall outside the HRV, in some cases substantially. These desired conditions do not align with restoration objectives for forested vegetation, wildlife habitat, or hazardous fuel reduction. The WCS was developed under the premise that the risks to species persistence, ecosystems, and genetic diversity increase as source environments depart from the HRV (McComb and Duncan 200716). 3. The need to emphasize retention of most forest stands that meet the definitions of old-forest habitat or the large tree size class. Acres of forests that meet the definition of large tree size class are deficient in nearly all forest types compared to historical estimates. Of particular concern for wildlife species persistence are deficits in the low- to mid-elevation pine forests that historically fell within the nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes. 4. The need to focus restoration to promote desired old-forest habitat or large tree stand conditions and reduce hazards and risks to these habitats. Changes in tree species composition and uncharacteristically high tree densities in stands classified as large tree size class and/or medium tree size class occur throughout the low- to mid- elevation forests. These conditions reduce habitat quality and increase fuel, insect, and disease hazards across landscapes—hazards that may present an unacceptable risk for loss of important wildlife habitat. 5. The need to emphasize retention of large snags while balancing other objectives associated with a given management prescription emphasis. At the Forest scale, the number of large snags (≥20 inches diameter at breast-height [d.b.h.]) appears to be within desired conditions. However, large snags are not well distributed; they are abundant in wildfire and insect disturbance areas but not in managed areas. Large snags are an important attribute of wildlife habitat. Scientists do not agree about the benefits and consequences of salvaging dead trees following disturbance events (e.g., wildfire), especially on lands not suitable for timber production (Duncan 200217; Hutto 200618; Mazza 200719; McIver and

15 Schulte, L.A., R.J. Mitchell, M.L. Hunter, Jr., J.F. Franklin, R.K. McIntyre, and B.J. Palik. 2006. Evaluating the conceptual tools for forest biodiversity conservation and their implementation in the U.S. forest ecology and management. 232. P. 1-11.

16 McCoomb, B., and S. Duncan. 2007. Biodiversity Conservation in Contemporary Landscapes, Stressors, and Ranges of Variability: Scientific and Social Views. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA; and Oregon State University, Corvallis OR.

17 Duncan, S. 2002. Postfire logging: Is it beneficial to a forest? USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland OR. Science Findings. Issue 47.

Ottmar 200720; Lindenmayer et al. 200821). While allowances for the salvage of some large snags following disturbance events on lands designated as suitable for timber production may further objectives, the extent of large snag salvage on other forestlands will be limited by management direction. 6. The need to prioritize vegetative and wildlife habitat restoration treatments to increase the overall probability of restoration success. Vegetation and wildlife habitat restoration in nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes is necessary across the Forest as these areas show the greatest departure from the HRV. However, due to limited resources and funds, not all needs can be addressed at once. Prioritizing restoration areas will help ensure source environments are expanded and functional habitat areas are reconnected in a manner and timeframe that benefits the species of greatest conservation concern the most. In addition, the likelihood of restoration success increases as a landscape prioritization strategy is developed and implemented. A landscape prioritization strategy helps managers better understand how restoration in a given area relates to that in another area; how benefits can be maximized for a given cost; and how, through integration with other resources within and between agencies, managers can capitalize on common objectives and minimize unintended effects to accomplish various restoration objectives (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 200022; Rieman et al. 200023; Mehl and Haufler 200424; Brown 200225;

18 Hutto, R.L. 2006.Toward meaningful snag-management guidelines for postfire salvage logging in North American conifer forests. Conservation Biology. 20(4):984-993.

19 Mazza, R. 2007. Managing forest after fire, science update. Issue 15. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland OR.

20 McIver, J.D., and R. Ottmar. 2007. Fuel mass and stand structure after post-fire logging of a severely burned ponderosa pine forest in northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 238:268-279.

21 Lindenmayer, D.B., P.J. Burton, and J.F. Franklin. 2008. Salvage logging and its ecological consequences. Island Press, Washington DC.

22 USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Interior Columbia Basin final environmental impact statement. Proposed decision.

23 Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, R.F. Thurow, P.F. Hessburg, and J.R. Sedell. 2000. Toward an integrated classification of ecosystems: defining opportunities for managing fish and forest health. Environmental Management. 25(4):425- 444.

24 Mehl, C., and J. Haufler. 2004. Preserving and restoring the old-growth ponderosa pine ecosystem in Idaho: Final Report. Idaho Fish and Game. WCRP Project R-1-6-0203.

25 Brown, R. 2002. Thinning, fire and forest restoration, a science-based approach for national forests in the Interior Northwest. Defenders of Wildlife. Washington DC.

Crist et al. 200926). 7. The need to identify the location of priority or key habitat areas for wide-ranging carnivore species, such as the wolverine, and retain linkages between these habitats. Identify where conflicts between this species and human use may exist and whether further review is warranted. Science has clearly shown that human use can directly and indirectly impact wildlife habitat and directly disturb individual animals during critical life phases, such as the denning period. Some species show a high vulnerability to human-use impacts. Assessments used for developing the WCS rely on indicators, such as road densities and winter recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS), to help identify potential conflict between wildlife and human use. Understanding where potential conflicts may exist within important wolverine habitat areas will allow areas to be prioritized for future monitoring. Monitoring winter recreation activities in wolverine habitat priority watersheds will assist the Forest Service and scientists in verifying whether conflicts between winter recreation activities and wolverine use on landscapes exist, and what, if any, additional action might be needed to alleviate or resolve these conflicts through subsequent site-specific actions. 8. The need to balance wildlife habitat restoration needs with multiple-use objectives, the exercise of existing rights, and other public needs. While wildlife habitat restoration is the primary objective of the WCS, the Forest Plan recognizes other important multiple-use objectives. Examples of other objectives include handling emergencies (including wildfire for resource benefit); reducing hazardous fuel in the WUIs surrounding residential areas; providing for public health and safety; exercising prior existing rights and Native American treaty rights; and addressing other statutory requirements such as the Endangered Species Act.

Project-specific non-significant Amendments There have been no project-specific non-significant Forest Plan amendments.

Forest-wide Significant Amendments There have been no significant amendments made to the 2003 Forest Plan.

Item 4: Prescriptions and Effects Documentation of the measured prescriptions and effects, including significant changes in productivity of the land.

Acres affected by wildfire during the evaluation period - ~567,000 acres with reduced productivity for the planning cycle.

26 Crist, M.R., T.H. DeLuca, B. Wilmer, and G.H. Aplet. 2009. Restoration of low-elevation dry forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains: a holistic approach. The Wilderness Society. Washington DC.

The Record of Decision for the: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Forest Plan Amendment Identifying Suitable Rangeland for Domestic Sheep and Goat Grazing to Maintain Habitat for Viable Bighorn Sheep Populations (USDA Forest Service 201027) reduced suitable domestic sheep and goat acres from 100,310 to 31,592 acres (227,080 acres are capable).

The Wildlife Conservation Strategy proposes to change the assigned management prescription 5.2 “Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes” to 5.1 “Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes” or 3.2 “Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources”. Similarly, preliminary model reruns indicate there may be a decrease in projected ASQ and TSPQ. The average level of wood products produced by the Forest over the first five years of plan implementation is lower than projected for ASQ and TSPQ in the 2003 LRMP. 2004 – 20.1 MMBF, 2005 – 5.6 MMBF, 2006 – 9.3 MMBF, 2007 – 35.9 MMBF, 2008 – 30.7 MMBF, 2009 – 5.9 MMBF. The final WCS, anticipated to be released in 2011, will include updated ASQ and TSPQ numbers. (USDA Forest Service 2011: WCS DEIS28)

Item 5: Compliance of Suited Timber Lands A determination of compliance with the following standards: [i] Lands are adequately restocked as specified in the forest plan; [ii] Lands identified as not suited for timber production are examined at least every 10 years to determine if they have become suited; and that, if determined suited, such lands are returned to timber production; [iii] Maximum size limits for harvest areas are evaluated to determine whether such size limits should be continued; and [iv] Destructive insects and disease organisms do not increase to potentially damaging levels following management activities.

1. Post-harvest reforestation: 6,323 acres (100% of suited lands available for reforestation); 2. There have been 0 acres of unsuited lands reviewed during site specific project analysis determined to be returned to production at this time. 3. Size limits – No size limit modifications have been proposed (openings created greater than 40 acres). 4. For the most part insect and disease outbreaks have been localized and remained at endemic levels during the evaluation period. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks have been increasing in extent.

27 USDA Forest Service. 2010. Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Land and Resource Management Plans: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Forest Plan Amendment Identifying Suitable Rangeland for Domestic Sheep and Goat Grazing to Maintain Habitat for Viable Bighorn Sheep Populations. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

28 USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Plan Amendments Proposed to Facilitate Implementation of the 2011 Plan- Scale Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Phase 1: Forest Biological Community DEIS. Payette National Forest. Intermountain Region. McCall ID.

Item 6: MIS Population Trends Population trends of the management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined. This monitoring will be done in cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies, to the extent practicable (36 CFR 219.19 Fish and wildlife resource)

See the response to monitoring element 2.1.3 and 2.1.5 in the annual monitoring plans, particularly the 2008 Payette National Forest Plan Annual Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 200929). The following attachments discuss MIS population monitoring and trends for the evaluation period:

Evaluation of Critical Habitat Proposed for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 14 January 2010 (75 FR 2270), with specific Reference to Bull Trout Populations, Potential Habitat, and Viability on the Payette National Forest. Rodger L. Nelson, Fisheries Biologist Christopher J. James, Forest Fisheries Biologist 16 March 2010

Bull Trout Populations on the Payette National Forest. David Burns, Mary Faurot, David Hogen, Mike McGee, Rodger Nelson, Dale Olson, Linda Wagoner, and Caleb Zurstadt (Appendix 6).November 14, 2005

Fisheries Monitoring Results 2006-2009. Prepared by: J. Greenway, Fisheries Technician Reviewed by: Caleb Zurstadt, West Zone Fisheries Biologist December 17, 2009.

Management Indicator Species Fisheries Monitoring Report West Zone Fisheries. Council Ranger District Payette National Forest August 2010 Prepared By: Cindy Adams

Status of the Flammulated Owl, Great Gray Owl, Northern Goshawk, and Pileated Woodpecker on the Payette National Forest Report of 2004-2007 Findings. Prepared by: Ana Egnew, Payette National Forest Wildlife Biologist Contributors: Clint McCarthy, Intermountain Region Wildlife Ecologist Randy Hayman, Boise National Forest Land Management Planner, and Lisa Nutt, Boise National Forest Wildlife Biologist 25 August 2009

Management Indicator Species Surveys on the Payette National Forest 2008: Field testing of methods Prepared by Catherine Wightman and Vicki Saab USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Bozeman, Montana September 30, 2008

Forest Plan Amendments Proposed to Facilitate Implementation of the 2011 Plan-Scale Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Phase 1: Forested Biological Community. DEIS. Payette National Forest. 2011.

29 USDA Forest Service 2009. 2008 Payette National Forest Plan Annual Monitoring Report. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

Item 7: ACS Priority Subwatershed Objectives Accomplishment of ACS priority subwatershed restoration objectives.

Table 1–Aquatic Restoration Projects Within ACS Priority Watersheds

2004* 2005* 2006 2007 2008 2009

No Miles of Stream Report 18 16.6 36.5 Improved (NR)

Acres of Lake Improved NR 5 5 5

Acres of Watershed 1 NR 34 814 182.5 Improved

*Data was reported differently in 2004 and 2005. Refer to the tables below.

Table 2. Accomplishments in ACS Priority Watersheds - 2004 ACS Priority Subwatershed Forest Plan Objective Work Completed

Addressed

Upper East Fork of the SWG002, SWG010, Meadow Creek Stream Restoration

South Fork Salmon River SWG013

Upper Secesh River SWG001, SWOB18 Grouse Creek Road;

Marshall Mountain Road (FS Road 50325)

Boulder Creek SWG001, SWOB18 10 miles long-term road closure

Brown Creek SWG001, SWOB18 13 miles long-term road closure

Anderson Creek SWG014 84 trees installed in channel

Indian Creek SWOB12, SWOB13 Bull trout moved around passage barrier

Table 3. Accomplishments in ACS Priority Watersheds - 2005

ACS Priority Subwatershed Forest Plan Objective Work Completed

Addressed

Upper East Fork of the SWG002, SWG010, Tri Corp Logging Road Decommissioning

South Fork Salmon River SWG013 1 acre

The ACS is a long-term strategy to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within National Forest System lands. It is a refinement and furtherance of approaches outlined in the ICBEMP Implementation Strategy and the USFWS and NMFS 1998 Biological Opinions. It provides direction to maintain and restore characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and associated fish habitats. The ACS incorporates the monitoring goals identified in the ICBEMP Implementation Strategy and associated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

There are eight ACS components. Any of these components has the potential to influence any of the factors of decline or the recovery/restoration strategy.

1. Goals to Maintain and Restore SWRA (Soil, Water, Riparian, Aquatic) Resources

2. Watershed Condition Indicators for SWRA Resources

3. Delineation of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs)

4. Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines for Management of SWRA Resources, including RCAs

5. Determination of Priority Subwatersheds within Subbasins

6. Multi-Scale Analyses of Subbasins and Subwatersheds

7. Determination of the Appropriate Type of Subwatershed Restoration and Prioritization

8. Monitoring and Adaptive Management Provisions

Item 8: Endangered Species Act Terms and conditions or reasonable and prudent measures that result from consultation under Section (a) of the Endangered Species Act

Between 2004 and the present the Payette National Forest has received 29 Biological Opinions from the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Item 9: Mitigation Measure Effectiveness Effectiveness of mitigation measures and monitoring of risk factors described in the Record of Decision for the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

The ROD for the Forest Plan includes the following risk factors and mitigation measures:

a) Forest Plan management strategies may affect the risk of disruption, vulnerability and disease to terrestrial wildlife species. (USDA Forest Service 2003a: p. ROD-16: Issue #230)

The Revised Plan addresses habitat fragmentation and species disruption and vulnerability through management direction or emphasis that: 1) incorporates the consideration of fragmentation and disruption effects into project design and implementation, 2) recommends seasonal road closures to address big game vulnerability, (3) emphasizes decommissioning roads no longer needed, and 4) maintains the unroaded status of most roadless areas.

b) Forest Plan management strategies may affect the amount of vegetation at risk to uncharacteristic wildfire and epidemic insect disturbances. (USDA Forest Service 2003a: p. ROD-1631)

Since implementation of the Forest Plan in September 2003, the Forest has implemented several vegetation treatment projects with objectives for reducing risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and insect and disease epidemics. Across the Forest, treatments maintained or improved condition class and reduced risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and epidemic insect disturbance on approximately 49,966 acres. Treatments included a variety of activities including prescribed fire and mechanical treatments such as timber sales and timber stand improvement. In addition, in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness several lightning ignited fires were managed to allow fire to perform its natural role in the ecosystem (137,297 acres). This resulted in a modification of future fire behavior and resilience to disturbance.

30 USDA Forest Service 2003. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Payette National Forest. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

31 Ibid

Table 4. Hazardous Fuels and Timber Area Treated, Fiscal Years 2004-2009

WUI Non-WUI Total

Acres Acres Acres

Mechanical 5,745 4,892 10,637

Prescribed Fire 5,040 7,133 12,173

Wildland Fire with Resource 137,297 137,297 Benefit*

Total Timber Harvested 11,959 11,959

Total Salvage 1,276 1,276

Total Other than Salvage 914 914

Total Reforested 6,323 6,323

Total Timber Stand 6,684 6,684 Improvement

Total 10,785 176,478 187,263

* Resource Benefit acres are not considered part of the forest target, but do reflect an ecological change on the landscape including condition class change resulting from managed fire activities.

c) Forest Plan management strategies may affect the amount of vegetation at risk to wildfire and at what rate hazardous conditions are reduced in areas where there are threats to life and private property (wildland-urban interface). (USDA Forest Service 2003a: p. ROD-16: Issue #232)

Within the Wildland Urban Interface, mechanical treatments accounted for 10,785 acres (see Table 4 above). These treatments will modify wildfire within the treated area.

d) Relative to the NFMA requirement that “…permits, contracts, and other instruments for use and occupancy” of National Forest System lands be “consistent” with the Forest Plan (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)), the ROD includes the following mitigation measure: “It is my intention to bring Term Grazing Permits into compliance with the Revised Plan in a two-step process ((USDA Forest Service 2003a: p. ROD-41-4233):

1. Upon approval of the Revised Plan, all grazing permits will be modified with a Standard Modification form, part 3 of the term grazing permit, as appropriate, to

32 USDA Forest Service 2003. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Payette National Forest. Intermountain Region. Payette National Forest. McCall ID.

33 Ibid

include applicable direction. This includes, but may not be limited to, standards and guidelines for forage utilization and water and riparian resources.

2. When Allotment Management Plan NEPA documentation is completed per the Rescission Act (Public Law 104-19, section 504; July 27, 1995) schedule, additional direction from the project specific NEPA document will be incorporated into the term grazing permit.”

Forest Plan direction for rangeland resources is being incorporated into all grazing permits. All permits will be updated by spring of 2011. As NEPA is completed on individual allotments, an evaluation as to whether or not grazing as currently permitted is meeting Forest Plan direction. Where it is determined that Forest Plan direction is not being met, changes to the term grazing permit are made. Depending on the types of changes required, additional monitoring requirements may be included to insure that the required changes are resulting in movement towards goals and desired conditions listed in the Forest Plan.

IV. 5-YEAR EVALUATION RESULTS: NEED FOR CHANGE The need for change which drove the changes in Forest Plan direction for management of domestic sheep grazing and bighorn sheep viability is discussed above. The need for change which is driving the current analysis behind the WCS and the proposed amendment is also discussed. At this time the Forest does not see a need for any additional amendments to the 2003 Forest Plan.