United States Department of Agriculture Little Boulder Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Forest Service Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests Palouse Ranger District January 2018 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
Little Boulder Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Latah County, Idaho
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service
Responsible Official: Cheryl F. Probert, Forest Supervisor Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests 903 3rd Street Kamiah, ID 83536
For Information Contact: Stephanie R. Israel, NEPA Planner Palouse Ranger District 1700 Highway 6 Potlatch, ID 83855 (208) 875-1131
Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared to analyze and disclose the potential effects from implementation of the Little Boulder project. The project is located on the Palouse Ranger District of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests in Latah County, ID. This DEIS discusses the purpose and need for the Proposed Action; alternatives to the Proposed Action; potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementing each alternative; project design criteria; and mitigation measures. Four alternatives are analyzed in detail in the DEIS: the “No-Action” Alternative (Alternative 1), the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), the “No New Roads” Alternative (Alternative 3), and “No Openings Greater than 40 Acres in Size” Alternative (Alternative 4).
Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period for the DEIS. Comments received for the DEIS will be used to prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the Agency’s preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial reviews of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Record of Decision under 36 CFR Part 218 (Objections).
Information on how to submit comments is provided below.
Send comments by hand, mail, or FAX to: Stephanie Israel, NEPA Planner 1700 Highway 6 Potlatch, ID 83855
FAX: (208) 875-1133
Send electronic comments to: [email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted in a format that is readable with optical character recognition software and is searchable, such as Microsoft Word. The subject line must contain “Little Boulder DEIS.”
Date Comments Must Be Received: Within 45 days following publication of a legal notice in the Lewiston Tribune requesting comments on the DEIS. Anticipate January 2018.
Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Summary This summary is a concise account of the purpose and need, proposed activities, and affected environment associated with the Little Boulder project. The 12,425 acre project area is located on the Palouse Ranger District of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests near the town of Helmer in Latah County, ID. Project area lies within portions of the Hog Meadow Creek-Potlatch Creek, East Fork Potlatch River, and West Fork Potlatch River subwatersheds. The majority of the project area lies within T40N R1W Sections 22-28, 31-36 and smaller sections lie within T40N R1E Sections 17-20, 30 and T39N R1W Sections 1-5, Boise Meridian. S-1.1 Purpose and Need
The current vegetation, watershed conditions and hazardous fuels within the Little Boulder project area are in need of improvement because existing conditions for the project area do not meet desired conditions. The purpose of the project is to emphasize species diversity and stand productivity, reduce fuel buildup in stands in the wildland urban interface, and reduce long-term sedimentation to streams within the project area.
Vegetation
Current stand composition is inconsistent with historical and desired future conditions. Improving species diversity and stand productivity by reestablishing seral species (i.e. western white pine, ponderosa pine, and western larch, which historically dominated the cover type in this area) would restore tree species composition in a manner consistent with historic stand conditions and increase resiliency against change agents such as insects and disease.
Watershed Health
There is potential for long-term sedimentation to area streams as a result of current road conditions and many stream banks in the project area are in need of stabilization. Streambank stabilization projects, such as the East Fork Potlatch Meadow Restoration, are already planned and will be implemented independently of the Little Boulder project. Many culverts in the proposed project area have reached the end of their service life and are no longer functioning properly. In some cases, the culverts are completely nonfunctional, creating drainage and sediment problems. The existing unsurfaced roads managed for full-sized vehicle traffic need improvement to reduce erosion and long-term sedimentation impacts to area streams. There are roads within the project area in need of reconstruction, reconditioning, or decommissioning/ storage.
Hazardous Fuels and Control of Wildfire
Current fuel loading in much of the project area is high. Most stands in the project area are composed of dense grand fir and Douglas-fir. Historically, many of these drier site ecosystems were more open and experienced low intensity, stand maintaining fires on a 35 to 100+ year cycle. Current conditions are putting the area at a much higher risk of high intensity stand replacing fire. There is a need to reduce fuel buildup in order to restore historic fire regime conditions and create more defensible space to control wildfire in the wildland urban interface (WUI). Chapter 1 provides details on the existing and desired conditions relative to the purpose and need.
i
Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
S-1.2 Proposed Action The proposed action (Alternative 2) proposes a combination of timber harvest, watershed improvement activities, road construction and maintenance, and fuels treatments, as summarized below:
• Regeneration timber harvest on 1,501 acres, followed by site-preparation and planting of blister- rust resistant white pine, western larch, and ponderosa seedlings o 335 acres clearcut with reserves o 1,065 acres seed tree with reserves o 101 acres shelterwood with reserves o Post planting gopher baiting to improve success of the plantation • Watershed improvements including: o Replace undersized or deteriorated culverts o Replace existing Ruby Creek ford with a bridge or other aquatic organism passage structure o Improve soil conditions by decompacting existing skid trails and landings o Range improvements designed to keep livestock within allotment boundaries • Road Work including: o 5.2 miles of new road construction o 1.8 miles of non-system road added to system o 9.0 miles of road reconstruction o 14.9 miles of road reconditioning o 10.2 miles of temporary road construction (to be decommissioned after harvest activity) o 0.3 miles of road decommissioning (most unnecessary roads were decommissioned during the Cherry Dinner project) o Further development of 2 existing quarries to provide materials for road maintenance • Non-commercial fuels reduction treatments using a combination of hand or mechanical work, and/or prescribed fire on 1,183 acres
Details on the location and components of the proposed action and alternatives are provided in Chapter 2.
S-1.3 Topics Identified for Analysis
The Little Boulder project was initially scoped for public comment in November 2014. Letters were mailed to potentially interested or affected members of the public. The scoping letter identified preliminary issues as potential concerns. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) considered the following: Access management Economic feasibility Fish habitat Grazing Size of openings Soil productivity Soil stability and erosion hazards Threatened and endangered species (TES) and management indicator species (MIS) of wildlife and plants Tribal treaty rights Visual quality objectives Watershed conditions Climate Change
ii
Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The anticipated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis level at that time was an Environmental Assessment (EA). The resource specialists on the IDT reviewed the comments and considered them along with known concerns identified by agency personnel. The Forest Service received a total of 5 comment letters in response to the scoping.
After considering the scoping comments received in 2014 and additional environmental analysis, the responsible official decided to develop an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published on April 26, initiating a second opportunity for the public to provide scoping comments from April 26 to June 26, 2017.
The IDT considered all scoping comments received, as well as issues raised by members of the IDT, to refine the proposed action and develop alternatives, design criteria, and mitigation measures for the Little Boulder project.
Comments received during scoping and responses to those comments can be found in the project file. Issues are explained in more detail in Chapter 1. S-1.4 Alternatives
Public input gained from formal scoping, meetings, and field visits was used to formulate alternatives to develop the proposed action. In addition to the no-action alternative (analyzed in this document as Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), two action alternatives are analyzed in detail in this DEIS. The alternatives that are analyzed in detail are briefly summarized below. Refer to chapter 2 for a discussion of all alternatives, including those not analyzed in detail.
No-Action (Alternative 1)
This alternative means the proposed action would not take place. This alternative provides a baseline for comparing the environmental consequences of the other alternatives to the existing condition, and is a management option that could be selected by the Responsible Official.
Proposed Action (Alternative 2)
The proposed action would improve stand resiliency on the most acres and re-establish necessary road access for future management of the land within the project area. S-1.2 provides a summary of the key components of the proposed action. This alternative proposes a combination of timber harvest, fuels treatments, road construction and maintenance, and watershed improvement activities.
Existing Roads (Alternative 3)
Alternative 3 was developed in response to comments received during public scoping expressing concern with existing sediment problems created by new road construction. This alternative would use the existing road system to accomplish vegetative treatments (timber harvest and fuels reduction) and watershed improvement activities, and requires no new roads.
Openings Less Than 40 acres (Alternative 4)
Alternative 4 would limit openings created by vegetative treatments to less than 40 acres in size. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) stipulates that a Responsible Official may authorize projects and activities using cutting methods designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber, only where cuts are carried out according to the maximum size limit requirements for areas to be cut during one.
iii
Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table S-1.1 - Proposed alternative overview by vegetation modification and road work
Treatment Type Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Vegetation Modifications (in acres) Regeneration Harvest 1,501 1,152 938 Non-Commercial Fuel Treatments 1,183 1,183 1,185 Total 2,684 2,335 2,123 Road Work (in miles) Road Reconditioning 14.9 14.9 14.9 Road Reconstruction 9 8.2 9 New Permanent Construction 5.2 0 5.2 Non-system Road added to system 1.8 0 1.8 Road Decommissioning 0.3 2.1 0.3 Temporary Construction 10.2 11.6 9.9 S-1.6 Decision to be Made
The Forest Supervisor is the Responsible Official for this project. The Forest Supervisor will make the following decisions and document them in a Record of Decision (ROD) after completions of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS).
• Which alternative, or a combination thereof, to implement • What mitigation measures, management requirements, and monitoring efforts are necessary to evaluate implementation of the project
iv
Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Contents
Summary ...... i Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Background ...... 1 1.3 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 4 1.4 Proposed Action ...... 9 1.5 Decision Framework ...... 9 1.6 Public Involvement ...... 10 1.7 Issues ...... 10 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...... 13 2.1 Introduction ...... 13 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 13 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 48 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 48 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 56 3.1 Introduction ...... 56 3.2 BOTANY ...... 57 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 77 3.4 ECONOMICS ...... 81 3.5 FIRE & FUELS...... 90 3.6 FISHERIES ...... 106 3.7 HYDROLOGY ...... 138 3.8 RANGE ...... 154 3.9 RECREATION ...... 157 3.10 ROADS/ TRANSPORTATION ...... 170 3.11 SOILS ...... 177 3.12 VEGETATION ...... 201 3.13 VISUALS ...... 218 3.14 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE ...... 232 3.15 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ...... 266 3.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES .. 266 3.17 Other Required Disclosures ...... 266 Preparers and Contributors ...... 267 References ...... 268 Glossary ...... 291 Index ...... 306 Appendix A ...... 309
List of Tables
Table S-1.1 - Proposed alternative overview by vegetation modification and road work ...... iv Table 1.0 Current and Historical Species Composition (Losensky, 1994.) ...... 5 Table 1.1 Current and Historical Forest Successional Stages ...... 5 Table 1.2. Clearwater National Forest Management Areas ...... 7 Table 2.0 Silvicultural Prescriptions by Alternative ...... 17 Table 2.1 Regeneration Harvest Treatment and Need by Unit (acres rounded to nearest whole number) ...... 19
Palouse Ranger District v Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2.2 Summary of Fuel Treatment (Site-preparation) Activities Following Commercial Harvest ...... 23 Table 2.3 Priority Culvert Replacements ...... 24 Table 2.4 Summary of Road Work in miles for Alternative 2 ...... 26 Table 2.5 Non-Commercial Fuels Unit Acreage (Common to All Action Alternatives) ...... 35 Table 2.6 Alternative 3 Units Affected in Acreage/ Access; Different from Alternative 2 ...... 38 Table 2.7 Comparison of Road Work Miles between Alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 39 Table 2.8 Alternative 4 Regeneration Harvest Units with Changes from Alternative 2 ...... 42 Table 2.9 Summary of Effects for Threatened and Sensitive Plant Species ...... 49 Table 2.10 Present Net Value (PNV) of each alternative ...... 50 Table 2.11 Total Vegetation Treated in Acres for Action Alternatives ...... 51 Table 2.12 Summary of Effects for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species by Alternative...... 51 Table 2.13 Equivalent Clearcut Areas by Action Alternatives ...... 52 Table 2.14 Range Improvements Affected by Action Alternatives ...... 53 Table 2.15 Proposed Access of the Little Boulder project by Alternative ...... 53 Table 2.16 Summary of Results for Five-factor Landslide Hazard Assessment for Harvest Treatment Units by Action Alternative ...... 54 Table 2.17 Little Boulder Project Alternatives 2, 3, & 4 Impact Determination for Terrestrial Wildlife Species of the Forest...... 55 Table 3.2.0 Potential Sensitive Plants within the Project Area ...... 58 Table 3.2.1 Comparison of Potential Sensitive Plant Habitat Affected by Action Alternative (acres) ...... 66 Table 3.2.2 Summary of Effects for Threatened and Sensitive Plant Species ...... 73 Table 3.3.0 Forest Plan Standards Related to Cultural Resources and the Little Boulder project 79 Table 3.4.0 Forest Plan Compliance - Economics ...... 83 Table 3.4.1– Advertised Value and non-sale related costs ...... 86 Table 3.4.2 – Present Net Value ...... 88 Table 3.5.0 Occurrence of Landtype Association (LTA) within project area and proposed units by Alternative...... 93 Table 3.6.0 Rationale for Special Status Species Considered in the Analysis of the Little Boulder Project ...... 106 Table 3.6.1 Representative fish sampling effort related to O. mykiss (presumably juvenile steelhead trout) occurrence in project and cumulative effects area stream reaches. Sampling at the same site in different years or by different entities or methods counted as separate sampling events. Other sampling events/efforts have occurred in the 1993-2016 period, but are not represented in this table...... 119 Table 3.6.2 Fish/water quality standards for watersheds within the Little Boulder project area (*Jones and Murphy (1997)) ...... 125 Table 3.7.0 –Hydrology Analysis Area of Little Boulder Project by Subwatershed Acres ...... 138 Table 3.7.1 Existing Condition of ECA & Road Density of Hydrology Analysis Area ...... 141 Table 3.7.2 Estimated Sediment Yield within the Hydrology Analysis Area...... 143 Table 3.7.3 Streams with TMDL plans in the Little Boulder project area ...... 143 Table 3.7.4 Compliance with Clearwater National Forest Plan Water Standards ...... 145 Table 3.7.5 Equivalent Clearcut Areas by Action Alternatives ...... 148 Table 3.7.6 Road Density by Action Alternatives ...... 149 Table 3.7.7 Cumulative effects in percent of Equivalent Clearcut Area by Subwatershed ...... 151 Table 3.7.8 - Cumulative Effects on Road Density by Subwatershed ...... 151 Table 3.7.9 - Sediment Yield, Cumulative Effects by Action Alternative ...... 152 Table 3.8.0 Summary of Range Improvements by Alternative ...... 156
Palouse Ranger District vi Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3.8.1 Summary of Direct Effects of Proposed Range Improvements and Mitigation Measures ...... 156 Table 3.10.0 Existing Operational Maintenance Level ...... 171 Table 3.10.1 Existing Objective Maintenance Level ...... 171 Table 3.10.2 Existing Access Restrictions ...... 172 Table 3.10.3 Road Density of the Little Boulder Project by Alternatives ...... 175 Table 3.10.4 Road Actions of the Little Boulder Project by Alternative ...... 175 Table 3.10.5 Proposed Access of the Little Boulder project by Alternative ...... 175 Table 3.11.0 Landtype Association Composition for the Little Boulder project area...... 179 Table3.11.1 LTA Group Erosion Hazards in project area ...... 181 Table 3.11.2 Landslide Hazard Factors, Frequency of Slide Occurrence and Hazard Risk Rating (McClelland et al. 1997)...... 181 Table 3.11.3 Forest Plan Standards and Compliance ...... 186 Table 3.11.4 Summary of results for five-factor landslide hazard assessment for harvest treatment units by action alternative...... 189 Table 3.11.5 Acres of high landslide hazards in project treatment units according to five-factor landslide hazard assessment...... 189 Table 3.11.6 - Acres of unstable landslide prone soils in project treatment units based on field observations...... 190 Table 3.11.7 - Existing and Post-activity Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DSD) for Harvest Treatment Units ...... 196 Table 3.11.8 - Unit-specific design measures to meet Region 1 Soil Quality Standards...... 198 Table 3.11.9. Existing and Post-activity Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DSD) for Fuels Treatment Units ...... 199 Table 3.12.0 - Current and Historical Species Composition (Losensky, 1994.) ...... 204 Table 3.12.1 - Current and Historical Forest Successional Stages ...... 204 Table 3.12.2 - Acres of Old Growth in the Little Boulder Project Area and in OGAU 209 ...... 206 Table 3.13.0 – Compliance of projects with Forest Plan Visual Quality Standards ...... 221 Table 3.13.1 - Listing of key viewpoints, their sensitivity level and visual quality objectives found within the Little Boulder Project area. Viewpoints or viewing corridors come from the 1987 Clearwater National Forest plan...... 222 Table 3.14.0 - Post-harvest opening sizes (in number of patches and acres) and edge miles ...... 245 Table 3.14.1 - Amount (acres) of Probable Mature and Probable Open Fisher Habitat Changes by Alternative...... 249 Table 3.14.2 - Treatment Type by Alternative that Could Result in Impacts to Flammulated Owl Habitat in their Analysis Area (acres)...... 251 Table 3.14.3 - Amount of Northern Goshawk Foraging, Potential Nesting, and Recently Occupied Post-Fledgling Area Habitat...... 255 Table 3.14.4. Estimated Post-Treatment Distribution of Successional Stages (derived from 23)...... 257 Table 3.14.5 - Elk Habitat Effectiveness and Contributing Factor Changes per Alternative ...... 259
List of Figures
Figure 1.0 – Comparison of Road Work in Cherry Dinner and Little Boulder Projects ...... 2 Figure 1.2. Little Boulder project area vicinity ...... 3 Figure 1.3 – Clearwater National Forest Management Areas within the Little Boulder project ..... 8 Figure 2.0 Little Boulder Alternative 2 – proposed action ...... 15 Figure 2.1 - Forest Road 1963 crossing of Little Boulder Creek, proposed for replacement to ensure upstream steelhead passage (June 9, 2015) ...... 25
Palouse Ranger District vii Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2.2 - Forest Road 3308 crossing of Ruby Creek, proposed for construction of vent ford (i.e., low water bridge) to reduce impacts on fish and water quality ...... 25 Figure 2.3 – Map - Little Boulder Existing Road Conditions ...... 29 Figure 2.4 – Map - Little Boulder Proposed Road Work with Designated Haul Routes ...... 30 Figure 2.5 – Map - Little Boulder Proposed Road Work under Alternative 2 ...... 31 Figure 2.6 – Map - Non-commercial fuels units showing as “fuels treatment” ...... 35 Figure 2.7 – Map - Little Boulder Proposed Treatments Alternative 3 ...... 37 Figure 2.8 Map - Little Boulder Proposed Road Work Alternative 3 ...... 40 Figure 2.9. Map - Little Boulder Proposed Treatments under Alternative 4 ...... 44 *MIS = Management Indicator Species; S= Sensitive Species; T= ESA “Threatened” species; EFH = Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Act ...... 108 Figure 3.6.0 Little Boulder Aquatic Analysis Area ...... 110 Figure 3.6.1 (left) Section of the mainstem Potlatch River justbove Little Boulder Creek confluence, July 21, 2015. Figure 3.6.2 (right) Section of the East Fork Potlatch River within 2 Mile Meadow project area, about 2 miles upstream from mouth, May 11, 2016. . 113 Figure 3.6.3 Section of Little Boulder Creek confluence near eastern end of FR 3306, July 21, 2015 ...... 114 Figure 3.6.4 Steelhead parr (and water striders) visible in Little Boulder Creek isolated pool, July 21, 2015...... 115 Figure 3.6.5 Little Boulder Project Streams, Subwatersheds, and Survey Information ...... 120 Figure 3.6.6 (left) Non-system road 820313 crossing of unnamed tributary of Ruby Creek, proposed for decommissioning (May 4, 2015). Figure 3.6.7 (right) Forest Road 4761 crossing of unnamed tributary of the East Fork Potlatch River, proposed for replacement to ensure upstream fish and other aquatic organism passage (May 15, 2015)...... 129 Figure 3.6.8 (left) Forest Road 4761 crossing of unnamed tributary of the East Fork Potlatch River, proposed for potential replacement to ensure full function during high flow events (May 15, 2015). Figure 3.6.9 (right) Approximate site of new system road SR1 crossing of intermittent/ephemeral and unnamed tributary of Little Boulder Creek (May 4, 2015)...... 130 Figure 3.7.0 Little Boulder Project Hydrology Analysis Area ...... 139 Figure 3.13.0 – Potlatch Canyon Trailhead is located off of Forest Road 1963 near Little 0Boulder Campground. It received year-round use. It was originally a railroad line that was converted into a trail in the early 1990s. The deciduous vegetation along the river supports a large song bird population...... 219 Figure 3.13.1 - The analysis area is viewed from State Highway 8 near Ruby Creek. The mixed coniferous vegetation has a large component of western larch as this fall view shows...... 219 220 Figure 3.13.2 - This Google Earth image shows past harvest activities in the central portion of the analysis area. The green line is the project area boundary. Openings along the edges of the project area are private lands included in the analysis area...... 220 Figure 3.13.3 - This view from State Highway 3 shows the project area in the background and the mixed agricultural and forest land in the foreground. There are several residences located in the area...... 221 Figure 3.13.4 - Critical Viewpoints for Little Boulder Project. Routes or use areas with high concern for scenery are red and moderate concern are yellow. All other routes are in black or grey...... 225 Figure 3.13.5 - Views from FR 3329 show seed tree harvest units in the central portion of Little Boulder Creek canyon. Clearcut and seed tree units included in Alternative 2 and not included in Alternative 3...... 228 Figure 3.13.6 - Past harvest areas retained stand structure, created openings with natural edges and retain screening to meet the Forest Plan VQOs for the project area...... 230
Palouse Ranger District viii Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1.1 Introduction The Little Boulder Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is a site-specific effects analysis of actions associated with the proposed activities of the Little Boulder Project. The Forest Service has prepared this DEIS in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This DEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the proposed action and alternatives.
Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record. 1.2 Background The Palouse Ranger District of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests is proposing the Little Boulder project on National Forest System (NFS) lands in Latah County located near the town of Helmer, ID. The project areas encompasses a section of the main stem Potlatch River, East Fork Potlatch River, Hog Meadow Creek, Ruby Creek, and Little Boulder Creek. The 12,425-acre analysis area includes most of T40N R1W Sections 22-28, 31-36 and smaller sections lie within T40N R1E Sections 17-20, 30 and T39N R1W Sections 1-5, Boise Meridian. State and privately owned lands, primarily managed by the Idaho Department of Lands and Potlatch Corporation account for 2,205 acres (approximately 17%) of the analysis area.
The Little Boulder project builds upon management activities previously analyzed within the Cherry Dinner EIS and takes into account the needs for future access. What is now the Little Boulder project area was essentially the southern half of the Cherry Dinner project. The 2008 Cherry Dinner Record of Decision (ROD) called for 23.6 miles of road decommissioning, including 4 miles of main system, streamside-adjacent Road 3306 and Road 3306A. Alternative road locations initially planned within the Cherry Dinner EIS were all dropped and converted to temporary roads in the final decision.
Since implementation of the Cherry Dinner project began in 2009, 17 miles of road have been decommissioned, including the 4 miles of critical streamside adjacent Road 3306 and road 3306A, and 32 stream crossings removed in the Little Boulder Creek riparian area. The work addressed many sediment source problems in the Little Boulder drainage. Although the overall road density was statistically unaffected, the localized sediment that is associated with stream crossing and stream-adjacent roads was reduced and watershed conditions improved. Because of this substantial road decommissioning effort, some stands requiring treatment were left without road access. (See figure 1.0)
There is still a need to treat the stands within the Little Boulder project area, but without an adequate transportation system to do so. The road mileage proposed within the Little Boulder project would provide the necessary access to accomplish these treatments. The new roads would be primarily located in upland and ridgetop areas so as not to repeat the sediment delivery issues associated with streamside-roads, which were decommissioned by the Cherry Dinner project.
Palouse Ranger District 1 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 1.0 – Comparison of Road Work in Cherry Dinner and Little Boulder Projects
Figure 1.1 –Section of 3306 Road, decommissioned as a result of Cherry Dinner project that was adjacent to Little Boulder Creek.
Development of the Little Boulder project began during the winter of 2013-2014. In the spring/summer of 2014, an interdisciplinary team (IDT) of various resource specialists conducted preliminary field work to determine the purpose and need and develop a proposed action. Public
Palouse Ranger District 2 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
scoping was initiated in November 2014. The Forest decided to prepare an EIS after considering public comments received in response to scoping, and after working through alternative development and preliminary effects analysis.
Figure 1.2. Little Boulder project area vicinity
Palouse Ranger District 3 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1.3 Purpose of and Need for Action The purpose and need for action is driven by comparing existing conditions and desired conditions for a land management area. For the Little Boulder project analysis, the following section summarizes the purpose and need before answering “why here, why now?” explaining in more detail the desired v. future conditions related to the following resources: vegetation composition; hazardous fuels; watershed condition.
The purpose of this project is to:
1. Improve species diversity, stand productivity, and make stands more resilient to change agents such as insects and disease by reestablishing white pine and other early seral tree species and reducing stand densities in overstocked stands. (Vegetation Composition)
2. Continue recovery of watershed function with management activities aimed at maintaining or improving water quality conditions, runoff and storage processes, and soil stability and productivity. (Watershed Health)
3. Reduce fuel buildup in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and improve the health of timber stands which are in decline because of structural and composition changes by reintroducing fire in the drier fire-dependent ecosystems in coordination with timber harvest and other non-commercial vegetative treatments. (Hazardous Fuels Reduction)
1.3.1 Why Here, Why Now?
1.3.1.1 Vegetation Composition The current vegetation in the project area is dominated by grand fir and Douglas-fir ranging in age from 70-100 years old. Historically, as recent as the early 20th century, western white pine dominated the landscape in the inland northwest, including the Little Boulder project area. Historic estimates put white pine at nearly 34% of forest coverage in North Idaho prior to 1920, and in some areas white pine was estimated as high as 80% of forest coverage (Losensky, 1994.)
Grand fir and Douglas-fir are more susceptible to change agents such as insects, disease, and wildfire than late seral species such as western white pine and western larch. If current conditions are allowed to continue, the dominance of grand fir and Douglas-fir would likely further weaken the forest’s resilience to insect and disease. This would lead to a continued decline of forest health in these stands and put future ecological, societal, and economical values at risk.
This decline of western white pine and shift in species composition is mainly a direct result of human actions. Past activities associated with timber harvest, the introduction of white pine blister rust, and to some extent fire suppression greatly reduced the number of white pine and other early seral species (i.e. western larch, pondersosa pine) in the project area.
The proposed action would move the project area toward desired future conditions for vegetative composition:
• A diverse and healthy forest covers the landscape. Forest cover types approach pre-European settlement values; western white pine, western larch, and ponderosa pine cover types are gaining prevalence on the landscape and grand fir and Douglas-fir cover types have decreased in prevalence. Incidence of insect
Palouse Ranger District 4 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and disease damage is low, and stand conditions that are resilient allow for rapid recovery. There is a balance of successional stages; early-successional (30 – 50%); young-mid-successional (20– 40%); mature-mid-successional (30 – 45%); and late-old forest (15 – 40%).
• Sufficient old-growth stands have been identified and protected across the forest to meet established goals and provide habitat for old-growth dependent species (Forest Plan DFC, page II-18).
Table 1.0 Current and Historical Species Composition (Losensky, 1994.) Forest Cover Type Historical Distribution Current Project Distribution White Pine 34% 1% Larch 10% 1% Douglas-fir 13% 18% Ponderosa Pine 21% 2% Grand Fir 2% 60% Lodge Pole Pine 11% 2% Spruce-fir/Subalpine fir 9% 1% Cedar - 15%
Table 1.1 Current and Historical Forest Successional Stages Successional Stage Historical Current Project Desired Successional Distribution Distribution Stage Distribution Early Seral (0-40 years) 44% 15% (1,864 acres) 30-50% Mid Seral (41-140 years) 32% 66% (8,201 acres) 20-40% Late Seral (141+ years) 20-25% 19% (2,361 acres) 15-40%
1.3.1.2 Watershed Health The Little Boulder area streams provide Snake River steelhead trout (steelhead) habitat, with the East Fork Potlatch River and Little Boulder Creek being grounds for steelhead spawning. The current watershed conditions of the project area are influenced by the historical cause and effect relationships: railroad logging resulted in unnatural (low sinuosity) stream channelization; livestock grazing caused meadow compaction; and timber harvest and road construction resulted in excess sedimentation and bank instability/ erosion.
The proposed management activities within the Little Boulder project would reduce long-term sedimentation to streams. Many culverts in the proposed project area have reached the end of their service life and are no longer functioning properly. In some cases, the culverts are completely nonfunctional, creating drainage and sediment problems. There is an unimproved ford at the crossing of Ruby Creek on Forest Road 3308 in need of improvement to prevent impact to the stream. The stream channel has steelhead present and the new crossing is intended to improve steelhead habitat and water quality in the long term. There are roads within the project area in need of reconstruction, reconditioning, or decommissioning/ storage.
The proposed action to improve watershed health would move the project area toward these desired future conditions:
Palouse Ranger District 5 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Headwater streams provide cool water with low sediment loads. Stream beds and banks are stable. Channels accommodate seasonal water and sediment yields without excessive scour, bank erosion or deposition.
• Fish-bearing streams are shaded and cool. There is an adequate balance of pools and riffles throughout the watershed and pools are of high quality. Woody debris in the stream provides good fish habitat and potential debris is plentiful. A healthy trout population exists and provides recreational fishing.
The purpose and need for improved watershed conditions is also supported by the “Clearwater Subbasin Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale” (Clearwater National Forest 1997). See section 1.3.2.3 for more information.
1.3.1.3 Hazardous Fuels Reduction Much of the Little Boulder project area is dominated by dense stands of relatively short-lived grand fir and Douglas-fir. Current conditions have resulted in part due to effects from past management, white pine blister rust and fire exclusion. These dense stands have created ladder fuels, and the trees compete for available nutrients, reducing stand health overall. Historically, these drier sites were kept open and more structurally diverse by periodic mixed severity wildfire that returned on a 30 - 100+ years cycle, then dominated by long-lived, fire adapted and disease resistant species such as ponderosa pine and western larch.
Grand fir and Douglas-fir tend to deteriorate between ages 80-120 years. Currently, the grand fir and Douglas-fir in the Little Boulder project areas are estimated between 70-100 years old. If left untreated, these stands would produce large volumes of dying, dead, and downed material, some of which already exists within the project area. The health of these stands, now in decline due to changes in vegetation composition, would be maintained or improved by reintroducing fire into the drier ecosystems and accomplishing non-commercial fuel treatment in combination with the timber harvest. Additionally, the risk of a stand replacing fire would decrease.
There is a need to reduce fuel buildup in order to restore historic fire regime conditions and create more defensible space to control wildfire in the wildland urban interface (WUI). Teie and Weatherford (2000) state that WUI occurs where people and their development “meet or intermix with wildland fuel”. Over 90% of the project area has been identified as “WUI Rural Lands” by the Latah County, Idaho, WUI Wildfire mitigation Plan (2007 Update Addendum). A high intensity, high severity, and rapidly moving wildfire could put forest visitors, fire suppression resources, and nearby public and private lands at risk. There is an opportunity to coordinate multi-jurisdictional projects in order to achieve common goals. Action items from the 2011 Latah County Wildfire Protection Plan include “Fuels Treatment – Defensible Space” for an inholding of private residences in the Forks area (Latah County, Idaho Community Wildfire Protection Plan pp 86-88.) By coordinating the proposed actions of the Little Boulder project with the proposed county project in the Forks area WUI, lands can be managed in a manner consistent with reducing fuels and risks for these areas.
The desired future conditions relative to fuel treatments are:
• Upland habitats approximate historic composition and density of native conifers. Disturbance regimes (both single tree and stand-replacing mortality events) approximate historic scale intensity and frequency. Succession stages (young,
Palouse Ranger District 6 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
middle-aged and mature forest patches1) are evenly represented and are well dispersed on the landscape.
1.3.2 Management Direction Relevant to Project Development
1.3.2.1 Clearwater National Forest Plan The Little Boulder project would move the project area toward the goals, objectives, and desired conditions described in the Clearwater Forest Plan (1987). The majority of the 12,425 acres of National Forest lands within the analysis are Management Area E1. Management Area M2 consists of riparian areas that can be found within all other management areas. Management direction for each Management Area can be found in the Clearwater National Forest Plan. The following table and map briefly summarize the direction and location of each area:
Table 1.2. Clearwater National Forest Management Areas Management National Direction Areas Forest Acres/ % of project area C4 79 Big Game Winter Range – located generally on steep breaklands on north aspects supporting mixtures of browse and trees (<1%) (Clearwater Forest Plan, page. III-47). E1 9,766 Timber Producing Land – Manage to provide optimum, sustained (79%) production of wood products and viable elk populations while providing adequate protection of soil and water quality. Manage a roaded natural setting for dispersed recreation, and manage for all levels of difficulty of ORV use on trails. (Clearwater Forest Plan, pages. III-57-59). M2 Inclusions Riparian Areas – Manage under the principles of multiple use as Throughout areas of special consideration, distinctive values, and integrated with adjacent management areas to the extent that water and other riparian dependent resources are protected (Clearwater Forest Plan, page. III-69). A5 Throughout Administrative Sites – Manage developed recreational sites to meet public demands for facilities for camping and picnicking (Clearwater Forest Plan, page. III-15). Other 646 Due to land exchange activities since the Clearwater Forest Plan (<1%) was written, some areas within the project area do not fall into any management area.
1 A typical forest patch is characterized by its dominant age class (i.e. succession or seral stage). Inclusions (clusters of trees or riparian stringers of trees) of other successional stages are expected to be present within any given patch. Some small openings (<5 acres) are present in middle-aged and mature forest patches, while legacy or relic trees and other standing trees are present in young and middle-aged forest patches. Preferred patch boundaries are located on topographic breaks and encompass at least a 300 to 500-acre polygon.
Palouse Ranger District 7 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 1.3 – Clearwater National Forest Management Areas within the Little Boulder project
This project would be consistent with the Forest Plan Lawsuit Stipulation of Dismissal of 1993 as the agreements within remain in effect until a Forest Plan revision is completed.
The Forest Plan was amended in 1995, following a joint decision (commonly called PACFISH) by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management for managing anadromous fish- producing watersheds on Federal lands, including the Potlatch River drainage.
Interim direction provided by PACFISH:
• Identifies and defines Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs),
• Establishes Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs), and
• Applies standards and guidelines to RHCAs to meet the RMOs.
PACFISH default RHCAs include those areas within 300 feet of fish bearing streams, within 150 feet of non-fish bearing streams, and within 100 feet of intermittent streams and wetlands. PACFISH buffer widths exceed state best management practice standards.
1.3.2.2 Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the National Fire Plan The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA, 2004) and the National Fire Plan (NFP, 2001) provide over-arching direction to reduce the threat of wildfire and restore ecosystems. Management proposed within the project area is designed to be consistent with this direction. Particularly, proposed management would trend the general landscape condition toward Condition Class 1 in Fire Regimes 2, 3 or 4 and would optimize opportunities to treat hazardous fuels in identified wildland urban interface (WUI) lands within the project area.
The WUI identified by the Latah County Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan (2005) includes 90% of the Little Boulder project area. This plan was developed in accordance with HFRA, NFP, and the Idaho Statewide Implementation Strategy for the National Fire Plan (July, 2002).
1.3.2.3 Clearwater Subbasin Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale The Clearwater Subbasin Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) addressed the need for management in the Little Boulder project area, referenced under the Potlatch River Watershed heading (Clearwater National Forest 1997). It placed the streams in low hydrologic integrity, in part from the high road densities. Many of the streams have “high cobble embeddedness” which refers to the extent at which rocks are covered or sunken into the finer sediment. Management recommendations from the assessment included:
. Reduce sediment sources outside of the stream channel . Abandoned and unneeded native and gravel roads should be treated with appropriate road decommissioning techniques to reduce erosion and chronic sediment transport . Road maintenance of long-term transportation systems should be upgraded to eliminate sediment transport from culvert to drainage . Emphasize forest type restoration, management of late successional habitat, and production of wood products in the Hog Meadow, East Fork of Potlatch, and Little Boulder watersheds
Palouse Ranger District 8 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1.4 Proposed Action The Proposed Action would use a combination of timber harvest, fuels treatments, road construction and maintenance, and watershed improvement activities within the project area. The following summarizes the current proposal (Alternative 2):
• Regeneration timber harvest on 1,501 acres; followed by site-preparation and planting of blister-rust resistant white pine, western larch, and ponderosa seedlings o 335 acres clearcut with reserves o 1,065 acres seed tree with reserves o 101 acres shelterwood with reserves o Post planting gopher baiting to improve success of the plantation • Watershed improvements including: o Replace undersized or deteriorated culverts o Replace existing Ruby Creek ford with a bridge or other aquatic organism passage structure o Improve soil conditions by decompacting existing skid trails and landings o Range improvements designed to keep livestock within allotment boundaries • Road Work including: o 5.2 miles of new road construction o 1.8 miles of non-system road added to system o 9.0 miles of road reconstruction o 14.9 miles of road reconditioning o 10.2 miles of temporary road construction (to be decommissioned after harvest activity) o 0.3 miles of road decommissioning (most unnecessary roads were decommissioned during the Cherry Dinner project) o Further development of 2 existing quarries to provide materials for road maintenance • Non-commercial fuels reduction treatments using a combination of hand and mechanical work, and/or prescribed fire on 1,183 acres 1.5 Decision Framework This DEIS is not a decision document. The DEIS discloses the environmental consequences of implementing the different alternatives, including the no-action alternative (Alternative 1). As the responsible official for this project, the Forest Supervisor will select an alternative based on information in this document, public comments, and how well each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project and complies with applicable state and federal laws, agency policy, and Forest Plan direction. Comments on the DEIS will be used to prepare a final EIS (FEIS).
The decision and its rationale will be documented in the Record of Decision (ROD). The Forest Supervisor is not required to choose either an action alternative or the no-action alternative described herein, but may select components of an action alternative or develop an entirely new alternative created from components of each alternative.
The decision for the Little Boulder project will be subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218, subparts A and B.
Palouse Ranger District 9 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1.6 Public Involvement This section summarizes public involvement for the Little Boulder Project. More detailed information can be found in the project folder which includes letters, mailing lists, legal notices, and comment summary. The project has been listed on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests’ Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since September 2014. The purpose of the SOPA is to inform the public about those proposed and ongoing Forest Service actions for which an official decision would be or has been prepared. The SOPA also identifies a contact for additional information on any proposed actions.
1.6.1 Scoping Public involvement for the Little Boulder Project began in fall/winter 2014. Site-specific comments were requested through a letter that was mailed to potentially interested or affected members of the public and the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee on November 6, 2014. The letter included maps, a description of the proposed action as developed at the time, and potential issues. The letter indicated ways to comment so that interested people could provide input on the project and submit their comments about proposed activities in the area. The anticipated analysis level at that time was an environmental assessment. Comments from five entities were received in response to the 2014 scoping letter.
The Forest Service received and addressed pre-consultation questions from the Nez Perce Tribe about the Little Boulder project prior to formally presenting the project at quarterly consultation in June 2015. Forest Service staff and Nez Perce Tribal members participated in a joint field trip shortly thereafter to further address concerns on the ground.
The Forest Service involved the Clearwater Basic Collaborative (CBC) and presented project updates on multiple occasions throughout the planning process from 2014 and as recently as September 2017.
Upon further environmental impact analysis, the responsible official decided to proceed with an EIS to analyze and disclose any significant effects which may result from the proposed action. A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2017; it allowed 60 days for public comment on the proposal from April 26 through June 26, 2017. Two additional commenters responded during this time.
A detailed summary of scoping comments and responses can be found in the project file. 1.7 Issues Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and the Nez Perce Tribe, as well as internally scoping among the interdisciplinary team, issues were identified and grouped into three categories throughout various stages of the planning process:
1. Key Issues (issues used to develop alternatives and/or design criteria and mitigation measures)
2. Analysis Issues (issues not essential in developing action alternatives, but important to measure because analysis of these issues may show effects of each alternative on different forest resources)
Palouse Ranger District 10 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3. Issues addressed but not analyzed in detail (issues identified during the scoping period but not carried forward for detailed analysis of alternative development)
Some of the key issues used in project development/ design are also carried through analysis because the analysis of these issues may show effects of each alternative on different forest resources.
1.7.1 Key Issues • Watershed condition: Effects to water quality (i.e. sedimentation in streams, equivalent clearcut acres, and water yield/ peak flow), and forest vegetation (species composition, old growth, forest health, productivity, future access, and regeneration).
• Fish habitat (Water Quality): Effects to habitat for steelhead trout and/or other special status fish species and habitat could be affected by increases in sediment and/or temperature.
• Soil stability and erosion hazards: Effects to soil conditions
1.7.2 Analysis Issues • Cultural resources: Effects to Nez Perce Tribe (Nimiipuu) treaty-reserved rights and other cultural resources sites, including those listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
• Economic feasibility: Effects to local economy through activities associated with timber harvest and/or other proposed action as well as consideration of funding needed to complete non-timber sale activities.
• Fish and wildlife: Effects to stream habitat and effects to threatened, endangered, or candidate species; sensitive terrestrial and aquatic species; management indicator species (MIS); and other species of interest that are present in the project area.
• Watershed condition: Effects to water quality (i.e. sedimentation in streams, equivalent clearcut acres, and water yield/ peak flow), and forest vegetation (species composition, forest health, productivity, future access, and regeneration).
• Fire/fuels: Effects to species composition and forest structure/ fuel loading within project area as it relates to historic fire regime and fire behavior.
• Grazing: Effects on cattle utilization and movement within the Potlatch Creek (#38) grazing allotment.
• Rare plants: Effects to habitat for threatened, endangered, sensitive, or other plant species of concern
• Recreation: Effects on recreational opportunities and access (motorized and non- motorized).
• Soils: Effects to soil productivity.
• Visual resources: Effects to visual characteristics and compliance with the Forest Plan visual quality objectives (VQOs).
Palouse Ranger District 11 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Water quality and quantity: Effects to waterbodies and compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and State of Idaho water quality standards (WQS).
• Climate Change: Effects to natural resources from climate change.
Palouse Ranger District 12 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Little Boulder Project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative. 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail The Forest Service developed 3 alternatives in addition to the proposed action (alternative 2) to issues commonly raised by the public, project specific issues identified during formal scoping, and internal discussions/ meetings throughout proposal development. Alternatives include the “no-action” (alternative 1), “existing roads” (alternative 3), “openings less than 40 acres” (alternative 4).
2.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA requires that an environmental impact statement include a “no action” alterative to serve as a baseline to compare action alternatives. This alternative is based on the premise that ecosystems continue to evolve in the absence of active management. It is potentially an appropriate management option that could be selected by the Responsible Official.
Under the no action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No vegetation treatment, watershed improvement activities, or fuels reduction as proposed in the following alternatives would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Selection of this alternative would mean the following trends would likely continue:
• Grand fir and Douglas-fir would increase in density and tree vigor would continue to decline making the forest even more susceptible to insect and disease agents, causing:
(a) More extensive and frequent outbreaks of Douglas-fir beetle and fir engraver beetle
(b) Escalated occurrence of Scolytus and Indian Paint Fungus resulting in mortality in grand fir
(c) Elevated levels of tree mortality in mature stands due to Armillaria root disease
(d) The Balsam Woolly Adelgid (BWA) to continue killing subalpine fir trees of all age classes
• Off-site ponderosa pine would continue to occupy productive sites, with the possibility of contaminating native seed sources
• The area would remain mostly void of western white pine and white pine blister rust would continue to cause crown decline and mortality in the few remaining white pine trees.
Palouse Ranger District 13 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Area streams would continue to recover from past management activities, however, in the short-term, native surface roads would continue to rut and cause erosion of sediment into area streams resulting in high road maintenance costs
• Culverts requiring maintenance or replacement would continue to deteriorate and contribute to a decline in overall watershed condition.
• Hazardous fuel loading would continue to increase, furthering risk of a high intensity stand-replacing fire which could threaten adjacent private property and result in loss of commercially valuable wood products
2.2.2 Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action This is the preferred alternative recommended to best meet the objectives identified in the purpose and need for action. Forest Service proposes the following management activities in the Little Boulder project area:
• Regeneration timber harvest on 1,501 acres, followed by site-preparation and planting of blister-rust resistant white pine, western larch, and ponderosa seedlings o 335 acres clearcut with reserves o 1,065 acres seed tree with reserves o 101 acres shelterwood with reserves o Post planting gopher baiting to improve success of the plantation • Watershed improvements including: o Replace undersized or deteriorated culverts o Replace existing Ruby Creek ford with a bridge or other aquatic organism passage structure o Improve soil conditions by decompacting existing skid trails and landings o Range improvements designed to keep livestock within allotment boundaries • Road Work including: o 5.2 miles of new road construction o 1.8 miles of non-system road added to system o 9.0 miles of road reconstruction o 14.9 miles of road reconditioning o 10.2 miles of temporary road construction (to be decommissioned after harvest activity) o 0.3 miles of road decommissioning (most unnecessary roads were decommissioned during the Cherry Dinner project) o Further development of 2 existing quarries to provide materials for road maintenance • Non-commercial fuels reduction treatments using a combination of hand and mechanical work, and/or prescribed fire on 1,183 acres
Palouse Ranger District 14 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2.0 Little Boulder Alternative 2 – proposed action
Palouse Ranger District 15 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The following sub-sections explain each of the bulleted actions listed above in more detail.
2.2.2.1 Regeneration Commercial Timber Harvest (1,501 acres) It should first be noted that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare this EIS (Federal Register, April 26 2017) stated the acreage proposed for regeneration harvest was approximately 2,680 acres. However, that figure included total acres treated (regeneration harvest and non-commercial fuels treatments). The correct acreage being proposed for commercial harvest within the proposed action (alternative 2) is 1,501 acres.
Regeneration treatments are proposed in all timber harvest units. Regeneration harvest is defined as a treatment in which a new age class is created. The methods of regeneration harvest that would be used for this project are clearcutting with reserves, seed-tree with reserves, and shelterwood with reserves treatments. Regeneration harvest activities in the Little Boulder area would likely commence in FY 2020.
Stand exam data indicate that these units are experiencing declining site productivity due to overstocked stands and increased mortality from a prevalence of insect and disease issues. Regeneration harvest is proposed as the most appropriate management approach to restore early- seral species on the landscape and to meet multiple resource objectives. All units would be adequately restocked with planting of early-seral species within five years after final harvest. (Silvicultural Practices Manual, FSM 2471.11). See Table 2.0 for silvicultural prescriptions by alternative.
Regeneration treatments would include harvest of overstory and understory trees, removing a large percentage of the late-seral species and retaining 6-40 trees per acre depending on the regeneration method. These trees would be retained to meet multiple resource objectives such as snag recruitment, soil and watershed health, wildlife habitat, and visual considerations. Leave trees would be retained in clumps intended to mimic a mosaic of trees that might survive after a natural disturbance such as wildfire. Leave trees would be various sizes and species, with an emphasis on the largest and healthiest early-seral species where they are available. For this project, the criteria is to retain 7-33 tons per acre of down coarse woody debris (greater than 3 inches in diameter) following completion of activities. Drier Sites would retain 7 to 12 tons per acre and moist sites would retain 12-33 tons per acre of coarse woody debris.
Regeneration Harvest Leave Tree Survival
The Little Boulder project will strive for a variable tree survival objective.
The project objective for legacy trees will be that trees should survive the post-harvest site preparation treatments. Where prescribed fire is used for site preparation, fuel reduction measures (limb/top removal or slash reduction around legacy trees) should be taken where needed to ensure tree survival for any “legacy” larch, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir.
The project objective for non-legacy trees would be for a majority (>50%) of the leave trees to survive the prescribed burn. This objective would be accomplished through the use of appropriate ignition patterns, fuels moisture and burn timing without any extra fuels reduction measures; however, that evaluation should be made following project layout.
Palouse Ranger District 16 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2.0 Silvicultural Prescriptions by Alternative Silvicultural Trees Per Basal Area/Acre % Canopy Alternative Alternative Alternative Prescription Acre Remaining Cover 2 Acres 3 Acres 4 Acres Retained Remaining Clearcut with 6-10 6-20 sq. ft. 10 335 291 315 Reserves Seed Tree with 8-15 10-30 sq. ft. 20 1,065 861 572 Reserves Shelterwood 15-40 30-40 sq. ft. 30 101 0 50 with Reserves
A) Clearcut with Reserves: A clearcut with reserves treatment is described as a regeneration method in which up to 90% of the trees have been removed to create a two-aged stand. Most of the trees in the existing stand would be removed to produce a fully exposed microclimate for the development of a new age class, and varying numbers of reserve trees are retained to meet multiple resources goals other than regeneration (future snag recruitment, for example). The unit to be harvested with this method has limited desirable trees to be retained that would contribute towards natural regeneration. These units would be restocked with target stand species by artificial regeneration.
B) Seed Tree with Reserves: A seed tree with reserves treatment is described as a regeneration method that creates an even-aged stand or a two-aged stand depending on management objectives. Trees are retained either as a seed source or to meet resource goals. An even-aged regeneration method of seed trees with reserves develops a new age class of trees from a combination of planted seedlings and seedlings that germinate from desirable seed producing reserve trees. Reserve trees may include trees that are not expected to provide seed but that meet goals other than regeneration. Under a two-aged method, some or all of the seed trees would be retained after regeneration occurs to attain goals other than regeneration. For Little Boulder, this includes retaining reserve trees for long-term structural diversity, future snag recruitment, and maintenance of site productivity.
C) Shelterwood with Reserves: A shelterwood with reserves treatment is described as a regeneration method that produces a two-aged stand in which trees are retained as shelter and shade for new and/or existing young trees. Shelter trees would be retained as part of the future stand to attain goals in addition to regeneration success and site protection. For Little Boulder, additional goals would include retaining reserve trees for long-term structural diversity and future snag recruitment. Group shelterwoods are stands having clusters or groups of shelter trees such as concentration of shelter trees on ridge tops where higher numbers of desired tree species may exist (ponderosa pine and western larch). With this method, a new age class would develop beneath the moderated micro- environment provided by the shelter tree. This treatment improves micro site conditions, especially for frost prone sites or steep south-west facing sites having higher solar insulation loads.
Palouse Ranger District 17 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Regeneration treatments would be followed by activity fuel and site preparation treatments prior to reforestation planting of white pine, larch and/or ponderosa pine seedlings. Post-harvest planting would take place within all regeneration timber harvest units in order to ensure adequate reforestation. Leave trees would be retained for multiple resource goals even after seedlings have become established. (Silvicultural Practices Manual, FSM 2470.5).
Activity Generated Fuel Treatment for Hazard Fuel Reduction and Site Preparation
Where prescribed fire is used for site preparation following harvest, sufficient slash should be retained on site to achieve desired coarse woody debris levels; however, consideration also needs to be made to meet leave tree survival objectives.
Machine piling could be used to pile slash and brush on ground that is less than 35% slope. Detrimental soil impacts will be avoided by using existing skid trails as travel routes as much as possible.
Effects to remaining vegetation would include reduced competition for sunlight, soil nutrients, and water. All regeneration treatments would produce a two-aged stand, where most of the trees in the existing stand would be removed to produce a fully exposed microclimate for the development of a new age class. This would result in increased growth and vigor of forest vegetation in the treated units. Additional indirect effects would be increased shrub and herbaceous vegetation production for 10 or more years after implementation, resulting in increased forage for wildlife. Soil organic material would also be increased as slash left on the ground decays over time in the treated areas. More details on the effects of regeneration harvest can be found in Chapter 3.
Fuel Abatement Post Commercial Regeneration Harvest
Fuel loads generated through commercial harvest activities would be treated as required by the Brush Disposal (BD) (16 U.S.C. 490, August 11, 1916) and Knutsen-Vandenberg (KV) (16 U.S.C. 576-576b, June 9, 1930) Acts and by the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan.
To achieve silvicultural objectives in regeneration harvest units (reduce vegetative competition activity fuels and existing understory vegetation, while retaining adequate down woody debris for nutrient cycling and structural diversity), activity slash would be treated using a variety of methods. Using one or a combinations of these methods, fuels within these units may be treated wholly across entire unit acreages, or applied in areas of concentrated fuels to disrupt continuity and reduce overall loading. These methods include, but are not limited to:
• Yarding tops and limbs • Machine piling • Slashing • Biomass removal and utilization • Prescribed burning
The vertical fuel profile would primarily be treated with the harvest activities. The remaining surface fuels would be burned to reduce the horizontal fuel profile to acceptable limits. This activity consists of broadcast burning, underburning, or mechanical piling followed by pile burning. Post-harvest fuels are expected to be 50-80 tons per acre. Prior to treatment, some slashing may occur to ensure a continuous fuelbed which helps meet resource objectives and
Palouse Ranger District 18 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
reduces risk to personnel. The amount of material left on site would be determined by specific habitat types; wetter sites would likely retain more fuel while drier sites would retain less fuel.
Some mortality in the leave trees is expected due to the species composition and would be acceptable for snag recruitment. Leave tree protection may be done at the base of some early- seral leave trees to better protect them from damage during prescribed burning.
Slash in units with moderate slopes of less than 35%, unless otherwise limited, could be machine piled to reduce fuels and achieve adequate site preparation. Units with steeper slopes would be broadcast burned or underburned to achieve objectives. Units with a mix of slopes may have a mix of piling and burning in order to achieve objectives, maximize the effective prescription burn window, and ensure units are treated in a timely manner. Prescribed fire burning windows are unpredictable, and smoke emission concerns can further limit that window. Broadcast burning would occur in the spring or fall, depending on burn prescription, current weather, smoke and air quality restrictions, and existing stand conditions. Areas treated mechanically would be piled in the summer and burned in the fall after a significant amount of rainfall. This mix of treatments would provide managers with alternatives to accommodate burn windows. Where prescribed fire is planned, standard fire management tools and techniques for containment, including appropriately placed fireline/ fuelbreaks and water handling apparatus, would be utilized.
The following table provides a summary of regeneration harvest treatment types and supporting need by unit.
Table 2.1 Regeneration Harvest Treatment and Need by Unit (acres rounded to nearest whole number) Unit Acres* Treatment Need for Treatment2 Insect and disease prevalence very high. Mountain pine beetle diagnosed in ponderosa and lodgepole pine; root Seedtree T02 11 disease diagnosed in grand fir and Douglas-fir; mistletoe w/reserves present in western larch. Widespread potential for mortality driving need for treatment. Armillaria root disease diagnosed in the stand. Root disease severity rating low to moderate. Indian paint Clearcut T03 5 fungus present in grand fir. Minimal early seral species in w/reserves unit; not appropriate for seed tree treatment. Recommend planting/restoring western white pine after harvest. Armillaria root disease and Indian paint fungus diagnosed Clearcut T04 20 in the stand. Recommend planting/restoring western white w/reserves pine after harvest. Armillaria root disease and mountain pine beetle Clearcut diagnosed in the stand. High prevalence of Indian paint T06 7 w/reserves fungus in the grand fir. Potential for mortality driving need for treatment. Laminated root disease and Douglas-fir beetle diagnosed Clearcut in stand. 80%-90% of the stand composed of root disease- T07 30 w/reserves susceptible species; regeneration treatment appropriate to treat root disease spread.
2 More detailed rationale, supporting treatment needs, can be found in the vegetative and fire specialist reports, located in the project file.
Palouse Ranger District 19 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Unit Acres* Treatment Need for Treatment2 Laminated root disease and Schweinitzii butt rot diagnosed Seedtree T09* 71 in stand. Presence of healthy western larch in the stand w/reserves makes a seedtree treatment appropriate. Armillaria root disease diagnosed in the stand. Many Seedtree scattered openings caused by root disease mortality. Frosty T10 21 w/reserves site with shallow soil; seedtree treatment will provide protection to understory/seedlings. Armillaria root disease diagnosed in the stand. Root Seedtree disease severity rating low to moderate. High prevalence T13* 104 w/reserves of healthy western larch and ponderosa pine makes this a good candidate for seedtree treatment. Armillaria root disease diagnosed in the stand. Root Seedtree disease severity rating low to moderate. High prevalence T13a* 51 w/reserves of healthy western larch and ponderosa pine makes this a good candidate for seedtree treatment. Armillaria root disease diagnosed in the stand. Root Clearcut T13b 14 disease severity rating low to moderate. Minimal early w/reserves seral species in unit; not appropriate for seedtree treatment. Seedtree Stand is culminated (old and nearing the end of its life T15* 86 w/reserves cycle). Early seral restoration would promote stand health. Lodgepole pine is experiencing mortality from mountain Seedtree T15a 20 pine beetle. Root disease-susceptible species are filling in w/reserves the understory. Good site for early seral restoration. Laminated root disease and Indian paint fungus diagnosed in stand. Stand is culminated (old and nearing the end of Clearcut its life cycle). Root disease severity rating moderate to T19 36 w/reserves severe with 80%-90% of the stand composed of root disease-susceptible species. Minimal early seral species seen in unit; not appropriate for seed tree treatment. Laminated root disease and Indian paint fungus diagnosed in stand. Fir engraver beetle observed. Stand is culminated (old and nearing the end of its life cycle). Root disease Clearcut T20 24 severity is low to moderate in east side of stand, moderate w/reserves to severe in west side of stand, but present throughout. Minimal early seral species seen in unit; not appropriate for seed tree treatment. Presence of western larch and ponderosa pine make this a Seedtree good candidate for a seedtree treatment. Fir encroachment T22 10 w/reserves in the understory need to be removed to reduce competition. Ongoing mortality from Armillaria root disease in stand. Seedtree Douglas-fir beetle, mountain pine beetle, and mistletoe T25 38 w/reserves very active. To achieve stand health restoration of early seral species would be required. High component of healthy lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir Seedtree T26* 85 makes this a good candidate for a seedtree treatment. w/reserves Armillaria root disease diagnosed in the stand. Moderate to
Palouse Ranger District 20 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Unit Acres* Treatment Need for Treatment2 severe root disease severity rating. Indian paint fungus and mountain pine beetle present in the stand. Annosus root disease diagnosed in stand. Root disease rating severe and causing widespread mortality. Large Seedtree T30 7 diameter, early seral legacy trees present in the stand; good w/reserves site for ponderosa pine planting and legacy tree restoration/retention. Laminated root disease, annosus root disease, and Indian paint fungus diagnosed in stand. Root disease rating severe Seedtree T31 12 and causing widespread mortality. Presence of western w/reserves larch and ponderosa pine make this a good candidate for seedtree treatment. The stand is currently a healthy mix of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, recommend retaining this mix. The Seedtree ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine is experiencing bark T32 28 w/reserves beetle mortality, the treatment would open the stand and make the retained trees less stressed and less prone to insect activity. Heavy mortality in the ponderosa pine, many trees broken off and/or standing dead. Pine mortality is caused by mountain pine beetle and unhealthy off-site stock planted Seedtree in the 1930s/1940s. Mountain pine beetle also causing T33* 183 w/reserves mortality in the lodgepole pine. Presence of very large western larch snags, good site for regeneration and early seral restoration. Treatment would restore locally-sourced ponderosa pine seedlings to the site. Laminated root disease and Indian paint fungus diagnosed in stand. Root disease severity rating moderate to severe Clearcut T33a* 73 with 80%-90% of the stand composed of root disease- w/reserves susceptible species. Minimal early seral species seen in unit; only appropriate for clearcut with reserves treatment. Good site for ponderosa pine planting and restoration. Seedtree T33b* 71 Stand is currently 40% ponderosa pine but Douglas-fir is w/reserves causing encroachment/competition for resources. Armillaria root disease diagnosed in the stand. Moderate to severe root disease severity rating. Heavy mortality in the Clearcut ponderosa pine caused by mountain pine beetle and T34 22 w/reserves unhealthy off-site stock planted in the 1930s/1940s. Treatment would restore locally-sourced ponderosa pine seedlings to the site. Armillaria root disease diagnosed in the stand. Some mistletoe present in the western larch. Healthy presence of early seral species make this good site for seedtree Seedtree T36* 155 treatment. Mortality in the ponderosa pine caused by w/reserves mountain pine beetle and unhealthy off-site stock planted in the 1930s/1940s. Treatment would restore locally- sourced ponderosa pine seedlings to the site. Shelterwood Heavy mortality in the ponderosa pine, many trees broken T36a* 101 w/reserves off and/or standing dead. Mortality in the ponderosa pine
Palouse Ranger District 21 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Unit Acres* Treatment Need for Treatment2 caused by mountain pine beetle and unhealthy off-site stock planted in the 1930s/1940s. Root disease causing mortality in the Douglas-fir. Treatment would restore locally-sourced ponderosa pine seedlings to the site. Root disease diagnosed in the stand. High percentage of Clearcut T37 13 Douglas-fir and grand fir present. Minimal early seral w/reserves species in unit; not appropriate for seed tree treatment. Armillaria and laminated root disease diagnosed in the Clearcut stand. Stand is in severe decline due to root disease T39 10 w/reserves mortality. Widespread mortality driving need for treatment. Presence of early seral species makes this a good candidate Seedtree for a seedtree treatment. Evidence of western white pine T40 24 w/reserves snags; good site for regeneration and white pine/ponderosa pine restoration. Evidence of western white pine snags; good site for Clearcut regeneration and white pine/ponderosa pine T40a* 67 w/reserves restoration. Mistletoe present in the western larch. Laminated root disease diagnosed in stand. Armillaria root disease diagnosed in the stand. Moderate to Clearcut T42 14 extreme root disease severity rating. Minimal early seral w/reserves species in unit; not appropriate for seed tree treatment. Presence of western larch and western white pine makes this a good candidate for a seedtree treatment. Armillaria Seedtree T43 9 root disease diagnosed in the stand causing widespread w/reserves mortality. Moderate to extreme root disease severity rating. Armillaria and annosus root disease diagnosed in the stand. Moderate to extreme root disease severity rating. Seedtree Mistletoe present in the western larch. Large diameter, T46 17 w/reserves early seral legacy trees present in the stand; good site for ponderosa pine planting and legacy tree restoration/retention. Seedtree Armillaria root disease and Douglas-fir beetle diagnosed in T49* 61 w/reserves the stand. Moderate to extreme root disease severity rating. * Units would create openings greater than 40 acres in size and require approval from the Regional Forester prior to implementation.
The following table provides a summary of fuels treatment following commercial harvest. More detailed information about the fuel treatment activities associated with commercial harvest can be found in the Fuels report located in the project record. One or a combination of these treatments would be used in units to achieve desired site conditions prior to planting.
Palouse Ranger District 22 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2.2 Summary of Fuel Treatment (Site-preparation) Activities Following Commercial Harvest Fuels Treatment Treatment Type Alt 2 Units (1,501 acres) T02, T03, T04, T06, T07, T09, T10, T13, T13a, T13b, T15, T15a, YTL,S,LTP, FDR, MP, BB, Site Preparation Following T19, T20, T22, T25, T26, T30, HFL, MFL Regeneration Harvest T31, T32, T33, T33a, T33b, T34, T36, T36a, T37, T39, T40, T40a, T42, T43, T46, T49 Abbreviations for fuels treatment activities used above: YTL = yard tops and limbs, create landing piles and remove/burn piles S = slash LTP = leave tree protection/ prune FDR = fell damaged residual MP – spot machine pile and remove/ burn pile BB = broadcast burn HFL = hand fireline to be constructed MFL = machine fireline to be constructed
2.2.2.2 Watershed Improvement Activities In order to meet the purpose and need objectives for improved watershed health and move the project area toward desired future conditions, the following activities are proposed:
Replace undersized or deteriorated culverts In several areas, culverts in the proposed project area have reached the end of their service life and are no longer functioning properly. In some cases, the culverts are completely nonfunctional, creating drainage and sediment problems. These culverts are problematic to both watershed conditions and public safety and need to be replaced. New culverts will be place at several locations along existing roads where culverts are desirable, but not currently present.
All culvert placement/ replacement on live streams (i.e.those flowing during in-channel activities) will adhere to the BMPs found in National Marine Fisheries’ (NMFS) Stream Crossing Programmatic biological opinion (NMFS tracking No. 2011/05875). The BMPs for minimizing sediment delivery to streams are provided in Appendix C of the Fisheries Biological Assessment of the Little Boulder Project located in the project record and include: • Removing all fill around culverts prior to culvert removal; • Diverting water around the stream crossing work area where necessary; • Using sediment control devices in and out of the stream to minimize sediment delivery to, or sdiement movement downstream, in the stream; • Ceasing work in wet conditions when rutting or erosion caonnot be controlled; • Replanting or seeding culvert removal areas • Stabilizing culvert removal areas; and • Following culvert removals, recontouring the stream channels and banks to the natural contours of the surrounding area.
In total, alternative 2 proposes replacement of up to 4 fishbearing stream crossings with improved structures and improve up to 56 non-fishbearing stream crossings on existing roads. A more extensive list of potential culvert replacements is located in appendix 2 of the hydrology report. The table below lists the highest risk culverts for recommended for replacement.
Palouse Ranger District 23 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2.3 Priority Culvert Replacements Stream Road Culvert Issue
Unnamed Tributary 4761 Undersized; minor upstream aggradation; water flowing to EF Potlatch River under culvert. Replace with Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) structure. na 3306 Ditch relief culvert; outlet is 50% blocked, inlet is 20% blocked. Inlet is bent/damaged; culvert is bent in middle. Potential drainage problems to road/road grade. Unnamed Tributary 4722 Undersized culvert, bottom heavily rusted, water flowing to Little Boulder under culvert. Wet/spring area. Road is wet and soft, Creek puddling and standing water on road. Rutting. Road and culvert need re-working. Headwaters to Little 3306-C Old, rusty culvert. Inlet completely blocked, creating small Boulder Creek pool. Wet/spring area, water is seeping through road bed/saturated road bed. Couldn't find outlet—buried.
Unnamed Tributary 3306-F Old, failed, rotten log culvert. Wet/spring area with a stream to Little Boulder channel. Creek Unnamed Tributary 3306-F Wet/spring area. No culvert present; needs culvert and road to Little Boulder drainage construction. Creek Unnamed Tributary 3306-F Rotten/collapsed log culvert. Wet/spring area with a to Little Boulder perennial stream channel. Creek Unnamed Tributary 3306-F No culvert present; needs culvert. to Little Boulder Creek Unnamed Tributary 3306-F Rotten/collapsed log culvert. Wet spring area. to Little Boulder Creek Unnamed Tributary 3306-F No culvert present; needs culvert to Little Boulder Creek
Palouse Ranger District 24 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2.1 - Forest Road 1963 crossing of Little Boulder Creek, proposed for replacement to ensure upstream steelhead passage (June 9, 2015)
Replace existing Ruby Creek ford with a bridge or other aquatic organism passage Construction of a vented ford (i.e. low water bridge) is proposed at the crossing of Ruby Creek on FR 3308 (including the construction of a new cattleguard, Figure 2.2). Currently there is an unimproved ford at this location. The vented ford design would allow vehicle traffic to pass over the stream during low flows, and overtop during high flows, without damage to the structure or impact to the stream. The stream channel has steelhead present and the new crossing is intended to improve steelhead habitat and water quality in the long term. Addtionally, one crossing of a fishbearing stream segment on a non-system road is proposed for decommissioning.
Figure 2.2 - Forest Road 3308 crossing of Ruby Creek, proposed for construction of vent ford (i.e., low water bridge) to reduce impacts on fish and water quality
Palouse Ranger District 25 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Soil restoration activities Soil restoration activities would occur on existing skid trails, roads, and log landings reused for timber harvest and then obliterated as part of the timber sale contract. The non-system route proposed for decommissioning (obliterating) would also contribute to soil restoration. Treatments would consist of soil decompaction, re-vegetation, and re-establishment of natural drainage features. These activities could improve vegetation recovery and infiltration, reduce erosion and the likelihood of runoff events, reduce the potential for weed invasion, stabilize slopes, and improve tree growth and vegetation establishment.
Methods and equipment would be utilized to increase infiltration and reduce compaction. Some of this equipment can also be used to place woody debris or move duff and surface layers.
Range improvements designed to keep livestock within allotment boundaries Livestock use the project area during the entire grazing season. Livestock are trucked to the pastures, then move via various established livestock trails through the timber to grazing areas within the grazing allotment. Because of the terrain and ecotype, these trails are critical for animal movement and proper distribution.
Range activities would include building about three miles (2.7 miles) of new fence to maintain pasture boundaries after timber harvest opens up the landscape for animal movement. A cattle guard would be constructed at the proposed Ruby Creek low water crossing of FR 3308 (which is an allotment boundary) to replace existing wire gate. Any trails, corrals, or fences which could be damaged during implementation would need to be repaired.
These activities are designed to keep livestock within the allotment boundaries and achieve appropriate grazing distribution across the allotment in order to maintain resilient native upland and riparian meadow grass and forb plant communities which are resistant to noxious weed invasion and degradation cause by excessive grazing pressure.
2.2.2.3 Road Work The proposed road work associated with alternative 2 is required for access and/or watershed improvement and consists of new construction (both system and temporary), maintenance, reconditioning, reconstruction, and decommissioning. Further development of two quarries used to provide material for road maintenance will be required for all action alternatives.
The road work proposed is presented in this section through comparison of the following summary and maps.
Table 2.4 Summary of Road Work in miles for Alternative 2 Treatment Type Miles Road Reconditioning 14.9 Road Reconstruction 9 New Permanent Construction 5.2 Non-system Road added to system 1.8 Road Decommissioning 0.3 Temporary Construction 10.2
Palouse Ranger District 26 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Road reconditioning - Involves cleaning ditches and culverts, blading the road surface to reestablish drainage, and spot aggregate surfacing.
Road reconstruction - Involves clearing and grubbing, earthwork, culvert replacement, and aggregate surfacing to bring existing roads up to haul standards.
New permanent construction - Constructing new road based on the following criteria:
1. New permanent road would not cross perennial streams, wetlands, or areas with wet or poorly-drained soils.
2. All areas disturbed adjacent to the new road running surface would receive appropriate seeding and slash treatments needed to minimize erosion.
3. Approximate characteristics of the new permanent roads include a 14 foot wide aggregate surface with an average road gradient of 8% except for short segments that may approach a 10% gradient. Cut slopes would be 1:1 and fill slopes would be 1.5:1
4. Drainage structures such as culverts, drainage dips and water bars would be installed and maintained and surface grading would maintain the road prism to prevent concentrated flow on the road surface and minimize the potential for erosion and sediment delivery to streams.
5. Slash-filter windrows would be placed on the fill-slope and cross drainage outlets below new permanent road located within 300 feet of streams to lower the risk of sediment delivery to streams.
6. New permanent roads would be closed to motorized use yearlong with the exception of administrative use.
Non-system road added to system –These roads exist on the landscape but were never officially mapped or added to the Forest Service System. The roads are primarily located along ridgelines. The proposed action would reconstruct these roads to current standards and add them to the system road index.
Road decommissioning – Roads identified as being no longer needed for management would be decommissioned (obliterated) to:
1. Decrease soil erosion and instream sediment deposition.
2. Help restore channel structure and function.
3. Restore hillslope hydrologic processes to a more natural condition.
There are four levels of road obliteration that range from full recontouring of the hill slopes to abandonment of the road. The level needed for each road can be a combination of the four levels and is based on detailed road surveys. In all cases, stream crossing (if present) are removed and rebuilt to match natural channel configurations and access for motorized vehicles is prohibited.
Temporary construction – New roads to be fully obliterated after use as described in standard timber contract provision C6.632. Obliteration would consist of recontouring the road to natural ground contour. Slash, stumps or other woody debris would be placed and scattered uniformly on the top of the recontoured corridor. The road would be revegetated through seeding and planting.
Palouse Ranger District 27 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Quarry Development – In order to accomplish the aforementioned activities, two quarry sites in the project area will be further developed to provide material for road maintenance and also mitigate safety concerns near forest road (FR) 4761. Again, this proposed work is consistent between all alternatives.
1. Quarry #1 is located at milepost (MP) 0.0 on FR 4761. The quarry has a vertical rock wall on the north boundary and is a popular shooting destination. North of the quarry is the Potlatch River and the Potlatch Canyon Trail. The Potlatch Canyon Trail is less than 100 yards away from the quarry and is a popular recreation destination. The quarry will be further developed and reclaimed to provide rock material for road maintenance and also address the safety concerns associated with shooting activity.
2. Quarry #2 is located at MP 0.4 on FR 4761. This site will be further developed towards the East. Estimated area of disturbance is 2 acres. It is anticipated that some material from quarry #2 will be placed at quarry #1 for reclamation purposes.
Palouse Ranger District 28 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2.3 – Map - Little Boulder Existing Road Conditions
Palouse Ranger District 29 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2.4 – Map - Little Boulder Proposed Road Work with Designated Haul Routes
Palouse Ranger District 30 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2.5 – Map - Little Boulder Proposed Road Work under Alternative 2
Palouse Ranger District 31 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2.2.2.4 Non-commercial Fuels Reduction Treatments (1,183 acres) In order to accomplish the stated purpose and need for hazardous fuel reduction and control of wildfire, a number of non-commercial fuel treatments proposed across the project area landscape. These treatments seek to reduce potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities, and increase the likelihood of suppression success within and adjacent to county identified Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas and across the project area. Units were purposefully selected for their location relevant to past, on-going, and planed vegetation management activities to maximize impact and desired effect.
Fuel treatments will be most effective when they are accomplished in concert with landscaped restoration objectives such as restoring species composition and stand structure to historical norms (Martinson and Omi, 2003). Silvicultural principles would be used to achieve multiple objectives: reducing stand density, influencing species composition, and affecting surface and ladder fuel strata in order to change and reduce fire behavior potential. Biomass utilization may be used as a means to dispose of cut material and would be encouraged, whether for firewood use, mill fuels, or other purpose. The project areas is within a reasonable haul distance to local biomass infrastructure. In the event that biomass is not removed, it may be burned in place rather than hauled for utilization purposes. Fuel reduction treatments would target sub-merchantable trees (less than 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH)) and brush. Thinning treatments (modified free thinning or pre-commercial thinning) would concentrate on five components in order to maximize effectiveness:
1. Decrease surface fuels
2. Decrease ladder fuels
3. Decrease crown bulk density
4. Increase crown base height
5. Increase percentage and vigor of fire-resilient seral species
These five components have an effect on surface fire to crown fire transition (Graham, et al., 2004). Treatments would be accomplished through machine or hand work, or a combination of the two. Means of accomplishing these treatments would include: slashing, mechanical treatments, mastication, biomass utilization, mechanical pile/burn, handpile/ burn, and jackpot/ underburn prescribed fire. Where prescribed fire is planned, standard fire management tools and techniques for containment, including appropriately placed fireline/fuelbreaks and water handling apparatus would be utilized.
Across all non-commercial fuels units, multiple entries (mechanical or hand) may be required to achieve desired fuel reduction levels, especially where prescribed fire is planned, because existing fuel conditions do not allow fire to be utilized without causing unacceptable harm to the residual canopy. Fuel treatment maintenance would be required to perpetuate treatment effectiveness as natural succession occurs. Maintenance falls into two categories; prescribed fire and mechanical treatments. If needed, prescribed fire may be reintroduced to units every 5 to 7 years after the initial fuels treatment. If needed, mechanical maintenance (mastication) may be used in areas where prescribed fire has not or cannot be utilized and would be on a 7 to 10 year interval as vegetation growth dictates.
Palouse Ranger District 32 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Low Thinning or Modified Low Thinning (Free Thinning): This treatment would be applied in mature forested units, open grown ponderosa pine plantations, as well as roadside treatment units to reduce ladder fuels, increase crown base height, and select for fire-resilient early-seral species. Biomass utilization opportunities would be explored. Brush would be slashed. Low branches on residual overstory would be limbed up to reduce ladder fuels further. Surface fuel would be treated and reduced. Because these treatments would not include commercial harvest, only sub-merchantable trees, less than 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) and brush would be targeted for reduction. There may be a decrease in crown density in some of the younger (pole size pine plantations) stands treated, but in the mature stands, the overstory would remain intact because mature overstory trees are not targeted for removal. All treated material will be considered for biomass utilization.
Once fuels are adequately reduced, prescribed fire may be introduced to maintain desired conditions. Some jackpot burns may be utilized where loading is sufficient to burn, but continuity to spread is lacking. In stands with a high early-seral/fire-resilient tree component, underburns may be introduced after other surface fuel treatments have reduced fuel loading to help maintain treatment effectiveness and decrease competition for those early-seral species. If fire is not introduced, then mechanical treatments would be reapplied to maintain treatment effectiveness.
Thinning methods include hand cutting with chainsaws and/or pruning poles or machine cutting with a mulching or mastication head on machine-appropriate slopes (less than 35% slope). Surface fuels would be either removed for biomass purposes, mulched, chipped, or masticated on site, or piled and burned on site. Piling would be by machine, on suitable slopes, or by hand. Residual stand structure would only allow small machinery to function having a ground pressure of less than 6 pounds per square inch.
Pre-commercial Thinning (PCT): Through project development, six plantations were identified as high-priority, non-commercial fuel reduction units. Within these plantations, desirable, early-seral fire resilient trees such as western white pine, ponderosa pine, and western larch are surrounded by tall brush with a needle cast component (a very flammable fuel bed), and other species (grand fir and Douglas-fir), creating ladder fuels and increased natural fuel loadings. The majority of these units (113 of 120 acres) have slopes less than 35% and would have fuels treated by mechanical methods and slopes greater than 35% would be accomplished by hand.
Pre-commercial thinning treatments do not traditionally come to mind when discussing fuel reduction treatments because they can cause short-term increases in surface fuel loading, creating a short-term fuel hazard. However, as a fuels treatment, PCT efficacy is dependent on adequate treatment of surface fuels, and PCT has been shown to reduce long-term fire hazard when prescriptions favor early-seral species because those species tend to be long-lived and more fire- resilient than other mixed conifer species (Graham, et. al., 1999). By utilizing a small piece of equipment with low ground pressure and equipped with a mastication head, the desired silvicultural objectives can be accomplished concurrently with fuels reduction objectives. When PCT-sized timber is masticated, the resulting surface fuel bed is generally less than 2 inches in depth and poses a lower fire hazard immediately after treatment. A benefit is that this treatment accomplishes two resource goals (silvicultural and fuels) with one management activity/entry. By utilizing this treatment, slash hazard within county-designated WUI is reduced/avoided, and effective fuel treatment acres are increased.
Palouse Ranger District 33 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prescribed Burning Where prescribed burning is utilized as a tool to achieve objectives, smoke is produced, and this can impact local air qualities. All burning activities would be conducted according to the requirements of the Montana/Idaho Smoke Management Unit Airshed Group guidelines. The amount of prescribed burning is regulated by this group, ensuring that air quality laws and standards are being met. Broadcast and jackpot/underburns may be done in either spring or fall as weather, smoke, and prescription parameters allow in order to best achieve burn objectives. Piles are typically burned in mid to late fall after a significant amount of precipitation has been received.
In order to manage smoke and reduce prescribed fire effects to air quality, a number of smoke management techniques to reduce and redistribute emissions would be used.
As directed by the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group, burning would be avoided when the Airshed group’s monitoring unit forecasts unfavorable weather conditions for smoke dispersal (stable high pressure, inversions) and restrictions are placed on burns in the burn area. Atmospheric stability inhibits smoke dispersal. Burning would be conducted when approved by the Airshed group, and when favorable smoke dispersion weather (atmospheric instability) is forecasted. Instability is related to better lift/transport or venting and dispersion of smoke. This also serves to redistribute emission and dilute impacts. Emissions would be reduced and redistributed by varying treatment timing and managing overall fuel loadings. Precise timing (spring or fall) of prescribed fire would be determined by on-site evaluations of vegetative conditions, soil conditions, and fuel moisture, along with current and expected weather conditions. Burning of any pile created through treatment typically occurs in late fall, when the relative humidity (RH) is higher and after a significant amount of moisture has been received on site. By capitalizing on good predicted smoke dispersion, managing the number of acres burned at one time, and varying treatment timing and implementation, emissions can be reduced or redistributed and air quality impacts can be minimized (Ottmar and others, 2001)
Jackpot Burning: After the hand or mechanical treatment of targeted fuels, the remaining surface fuels would then be jackpot burned where concentrations sufficient to support jackpot prescribed fire exist. Burning would occur on the drier slopes and aspects, helping to further maintain the overstory and fire resilient trees promoted by fuels treatment. Effects of the burning would be “patchy” in nature; cleaning up areas where fuel concentrations exist and not burning in areas where fuels are minimal. Burning could occur in either spring or fall, as prescription parameters, burn windows, and unit fuel conditions permit.
Underburning: After the hand or mechanical treatment of targeted fuels, the remaining surface fuels would then be underburned where concentrations sufficient to support underburning prescribed fire exist. Underburning is expected to emulate a low intensity surface fire where consumption is primarily shrubs, needle cast, and the upper duff component. Mortality is expected within the Douglas-fir and grand fir component, especially in size classes smaller than pole size or 35’ tall. If trees have been stressed by other factors such as insects, disease or competition, there is potential for some mortality. To reach the desired objectives of reducing the aerial and ground fuels, burning may need to occur through multiple entries so the overstory does not become over stressed during the first entry. The underburning could also benefit wildlife species by reestablishing browse and providing a good food source throughout the winter months.
Palouse Ranger District 34 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2.5 Non-Commercial Fuels Unit Acreage (Common to All Action Alternatives) Unit Acres Unit Acres Unit Acres Unit Acres F01 108 F27 39 F55 64 F65 37 F05 13 F44 19 F56 22 F66 16 F08 10 F45 21 F57 43 F67 55 F11 69 F47 19 F58 26 F68 15 F14 132 F48 48 F60 43 F69 7 F17 26 F50 56 F61 19 F70 21 F18 4 F51 84 F62 18 F71 16 F23 8 F53 16 F63 16 F24 58 F54 13 F64 20
Figure 2.6 – Map - Non-commercial fuels units showing as “fuels treatment”
2.2.3 Alternative 3 – Existing Roads This alternative responds to the key issues regarding water quality concerns associated with increased sediment as a result of road construction. It proposes the same types of activities as alternative 2: regeneration harvest, non-commercial fuels treatments, and watershed improvement activities, but without any new road construction.
The sections following the bulleted summary below highlight the differences, where applicable, from alternative 2.
Palouse Ranger District 35 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Regeneration timber harvest from 1,152 acres followed by site-preparation and planting of blister-rust resistant white pine, western larch, and ponderosa seedlings
o 291 acres clearcut with reserves o 861 acres seed tree with reserves o 0 acres shelterwood with reserves • Watershed improvements
o Replace undersized or deteriorated culverts o Replace existing Ruby Creek ford with a bridge or other aquatic organism passage structure o Improve soil conditions by decompacting existing skid trails and landings o Range improvements designed to keep livestock within allotment boundaries • Road Work including:
o 8.2 miles road reconstruction o 14.9 miles road reconditioning o 2.1 miles road decommissioning o 11.6 mile temporary road construction o Develop two existing quarries and one new quarry • Non-commercial fuels reduction treatments using a combination of hand and mechanical work, and/or prescribed fire on 1,183 acres
Palouse Ranger District 36 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2.7 – Map - Little Boulder Proposed Treatments Alternative 3
Palouse Ranger District 37 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2.2.3.1 Regeneration Commercial Timber Harvest (1,152 acres) Without construction of new roads, 350 less acres of regeneration harvest would be accomplished. The proposed treatment for harvest units (i.e. clearcut w/ reserves, seedtree w/ reserves, or shelterwood with reserves), would remain the same as the need and existing condition in those units would not change. However, as access would be limited, some acreages and/or units proposed for treatment would change. The following table provides a summary of regeneration harvest treatments by unit affected by more than an acre under alternative 3:
Table 2.6 Alternative 3 Units Affected in Acreage/ Access; Different from Alternative 2 Unit Acres Treatment Type Change from Alternative 2
T13 106 Seed tree w/reserves 2 acre increase
T33 83 Seed tree w/reserves 100 acres less
T33a 64 Clearcut w/reserves 9 acres less
T33b 55 Seed tree w/reserves 17 acres less
T36 67 Seed tree w/reserves 88 acres less
T36a - NONE Unit dropped – 101 acres less
T37 - NONE Unit dropped – 13.14 acres less
2.2.3.2 Watershed Improvement Activities o Replace undersized or deteriorated culverts o Replace existing Ruby Creek with a bridge or other aquatic organism passage o Improve soil conditions by decompacting existing skid trails and landings o Range improvements designed to keep livestock within allotment boundaries o Decommission any user-created trails that exist
The watershed improvement activities proposed in alternative 3 would be the same across all action alternatives. See Section 2.2.2.4 for detail on proposed watershed activities with the Little Boulder project.
2.2.3.3 Road Work The major difference between alternative 3 and alternative 2 deals with road work, specifically with the lack of new road construction.. There is no change in road reconditioning miles, 0.8 miles less reconstruction, 5.2 less miles of permanent road construction, 1.8 miles less non- system road added to system, 1.8 miles additional road decommissioning, and 1.4 more miles of temporary road construction recommended under this alternative. See Figure 2.8 for a map of road work proposed within alternative 3.
Table 2.7 summarizes the difference in miles treated between alternative 3 to alternative 2:
Palouse Ranger District 38 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2.7 Comparison of Road Work Miles between Alternatives 2 and 3 Treatment Type Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Road Reconditioning 14.9 14.9
Road Reconstruction 9 8.2
New Permanent Construction 5.2 0
Non-system Road added to system 1.8 0
Road Decommissioning 0.3 2.1
Temporary Construction 10.2 11.6
Total 15.1 9.5
2.2.3.4 Non-commercial Fuel Reduction Treatments (1,183 acres) No changes to the proposed actions associated with non-commercial fuel units would occur between alternative 3 and alternative 2. See section 2.2.2.2 for more information.
Palouse Ranger District 39 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2.8 Map - Little Boulder Proposed Road Work Alternative 3
Palouse Ranger District 40 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2.2.4 Alternative 4 – Openings Under 40 Acres This alternative responds to the key issues as related to creating openings over 40 acres in size. Alternative 4 would not create openings over 40 acres in size. To create openings larger than 40 acres through harvest would require approval from the Regional Forester.
2.2.4.1 Regeneration Commercial Timber Harvest (938 acres) Under this alternative, no unit proposed for timber harvest would exceed 40 acres. However, as the need for treatment remains the same, some units have been divided and/or added to treat the maximum number of acres without creating openings larger than 40 acres. Overall, 563 fewer acres would be treated under this alternative.
. Unit T02 would decrease by approximately 1 acre (due to mapping exercise)
. Unit T09 would decrease by approximately 36 acres
. Units T13 and T13a would decrease in size, T13 b would increase slightly, and T13c would be added. These 4 units combined would total approximately 101 acres under this alternative, whereas 3 units totaling approximately 155 acres would be treated under alternative 2 (total of 55 acre decrease from alternative 2)
. Unit T15 would decrease by approximately 46 acres
. Unit T26 would decrease by approximately 62 acres
. Unit T32 would decrease by approximately 1 acre (due to mapping exercise)
. T33, T33a, and T33b would decrease in size, and T33c would be added. These 4 units would total approximately 138 acres treated under this alternative, whereas 3 units totaling approximately 327 acres would be treated under alternative 2 (total of 189 acre decrease from alternative 2)
. Units T36 and T36a would be re-divided and two new units would be created, T36b and T36c. These 4 units combined would total approximately 94 acres treated, whereas approximately 256 acres would be treated under alternative 2 (total of 162 acre decrease from alternative 2)
. Units T38, T38b, and T38c would be added to treat an additional 50 acres
. Unit T40 would decrease from approximately 24 acres to 17 acres. This in combination with a decrease in Units T40a and the addition of unit T40b would result in 3 units totaling approximately 64 acres treated as compared to 2 units totaling 91 acres under alternative 2 (total of 27 acre decrease from alternative 2)
. Unit T49 would decrease by 21 acres
These bulleted changes are also summarized in the table below:
Palouse Ranger District 41 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2.8 Alternative 4 Regeneration Harvest Units with Changes from Alternative 2 Unit Acres Treatment Change from Alternative 2
T02 10 Seed tree w/reserves Decrease from 11 acres
T03 5 Clearcut w/reserves No change
T04 20 Clearcut w/reserves No change
T06 7 Clearcut w/reserves No change
T07 30 Clearcut w/reserves No change
T09 35 Seed tree w/reserves Decrease from 71 acres
T10 21 Seed tree w/reserves No change
T13 37 Seed tree w/reserves T13 and T13 a would be broken apart and T13c would be added as new unit – totaling 101 acres T13a 25 Seed tree w/reserves instead of 155 acres
T13b 20 Seed tree w/reserves Increase from 14 acres
T13c 27 Clearcut w/reserves New unit
T15 39 Seed tree w/reserves Decrease from 86 acres
T15a 20 Seed tree w/reserves No change
T19 36 Clearcut w/reserves No change
T20 24 Clearcut w/reserves No change
T22 10 Seed tree w/reserves No change
T25 38 Seed tree w/reserves No change
T26 23 Seed tree w/reserves Decrease from 85 acres
T30 7 Seed tree w/reserves No change
T31 13 Seed tree w/reserves No change
T32 27 Seed tree w/reserves Decrease from 30 acres
T33 29 Clearcut w/reserves T33, T33a, and T33b would be broken apart and T33c would be T33a 38 Clearcut w/reserves added as a new unit – totaling 138 acres instead of 327 acres T33b 38 Seed tree w/reserves
T33c 33 Seed tree w/reserves New Unit
Palouse Ranger District 42 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
T34 14 Clearcut w/reserves Decrease from 22 acres
T36 38 Seed tree w/reserves T36 and T36 a would be broken apart into 4 separate units – totaling T36a 21 Seed tree w/reserves 94 acres instead of 256 acres
T36b 17 Seed tree w/reserves New unit
T36c 18 Seed tree w/reserves New unit
T37 13 Clearcut w/reserves No change
T38 21 Shelterwood w/reserves New unit
T38a 19 Shelterwood w/reserves New unit
T38b 10 Shelterwood w/reserves New unit
T39 10 Clearcut w/reserves No change
T40 17 Seed tree w/reserves Decrease from 24 acres
Decrease from 67 in alt 2 – T40, T40a, T40b total 64 under alt 4 T40a 9 Clearcut w/reserves rather than 91 acres
T40b 38 Clearcut w/reserves New unit
T42 14 Clearcut w/reserves No change
T43 9 Seed tree w/reserves No change
T46 17 Seed tree w/reserves No change
T49 40 Seed tree w/reserves Decrease from 61 acres
UNIT# = decrease in size from alternative 2 UNIT# = increase in size from alternative 2 UNIT# = new unit UNIT# = units decreased in size from alternative 2, but where the units were not originally in excess of 40 acres
Palouse Ranger District 43 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2.9. Map - Little Boulder Proposed Treatments under Alternative 4
Palouse Ranger District 44 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2.2.4.2 Watershed Improvement Activities o Replace undersized or deteriorated culverts o Replace existing Ruby Creek ford with a bridge or other aquatic organism passage structure o Improve soil conditions by decompacting existing skid trails and landings o Range improvements designed to keep livestock within allotment boundaries
The watershed improvement activities proposed in alternative 4 would be the same across all action alternatives. See Section 2.2.2.4 for more detail on proposed watershed activities with the Little Boulder project.
2.2.4.3 Road Work The road work proposed in alternative 4 is the same as that proposed in alternative 2. See Section 2.2.2.3 for more information.
2.2.4.4 Non-commercial Fuel Reduction Treatments (1,185 acres) No changes to the proposed actions associated with non-commercial fuel units would occur between alternative 4 and alternative 2. The 2 acre-difference in alternative 4 versus alternatives 2 and 3 was a result of mapping exercise.
Palouse Ranger District 45 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2.2.5 Design Criteria and Best Management Practices (BMPs) The following design criteria to be used with all the action alternatives.
SOIL RESOURCES, WATER QUALITY AND FISH HABITAT Directionally fell trees to facilitate efficient removal along pre-designated yarding 1. patterns with the least number of passes and the least amount of disturbed area. 2. No ground based skidding would be allowed on slopes over 35%. Limit operating periods to avoid saturated soils and prevent resource damage (indicators 3. include excessive rutting, soil displacement and erosion). Limit tractor crossings over ditchlines where possible. As needed, install temporary 4. culverts (or crossing logs) to limit damage to ditchlines at tractor crossings. Post- harvest, reconstruct ditch crossings, cut slopes, and fill slopes to standard. All temporary roads would be constructed, used, and obliterated (typically within 3 years after construction, with known exceptions listed below. If practicable, obliteration would occur within the same operating season. If roads are to be overwintered, they would be water-barred and placed into a hydrologically stable condition to minimize surface erosion potential. Several temporary roads will be constructed on existing templates and on other already disturbed areas, with particular attention given to temporary road locations in units 30, 31, 32, 40a, 40b, and 49. Temporary roads would be located on upper hillslope or ridgetop positions and would 5. not cross highly sensitive or unstable areas such as streams, wetlands, poorly-drained soils or landslide-prone areas (exceptions are listed below). • Under Alternative 3, Temporary Road #1 crosses a stream and will include a stream crossing designed by a FS engineer • Under Alternative 3, Temporary Road #5 and nonsystem road 820313 will be retained for site preparation and planting activities before obliteration (approximately 5-7 years after harvest). The roads would be stabilized between periods of use and open to administrative use only.
Locate and design skid trails, landings and yarding corridors prior to harvest activities to minimize the area of detrimental soil effects. Space tractor skid trails to a minimum 6. of 80 feet apart, except where converging, and reuse existing skid trails where practicable, to reduce the area of detrimental soil disturbance. This does not preclude the use of feller bunchers if soil impacts can remain within standards. Recontour excavated skid trails and decompact landings to restore slope hydrology and 7. soil productivity. The use of excavated skid trails and landings will be minimized. Retain 7-33 tons per acre of down coarse woody debris (greater than 3 inches in 8. diameter) following completion of activities. Drier Sites would retain 7 to 15 tons per acre and moist sites would retain 17-33 tons per acre of coarse woody debris. PACFISH default buffers would be used to define timber sale and fuels treatment unit boundaries. No harvest would occur within 300 feet of fish-bearing streams, 150 feet of perennial non-fish bearing water, 100 feet of intermittent streams, and 100-foot slope distance from the edge of wetlands larger than one acre or verified landslide prone 9. areas. Most field-verified landslide prone areas have been removed from treatment units. Further site-specific delineation of landslide-prone areas would occur during layout, with special attention given to units 19, 20, 33a, and 36a that contain areas with potentially unstable slopes. Avoid direct ignition of fuels within RHCAs and/or clumps of live trees. Where low- intensity fire is allowed to back into the edges of some of these areas, the result should 10. be no more than 10% tree mortality. In areas requiring more distributed live-canopy retention and individual leave-trees, the objective would be for a majority (>50%) of the leave trees to survive the prescribed burn.
Palouse Ranger District 46 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Areas with very thin, rocky or droughty soils where soil productivity and reforestation potential is low would be avoided or would receive heavy live-tree retention to assure soil and site protection and regeneration success. These areas may include rock 11. outcrops, areas of bare surface soil lacking vegetation, litter and organic surface horizons, and soils with abundant rock fragments in the surface soil horizons. During field surveys, these sensitive areas were noted in units. During post-harvest excavator piling, minimize new soil disturbance by using existing trails and/or previously impacted areas as much as possible. When machine piling, 12. existing duff/litter would be retained (as much as possible) and not included in the activity slash piling. Slash would be allowed to overwinter prior to burning. For units listed below, limit acreage of new disturbance (skid trails/landings) to remain below the 15% detrimental soils disturbance (DSD) and meet the R1 Soil Quality Standards standard following project activities. Maximum allowable acres of new detrimental soil disturbance as follows: 13. . Alternative 2: unit 3, 0.3 acres (5.7% of unit); unit 32, 1.4 acres (5.0% of unit); unit 42, 0.7 acres (4.9% of unit) . Alternative 3: same as above in Alternative 2 . Alternative 4: same as above AND unit 33, 2.5 acres (8.5% of unit) BOTANY AND INVASIVES Use Forest Service approved native plant species/seed or non-native annual species/seed 14. to meet erosion control needs and other management objectives. Apply only certified weed-free seed and mulch. (Timber Sale Contract Provision, currently C6.601) Remove all mud, soil, and plant parts from off road equipment and equipment being used for road maintenance before moving into project area to limit the spread of 15. noxious weeds. Conduct cleaning off National Forest lands. (Timber Sale Contract Provision, currently B6.35) Protect TES plant species and/or potential habitat identified at any point during 16. planning or implementation as recommended by the unit botanist and approved by the appropriate line officer. (Timber Sale Contract Provision, currently B6.24). WILDLIFE 17. Stands meeting old growth criteria will not be harvested. Northern Goshawk – maintain a minimum 40-acre yearlong no treatment buffer (no ground disturbing activities) around occupied goshawk nest trees. Additionally, no 18. ground disturbing activities shall be allowed inside known occupied post-fledgling areas from 15 April to 15 August. Maintain snags in accordance with Forest Plan standards including snag density and the 19. scale at which those densities apply, preferably retaining larger diameter snags. CULTURAL RESOURCES Halt ground-disturbing activities if cultural resources are discovered until an approved 20. Archeologist can properly evaluate and document the resources in compliance with 36 CFR 800. (Timber Sale Contract Provision, currently B6.24). Avoid ground-disturbing activities near NRHP historic properties. Mitigation measures will include working with contracting officer to insure protection measures are 21. implemented during project implementation to insure site avoidance in compliance with 36 CFR 800. AIR QUALITY Coordinate with the North Idaho/Montana Airshed Group when prescribed fires are 22. scheduled to ensure compliance with the Clear Air Act. VISUALS Within all viewsheds, created openings within treatment units should not be symmetrical in shape. Straight lines and right angles should be avoided. Created 23. openings should resemble the size and shape of those found in the surrounding natural landscape. Treatments should follow natural topographic breaks and changes in vegetation if possible.
Palouse Ranger District 47 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Within all viewsheds, where the unit is adjacent to denser forest, the percent of thinning 24. within the transition zone will be progressively reduced toward the outside edge of the unit. In addition, vary the width of the transition zone. Within all viewsheds where skyline harvest methods are used, minimize the number of 25. skyline corridors in visually sensitive areas. Within retention viewsheds, harvest areas within 300 feet of the viewing platform, (i.e., 26. road, recreation sites, or administrative site), stumps should be cut to 8 inches or less in height. Within retention viewsheds, landing areas within 300 feet of the viewing platform (i.e., road, recreation sites, or administrative sites) slash, root wads, and other debris should 27. be removed, buried, burned, chipped or lopped to a height of 2 feet or less. If slash is buried, locate in previously disturbed areas where possible. For the purpose of meeting the Forest Plan visual quality objective of partial retention, the Forest Landscape Architect will assist in the final layout of harvest units affecting the viewsheds of Little Boulder campground, Rd 1963, and the Potlatch Canyon Trail 28. (TR #4761) Design features that may be implemented would include heavier tree retention in Unit 29 along its boundary with Rd 1963 and the flush cutting of stumps in the immediate foreground (up to 150 feet) of Tr # 4761 for Units 28 and 29. ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY Dust abatement could be used on major haul routes to provide for public safety by 29. protecting the road surface and to reduce sediment input to streams from log hauling activities. If trails are being utilized for either haul/removal of material, vehicle crossing/log skidding or other vegetation management activities, trail templates would be returned to their original size and condition that existed prior to commencement of management 30. activities. Any trail infrastructure, features, etc. (i.e. bridges, puncheon, waterbars, etc.) that are removed or damaged due to management activities, would be restored to their previous condition upon completion of management activities.
2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the purpose and need, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. The following alternative proposed during scoping was considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.
• Watershed Restoration Alternative (Friends of the Clearwater): This alternative would not meet the purpose and need statements for vegetation composition or hazardous fuels reduction. Vegetative health and aquatic health are intricately linked on this landscape. This alternative would only consider the aquatic needs and not the vegetative need to improve species diversity and stand productivity. Additionally, the fuel hazard would not be addressed under this alternative. 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.
Palouse Ranger District 48 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2.4.1 Botany Determination of effects on rare plant species by management activities of this project are summarized by alternative in table below. This table includes sensitive plant species with a known occurrence or present habitat on the Nez Perce - Clearwater National Forest sensitive list. A more detailed effects analysis is provided in chapter 3, section 3.2.
Table 2.9 Summary of Effects for Threatened and Sensitive Plant Species
Known Habitat Effects Determination Plant Species Occurrence Present Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Deerfern (Blechnum spicant) No Yes NI MI MI MI
Crenulate moonwort No Yes NI NI NI NI (Botrychium crenulatum)
Lance-leaf moonwort No Yes NI NI NI NI (Botrychium lanceolatum var. lanceolatum)
Mingan moonwort No Yes NI NI NI NI (Botrychium minganense)
Mountain moonwort No Yes NI NI NI NI (Botrychium montanum)
Least moonwort (Botrychium No Yes NI NI NI NI simplex)
Green bug-on-a-stick No Yes NI MI MI MI (Buxbaumia viridis)
Broadfruit mariposa Yes Yes NI MI MI MI (Calochortus nitidus)
Constance’s bittercress No Yes NI MI/BI MI/BI MI/BI (Cardamine constancei)
Clustered lady’s-slipper Yes Yes NI MI MI MI (Cypripedium fasciculatum)
Light moss (Hookeria lucens) No Yes NI MI MI MI
Spacious monkeyflower No Yes NI MI MI MI (Mimulus ampliatus)
Gold-back fern (Pentagramma No Yes NI MI MI MI triangularis var. triangularis)
Palouse Ranger District 49 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Known Habitat Effects Determination Plant Species Occurrence Present Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Sticky goldenweed Yes Yes NI MI MI MI (Pyrocomma hirtus var. sonchifolius)
Naked rhizomnium No Yes NI MI MI MI (Rhizomnium nudum)
Douglas clover (Trifolium Yes Yes NI MI MI MI douglasii)
2.4.2 Cultural Resources There would be no effect to known NRHP historic properties located within the area of potential effects (APE) as a result of any alternatives.
2.4.3 Economics The Present Net Value (PNV) is used to measure the economic feasibility of each alternative. The benefit value included the anticipated predicted high bid that represents the appraised value inflated with the Forest overbid. Alternative 2 surpasses the sunken costs of the NEPA analysis, timber sale preparation and administration the most. The PNV for each alternative is displayed in the following table:
Table 2.10 Present Net Value (PNV) of each alternative Alternative Sawtimber Benefit Value Total Costs PNV Volume (CCF) Alt. 1 0 $0.00 $621,8743 ($621,874) No Action Alt. 2 71,597 $7,829,848 $2,340,202 $5,489,646
Alt. 3 54,947 $5,159,523 $1,940,602 $3,218,921
Alt. 4 44,745 $3,678,934 $1,695,754 $1,983,180
2.4.4 Fire & Fuels The following table is a summary of total acres treated through vegetative actions, commercial and non-commercial, and the percent of the project area treated.
3 This represents the cost of the NEPA analysis, which is also included under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
Palouse Ranger District 50 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2.11 Total Vegetation Treated in Acres for Action Alternatives Project Area: ACRES TREATMENT (harvest % OF PROJECT AREA 12,435 acres and non-commercial) AFFECTED Alt. 2 2,684 22% Alt. 3 2,335 19% Alt. 4 2,122 17%
2.4.5 Fisheries The following determination statements are summarized on the table below. More information about the potential impacts to aquatic habitat and species can be found in chapter 3, section 3.6.
Federally listed (Threatened-T) Species Determination: NE = No Effect; BE = Beneficial Effect; NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect; LAA = Likely to adversely affect, LAA* = Likely to adversely affect because of potential direct effects to individuals during stream crossing improvement activities, NLJE = Not Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence.
Sensitive (S) Species Determination: NI = No Impact; BI = Beneficial Impact; MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for the population or species; LI = Likely to impact individuals or habitat with the consequence that the action may contribute towards federal listing or result in reduced viability for the population or species.
Table 2.12 Summary of Effects for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species by Alternative LATIN NAME Common Name Cat. ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4
Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi Westslope cutthroat S NI NI NI NI Oncorhynchus clarki Yellowstone cutthroat S NI NI NI NI Oncorhynchus mykiss Snake River steelhead T NE NLAA NLAA NLAA gairdneri trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss Redband trout S NI NI NI NI Snake River spring/
Oncorhynchus tshawytcha summer Chinook S NI NI NI NI salmon
Snake River fall Oncorhynchus tshawytcha T NE NE NE NE Chinook salmon
Salvelinus confluentus Bull trout T NE NE NE NE Lampetra tridentata Pacific lamprey S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH Margatifera falcate Western pearlshell S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH
2.4.6 Hydrology None of the proposed vegetation management activities will cause the subwatersheds to exceed 20% or more of equivalent clearcut acres in the subwatershed area (see table 2.13 below). ECAs
Palouse Ranger District 51 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
of less than 15% indicate high condition and 15-30% indicates a moderate condition (NOAA, 1998).
Table 2.13 Equivalent Clearcut Areas by Action Alternatives Subwatershed Existing ECA Action Alternative ECA in %
(HUC12) % 2 3 4
EF Potlatch 16 18 17 17
Hog Meadow 8 12 12 12
WF Potlatch 10 10 10 10
Concerning road density standards, a watershed in high (good) condition generally has a road density of < 1 mi/mi2. Watersheds with 1 to 3 mi/mi2 are rated as moderate and >3 mi/mi2 are rated as low (poor) condition (NOAA 1998). Table 2.14 below shows that the proposed road building will not have a substantial effect on the overall road densities in the subwatersheds analyzed. This is due to the high number of roads already in the subwatersheds (see Table 2.14).
In watersheds where there are hundreds of miles of existing roads, adding 5 more miles is not statistically significant. Even though there is no statistical increase in road density because road densities are already high, neither does the project propose any significant decrease in road density. Watershed condition ratings based on road densities indicate that, in terms of road densities, all subwatersheds associated with the Little Boulder project are in a poor condition and will remain so.
Table 2.14 Road Density by Action Alternatives
Subwatershed Existing Road Action Alternative Density (mi/mi2) (HUC12) 2 3 4
EF Potlatch 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
Hog Meadow 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.6
WF Potlatch 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
2.4.7 Range The following table contains a summary of improvements which could be detrimentally affected by the various alternatives.
Palouse Ranger District 52 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2.14 Range Improvements Affected by Action Alternatives Improvement Name Action Alternative Westside interior pasture 2,3,4 fence Little Boulder-McGary 2,3,4 pasture fence Corner Corral 2,3 Camp 6 Corral 2,3 Doug’s fence 2,3,4 S28 Boundary fence 2,3,4 West Side sec 22& 23 2,3,4 boundary fence Lower west side boundary 2,3,4 fence Powerline fence 2,3,4 Horse Ranch fence 2,3,4 Ruby Creek holding pens 2,3,4
2.4.8 Recreation Need indicators identified in section 3.9.1 to summarize here….
2.4.9 Roads/ Transportation The summary of effects related to road density is provided in the hydrology section above, section 2.4.6. A summary of effects related to road access is provide in the following table.
Table 2.15 Proposed Access of the Little Boulder project by Alternative Proposed Access Alternatives Existing Alt 2 & Alt 3 (miles) 4 (miles) (miles)
OSA-1 (Open Seasonally to all Vehicles) 5.15 5.15 5.15
OSS-3 (Open Seasonally to Small 0.29 0.99 0.99 Vehicles)
OYA (Open Yearlong to All Vehicles) 10.23 8.8 8.8
OYS (Open Yearlong to Vehicles < 50”) 6.85 8.28 8.28
RYA (Restricted Yearlong to All Vehicles) 18.11 24.4 17.4
Total 40.6 47.6 40.6
2.4.10 Soils The results of the landslide/stability hazard assessment based on the five primary landslide factors (slope angle, geologic parent material, landform, aspect and elevation) are displayed by
Palouse Ranger District 53 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
alternative in the table below. Based on this assessment, areas within treatment units have a mostly moderate or low stability hazard rating.
More detailed information on the effects to soil stability and productivity can be found in chapter 3, section 3.11.
Table 2.16 Summary of Results for Five-factor Landslide Hazard Assessment for Harvest Treatment Units by Action Alternative Action High Number High Moderate Moderate Low Low Alternative Hazard of Units Hazard Hazard Hazard Hazard Hazard Acres with (% of Acres (% of Acres (% of High total total total Hazard treatment treatment treatment Acres acres) acres) acres)
2 23 14 1.5 1372 91.5 105 7
3 14 12 1 1035 90 102 9
4 14 15 1.5 798 85.5 125 13
2.4.11 Vegetation A detailed narrative of the effects on vegetation by alternatives can be found in chapter 3, section 3.12.
2.4.12 Visuals There would be little to no effect on scenery in Alternative 1. The younger stands within existing harvested areas would continue to regenerate, with the man-made harvest areas no longer appearing as openings within 10 to 15 years.
Alternative 2, 3, and 4 would meet the forest plan visual quality objectives, given the design measures outlined for all visible units. Harvest activities proposed for this project would be visible from several viewpoints but would be designed to emulate the openings created by natural processes within the area. Openings would be designed appear natural with variable retention of stand structure and openings that emulate the natural openings found in the area. Long term, the harvesting will improve the health and resilience of the forest by encouraging the growth of more resilient coniferous species. While the openings would be apparent and in some cases may dominate the existing landscape character of the area, especially in the background viewing zone, the harvesting will meet the VQOs of Retention, Partial Retention, Modification and Maximum Modification where appropriate.
2.4.13 Terrestrial Wildlife The following table highlights terrestrial species that may be impacted by implementing the proposed action alternatives of the Little Boulder project. Supporting information can be found in chapter 3, section 3.14 or in the specialist's report in the project record.
Palouse Ranger District 54 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2.17 Little Boulder Project Alternatives 2, 3, & 4 Impact Determination for Terrestrial Wildlife Species of the Forest. Species Determination
Bald eagle, Flammulated owl, Pygmy nuthatch, Fisher, Fringed myotis, May Impact Gray Wolf, Long-eared myotis, Long-legged myotis, Townsend’s big- eared bat, Western (boreal) toad, Northern goshawk, Pileated Woodpecker, American marten, Rocky Mountain Elk, White-tailed deer,
Black-backed woodpecker, Harlequin duck, North American wolverine, No Impact Coeur d’Alene salamander, Ring-necked snake, Belted kingfisher, Shiras moose, Grizzly bear, and Canada lynx
Palouse Ranger District 55 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction Chapter 3 is organized alphabetically by resource area. Within each resource section, where applicable, the issues and issue-specific indicators used for analysis are addressed (see sections 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 for additional details on issues development). Each section provides a description of the affected environment and is followed by analysis of the potential impacts that would be caused by implementation of each alternative, the environmental consequences. Analysis focuses on potential impacts from proposed actions related to commercial harvest, watershed improvement activities, road work, and non-commercial fuels treatments described in Chapter 2. Not all resources would be affected by every action. Each resource section identifies which actions could result in potential impacts.
3.1.1 “Project Area” versus “Analysis Areas” The terms “project area” and “analysis area” are used in specific ways to avoid reader confusion and describe particular geographic areas.
Project area is the geographic area containing all actions of management activities proposed in the DEIS. Analysis areas are resource specific. It refers to the geographic area in which all direct and indirect impacts to the affected resource from the alternatives would occur. Cumulative effects analysis areas may also vary by resource. These may or may not be the same size as resource analysis areas, but are the geographic areas in which impacts from the alternatives might cause effects to the given resource when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects.
3.1.2 Types of Effects The CEQ guidance at 40 CFR 1508.8 defines direct and indirect effects as follows:
Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.
Indirect effects are cause by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effect may include growth- inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
The CEQ guidance at 40 CFR 1508.7 defines cumulative effects as follows:
A cumulative effect is “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present [ongoing], and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency…or person undertakes such other actions.”
Palouse Ranger District 56 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.2 BOTANY 3.2.1 Introduction
3.2.1.1 Issues Addressed • Analysis Issue: Rare plants - effects to habitat for threatened, endangered, sensitive, or other plant species of concern
• Issue Indicator: Acres of suitable habitat for rare plants affected.
3.2.2 Affected Environment
3.2.2.1 Scope of Analysis The purpose of this project is to among other things implement vegetative management to improve species diversity and balance vegetative successional stages across the landscape. Fulfilling this goal would contribute to the overall botanical diversity and maintenance of rare plant occurrences and habitats. Rare plant species are dependent upon both early and late seral communities in the project area. Seral plant species requiring some form of disturbance would be benefited from satisfying the purpose and need of this project. However, the potential effects of proposed activities to species and habitats may be both detrimental and beneficial. This document provides an analysis of these species and the effects proposed activities may have on them.
Some activities proposed to achieve the purpose and need of this project have the potential to affect rare plant species. For the purpose of this analysis, rare plant species include endangered, threatened, sensitive or other species of concern. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects were analyzed within the context of the project area.
3.2.2.2 Existing Condition The Little Boulder project area is one of the more interesting areas on the Nez Perce - Clearwater National Forest, with its geographic location, topography and climate resulting in a number of forest and non-forest vegetative types. Overall the project area is dominated by moist, mixed conifer forests with potential vegetation being mostly of various western red cedar and grand fir habitats. The warm and moist lower elevations may support inland coastal habitats common in much of the Clearwater River basin. Small areas of grasslands on basalt support grassland communities that may support plants that occur in Canyon Grassland plant associations commonly represented in the larger canyons to the southwest. Also present are unusual meadow communities on basalt that support species more commonly associated with prairies. All of these habitats support rare or unusual plant species and associations.
Some plant communities in the watershed have been altered through time, by timber harvest, grazing, fire exclusion and several other factors that have contributed to the present condition. These past management activities have had variable effects on rare plant species and their habitats, ranging from enhancement to reduction. This project would further affect the botanical resource through a range of management activities, which, due to variable species biology and ecology, have an assortment of potential effects. This report discusses potential effects at both the species and habitat level.
Palouse Ranger District 57 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Federally Listed Species
As discussed in the Regulatory Framework, section 3.2.3, there are no federally listed plant species in the project area, thus these species are not further addressed.
Sensitive Species
There are four sensitive plant species known to occur in the project area. These are broadfruit mariposa, clustered lady’s-slipper, Douglas clover and sticky goldenweed. Potential habitat for at least twelve other sensitive plant species occurs in the project area; one of which, deerfern, has an occurrence approximately one half mile from the projects area boundary.
Surveys for plant species of concern occurred during the field seasons of 2014 and 2015. These and other miscellaneous surveys for assorted purposes in the past have contributed significantly to the knowledge of the botanical resource. In addition most of the Forest Service land in the basin has undergone various stand exams conducted by knowledgeable individuals who have contributed information on habitats and species occurrences. In this analysis, suitable habitat is primarily based upon Habitat Type Groups (HTGs). Discussions of each species’ habitat and potential occurrence follow Table 1, which summarizes species occurrence and potential habitat in the project area. Definitions of the HTGs and exact parameters used in modeling these habitats are found in the project file. Sensitive species not included in the table are not suspected to occur in the project area, nor is suitable habitat present based upon existing information or habitat modeling. A complete list of the sensitive plant species for the Nez Perce - Clearwater National Forest can be found in the determinations section.
Table 3.2.0 Potential Sensitive Plants within the Project Area
Present Common and Latin Name Presence Habitat/Community Type Habitat
Deerfern Mid-elevations of shaded, mature cedar Potential 6,837 Blechnum spicant and western hemlock, often riparian. Lance-leaf moonwort Shaded moist sites under various conifers; Botrychium lanceolatum var. Potential dry to moist meadows. 45 lanceolatum Mingan moonwort Shaded moist sites under various conifers, Potential 45 Botrychium minganense usually western red cedar; also meadows. Mountain moonwort Shaded moist sites under various conifers, Potential 45 Botrychium montanum usually western red cedar Northern moonwort Shaded moist sites under various conifers; Potential 45 Botrychium pinnatum dry to moist meadows. Least moonwort Forest openings, dry to moist meadows. Potential 45 Botrychium simplex Green bug-on-a-stick Moist grand fir or cedar forests on large Potential 7,930 Buxbaumia viridis decayed logs and ash soils. Broadfruit mariposa Seasonally moist grasslands, meadows and Yes 77 Calochortus nitidus dry forest openings over basalt. Breaklands and stream terraces, in Constance’s bittercress maritime environments of low-elevation Potential 2,299 Cardamine constancei river canyons; coastal disjunct communities.
Palouse Ranger District 58 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Present Common and Latin Name Presence Habitat/Community Type Habitat
Clustered lady’s-slipper Partial shade of warm and moist cedar, Yes 3,160 Cypripedium fasciculatum grand fir or Douglas-fir. Wet sites in humid coniferous forest, Light moss Potential occasionally submerged and generally 2,771 Hookeria lucens close to water courses Spacious monkeyflower Seeps, springs and seasonally wet ground Potential 46 Mimulus ampliatus in grasslands and dry forest openings. Gold-back fern Low elevation, open, rocky slopes that are Pentagramma triangularis var. Potential often seasonally moist. 46 triangularis Sticky goldenweed Seasonally moist meadows and grasslands Pyrocomma hirtus var. Yes within pine/fir forests. 77 sonchifolius Moist substrates at low to moderate Naked rhizomnium Potential elevation in cool to warm mesic forests. 9,282 Rhizomnium nudum Often riparian. Douglas clover Moist to wet meadows, forested wetlands, Yes 77 Trifolium douglasii and stream banks with basalt.
Deerfern (Blechnum spicant) Deerfern is an evergreen, coastal disjunct fern that usually grows in western red cedar and sometimes riparian areas of other moist forests, where it prefers nutrient rich, decomposing soils. There are no documented occurrences from the project area; however, a small population is known from about half a mile from the boundary. With ample suitable habitat, its presence is highly likely. Populations are generally limited to single or very few plants. Modeling of suitable forest habitats and riparian areas reveals approximately 6,837 acres of potential habitat on Forest Service lands in the project area.
Lance-leaf moonwort (Botrychium lanceolatum), Mingan moonwort (B. minganense), Mountain moonwort (B. montanum), Northern moonwort (B. pinnatum), Least moonwort (B. simplex) While no occurrences of sensitive moonwort are known to occur on the forest, there is ample general habitat. Throughout the west, general habitat for moonworts varies widely from dry meadows, grass/forb openings, lodgepole pine and Englemann spruce to dry grand fir. In northern Idaho, most moonworts are associated with riparian areas and moist sites under old western red cedar (Mousseaux 1996). Least moonwort and occasionally others can occupy dry meadows, but such occurrences have not been found locally.
All Botrychium species are believed to be obligately dependent on mycorrhizal relationships. The subterranean generation depends on fungus for nutrients, while the roots of the above ground generation lack root hairs and probably depend on the fungus for absorption of water and minerals (Chadde and Kudray 2001). Little is known about the mycorrhizal fungi associated with Botrychium species other than their presence with the two generations. The mycotrophic condition is important to the ecology of Botrychium species in several ways. Nutrition supplied through a fungal symbiont may allow the ferns to withstand repeated herbivory, prolonged dormancy, or growth in dense shade (Kelly 1994, Montgomery 1990). The fungal/fern relationship has implications for the occurrence of genus communities, the distribution of the species across the landscape, and associations with particular vascular
Palouse Ranger District 59 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
moonworts and strawberries (Wagner, 1999). Moonworts may exist underground for many years before an above ground plant develops.
The variable habitats and mycorrhizal associations make predictions on suitable habitat extremely difficult. Habitat is generally provided by old growth mesic forests, primarily groves of western red cedar, which are not developed in the project area. Modeling of stand data indicates 45acres of older mesic forest that may be potentially suitable.
Green-bug-on-a-stick (Buxbaumia viridis) This moss is found across the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies, but is considered relatively rare to uncommon across its range. In north central Idaho it is found at widely scattered locations on moist sites under mid-to-late seral conifer forests. Substrate availability and distribution and shade (humidity levels) are important habitat elements (Laaka 1992). Occurrences are predominately under a closed canopy on large logs in advanced stages of decay. Relatively moist forest habitats occur in most of the project area and cover approximately 7,930 acres.
Though it may occur in microsites of suitable conditions anywhere in the moist forest, the large majority of desirable habitat would be along forested riparian areas and in mesic old growth forest that provide the necessary logs. This species is often overlooked due to its small size and inconspicuous nature, but with an abundance of suitable habitat, occurrences are expected.
Broadfruit mariposa (Calochortus nitidus) This endemic lily grows in moist grassland communities of the Palouse Prairie and canyons of west central Idaho. Much of its habitat has been converted to agriculture, which has contributed to its rarity. Most remaining occurrences are in the canyon grasslands above the lower Clearwater and Salmon Rivers. There are four occurrences on the Palouse Ranger District, one of which is in the project area. The Palouse populations represent the northern limits of the range of this species. Suitable habitats in the project area cover approximately 77acres.
Constance’s bittercress (Cardamine constancei) This species is endemic to warm moist canyons of north central Idaho, where it has a close affinity for coastal disjunct plant communities especially in the North Fork of the Clearwater and Selway basins. It prefers stream terraces above the riparian areas of larger streams, but also is found upslope to a little over 3,000 feet where some of the larger populations exist. It grows in a variety of stand types ranging from early-seral to climax stages, and also in managed forests. This species has not been found on the Palouse Ranger District, though its presence is anticipated due to proximity and connectivity of suitable habitat to populations in the North Fork Clearwater River basin. In the project area there is a good possibility of occurrence in the lower Potlatch River Canyon. Potentially suitable habitat in the project area is found on 2,299 acres on Forest Service lands.
Clustered lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum) This orchid is widespread in the western United States where it grows in a variety of forest habitat types. In north central Idaho, most occurrences are in warm, moist sites in mid-to-late seral conifer communities of the western red cedar habitat type, but a significant number of populations are in Douglas-fir and grand fir habitats. No unique habitat parameter is known that allows biologists to predict future occurrences with more than a very general specificity (Greenlee 1997).
Palouse Ranger District 60 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Due to the broad habitat parameters virtually the entire project area, save the non-forest habitats and poorly represented higher elevation habitats could be considered suitable for this species. However, the species does not grow in areas that have undergone even aged management or stand replacing fire. The presently suitable fir and cedar forests habitats in the project area cover approximately 3,160 acres. The apparent abundance of habitat does not translate into species abundance however. Limitations in the species biology and ecology result in this orchid being very rare throughout its range; however, there is one known occurrence of this plant in the project area.
Light moss (Hookeria lucens) In North America, light moss ranges from southeastern Alaska to California, predominantly near the coast (Schofield 1992), with disjunct populations in north Idaho. On the Nez Perce - Clearwater National Forest it is known from Lolo Creek, the Lochsa River and four locations in the North Fork Clearwater drainage. Habitat is moist or wet shaded areas, on a variety of substrates (Welch 1962), predominantly in humid coniferous forest, occasionally submerged in pools in depressions or along water courses (Schofield 1992). It has not been found on the Palouse Ranger district, but its occurrence in the coastal disjunct communities is anticipated. Suitable riparian areas in moist cedar forests cover approximately 2,771 acres in the project area.
Spacious monkeyflower (Mimulus ampliatus) This small plant is endemic to Idaho, where it is known from a very few widely scattered locations in Lewis, Nez Perce, Idaho and Clearwater Counties with most occurrences in the large warm canyon grasslands of the lower Salmon River basin. It has not been found in the project area but suitable habitat of seasonally moist grasslands and open forests on basalt does occur. One occurrence is recorded on a granite substrate (Lichthardt 1999), but this is not typical. Within these general habitats the plant is limited to seeps or seasonal streams that provide saturated ground in the spring and early summer.
Monkeyflower populations can be prolific or absent depending upon seasonal moisture, thus surveys of suitable habitat may not always locate these plants. Occurrences would be limited to seeps and springs within otherwise dry, open forests habitats or grasslands, but currently there is no way to model for the wet microsites that the species requires. Accounting for open, rocky habitats that may hold the appropriate microsites reveals about 46 potential acres. Taxonomic difficulties among this and similar species have limited what is known about the small yellow monkeyflowers that inhabit west central Idaho.
Gold-back fern (Pentagramma triangularis var. triangularis) This small leathery fern is a plant of dry habitats in the generally moist climate west of the Cascades and it likewise occurs in dry sites on the fringe of moister habitats in Idaho. This makes it unique among Idaho's many other coastal disjuncts, which are all moist or wet species. Most inland occurrences are found in rocks in grasslands or open dry forest that may be moist in spring, but will become very xeric by the mid-summer. There are only four Idaho occurrences; all of which are found on north or east aspects at low elevations. One occurrence on the Palouse Ranger District is on mossy, seasonally wet, basalt talus, a habitat that is present mostly in the lower Potlatch River Canyon. Talus and suitable rocky grassland habitats occur on approximately 46 acres in the project area.
Sticky goldenweed (Pyrocomma hirtus var. sonchifolius) This small sun-flower like plant inhabits seasonally moist meadows mainly in the Craig Mountain area. One additional occurrence on the Palouse Ranger District is in the Little Boulder project area. In this limited area is occupies the same habitat as broadfruit mariposa and Douglas clover,
Palouse Ranger District 61 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
which is limited to about 77 acres. Recent taxonomy work has changed the name for this species, which was formerly in the genus Haplopappus.
Naked rhizomnium (Rhizomnium nudum) In North America this moss is found in the Pacific Northwest and is considered rare in the Columbia River basin. General habitat can be described as cool and oceanic (Koponen 1973). It grows in boreal and temperate forest on soil, humus, or rotten logs, often along streams or in damp depressions, and occasionally among boulders or talus at cliff bases, within conifer forest, from near sea level to subalpine zones (Christy and Wagner 1996, Gray 1999). Most inland populations are riparian, but it occasionally is found on moist slopes well above the streams. Idaho locations are usually in western red cedar. It has not been found in the project area, however suitable habitats occurs in lower elevations of moist forest types and riparian areas. These areas comprise 9,282 acres in the project area.
Douglas clover (Trifolium douglasii) Douglas clover is endemic to the inland northwest where occurs from Spokane County, Washington to Baker County, Oregon and adjacent Idaho (Hitchcock 1973). It has been extirpated from most of its range as only one populations is extant for Washington state and only a handful in Idaho, where most populations occur on the Camas Prairie and Craig Mountain. On the Palouse Ranger District, three occurrences are extant, one being in the project area. Habitat includes seasonally moist prairies or meadows and swales in open forests types, generally on basalt substrates. Some low grade stream bottoms in the project area provide approximately 77 acres of habitat.
3.2.3 Regulatory Framework
3.2.3.1 Endangered Species Act Threatened and endangered species are designated under the Endangered Species Act. It is the policy of Congress that all Federal departments shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of this purpose (ESA 1531.2b). Three plants listed as Threatened in Idaho may occur in areas managed by the Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forest and are addressed under the ESA. The Threatened plants are Macfarlane’s four- o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei), water howellia (Howellia aquatilis), and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii). Current direction from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service directs Macfarlane’s four-o’clock and Spalding’s catchfly need to be addressed for projects in Idaho County. Earlier determinations and direction from the FWS clarify that these species only occur in the parts of the Salmon Canyon on the Nez Perce unit of the forest. The Little Boulder project area is not located in this area and no habitat for either species is present. Water howellia only occurs in the Palouse River basin. Thus these species do not need to be further addressed as part of this analysis. An additional species listed as a Candidate for listing is whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). This species is limited to higher elevation forests that do not occur in the project area, thus it also will not be further addressed.
3.2.3.2 Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670) Sensitive species are defined in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670.5) as “those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers, density, or habitat capability that reduce a species/existing distribution.” In FSM 2670.22, management
Palouse Ranger District 62 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
direction for sensitive species is in part, to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered, because of Forest Service actions and to maintain viable populations of all native species. The most recent update to the sensitive species list became effective in May 2011. The Forest Service must evaluate impacts to sensitive species through a biological evaluation. Section 3.2.4.2 of this document provides effects determinations for all sensitive plant specieis on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest sensitive plant list. The botany specialist’s report serves as the biological evaluation for this project and can be found in the project record.
3.2.3.3 Forest Plan Consistency The forest plan states that no action will be taken that will jeopardize a threatened and/or endangered species. As stated under the regulatory framework the objective for managing sensitive species is to ensure population viability throughout their range on National Forest lands and to ensure they do not become federally listed as threatened or endangered. The 1987 Clearwater Forest Plan supports this direction but does not set specific standards and guides for sensitive plants. The alternatives are consistent with this direction to the extent that proposed management actions would not adversely affect viability of existing sensitive plant populations or habitat.
3.2.4 Environmental Consequences None of the alternatives described and analyzed would implement actions or activities that would result in an irreversible commitment of resources as related to threatened, endangered or sensitive plants.
With respect to irretrievable effects, loss of suitable habitat occurs when an area that was once suitable for rare and sensitive plants is no longer available as a result of a series of actions. Management activities create mainly temporary disturbances and any irretrievable effect varies by individual plant species. Proposed activities that affect one species or their habitat negatively may benefit other plants in a positive manner. For example, reducing late seral western red cedar to an early seral stage may eliminate clustered lady’s slipper from colonizing and making use of the habitat. Future activities such as prescribed burning, thinning or other treatment could then render the area unsuitable creating an irretrievable effect on clustered lady’s slipper. The same series of action may improve conditions for Constance’s bittercress.
3.2.4.1 Methodology Pre-work in preparation of the analysis included review of old survey records, study of aerial photos, topographic maps and forest habitat maps to prioritize potential habitat for plants of concern. Individual species requirements were reviewed and appropriate modeling criteria selected to determine which species or corresponding habitat would be expected to occur in the project area.
The basic mapping unit used is the Habitat Type Group (HTG). This classification groups similar forest habitats into functional categories based upon vegetative type, moisture and temperature characteristics. For some species, these units are useful to match species criteria to potential habitat. For other species, the Habitat Type Group itself may not be a good indicator of suitable habitat, but may provide the microsites the species requires. Other species may have more specific habitat parameters that enable more precise modeling than the HTG.
Using GIS, the habitat units important to sensitive plants were identified and mapped for the project area. Locations of the proposed activities were evaluated against the habitat groupings to
Palouse Ranger District 63 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
determine which activities would occur in those habitats. Each activity occurring in potential habitat was evaluated based on the criteria important for each species. Discussion of modeling criteria used for evaluating each species can be found in the project file. Forest personnel have surveyed large portions of the project area for the presence of sensitive plant species and determination of suitable habitats.
Based on the results of research, field work and GIS analysis, direct and indirect effects are discussed for each species. Direct effects could result from vegetation management, road construction, and fuel treatments. Indirect effects for some species may include the expansion of weeds and the mitigating treatments of these infestations or changes to the forest canopy that may affect light and temperature regimes. Cumulative effects are the overall effects to species from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Historically such effects on individual species were not measured or noted. However, the past effects on general habitat condition can be qualified and matched to species dependent on a particular habitat.
3.2.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Rare plant species can be affected by proposed management activities in a number of ways depending upon the nature and severity of the disturbance and the individual species biology and ecology. This effects analysis provides a comparison of the general effects of each alternative followed by Table 2, which summarizes the effects of management activity to species habitat. Finally, species specific discussions concerning are provided after Table 2.
Alternative 1:
There are no management activities proposed under Alternative 1, thus there would be no direct effects on species or habitats. However, changes in stand structure would be expected through time, some of which would alter habitats that are suitable for some sensitive plant species. In some cover types, forest openings may occur as seral species decline. In more mixed-conifer forest types, succession would continue to progress, resulting in a decline in size and frequency of small openings and forest gaps.
In general species requiring later seral forests would see an improvement in habitat quality and species with poor dispersal mechanisms would have an increased opportunity for establishment. Species requiring more open conditions would decline barring the absence of significant fire or other forest clearing event such as severe wind or disease. The increased severity of wildfire is possible due to the increased fuel build up in areas of past fire exclusion.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4:
The effects analysis is based on evaluation of proposed activities occurring in potentially suitable habitat and the potential for those activities to directly or indirectly affect populations or habitat characteristics.
For most species the action alternatives would affect approximately the same amount of potentially suitable habitat. The primary management activity that may affect species or habitats of concern would be various forms of even aged timber harvest that subject the habitat to more mechanical disturbance and alter the light, temperature and moisture regimes that determine distribution for most plants. Early seral species may do well with such changes, but later seral species would decline or be extirpated. Long term the effects to habitat would be similar, but a clear cut would alter habitat more in the short term than would a shelterwood that wouldn’t see
Palouse Ranger District 64 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement full removal for some years into the future. Habitats preferred by many late seral species generally are closely tied to riparian areas that are excluded from proposed units.
Fuels treatments would also occur in all alternatives and would be virtually the same. Prescribed fire is generally implemented under moderated conditions that allow fuels to be treated without displacing large areas of forests. While effects to plants on the ground can be significant at implementation, the overall habitat through time is not substantially changed. Plants may be lost, but the habitat largely left intact. However, some localized areas may burn severely and result in significant ecological changes. In the riparian areas of the moister forest types it is less likely that fire would carry with enough severity to appreciably alter habitat; however there is some potential for this. Species requiring more open habitats such as grasslands or savannahs could benefit from fire that reduces conifer or brush encroachment; however, invasive weeds could increase in such areas as a response to the disturbance. Habitats for sensitive plant species will undergo a mix of beneficial to detrimental effects depending upon the severity and placement of fire and the individual species ecology. With these treatments plants may be harmed upon implementation, but the overall stand ecology determining plant distribution would not change appreciably and in some cases may be maintained.
Decommissioning and reconstruction of existing roads are viewed as maintaining current conditions from the perspective of suitable habitat for rare and sensitive plants. Generally old roads that are candidates for decommissioning or reconstruction do not provide any habitat for sensitive species. Where these routes cross streams or low moist areas there is a possibility for negative mechanical effects to any occurrences or suitable habitat that may be in the immediate vicinity of the road. However, such effects would be anticipated to be rare and negligible because the work would be almost entirely limited to the road prism itself with little impact to the adjacent grounds.
The effects of new road construction, which are limited to alternatives 2 and 4 would displace habitat for rare plant species. Temporary roads are also direct disturbance to suitable habitats. The new system and temporary road segments were sorted by potential habitats for sensitive plant species, and it is assumed that for each mile of road constructed approximately 2.5 acres of habitat would be reduced. Over the long term, temporary road surfaces may potentially support habitat for some sensitive plant species. The effects to sensitive plant species habitat is similar across all action alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 3 lacking the new system roads.
Sensitive Species
Several species and their habitat do not occur in the project area, thus will not be discussed in the effects analysis of this report, however; effects determinations are provided for all sensitive plant species on the Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest sensitive plant list, which also allows Section 3.2.4.2 of this document to serve as the biological evaluation for this project.
The acres of sensitive plant species habitat affected by various management activities are summarized in the following table. The five species of Botrychium are grouped due to habitat similarity. Acres are rounded to the nearest whole number. Specific discussion of effects to each species follows the table. Species not included in the table will not be affected by the project.
Palouse Ranger District 65 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3.2.1 Comparison of Potential Sensitive Plant Habitat Affected by Action Alternative (acres)
Species Activity Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Regeneration 968 803 673
Deerfern Fuels treatment 390 390 392 Blechnum spicant Temporary roads 15 14 15 System roads 3 0 3 Regeneration 0 0 0
Moonworts Fuels treatment 0 0 0 Botrychium ssp. Temporary roads 0 0 0 System roads 0 0 0 Regeneration 1,284 1,071 836
Green bug-on-a-stick Fuels treatment 753 753 755 Buxbaumia viridis Temporary roads 22 20 21 System roads 6 0 6 Regeneration 0 0 0 Broadfruit mariposa Fuels treatment 1 1 1 Calochortus nitidus Temporary roads 0 0 0 System roads 0 0 0 Regeneration 16 16 8
Constance’s bittercress Fuels treatment 28 28 28 Cardamine constancei Temporary roads trace trace trace System roads 1 0 1 Regeneration 441 414 269 Clustered lady’s-slipper Fuels treatment 338 338 338 Cypripedium Temporary roads fasciculatum 8 8 8 System roads 2 0 2 Regeneration 20 20 10
Light moss Fuels treatment 28 28 28 Hookeria lucens Temporary roads 1 1 1 System roads 1 0 1 Regeneration 3 3 2
Spacious monkeyflower Fuels treatment 8 8 8 Mimulus ampliatus Temporary roads 0 0 0 System roads 0 0 0 Regeneration Gold back fern 3 3 2
Pentagramma Fuels treatment 8 8 8 triangularis var. Temporary roads 0 0 0 triangularis System roads 0 0 0 Regeneration 0 0 0 Sticky goldenweed Fuels treatment 1 1 1 Pyrocomma hirtus var. Temporary roads sonchifolius 0 0 0 System roads 0 0 0 Naked rhizomnium Regeneration 1,161 958 789 Rhizomnium nudum Fuels treatment 753 753 755
Palouse Ranger District 66 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Species Activity Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Temporary roads 20 21 20 System roads 8 0 8 Regeneration 0 0 0
Douglas clover Fuels treatment 1 1 1 Trifolium douglasii Temporary roads 0 0 0 System roads 0 0 0
Deerfern (Blechnum spicant)
The proposed actions could occur on up to approximately 20 percent of the potentially suitable habitat for this species. However, only about 14 percent of the suitable habitat would be subjected to regeneration harvest that would more substantially open the forest and potentially alter suitability. While practices such as a shelterwood would be less likely to detrimentally alter the habitat. Only a trace of habitat would be impacted by road construction activities that would displace the habitat. The effects of fuels treatments would depend largely upon burn conditions at the time of ignition. Generally such burns are not implemented at times when severe effects are likely. Also the riparian habitats most preferred by deerfern would be expected to burn less severely due to moister conditions and increased humidity. Thus fuel treatments are not considered to have serious negative impacts on this species or its habitat. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have similar effects over slightly fewer acres.
In western Washington, Deerfern has withstood harvest and related treatments (Blake and Ebrahimi 1992). However, disjunct and peripheral populations often behave differently from those populations found in optimum habitats. Idaho populations have been noted to occur where air temperatures are strikingly colder, the growing season shorter and snowfall more abundant and persistent (Cousens 1981). Disjunct populations are possibly more susceptible to hydrologic and solar alterations.
Observations of Deerfern in northern Idaho suggest that disturbance may benefit some populations by creating suitable habitat for spore germination. Plants in monitored plots seem to respond favorably to disturbance and are more robust, bearing more sporophylls than plants of undisturbed habitats. This may be a short-term response and the increase in sunlight may ultimately burn the plants out, since this species naturally seems to prefer shaded moist sites (Blake and Ebrahimi 1992). After several years of monitoring, plants that were most common in riparian areas and were disturbed but not burned intensely were found to increase, however plants also increased in undisturbed control plots. Sporophyll production in open disturbed sites continued to be greater (Hammett 2001).
Vegetation manipulation activities that do not mechanically remove existing plants and leave much of the canopy intact would not harm the population. Also the majority of Deerfern populations and habitat occur in or near the riparian areas, which are protected by standard riparian buffers. In areas of fire implementation, riparian areas would likely burn with low intensity and effects on this most commonly occupied habitat would be relatively light.
Moonworts (Lance-leaf, Mingan, Mountain, Northern and Least) (B. lanceolatum, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, and B. simplex)
Palouse Ranger District 67 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
It is very unlikely the proposed management activities would have any effects of moonworts potentially occurring in the project area because no proposed activities will occur in habitat considered to suitable for these plants.
Green bug-on-a-stick (Buxbaumia viridis)
The proposed actions could occur on up to approximately 26 percent of the potentially suitable habitat for this species. However, regeneration harvest would occur on only about 12 percent of the suitable habitat. Of these, effects would potentially be more severe from methods that open the forest more substantially, while practices such as a shelterwood would be less detrimental. Only a trace of habitat would be impacted by road construction activities that would displace the habitat. The effects of fuels treatments would depend largely upon burn conditions at the time of ignition. Generally such burns are not implemented at times when severe effects are likely. Also the riparian habitats most preferred by this moss would be expected to burn less severely due to moister conditions and increased humidity. Thus fuel treatments are not considered to have serious negative impacts on this species or its habitat. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have similar effects over slightly fewer acres compared to the proposed action.
Processes, natural or man-caused, that open the overstory canopy, remove large organic debris, or disturb the soil surface could affect Buxbaumia viridis habitat. The species is rare due to inefficient dispersal and difficulties in establishment on limited, specialized substrates (Wiklund 2002). The occurrence of the required micro-habitats are limited to shaded moist forests, thus the moss would not cope well with significant effects to suitable habitat that would change the microclimate. Regeneration harvest would change the ecology of site to the point extirpation would be expected. While thinning would not significantly alter stand structure, down log recruitment, a necessary component of Buxbaumia habitat would not occur or would be lessened. Moist riparian bottoms and toe-slopes have the greatest potential for maintaining large decaying logs within grand fir habitats. Buffering these draws and riparian areas would protect the moist microsites where large logs and suitable habitat are most likely to occur.
The implementation of prescribed fire would have variable effects on this species and its habitat ranging from extirpation by fire that removes or significantly alters stand structure to little effect with low intensity ground fires. Most occurrences and well developed habitat for this species occurs in the moist, shaded riparian areas that would be expected to burn with less severity that may or may not adversely affect the microhabitat or alter the suitability of the habitat for Buxbaumia. In such cases fire often has little effect on the overall stand structure; canopy and large log recruitment; however, the effects will largely be determined by the burn conditions at the time of implementation.
Broadfruit mariposa (Calochortus nitidus)
Broadfruit mariposa, a regional endemic in west-central Idaho and adjacent Washington, is found in grasslands and dry, open forests on basalt soils. Historically it was more common in deeper soils of the Camas and Palouse Prairies, but most of this habitat has been converted to agriculture. Today, the suitable habitats are mostly limited to thin soiled ground in canyons where agricultural development is not feasible. Some rocky meadow bottomlands in the project area support a large population of this species.
Fuel treatments have been observed to have beneficial impact on some native plant communities. Caicco (1988) stated that fire was an important ecological factor in maintaining the open nature of the plateau grasslands and woodlands, and thus may be important to the populated sites with
Palouse Ranger District 68 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
deep loessal soils and moist bottomlands. Also most of the habitats for the mariposa probably burn on occasion so some of the historical populations would have been subject to periodic wildfires. Whether or not the mariposa is in some sense dependent on recurring fire in some or all habitats, however, is unknown. This species has a deep seated bulb that enables it to survive most fires (Mancuso and Moseley 1994). The timing of the fire may be significant as fire during its active growing period may prevent that plant from producing seed. This lily also grows in rocky habitats which are naturally open and do not carry fire well.
There would not be planned ignition in the known population area; however, burn disturbance could increase weeds in the vicinity that could impact the species. Conversion of native grasslands to weeds represents the greatest threat to broadfruit mariposa and its associated plant community. Mapping indicates approximately one percent of the suitable habitat is in an area of proposed fuel treatment; however, this is believed to be a mapping error in GIS.
Constance’s Bittercress (Cardamine constancei)
The proposed actions could occur on up to approximately two percent of the potentially suitable habitat for this species. However, only a trace amount of the suitable habitat would be subjected to regeneration harvest or road construction activities. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have similar effects over slightly fewer acres.
Constance’s bittercress is well documented to respond favorably to thinning and prescribed fire. Fire has been observed to increase rhizome production and flowering (Johnson 1978). Most large reproducing populations tend to be on the edge of managed areas or areas that have burned. However, it is believed that clearcutting with hot broadcast burning or scarification would be harmful to Constance’s bittercress, whereas thinning and surface fires would be beneficial (Johnson 1978). The effects of fuels treatments would depend largely upon burn conditions at the time of ignition. Generally such burns are not implemented at times when severe effects are likely. Thus fuel treatments are not considered to have serious negative impacts on this species or its habitat.
Monitored populations on the Clearwater National Forest found the density of Cardamine constancei stems more than doubled between 1996 and 1997, four years after harvest, and then did not fluctuate much over the following two years. In a clearcut a population consists of small plants, limited to protected microsites, but appeared to be expanding (Lichthardt 2000). It has also been observed that the species is maintained by periodic underburns that open the tree canopy, but that shaded microsites are important. Two populations affected by a 1991 fire along the Selway River produced prolific ramets and flowered profusely in the two following years (Lichthardt 2001). The observation of profuse flowering was also seen after a large fire in the North Fork Clearwater basin in 1986 (Mousseaux 1995) and by other large fires in the 2014 and 2015 (Hays 2016). Cardamine may survive for a period following canopy removal, but cannot be assumed to persist or reproduce because such profuse flowering is not necessarily followed by seed-set (Lichthardt and Moseley 1994). It is possible that such profuse flowering is a stress response to damaged habitat.
While the species has not been found in the Potlatch River drainage, there is good possibility of occurrence. The effects of proposed activities could both benefit and harm the species and its habitat. Thinning and fuels activities could benefit the species, while even aged management or severely burned areas could benefit or possibly harm the species in the long term.
Palouse Ranger District 69 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Clustered lady’s slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum)
The proposed actions could occur on up to approximately 25 percent of the potentially suitable habitat for this species. However, only about 14 percent of the suitable habitat would be subjected to regeneration harvest. Of these, effects would potentially be more severe from methods that open the forest more substantially, while practices such as a shelterwood would be less detrimental. Only a trace of habitat would be impacted by road construction activities that would displace the habitat. The effects of fuels treatments would depend largely upon burn conditions at the time of ignition. Generally such burns are not implemented at times when severe effects are likely. Also the riparian habitats most preferred by this species would be expected to burn less severely due to moister conditions and increased humidity. Thus fuel treatments are not considered to have serious, lasting negative impacts on this species or its habitat. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have similar effects over slightly fewer acres.
Clustered lady’s slipper is highly sensitive to ground disturbance and canopy removal. Apparent population decreases have been observed where the overstory canopy was reduced (Lake 2002). The few plants found growing in full sunlight had yellowed and deformed leaves. Disturbance to the duff layer that results in exposed soil may also be detrimental to established populations. With even-aged management practices, the mycorrhizal fungal relationships believed to be necessary for seedling germination and health would be severed. Nor would the fungus tolerate the direct sunlight that would result from such activities. The species has never been found in clearcut areas and extirpation would be the expected result of this form of management (Greenlee 1997).
Thinning would often maintain enough overstory canopy to sustain suitable habitat, however the skidding of logs and the construction of temporary roads would alter the soil surface and physically remove plants if present. However, plants have been found persist after some forms of activity that avoid heavy mechanical disturbance and leaves the light, heat and moisture regimes intact. Some populations persist in areas that have undergone low intensity wildfire (Hays 1995) and in areas that underwent some form of intermediate harvest that leaves the duff layer and some cover intact (Lichthardt 2002). It is possible that intermediate harvest treatments in grand fir and Douglas-fir habitat types may represent a mixture of detrimental and beneficial effects; in the short term, individuals may be harmed by the timber harvest activities or canopy reduction, but in the long term populations may benefit from the reduced threat of stand replacing fire (Greenlee 1997).
A population of clustered lady’s slipper on the Nez Perce National Forest has been monitored for prescribed fire effects since 1996. The results suggest that plants in the burned area produce fewer capsules than those plants found outside the burn units. It appears that due to increased exposure the plants desiccate before seed capsules mature (Vance and Lake 2001). On the Clearwater National Forest, Pipp (1999) observed that plants declined for two years following an intense wildfire, before disappearing completely. Harrod et al (1997) noted that fruit production was significantly decreased in areas opened up by fire and at locations where the duff layer had been eliminated all plants were killed.
The proposed prescribed burning would occur over some of this species’ potential habitat. Since clustered lady’s slipper blooms in May and June, spring burns could eliminate current year’s seed production, shock the plant into underground dormancy or injure individual plants. Earlier burns before emergence would mitigate these negative effects. However, depending on the fuels present, slower spring burns over moister soil may actually conduct heat into the ground more than fast fall burns. Thus direct effects of fire on Cypripedium fasciculatum are complex. This
Palouse Ranger District 70 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
should not be surprising, as fires are variable in intensity and pattern. The heat intensity and duration are dependent on numerous factors including site, depth and nature of litter, variable understory fuel levels and weather (Lichthardt 2002).
The one population of clustered lady’s-slipper is known from the project area will not be subjected to any forms of disturbance; however, suitable habitat exists in many areas that would. Surveys of these areas were negative, but plants still may occur.
Light Hookeria (Hookeria lucens)
The proposed actions could occur on up to approximately two percent of the potentially suitable habitat for this species. However, less than one percent of the suitable habitat would be subjected to regeneration harvest. Of these, effects would potentially be more severe from methods that open the forest more substantially, while practices such as a shelterwood would be less detrimental. Only a trace of habitat would be impacted by road construction activities that would displace the habitat. The effects of fuels treatments would depend largely upon burn conditions at the time of ignition. Generally such burns are not implemented at times when severe effects are likely. Also the riparian habitats most preferred by this moss would be expected to burn less severely due to moister conditions and increased humidity. Thus fuel treatments are not considered to have serious negative impacts on this species or its habitat. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have similar effects over slightly fewer acres.
Processes, natural or man-caused, that open the overstory canopy, remove large organic debris, disturb the soil surface or change the microclimate could affect light hookeria populations and habitat (Bohlin et al 1977). Even aged forms of timber harvest within suitable habitat likely would adversely affect light hookeria microhabitat; however intermediate treatment would not likely alter stand structure significantly and thus have little effect. Also, because this moss typically is found in or immediately adjacent wet draw or drainage bottoms, it would be protected from disturbance by standard riparian buffers.
The proposed prescribed fire would not adversely affect the microhabitat or alter the suitability of the habitat for Hookeria so long as the overall stand structure and canopy is maintained. However, areas that burn with more severity could lose enough overstory canopy and duff to alter the light and moisture regimes and thus harm the species or its habitat. These potential effects are largely dependent upon burn conditions at the time of implementation.
Spacious monkeyflower (Mimulus ampliatus)
Spacious monkeyflower is not known to occur in the project area; however suitable habitat does occur in the lower Potlatch Canyon. Generally timber harvest would not negatively impact the preferred habitat of this species due to its presence generally being restricted to open areas. Vegetation management or prescribed fire could create or maintain more natural open conditions in areas of forest encroachment in some areas of preferred habitat. Being an annual in open grassy habitats, spacious monkeyflower and its habitat may be negatively impacted by weeds and potentially herbicides used to treat such infestations. Small areas of potential habitat may be effected by proposed management activities, but surveys have been negative. Given the affinity for small wet microsites the species possesses, it is possible it could occur in many areas not included in the general habitat mapping.
Palouse Ranger District 71 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Gold-back fern (Pentagramma triangularis var. triangularis)
It is unlikely that activities proposed by this project would have notable effects to gold-back fern. The habitat is on rocky ground that is unlikely to carry fire within the fuel units. Harvest activities would involve only about two to three acres of potential habitat. The effects of this activity could potentially cause direct mechanical harm to plants. The effects on the habitat through loss of overstory has not been observed, but many occurrences are in the open thus a tree canopy is not necessary to maintain habitat. An indirect threat could be weeds that may move into the newly opened ground; however such invasions are generally light in rocky substrates inhabited by this species.
Sticky goldenweed (Pyrocomma hirtus var. sonchifolius)
Habitat includes seasonally moist prairies or meadows and swales in open dry forests types, generally on basalt substrates. This habitat occurs in the broad, low gradient stream meadows, where a population occurs. The areas occupied by this species do not overlap with any proposed harvest activity, though one acre of potential habitat may be included in the fuel treatments. It is likely that this one acre of overlap is the result of computer mapping and does not actually exist on the ground. A possible indirect effect may occur if weeds initiated by opening adjacent forested ground, spread onto the open, seasonally dry meadow habitats. Another potential effect of proposed activities is the reduction of forest encroachment onto the adjacent grassland and meadows, which would contribute to maintenance of habitat required by this species.
Naked-stem Rhizomnium (Rhizomnium nudum)
The proposed actions could occur on up to approximately 21 percent of the potentially suitable habitat for this species. However, only about 13 percent of the suitable habitat would be subjected to regeneration harvest. Of these, effects would potentially be more severe from methods that open the forest more substantially, while practices such as a shelterwood would be less detrimental. Only a trace of habitat would be impacted by road construction activities that would displace the habitat. The effects of fuels treatments would depend largely upon burn conditions at the time of ignition. Generally such burns are not implemented at times when severe effects are likely. Also the riparian habitats most preferred by this moss would be expected to burn less severely due to moister conditions and increased humidity. Thus fuel treatments are not considered to have serious negative impacts on this species or its habitat. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have similar effects over slightly fewer acres.
Processes, natural or man-caused, that significantly open the overstory canopy, remove large organic debris, or disturb the soil surface could adversely affect Rhizomnium nudum habitat. Management that does not completely or largely remove the canopy would not be expected to significantly alter stand structure to a point where there would be concern for this species’ habitat, but mechanical harm or any activity changing site hydrology could pose a threat. The majority of suitable habitat is likely limited to the immediate riparian area and would thus be protected from disturbance by standard riparian buffers. However, the species likely occurs on low, moist forested areas away from the draws as well.
The proposed prescribed fire would not adversely affect the microhabitat or alter the suitability of the habitat for this moss so long as the overall stand structure and canopy is maintained. However, areas that burn with more severity could lose overstory canopy and duff enough to alter the light and moisture regimes and thus harm the species or its habitat. These potential effects are largely dependent upon burn conditions at the time of implementation.
Palouse Ranger District 72 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Douglas clover (Trifolium douglasii)
Habitat includes seasonally moist prairies or meadows and swales in open dry forests types, generally on basalt substrates. This habitat occurs in the broad, low gradient stream meadows, where a large broken population occurs. The areas occupied by this species do not overlap with any proposed harvest activity, though a small area of one acre may be included in the fuel treatments. It is likely that this one acre of overlap is the result of computer mapping and does not actually exist on the ground. A possible indirect effect may occur if weeds initiated by opening adjacent forested ground, spread onto the open, seasonally dry meadow habitats. Another potential effect of proposed activities is the reduction of forest encroachment onto the adjacent grassland and meadows, which would contribute to maintenance of habitat required by this species.
Effects Determinations
Determination of effects on rare plant species by management activities of this project are summarized by alternative in table below. This table includes all plant species on the Nez Perce - Clearwater National Forest sensitive list.
Table 3.2.2 Summary of Effects for Threatened and Sensitive Plant Species
Known Habitat Effects Determination Plant Species Occurrence Present Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Water howellia No No NE NE NE NE Howellia aquatilis Macfarlane’s four-o’clock No No NE NE NE NE Mirabilis macfarlanei Spalding’s catchfly No No NE NE NE NE Silene spaldingii Whitebark pine No No NE NE NE NE Pinus albicaulis Maidenhair spleenwort No No NI NI NI NI Asplenium trichomanes Deerfern No Yes NI MI MI MI Blechnum spicant Crenulate moonwort No Yes NI NI NI NI Botrychium crenulatum Lance-leaf moonwort No Yes NI NI NI NI Botrychium lanceolatum var. lanceolatum Mingan moonwort No Yes NI NI NI NI Botrychium minganense Mountain moonwort No Yes NI NI NI NI Botrychium montanum Least moonwort No Yes NI NI NI NI Botrychium simplex Leafless bug-on-a-stick No No NI NI NI NI Buxbaumia aphylla Green bug-on-a-stick No Yes NI MI MI MI Buxbaumia viridis Broadfruit mariposa Yes Yes NI MI MI MI Calochortus nitidus Constance’s bittercress No Yes NI MI/BI MI/BI MI/BI Cardamine constancei Bristle stalked sedge No No NI NI NI NI Carex leptalea Pacific dogwood No No NI NI NI NI Cornus nuttallii Clustered lady’s-slipper Yes Yes NI MI MI MI Cypripedium fasciculatum
Palouse Ranger District 73 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Known Habitat Effects Determination Plant Species Occurrence Present Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Dasynotus No No NI NI NI NI Dasynotus daubenmirei Light moss No Yes NI MI MI MI Hookeria lucens Salmon-flowered desert-parsley No No NI NI NI NI Lomatium salmoniflorum Chickweed monkeyflower No No NI NI NI NI Mimulus alsinoides Spacious monkeyflower No Yes NI MI MI MI Mimulus ampliatus Gold-back fern No Yes NI MI MI MI Pentagramma triangularis var. triangularis Sweet coltsfoot No No NI NI NI NI Petasites frigidus var. palmatus Licorice fern No No NI NI NI NI Polypodium glycyrrhiza Sticky goldenweed Yes Yes NI MI MI MI Pyrocomma hirtus var. sonchifolius Naked rhizomnium No Yes NI MI MI MI Rhizomnium nudum Evergreen kittentail No No NI NI NI NI Synthyris platycarpa Sierra wood-fern No No NI NI NI NI Thelyptris nevadensis Short style toefieldia No No NI NI NI NI Triantha occidentalis ssp. brevistyla Douglas clover Yes Yes NI MI MI MI Trifolium douglasii Idaho barren strawberry No No NI NI NI NI Waldsteinia idahoensis Threatened Species Determination: NE = No Effect; NLAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect; LAA = Likely to Adversely Affect. Sensitive Species Determination: NI = No Impact; BI = Beneficial Impact; MI = May impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for the population or species; LI = Likely to impact individuals or habitat with the consequence
3.2.4.3 Cumulative Effects The area of consideration for cumulative effects includes lands within the project area. The rationale for this is that the effects are site specific to areas treated within the project area and will not extend beyond the boundaries and effects from outside the defined area will likewise not affect the resource within. These effects are considered only for the species potentially affected by this project and from the initial habitat transformations in the early 1900s through the proposed and reasonably foreseeable future. It generally is not possible to directly quantify effects of specific activities that are several years or decades old on species of concern today. The status and occurrence of rare plants was completely unknown for much of the management history of the watershed. Historically the changes in condition and abundance of specific habitats important to these species are also largely unknown. Therefore the effects of these past projects can only be qualified through general discussions. However, the results of past projects contribute to the current condition, which can be used to discuss and quantify effects of proposed activities on rare plant species.
All proposed and reasonably foreseeable actions on lands administered by the Forest Service could require protective measures to avoid negative effects to sensitive and rare plants when deemed necessary (see section 2.2.5 of this document for design criteria). Therefore, there would be no adverse cumulative effects that would result in viability loss of any species of concern.
Palouse Ranger District 74 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Past, Present, Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
The primary management activities that have influenced rare plant habitat in the project area and continue to under this project include past and present timber harvest, fire and road construction. Other activities such as livestock grazing affects habitat for some species. Some activities such as trail maintenance, road maintenance, recreation site maintenance, weed treatment, access management, forest inventory, and others are considered routine and ongoing and collectively would have negligible impacts on species or habitats of concern.
Timber harvest on Forest Service lands started in the 1960s and continues to the present day. Records indicate 407 acres were managed in the 1970s, with 70 acres even aged management and 337 acres managed by other methods. Harvest increased in the 1980s with 667 acres managed, with 120 acres subjected to more impactive even aged methods. In the 1990s overall area managed declined to 443 acres, but the even aged portion increased to 428 acres. Total harvest peaked in the decade of 2000 with a total of 812 acres managed, 387 of which was through even aged methods. The current decade has seen 707 acres managed or currently being managed with about 325 being even aged harvests.
While acres involved have generally increased through time in the project area, some mitigating factors must be considered. Advancement in harvest operations and logging technology as well as implementation policies have reduced resource impacts. It should also be noted that some of the acreage values indicated may be cumulative within the same units. Its common for one activity to occur in a stand and in future years another phase of management is completed on the same ground. Thus total acres involved on the ground are less than indicated.
Mostly to facilitate logging 137 miles of roads have been constructed over time in the project area. This construction generally mirrors timber harvests, with many of the roads now being several decades old, thus some are no longer used and have become overgrown. Over the years, roads have received various levels of maintenance and reconstruction. This project would add between 9.9 and 11.6 miles of temporary road and 5.2 miles of system road depending upon the alternative selected.
The East Fork Potlatch River restoration project is a notable future project that will restore proper hydrologic function to the large meadows in that basin. Suitable habitat for Douglas clover, sticky gumweed and possibly broadfruit mariposa occurs in these meadows; however, an extensive close survey failed to find any populations. The current condition of the meadow that is the result of years of impactive uses and alterations may be responsible for the apparent absence of these species. While the mechanical disturbance of implementation would possibly harm any plants that could be present, the habitat will be greatly enhanced upon completion of this work.
Discussion of cumulative effects for rare plants can be addressed through the general trend of the suitable habitat required by these species as a result of past, present and future management actions. In this project area species of concern potentially occur in mainly moist coniferous forest of riparian meadow/grassland complex habitats. Thus sensitive species can be addressed through these general habitat groupings to discuss cumulative effects.
Alternative 1:
The no action alternative would produce no additional effects on potential rare plant habitat as compared to past activity levels. The progression of forest succession would improve habitat for most sensitive plant species occurring in forest habitats. However, the decline of successional
Palouse Ranger District 75 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
tree species due to insect-caused mortality may cause localized openings and increases in light and fuel loads, which could lead to more intense wildfires and resource damage. In such cases older habitat favored by these species could see localized declines, but the trend overall would be one of increasing habitat suitability.
The no action alternative would also contribute no effects on rare plant species occurring in the riparian meadow and grassland habitats. Portions of these habitats could potentially be reduced through the progression of succession as shrubs and trees encroach into areas suitable for those species. Ongoing disturbances such as grazing contribute to maintaining the open condition, but may also mechanically harm some species and contribute to weed infestations.
Alternative 2:
This alternative adds short-term disturbance to this landscape through harvest activities, and fuels treatments. Road construction will have more long-lasting effects as they system roads would be permanent. The temporary roads may again be suitable in the future; however, due to the long- term successional development required and decreased dispersal ability of some rare species, such recovery would likely take many decades to occur. These activities would result in the slight decline of potentially suitable sensitive plant habitat for forested species. Long-term trends would be static to slightly downward; however this trend will be very slight because of the ample habitat available and the ongoing progression of forest succession. A slight downward trend in habitat quality would not lead to concerns for population viability since these habitats are common on in much of the project area and adjacent areas. Sensitive species that require the very limited non-forested habitats are potentially more vulnerable; however the contribution to any effects from this project, if any, are very small and would be indirect as no activities are planned in these areas. All known occurrences of sensitive plant species are excluded from disturbances proposed in this project.
Alternatives 3 and 4:
The cumulative effects of the vegetative manipulation in alternatives 3 and 4 would be very similar to those of Alternative 2, but generally would involve slightly fewer acres of potential habitat. The largest difference is likely the lack of system roads under Alternative 3. Fuels treatments will have virtually the same effects on sensitive plant species across the three action alternatives.
Palouse Ranger District 76 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3.1 Introduction NEPA requires agencies consider the effects of their actions on all aspects of the human environment, including cultural resources. Cultural uses of the environment include historic properties, culturally valued property, archaeological sites, and other less tangible aspects of the environment such as lifeways and religious practices.
3.3.1.1 Issues Addressed The Little Boulder project area contains numerous cultural resources ranging from old mine claims to homesteads and trails. During public scoping, potential project impacts to cultural resources were identified as a concern requiring analysis.
• Analysis issue: Effects to Nez Perce Tribe (Nimiipuu) treaty reserved rights and other cultural resources sites, including those listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
• Issue indicator: Historic property adversely affected by the proposed action or alternative.
3.3.2 Affected Environment
3.3.2.1 Scope of Analysis The scope of analysis includes the entire project area and considers all proposed activities for their potential effects to cultural resources.
3.3.2.2 Existing Condition The project area currently includes the land drainage areas of the East Fork of Potlatch River and Little Boulder Creek. Humans are known to have inhabited the Palouse and surrounding area for the past 10,000 years and include the prehistoric and historic record of the Nez Perce people followed by Euro American and Asian populations. Settlement systems and locations evolved over time due to climate, population movement, social interactions with one another, and the availability of resources. Throughout history, the environment has undergone changes and modifications as a result of human interaction with the land.
Past and present uses within the project area associated with private and public land use include, but are not limited to: timber harvest, grazing, recreational and/or subsistence activities. The recent arrival of Euro-American populations and their associated land use, settlement patterns, road building, and resource related practices changed the vegetative landscape. With the introduction of the blister rust pathogen and the removal of western white pine, the remaining forest landscape changed and Douglas-fir and grand fir now dominate the landscape. Past corporate logging activities in the 1920s altered the existing stream channels and adjoining hillsides by constructing rail beds and skid lines. Commercial trapping in the 19th century and subsistence farming and ranching activities influenced the current conditions of the land and waterways today. While there were many historical uses of the land within the Little Boulder project area, associated evidence of the past use is varied.
Homesteaders of the early 20th century (in this area, the Miller homestead for example) removed many of the items which could easily be moved when the site was abandoned. Valued items like
Palouse Ranger District 77 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
structures, and all manner of items that could not be economically replaced were collected and removed. Natural processes, weather and changing vegetation conditions, also slowly decompose aspects of the organic site record over time, but the basic site data record still remains. The site data then reveals isolate artifact scatters and those features which cannot be carried off like the root cellars, ponds, wagon roads pasture and orchard trees.
Cultural resource surveys have been conducted within and near the proposed project area for the last 30 the years. As a result, properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are identified and recorded. The present condition of historic properties eligible to the NRHP appear static or unchanged since their initial recordation.
The following section describes the potential effects to known cultural resources which could occur as a result of the proposed action alternatives associated with the Little Boulder project.
3.3.3 Regulatory Framework
3.3.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) The USDA Forest Service is mandated to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (Public Law 89-665) and its amendments. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that Federal agencies with direct or indirect jurisdiction over federal, federally assisted, or federally licensed undertakings afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity for comment on such undertakings that affect properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP prior to the agency’s approval of any such undertaking (36 CFR 800.1). Historic properties are identified by a cultural resource inventory and are determined to be either eligible or not eligible for the NRHP by the cultural resource specialist in consultation with the Idaho SHPO. Historic properties that are determined to be eligible are then either protected in-place or the adverse impacts must be mitigated prior to signing a NEPA decision.
Each cultural property is evaluated against four standards in a process to determine which resources qualify for possible inclusion in the NRHP (36 CFR60.4). Each historic property must also retain integrity to be eligible for nomination to the NHPA.
Criteria A: The quality of significance is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
Criteria B: That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
Criteria C: That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
Criteria D: that has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
3.3.3.2 Forest Plan Consistency The alternatives comply with the Clearwater National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan relevant to Cultural Resources. The amended 1987 Forest Plan documents goals, objectives,
Palouse Ranger District 78 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
research needs, standards, and management directions for cultural resources within the forest boundary.
The following forest-wide management direction or standards, from those listed on page II-22 and 23 of the Clearwater National Forest Plan, apply to this project and will be met as follows.
Table 3.3.0 Forest Plan Standards Related to Cultural Resources and the Little Boulder project Standard Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By… Number b. Identify and evaluate Sites within the project’s APE have been evaluated appropriate sites for for their potential nomination to the National nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Register of Historic Places… g. Ensure that Forest actions No Known Native American religious or cultural are not detrimental to the sites are known to be located within the APE. protection and preservation of Indian Tribes religious…
3.3.4 Environmental Consequences No adverse effect to historic properties present.
3.3.4.1 Methodology Two heritage surveys were most recently completed in the Little Boulder analysis area during the planning phase the Cherry Dinner project. The heritage resource inventory covered some of the current Area of Potential Effect (APE). Following the Site Identification Strategy (SIS) for the Clearwater-Nez Perce National Forests (Hill 2001) the SIS defines a stratified inventory probability sample for all Forest survey projects. The SIS requires a survey of high probability areas utilizing transects up to 30 meters apart; 30% reconnaissance coverage of moderate probability areas utilizing transects up to 100 meters apart; and a 5% sample of areas classified as low probability (see SIS pages 28-29 for a complete list of probability areas and associated rationale). The Palouse region possesses a history of mining, individual, family, and community settlement and corporate all of who related activities tied to timber management who left an archaeological and historic record of the land uses and occupancies.
Previous cultural resource inventory reports, historic site records and pertinent historic documents were reviewed. Historic and archaeological source materials reference aboriginal resource use areas and occupancy locations in conjunction with fur trade and Euro-American settlements and related resource use areas.
Additionally, in accordance with National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, a cultural resource inventory of the proposed 2016 Little Boulder Timber and Fuels Restoration Project was undertaken. The findings of the inventory will be submitted to the Idaho State Historic preservation Officer (SHPO) for review and concurrence.
Palouse Ranger District 79 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.3.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1: Under Alternative 1 there would be no effect to historic properties. Historic properties would continue to degrade naturally (remain in current condition). There would be no change in effects from the current condition.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4: The design criteria described in section 2.2.5 would ensure that there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources from the action alternatives. Cultural properties within the proposed project areas listed as not eligible would remain the same.
A cultural resource survey was implemented in the 2016 field season for the project undertaking. A heritage resource report will be submitted to the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for concurrence prior to project implementation.
3.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects Past vegetative undertakings near historic properties considered eligible to the NRHP have not changed the basic nature of the site data since 2006. What has changed are the influences time, weather and vegetation has played in removing some aspects of recorded site data or covering it from view. Foreseeable future actions deal with the planned vegetative management where the timber and burn units could expose or remove some aspects of the recorded site data of an organic or physically created nature. The design criteria (see section 2.2.5) related to the protection of NRHP sites will be followed and therefore no adverse cumulative effect to existing heritage properties considered eligible to the NRHP will result by any alternatives proposed by the Little Boulder project.
Palouse Ranger District 80 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.4 ECONOMICS 3.4.1 Introduction
3.4.1.1 Issues Addressed • Analysis Issue: Economic feasibility - effects to local economy through activities associated with timber harvest and/or other proposed action as well as consideration of funding needed to complete non-timber sale activities.
• Issue Indicator: Present Net Value (PNV) of each alternative.
3.4.2 Affected Environment
3.4.2.1 Scope of Analysis The scope of this analysis is focused on costs and revenues (stumpage value) associated with the implementation of the Little Boulder project. The project specific area of analysis is located within Latah County; however, timber harvested under any “action” alternative could be processed anywhere within the region. For the purpose of this analysis, the affected environment for economic direct, indirect and cumulative effect considerations include Clearwater, Latah and Nez Perce counties. Communities that may be affected include Elk River, Potlatch, Deary, Bovil, Julietta, Orofino, Pierce, Weippe, Kamiah, Kooskia, Troy, Lewiston, Moscow, and Clarkston, Washington.
This analysis includes costs and revenues associated with all harvest and activities proposed. The breakdown of specific costs and revenues is included in the detailed analysis which is located in the project record.
3.4.2.2 Existing Condition Latah County has approximately 38,078 people living within its boundaries. Most of the population (approximately 94%) is Caucasian and the median income is $39,466 (2013 estimates) (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16057.html). Benewah and Nez Perce counties are within commuting distance of the project area and are included in the following economic analysis.
The area has a long history of being logged, as this area was previously managed by Weyerhaeuser (later Potlatch Forest Industries). There were small mills in many of the area’s towns and cities, plus large mills in Potlatch, Lewiston, and Elk River. There was a major logging railroad system (with numerous side tracks) that went from Elk River through Potlatch and then onward to points in the state of Washington.
In the last twenty five years, however, reduced harvest combined with automated techniques used presently in logging operations have caused a significant decline in the number of timber related jobs. Updated and modernized mills with better quality control, better use of sawblade technology, and computerized process control are prime examples of advanced technology negatively affecting the number of timber related jobs.
The communities within Latah County have undergone drastic changes as logging jobs have decreased. The communities more heavily rely on service oriented jobs or have become bases for
Palouse Ranger District 81 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
commuters to Moscow/Pullman. Bennett Lumber Products in Princeton, Idaho, is the main sawmill in northern Latah County, employing about 200 people.
Agriculture is still a major industry in the area, with Palouse region farms being among the most productive in the nation. However, the trend has been to utilize larger farms with more effective equipment, resulting in a loss of jobs.
The urban areas of Lewiston, Moscow, and Coeur d’Alene have diversified into centers with a varied amount of industry and services. One of the main sectors of employment in these areas is education. Moscow is home to University of Idaho with Washington State University 8 miles away in Pullman. Both Lewiston and Coeur d'Alene have small colleges with several satellite campuses and trade schools. Industries include computer technology, ammunition manufacturing, small defense contracts, and other light industries. Several large companies (Buck Knives, Cabelas) have moved into the area due to favorable business conditions. The tourist industry has expanded greatly throughout North Idaho; however, the jobs created do not pay nearly as well as the natural resource oriented jobs they replace. Comparisons of tourism versus extractive jobs very often show a negative tradeoff for the tourism industry. Tourism in rural Latah County is composed mainly of hunting and recreational OHV use.
3.4.3 Regulatory Framework
3.4.3.1 Executive Order 12898 Executive Order 12898 requires an analysis of the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives on minority and low-income populations. The order is designed in part “…to identify, prevent, and/or mitigate, to the greatest extent practicable, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of United States Department of Agriculture programs and activities on minority and low income populations…”.
None of the action alternatives are expected to negatively affect the consumers, civil rights, minority groups, American Indians, women, or any United States citizen. Subsistence activities would not have a disproportionate impact on minorities or low-income individuals. No environmental health hazards are expected to result from implementation of any alternative. This project should not disproportionately affect income level.
3.4.3.2 Forest Plan Consistency The Forest Plan direction is presented in Chapter 1. It is clear that there is a balancing act required to provide goods and services while protecting important values that flow from the conservation of Clearwater National Forest lands. All alternatives are expected to be consistent with the Forest Plan (see Table 4.29).
The following Forest-wide direction for natural resource products from the Clearwater National Forest Plan applies to this project and would be met as follows:
Palouse Ranger District 82 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3.4.0 Forest Plan Compliance - Economics Goal # Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By (page II – 2) 9a. Provide a sustained yield of timber The Little Boulder project would provide and other outputs at a level that is forest material outputs and potential cost-efficient and that will help service or stewardship contract work. support the economic structure of local communities and will provide regional and national needs.
9b. Select on the ground those Silvicultural prescriptions identified for silvicultural systems that will be the the Little Boulder units are designed most beneficial to long-term timber restore white pine and larch to improve production, but modified as stand vigor and species diversity across necessary to meet other resource and the landscape to create stand conditions management area direction. that are resilient and allow for rapid recovery after disturbances.
Objective # Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By (page II-6) 8 …The annual program of sale The Little Boulder project would offerings may range from 120 contribute approximately 16.7 – 48.1 million board feet to 200 million MMBF (alt 2 - 4 respectively) toward sale board feet during this period. offerings as early as 2020-2021.
8b Maintain a mix of sale offerings Ground based (tractor or cut-to-length) including various logging systems and skyline/cable logging is currently needed to implement the Forest Plan economically efficient and Little Boulder and support local and regional includes a mix of both of these logging logging system capabilities. systems.
Standard # Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By (page II-25) 7a. Require silvicultural examination Silvicultural prescriptions would be and prescriptions before any completed before any sales are offered for vegetative manipulation takes sale. place….
7b. Design timber sales to consider cost- The Little Boulder project has been effectiveness while maintaining the designed to balance economical timber long-term sustained yield and harvest with protection and/or protecting the soil and water enhancement of other resource values. resources.
Palouse Ranger District 83 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
7g. Perpetuate western white pine as a Silvicultural prescriptions identified for commercial tree species. the Little Boulder units are designed to restore white pine and larch to improve stand vigor and species diversity across the landscape to create stand conditions that are resilient and allow for rapid recovery after disturbances.
7h. Plan for adequate restocking on all All stands identified for regeneration lands managed for timber within harvest would be planted with base rate five years after final removal. collections from the timber sale or through mandatory service work with stewardship contracting.
Management Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By Area Direction
E1 Goals Provide optimum, sustained The Little Boulder project would production of wood products. contribute approximately 16.7 – 48.1 Timber production is to be cost MMBF (alt 2 - 4 respectively) toward effective and provide adequate future sale offerings. The project has protection of soil and water quality. been designed to balance economical Manage viable elk populations timber harvest with protection and/or within areas of historic elk use enhancement of other resource values. based on physiological and ecological needs. Manage a range of water quality and fish habitat potential….
E1 Standard a. Schedule timber harvest using The logging system analysis matched the logging and silvicultural methods logging system to the terrain. The appropriate for the stand and the Silviculturist has preliminary stand terrain. diagnosis that prescribe the appropriate treatment relative to the desired future condition, as represented in the purpose and need for this project.
E1 Standard b. Maintain stocking control Reforestation needs identified in the SAI commensurate with the level of plan would match the diagnosis and management intensity. ultimately the silvicultural prescription.
E1 Standard c. Identify and maintain suitable old- Old growth, replacement and step-down growth stands and replacement old growth have been identified and the habitats for snag and old-growth effects to old growth dependent species is dependent species in accordance discussed in the environmental with criteria in Appendix H of the analysis/document. Forest Plan.
Palouse Ranger District 84 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.4.4 Environmental Consequences
3.4.4.1 Methodology The Clearwater National Forest Plan FEIS, p. IV-30-32, describes the economic impacts of implementing the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1987). This analysis tiers to the Forest Plan EIS Appendix B, specifically pages B-30 through B-62, which address the economic analysis process and values placed on non-consumptive items such as recreation opportunities, community stability, cultural resources, habitats, and populations. This economic analysis will not revisit the information presented in the Forest Plan and will focus only on those costs and revenues associated with implementing the proposed activities in the Little Boulder project area.
The purpose of the project is to restore white pine and larch to improve stand vigor and species diversity across the landscape and to create stand conditions that are resilient and allow for rapid recovery after disturbances. This economic analysis assesses the economic viability and provides a relative financial comparison of implementing each alternative.
Economic conditions are constantly changing locally, regionally and nationally, and market prices fluctuate widely. The appraised value, the issue indicator of a cost efficient timber sale and possible funding of proposed watershed improvements, were determined by utilizing the Residual Value (RV) appraisal method. The RV method predicts stumpage value through the use of several independent variables developed by predicting the value of the timber on the stump, and reducing that value based on the costs associated with logging, environmental protection, reforestation, etc. Production costs for logging and associated work are periodically updated within the system. Current local Delivered Log Prices are entered manually by the user. The combination of these variables is reflected in the predicted stumpage rate. It should be noted that stumpage values fluctuate with the market and that this could affect the advertised value and bidding for this project at the time a sale is ultimately offered in the future.
The Present Net Value (PNV) of each alternative was calculated by using the Quicksilver financial efficiency analysis program. The PNV compresses the flow of costs and benefits over time into an equivalent single time period. An alternative with a positive PNV has benefit values exceeding costs, whereas an alternative with a negative PNV has costs in excess of benefit values. It should be noted that the PNV includes the costs of NEPA analysis and timber sale preparation and administration, which are sunken costs not affected by the appraised value of the timber sale offering.
3.4.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects This economic analysis is based on static, average information in a dramatically fluctuating market and is provided to display the relative difference between alternatives. A variety of factors can change unexpectedly, increasing or decreasing the value of any alternative at any time. The analysis of all economic effects is limited to the analysis area.
The action alternatives have the potential to provide employment opportunities for members of the local communities. Although difficult to predict, local employment increases due to this
Palouse Ranger District 85 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
project might include work in logging and fuel treatment projects, trucking activities, wood product mills, road maintenance and reconstruction, and possibly post-harvest service work.
The Little Boulder project, as with all timber harvest and restoration projects, is being considered all or in part as a Land Stewardship Project under the 2014 Farm Bill. Stewardship contracting is one of the tools that can be used to implement project activities but would allow flexibility in combining traditional service and timber sale contract activities to more effectively accomplish ecosystem restoration through forest management. Mechanisms used in land stewardship approaches include: (1) bundling of a variety of management tasks within a single contract; (2) multiple-year contracts; (3) long-term cooperative agreements; and (4) contract performance based upon descriptive end-results. Flexibility in funding is also part of the process that can include partnerships or infusing appropriated or other funds into the contract in accomplishing the restoration work.
The use of stewardship contracting could add more jobs doing post-sale service work, both direct and indirectly. However, stewardship projects would not contribute any revenue to the Treasury or to the 25% Fund for Latah County, as is common with traditional timber sale contracts. The following table displays the costs and revenues generated by each alternative. Costs displayed for the timber harvest reflect stump-to-mill including harvest and associated activities. The unit of measure for activities related to forest timber product removal is CCF, which is defined as 100 cubic feet of solid wood. One cubic foot of solid wood is described as one foot wide, by one foot tall, by one foot long.
Table 3.4.1– Advertised Value and non-sale related costs Alternative Volume (CCF)4 Stumpage Base Value6 Appraised Value7 Value5 Alt. 1 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 No Action 71,597 Alt. 2 $6,454,470 $2,696,343 $3,758,127 (38,519MBF) 54,947 Alt. 3 $5,159,523 $2,069,853 $3,089,670 (29,561MBF) 44,745 Alt 4 $3,678,934 $1,685,097 $1,993,837 (24,073MBF)
4 Volume represents total Sawtimber volume expected to be harvested. 5 Stumpage Value = appraised stumpage rate x volume (CCF); Stumpage rate = value of timber – (stump to mill costs + Environmental Protection costs). 6 Base Value = Bate Rate x Volume (CCF); Base Rate represents the cost per CCF to cover Knutson – Vandenburg costs (reforestation). 7 The appraised value represents the Stumpage Value - Base Value.
Palouse Ranger District 86 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative 1:
This alternative harvests no timber, generates no revenues, and incurs no expenses from timber sale preparation and administration. No jobs or income are generated. The risk for potential loss of timber value as a result of wildfire is greater as no hazardous fuels treatments would occur.
Alternative 2:
This alternative has a stumpage value of $6,454,470. After subtracting the base value that includes the costs of reforestation, the resulting appraised value equals $3,758,127. This represents a positive sale offering. The financial viability of Alternative 2 suggests that value exists to entertain the opportunity to implement with an Integrated Resource Stewardship Contract and complete a portion of the non-sale related activities. Current guidance is to utilize up to 75% of the value above base rates for including mandatory service work items. The value above base rates for alternative #2 is approximately $3,758,127 which would equate to approximately $2,818,595 available for mandatory service work.
Alternative 3:
This alternative has a stumpage value of $5,159,523. After subtracting the base value, the resulting appraised value equals $3,089,670. This represents a positive sale offering. The financial viability of Alternative 3 suggests that value exists to entertain the opportunity to implement with an Integrated Resource Stewardship Contract and complete a portion of the non- sale related activities. Current guidance is to utilize up to 75% of the value above base rates for including mandatory service work items. The value above base rates for alternative #3 is approximately $3,089,670 which would equate to approximately $2,317,252 available for mandatory service work.
Alternative 4:
This alternative has a stumpage value of $3,678,934. After subtracting the base value, the resulting appraised value equals $1,993,837. This represents a positive sale offering. The financial viability of Alternative 4 suggests that value exists to entertain the opportunity to implement with an Integrated Resource Stewardship Contract and complete a portion of the non- sale related activities. Current guidance is to utilize up to 75% of the value above base rates for including mandatory service work items. The value above base rates for alternative #4 is approximately $1,993,837 which would equate to approximately $1,495,378 available for mandatory service work.
Alternative #4 has the lowest value above base value and treats the least amount of acres. Alternative #2 and #4 will accomplish all 5.2 miles of new system road construction. All three alternatives will be able to accomplish the associated alternative-specific lengths of system road reconstruction and reconditioning. All three alternatives will also be able to accomplish the 0.3 miles of road decommissioning. This work will be accomplished under the timber sale road package and this is reflected in the base value. Alternative 2 has the greatest potential to accomplish the quarry improvement/restoration work and Ruby Creek crossing work as mandatory stewardship work items. These two work items are valued at approximately $200,000.
Palouse Ranger District 87 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The majority of this work is not represented in the above base value of the alternatives and could only be accomplished as a mandatory service work item if the revenue exists.
The financial assessment, as analyzed and displayed above, indicates that the alternatives represent positive sales (sales where revenue exceeds expenditures). However, a variety of factors can change unexpectedly, increasing or decreasing the value of any alternative at any time. All cost variables used in this assessment are estimates that reflect current market values and current cost estimates that are reasonable at this time.
PNV Analysis: The Quicksilver financial efficiency analysis was used to calculate the PNV of each alternative. The benefit value included the anticipated predicted high bid that represents the appraised value inflated with the Forest overbid. The PNV for each alternative is displayed in the following table:
Table 3.4.2 – Present Net Value Sawtimber Alternative Benefit Value Total Costs PNV Volume (CCF)
Alt. 1 0 $0.00 $621,8748 ($621,874) No Action
Alt. 2 71,597 $7,829,848 $2,340,202 $5,489,646
Alt. 3 54,947 $5,159,523 $1,940,602 $3,218,921
44,745 Alt. 4 $3,678,934 $1,695,754 $1,983,180
As can be seen in the above table, each alternative has a positive PNV, in which benefit value of the project exceeds cost values. Of the three alternatives, Alternative 2 surpasses the sunken costs of the NEPA analysis, timber sale preparation and administration the most.
3.4.4.3 Cumulative Effects Geographic Boundary: Clearwater, Latah, and Nez Perce Counties.
Time Frame: 10 years after project implementation - the expected life of the project.
Past, Present, and Foreseeable Future Actions: All past timber harvest, grazing and related activities occurring within the analysis area contributed to the existing conditions. Forest products have historically been removed from the project area through timber sales/harvest.
8 This represents the cost of the NEPA analysis, which is also included under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
Palouse Ranger District 88 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Surrounding timber producing lands under State and/or private ownership are also expected to contribute to the local timber-based economy over this timeframe as well. However, these non- Federal contributions would need to be supplemented by Forest Service volume outputs from this project to help ensure that local sawmills are provided with the volume they require to run in a financially solvent manner.
None of the present actions listed in alternative descriptions of the EIS would directly or cumulatively affect the economics for this project.
Alternative 1:
There are no cumulative effects related to the No Action alternative, since cumulative effects can only arise from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Since this alternative does not propose any timber harvest or other activities, it would not contribute cumulatively to the local community jobs and income. However, this alternative would not meet Forest Plan direction for Management Area E1 as it would not provide for optimum, sustained production of wood products.
Alternative 2:
According to the Forest 5-year timber sale plan, Little Boulder is planned for implementation in FY-2020-2021. Compared to Alternatives 3 and 4, this alternative would have the most beneficial economic effects on the local communities by creating jobs and income, which could put unemployed woods workers back to work or draw out-of-town workers to the communities. In the context of the Forests’ 5-year Timber Sale Plan, this alternative would provide an estimated 48.1 MMBF9/FY or represent 27% of the timber sale program for FYs-2020-2021.
Alternative 3:
This alternative would have beneficial economic effects on the local communities to a lesser degree than that of Alternative 2 and slightly more benefits than Alternative 4. In the context of the Forests’ 5-year timber sale plan, this alternative would provide an estimated 36.9 MMBF or represent 20.5% of the timber sale program for FY-2020-2021.
Alternative 4:
This alternative would have the least amount of beneficial economic effects on the local communities compared to that of Alternatives 2 or 3. In the context of the Forests’ 5-year timber sale plan, this alternative would provide an estimated 30 MMBF or represent 16.7% of the timber sale program for FY-2020-2021.
9 This number represents anticipated harvest volume for each sale, for a total of 2 projected sales. The volume indicates total volume (Sawtimber + Non-Sawtimber) projected to be harvested.
Palouse Ranger District 89 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.5 FIRE & FUELS 3.5.1 Introduction
3.5.1.1 Issues Addressed • Analysis issue: Fire/Fuels - effects to species composition and forest structure/ fuel loading within project area as it relates to historic fire regime and fire behavior.
• Issue indicator: Vegetative acres treated through commercial and non-commercial activities.
Fuel treatments are most effective when they are accomplished in concert with landscape restoration objectives such as restoring species composition and stand structure to historical norms (Martinson and Omi, 2003). Proposed vegetative treatments in the Little Boulder project would focus on restoring western white pine and other early-seral tree species to improve species diversity and balance vegetative successional stages across the landscape. This restoration would help create stand conditions that are resilient and allow for rapid recovery after disturbances. This project would also provide a timber product to local communities. Additionally, it would reduce fuel loadings in the wildland-urban interface through a mixture of methodologies, including prescribed fire. Fuel loads generated through commercial harvest activities would be treated as required by the Brush Disposal (16 U.S.C. 490, August 11, 1916) and Knutsen- Vandenberg (16 U.S.C. 576-576b, June 9, 1930) Acts and by the Clearwater National Forest Plan (1987). Treatment of fuels without harvest (non-commercial) would be conducted to the standard described for the respective management areas that the proposed units occur on as directed by the Clearwater National Forest Plan (1987).
Although wind and mortality from insect and disease pathogens played important roles, fire was considered the primary agent of disturbance across most of the landscape (Habeck and Mutch, 1973; Clearwater Subbasin EAWS; ICBEMP, 9/96). This restoration would help create stand conditions that are resilient and allow for rapid recovery after disturbances. It would maintain or begin to improve the health of drier-site timber stands which are declining because of structural and composition changes. It would also reduce fuel buildup in the WUI and create more defensible space to control wildfire on national forest lands adjacent to private lands, structures, and homes.
Because fire has been effectively excluded over the past century, fuel conditions on these sites have changed. Stand structure and species composition have changed to higher densities, and the historical pine/larch cover types are converting to Douglas-fir/grand fir types. The brush component is much taller and full of dead decadent stems and is covered with “needle drape” which increases flammability. This combination in addition to the height of the brush has put the overstory ponderosa pine and western larch at risk in the event of a fire.
As a result of the changes to species composition, and in areas with heavy fuel concentrations, under the right weather conditions, a new fire start has the potential to result in an extremely high-intensity and high-severity wildfire, whereas the historical pine/larch cover types had a higher return interval of wildfires. Through this higher return interval, the fires would burn with less intensity (less available fuel) resulting in mixed-severity wildfires. Fuel factors that promote intense surface fires and can transition to crown fire include woody surface and ladder fuel accumulation, low foliar moisture content, high crown bulk density, and low crown base height (Graham, et. al., 2004, Fiedler and Keegan, 2003, Agee and Skinner, 2005). Stand succession
Palouse Ranger District 90 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
generally follows a pattern of increasing ladder fuels as shade-tolerant tree species establish under early and mid-seral dominants (Smith, 1962), unless some low-severity fire maintains a single- story structure. Ladder fuels reduce the effective ground-to-live crown base height, thereby increasing the potential for surface fire to transition to crown fire (Finney and Cohen, 2003).
For the purposes of this project, the fuel conditions for the Little Boulder Project area are described by Land Type Associations (LTAs; Clearwater National Forest Landtype Associations, 1995) and Fuel Models (FMs; Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior (Anderson, 1982). Fire regime and condition class are embedded within the LTAs. The project area has four LTAs that occur within its boundaries (Stream Bottoms and Meadows- 10s, Colluvial Midslopes- 60s, Low Relief Rolling Hills- 80s, and Mass Wasted Areas- 90s).
Analysis of current fuel conditions were completed from field surveys in 2014 and 2015 (Project file F-1 walk-throughs and photos) and classified using Anderson’s (1982) report. Within the Little Boulder project area, existing fuel loads are moderate to heavy and are best characterized by Fuel Model 10, with inclusions of light ground fuels best characterized by Fuel Model 8 and a dry-5. Most of the fuels on National Forest System lands are naturally occurring.
More detailed information can be found in the Fire/Fuels Specialist report located in the project folder. For information on LTAs associated with the Little Boulder project, see section 3.4.2.2. Existing Condition later in this chapter.
Air Quality
Where prescribed burning is utilized as a tool to achieve objectives, smoke is produced, and this can impact local air qualities. All burning activities would be conducted according to the requirements of the Montana/Idaho Smoke Management Unit Airshed Group guidelines. The amount of prescribed burning is regulated by this group, ensuring that air quality laws and standards are being met. Broadcast and jackpot/underburns may be done in either spring or fall as weather, smoke, and prescription parameters allow in order to best achieve burn objectives. Piles are typically burned in mid to late fall after a significant amount of precipitation has been received.
In order to manage smoke and reduce prescribed fire effects to air quality, a number of smoke management techniques to reduce and redistribute emissions would be used.
Reductions to area burned would be made by burning concentrations in jackpots by isolating fuels with natural or constructed fuelbreaks, effectively turning one unit into several small units to provide more flexibility and control in managing effects to air quality (treating the fuels with several small burns rather than one large one). In commercial harvest units, overall fuel loads would be reduced by yarding tops and limbs or through biomass removal and utilization. The overall amount of fuel consumed would be reduced by conducting some broadcast burns or underburns on the wet end of the prescription, with moist litter/duff layers, or before precipitation. Spring burns are generally conducted before green-up when new fuels appear. Additionally, fires that increase combustion efficiency by limiting the glowing or smoldering phase and broadening the flaming phase also help reduce emissions. Rapid mop-up could also be used to limit smoldering and reduce emissions.
As directed by the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group, burning would be avoided when the Airshed group’s monitoring unit forecasts unfavorable weather conditions for smoke dispersal (stable high pressure, inversions) and restrictions are placed on burns in the burn area.
Palouse Ranger District 91 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Atmospheric stability inhibits smoke dispersal. Burning would be conducted when approved by the Airshed group, and when favorable smoke dispersion weather (atmospheric instability) is forecasted. Instability is related to better lift/transport or venting and dispersion of smoke. This also serves to redistribute emission and dilute impacts. Emissions would be reduced and redistributed by varying treatment timing and managing overall fuel loadings. Precise timing (spring or fall) of prescribed fire would be determined by on-site evaluations of vegetative conditions, soil conditions, and fuel moisture, along with current and expected weather conditions. Burning of any pile created through treatment typically occurs in late fall, when the relative humidity (RH) is higher and after a significant amount of moisture has been received on site. By capitalizing on good predicted smoke dispersion, managing the number of acres burned at one time, and varying treatment timing and implementation, emissions can be reduced or redistributed and air quality impacts can be minimized (Ottmar and others, 2001)
3.5.2 Affected Environment
3.5.2.1 Scope of Analysis The affected geographic area would be the Little Boulder Project area. The project area encompasses approximately 12,425 acres, which includes 10,399 acres of National Forest System lands and 2,036 acres of privately owned lands.
For the purposes of fire and fuels management and air quality, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects area will be the same as the project area. In the event of a wildfire occurring on this landscape, the orientation of the drainages and the prevailing winds during peak fire season line up. Because of this, the project area boundary serves as a representative boundary for analyzing effects for the Little Boulder project. The period for cumulative effects analysis is 20 years after project implementation.
3.5.2.2 Existing Condition Hazardous fuel loading and primarily ladder fuels exist within the project area. A majority of the project area is within county designated wildland urban interface (WUI). Over 90% (11,624 acres) of the project area has been identified as “WUI Rural Lands” by the Latah County, Idaho, WUI Wildfire Mitigation Plan (2007 Update Addendum), Teie and Weatherford (2000) state that WUI occurs where people and their development “meet or intermix with wildland fuel”.
The communities of Deary, Helmer, and Bovill, ID are interface communities that would be impacted by fire activity in the project area. (Federal Register, 8/17/01). There are several intermixed communities dispersed throughout this area of Latah County. One of these communities, referred to as the “Forks Area”, was described as an action item from the 2011 Latah County Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), and includes “Fuels Treatment-Defensible Space” around an inholding of private residences in the Forks area (Latah County, Idaho Community Wildfire Protection Plan-2011 Revision, pgs. 86-88).
Land Type Associations (LTAs) Landtype associations (LTAs) are the biophysical land units used for analyzing vegetative and aquatic information in the assessment area. LTAs, units in the National Ecological Hierarchy adopted by the Forest Service in 1993, are based primarily on landform, geologic substrate, and vegetation communities (Clearwater Sub-basin Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, Clearwater National Forest, 1997). The Table, below, displays the total acres of proposed
Palouse Ranger District 92 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
vegetation treatment (commercial and non-commercial), the acres of LTA occurring within proposed Units, and the percent of the Unit acreage in LTA.
Table 3.5.0 Occurrence of Landtype Association (LTA) within project area and proposed units by Alternative Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 2,684 acres 2,335 acres 2,122 acres proposed proposed proposed treatment treatment treatment % of Acres of LTA LTA Acres of LTA Acres of LTA occurring within within occurring within occurring within LTA proposed Units/ % overall proposed Units/ % proposed Units/ % Unit acreage in Project Unit acreage in Unit acreage in LTA LTA Area LTA Stream Bottoms 6% 5 acres/0.1% 6 acres/0.3% 5 acres/0.2% 10s Colluvial 24% 253 acres/9% 185 acres/8% 184 acres/9% Midslopes 60s Low Relief Rolling 57% 1777 acres/66% 1497 acres/64% 1342 acres/63% Hills 80s Mass Wasted 13% 647 acres/24% 647 acres/28% 591 acres/28% Areas 90s
• LTA 10s (Stream Bottoms and Meadows): This LTA represents only six percent of the overall project area, and less than one percent of the proposed units. This landform occupies the lowest position in the landscape. It is characterized by low relief topography and usually has moist to wet environmental conditions throughout the growing season. The historical fire regime of these areas is described as lethal and very infrequent (300+ years). The current fire regime is consistent with the historical regime even though these sites have experienced vegetative changes. Fire exclusion, due to a variety of causes including suppression and management restrictions in streamside buffers, has probably not changed most natural stands measurably. Change has primarily been through the actions of man such as past timber harvest, mining, and fire exclusion (fire suppression). Fuel Model 10 best represents these areas.
Riparian areas of most intermittent and perennial streams are at a greater risk of stand replacement fire than historically. Increases in fuels (fire exclusion, management restrictions due to resource buffers) and damage from the last fire event (fire scars, cat faces) have set the stage for low intensity fires to become lethal. The existing fire scars and cat faces provide an easy ignition if a fire was to start.
• LTA 60s (Colluvial Midslopes): This LTA represents 24 percent of the overall project area, and 8 or 9 percent of the proposed units. These areas are best represented by a mixed-severity fire occurrence of 35-100+ years. Due in part to successful suppression efforts since the early 1900s, fire has not functioned as a disturbance on the landscape. As a result, stands are more dense and uniform across the landscape than was found under historical conditions. Increased stand density and changed species composition has led to the stands becoming more susceptible to insect and disease factors, causing unnatural fuel buildups. The Colluvial Midslopes are dominated by a dry condition FM5. In order to represent actual observed fire behavior in these Fuel Model 5 areas, the live
Palouse Ranger District 93 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
fuel moisture drops way down better representing the tall, decadent brush and needle drape that has reduced the vigor of the shrub component.
The expected mixed-severity fire regime on the Colluvial Midslopes LTA has changed to a more infrequent and lethal fire occurrence because of the denser stands and accumulations of down woody fuel, which now occur across the landscape. Following the decline of western white pine, the most common species areas across this LTA are Douglas-fir, grand fir, and lodge pole pine all of which have relatively short life spans (76-151 years) especially when compared to western larch, ponderosa pine and western white pine (200-300+ years). A fire frequency of 35-151 years still applies within these stands, but due to current stand conditions with regard to fuel loading, continuity, and arrangement, the result of a fire event now would be expected to be lethal and stand- replacing in nature.
• LTA 80s (Low Relief, Rolling Hills): This LTA represents 57 percent of the overall project area, and 63-66 percent of the proposed units. Very infrequent, stand-replacement fires have been the dominant disturbance on this LTA with root rot and windthrow being the major secondary factors. There is also a shorter non-lethal component that can be found on some of the drier inclusions. Moister sites within the area were historically dominated by western white pine, with compositions reaching over 30% (USDA, 1926).
As a result of the species change over time with the loss of the western white pine component, these stands better represent a lethal and shorter 150-year fire return interval instead of the historical 200-year-plus fire event. Although changes in stand compositions have occurred, fire return intervals are still dictated by stand and fuel conditions. For example, a vigorously growing 60-80 year old stand of Douglas-fir, with light ground fuels and a closed canopy is very resistant to fire, except under the most severe weather conditions (FM 8, Anderson, 1982). However, a 60-80 year old stand that has been affected by root rot or other diseases, and/or insects will have heavier dead and down fuels on the ground, openings in the canopy where ladder fuels can become established, and will burn quite readily (FM 10, Anderson 1982).
Within small inclusions for this LTA, a non-lethal component with a 50-100 year interval occurred in ponderosa pine and western larch dominated stands, both early-seral species. These non-lethal underburns historically killed the grand fir, and Douglas-fir sapling- sized trees, in addition to ladder fuels in the intermediate canopy. Frequent fires within these areas helped cleanup and minimize on-going fuel build-ups. Due to recent fire exclusion, current conditions in these small inclusions show dense disease susceptible forests, which increase the risk of more intense, lethal fires (Clearwater Sub-basin EAWS, 7/97; ICBEMP, 9/96; Covington, 1994). This non-lethal component is now best represented by a more lethal stand replacement event similar to the rest of this LTA.
Ponderosa pine and western larch are still dominant trees in these small inclusions, although the stand density has increased beyond historical levels. This increase in density has created more competition for the ponderosa pine and western larch leading to continued decline in health. In addition to the changing forest composition, the low brush that was the main fuel for the non-lethal periodic underburns has become tall, decadent and full of needle cast and dead debris. This elevated fuel bed, also known as ladder fuel, would be quite volatile to the overstory ponderosa pine and western larch resulting in fires with higher level of lethal fire effects. This LTA is best represented with Fuel Model 10, with inclusions of dry condition Fuel Model 5 on more southerly aspects.
Palouse Ranger District 94 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• LTA 90s (Mass Wasted Areas): This LTA represents 13 percent of the overall project area, and 24-28 percent of the proposed units. This LTA is usually found adjacent to steep slopes near major stream drainages. Moist to wet conditions usually prevail through much of the growing season. Very infrequent, stand-replacement fires are the dominant disturbance process on these landforms. This land type was historically represented by a mixed-severity, very infrequent (150-300 year) fire regime. Western white pine was a dominant species in this land type but has been dramatically decreased due to the blister rust epidemic. Through mortality related to this large woody debris, fuel accumulations are elevated in these areas. Openings generated from the blister rust allowed grand fir and Douglas-fir species to come in and take over as the dominant species. Ladder fuels, which provide a method for fire to transition from ground fire to crown fire, are created by regeneration of these newly dominant species. With the change in species, the fire interval has changed to a shorter more lethal one due to the shorter life span and greater ground fuel loads of these new dominant species. These two species typically begin to culminate at approximately 80-120 years. After that point the stands being to fall to the ground creating additional heavy fuel build up. This LTA is represented by a heavy Fuel Model 10.
Fuel Models: Within any given LTA, there can be several fuel models represented. Historically, most healthy, mature, closed-canopy timbered sites were best represented by Fuel Model 8. On some inclusions where that canopy was more open, and in young stands, Fuel Model 5 with young, vigorous trees/shrubs models fire behavior best. Within the Little Boulder project area, existing fuel loads are moderate to heavy and are best characterized by Fuel Model 10, with inclusions of light ground fuels best characterized by Fuel Model 8 and a dry-5. Most of the fuels on National Forest System lands are naturally occurring.
Fuel Model 8 (Timber Group): This model exhibits “slow-burning ground fire, generally with low flame lengths, although the fire may encounter jackpots of fuel that will flare up. Only under severe weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidities, and high winds do the fuels pose fire hazards. Closed canopy stands of short-needled conifers support fire in the litter layer. This layer is mainly needles, leaves, and occasionally twigs because little undergrowth is present in the stand”. (Anderson, 1982)
Fuel Model 10 (Timber Group): “Fires burn in the surface and ground fuels with greater intensity than in other timber models. Dead-down fuels include greater quantities of 3-inch or larger limbwood resulting from overmaturity or natural events that create a large load of dead material on the forest floor. Crowning out, spotting, and torching of individual trees are more frequent in this fuel situation, leading to potential fire control difficulties. Any forest type may be considered if heavy down material is present; examples are insect- or disease- ridden stands, windthrown stands, or overmature situations with deadfall” (Anderson, 1982).
Fuel Model 5 (Shrub Group): This model is used for plantations because the young, vigorous trees tend to carry fire in the way that live, healthy brush does. “Fire is generally carried in the surface fuels that are made up of litter cast by the shrubs and grasses or forbs in the understory. The fires are generally not very intense because surface fuel loads are light, the trees/shrubs are young with little dead material, and the foliage contains very little volatile material” (Anderson 1982). This model has a live fuel component, which for plantations, will be high due to their vigor.
Dry Fuel Model 5: The model here is the same as described above, but would be used in dry inclusions such as on the Colluvial Midslopes where instead of a young, vigorous shrub layer,
Palouse Ranger District 95 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
there is a tall and decadent shrub layer with large amounts of needle-drape on those shrubs. Fire behavior in the increased ladder fuels is best modeled with this fuel model, although the live fuel moisture is severely reduced. This model then demonstrates the increase in fire behavior observed in these settings.
Air Quality The air quality of the Little Boulder project area is generally good throughout the majority of the year due to good air dispersion. Human-caused and natural events inside and outside the project area do occasionally affect air quality. Human influences such as campfires, vehicle exhaust, and road dust in the area are low; however, regional haze occasionally occurs due to agricultural dust and agricultural field burnings to the west, and forest slash burning. Natural events such as dust storms and wildland fire events also contribute to reduced air quality at times.
Prevailing winds are generally from the southwest and west. Smoke dispersion is typically to the east and northeast. Long-duration, low-intensity frontal systems commonly occur from late fall to spring, aiding atmospheric mixing and improving air quality. Spring and early summer seasons typically have good dispersion and atmospheric mixing conditions. Daytime heating lifts smoke up into the atmosphere and mixing winds disperse smoke down wind. Inversions are not uncommon especially in cold winter months, but daytime heating in the summer usually lifts smoke out of the valleys. Dispersion can be problematic under stable high-pressure systems and prescribed burns are generally avoided under these predicted conditions.
Prescribed fire smoke, if not dispersed, can become subject to nighttime downslope winds, become trapped by nighttime inversion conditions, and contribute to valley smoke pooling until the next period of daytime heating. Fires exposed to free air wind tend to have better dispersal than fires located in sheltered areas or in valley bottoms.
3.5.3 Regulatory Framework
3.5.3.1 The Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act, passed in 1963 and amended in 1977, 1990, 1999 (42 USC 7401-7626), is the primary legal authority governing air quality management. This Act provides the framework for national, state, and local efforts to protect air quality. The Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group was formed in response to the Idaho State Implementation Plan. This group, which is composed of members who conduct a “major” amount of prescribed burning and the regulatory and health agencies that regulate this burning, cooperates with both Idaho and Montana Departments of Environmental Quality to coordinate all prescribed burning activities, provide smoke forecasting, and establish air quality restrictions for Group members. The intent of the Airshed Group is to minimize or prevent smoke impacts and ensure compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency charged with enforcing the Clean Air Act while using fire to accomplish land management objectives and/or fuel hazard reduction. The USDA Forest Service, including the Palouse Ranger District, is a member of this Airshed Group through the North Idaho Memorandum of Agreement and adheres to the North Idaho Smoke Management Plan. The Little Boulder project area is in North Idaho Airshed Unit 12A. All post-harvest site preparation and fuel reduction treatments would be conducted according to the requirements of the Montana/North Idaho Smoke Management Unit guidelines and would limit smoke accumulations to legal, acceptable limits.
Palouse Ranger District 96 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.3.2 Healthy Forests Restoration Act The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148),(HFRA, 2003) contains a variety of provisions to address hazardous fuel reduction and forest restoration projects on specific types of Federal land that are at risk of wildland fire and/or insect and disease epidemics. The HFRA helps all landowners and managers restore healthy forest and rangeland conditions on those lands, regardless of ownership.
3.5.3.3 National Fire Plan The National Fire Plan (NFP) was developed in August 2000 following a landmark wildfire season with the intent of actively responding to severe wildland fires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capabilities. The NFP addresses five key points: firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and accountability.
3.5.3.4 Forest Plan Consistency Clearwater Forest Plan (1987) fire protection goals (II-4.16) are to:
• Prevent and suppress wildfires commensurate with resource values to be protected while recognizing the role of fire in ecological processes
• Coordinate with the State of Idaho Air Quality Bureau to develop a smoke management program for prescribed burning in the State
Particularly, the protection goals for Management Area E1 (III-59.9) which includes 72% of the project area and 100% of the units identified for treatment, are to limit the size on wildfires in immature timber to one acre or less, in mature timber to 40 acres or less, and in brush fields to 500 acres or less. Prescribed fire from planned ignitions may be used to treat activity and natural fuel loadings. The protection standards for E1 lands are to confine, contain, or control wildfires. Appendix D of the Forest Plan has supplementary fire management direction, and all proposed fuel management activities associated with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are consistent with that direction.
3.5.4 Environmental Consequences
3.5.4.1 Methodology The information used in this analysis is a combination of available data, research material, literature, field reviews, modeling, and assessments. A fuels field review of the project area was conducted in 2014 and 2015. This review consisted of visiting proposed units/all stands in the project area, performing walkthrough exams, and making recommendations for appropriate treatments based on observed stand conditions, in cooperation with the silviculturist. Database queries of past fire history and management activities were conducted and reviewed. More detailed information can be found in the project record.
Land Type Associations were determined through GIS analysis and descriptions of fire regimes (Clearwater Subbasin Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, 1997, and the Clearwater National Forest Landtype Associations 1995). Fire Ecology of the Forest Habitat Types of Northern Idaho (Smith and Fischer, 1997), and the Latah County, Idaho Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2011), were also used to assess the current and historic fire regimes of the
Palouse Ranger District 97 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
project area. See section 3.4.2.2, Land Type Associations (LTA), for more information about the existing conditions related to LTAs.
Fuel Models were determined based on field reviews and Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior (Anderson, 1982). Anderson classified fuels into four groups based on the observed and expected fire behavior; grass, brush, timber, and slash. BEHAVE Plus 5.0.5 (firemodels.org), a fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling program, was used to predict fire behavior given current conditions and post-treatment conditions.
Prescribed fire and fuels treatments are based on existing and desired stand conditions, the proposed commercial harvest, regeneration activities, non-commercial fuels treatment activities, and the fire history of the analysis area. Proposed treatments were developed to facilitate the achievement of the desired condition over time. Consideration included predicted post-harvest stand composition, stand size class, stand structure, estimates of existing fuel loads, calculated predictions of potential fuel loads, and qualitative estimation of potential fire effects based on modeled trends in fuel loading and literature review.
As fuel characteristics change, so does expected fire behavior. For example, as fuel moistures decrease and slope and wind increase, fire behavior generally increases. Multiple components of fire hazard, including Flame Length (FL), Rate of Spread (ROS) in chains/hour, and Estimated Size after 2 Hours, were used to evaluate the changes in fire behavior in forested stands.
First, the potential flame length (which is related to fuel loading and fuel arrangement) was used to determine the surface fire behavior potential, as well as the trend over time. Suppression tactics are directly related to flame lengths. Personnel using hand tools can construct fire lines directly on a fire perimeter if flame lengths are less than 4 feet (National Interagency Fire Center, 2008).
Next, rate of fire spread and estimated fire size two hours post-ignition are analyzed. Two hours is used as the time that it takes from detection of a fire start to the time when resources arrive on site and begin suppression activities. Given a particular slope and wind speed, models help to estimate how fast a point-source fire would be expected to spread in a particular Fuel Model and how big would a fire be when firefighters could be expected to arrive on-scene.
One of Anderson’s (1982) Fuel Models (FM) is selected in the BEHAVE Plus 5.0.5 program. Information on fuels, weather, topography is input, including 1-hr, 10-hr, and 100-hr fuel moisture, live woody moisture (if the model requires it), a range of mid-flame windspeeds, direction of wind vector, and a range of slopes (%). All inputs used in this analysis assume conditions on a typical summer day in the project area, as determined by Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) data from local weather stations (SHOCK and POTLATCH). As the inputs change, so do the outputs of the model. In general, as fuel moistures decrease and slope and wind increase, fire behavior increases. As with any model, there is room for interpretation and application of professional experience when addressing the model’s outputs.
BEHAVE Outputs modeled here are: • (ROS) Rate of Spread (chains/hour): Given a particular slope and windspeed, how fast will a point-source fire spread in this Fuel Model?
• (FL) Flame Length( feet): Given a particular slope and windspeed, what would the average flame length be? Flame length is an indicator of fireline intensity, or heat. The intensity of the heat dictates what suppression tactics may be employed. Fires with
Palouse Ranger District 98 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
FL<4’ can be safely attacked by handcrews using direct tactics. Fires with FL<8’ can be safely attacked with machinery suing direct tactics. Where FL>8’, direct tactics cannot be used, and fires must be attacked using indirect tactics.
• Estimated Fire Size (acres) given a 2-hour lapse time from the start of the fire: Given the same parameters, how big would this fire be two hours post-ignition, when firefighters could be expected to arrive on-scene?
The BEHAVE Plus Model has the following assumptions and limitations:
• The models deal only with surface fuels within 6 feet of the ground.
• “Live Fuel Moisture”, the foliage and fine stems of living plants are considered fuels, and dampen the rate of spread (heat sink) when moisture content is high, and increases (available fuel) as moisture content drops.
• Fire spread by spotting, crowning, or through fire whirls is not part of the output.
• Fuels are continuous as in the arrangement (spatially across the landscape) of those fuels.
• Slope, wind speed, and wind direction are constant.
3.5.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1: Alternative 1 would not treat fuel accumulations. Fire risk for a severe wildfire event would continue. Local infrastructure, private property, national forest land, local timber based economies, amongst other values-at-risk, would continue to be threatened by potential catastrophic wildfire events.
Change in species composition and increased stand-densities compared to historical conditions would not be addressed at all. Hazardous fuels would continue to increase with the ongoing mortality associated with insects and disease in the project area. Fire regimes would not trend toward their historical role on the landscape but will in fact continue to deviate even further from that role.
Alternative 1 would not take any preventative measures to protect human life and property within the planning area from an uncontrolled wildfire event. This alternative would not implement any fuel treatment recommendations made by the National Fire Plan (NFP), the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), or the Latah County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Alternative 2: Beneficial fuel management activities promote a desired condition where potential flame lengths and fire intensities decrease. This Alternative includes 1,501 acres of commercial regeneration harvest and 1,183 acres of non-commercial fuels reduction treatments where fuels and vegetation objectives would be addressed. The proposed action treats the largest number of acres and would best meet the purpose and need of this project (Reduce fuel buildup in stands in the wildland urban interface (WUI) where fire suppression or changing stand composition has interrupted the short-return fire interval and resulted in unnaturally high amounts of fuel and overgrown understory, and create more defensible space to control wildfire on National Forest land adjacent to private lands, structures, and homes.)(Chapter 1, Little Boulder DEIS).
Palouse Ranger District 99 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Additionally, this alternative would address the access change that came in the Record of Decision in a previous project, Cherry Dinner, (March, 2008), and provide the alternative access to the area as originally intended by that analysis. The alternative to maintain the access by new road construction was removed under the Cherry Dinner decision. Access was cut off to existing forest management resources in the form of timber for future harvest, restoration, and existing plantations which require access for silvicultural management.
By selecting Alternative 2, the following fuels objectives would be addressed:
• Proposed vegetation treatments (timber harvest, prescribed fire, non-commercial fuels reduction treatment) would accelerate a trend to convert sites to those that are more representative of historic conditions.
• The size and distribution of proposed activities would emulate a mixed-severity wildfire pattern across the landscape, especially when combined with past management activities, in a scale closer to historic disturbances.
• The activities would reduce effects of wildfire spreading onto National Forest lands from private lands, and vice versa. These activities would curtail large fire growth and spread potential.
• Fire occurrence within the LTAs across the project area would trend towards the historical norm. Because of the decreasing stand densities dominated by the seral, fire- resilient component.
• Reduce potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities, and increase the likelihood of suppression success within and adjacent to county-identified Wildland- Urban Interface (WUI) areas.
• Provide new road access to National Forest Land classified as Management Area E1 (Clearwater National Forest Plan, 1987) on the 3306 road system allowing access for public, administrative management, and cooperators (Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) and Clearwater-Potlatch Timber Protection Association (CPTPA)) for suppression of wildfires.
Alternative 3: This alternative provides some of the same treatments as Alternative 2, but at a smaller scale. This alternative includes 1,152 acres of commercial regeneration harvest, which is 349 acres less than Alternative 2, but the same amount of non-commercial fuels reduction treatment, 1,183 acres. The greatest change from a fire and fuels management perspective is that under this Alternative, there would be no new road construction. As such, the alternative access to the Road 3306 area would again not be provided, and the access restrictions that hinder forest management and suppression access would remain. Impacts to vegetation and fuels objectives are listed below. • Proposed vegetation treatments (timber harvest, prescribed fire, non-commercial fuels reduction treatment) would accelerate a trend to convert sites to those that are more representative of historic conditions.
Palouse Ranger District 100 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• The size and distribution of proposed activities would emulate a mixed-severity wildfire pattern across the landscape, especially when combined with past management activities, in a scale closer to historic disturbances.
• The activities would reduce effects of wildfire spreading onto National Forest lands from private lands, and vice versa. These activities would curtail large fire growth and spread potential.
• Fire occurrence within the LTAs across the project area would trend towards the historical norm. Because of the decreasing stand densities dominated by the seral, fire- resilient component.
• Reduce potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities, and increase the likelihood of suppression success within and adjacent to county-identified Wildland- Urban Interface (WUI) areas.
• Direct road access to the lands previously accessed by the 3306 road system would not be provided for resource management, cooperators providing suppression of wildfire (IDL/CPTPA), or forest visitors. Reduced access increases response time, cost to manage resource areas, and access to forest lands that had been previously accessed.
• This action would treat less acres than the preferred alternative (Alt. 2) due to reduction of harvest acres by 349 acres. As a result the amount of improvement to species diversity and stand productivity by reestablishing seral species, and reduction of fuel buildup in stands within the project area is reduced by 23%.
Alternative 4: This alternative provides some of the same treatments as Alternatives 2 and 3 but at a smaller scale, treating only 938 acres with commercial regeneration harvest but slightly increasing acres covered by non-commercial fuel treatment, 1,185. The spatial arrangement of units is at a smaller scale than Alternatives 2 and 3, resulting in reduced effects in achieving fuel loading objectives across the landscape. Greater distances occur between non-commercial fuel treatments and commercial harvest units, reducing the ability of the two treatments to complement each other compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Compared with Alternatives 2 and 3, this alternative provides smaller continuous patches of treatment and a similar amount of Non-Commercial Fuels Reduction. Access would be provided to the isolated portion lands previously accessed by road 3306. Impacts to vegetation and fuels objectives are listed below.
• Proposed vegetation treatments (timber harvest, prescribed fire, non-commercial fuels reduction treatment) would accelerate a trend to convert sites to those that are more representative of historic conditions.
• The size and distribution of proposed activities would emulate a mixed-severity wildfire pattern across the landscape, especially when combined with past management activities, in a scale closer to historic disturbances.
• The activities would reduce effects of wildfire spreading onto National Forest lands from private lands, and vice versa. These activities would curtail large fire growth and spread potential.
Palouse Ranger District 101 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Fire occurrence within the LTAs across the project area would trend towards the historical norm. Because of the decreasing stand densities dominated by the seral, fire- resilient component.
• Reduce potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities, and increase the likelihood of suppression success within and adjacent to county-identified Wildland- Urban Interface (WUI) areas.
• This action would treat the least amount of acres of the three action alternatives thereby creating the most reduced effects for vegetation and fuels objectives. As a result the amount of improvement to species diversity and stand productivity by reestablishing seral species, and reduction of fuel buildup in stands within the project area is the least when compared with action alternatives 2 and 3.
3.5.4.3 Cumulative Effects The analysis area for the cumulative effects of the proposed activities is the Little Boulder project area, approximately 84% of which is under Forest Service management. This provides an appropriate analysis area for fuels resources related to characteristics such as species composition, forest structure, wildfire risk, wildfire hazard, air quality, access, and insect/disease risk. This scale of analysis also provides an appropriately sized area to monitor changes in vegetation trends, whether they are natural or human-caused, over time. Scale must be considered in restoring fire resilient forests. If fuel treatments are small and scattered, or a long time has elapsed since treatment (generally 10-15 years or more), they will be less effective. (Agee and Skinner, 2005) Beyond this timeframe, treatments generally lose effectiveness because of high site productivity and natural successional factors affecting the fuel profile.
Because of the scale of this project, the ownership pattern (84% Forest Service), and the management activities (past, present, and future) on other ownerships, action alternatives are unlikely to have a negative impact across the cumulative effects analysis area, rather, they would have a marked effect on improving existing fuels conditions as described in the list below. Alternatives with more commercial harvest acres treated (both Alternatives 2 and3) along with non-commercial fuels treatments common to all action alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have the most effect on increasing the area’s overall resiliency. Alternatives 2 and 4 provide the most beneficial effect with regard to access because they restore access to the 3306 road system for administrative/resource management, and suppression resources (cooperators providing suppression on Federal lands, IDL, and CPTPA).
• Proposed treatments (timber harvest, prescribed fire, Non-commercial fuels reduction treatment)would accelerate a trend to convert sites to those that are more representative of historic conditions
• When combined with past management activities, the size and distribution of these activities would emulate a mixed-severity wildfire pattern across the landscape, in a scale closer to historic disturbances.
• The activities would reduce effects of wildfire spreading onto National Forest lands from private lands, and vice versa. These activities would curtail large fire growth and spread potential.
Palouse Ranger District 102 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Fire regimes would trend towards the historical norm. Because of the decreasing stand densities dominated by the early-seral, fire-resilient component, more stands would move closer to the fire regimes that historically represented their respective LTAs.
• Reduce potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities, and increase the likelihood of suppression success within and adjacent to county identified Wildland urban Interface (WUI) areas.
• (Action Alternatives 2 and 4) Provide road access to National Forest Land on the 3306 road system allowing access for public, administrative management, and cooperators (Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) and Clearwater Potlatch Timber Protection Association (CPTPA)) for suppression of wildfires on National Forest Land as directed by Forest Plan (Clearwater Forest Plan 1987) and through an offset suppression agreement with the Forest Service and cooperators IDL & CPTPA.
Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Activities that could have affected fuels, fuel treatment, or fire suppression capabilities within the analysis area.
Fire Exclusion: Fire exclusion in the Little Boulder project area is a result of several factors with over 100 years of active fire suppression being one of them. Other management practices and changing uses of surrounding landscapes (Johnston, 2007) also had a huge impact on the fire occurrence in the project area. Agricultural development began on the Palouse prairie in the 1880s with the development of wheat and legume crops in addition to increases in livestock grazing (cattle and sheep). As crop land and grazing spread the occurrence of prairie fire diminished. During this same time period the timber industry also began to grow bringing roads and railroads into forested areas which began to bisect the landscape, further limiting fire growth and spread.
Fire suppression across all landtypes has affected stand conditions by systematically eliminating any low-intensity fire that would have occurred in the past 80 – 120 years. Fire records for the district show that there have been 10 small fires suppressed in the project area over the last 40 years, and over 50 in the last 90 years. A majority of the starts were lightning-caused, but a few were human-caused. The last large stand-replacing fire in the area was the 7,000+ acre McGary Butte fire in the 1930s, which encompassed a portion of the southeast corner of the project area. The majority of the fire occurred to the east of the watershed divide in the McGary, Round Meadow, and Long Meadow drainages. It is impossible to know how many of the suppressed fires would have become large stand-replacing fires or low-intensity low severity. Continued fire suppression can lead to a deviation from the historic range of variability in the same way that the drastic change in species composition has affected the fuel conditions. As fuels increase, so do potential fire intensities. As fire intensities increase so does fire severity as a result suppression actions become less successful and more complex. As a direct result the chance for large, high- intensity, high-severity wildfire increases at greater frequencies than the historic norm. While fire intervals may not yet have been missed in some LTAs, they certainly will be in the future, as fire suppression in this area will continue (Forest Plan, 1987) due to the wildland-urban interface that is present and expanding.
Given management area direction from the Forest plan and land ownership and management patterns across the area is is highly likely that suppression will continue in the future.
Past Activities:
Palouse Ranger District 103 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
There have been numerous vegetation management activities throughout the project area. The earliest records indicate that railroad logging (commercial harvest) was occurring in 1918-1929. There was a break in commercial harvest management activities from this time to the mid-1950s. Since the 1950’s, there have been approximately 2,968 acres (24%) of the project area being treated through timber harvest and reforestation planting (Refer to the appendices for a complete list of past activities on National Forest lands). Livestock grazing was the heaviest in the area in the 1930’s and 40’s, with both sheep and cattle, cattle allotments are utilized in the project area still. Livestock grazing can affect the fuel profile by significantly altering the species composition, fuel arrangement, fuel continuity, and fine fuel loading.
Past regeneration harvests have utilized silvicultural treatments which depended on the composition and structure of the stand; and included seed tree, shelterwood, clearcut with reserves, and clearcuts. The fuels resulting from harvest activities, as well as naturally occurring fuels were treated on-site through broadcast burning, or mechanical piling and burning for fuel hazard mitigation as well as site preparation purposes.
Western white pine, western larch and ponderosa pine seedlings were planted in harvested areas, the actual percentage of each species differed on a site-by-site basis to accommodate aspect or topographic influences. All past regeneration harvests located on Forest Service ground within this analysis area were treated as described. Plantations throughout the analysis area on non- Forest Service lands may or may not have had fuels treated and/or planted with seral species. Plantations in this second category would not be able to withstand the fire threat like the treated plantations and would have a higher probability of burning with lethal stand conditions. These regeneration harvests are considered to have a lower risk of catastrophic fire for a period of 50 to 80 years due to treatment of fuels post-harvest and plantation initiation and maintenance.
As these plantations begin to grow they are best represented by a brush fuel model 5 (Anderson, 1982) with high live foliar moisture content for 10-20 years. As trees begin to out-compete brush species, the site transitions to a timber fuel model 8 (Anderson, 1982), where the canopy begins to close in and the brush dies out. This transition begins when the stand is 25-35 years old, but exact timing depends on the productivity of the site and environmental factors such as drought. These conditions are likely to continue for the next 45-55 years when the stand reaches approximately 80 years old, which is when stand growth typically starts to slow down but overall stand health remains good.
Intermediate tree harvest/treatments are another timber management activity that has occurred within the project area. Timber felled within the intermediate treatments were whole tree yarded, and the landings were piled and burned. Within these units activity fuels were treated on select skid trails and topographic breaking up fuel continuity and loading.
Non-commercial fuel reduction has been accomplished on Forest Service land within the project area treating 2,541 acres. Treatments include pre-commercial thinning of plantations, slashing, handpiling, machine piling, mastication, and prescribed burning. As with the proposed non- commercial fuel reduction treatments, these treatments sought to reduce potential fire behavior, facilitate fire suppression activities, and increase the likelihood of suppression success within and adjacent to county identified Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas and across the project area.
Recent timber harvest (regeneration treatment) has occurred on most of the private industrial timber land within the last 10 years (Google Earth Map Project File F-4). Fuels generated through timber harvest have been treated to the standards required by the state’s Best
Palouse Ranger District 104 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Management Plans (BMPs). These recent activities have replicated stand replacing fires reducing the risk of wildfire occurring within these areas.
Effect of the Road System on Wildfire Suppression: Action alternatives 2 and 4 restore direct access into the lands previously accessed by the 3306 road system while Alternatives 1 and 3 do not. An adequate road system allows for fast, efficient and economical suppression of wildfires. When there is reasonable road access near a fire, initial attack of the fire can most often be done more quickly, engines and water tenders can be utilized to supply water instead of more expensive aerial resources, and firefighter safety is not compromised due to more difficult escape routes or need for medical evacuations that may occur in more inaccessible places. The responsibility for fire suppression in the Little Boulder Project Area on Forest Service ground is assigned to the IDL Ponderosa Unit based out of Deary, Idaho and the CPTPA unit based out of Elk River, Idaho through an off-set protection agreement with the State of Idaho.
Air Quality: The effect of smoke produced during prescribed burning operations is the same through all action alternatives. Prescribed burning activities would not intentionally exceed air quality standards. Prior to ignitions all planned prescribed burns would consult with regulating groups for approval to burn. By adhering to direction from these regulating groups allows prescribed fires to be conducted while limiting smoke accumulations to legal, acceptable limits. These levels would be accomplished by limiting the amount of burns that can occur within an airshed. Decisions for burn approvals are decided by The Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group. These decisions take into account the location, number, and size of proposed burns and balance that information with the current and forecasted smoke dispersion conditions.
Palouse Ranger District 105 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.6 FISHERIES 3.6.1 Introduction The information in this section addresses the analysis issue identified during scoping below in section 3.6.1.1 or where analysis is required by law, regulation, or agency direction. The discussion that follows focuses on the aquatic habitat attributes of the project area which are specifically related to consistency and compliance with the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan and its amendments, species-specific goals and standards, and the analysis requirements of other Federal laws. This section presents the affected environment and environmental consequences of aquatic habitat and species, categorized as follows:
• Management Indicator Species (MIS)
• Endangered Species Act (ESA)– Threatened (T), Endangered, and Candidate Species
• Forest Service Region 1 Sensitive Species (S)
• Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
The following table explains the rationale for special status species considered in the analysis of the Little Boulder project.
Table 3.6.0 Rationale for Special Status Species Considered in the Analysis of the Little Boulder Project
Species Special Consider Rationale Status* ed in this Analysis
Although native to most of the Clearwater River basin and Westslope cutthroat portions of the Palouse RD (potentially including the trout No Potlatch River drainage), this species does not appear to MIS, S Oncorhynchus clarki currently be present in the project area or anywhere in the lewisi project area subwatersheds. (Bowersox and Brindza 2006, Fuller et al. 1985; CBS 1994, 2006; IWW 1994, 1995). Native to and present in Idaho and the type specimen for this subspecies was collected in Waha Lake (a part of the Lapwai Creek drainage and therefore within the Yellowstone cutthroat No Clearwater subbasin (Behnke 1992). However, this trout (Oncorhynchus S clarki bouvieri) species does not appear to currently be present in the Clearwater subbasin or anywhere in the project area subwatersheds. (Bowersox and Brindza 2006, Fuller et al. 1985; CBS 1994, 2006; IWW 1994, 1995). Snake River steelhead Native to and currently present in all of the fishbearing trout MIS, T Yes streams in the project area (Bowersox and Brindza 2006, Oncorhynchus mykiss Fuller et al. 1985; CBS 1994, 2006; IWW 1994, 1995). gairdneri Although the native steelhead trout (and associated Redband trout resident forms) in Idaho are of this subspecies, the R1 Oncorhynchus mykiss No S “Sensitive” form is isolated from anadromous populations gairdneri (May et al. 2012) and is not present in the project area.
Palouse Ranger District 106 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Species Special Consider Rationale Status* ed in this Analysis
Distinguished from native anadromous or resident O. mykiss by origin as introduced coastal or introduced/native Rainbow trout interior redband forms or hybrids in project area (see Oncorhynchus mykiss MIS No redband discussion, above). Not recognizably present in spp. the project area because of the presence of native steelhead. Native to the project area and formerly present in most or all larger streams in the Clearwater River basin. Snake River Apparently extirpated from the upper Palouse River spring/summer chinook MIS, S, drainage (Bowersox and Brindza 2006, Fuller et al. 1985; salmon Yes EFH CBS 1994, 2006; IWW 1994, 1995), but it is possible that Oncorhynchus stocking of hatchery-raised fish may occur in the future, or tshawytcha that adult strays may enter the project or cumulative effects area. Likely native to the lower mainstem Potlatch River and recent redd construction has been observed occasionally Snake River fall chinook (i.e., in 2012 and 2013, but not in 2014 or 2015; Arnsberg salmon T, EFH Yes et al. 2013-2016) in the lower few miles of the river. Not Oncorhynchus present and likely not native to the project area (Bowersox tshawytcha and Brindza 2006, Fuller et al. 1985; CBS 1994, 2006; IWW 1994, 1995). Native to the Clearwater River basin, but considered extinct there in the 1980s. Recent re-introduction to the Coho salmon EFH Yes basin (including to the lower mainstem Potlatch River, Oncorhynchus kisutch NPT 2012), but not currently known to exist in the within the project or cumulative effects area. Not native to the Clearwater River basin, but introduced to Kokanee salmon MIS No Dworshak Reservoir. Not present in the Potlatch River Oncorhynchus nerka drainage or project area. Native to much of the Clearwater River basin, but not known to be currently present in the upper Potlatch River drainage or the project area. Migratory/overwintering Bull trout MIS, T No critical habitat has been designated in the mainstem Salvelinus confluentus Clearwater River, several dozen miles downstream from the project area (USFWS 2002, Bowersox and Brindza 2006, Fuller et al. 1985; IWW 1995) Brook trout are non-native species which is relatively abundant on the Palouse Ranger District and is present in many upper Potlatch River tributaries. Although not Brook trout MIS Yes documented in the project area, this species is present in Salvelinus fontinalis some upper East Fork tributaries (Bowersox and Brindza 2006, Fuller et al. 1985; IWW 1995) and so could be present at least as transients in project area streams.
Palouse Ranger District 107 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Species Special Consider Rationale Status* ed in this Analysis
Native to at least the lower Potlatch River (Hammond 1979), but likely not currently present in the drainage and especially not in the upper reaches or project area Pacific lamprey S Yes (Cochnauer and Claire 2009). Translocation of adults has Lampetra tridentata been implemented in several other Clearwater basin streams, but not yet in the Potlatch River (Ward et al. 2012) A substantial population of this species exists in the Western pearlshell project area in Ruby Creek (Kee and Schoen 2009), and so mussel S Yes individuals are also present (likely at lower densities) in Margatifera falcate the mainstem Potlatch and East Fork in the project area. *MIS = Management Indicator Species; S= Sensitive Species; T= ESA “Threatened” species; EFH = Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
3.6.1.1 Issues Addressed • Analysis Issue: Fish and wildlife - effects to stream habitat and effects to threatened, endangered, or candidate species; sensitive terrestrial and aquatic species; management indicator species; and other species of interest that are present in the project area. (See section 1.7.2)
• Issue Indicator (MIS): For species without modeled habitats: qualitative discussion of habitat trend
• Issue Indicator (ESA, S): For all species and EFH: effects determination statement
3.6.2 Affected Environment The 12,425 acre project area is located in the headwaters of the Potlatch River watershed (a portion of the Clearwater subbasin), mostly within the Hog Meadow Creek-Potlatch River (HMC-PR, 8,224 acres of the project area) and East Fork Potlatch River (East Fork, 3,709 acres) subwatersheds. Other subwatersheds which include minor components of the project area and in which project activities are proposed include West Fork Potlatch River-Potlatch River (WFPR- PR, 347 acres), and Corral Creek (81 acres). The 62 acres of the Long Meadow Creek subwatershed within the GIS project boundary are not proposed for any project activities, while the ~1 acre of the Boulder Creek subwatershed identified within the project area is a GIS artifact; neither of these latter two subwatersheds will be further considered in this document.
The project area comprises nearly all of the southern-most portion of National Forest System land in the Potlatch River watershed, with the exception of about 2,000 acres (16% of project area) of the Ruby Creek headwaters to the northeast. Much of the project area is drained by 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order non-fishbearing and unnamed tributaries of the relatively large Potlatch and East Fork or by the lower portions of Corral, Hog Meadow, and Ruby creeks, and so project activities would affect relatively small proportions of these drainages. The exception is the Little Boulder Creek drainage, 3,433 acres which is entirely contained within the project area.
Most of the 16% of private land in the project area is both at the margins of the project area and in the upper reaches of stream drainages, and so private activities on these lands should not
Palouse Ranger District 108 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
directly affect fish-bearing streams. The exception is ~160 acre parcel (partly residential) which includes the confluence of the East Fork with the mainstem Potlatch River. About 92% of the Little Boulder Creek drainage is managed by the Forests, with the remainder of the drainage (along the southern and eastern fringes) privately owned and mostly recently harvested. All proposed harvest and fuels treatments are located on lands primarily managed for timber production (Forest Plan Management Area E1).
3.6.2.1 Scope of Analysis The geographic scope of analysis for aquatic habitat and species is primarily the 12,425 acre project area unless otherwise noted in the specific direct, indirect, and cumulative effects sections that follow. Areas of the cumulative effects of the proposed actions on aquatic habitat and biota will be determined based on the possible area of influence beyond the project boundary. Effects on fisheries typically propagate downstream from areas of activity because hydrologic and soil characteristics are heavily affected by gravity and because aquatic organisms are largely physically constrained by the boundaries of waterbodies. In the case of anadromous fish or other aquatic creatures that might move through, but spend little time within an area, the potential for effects could theoretically extend upstream from the project area if migratory conditions within that area are particularly adverse.
Although the project area is only ~15% of the Potlatch River drainage above the downstream- most point on the mainstem of the Potlatch River, if any effects are manifest in the Potlatch River, these effects may be transmitted downstream for a short distance. Given that the downstream- most point on the portion of the Potlatch River in the HMC-PR subwatershed is the confluence of Boulder Creek, this 4.3 mile reach of the river will also be included in the aquatics cumulative effects analysis.
Temporal bounds of analysis vary by aquatic resource and will be discussed specifically within “environmental consequences”, Section, 3.6.4.
3.6.2.2 Existing Condition The project area includes all of Little Boulder Creek, all of several unnamed perennial and intermittent streams, and segments of several other named streams. Named streams whose channels are partly within the project area includes a ~ 12 mile segment of the mainstem Potlatch River (from near the Forest’s southern boundary upstream to about 5 miles downstream of Bovill), the lower ~4 miles of the East Fork (from its confluence with the mainstem Potlatch River upstream to just above the Ruby Creek confluence), the lower ~4 miles of Ruby Creek (from its confluence with the East Fork upstream ~1 mile), and short reaches of the lower ends of Hog Meadow and Corral creeks. Descriptions of the existing watershed and aquatic conditions are provided below.
Fish and special-status aquatic invertebrates are present in some project area streams and so the project could potentially affect fish and habitat within and downstream of the project area. Past management activities in all of the prescription watersheds within the project area have affected aquatic processes, principally historic in-channel mining, road construction, and vegetative harvest (CNF 1997). Fish found in the project area include steelhead trout, redside shiners, speckled dace, longnose dace, bridgelip suckers, and an unidentified species of sculpin (Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. (CBS) 1995, 2006; Isabella Wildlife Works (IWW) 1994, 1995). Details on the historic and present distribution of special status species are discussed below under the sections describing these species. Although Chinook salmon, bull trout, and Pacific lamprey
Palouse Ranger District 109 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement are likely native to some of the larger streams in the project area, these species do not appear to currently exist in the upper Potlatch River basin (Bowersox and Brindza 2006).
Figure 3.6.0 Little Boulder Aquatic Analysis Area
Palouse Ranger District 110 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
General Upper Potlatch River Drainage Basin and Stream Channel Habitat Conditions (Partly excerpted and adapted from the mainstem Clearwater River Assessment; CNF Forest 1997). Stream channels of both the upper and lower Potlatch River drainage have been extensively altered throughout the by farming, grazing, railroad and conventional logging and road building. From 1905-1915, railroad logging relocated, channelized and completely overbuilt large sections of many streams. The area also experienced a large man-caused fire in 1914 and extensive grazing after that date (CNF 1996). Modification of watershed conditions has also exacerbated the “flashy” nature of the Potlatch River hydrograph, with both flooding and extreme low flows likely more common than historically. These impacts have additionally altered the streams from their historical conditions.
Stream Channel Habitat Conditions. From 1990-1995, all streams within the USFS boundary in the Potlatch River drainage were surveyed and monitored by the USFS and/or USFS contractors, and some were re-surved in 2005. These surveys have shown that a number of streams within the Potlatch River drainage can be characterized by poor substrate conditions, fair riparian conditions, and poor-fair rearing habitats (CNF 1997). The reports mostly identified the high levels of cobble embeddedness as a primary limiting factor to fish production. The poor substrate conditions affect the quality and quantity of spawning habitat as well as summer and winter rearing habitat. Low summer stream flows were also noted as a major limiting factor to salmonid production. Low levels of acting debris and sub-optimal levels of instream cover were noted as limiting factors in a number of stream reaches.
Water Temperatures: Stream temperatures within the lower mainstem Potlatch River regularly approach and exceed lethal temperatures for salmonids during the summer months. Fuller et al. (1983) noted a maximum summer water temperature of about 28° C during the 1982 field season. Murphy (1986) found water temperatures at the mouth of the Potlatch River to exceed 26° C during the 1986 field season.
Stream temperatures within the tributaries of the Potlatch River vary somewhat, but all sampling sites on USFS lands during the 1990-95 period (CNF 1996) showed the maximum daily summer temperatures ranged from 17.5 to 29° C. Surveys conducted by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare - Division of Environmental Quality (Kinney 1995, Wertz and Kinney 1995) show similar temperature ranges for streams on both USFS and non-USFS lands in 1995. Data from the summers of 1992 and 1994 are showed the upper limits of the water temperatures as these two summers exhibited very hot and dry conditions. An analysis of the maximum daily summer temperatures shows that current water conditions within the Potlatch River system are rated as poor for the spawning and rearing of anadromous and resident salmonids.
The Forests has collected water temperature data on selected stream within the Potlatch River drainage from 1990-2016 to determine if temperatures meet Forest and State standards, locate temperature problems, identify recovery trends, and prioritize riparian recovery efforts. These thermograph data indicate that most of the streams have summer stream temperatures that are higher than the desired objectives for salmonid rearing. In most years, all temperature sites within the Potlatch River system exceeded the desired future condition (DFC) for temperatures during the spring spawning period and most also exceeded the State spawning standard of 13° C during the spring.
Comparison of the 2004 stream temperature data (Unpublished CNF data) from the monitoring sites the 14 monitoring sites on 9 streams with available data and the desired maximum temperatures as defined for the appropriate standards in the amended Forest Plan revealed that:
Palouse Ranger District 111 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1. The mainstem Potlatch River (at Little Boulder Creek), West Fork Potlatch River (downstream of Stout property and mouth), East Fork (mouth), Moose Creek (downstream of Moose Creek Reservoir), Corral Creek, and Nat Brown Creek (lower site), did not meet the DFC (less than 20° C) for steelhead trout rearing.
2. Nat Brown Creek (lower) exceeded the standard for four days or less.
3. Seven of the 14 sites, mainstem Potlatch River (upstream West Fork Potlatch River), Cougar Creek, Ruby Creek, Feather Creek, Nat Brown Creek (lower), Moose Creek (upstream Moose Creek Reservoir), and West Fork Potlatch River (downstream Talapus Creek) met the DFC for steelhead trout rearing.
4. In 2004, five sites, mainstem Potlatch River (at Little Boulder Creek), West Fork Potlatch River (downstream of Stout property), East Fork (mouth), Corral Creek (3 days) and Moose Creek (downstream of Moose Creek Reservoir, 2 days) exceeded the State standard for cold- water biota of the daily maximum of 22° C and the maximum daily average of 19° C.
5. The State temperature standard of 13° C or below for the spring spawning period (for steelhead trout) was not met at any of the 14 sites.
6. All streams exceeded the bull trout maximum rearing temperature of 12° C (consecutive seven- day average of daily maximums during June-September) that EPA issued as final temperature guidance for water quality standards throughout the Pacific Northwest. The most-complete and recent water temperature data for project area streams is described below.
Project Area Stream and Watershed Habitat Conditions As previously stated the Potlatch River has undergone substantial channel changes due to various land management activities. Historical and current information regarding the physical and biological characteristics of the Potlatch River watershed (including the mainstem Potlatch River, and East Fork) are presented in the Section 7 Watershed Biological Assessment for the Potlatch River Drainage, Mainstem Clearwater River Subbasin, dated June 26, 2000 (CNF 2000). This biological assessment also summarized the overall presence/absence, relative abundance, habitat conditions and current trends for steelhead trout and bull trout on USFS lands in the Potlatch River drainage.
Mainstem Potlatch River: The environmental baseline for mainstem Potlatch River within the project area was determined by supporting data collected in response reaches: PO-09, 10, 14, and 15 (selected from PO-01 through PO-26, IWW 1994). These response reaches were selected because they are the most sensitive channel types (from Rosgen stream classification) that will show the most cumulative impacts. Response reach PO-09 is a B3c, and PO-10, 14, 15 are C3 channel types. The B3c reach has a gradient of 1 % and resembles a C channel type. The C3 channel reaches have a run pool/run riffle habitat types with a dominant substrate of small rubble. C3 channel types have a wide width/depth ratio, and the lower banks are stable according to survey. These response reaches are located toward the downstream end of the project area reach of the Potlatch River.
Survey data summarized for the four response reaches indicated that the limiting factors within and downstream of the project area are the lack of large acting woody debris, low number of pools and fair to poor pool quality. Substrate conditions were rated as good with sediment levels within desired conditions for the channel types.
Palouse Ranger District 112 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Temperature data for the mainstem Potlatch River site within the project reach (at the USFS streamflow gage a bit above the Little Boulder Creek confluence) is available for 20 of 21 years from 1993 to 2013 (NP-CNF unpublished data). During this period, maximum recorded temperture for any day (the maximum daily maximum temperature or MDMT) each year ranged from 24.6 to 30.7° C, and the mean of the highest temperature recorded each day over a 7 day period (the maximum weekly maximum temperature or MWMT) ranged from 23.9 to 29.4° C. The mean MDMT and MWMT over these 21 years was 28.9 and 27.3° C, with these peak temperatures occuring from early July through mid-August.
The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDEQ) considers that the mainstem Potlatch River is “Not Supporting” all of the beneficial uses attributed to the stream (cold water aquatic life and salmonid spawning) (IDEQ 2014). IDEQ has developed a Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) to address water temperature impairment in the mainstem Potlatch River (IDEQ 2008).
Figure 3.6.1 (left) Section of the mainstem Potlatch River justbove Little Boulder Creek confluence, July 21, 2015. Figure 3.6.2 (right) Section of the East Fork Potlatch River within 2 Mile Meadow project area, about 2 miles upstream from mouth, May 11, 2016.
East Fork: The environmental baseline was determined by supporting data collected in the response reaches of EFP-01 through EFP-03 (out of 9 total survey reaches in the project area; Isabella Wildlife Works 1995). The response reaches were the lowest stream reaches in the drainage (on USFS lands) and one of the most sensitive channel types (from Rosgen stream classification) that will show the most cumulative impacts. Response reaches EFP-01 and EFP- 02 are F4 channel types and EFP-03 is a F3 channel type. The average gradient for the response reaches is 1.8%. The stream segment has primarily run/pool and run habitat types with a dominant substrate of coarse gravel and small rubble.
Survey data (IWW 1995) summarized for the three response reaches indicated that the limiting factors within the project area are the low number of pools, poor spawning habitat (due to poor substrate conditions), minimal overstory shade, large woody debris and subsequent high summer water temperatures (primarily due to the meadow habitat. Some areas of bank instability from high stream flows and past cattle grazing were evident. Stream restoration (fencing exclosures) helped stabilized stream banks that were affected by past cattle grazing.
Temperature data for the East Fork site within the project reach (~0.4 miles upstream from the mouth) is available for 11 of 12 years from 2002 to 2013 (NP-CNF unpublished data). During this period, MDMT each year ranged from 24.1 to 29.5° C, and MWMT ranged from 23.5 to 28.5° C. The mean MDMT and MWMT over these 5 years was 27.0 and 26.1° C, with these peak temperatures occurring from mid-July through mid-August.
Palouse Ranger District 113 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The IDEQ considers that the reach of the East Fork from Ruby Creek downstream (i.e., nearly all of the stream within the project area) is “Not Supporting” all of the beneficial uses attributed to the stream (cold water aquatic life and salmonid spawning. The East Fork reach upstream of Ruby Creek, however, is considered to Fully Support beneficial uses (IDEQ 2014). IDEQ has developed a TMDL to address water temperature impairment for the East Fork (IDEQ 2008).
Little Boulder Creek: The environmental baseline was determined by supporting data collected in the response reach of LB-09 (Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. 1994). The response reach was the lowest stream reach in the drainage and was one of the most sensitive channel types (from Rosgen stream classification) that will show the most cumulative impacts. Response reach LB-09 is a B3 channel type. The B3 reach has a gradient of 1.9%. The channel reach has primarily riffle habitat type with a dominant substrate of small rubble.
Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. (1994) found that the limiting factors within Little Boulder Creek are the poor substrate conditions (moderate to high levels of cobble embeddedness), poor winter habitat (limited and of poor quality), and the paucity of spawning habitat due to poor substrate conditions. Long sections of the creek are intermittent in recent average to dry summers, with occasional isolated pools.
Temperature data for the Little Boulder Creek site within the project reach, near the mouth, is available for 5 of 20 years from 1994 to 2013 (NP-CNF unpublished data). During this period, MDMT each year ranged from 16.4 to 23.2° C, and MWMT ranged from 15.6 to 21.6° C. The mean MDMT and MWMT over these 5 years was 19.3 and 18.2° C, with these peak temperatures occurring from early July through August.
The IDEQ has not assessed whether Little Boulder Creek is supporting all of the beneficial uses attributed to the stream, apparently assuming achievement of the beneficial uses, and has not applied a TMDL to the stream (IDEQ 2014).
Figure 3.6.3 Section of Little Boulder Creek confluence near eastern end of FR 3306, July 21, 2015
Palouse Ranger District 114 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 3.6.4 Steelhead parr (and water striders) visible in Little Boulder Creek isolated pool, July 21, 2015.
Ruby Creek: The environmental baseline was determined by supporting data collected in the response reaches of rbe02 (out of 8 total survey reaches in the project area; Kee and Schoen 2009). The response reach was the next-to-lowest stream reache in the drainage (on USFS lands) and one of the most sensitive channel types (from Rosgen stream classification) that will show the most cumulative impacts, a C4. The average gradient for the response reaches is 1.4%. The stream segment has primarily pool and run/pool habitat types with a dominant substrate of sand and small rubble.
Survey data (Kee and Schoen 2009) summarized for the response reaches indicated that the limiting factors within the project area are the low number of quality pools, poor salmonid spawning substrate conditions and high cobble embeddedness, and relatively low levels of stream shading, leading to higher-than-desired summer water temperature. Some areas of bank instability from high stream flows and past cattle grazing were evident, and the reach was influenced substantially by beaver activity.
Temperature data for the Ruby Creek site within the project reach (near the mouth) is available for 10 of 11 years from 2002 to 2012 (NP-CNF unpublished data). During this period, MDMT each year ranged from 17.8 to 23.2° C, and MWMT ranged from 17.3 to 22.6° C. The mean MDMT and MWMT over these 5 years was 21.3 and 20.5° C, with these peak temperature occurring from mid-July through mid-August.
The IDEQ considers that the reach of Ruby Creek from its confluence with the East Fork upstream for 2.5 miles (i.e., the entire stream reach within the project area) is “Not Supporting” all of the beneficial uses attributed to the stream (cold water aquatic life, salmonid spawning, and secondary recreation contact). (IDEQ 2014). In addition to high summer water temperature, this reach of Ruby Creek is also considered to be impaired because of high levels of E. coli bacteria. IDEQ has developed a TMDL to address both water temperature and E. coli impairment for the lower portion of Ruby Creek (IDEQ 2008).
Hog Meadow and Corral Creeks: No complete stream survey information is available for the short reaches of these streams within the project area. When available, anecdotal information collected by USFS personnel was used to established the environmental baseline.
Palouse Ranger District 115 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The IDEQ considers that the lower reach (i.e., a portion of which is within the project area) of Corral Creek is “Not Supporting” all of the beneficial uses attributed to the stream (cold water aquatic life, and salmonid spawning (IDEQ 2014). IDEQ has developed a TMDL to address water temperature impairment for the lower reach of Corral Creek (IDEQ 2008). Hog Meadow Creek appears to have not been assessed specifically assessed by the IDEQ (IDEQ 2014), but an assessment may be combined with other stream reaches.
General Upper Potlatch River and Project Area Aquatic Fauna Native fish recently documented in the upper Potlatch River stream network and in the project area include steelhead trout, redside shiners, speckled dace, longnose dace, chiselmouth, northern pikeminnow, bridgelip and largescale suckers, and one or more unidentified species of sculpin (Bowersox and Brindza 2006). Of the non-native fish species documented within the upper Potlatch River system, only brook trout are abundant or widely distributed. Chinook salmon, bull trout (which is listed as Threatened under the ESA), and Pacific lamprey are likely native to the upper Potlatch River system, these species do not appear to currently exist there (although one purported bull trout was captured in Feather Creek in 1991). Fall Chinook salmon spawn in the lower few miles of the mainstem Potlatch in some recent years, but none have been documented within 20 or more stream miles of the project area.
The primary project area stream reaches which support fish populations are the mainstem Potlatch River (~12 miles), the lower ~5 miles of the East Fork, the lower ~1 mile of Ruby Creek, and portions of Little Boulder Creek. Lower Corral Creek and Hog Meadow Creek appear to be intermittent, but could support fish in isolated pools or migrants from the Potlatch River during moderate to high streamflow levels. This conditional fish presence also appears to be the case for two substantial unnamed tributary streams, one of the East Fork, and one of Ruby Creek. The presence of any particular species of fish in project area streams appears to be primarily related to the volume of water present year-around and water temperature.
Within the Potlatch River drainage in general and the project area specifically, agricultural development, timber harvest activities, and livestock grazing have been identified as a significant activity affecting fish habitat throughout the project area (Banks and Bowersox 2012, CNF 1997), and have been occurring at some level since about 1890. Stream habitat surveys in the 1990s and 2000s have documented significant historic impacts related to the development and operation of timber harvest activities within several drainages (including the mainstem Potlatch River, Corral Creek, East Fork, and West Fork Potlatch River, in particular) and include stream channel diversion and railroad/road grade construction, and other flood plain alteration.
Aquatic habitat data collection in the East Fork, Little Boulder Creek, and Ruby Creek occurred most recently in 2014. These data have been used to describe aquatic habitat data collection in to compare current conditions in these stream reaches to conditions described in earlier surveys and progress toward the DFCs in these streams as determined in the Clearwater Forest Plan and amendments (CNF 1987). The Forests have historical fish presence information and have gathered fish sampling data from IDFG and IDEQ, and conducted new electrofishing surveys in the Ruby Creek and Little Boulder Creek collection reaches in 2014 (Table 3.6.1).
The one ESA-listed Threatened fish species that exists in or near the project area is Snake River steelhead trout. This species was listed under ESA in 1997 with Critical Habitat for the species designated by the NMFS in 2004 in Little Boulder Creek and the project reaches of the mainstem Potlatch River, East Fork, Ruby Creek, and Corral Creek. Ruby Creek and Little Boulder Creek provide substantial spawning habitat for steelhead within the project area, but most steelhead in the mainstem Potlatch and East Fork s are spawned and rear as juveniles in the tributaries
Palouse Ranger District 116 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
upstream of the project area. This means that most of individual steelhead which inhabit the project area streams are present for only a few hours or days during the juvenile and adult steelhead migration seasons. Steelhead spawning in the project reach of the East Fork has been documented, but the density of fry and parr rearing in this reach appears to be low to very low. (See “Snake River Basin Steelhead Trout” section below for more discussion on species occurrence in the analysis area.).
The Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list for the NP-CNF includes four fish and one aquatic invertebrate species: westslope cutthroat trout, interior redband trout, Snake River spring Chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, and western pearlshell mussel (USFS-R1 2011). As noted above, cutthroat trout, Chinook salmon, and Pacific lamprey do not appear to be currently present in the upper Potlatch River basin, except perhaps as strays. Regarding redband trout, this subspecies of rainbow trout is taxonomically considered to be the native rainbow trout in Idaho, whether anadromous (i.e., steelhead) or resident. Resident redband trout are physically (and also generally genetically) indistinguishable from juvenile steelhead where anadromy is possible (i.e., in project area streams), and so for the purposes of this document no “interior redband trout” occur in the Potlatch River basis. Within the project area, Western pearlshell mussels (WPM) occur in the mainstem Potlatch River, East Fork, and Ruby Creek.
Snake River Basin Steelhead Trout (MIS/ ESA Threatened) The project area streams in which steelhead are documented to occur are the mainstem Potlatch River, the East Fork, Little Boulder Creek, and Ruby Creek (see Table 3.6.1 and Figure 3.6.5). Corral Creek supports O. mykiss in its headwaters (i.e., well upstream of the project area, and partially on Forests-managed land there), but it is not clear whether these fish are steelhead, residents, or a mixture of the two. Corral Creek has long intermittent reaches in the summer and fall, likely including the reach within the project area, but it is possible to likely that at least transient steelhead are present in the project reach of the stream. Hog Meadow Creek is also largely intermittent in the summer and fall and heads directly to the east of the Corral Creek headwaters, but appears to lack O. mykiss for much or all of its length.
Potlatch River: The recent sampling data (Table 3.6.1) suggest that at least a few steelhead are present in the project reach of the mainstem Potlatch River year-around. Most of these individuals are transients migrating upstream (adults) or downstream (smolts) through the project reach in the spring, fall, and winter. A few steelhead fry or parr spend weeks or months rearing in the project reach of the river, but few likely are spawned in this reach or reside there through a full year, because late summer water temperatures are usually inconsistent with steelhead survival. Some summers have cooler water than others, however, and these circumstances would allow substantial numbers of juvenile steelhead to rear year-around in the mainstem river. Additionally, it is likely that there are cold-water refugia within the Potlatch River and that some juvenile steelhead may be able to enter cooler tributaries for a few crucial days or weeks.
East Fork: The recent sampling data (Table 3.6.1) suggest that at least a few steelhead are present in the project reach of the mainstem East Fork most of the year, although perhaps only a few when water temperature is highest.
In addition, researchers from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) have been monitoring migratory fish populations at the mouth of the East Fork since 2008 (Banks and Bowersox 2014 and earlier reports), and surveys of spawning areas have been made since 1992. Upstream spawners, numbering from 80 to 140 adults, arrive in the East Fork Potlatch in March through May. Downstream-migrating steelhead smolts, generally estimated at >10,000 annually,
Palouse Ranger District 117 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
arrive at the lowest reaches of the East Fork April through May. (Banks and Bowersox 2014). Banks and Bowersox (2014) concludes that the major limiting factors for steelhead in the East Fork system are low stream channel complexity and the resulting scarcity of quality over- wintering habitat for juveniles.
Juvenile steelhead numbers in the project area when observations are made (i.e., during the summer and early fall when electrofishing and snorkel surveys are made) are very low. Specifically, densities within the project area between 1998 and 2008 (CNF Annual Monitoring Report 2009) averaged less than 2 fish/100m2. Suitable substrate for steelhead spawning is available in the project reach East Fork, and redds have occasionally been observed, but rearing habitat is poor because of low channel diversity and high summer water temperature. Higher- quality and quantities of spawning habitat occur 2 to 5 miles upstream of the project area in the mainstem of East Fork. Similar to the mainstem Potlatch River, because juvenile steelhead are capable of and often benefit from migration downstream from early rearing habitat in small tributary streams to high quality rearing habitat in larger streams, the low numbers of juvenile steelhead that have been observed in the project reach (outside of smolt outmigration periods) is likely a consequence of poor habitat conditions.
Little Boulder Creek: This relatively small stream is directly tributary to appears to support annual spawning and early rearing of steelhead and/or resident O. mykiss (Table 3.6.1) although not in every portion of the stream year-around. As discussed above, the stream is typically intermittent during the late summer and this condition lessens the productivity of the system. The culvert carrying the stream (near its confluence with the mainstem Potlatch River) under the county-owned 1963 road (Appendix E, Figure 2,of specialist report) is clearly undersized and so is likely an upstream velocity barrier during some flow conditions, but is only slightly perched. Steelhead appear to be the predominant fish species present in the stream (with a few non- salmonids present in the lower reaches) and it appears that Little Boulder Creek is capable of producing relatively high densities of juvenile (in particular, young-of-the-year) steelhead, at least in years (or periods of several years) when streamflows are suitable (Bowersox and Brindza 2006).
Ruby Creek. This East Fork tributary supports O. mykiss (Table 3.6.1), almost certainly including anadromous steelhead, and does not appear to have any upstream passage impairment on the lower mainstem of the creek (i.e., on Forests-managed land). The steelhead share the stream with a substantial population of non-native brook trout, as well as several species of native salmonids.
More information can be found in the Fisheries Specialist report and biological assessment located in the project record.
Palouse Ranger District 118 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3.6.1 Representative fish sampling effort related to O. mykiss (presumably juvenile steelhead trout) occurrence in project and cumulative effects area stream reaches. Sampling at the same site in different years or by different entities or methods counted as separate sampling events. Other sampling events/efforts have occurred in the 1993-2016 period, but are not represented in this table.
Stream Reach Sampling entity and Number Number O. mykiss Sample Year(s) of Fish of O. life stage/ Station/ mykiss size Samplin Samplin g Events g Events
Potlatch River Mainstem in project CNF (1993, 2005) 12 9 Fry and parr area IDFG (2009, 2010, 2013- 6 5 Fry and parr 2016) 3 2 N/a IDEQ (2007, 2011, 2015)
Potlatch River Mainstem from CNF (1993, 2005) 2 0 N/a upstream-most portion project area and an additional ~2 miles upstream IDFG (2008-2010, 2013- 7 6 Fry and parr 2016)
Potlatch River Mainstem between N/a 0 0 N/a project area and Boulder Creek confluence (~4 miles downstream)
East Fork (mainstem in project area CNF (1994, 2005) 12 4 N/a except Two Mile Meadow project area) IDEQ (1994, 2001, 2015) 3 1 n/a
East Fork (mainstem in project area CNF (1994, 2005) 4 2 Fry and parr also within Two Mile Meadow project area)
East Fork (mainstem upstream of IDFG (2008-2016) 23 13 Fry and parr project area)
Unnamed tributary the East Fork CNF (1993) 3 0 N/a
Little Boulder Creek CNF (1993, 2005) 21 10 Fry and parr
IDFG (2015-2016) 6 4 Fry and parr
Ruby Creek (within and just CNF (2014) 1 1 Fry and parr upstream of project area) IDFG (2009-2016) 15 10 Fry and parr
IDEQ (1994, 2001, 2015) 3 3 N/a
Unnamed tributary to Ruby Creek CNF (1993) 3 0 N/a
Total 121 70 N/a
Palouse Ranger District 119 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 3.6.5 Little Boulder Project Streams, Subwatersheds, and Survey Information
Palouse Ranger District 120 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Snake River Spring/ Summer Chinook Salmon (MIS, S, EFH) Native to the Clearwater and Salmon River basins, but extirpated from the former in the 20th Century and re-introduced with non-native (i.e., not ESA-protected) stocks. ESA-listed individuals migrate through and rear in the Snake River mainstem, which is Critical Habitat (79 FR 75449), but no CH is present in the Clearwater River basin.
Spring/summer (s/s) Chinook salmon spawning and parr rearing historically occurred in the upper Potlatch River drainage, including the project area, likely persisting into the first two decades of the 20th Century (Resource Planning Unlimited 2007). Lewiston Dam, constructed in 1929, likely completed the elimination of the species from the Potlatch River, but habitat conditions were already highly degraded primarily from logging and agricultural activities. Although re- introduced s/s Chinook salmon stocks are currently present in portions of the Clearwater River drainage, and although occasional individual s/s Chinook salmon may access or even be spawned in the upper Potlatch, no reproducing population is known to be present in the Potlatch River or project area.
Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (ESA Threatened, EFH) Fall Chinook salmon historically spawned primarily in the mainstem Snake River from Shoshone Falls in southern Idaho downstream in appropriate habitat to locations downstream of the Clearwater River confluence, and in the lower portions of larger tributaries. Since construction of dams on the Snake River, current distribution is more limited, but includes the lower Clearwater and Salmon rivers. Primarily because of NPT efforts to expand the spawning habitat of the species through hatchery outplants, spawning has recently been recorded in areas of the Clearwater River basin previously without recorded presence for decades.
Fall Chinook typically spawn in autumn after water temperatures have moderated and flows increase (typically no earlier than late September), and fry emerge in early to mid-spring. Juveniles typically rear for a few weeks or months in proximity to their hatching site, but move downstream during the late spring and summer of their first year of life (as subyearlings) to enter the Pacific Ocean.
Only recently has documentation of fall Chinook spawning or rearing on Forests-relevant streams outside of the mainstem Clearwater and Salmon rivers existed. While the large majority of the fall Chinook spawning in the Clearwater River drainage documented since listing has occurred downstream of the North Fork Clearwater River, recent surveys (Adult Technical Team 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011; Arnsberg, et al. 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016) show that fall Chinook consistently spawn in the lower Clearwater River and at least sporadically in the area between the North Fork to the South Fork Clearwater River confluence, and beyond the critical habitat area in the South Fork Clearwater, Middle Fork Clearwater, and Selway rivers.
Based on observations and but potentially varying depending on water temperature conditions, juvenile fall Chinook salmon generally migrate out of the mainstem Clearwater River downstream of the Potlatch River confluence by the end of July (Keefer and Peery 2008); this behavior is attenuated to a large degree in the lower mainstem Clearwater River by cold-water releases from Dworshak Dam in July and August. Some juvenile fall Chinook are known to winter in the lower Snake River reservoirs and not enter the ocean until after their first full year of life (as yearlings).
Presence in Project Area: Likely native to the lower mainstem Potlatch River and recent redd construction has been observed occasionally (i.e., in 2012 and 2013, but not in 2014 or 2015;
Palouse Ranger District 121 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Arnsberg et al. 2013-2016) in the lower few miles of the river. Not present and likely not native to the project area (Bowersox and Brindza 2006, Fuller et al. 1985; CBS 1994, 2006; IWW 1994 and 1995).
Coho Salmon (EFH) Historically, coho most likely inhabited tributaries in the lower Clearwater River Basin including some in the lower North Fork, South Fork, and Middle Fork subbasins, but the species was declared extirpated from the basin in 1986. Re-introduction of coho salmon has been undertaken by the Nez Perce Tribe tributaries of the mainstem Clearwater River, including the Lapwai, Clear, and Lolo Creek drainages. Millions of coho parr or smolts were released in the Potlatch River over several years between 1995 and 2005 (Everett et al. 2006), but releases are no longer made in the Potlatch River. Limited natural spawning from hatchery adults has been observed in the Potlatch River, Catholic Creek, and in the NFCR below Dworshak Dam (NPT 2006). In particular, almost 100 redds were counted in the lower Potlatch River between 1999 and 2003, however, the lack of hatchery releases has likely reduced or eliminated spawning in the Potlatch River in recent years.
Coho salmon spawn in the fall, beginning about mid-October, and parr rear in freshwater for about 1 ½ year before migrating as smolts to the Pacific Ocean, so fall water temperatures in the Potlatch River may be suitable for coho salmon spawning, coho salmon fry and any surviving rearing parr would be subjected to high-flow created substrate disturbance, high summer water temperatures, and other habitat conditions that are not amenable to survival.
However, as hatchery introductions in the Clearwater River Basin continue and, perhaps, as adults reared in the streams listed above return in larger numbers, so it is possible that some adults (perhaps especially those spawned or released in Lapwai Creek) may stray farther up into the Potlatch River system and successfully spawn there. Similar to spring and fall Chinook salmon, though, there is likely is no little to no suitable coho salmon spawning habitat in project activity area stream segments.
Brook Trout (MIS) Brook trout are not native to Idaho and the project area, but have become a highly successful invasive species since their introduction in the early 20th century. This species has been present in the upper Palouse River since at least the 1930s and in the upper Elk Creek drainage for even longer. It is likely, therefore that the upper Potlatch River, which is bracketed between the Palouse River and Elk Creek systems, has supported reproducing populations of this species for many decades.
Brook trout require cold water to breed and survive (Raleigh 1982), but appear to be able to tolerate habitat degradation (e.g., relatively higher levels of fine sediment in spawning areas) than native western trout (Griffith 1988). The species also is highly successful in competition with most or all age classes of native western salmonids and can prey on native salmonid fry and parr (Peterson et al. 2004, Rieman et al. 2006). Brook trout can also interbreed with bull trout where both are present, often genetically swamping less-robust bull trout populations (Kanda et al. 2002).
Sampling in the project area (Bowersox and Brindza 2006) has shown that brook trout are abundant in the project area in Ruby Creek, and present in the mainstem Potlatch and East Fork rivers. None have been sampled as yet in Little Boulder Creek, however (NP-CNF and IDFG, unpublished information).
Palouse Ranger District 122 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Pacific lamprey (S) Pacific lamprey adults enter freshwater between July and September and may migrate several hundred kilometers inland. They do not mature until the following March. They spawn in sandy gravel immediately upstream from riffles between April and July and die soon after. Eggs hatch in two to three weeks and the ammocoetes (juvenile lamprey) spend up to the next six years in soft substrate as filter-feeders before emigrating to the ocean. They remain in the ocean for 12 to 20 months before returning to freshwater to spawn.
The historic presence, as well as the total distribution and abundance of lampreys in the Clearwater River drainage in general and the Clearwater River subbasin in specific, is not known with complete certainty, but the distribution and abundance are severely reduced from historic conditions (Cochnauer and Claire 2009). Pacific lampreys are native to and present in the Potlatch River watershed within the recent past (Hammond 1979), but no longer appear to be present there (Cochnauer and Clair 2009, Grunder 2011) and have not been observed in recent sampling efforts in the project or cumulative effects areas (Bowersox and Brindza 2006, Fuller et al. 1985; CBS 1994, 2006; IWW 1994, 1995).
The Nez Perce Tribe has recently translocated adult lampreys into several streams in the Clearwater River drainage (including Lolo and Orofino creeks within the Clearwater subbasin) and these efforts have resulted in successful spawning and juvenile recruitment in these streams (Ward et al. 2012). However, the Potlatch River has not yet received a translocation, and the Tribe has no definite plans to do so (Tod Sween, Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries, personal communication).
Western Pearlshell Mussel (S) The western pearlshell mussel (WPM) is present in many western states and is relatively common in the Pacific Northwest, including in Idaho (Nedeau et al. 2009). It requires fish hosts to complete its lifecycles and most native fish as well as brook trout have been documented as hosts (Nedeau et al. 2009). This species is a sedentary filter feeder which may live for decades and so is vulnerable to changes in streambed habitat, especially high levels of fine sediment accumulation (Jepsen et al. undated).
Few of the Forests streams have been formally surveyed for the presence of WPM species, but populations exist in the mainstems of the NF Clearwater, SF Clearwater, and individuals are probably present in other mainstem streams and in low-gradient portions of many Clearwater River tributaries (Lysne and Krouse 2011; Kenney, personal observation). A substantial population of this species exists in the project area in Ruby Creek (Kee and Schoen 2009), and individuals have been reported (Personal communication, Brian Knoth, IDFG, January 10, 2017) in the mainstem Potlatch and East Fork within the project area (although probably at lower densities than in Ruby Creek). Targeted mussel surveys have only been performed in Ruby Creek, so while empty shells in the mainstem and East Fork are common, so it is unclear whether the majority of the empty shells have originated from Ruby Creek or from the larger streams. WPM are not known to occur in any of the other project area streams.
Palouse Ranger District 123 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.6.3 Regulatory Framework
3.6.3.1 Endangered Species Act Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened, endangered, or proposed species, or cause the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. All aquatic species on the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list for Latah County were evaluated.
3.6.3.2 Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 The USFS established direction in FSM 2670 to guide habitat management for proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. For sensitive species, a biological evaluation (BE, a separate document) is prepared in accordance with FSM 2672.42 and the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 402). The BE meets the objectives set forth in FSM 2672.41, which include: Ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant or animal species; ensure that activities do not cause the status of any species to move toward federal listing; and incorporate concerns for sensitive species throughout the planning process, reducing negative impacts to species and enhancing opportunities for mitigation.
To accomplish these objectives, the BE reviews the proposed action and any alternatives in sufficient detail to determine the level of effect that would occur to each species evaluated. The BE considers the best available scientific literature, a thorough analysis of the potential effects of the project, and the professional judgment of the biologists who completed the evaluation. This document incorporates the effects on terrestrial sensitive species), per direction pertaining to streamlining (USDA FS 1995). The streamlined process for doing biological evaluations for sensitive species focuses on two areas:
1. Incorporating the Effects on Sensitive Species into the NEPA Document
2. Summarizing the Conclusions of Effects of the Biological Evaluations for Sensitive Species (Appendix A of Fisheries Specialist Report, Project Record)
3.6.3.3 Magnuson-Stevens Act Under Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 600.920), the Forests need to evaluate potential effects of the activities proposed on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The NMFS designates the freshwater habitat of Pacific salmon species by subbasin (i.e., HUC 4). EFH includes all streams and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to these species (with certain exceptions), but does not otherwise distinguish individual streams within the subbasins. The project would be implemented in the Clearwater subbasin where both Chinook (both spring/ summer and fall run types) and coho salmon have EFH designated. The project areas is historically accessible to both salmon species.
3.6.3.4 Forest Plan Consistency The Little Boulder project would be implemented in compliance with the Forest Plan (CNF 1987). The Forest Plan was based on the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, and the NFMA implementing regulations found at 36 CFR 219. Forest Plan goals that relate specifically to the proposed project include:
Palouse Ranger District 124 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Manage the Forest’s fishery streams to achieve optimum levels of fish production by: 1) maintaining high quality habitat in existing high quality streams, and 2) rehabilitating and improving degraded streams on certain developed portions of the Forest; and then maintaining the optimum levels (II-2).
• Manage habitat to contribute to recovery of each threatened and endangered species occurring on the Forest (II-2).
The Forest Plan standards relevant to MIS includes:
• Cooperate with Idaho Fish and Game, Indian tribes, and other agencies in the management of wildlife and fish habitat (II-24).
• Manage all watershed systems in the Forest that are considered important for the fishery resource…to meet standards… (II-27)
Specifically for the project area, Appendix K of the Forest Plan provides water quality standards for project area streams, and originally identified “rainbow trout” as the MIS for these streams, with a water quality objective of “Minimum Viable.” Because of the subsequent ESA listing of steelhead, and the presence of spawning populations of this species in project area streams, the CNF changed the MIS for the project area streams and upgraded the water quality objective to “High Fishable” with Forest Plan Amendment 30 in 2008. Table 3.6.2 shows the standards for project area streams.
Compliance with the water quality aspects of these standards is discussed in Crook (2017) and this report documents compliance with likely sediment level loading over existing levels. Data and calculations regarding steelhead habitat at three sites associated with these standards are in Appendices B and C.
The PACFISH amendment to the Forest Plan requires the delineation of RHCAs.
Table 3.6.2 Fish/water quality standards for watersheds within the Little Boulder project area (*Jones and Murphy (1997)) Stream Standard Channel Indicator Approximat Allowable Yrs Desired Future Type species e % in 30 Exceeding Condition Cobble Sediment Threshold Embeddedness* Loading (%) over Natural
Potlatch High C Steelhead 50 10 30-35 River above Fishable Forests East Fork High C Steelhead 50 10 30-35 Fishable
Ruby Creek High B Steelhead 55 10 30-35 Fishable Little High B Steelhead 55 10 30-35 Boulder Fishable
Palouse Ranger District 125 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.6.4 Environmental Consequences
3.6.4.1 Methodology
Management Indicator Species Each MIS species identified by 1987 Forest Plan was evaluated for its potential to be affected by the proposed project. Several MIS were eliminated from further consideration based on a lack of known occurrence in the analysis area. The analyzed MIS—steelhead trout, spring/summer Chinook salmon, and brook trout--were primarily evaluated qualitatively, but steelhead also has habitat modeled in Appendix C of the Fisheries Specialist Report.
ESA Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species and Sensitive Species Species considered in this section include listed species under the ESA as well as proposed and candidate species for Federal listing and those on the Northern Region Sensitive Species List. The Northern Region Sensitive Species List, which contains those species identified as sensitive by the Regional Forester, was last updated in February 2011. This section considers those sensitive species on the list that are known or suspected to occur on the former Clearwater National Forest (CNF).
For most species, suitable habitats were described based on physical presence and access to the project area. Table 2 lists each of the species considered in this section; for each species, the table lists its general habitat, whether the species is considered in detail, and a rationale for the level of consideration given.
The fisheries specialist assigned to the Little Boulder IDT made observations, sampled streams, and took photographs in the project area during the 2014, 2015, and 2016 field seasons.
Magnuson-Stevens Act (Essential Fish Habitat) In accordance with applicable requirements of Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and it implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 600.920), the Forests need to evaluate potential effects of the activities proposed under the project in the SFCR drainage on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designates the freshwater habitat of Pacific salmon species by subbasin (i.e., HUC 4). EFH includes all streams and other water bodies occupied or historically accessible to these species (with certain exceptions), but does not otherwise distinguish individual streams within the subbasins.
3.6.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects MIS Analysis: The temporal bounds for this analysis include the short term (five to seven years), during which the direct and indirect effects of the project would occur for all species, and the long-term.
Snake River Basin Steelhead Trout (MIS, ESA Threatened) Potential adverse effects to steelhead can be direct, as in redd disturbance by heavy equipment, or indirect, as in increases in fine sediment due to ground disturbance. The design and location of the proposed project, along with the requirements of PACFISH and other Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as the project-specific mitigation and monitoring measures described in
Palouse Ranger District 126 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
this DEIS have the potential to substantially reduce impacts on individual eggs, steelhead, and steelhead habitat.
Alternative 1:
No direct or indirect effects on steelhead because no treatments would be conducted. Road decommissioning and culvert replacement, which have the potential to improve watershed conditions, would not be funded by or performed as a part of the proposed timber harvest, but would also not be precluded from future implementation under a different funding mechanism. As noted above, steelhead are present in nearly all fish-bearing project streams.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
PACFISH/ RHCAs
In all action alternatives, activities would be implemented in varying proximity to streams possibly occupied by steelhead. All streams and stream riparian areas on the NP-CNF are protected under the PACFISH-amended Forest Plan with Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). The default dimensions of these RHCAs vary with stream type, with fishbearing perennial streams afforded 300-foot buffers, non-fishbearing perennial streams 150-foot buffers, and non-fishbearing intermittent streams in the PACFISH Priority Watersheds with 100-foot buffers. Although none of the Potlatch River drainage was designated as a Priority Watershed, the decision was made for this project to apply Priority Watershed buffers, primarily because of the inclusion of designated Critical Habitat for steelhead.
It should be noted that the designation and linear extent of fishbearing and non-fishbearing stream lengths in the figures in this analysis are approximate and preliminary. The presence of fish in the lower reaches of streams depicted as non-fishbearing and some of the fishbearing stream reaches likely varies on a seasonal or periodic basis. Also, there are probably small (and non-fishbearing) perennial or intermittent streams which are not depicted in the GIS layers used for preliminary delineation of treatment units and in the figures of this analysis. Discrepancies between the GIS layer and actual stream location would be resolved when/if vegetation treatment units are delineated and marked “on the ground.”
For the proposed project, the streams which steelhead inhabit, as well as their tributaries and the riparian areas of both, would be largely protected from potential direct and indirect adverse effects through application of the RHCA buffers because most project activities, including timber harvest and yarding and fuel treatments would be prohibited in the buffer areas. In addition to eliminating or greatly limiting direct effects to individual steelhead, limits to activities in RHCAs should reduce or eliminate potential effects to stream shading from trees, large woody debris recruitment, and fine sediment transmission. This is because RHCAs are intended to protect vegetation, soil, microclimate, and other components of riparian habitat, both for the sake of the riparian areas and their flora and fauna, but also to protect waterbodies and their biota.
In addition to protecting habitat within the RHCAs, PACFISH (USDA and USDI 1995) notes that the vegetation and debris within riparian buffers act as “filter strips” that are generally effective in protecting streams from sediment carried by non-channelized flow. Activities associated with vegetation management (primarily yarding and road construction/ reconstruction), and road decommissioning and storage activities would disturb soil at the activity sites. Some of this soil would then have the potential to be transmitted downhill until stabilized by vegetation growth, but because of PACFISH buffers, most of the soil disturbed by the proposed activities would be
Palouse Ranger District 127 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
scores or hundreds of feet or more from stream channels. Vegetation, downed woody material, duff, or topographical features should intercept and stabilize any mobilized soil before reaching a stream. Growth of vegetation on portions of harvest units and road prisms would be enhanced by soil decompaction, fuels treatments, live transplants, duff placement woody debris application or seeding.
Forests monitoring (most recently, Smith 2015 and 2016) has shown that RHCA buffers are very effective in eliminating impacts on stream channels. The default buffer widths can also be modified (made greater) based on site conditions. The boundaries of the proposed harvest and fuel treatment units may not fully reflect RHCA modifications that would be made during harvest preparations.
Direct effects, Vegetation Management
Individual steelhead would be protected from regeneration harvest and fuel treatments (including yarding and post-harvest fuels reduction) under the action alternatives through application of default no-cut RHCA buffers, so the risk of direct injury or mortality to steelhead from hand or mechanical vegetation management-related project activities would be low to non-existent.
Similarly, prescription burns (as a component of fuel treatments) would not be ignited within RHCAs, but would be allowed to creep into these areas; the burns would be implemented during conditions where substantial damage to non-target vegetation or woody debris should not occur. The experience of the Forests is that high intensity fire does not occur within RHCAs during prescription burns and no direct effects to steelhead or other fish are anticipated from these activities.
Direct Effects, Roads and Transportation
Streams would potentially be directly affected by each road-related activity under the action alternatives. Specifically, no temporary road would cross mapped streams under any action alternative, but there would be crossings of both fishbearing and non-fishbearing streams on roads proposed for decommissioning, reconstruction, reconditioning, new construction, and log hauling.
Instream work in fishbearing streams. Some of the road-related activities associated with the action alternatives (especially stream crossing installation and removal) would take place within stream channels. In-water work would have some potential to cause direct injury or mortality to individual steelhead, if individual steelhead are present in these streams or substantial effects can be transmitted downstream to stream reaches where steelhead are present. While essentially all streams in the project area drain into steelhead-supporting stream reaches, however, nearly all proposed would be performed in non-fishbearing streams.
There would be two proposed activities, however, which would be implemented within stream channels where steelhead are present. These are the replacement of the culvert passing Little Boulder Creek under the 1963 road and construction of the vented ford crossing of Ruby Creek on the 3308 road, including the construction of a new cattle guard, but both of these activities are intended to improve steelhead habitat in the long term. Activities at these two sites would be timed and implemented to avoid individual steelhead and steelhead redds and would therefore likely not injure or kill steelhead through mechanical injury or localized and brief changes in water quality.
Palouse Ranger District 128 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
These proposed projects would improve steelhead habitat and are within the project area, but the Forests will likely conduct ESA consultation for their implementation outside of the process for the Little Boulder Project. The Ruby Creek ford is an undesirable anachronism—a crossing that adds/re-suspends sediment and has the potential to directly harm steelhead with every passing vehicle. The Forest will work to construct a modern crossing at the site whether the Little Boulder Project proceeds or not. As for replacement of the culvert carrying Little Boulder Creek under the 1963 road, the timing of this project is speculative because the road is county-owned and the replacement would be fairly expensive. While there is a benefit in replacing the culvert and the EIS provides a NEPA analysis for this replacement, the activity is not necessary for the purpose or need of the Little Boulder Project, but would potentially complicate the ESA consultation with a “likely to adversely affect” determination.
One crossing of a fishbearing stream segment on a non-system road proposed for decommissioning is proposed at the crossing of an unnamed tributary of Ruby Creek. Non- salmonids have been documented at/above the site, and the short distance from Ruby Creek (~200 feet) from the ford provides reason to believe that steelhead could potentially directly affected by the decommissioning effort. Also, a culvert passing an unnamed tributary of the East Fork under the 4761 road is proposed for replacement (Figure 3.6.7). Non-salmonid fish have been documented a short distance below this crossing, but the site is probably too far upstream (~1,200 feet) from the East Fork for steelhead to occur at the site during the low-flow period for instream work. As for the in-stream activities in known steelhead streams, work at these two sites would be timed and implemented to avoid individual steelhead and steelhead redds and would therefore likely not injure or kill steelhead through mechanical injury or localized and brief changes in water quality.
Figure 3.6.6 (left) Non-system road 820313 crossing of unnamed tributary of Ruby Creek, proposed for decommissioning (May 4, 2015). Figure 3.6.7 (right) Forest Road 4761 crossing of unnamed tributary of the East Fork Potlatch River, proposed for replacement to ensure upstream fish and other aquatic organism passage (May 15, 2015).
Palouse Ranger District 129 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Instream work in non-fishbearing streams. Proposed project road reconstruction would potentially include replacement of existing stream culverts which have failed or which are considered undersized or otherwise inadequate for the stream crossing site (e.g., Figure 3.6.8) and may also include placement of new culverts on small, previously un-culverted channels (e.g., Figure 3.6.9). The proposed new road segments have been deliberately routed (mostly on or near ridgetops) to minimize stream channel crossings, but a few culverts would still likely be necessary. Also, some stream crossings within the project area have been identified as involving roads which would be reconditioned as part of the proposed project or which may not require any maintenance, but which nonetheless are considered undersized or otherwise inadequate for the site.
After review of road crossings of streams in the project area, the NP-CNF has identified several sites on the roads segment described above where existing roads (56 crossings) or proposed new road segments (5 crossings) would cross non-fishbearing stream channels. These sites are therefore locations where culverts may be re-set, replaced, or constructed under the proposed action alternatives. This information on stream crossings is primarily based on site visits, but some sites were identified as intersection of GIS stream and road layers and so the assumed presence of a crossing may be a GIS artifact that does not reflect the situation on the ground.
Culvert reset/replacement at the non-fishbearing stream channel crossing sites presumably would not have the potential to directly injure downstream steelhead, and such work would be implemented during low-flow periods and using BMPs which would minimize or eliminate downstream transmission of sediment. However, high streamflows in weeks or months following the in-channel work could theoretically erode and transmit harmful amounts of sediment from project sites to fishbearing stream reaches, but any such incidents should be rare and very limited in extent and effects. Stream culvert construction for new roads would also be performed in a manner (during periods when the channel is dry and using appropriate materials and techniques) which would minimize potential erosion of the new crossings. As a result, soil transmitted to the channels by the construction and subsequent use of the new road segments should also be minimal and potential for direct harm to steelhead remote.
Figure 3.6.8 (left) Forest Road 4761 crossing of unnamed tributary of the East Fork Potlatch River, proposed for potential replacement to ensure full function during high flow events (May 15, 2015). Figure 3.6.9 (right) Approximate site of new system road SR1 crossing of intermittent/ephemeral and unnamed tributary of Little Boulder Creek (May 4, 2015).
Palouse Ranger District 130 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Road work outside of stream channels. Although instream culvert construction, replacement, and removal has the greatest potential (of the roadwork described in this document) to directly affect steelhead and other aquatic organisms, road work (both reconditioning and reconstruction) outside of these channels also has some potential to interact with streams and stream organisms. In particular, drainage features such as roadside ditches and cross-drain culverts which direct heavy precipitation, snowmelt, and other forms of overland water flow away from roads (and which are often excavated during road construction/reconstruction) have some potential to direct that flow and suspended sediment into stream channels.
For the most part, these drainage features discharge water into upland areas where water is absorbed into the soil and suspended sediment is filtered by live and dead vegetation. Drainage features within RHCAs, however, have a greater potential to directly interact with stream channels during overland flow events. Drainage structure maintenance/replacement is intended to reduce road/soil erosion and route water away from natural channels, so any potential short-term transmission of soil (and associated direct harm to steelhead and other aquatic organisms) associated with drainage feature maintenance/reconstruction should be minor to non-existent.
The amount of soil disturbance associated with new road construction would generally be greater than associated with reconstruction of existing roads. However, current construction techniques, materials, and equipment will likely be superior than those used in decades-old road construction with regard to potential for transmission to stream channels. As with stream culvert construction for new roads, the road prism and drainage feature construction would also be performed in a manner (during dry periods and using appropriate materials and techniques) which would minimize potential erosion and soil transmission to stream channels, so the construction and subsequent use of the new road segments should also be minimal and the likelihood of direct harm to steelhead remote.
Contaminant spills. Another mechanism for the potential direct injury or mortality to steelhead would be the transmission of toxic substances (gasoline, oil, grease, etc.) into project area streams from fuel spills or leaky or dirty equipment. There is also some potential for fuel or other contaminant spills into stream channels from vehicles or heavy equipment used for activities of the action alternatives, including log yarding and hauling and fuel treatments, and such contaminants could be transmitted for substantial distances downstream, including into stream channels which support steelhead. Vehicle accidents could occur with ensuing spills of substantial quantities of fuel, etc. but such vehicle accidents are very infrequent and unpredictable, with ensuing substantial spills of contaminants into stream channels even less likely to occur.
The standard timber sale clause B6.341 associated with the hauling of timber from the activity areas is to be applied throughout project implementation to minimize the risk of an accidental spill of petroleum products, as well as to protect water courses and aquatic biota from adverse effects in the event of a spill. In addition, there would be a large dilution effect of flow volume associated with a spill into a major stream during most parts of the year. Most of the year, contaminants should have little potential to enter project streams at concentrations that would be directly harmful to any project area or downstream steelhead that might be present.
Water withdrawal. The implementation of prescribed fire fuel treatment would require water, and water would also potentially be used for dust suppression on roads during project activities. Pumping of water from fishbearing streams could potentially cause direct mortality to steelhead from entrainment through pumps, impingement on screens, or dewatering of pools. However, PACFISH Standard RA-5 would be applied to project area streams, so water withdrawal/harm to
Palouse Ranger District 131 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
steelhead would not occur from these streams unless the proposed sites, timing, and equipment is determined by the Zone fisheries biologist to be consistent with PACFISH/CNF Forest Plan.
Prescribed fire. Burning of slash in post-harvest and fuel treatment activities would not deliberately occur in RHCAS. Broadcast prescribed burns would not be ignited within RHCAs, but would be allowed to creep into these areas; the burns would be implemented during conditions where substantial damage to non-target vegetation or woody debris would not occur. The experience of the Forests is that high intensity fire rarely occurs within RHCAs during prescription burns and no direct effects to steelhead or other fish are anticipated from these activities.
Passage at stream crossings. It is possible that the existing culverts described on Little Boulder Creek and on the unnamed tributary to the East Fork pose upstream barriers to steelhead or other aquatic animal passage. Of the fishbearing stream crossing sites mentioned above, the latter is relatively high in the drainage and if a culvert is removed or replaced at this crossings, the length of stream channel that would be maintained or improved for aquatic organism passage would be relatively small. Culvert replacement at the Little Boulder site could potentially improve access to about miles of this stream, but steelhead are present above the crossing, so it is not certain that aquatic organism passage is currently substantially restricted at the crossing. Based on the above, direct effects to individual steelhead would possibly be limited in spatial and temporal scope.
Indirect effects
Timber harvest and road-related activities can have indirect effects on steelhead habitat primarily through changes in water yield, sediment production, and modification of riparian vegetation. Large increases in water yield can destabilize stream channels and banks, increase fine sediment input, and increase water temperature. Timber harvest, fuel treatment, and road-related activities can disturb soil that would potentially be transmitted to stream channels, where fine sediment can alter stream channel and water quality characteristics. Timber harvest in riparian areas can affect stream shading and large woody debris recruitment. The changes in stream channel, water quality, and riparian characteristics associated with the effects of substantially increased water yield and sediment transmission would tend to reduce steelhead habitat quality, especially through reductions in water and spawning substrate quality and in prey production.
While unmitigated and/or excessive timber harvest and fuel treatments can have negative effects on stream organisms, implementation of riparian no-cut buffers, as discussed above, can greatly reduce or eliminate harvest-related indirect effects on steelhead. The proposed project streams potentially occupied by steelhead, their tributaries, and the riparian areas of both would be protected from regeneration harvest and fuel treatments under the action alternatives through application of the RHCA buffers, so the risk of indirect injury though habitat degradation should be minimal to nonexistent. In addition to lack of direct effects in riparian areas described above, the RHCAs will act as “filter strips” to reduce or eliminate sediment transmission to streams from harvest units; Crook (2017) discussed the reasoning behind the likely small magnitude in project related sediment production modeled by and the low likelihood of other indirect effects to project area streams.
Compared to upland activities, soil disturbed during road decommissioning culvert placement/replacement at stream or seep crossings or in riparian areas would have a greater potential to enter stream channels during project implementation and over time, but Best Management Practices (BMPs, described in detail in Crook (2017) and Snyder (2017) that would minimize sediment inputs to streams during instream and riparian work would be implemented.
Palouse Ranger District 132 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
BMPs include dewatering of the site during crossing culvert manipulation and the placement of sediment catching devices (straw bales, brush dams, settling basins) around the work area and in the stream channel. Even with BMPs, however, culvert manipulation would contribute to short- term increases in stream sediment and turbidity levels primarily caused by disturbance of existing instream and road fill sediments during excavation, fill, channel recontouring, and rewatering activities. Monitoring on the Forest has shown that peak sediment input occurs immediately upon culvert manipulation and stream disturbance, followed by a decrease in sediment transport and turbidity within several hours and with increasing distance downstream, typically within 300 feet due to small stream size and the low flow during the dry season when work would occur. Minor short-term sediment input is expected to occur over a short time frame (1-5 days per site) as the channel adjusts. Subsequent rain and snowmelt events through the following one or two springs are expected to cause short-term increases in sediment and turbidity at the rehabilitated crossing as vegetation reestablishes and stream channels stabilize.
Water temperature can potentially be affected by fine sediment input (which can change stream channel morphology to reduce groundwater input and increase solar radiation) and by vegetative shading (reductions in which can increase solar radiation). The Forests periodically monitors water temperature at stream sites with one site each on the Potlatch River, the East Fork, and Ruby and Little Boulder creeks in the project area. Information on these sites and summary high temperature statistics is discussed in Section A.4. The values for lower Ruby and Little Boulder creeks, when taken in context with elevation, stream order, and differences in temperature metrics, are marginally suitable for steelhead, but summer water temperature in most years in the project reaches of the Potlatch River and the East Fork are much too high (Carter 2005), and almost certainly adversely affect the quality of steelhead rearing habitat in these stream reaches. While the proposed activities would likely do nothing to lower water temperature in project area streams, the effects of RHCA buffers described above demonstrate that the action alternatives would minimize effects on sediment transmission and stream shading so that effects on existing stream water temperature should not be adverse or measurable.
More detailed and related information can be found in the Soils and Hydrology sections within this DEIS and the Aquatics Specialist report located in the project record.
Snake River Spring/ Summer Chinook Salmon (MIS, S, EFH) The current presence of spring Chinook salmon in the project area is infrequent and not indicative of a spawning population. If present, the discussions in the preceding sections on steelhead would inform the likely effects of the project no-action and action alternatives on individuals of this species and on spring Chinook salmon habitat. To summarize, no substantial effects on instream or riparian habitat would accrue either in the project tributary streams and effects on aquatic habitat in the mainstem Potlatch and East Fork should be even less evident. It is very unlikely that instream road/culvert work would affect individual salmon, but it is possible that a contaminant spill from logging activities could enter project streams and harm individual salmon, in the unlikely event that any are present. There should be limited to no effects on EFH for these species under either alternative.
Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (ESA Threatened, EFH) Alternative 1 would not involve any activities and could not affect fall Chinook salmon or habitat. Alternative 2 would be very unlikely to cause direct effects to fall Chinook salmon because project activities are proposed several dozen miles upstream of the lower Potlatch River and mainstem Clearwater River, which are the only locations where of the individuals of any lifestage should be present.
Palouse Ranger District 133 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
As described in this document for steelhead, the potential indirect effects of the proposed activities within the project reach of the Potlatch River or its tributaries would be either through changes in fine sedimentation rates, turbidity/suspended sediment levels, or in water yield. Any minor and short-term effects of project activities should be almost entirely localized in small tributary streams within the project area and should not be measurable in the Potlatch River within or downstream of the project area. Also, even if some short-term effects on these habitat indicators reach the mainstem Potlatch River, they would overwhelmed or attenuated by the streamflows and the large catchment of the lower Potlatch River and so should be entirely immeasurable.
Effects to the project reach of the Potlatch River, the remainder of the Potlatch River, and the mainstem Clearwater River would be discountable to nonexistent because should not be affected by the quality of spawning habitat should not be affected (see discussions above and for steelhead trout) in the Potlatch or Clearwater River, so biologically significant effects should not be transmitted to individuals or critical habitat in the mainstem Clearwater River. The action alternatives would have “no effect” on fall Chinook salmon trout individuals and designated Critical Habitat. There should be limited to no effects on EFH for these species under either alternative.
Coho Salmon (EFH) The presence of this species in the project area is more unlikely than that of spring Chinook salmon, while the potential for effects on individuals (if present) or habitat is similar to that of spring Chinook salmon. See the discussions for these species, above, but neither of the project alternatives is likely to have an appreciable effect on EFH for this species.
Pacific Lamprey (S) This species appears to have been extirpated from the project area and the Potlatch River system as a whole. The Nez Perce Tribe has, however, reintroduced the species to several streams in the Clearwater River system, and lampreys may eventually inhabit the drainage again.
Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on Pacific lamprey because no treatments would be conducted. If present, the effects of the action alternatives on lampreys in the project area would be similar to potential effects on steelhead (Sections B.1.a.), except that lampreys would likely concentrate in the larger streams in the project area, primarily the mainstem Potlatch River and East Fork.
Individual lampreys in project area streams could be directly harmed by contaminant spills, while lamprey habitat could be affected by changes in water quality, sediment transmission and other modifications of stream channel features. As for steelhead, however, direct effects to lampreys, if present, should be rare and limited in spatial and temporal scope, while indirect adverse effects should be eliminated or minimized by RHCA buffers and by reductions in fine sediment input.
Western Pearl Musselshell (S) Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on western pearlshell mussel (WPM) because no treatments would be conducted. If present, the effects of the action alternatives on WPM in the project area would be similar to potential effects on steelhead (see discussion above for steelhead trout). Individual WPM in project area streams could be directly harmed by contaminant spills, while WPM habitat could be affected by changes in water quality, sediment transmission and other modifications of stream channel features. As for steelhead, however, direct effects to WPM, if present, should be rare and limited in spatial and temporal scope, while
Palouse Ranger District 134 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
indirect adverse effects should be eliminated or minimized by RHCA buffers and by reductions in fine sediment input.
3.6.4.3 Cumulative Effects The past, present, and reasonable foreseeable activities in an analysis area and surrounding non- Federal lands are listed in appendix A. These activities were used to assess the potential cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternative on each of the resources assessed in this report. As noted above, the area for cumulative effects analysis will be the 12,425-acre project area, plus the 4.3-mile reach portion of the Potlatch River in the HMC-PR subwatershed downstream of the project area to the confluence of Boulder Creek.
• The Cherry Dinner (CD) project was completed relatively recently. The Little Boulder (LB) Project area essentially overlays the southern part of the CD project area, so many of the LB activities can be considered to be a follow-up to the latter project in many respects. In particular, the implementation of substantial road decommissioning and storage authorized by the CD Record of Decision, particularly the decommissioning of most of the 3306 road and its spurs along and in proximity to Little Boulder Creek, has affected the ability of the Forests to conduct much in the way of road decommissioning or storage in the current project. The relatively small amount of such watershed- restorative activity in the Little Boulder Project should largely be considered a consequence of CD Project success rather than a lack of desire or initiative for such activities in the current project.
See appendix A for other past, present, and relative foreseeable activities considered as part of the cumulative effects analysis.
Snake River Basis Steelhead Trout Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on steelhead because there would be no direct or indirect effects to this species from this alternative. Local or regional populations would not be affected. The likelihood of existence of adverse cumulative effects from regeneration harvest and fuel treatments to instream sediment and other variables from Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 is low and the effects to steelhead should be negligible. Road decommissioning, road crossing replacements and other activities that are part of the action alternatives would contribute to the trend of improved watershed conditions caused by passive restoration and past and ongoing projects, which, to the extent that steelhead exist as more than transient migrants in the cumulative effects area, would contribute to a trend of increased habitat quality for steelhead. Despite this trend towards habitat improvement, the cumulative effects of this project are not expected to affect local or regional populations because they would be limited in time and scale relative to the amount of habitat available to any population present.
Past road construction and maintenance, timber harvest, fuels treatments, motorized recreation, livestock grazing, and other human activities, especially within stream channels and in riparian area have presumably reduced the quality of habitat for steelhead in the cumulative effects area to a substantial extent, particularly in the mainstems of the Potlatch River and in the East Fork. Past activities described in detail in Appendix A have contributed to current habitat conditions for stream fishes, including steelhead in the cumulative effects area, and the human hand is very evident on much of the landscape.
Palouse Ranger District 135 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Based on a GIS analysis of distances between the proposed project vegetation management activities and fishbearing streams, Forest monitoring observations, and project design features and BMPs, little to no detectable turbidity, or any other hydrologic or water quality effects, should occur in fishbearing streams within the project or cumulative effects areas in the short or long-term as a result of project activities. This is because any hydrologic or water quality effects reaching such stream segments should be diluted to a level that would not affect aquatic organisms. Fine sediment transmission to project and cumulative effects area fishbearing stream channels resulting from project road work, with the exception of the four activities (discussed in Section B.1.a.) deliberately proposed for fishbearing stream reaches, may occur, but would be minimized or eliminated through project design features, timing, and BMPs.
The four specific fishbearing stream channel activities would transmit effects further downstream only at minimal or undetectable levels in all time scales. As a result, except for the four specific stream crossing replacement sites, steelhead and other aquatic organisms in fish-bearing streams within and downstream of the project area should not be substantially affected by the proposed activities. Potential sedimentation effects of the project should be immeasurable beyond the confluence of the East Fork and Little Boulder Creek with the Potlatch River due to the minor amounts of sediment, etc. potentially produced from activities and due to the dissipation of hydrologic and water quality effects in the higher flows of the Potlatch River.
The duration of cumulative effects of the proposed project would be about 1 year for direct effects, while long-term beneficial effects should last indefinitely unless the project area is subject to future (and currently unplanned) road construction, reconstruction, or a similar large-scale soil disturbing event. Beyond the period of implementation, about an additional 2 years would be required for vegetation to sufficiently establish and minimize surface erosion from soil disturbed by the timber harvest, road construction, culvert replacement, and decommissioning and storage activities.
In addition to potential negative effects of the action alternatives, the proposed stream channel crossing structure replacement and road decommissioning would be of a long-term beneficial effect to aquatic habitats and species by removing potential sediment sources in and around riparian areas. This beneficial effect would likely be greater in magnitude than any short-term adverse effects. The beneficial effects are expected to extend (likely immeasurably) to the mainstem Potlatch River and its aquatic resources.
Maintenance of existing roads in the project area watersheds is a current and ongoing activity that has the potential to deliver minor amounts of sediment to streams and maintenance activities would utilize BMPs to minimize the potential for sediment delivery to streams. Ongoing and future use of existing roads and unauthorized motorized recreation would likely continue to degrade suitable habitats to some extent, and large portions of the project subwatersheds are well- roaded or otherwise accessible to off-road vehicles, with the exception of most of the Little Boulder Creek riparian corridor. Road access closures and decommissioning may reduce the effects of roads on stream and riparian habitats, but moderate to very high road density will remain in the project watersheds. Ongoing and future road management activities (including those associated with the proposed project and the previous Cherry Dinner vegetation management project) would continue this trend, leading to long-term improvement in the quality of habitats. RHCA buffers would be implemented for all ongoing and future projects, preventing or greatly minimizing degradation of habitat.
As mentioned previously, the CNF commissioned fish and habitat surveys in the project area, cumulative effects area and at many other sites on the Palouse Ranger District. Some project area
Palouse Ranger District 136 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
stream habitat values are shown in Appendices B and C (one site each on the East Fork, Little Boulder Creek, and Ruby Creek). Habitat values at these sites are shown and are in the fair-to- poor range, and generally reflect stream habitat conditions in the Forests-managed portions of the cumulative effects area watersheds, and a generally improving trend for most habitat metrics.
Snake River Spring/ Summer Chinook Salmon (ESA Threatened, S, EFH) Similar to and for the same reasons discussed above for steelhead, few to no individual or habitat effects and no population-level effects are expected for spring Chinook salmon, so no cumulative effects at the slightly-larger spatial scale would occur with implementation of any of the three action alternatives.
Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (ESA Threatened, EFH) Nor critical habitat (CH) present for in the cumulative effects area. The small difference between the project area and the cumulative effects area, and the likely minimal effects on riparian and instream habitat associated with the action alternative means that cumulative effects for this species would also be minimal and would not affect the ESA effects determinations.
Pacific Lamprey (S) and Western Pearlshell Mussel (S) Individuals of pacific lamprey are present in several project area streams, and likely extends through the reach of the Potlatch River which extends downstream of the project area. Western pearlshell mussel appears to have been extirpated from the Potlatch River drainage as a whole, but there is some potential for reintroduction. The likely minimal to immeasurable effects on riparian and instream habitat associated with the action alternatives means that cumulative effects for these species would also be minimal and would not affect the sensitive species effects determinations.
Palouse Ranger District 137 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.7 HYDROLOGY 3.7.1 Introduction
3.7.1.1 Issues Addressed • Key and Analysis Issue: Watershed condition - effects to water quality (i.e. sedimentation in streams, equivalent clear-cut acres, and water yield/ peak flow)
• Analysis Issue: Water quality and quantity- effects to waterbodies and compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and State of Idaho water quality standards (WQS).
Issue Indicators: The estimated amount of sediment and water yield based on percent of equivalent clear-cut acres and road density per square mile within the analysis area.
3.7.2 Affected Environment
3.7.2.1 Scope of Analysis Direct and indirect effects due to Little Boulder proposed actions will be analyzed within the project boundaries.
Both the existing conditions and the effects analysis area will be at the subwatershed (HUC12) area to reflect downstream effects at a measurable scale. The extent of cumulative watershed effects is dependent on the scale of the watershed. The extent of changes in water and sediment yield is inversely proportional to stream order (MacDonald 1989) so detectable changes would not be expected beyond these scales due to the dilution of effects. Cumulative effects from the Little Boulder project were analyzed at the HUC12 scale catchment level and will be increasingly diluted as analysis moves to larger areas, such as HUC 10 watersheds.
Table 3.7.0 –Hydrology Analysis Area of Little Boulder Project by Subwatershed Acres Subwatershed Total Subwatershed Subwatershed Project Area is (HUC12) Subwatershed Acres in Project is % of Project % of Acres Area Area Subwatershed East Fork Potlatch 39715 3713 30 9 River Hog Meadow 22168 8224 66 37 Creek – Potlatch Creek West fork Potlatch 39815 346 3 1 River—Potlatch River Corral Creek 14351 40 0.3 0.2
Palouse Ranger District 138 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 3.7.0 Little Boulder Project Hydrology Analysis Area
Because the amount of the project area that is located in the Corral Creek subwatershed is so small, it is reasonable to assume there will be no measurable effects to any of the stated resource concerns at the subwatershed level. There will be no further analysis for the Corral Creek subwatershed.
3.7.2.2 Existing Condition The majority of the 12,425 acres of the Little Boulder project area is located in the Hog Meadow Creek-Potlatch River subwatershed with a significant portion in the East Fork Potlatch Subwatershed as well as a small area in the West fork Potlatch River—Potlatch River subwatersheds (see Table3.7.0). Conditions in the project area are a result of both natural
Palouse Ranger District 139 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
processes and human activities. Past human related activities include road building and maintenance, recreation, fire suppression, and previous harvest and thinning activities. Past harvest and associated road and railroad construction have had the most impact. Annual precipitation in the project area ranges from approximately 20” per year in the lower elevations to 40”per year in the higher elevations. Most precipitation occurs from November to March. The landscape characteristics are rolling foothills rising to mountain slopes with well-developed dendric drainage systems. Alluvial floodplains are adjacent to the major streams. The dominate soils are volcanic ash-cap Andisols with high water holding capacities.
Field surveys indicate that perennial and intermittent channels within or adjacent to harvest units are Rosgen B or C channel types. Channels are primarily stable due to well established streambank vegetation. However, the portion of East Fork Potlatch that flows through the project area is channelized, incised, with unstable banks and is not fully accessible to its floodplain. Sediment delivery potentials range from low to high, depending on location and soil types.
Several culverts in the proposed project area have reached the end of their service life and are no longer properly functioning. In some cases, the culverts are completely nonfunctional, creating drainage and sediment problems. These culverts are problematic to both watershed conditions and public safety and need to be replaced. See section 2.2.2.2 for a table listing culverts in need of replacement.
Equivalent Clearcut Area
Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) is often used as an indicator of water yield and represents the amount of forest canopy openings in the watershed. Water yield is the amount of water flowing in a stream at any given time. The balance of water yield and sediment yield influences the water quality/quantity of a stream system and is a function of water, soil, and vegetation interactions. ECA analysis is a tool used to correlate the relationship between water yield and the extent of forest canopy openings from fire, harvest, and roads. Existing ECAs for the subwatersheds analyzed range from 8% to 16% (Table 3.7.1 below). The current ECA for all subwatersheds is within the acceptable limit of less than 20%. ECAs of less than 15% indicate high (good) condition and 15-30% indicates a moderate condition (NOAA, 1998). Both Hog Meadow- Potlatch Creek and West Fork Potlatch River-Potlatch River subwatersheds are considered to have a good condition rating based on ECA. East Fork Potlatch subwatersheds is in moderate condition.
Road Density
There are approximately 652 total miles of roads in the three subwatersheds affected by the Little Boulder project. Road densities in the subwatersheds range from 3.4 to 5.1 mi/mi2. Within the project area boundaries, there are 60.3 miles of roads. The overall road density in the project area is 3.1 mi/mi2 (see Transportation Report located in the project record). The difference in road densities in the project area as compared to the subwatersheds is due to the project area boundary not following the subwatershed boundaries. A watershed in high (good) condition generally has a road density of < 1 mi/mi2. Watersheds with 1 to 3 mi/mi2 are rated as moderate and >3 mi/mi2 are rated as low (poor) condition (NOAA 1998). Watershed condition ratings based on road densities indicate that, in terms of road densities, all subwatersheds associated with the Little Boulder project are in a poor condition. See table below.
Palouse Ranger District 140 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3.7.1 Existing Condition of ECA & Road Density of Hydrology Analysis Area
Road ECA Subwatershed Subwatershed Total Past Harvest Miles of Density (HUC12) Area mi2 Acres since 1990 Road (mi/mi2) %
East Fork Potlatch 62 8,487 314 5.1 16 River
Hog Meadow Creek – Potlatch 34.6 4,118 118 3.4 8 Creek
West fork Potlatch River—Potlatch 62.2 9,086 220 3.5 10 River
Stream Channels
Channel conditions for the primary streams in the Little Boulder Project area have been documented by the Forest Service and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality through surveys, channel morphology pebble counts and transects. Additionally, stream surveys by Isabella Wildlife (1994 and 1995) and Clearwater Biostudies, Inc. (1993, 2006) provide stream channel information that can be related to PACFISH Resource Management Objectives (RMOs). Information collected during the surveys reflect the effects of all past upstream and upslope activities and help define existing conditions.
Potlatch River - The mainstem Potlatch River through the analysis area is 4.8 miles long. A historic railroad grade channelized the stream, and sediment deposition from the 1950s clay mining and multitude of native-surface roads has contributed to the cobble embeddedness. In 2005, 0.3 miles of the mainstem Potlatch River were resurveyed and compared to 1994 data. The low gradient stream has good stability and a substrate of small rubble. It is lacking in pools and acting and potential debris. Over the ten years between surveys, the cobble embeddedness has decreased from 49% to 36%, getting within standards. Bank stability remained “good” (Pfankuch, 1978), but there was not a significant change in number of pools or amount of acting and potential wood in the channel.
The mainstem Potlatch River does not meet PACFISH RMOs for number of pools or desired future conditions (DFCs) for acting and potential debris. Water temperature standards for PACFISH, DFCs and state water quality are exceeded in the Potlatch River.
East Fork Potlatch River - Just over 1.4 miles of the East Fork Potlatch was surveyed through the analysis area. The historic railroad grades have channelized the stream, and sediment from a large number of native-surface roads has contributed to the high cobble embeddedness. Grazing affected the woody material and bank stability until exclosures were built in 1992. The gradient is as flat as that of the mainstem (less than one percent). The substrate is coarse gravel. Pools and woody materials are lacking. The East Fork Potlatch was one of the streams surveyed in 2006 that had eroding streambanks. The percent of eroding streambanks has increased from 8 to 11%. Cobble embeddedness has decreased from the 58% average in 1994 to 43%, coming within the DFC range with the 2005 survey.
Palouse Ranger District 141 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The East Fork Potlatch River does not meet PACFISH standards for pools or DFCs for acting and potential debris. Water temperature standards for PACFISH, DFCs and state water quality are exceeded in the Potlatch River.
Little Boulder Creek - Little Boulder Creek is about 1.2 miles long. Streamside adjacent roads and historic railroad grades have channelized the stream. Previous harvest down to the streambanks contributes to the lack of woody material. Little Boulder Cr has a gradient similar to the re-surveyed sections of the mainstem Potlatch (0.9 percent), but has more pools and good bank stability (98 percent), and low acting and potential wood. Over the 10 years between surveys, the raw bank has increased two percent, and the cobble embeddedness has increased seven percent. Sediment production peaked in 1968 after the construction of the 3306 road in 1964 and harvest of Starvation Ridge Timber Sale and other ownerships. The establishment of the powerline corridor in the early 1970s caused another peak of sediment production. The WEPP Watershed Online model indicates that the system is currently meeting the fisheries/water quality standards of Appendix K of the Forest Plan. With the monitoring information revealing high cobble embeddedness, there is an indication that the system is not recovering as quickly as it should have from previous episodes of road construction and timber harvest. Little Boulder Creek does not meet DFCs for cobble embeddedness or acting and potential debris. Water temperature standards for PACFISH, DFCs and state water quality are exceeded in Little Boulder.
Ruby Creek - Ruby Creek was surveyed by USFS personnel in 2009 on USFS lands. The stream segment has primarily pool and run/pool habitat types with a dominant substrate of sand and small rubble. Survey data indicates a low number of quality pools, poor salmonid spawning substrate conditions, high cobble embeddedness, and relatively low levels of stream shading. Some areas of bank instability from high stream flows and past cattle grazing were evident, and the reach was influenced substantially by beaver activity.
Sediment Yield
Sediment to streams occurs naturally or as the result of management activities. Sediment routing considers the arrangement of sediment within the watershed system and includes upslope and instream components. The primary source of excess sediment is roads that are built in poorly located, are poorly designed, or are poorly maintained (USDA Forest Service, 2016). Cutslopes, fill slopes, and bare soils can also be a chronic source of sediment input to streams. Roadside areas within the project area are typically well vegetated and are filtering sediment so that it doesn’t reach streams. Additionally, most old roads are overgrown with trees and grass and very few are contributing sediment (see Figure 4 below). The greatest risk for sediment input from these roads is where the roadside ditches drain near to or directly into perennial stream channels or rutting.
Table 3.7.2 below displays standards and maximum allowable sediment yield to streams over natural conditions, per the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan, Appendix K. The determination of percent over natural is based on modeling of the subwatersheds. Roads are not accounted for in the model. The conditions for the subwatersheds in the analysis area are in moderate condition and maintaining dynamic equilibrium and geomorphic threshold. These streams may have elevated levels of instream sediment, yet the stream network remains stable. (Jones and Murphy, 1997).
Palouse Ranger District 142 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3.7.2 Estimated Sediment Yield within the Hydrology Analysis Area Max. Allowable Sediment Yield Subwatershed Channel Percent Over Natural (ON) Standard (HUC12) type Forest Plan Existing standard condition
EF Potlatch C High Fish 50 44
Hog Meadow C High Fish 50 4
WF Potlatch- C Low Fish 200 16 Potlatch
All measured subwatersheds in the Little Boulder project area meet the Forest Plan standard for sediment, based solely on landscape sediment and not including road-generated sediment. Because it is well-known that sediment in forest landscapes is largely due to roads, the above results are incomplete. Also, forest level monitoring indicates that the Potlatch River is not meeting standards/has high levels of cobble embeddedness/etc.
Water Quality
Beneficial uses and water quality criteria and standards are identified in the State of Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements (IDAPA 58.01.02). All of the primary streams within the project area boundary have water quality impairments in some of the reaches and are listed with 305(b) categories (see Table 3.7.3 below). None of the streams within the project area are on the current 303(d) list (IDEQ 2014). The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality prepared a TMDL planning document which covers the project area: the Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads, approved by the EPA in February 2009. All streams in the project area have TMDLs in place for reducing temperature (IDEQ 2009), except for Little Boulder Creek which was not assessed for the current Integrated Report.
Table 3.7.3 Streams with TMDL plans in the Little Boulder project area Stream Boundaries Pollutant Category Conclusions Name
Potlatch Entire River Temperature 4A, 4C Not Supporting: River - cold water aquatic life - salmonid spawning
East Fork HW1 to confluence NA 2 Fully Supporting Potlatch with Ruby Creek beneficial uses
East Fork From confluence Temperature 4A, 4C Not Supporting: Potlatch with Ruby Creek to -cold water aquatic life -salmonid spawning
Palouse Ranger District 143 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
confluence with Potlatch River
Ruby Creek From HW to stream NA 2 Fully Supporting mile 2.5 beneficial uses
Ruby Creek From mile 2.5 to Temperature 4A, 4C Not Supporting: confluence with -cold water aquatic life East Fork Potlatch E. coli -salmonid spawning River -secondary recreation contact Little Entire Stream NA 2 Fully Supporting Boulder beneficial uses
1 HW = Headwaters
3.7.3 Regulatory Framework
3.7.3.1 Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act stipulates that states are to adopt water quality standards. Included in these standards are provisions for identifying beneficial uses, establishing the status of beneficial uses, setting water quality criteria, and establishing BMPs to control nonpoint sources of pollution. Executive Order 12088 requires the Forest Service to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Section 313 of the Clean Water Act requires federal agencies to comply with all federal, state, interstate, and local requirements with respect to control and abatement of water pollution, and to cooperate with relevant processes and sanctions and administrative authority.
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. The streams in the project area that are listed for pollutants in the EPA-approved 2012 Integrated Report (IDEQ 2014) are listed in Table 5 of the hydrology report.
3.7.3.2 Idaho Water Quality Standards EPA regulations require each state to adopt an anti-degradation policy as one component of its water quality standards. The objective of the Idaho Anti-degradation Policy is to maintain and protect existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses. Beneficial uses and water quality criteria and standards are identified in the Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements (IDAPA 58.01.02, IDAPA 37.03.02).
3.7.3.3 Idaho Forest Practices Act This legislation regulates forest practices on all land ownership in Idaho. Forest practices on USFS lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to water quality (IDAPA 20.02.01). These rules are also incorporated as BMPs in the Idaho Water Quality Standards.
Palouse Ranger District 144 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.7.3.4 Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act This legislation regulates stream channel alterations between mean high water marks on perennial streams in Idaho. Instream activities on NFS lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to the Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act (IDAPA 37.03.07). These rules are also incorporated as BMPs in the Idaho Water Quality Standards.
3.7.3.5 Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 These orders provide for protection and management of floodplains and wetlands.
3.7.3.6 Forest Plan Consistency Forest standards for water resources are found in the Clearwater National Forest Plan on pages II 27 –29 and Appendix K. The Forest Plan was amended in 1995, following a joint decision (commonly called PACFISH) by the U.S. Forest Service and BLM for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds on federal lands. For the Little Boulder project, PACFISH buffers are considered no-cut stream buffers and are excluded from harvest activities.
Forest Plan standards for water quality apply to this project, and compliance would be achieved project design features and BMP implementation. Forest Plan standards for water apply to this project and would be met as displayed in the following table:
Table 3.7.4 Compliance with Clearwater National Forest Plan Water Standards Standard Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By
Secure favorable condition of flow by Analysis shows there will be maintaining the integrity and equilibrium of all no detectable increase in stream systems. peak flow and low probability of sediment input due to project activities. a. Channel processes would not be altered due to project activities. Cumulative effects from off-Forest activities will likely further degrade existing watershed conditions
Manage water quality and stream conditions to In many of the project area assure management activities do not cause streams beneficial uses are permanent or long-term damage to beneficial currently not being met. b. uses. Project activities will not cause further permanent or long term damage to beneficial uses.
Apply BMPs to project activities to ensure water BMPs listed in the EIS would c. quality standards are met or exceeded. be implemented.
d. Manage all waters under a basic standard.
Palouse Ranger District 145 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Standard Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By
In addition to standard d., manage all watershed Project activities are planned systems considered important for the fishery and designed to meet or e. resource based on 1) No effect, 2) High Fishable, exceed appropriate standards. 3) Moderate Fishable, 4) Low Fishable, and 5) Minimum Viable.
Design, schedule and implement management Watershed improvement activities that would: 1) maintain water quality projects, project design and stream conditions that are not likely to cause measures listed in Chapter 2, sustained damage to the biological potential of and BMPs listed in the EIS the fish habitat, 2) not reduce fish habitat would maintain or improve productivity in the short-term below the assigned water quality, channel g. standard, 3) maintain water quality in a condition conditions, and fish habitat that is not likely to inhibit recovery of the fish within the scope of project habitat, and 4) require a watershed cumulative effects. Cumulative effects effects analysis from off-Forest activities will likely further degrade existing watershed conditions
Conduct nonpoint source activities in accordance BMPs listed in the EIS would with applicable BMPs as referenced in Idaho be implemented. k. Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements and Soil and Water Conservation Handbook.
3.7.4 Environmental Consequences
3.7.4.1 Methodology Field reviews of a variety of streams, roads and general landscape conditions were conducted during 2014. For modeling, mean annual precipitation was used for climatic inputs. Models are used to provide estimates for comparison of alternatives, not absolute values.
The ECA analysis used treatment coefficients from Alger and Clifton (2005) and recovery coefficients adjusted for local conditions to determine the existing ECA condition. Past harvest with a variety of prescriptions, prescribed underburning, and roads were all included in the ECA analysis. The basis of the ECA analysis is that water yield increases when vegetation is removed, whether by natural disturbance such as fire, or by human disturbance. ECA analysis is commonly used as an indicator of the extent to which watershed vegetation has been altered by past and proposed management activities. As with most modeling efforts, ECA models are used to provide estimates for comparison of alternatives, not absolutes. Limitations result from the complexity of variables affecting watershed functions and necessary model simplifications such as not accounting for elevation, aspect, or the road systems that effect water routing. ECA analysis assumes that proposed treatment stands are fully stocked prior to harvest, when in reality some stands may not be fully stocked at historic conditions. The ECA treatment coefficient used for road areas is the same as an unrecovered clearcut even though many roads have overgrown somewhat with vegetation. Also, the analysis assumes all proposed activities occur simultaneously rather than over a period of several years. This is a worst case scenario and will
Palouse Ranger District 146 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
help ensure that ECAs are not underestimated. Because most of the watershed analysis area is outside the project boundary and is not FS-managed land, information for ECA analysis and road densities was gathered by contacting Idaho Department of Lands and using aerial imagery surveys from Google Earth Pro for privately owned lands where formal data was unavailable. Because of the lack of official or formal data, ECA quantities, including road metrics and conditions, on non-USFS lands are estimates only, but do give an approximate idea of existing conditions.
To estimate subwatershed sediment yields, the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Watershed Online GIS (Frankenberger etal 2011; Dun etal 2013) was used. The WEPP model is a computer program for soil erosion estimation, used at the scales of hillslopes to small watersheds. Inputs include soil, land management, topographic, and climate parameters. Soil parameters were determined by using the Clearwater National Forest Land System Inventory (1983) for USFS lands and the USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey (2016) for soil parameters on privately owned land. To run a WEPP online GIS simulation, a user needs only internet access as all data and programs are located on web servers. GIS data sources include USGS 30-m National Elevation Data, USGS topographical maps, USGS land cover and NRCS soil data. Daily climate inputs are generated from the long-term climate parameters of the nearest weather station using CLIGEN. Climate parameters can be adjusted by using Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) to account for locations away from CLIGEN stations (Frankenberger etal 2011).
WEPP Watershed Online over predicted sediment yield underprediction at low flows. It also over predicted channel peak flow which can lead to overprediction of channel erosion. It does not account for roads. Also, small headwater drainages with areas ≤ 500 acres seemed to be the optimal size for analyses, which requires a lot of model runs to estimate overall watershed sediment yield.
The Disturbed WEPP erosion model (Elliot et. al. 2000) was used to predict sediment yield from proposed harvest and prescribed burning activities for each alternative. This model estimates the amount and probability of erosion generated within activity units. It then predicts the amount and probability of sediment which may be delivered to streams. User-input variables include: climate, soil texture, slope, plant community, surface residue cover, and stream buffer slope and width.
Existing road densities were determined by using USFS ArcMap databases for roads that are located on Forest Service-managed lands. Large portions of the analysis area are not within Forest Service jurisdiction and therefore the Forest Service does not have information concerning these roads. Road mileage and road density on non-USFS lands was estimated using aerial imagery from Google Earth Pro.
The WEPP: Road model (Elliot, etal, 1999) was used to predict the amount of erosion from proposed temporary road and new system road construction activities. It predicts the amount of sediment coming off the road prism and how much of that soil leaves the buffer and enters streams as sediment delivery. user-input variables include: climate, soil texture, road design, road and fill slope, buffer width and length, and road surface type and level of use.
More extensive discussion concerning the models used for analysis are in Appendix 1 of the Hydrology report.
3.7.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1:
Palouse Ranger District 147 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Under this alternative, no proposed management actions on Forest Service lands would occur and because no vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities would occur, there are no direct effects from this alternative. Fire suppression, road maintenance, and recreation activities would remain at the current levels. Management related increases in peak flows would continue to decline over time as vegetation recovers from past harvest activities, unless affected by large- scale wildfire. All roads would remain in place. Road density and road related erosion and sediment delivery would remain unchanged. ECA due to roads would remain at current levels indefinitely. The watershed benefits that come from decommissioning, storage, and road improvements in the proposed action Alternatives would not be attained. Some roads may become a source of sediment delivery to streams, especially at stream crossings, as well as intercepting and rerouting both surface and subsurface water to streams. Additional road improvements could eventually be made as part of regular road maintenance, but would likely be in response to road failure.
Lands that are non-USFS will continue to be logged independent of the Little Boulder EIS, which will affect overall watershed conditions. Although specific data is unavailable, it is reasonable to assume that ECAs and road densities will increase for the foreseeable future.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Equivalent Clearcut Area
None of the proposed vegetation management activities will cause the subwatersheds to exceed 20% or more of the subwatershed area (see table 3.7.5 below). ECAs of less than 15% indicate high condition and 15-30% indicates a moderate condition (NOAA, 1998).
Table 3.7.5 Equivalent Clearcut Areas by Action Alternatives Subwatershed Existing ECA Action Alternative ECA in %
(HUC12) % 2 3 4
EF Potlatch 16 18 17 17
Hog Meadow 8 12 12 12
WF Potlatch 10 10 10 10
The Hog Meadow and West Fork Potlatch are currently in high condition. Hog meadow will see the greatest increase in ECA, will remain in high condition. Because there is so little of the project area in the West Fork Potlatch subwatershed, the ECA remains essentially unchanged after project activities. The East Fork Potlatch subwatershed is in moderate condition prior to project implementation, and the ECA will slightly increase as a direct effect of the proposed actions. The East Fork Potlatch will not exceed the 20% ECA threshold that could cause measurable impacts to water yield due to project activities.
Despite the emphasis on peak flow and water yield increases, more recent research indicates that water yield increases may not be as important as previously thought, especially in the context of contemporary forest management. Many studies over the past 60-70 years have determined the effects of forest canopy removal on water yield. However, very few have demonstrated a direct link between water yield increases and stream channel impacts. Grant et al. (2008) determined
Palouse Ranger District 148 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
that no field studies have made a direct link between peak flow increases and channel impacts after conducting a comprehensive literature review. In other studies, no correlation between ECA and stream channel characteristics in forested catchments in Colorado were found (Schnakenberg and MacDonald 1998). Channel impacts associated with peak flow increases alone are likely to be much less significant than other impacts associated with forest management activities.
Road Density
The Little Boulder project proposes building 5.3 miles of new system roads for Alternatives 2 and 4. Additionally, there will be temporary roads that will contribute to road density and road density effects while in operation and prior to decommissioning upon completion of the projects.
Concerning road density standards, a watershed in high (good) condition generally has a road density of < 1 mi/mi2. Watersheds with 1 to 3 mi/mi2 are rated as moderate and >3 mi/mi2 are rated as low (poor) condition (NOAA 1998). Table 3.7.6 below shows that the proposed road building will not have a substantial effect on the overall road densities in the subwatersheds analyzed. This is due to the high number of roads already in the subwatersheds (see Table 3.7.1).
Table 3.7.6 Road Density by Action Alternatives Subwatershed Existing Road Action Alternative Density (mi/mi2) (HUC12) 2 3 4
EF Potlatch 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
Hog Meadow 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.6
WF Potlatch 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
In watersheds where there are hundreds of miles of existing roads, adding 5 more miles is not statistically significant. Even though there is no statistical increase in road density because road densities are already high, neither does the project propose any significant decrease in road density. Watershed condition ratings based on road densities indicate that, in terms of road densities, all subwatersheds associated with the Little Boulder project are in a poor condition and will remain so.
Sediment Yield
Erosion and sediment yield due to both natural rates and forest management activities are highly variable in forests and can be substantially different due to location, forestry practices, the use of Best Management Practices, and climate (Binkley and Brown, 1993). In the Little Boulder project area, no discernable or measurable sediment increase at the subwatershed level will caused by proposed activities under typical conditions.
The indicator used for sediment delivery from vegetation management is amount of sediment delivered to streams. The Disturbed WEPP model was used to estimate the amount of erosion and potential sediment produced for storm return intervals from 2.5 year event to a 50 year event. For the proposed actions, modeled estimates indicate sediment yields from these activities are within natural rates. Estimates for other storm return periods are available in the hydrology project file.
Palouse Ranger District 149 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
In both Alternatives 2 and 4 there are four new stream crossings, all of which are on a midslope new system road. This planning has effectively eliminated hydrologic connectivity between the proposed roads and stream channels. There will be some localized sediment delivery at the proposed culvert crossings, but this sediment potential has been greatly decreased by surfacing the road and designing the stream approaches on low gradient (Brown, et al 2013). The sediment produced will not be measurable at the watershed scale.
The vented ford proposed for Ruby Creek will reduce sediment by surfacing the approaches to the creek and preventing vehicles from driving directly on the streambed.
Some roads, whether now in use or abandoned, were not located well or were constructed and maintained by design standards that would not be acceptable today.
The Little Boulder proposes road work that includes reconditioning or reconstructing roads (see section 2.2.2.3.) Road reconditioning involves cleaning ditches and culverts, blading the road surface to reestablish proper drainage, and spot aggregate surfacing. Ditch maintenance would minimize vegetation disturbance, avoiding indiscriminate digging of the ditches just as a matter of course. This will greatly reduce the potential amount of sediment that is associated with ditch clearing. Road reconstruction consists of clearing and grubbing, earthwork, culvert replacement, aggregate surfacing to bring existing roads up to haul standards.
Road reconditioning and reconstruction will keep roads in a condition suitable for travel and correct severe erosion from unmaintained drainage systems. However, these activities can break up vegetation and armor layers on the road surface or the ditch and temporarily increase road erosion (Burroughs and King, 1989; Luce and Black, 1999). High sediment yields can come from either unprotected ditches or unprotected traveled ways. The aggregate surfacing and spot- cleaning of ditches will prevent, or at least minimize, these sources of road-generated sediment.
3.7.4.3 Cumulative Effects Even though the direct and indirect effects of the project actions would not measurably influence or degrade overall subwatershed conditions, the cumulative effects in the subwatersheds analyzed will have a significant effect.
Due to the lack of official or formal data for foreseeable actions on non-USFS lands, including road metrics and conditions, no cumulative effects analysis was done for non-USFS lands. However, by examining aerial imagery and new road locations, the amount and likelihood of near future harvest on non-USFS lands can be deduced, even though such deductions are approximates only. From these deductions, some reasonable assumptions can be made.
Equivalent Clearcut Areas
Currently, there is active road building and heavy logging being conducted in the East Fork Potlatch subwatershed, which is mostly privately owned. Judging by road location and miles of new road built, it is reasonable to assume that the ECA for this subwatershed will easily exceed 20%. It is likely that the ECA will exceed 25%, but the actual total is uncertain.
The Hog Meadow subwatershed has much less active road building and logging in forested areas, and at least half of the subwatershed is in permanent agricultural production. The increase in ECA is due to project activities and it is anticipated that the ECA for this watershed will not exceed 15%.
Palouse Ranger District 150 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The ECA for the West Fork Potlatch subwatershed is much more accurate because the primary owner is the USFS. This subwatershed will see a dramatic ECA increase due to the proposed action of the Moose Creek project, planned for 2022. The final ECA may be lower if a Moose Creek project alternative that requires less harvesting is selected. There is still potential for small- scale timber harvest on private lands, so even though there is more accuracy in the cumulative ECA for West Fork Potlatch, there is still a degree of uncertainty.
Table 3.7.7 Cumulative effects in percent of Equivalent Clearcut Area by Subwatershed Subwatershed Existing Direct Cumulative Effects, Alternative* ECA Effects, Alt (HUC12) 2 2 3 4 %
EF Potlatch 16 18 ≥20 ≥20 ≥20
Hog Meadow 8 12 ≤15 ≤15 ≤15
WF Potlatch 10 10 16 16 16
*These values are estimates only due to incomplete or lack of data.
Road Densities
The road densities in the subwatershed will be largely unaffected by the proposed road construction in the Little Boulder project area. It is highly likely that continued road building on privately owned forest lands will continue, but the amount and locations of the new roads is not known.
Under the Cherry Dinner EIS, there were nearly 17 miles of road decommissioned in the analysis subwatersheds. Even though this also very little effect on overall road densities, 4 miles of critical stream-adjacent miles and 31 stream crossings were removed. The majority of this road work was accomplished in the Little Boulder Creek drainage, addressing many sediment source problems in that drainage. Although the overall road density was statistically unaffected, the localized sediment that is associated with stream crossings and stream-adjacent roads was reduced and watershed conditions improved.
The future Moose Creek project proposes to add 8.4 miles of newly constructed road, which accounts for 1/10th of a percent road density increase in the West Fork Potlatch subwatershed.
Table 3.7.8 - Cumulative Effects on Road Density by Subwatershed Subwatershed Existing Direct Effects Road Cumulative Road Density, Road Density Density (mi/mi2), Alternative (mi/mi2) (HUC12) (mi/mi2) Alternative 2 2 3 4
EF Potlatch 5.1 5.1 unknown unknown unknown
Hog Meadow 3.4 3.6 unknown unknown unknown
Palouse Ranger District 151 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
WF Potlatch 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6
The Little Boulder project will have no measurable cumulative effects on road density despite the proposed new system roads. This is because the road densities are already high enough that adding 5 miles of roads is statistically inconsequential. The subwatersheds will remain in “poor” condition by road density standards (NOAA, 1998) and the Little Boulder project will not change or improve that. Road densities in general, and associated effects in non-USFS land specifically, will likely increase, especially in the East Fork Potlatch subwatershed.
Sediment Yield
There was no cumulative effects analysis done for potential sediment delivery from harvest units because essential information such as harvest unit size, location, soil type, slope gradient, and slope length was unavailable for non-USFS lands. The exception to this is the West Fork Potlatch subwatershed which is mostly USFS land and the required information is available. However, the analysis results are limited due to the lack of data on non-USFS land and should be regarded with caution.
Because of current standards and practices, sediment delivery from harvest units is low, and, on USFS lands, frequently non-existent. This is because vegetation buffers required by PACFISH and the Idaho Forestry Practices Act prevents stream adjacent logging. Because of current forest management practices, forest monitoring, and research that measures the effectiveness of vegetative buffers, it is reasonable to assume that sediment delivery from individual harvest units will little or no sediment delivery. However, because of the vast extent of logging in the East Fork Potlatch subwatershed, the cumulative sediment deliver could be well above natural rates. It is reasonable to assume that there will be an increase in sediment due to harvest on non-USFS lands, but the actual quantity of cumulative sediment input from harvest is unknown.
It is well known that roads have the greatest effect of all forest management practices associated with erosion and sediment. Much of the road erosion is manageable through planning, location, design, maintenance, and road closures. The USFS carefully plans, locates, and constructs new roads, or reconditions and reconstructs existing roads to a high engineering standard to reduce road-generated sediment as much as possible. Also, the Nez Perce-Clearwater NF has an active and effective road decommissioning program that eliminates roads that are unneeded, poorly located, poorly constructed, or are otherwise problematic. The same high standards and effort to improve forest roads and road conditions may not be observed on non-USFS lands. Because of this, it is reasonable to assume that road-generated sediment from non-USFS lands will increase well above natural rates, but the actual quantity of cumulative sediment input from roads and road building is unknown.
Table 3.7.9 - Sediment Yield, Cumulative Effects by Action Alternative Subwatershed Existing sediment % Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Over Natural (ON) (HUC12)
EF Potlatch 37 unknown unknown unknown
Hog Meadow 4 unknown unknown unknown
Palouse Ranger District 152 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
WF Potlatch* 16 16 16 16
*Potential sediment from non-USFS lands is unaccounted for.
Within the Little Boulder project area, a major stream and meadow restoration action will occur on the East Fork of the Potlatch River. Although this project does not interact directly with proposed harvest units in the Little Boulder project, it does improve the overall condition and water quality in the East Fork Potlatch subwatershed by re-directing the stream channel to historic flow paths that would reconnect East Fork Potlatch to its historic floodplain and wetlands, restore natural channel migration zones and improve fish habitat complexity. It would also reduce sediment delivery into East Fork Potlatch and allow for improvements to soil functions, including better growing conditions for native riparian vegetation and begin trending towards meeting PACFISH and TMDL objectives. Additionally, this proposed stream and floodplain restoration project will work together in conjunction with other restoration projects in the Potlatch River watershed which are located on Corral Creek, West Fork Corral Creek, and Bear Creek to improve the overall watershed conditions.
Palouse Ranger District 153 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.8 RANGE
3.8.1 Introduction
3.8.1.1 Issues Addressed • Analysis Issue: Grazing - Effects on cattle utilization and movement within the Potlatch Creek (#38) grazing allotment.
• Issue Indicator: Qualitative ability to manage grazing utilization, animal movement, and livestock collection and transportation.
3.8.2 Affected Environment
3.8.2.1 Scope of Analysis This project will affect the Potlatch Creek grazing allotment. Approximately 68% of this allotment is contained within the project area, including most of the McGary and Little Boulder pastures on the east and west, with a small portion of the Powderhouse pasture to the north. The allotment boundary is Highway 3 on the northwest, Highway 8 on the northeast, the East Fork Potlatch subwatershed boundary on the south, and (roughly) the Hog Meadow/Potlatch Creek subwatershed boundary on the south and west.
3.8.2.2 Existing Condition The Potlatch Creek Allotment #38 is grazed by 218 cow/calf pairs, 161 of which are permitted by the Forest service. The rest are permitted by the State of Idaho and Potlatch Corporation. Season of use is from 6/8 to 11/7. This allotment uses a season-long grazing system, where set numbers of cattle are placed in each of three pastures for the entire season. The Potlatch Creek grazing allotment was analyzed under the Potlatch River Grazing Allotments EA.
There is currently a wire gate across the 3308 road, at the Ruby Creek crossing and cattle holding pen. The 820313/wagon road is used as a main roundup trail, as well as for salt distribution and general cattle handling and dispersion.
Livestock use the project area during the entire grazing season. Livestock are trucked to the pastures, then move via various established trails through the timber to grazing areas within the allotment. Because of the terrain and ecotype, these trails are critical for animal movement and proper distribution.
Much of the land grazed within the project area is in previously harvested units accessed by roads and single-track cow trails. The proposed action will enhance forage production, and is generally supported by the Range Specialist and permittees.
The primary concerns for grazing will be maintaining the grazing system for good livestock distribution during timber harvest and protecting the integrity of improvements, which are vital for good grazing management. These will need to be protected throughout implementation. An extension of the Little Boulder-McGary pasture fence will be required, since the new system road will open up access between the Little Boulder and McGary pastures.
Palouse Ranger District 154 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.8.3 Regulatory Framework
3.8.3.1 Forest Plan Consistency The 1987 Clearwater Forest Plan standard for Range applicable to this project is to “Coordinate livestock grazing on timber cutting units as necessary to provide for tree regeneration. Livestock grazing on lands designated for timber production may be permitted if the silvicultural prescription and allotment management plan are specifically designed to meet regeneration goals.”
The project area is entirely in management category E1, which states as a goal for Range to “Manage existing allotments to be compatible with timber regeneration in transitory range.”
At this time a new Allotment Management Plan for the Potlatch Creek allotment is being written, which timing beautifully allows for dovetailing the silvicultural intent of this project with cattle management objectives. Managing grazing with timber harvest is nothing new on this district, and the permittees and district personnel are all familiar with the day-to-day realities of managing these multiple uses in a way that works for cattle, timber regeneration, and harvest.
3.8.4 Environmental Consequences
3.8.4.1 Methodology Addressing the effects of this project for range was done by spatially analyzing INFRA registered improvements and known cattle trails against the planned treatment units and roads analyses for each alternative. Professional knowledge of cattle behavior and how livestock use this allotment was used to anticipate issues raised by changes resulting from the proposed action.
3.8.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects See table 3.8.1 for effects to range activities.
Alternative 1: All fences and gates dividing pastures and defining external boundaries, as well as trails, corrals, and pens, would remain in their current, functional configuration.
Alternatives 2, 4: 1. The Little Boulder-McGary pasture fence would no longer be effective as a boundary after new system roads 3 and 4 were constructed. 2. The Ruby Creek holding pens overlay the road prism for the section of 820313, the old wagon road, which is proposed to decommission and is also a cattle drive trail. The holding pens would be partially destroyed and generally unusable while project work was ongoing in units hauling timber out of Ruby Creek. 3. With the 3308 road designated as a haul route for all three alternatives, the wire gate that is currently the allotment boundary keeping cattle off of the highway, a public safety concern, will no longer serve as an effective barrier. 4. Partial decommission of 820313 would make salt transport and herding livestock out to Ruby Creek more difficult; loss of historic drive trails, one by one over time, hinders the ability of the permittee to manage the allotment as a cohesive grazing area. 5. Table 3.8.0 documents improvements that would need to be protected in the course of proposed treatments. Improvements bordering harvest or fuels units would be less at risk than those in the middle of activities.
Palouse Ranger District 155 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative 3: Same as for Alt 2, but the Little Boulder-McGary pasture fence would not be compromised since road construction and timber harvest would not open up access between the two pastures.
Table 3.8.0 Summary of Range Improvements by Alternative Alternative(s) Miles of fence Miles of drive trail potentially impacted decommissioned
1 0 0
2, 3, 4 4.25 0.34
Table 3.8.1 Summary of Direct Effects of Proposed Range Improvements and Mitigation Measures Direct Effect Alternative Mitigation
Construction of new system 2, 4 Extension of the Little Boulder-McGary road 3 fence, roughly following the new road prism, by about 3 miles.
Decommission 820313, the 2, 3, 4 Leave a passable livestock trail in the wagon road, which is a cattle decommissioning process, rebuild the holding trail and runs through the Ruby pens following harvest and decommissioning, Creek holding pens and use a district-owned portable corral for cattle handling there while the holding pens were non-functional.
RD 3308 would be a haul 2, 3, 4 Insert a cattleguard in the 3308 road before route, so the wire gate across the low-water crossing. the road before the highway would not be effective
3.8.4.3 Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities Forest Service records show managed grazing in the allotment area back to 1935 by sheep. The general allotment area (the boundaries did not reach their approximate current shape until 1960) supported a high of 6,637 sheep. Cattle grazing began by the current permittee, the Helmer Cattleman’s Association, in 1952. At a high point, they grazed 291 cow/calf pairs on all ownerships, but reached the current stocking rate of 218 C/c total in 1997. Grazing continues and will continue into the reasonably foreseeable future.
One other major management activity upcoming will affect this grazing allotment—the “Two Mile Meadow” restoration project on the East Fork of the Potlatch. That activity will affect stocking and herding patterns for the short term (2-3 years) in the McGary pasture, resulting in a net benefit to forage quantity and quality, but is not likely to overlap in time and does not overlap in space with management activities associated with this EIS. Grazing on the allotment as a whole continues and will continue into the reasonably foreseeable future.
Palouse Ranger District 156 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.9 RECREATION
3.9.1 Introduction
3.9.1.1 Issues Addressed • Analysis Issue: Recreation - effects on recreational opportunities and access (motorized and non-motorized).
• Issue Indicator: Acreage and/or accessibility impacted by various recreation uses. (See section 3.9.4.1)
3.9.2 Affected Environment
3.9.2.1 Scope of Analysis Project area: The analysis area encompasses approximately 12,500 acres, which includes approximately 2,200 acres of privately owned lands that are mostly managed by the State of Idaho and Potlatch Corporation. Therefore, the analysis area includes 10,300 acres of National Forest System Lands.
3.9.2.2 Existing Condition The Little Boulder project area, located within the Potlatch River area, receives substantial recreation use and pressure on the Palouse Ranger District. This is due to a number of factors including the natural features and scenery of the area; the adjacent Potlatch River, providing water activity and respite from hot summer conditions; proximity to the communities of Moscow, ID and Pullman, WA, which provides visitors with amenities such as gas, groceries, food and lodging facilities; numerous camping opportunities for both developed and dispersed sites in the area; and access to over 40 miles of road and trail systems on both National Forest lands and adjacent lands under other land management (mainly State of Idaho and Potlatch Corporation).
Nearby population centers, plus relatively easy, paved access via State Highways and County Roads ensures that large numbers of visitors flock to this area for recreational pursuits. Idaho State Highway 8 provides direct access to the project area and connects local communities to the area – Pullman, WA, Moscow, Troy, Deary, and Potlatch, ID. Additionally, Idaho State Highway 95 provides paved access to State Highway 8, connecting additional larger communities to the north (Spokane, WA – Coeur d’ Alene, ID metropolitan area) and south (Lewiston, ID and Clarkston, WA). This proximity to population centers results in users spending time in the area for both day and overnight excursions.
There is limited availability of and access to, larger bodies of water on federal land surrounding the project area. This makes the Potlatch River a desirable spot for visitors engaging in recreational pursuits. While not generally navigable by watercraft, the Potlatch River in particular does flow strong throughout the summer season, providing ample opportunities for a variety of recreational pursuits, such as swimming, fishing and general water play. It is clear that the presence of the Potlatch River draws recreation visitors to the project area itself.
Recreation use occurs throughout the year; however, summertime receives significant use, especially around holiday weekends. During these weekends, virtually all camp spots (both developed and dispersed) are occupied, traffic along existing roads is very busy and the Potlatch Canyon Trail is at its busiest. With the intense recreation pressure placed on this relatively small
Palouse Ranger District 157 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
amount of Forest Service land, resource impacts are occurring in and around riparian areas and off existing National Forest System roads creating resource management challenges.
Off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation. OHV use is an extremely popular recreational activity throughout the Palouse Ranger District and within the project area. It continues to be an extremely fast growing segment of recreation activity occurring on National Forest System (NFS) lands. There are no official Forest Service trails in the project area, therefore the OHV riding occurs on the open National Forest System (NFS) Roads in the area. Visitors are informed about the open roads in the area through the Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forests Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Well-traveled roads in the project area include:
a. Schoolhouse Gulch, NFS Road 4761
b. S. Fork Little Boulder Creek, NFS Road 4722
c. Little Potlatch, NFS Road 4750
d. Middle, NFS Road 4745
There are approximately 40 miles of NFS Roads within the project area. The roads are mostly a mix of Maintenance Level 3 (generally suitable to passenger cars); and Maintenance Level 2 (generally suitable for high clearance vehicles). In terms of surfacing, road miles are split between native surface and aggregate surface.
Camping: Little Boulder Creek Campground provides the only developed fee camping opportunity within the project area. The campground has paved surfaces throughout, consists of 16 individual sites and one group picnic area, and has direct access to Little Boulder Creek. There are multiple locations available for dispersed camping within the project area. Most weekends throughout the summer will find the majority of campsites occupied.
Dispersed campsites within the project area are not identified with posts, numbers or any other type of signage. Visitors are drawn to these dispersed sites from evidence of prior use – “hardened” locations that due to use, are generally devoid of vegetation. Sites are located throughout the project area on major National Forest System (NFS) Roads. All of the dispersed sites in the project area have no developed amenities (such as a toilet, picnic table, etc.), and visitors are expected to use ‘Leave-No-Trace’ practices when using these sites. Recreationists occupying the dispersed campsites are generally engaged in either off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation or hunting during the fall season and a mix of activities during the summer, including berry picking, hiking and OHV use.
Non-motorized recreation
Hiking. The Potlatch Canyon Trail is the only non-motorized trail within the project area. With the proximity of popular developed camping (Little Boulder Campground, natural features of interest (Potlatch River)), plus paved accessibility, this trail is extremely popular. The trail is one of the first on the Palouse Ranger District to melt out in the spring, and often remains snow free longer in the fall as compared to other trails on the district. Additionally, the presence of mature vegetation provides highly sought after shade during the summer season, resulting in extensive summer-time use as well. Finally, the trail receives moderate use in the winter time from cross- country skiers and snowshoers.
Palouse Ranger District 158 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Mountain biking and horse riding. Mountain biking and horse riding both occur on the non- motorized Potlatch Canyon Trail. While not as popular as hiking, these other uses still constitute a measurable degree of use. While allowed both on existing National Forest System Roads and the trails within the project area, mountain biking and horse riding are not particularly popular in the Little Boulder project area.
Winter Recreation. Both motorized and non-motorized winter recreation opportunities are available in the project area; however, use is light-to-moderate likely due to the fact that the area does not provide groomed ski or snowmobile trails. Nevertheless, there are small numbers of skiers and snowmobilers who enjoy an ungroomed experience, and for those users, this area provides ample opportunity.
Other recreation
Firewood gathering and berry picking. Opportunities such as firewood gathering and berry picking are both a large part of the recreation experience in the Little Boulder project area, providing cultural and practical benefits for area residents. With this area providing some of the closest access to National Forest Land in the surrounding area, pressure and competition for both firewood and huckleberries is intense. Firewood is an important heat source for residents of the surrounding communities, and berry picking along NFS Roads gives area recreationists access to the local huckleberry crop. Each of these activities has been occurring in the area for generations and is engaged in to strengthen family ties, and provide food and fuel for local residents.
Hunting. During the fall, hunting is a very popular activity within the Little Boulder project area. Species hunted in this area include elk, deer, bear, cougar, turkey, grouse and wolf.
Recreational Target Shooting. Within the Little Boulder Project area are two locations that have historically been used for recreational target shooting. They are in use regularly and shooting can be heard any day of the week in spring, summer and fall. While extremely popular, these locations have become an eyesore with a significant accumulation of trash and debris being left behind on a regular basis.
3.9.3 Regulatory Framework
3.9.3.1 Travel Management, Designated Routes and Area Motor Vehicle Use Rule 2005 (OHV Rule) and Clearwater National Forest Travel Management Plan (2012).
The final Travel Management Rule was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2005. The Rule requires each National Forest to designate roads, trails, and areas where motorized travel will be permitted, and to produce a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). To meet the direction provided in the OHV Rule, the Clearwater National Forest completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement and published a Record of Decision for Travel Planning in January 2012.
3.9.3.2 Upper Palouse ATV Project Environmental Assessment (2005)
This Environmental Assessment implemented a district-wide restriction for the following: a. Limiting OHVs to designated roads and trails b. Prohibiting cross-country travel
Palouse Ranger District 159 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.9.3.3 Forest Plan Consistency The current plan that the Clearwater National Forest is working under was published in 1987. At this time, the Forest is working to develop a new plan, however, the analysis provided in this report will utilize existing information from the 1987 plan. The Clearwater National Forest Plan has a number of goals, objectives and standards that apply directly to recreation, transportation, access and roads and influences both the current and future landscape of the project area.
Forest-wide management direction for Recreation – goals:
1. Provide for a range of quality outdoor recreational opportunities within a Forest environment that will meet public needs now and in the future.
2. Provide opportunity for a broad spectrum of dispersed activities with sufficient area to maintain a low user density compatible with public expectations.
Forest-wide management direction for Recreation objectives:
a. Provide a wide variety and range of dispersed recreational opportunities in a mix of approximately 60 percent roaded and 40 percent unroaded settings.
b. Maintain developed camping facilities to meet anticipated demand…
c. Meet 100 percent of the anticipated demand for dispersed recreation in unroaded land…
d. Manage dispersed recreational areas to maintain use within capacity as defined by measureable limits of acceptable change for the designated setting…
Forest-wide management direction for Recreation standards:
a. Use the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Recreation Opportunity Guide (ROG) as guides to provide a full array of recreation.
b. Emphasize “low impact” techniques in dispersed recreational areas and continue those established for wilderness to reduce management costs and resource impacts.
c. Designate areas, roads, and tracts for off-road vehicle (ORV) use in accordance with management area goals and standards…
d. Include analysis of the trails to determine whether to abandon or retain; and if retain, whether to relocate temporarily or permanently when conducting environmental analysis in areas that contain system trails.
e. Regulate use of roads, trails, and specified areas along with designating areas for ORV (Off-road Vehicle) use as per Executive Order 11644, through the Clearwater National Forest Travel Planning Direction…and in conformance with the ROS designations for specific areas.
Palouse Ranger District 160 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.9.4 Environmental Consequences Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse.
There are three main beneficial impacts of Alternative 1:
• There would be no change to the availability of recreation trails currently available to users.
• There would be the same amount of acreage available for users looking to gather personal use firewood.
• There would be no removal of forest material in Alternative 1, thereby not impacting either summer or winter recreationists with heavy large truck traffic.
Alternative 2 has the potential to create multiple adverse impacts to the recreation resource.
• There would be vegetation and fuels management activities taking place across and adjacent to various roads within the project area, creating inconveniences and potential road and/or trail closures.
• Approximately 14% of the project area would become unavailable to personal use firewood gathering.
• Impact to the public due to log truck traffic.
Potential positive benefits of Alternative 2 would include:
• Additional opportunities for berry pickers due to larger openings in forest canopy.
• Potential long-term benefits for hunters due to expected growth of browse shortly after completion of vegetation management projects.
Alternative 3 would have similar impacts as identified for Alternative 2, except that the impacts would be to a lesser degree than those described above. The positive benefits would be the same as in Alternative 2, but again, to a lesser degree than described above. This is due mainly to the reduced amount of acres proposed for treatment in this alternative.
Alternative 4 would have similar impacts as identified for Alternative 2, however these impacts would be less than both Alternatives 2 and 3. The positive benefits in Alternative 4 would be the same as described above in Alternative 2, yet these benefits would be less than described for both Alternatives 2 and 3. Again, this is due mainly to the reduced amount of acres proposed for treatment in this alternative.
1. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.
The project has the potential to affect public health and safety through the inevitable increase in heavy large truck traffic. As mentioned in this report, there are a number of well-traveled roads in the project area, many of which would likely see increased log truck traffic with implementation of this project. This would likely result in the potential for more log truck/passenger vehicle interactions and dusty roads. Additionally, the proposed fuels units across and adjacent to the
Palouse Ranger District 161 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Potlatch Canyon Trail may affect public health and safety; however, posting of trail closures during management activity should greatly assist with this potential issue.
2. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetland, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.
The Potlatch River within the project area is of physical and cultural interest to a large number of recreationists who visit the area.
3. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.
The large percentage of the project area proposed for vegetation management in Alternative 2 has potential to affect the quality of the human environment. This is due to the management activities that would likely temporarily impact opportunities for OHV use, as well as reduce the available area for personal firewood gathering and as such are likely to be controversial.
4. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.
The effects on the human environment of all alternatives involve risks that are well-known and recognized.
5. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.
There is nothing in any of the project Alternatives as proposed that relates to the recreation resource and would establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects.
6. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.
The proposed road decommissioning and/or storage activities are related to other similar actions across the Forest. This type of work when considered on a project scale may not be consequential in relation to the road system on the Forest.
7. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.
See section 3.2, Cultural Resources
8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The recreation resource has no proposed action identified in this project; therefore, this item does not apply to this resource area.
9. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. (40 CFR 1508.27)
Palouse Ranger District 162 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
None of the alternatives would violate any law or requirement for the protection of the environment.
3.9.4.1 Methodology Analysis for the recreation, trails and special uses resources included developing an understanding of current use types and use patterns in the project area. It is clear that visitors are engaging in a number of different activities such as off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, camping, non-motorized recreation (hiking, bicycling, horse riding,), winter recreation and other recreation (berry picking, hunting, firewood gathering and recreational target shooting). To address the effects of each alternative, we looked at the following issue indicators:
Off-highway vehicle (OHV) Recreation: OHV recreation continues to be a growing segment of recreation use throughout the Palouse Ranger District. To address the effects of the individual alternatives on OHV recreation, analysis focused on the following:
a. Degree of impact on roads used due to location of vegetation management activities b. Total number of road miles decommissioned, by alternative c. Total number of road miles placed into storage, by alternative d. Total number of system road miles constructed, by alternative
Camping: There are a number of opportunities for dispersed camping throughout the project area. To address the effects of the individual alternatives on camping, analysis focused on the following:
a. Total number of road miles decommissioned, by alternative b. Total number of road miles placed into storage, by alternative c. Total number of system road miles constructed, by alternative
Non-motorized recreation: Currently, non-motorized recreation activities such as hiking, mountain biking and horse riding are occurring on a moderate basis within the project area. To address the effects of the individual alternatives on non-motorized recreation, analysis focused on the following:
a. Degree of impact on trails due to location of vegetation management activities b. Total number of road miles decommissioned, by alternative c. Total number of road miles placed into storage, by alternative d. Total number of system road miles constructed, by alternative
Winter recreation: Both motorized and non-motorized winter recreation is available, yet not extremely popular within the project area. To address the effects of the individual alternatives on winter recreation, analysis focused on the following:
a. Likelihood of winter logging/haul b. Total acres of vegetation management activity, by alternative
Palouse Ranger District 163 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Other recreation: There are a number of other important recreation activities that take place throughout the project area, including berry picking, firewood gathering, hunting and recreational target shooting. To address the effects of the individual alternatives analysis focused on the following:
a. Total acres of vegetation management activity, by alternative b. Total number of road miles decommissioned, by alternative c. Total number of road miles placed into storage, by alternative d. Total number of system road miles constructed, by alternative
3.9.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1:
OHV Recreation: Under this alternative, the opportunities for OHV recreation will remain the same as exists currently, with OHVs restricted to existing National Forest System (NFS) roads that are identified as open on the Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).
Camping (Dispersed): Under the No Action Alternative, the existing dispersed camping opportunities will remain for the public, therefore there will be no change in the availability of this activity.
Non-motorized recreation:
• Hiking: Under the No Action Alternative, the existing hiking opportunities will remain for the public; therefore, there will be no change in the availability of this activity.
• Mountain biking and horse-riding: Under the No Action Alternative, the existing mountain biking and horse-riding opportunities will remain for the public; therefore, there will be no change in the availability of this activity.
Winter Recreation: Opportunities for winter recreation will remain the same with the No Action Alternative. Road access will not be altered with this alternative, thereby providing the same amount of opportunities as currently exist.
Other recreation:
• Berry picking and firewood gathering: Due to the unchanged nature of road access with the No Action Alternative, in the short-term, opportunities for berry picking and firewood gathering will remain the same. Long-term, the No Action Alternative has the potential to reduce the amount of huckleberries available for users due to the likely increase in canopy cover and the resulting shading that may limit the expansion of existing berry patches. Firewood gathering will not be impacted in the long-term due to the no-action alternative.
• Hunting: In the short-term, opportunities for hunting will remain the same with the No Action Alternative; road access will not be altered with this alternative, thereby providing the same degree of access as currently exists. However, in the
Palouse Ranger District 164 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
mid-to-long-term, continued increase in canopy cover has the potential to decrease the availability of browse for big game species, and potentially inhibit population growth of some animals that are desirable species for hunting.
• Recreational Target Shooting: Opportunities for this activity will remain the same in the No-Action alternative with no identified actions.
Alternative 2:
OHV Recreation: Under this alternative, with the proposed level of vegetation management activity, there will be a high degree of impact to OHV Recreation within the project area. Impacts will be due to a variety of factors including the likelihood of:
• Roads crossing through vegetation management units may need to be closed for some degree of time
• Recreationists may have difficulty accessing valued recreation destinations
With the identified haul routes located on most/all the major NFS Roads in the project area, there is high potential that users will be temporarily restricted from accessing various locations due to the potential for road closures. Even if roads are not closed during harvest activities, it is likely that there will be road delays in place. Finally, with the proposed level of harvest, the log-truck traffic may result in safety concerns for forest visitors.
While Alternative 2 identifies 5.2 miles of new road construction and 1.8 miles of non-system roads added to the system, these roads will be open to Administrative Use only. Additionally, the 10.2 miles of temporary roads that are included in this alternative will be decommissioned after harvest activities. Therefore, it is expected that these proposed actions will not result in any impact to OHV recreation in the project area.
Finally, attention will need to be given to the development of visual screens/buffers within all units slated for logging. If visual screens and buffers are not adequate, and openings in the forest are clearly noticeable, the likelihood of user-developed routes being created increases substantially. Therefore, with the scale of harvest activity proposed in this alternative, the potential for new user created trails appearing on the landscape is high.
Camping (Developed and Dispersed): Under the Proposed Action alternative, there would be moderate impacts to dispersed camping within the project area. The biggest impact will be short- to-mid-term with the expected dust and noise due to log truck activity. Minimal impact will occur due to project road decommissioning. The only potential impact to developed camping at Little Boulder Creek Campground will be increased noise due to log truck traffic on nearby roads, particularly NFS Road 1963 (Park Rd.)
Non-motorized recreation:
• Hiking: Alternative 2 proposes 3 fuels units (F56, F57 and F58) that are both adjacent to and go across the non-motorized Potlatch Canyon Trail. The fuels treatments as proposed may include multiple components, including thinning of understory vegetation and prescribed fire. While it is unclear exactly how long it may take for these treatments to be implemented, it is very likely that this activity will created significant impacts to users of this trail system, resulting in trail closure of uncertain duration. However, all
Palouse Ranger District 165 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
attempts will be made to ensure that closures occur during historically lower visitation time periods.
• Mountain biking and horse-riding: There will be similar effects to these user groups as described above for hikers.
Winter Recreation: The timing of material removal along NFS Roads will determine the potential effects to winter recreation in the project area. Summer removal will not affect winter recreation at all. With the relatively light winter recreation use in this area, it is expected that the impact of winter hauling (if it is to occur at all) will be minimal.
Other recreation:
• Berry picking and firewood gathering: Proposed vegetation management, of approximately 1,500 acres in this alternative will result in impacts, both positive and negative, to these activities. Regarding berry picking, the proposed regeneration harvest and fuels activities have the potential to increase availability of huckleberry crops, thereby providing a huge benefit to recreationists. Berry bushes have the propensity to thrive in newly opened landscapes and would likely do so in treated units throughout the project area.
o Firewood gathering will be highly impacted with implementation of Alternative 2. If moved forward as proposed, approximately 14% of the project area will become unavailable for personal use firewood gathering. It is important to note though, that it expected that project implementation will consist of multiple timber sales. This will result in only a portion of the vegetation management work taking place in any one year, which will (to a degree) lessen the immediate impacts to firewood gatherers. Nonetheless, with the Little Boulder Project site one of the closest and most accessible locations in the area for this activity, impacts may be felt throughout the surrounding communities.
• Hunting: Alternative 2 may result in a short-term impact to hunting in the project area. This would be due to the increased level of activity from timber and fuels management, including the truck activity on area roads, all of which may impact the availability of game. However in the mid-to-long- term, the proposed management activities have the potential to benefit hunting opportunities, through a potential increase in browse material, thereby potentially increasing populations of some desirable species.
• Recreational target shooting: With proposed quarry development in Alternative 2, there will be noticeable impacts to users who engage in this activity. Positively, development of Quarry #2 may result in enhance shooting opportunities for the public. Enlargement of the quarry will provide users with better opportunities for both short and long-range shooting. Negatively though, with reclamation of Quarry #1, there exists potential that the lone remaining shooting location (Quarry #2) will become busier.
Alternative 3:
Palouse Ranger District 166 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
OHV Recreation: While the same types of impacts will be felt to OHV recreation with Alternative 3 as identified above in Alternative 2, they will be felt to a lesser degree. This is primarily due to the reduction in number of acres proposed for harvest in this alternative as.
Fewer acres of harvest would result in less truck traffic, as well as the likelihood of fewer road closures and/or closures of shorter duration.
Camping (Developed and dispersed): Similar types of impacts on camping will be experienced in this Alternative as in Alternative 2, however due to the reduction in proposed acres of vegetation management impacts will be less than those identified in Alternative 2.
Non-motorized recreation:
• Hiking: The fuels treatment units proposed in this alternative are the same as those proposed in Alternative 2, therefore the likely degree of impact as identified above in Alternative 2 will be similar in this alternative.
• Mountain biking and horse-riding: There will be similar effects to these user groups as described above for hikers.
Winter Recreation: The potential effects on winter recreation are similar to those outlined for Alternative 2.
Other recreation:
• Berry picking and firewood gathering: Alternative 3 will likely result in the same beneficial impacts on berry picking as in Alternative 2, but to a lesser degree. This is due to fewer acres being treated in this alternative as compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 will reduce the availability of personal use firewood gathering opportunities for users, however it will be to a much smaller degree than in Alternative 2.
• Hunting: Under this alternative, in the short-term, there would be a low level of impacts to hunting within the project area. However, there is likely to be long- term benefits to hunters in the project area due to the post-harvest growth of browse; this beneficial result though, is less than that identified in Alternative 2 due to reduced acreage of proposed harvest.
• Recreational target shooting: The same level and type of Quarry development as identified in Alternative 2 is outlined in this alternative; therefore, the impacts are the same as described above in Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 OHV Recreation: Alternative 4 would result in a moderate degree of impact, with fewer impacts to users than in Alternatives 2 and 3 due to fewer acres of proposed harvest treatment and fewer log trucks on NFS Roads. There would be the potential for fewer potential road closures and/or closures of shorter duration with this Alternative.
Construction of both new and temporary roads is similar to that noted in Alternative 2 and is not expected to have any impact on OHV recreation.
Palouse Ranger District 167 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Watershed improvement activities remain the same with this alternative as in Alternative 2, therefore, the impacts to OHV recreation are likely to be similar.
Camping (Developed and dispersed): Similar types of impacts on camping will be experienced in this Alternative as in Alternatives 2 and 3, however due to the reduction in proposed acres of vegetation management impacts will be less than the other action Alternatives.
Non-motorized recreation:
• Hiking: The fuels treatment units proposed in this alternative are the same as those proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, therefore the likely degree of impact as identified above in the other action Alternatives will be similar.
• Mountain biking and horse-riding: There will be similar effects to these user groups as described above for hikers.
Winter Recreation: The potential effects on winter recreation are similar to those outlined for Alternatives 2 and 3.
Other Recreation:
• Berry Picking and firewood gathering: Alternative 4 will likely result in the same beneficial impacts on berry picking as in Alternative 2, but to a lesser degree. This is due to fewer acres being treated in this alternative as compared to both Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 will reduce the availability of personal use firewood gathering opportunities for users, however it will be to a much degree than in Alternatives 2 and 3.
• Hunting: Under this alternative, in the short-term, there would be a lower level of impacts to hunting within the project area (due to fewer log trucks operating in the area. However, there is likely to be long-term benefits to hunters in the project area due to the post-harvest growth of browse; this beneficial result though, is less than that identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 due to reduced acreage of proposed harvest.
• Recreational target shooting: The same level and type of Quarry development as identified in Alternative 2 is outlined in this alternative; therefore, the impacts are the same as described above in Alternative 2.
3.9.4.3 Cumulative Effects Geographic Boundary: The boundary evaluated for cumulative effects of recreation encompasses the Little Boulder project area as well as a sub watershed of the Middle Fork Potlatch River Watershed (1706030609): a. Hog Meadow Creek – Potlatch Creek (170603060902)
Time frame: The time frame for the evaluation of cumulative effects is 10 years following implementation of the project. This timeframe is used because after 10 years, the public’s adjustment to access changes would be complete and closed and decommissioned roads would be adequately revegetated to provide natural closures to roads closed year long.
Past, Present and Foreseeable Actions: The Little Boulder project area has been home to a variety of management activities throughout the mid-to-late 20th Century and continuing to this
Palouse Ranger District 168 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
day. Timber removal has been part of the landscape, with active and engaged management by the District for many years.
Road are a large part of the landscape in this project area, with over 40 miles of NFS Roads present. The road system was developed in the 1950s, and primarily developed to facilitate management of district timber resources.
Additional activities that have taken place in the past and have contributed to the management of the area includes grazing, mining, treatment of noxious weeds and recreational trail use. Furthermore, developed and dispersed camping, berry picking, hunting, firewood gathering and recreational target shooting have all evolved in the area throughout time given availability and access.
It is expected that each of these activities will occur into the future, with some degree of natural ebbs and flows of use depending on a variety of factors, including the availability of various resources (big game, available timber, forage for grazing, etc.).
Due to the status of recreation budgets, it is unlikely that any large scale recreational development will occur within the project area. In fact, at this time, there is nothing planned into the future. It is expected that Forest Service work in the area will only be annual and deferred maintenance of recreation sites and trails. Regardless of the alternative that is chosen for this project, this maintenance work will still occur.
Palouse Ranger District 169 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.10 ROADS/ TRANSPORTATION 3.10.1 Introduction
3.10.1.1 Issues Addressed The Little Boulder travel analysis addresses the need to for the type and location of roads to adequately manage the land. More information about the effects of roads to resources (i.e., hydrology, fisheries, soils, etc.) can be found in specific resource sections within chapter 3.
3.10.2 Affected Environment
3.10.2.1 Scope of Analysis The Little Boulder analysis area for transportation is the project boundary, encompassing 12, 425 acres including approximately 2,000 acres of private land predominately owned by Potlatch Corporation.
3.10.2.2 Existing Condition The Little Boulder travel analysis addresses the need to construct permanent roads in better locations to adequately manage the land and build upon the recent modification to the transportation system which resulted from the Cherry Dinner project signed in 2008.
County and Private Roads
Currently, there are approximately 17.5 miles of road owned and administered either by the North Latah County HW District (NLCHD), Potlatch Corporation, or other private land owners within the project area.
Road 1963, Park Road, is the major collector route through the project area, and is under the Jurisdiction of the NLCHD. At approximately Mile Post 2.4, there is an 80’ steel bridge that crosses the Potlatch River. This bridge has a weight restriction that prevents loaded log trucks from legally crossing the bridge. Current the NLCHD is planning to replace the bridge however it is not clear when the project will be complete. There is an alternative haul route however it would add significant transportation costs to the project.
Forest Road 3308 (McGarry Butte) is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) from mile post 0 to mile post 0.6. The Forest Service has an easement across this segment. From approximately mile post 1.7 to mile post 2.1, the road goes through private land. The Forest Service currently needs to perfect title to the right-of-way through this segment.
There are several roads on the east and south-east side of the project area owned by Potlatch Corporation. The Forest Service may need these routes for timber haul. If these routes are required, the FS would obtain either long term or a temporary legal access (permit). This will be determined after the planning document (EIS) has been finalized.
Function Class and Service Life
All Forest Service roads are identified by their Function Class and corresponding Maintenance Levels. The three types of function class are; Arterial, Collector, and Local. An Arterial road is a high use road that serves as a major route to other roads. Highway 8 is just outside of the analysis boundary and is the closest Arterial road to the Analysis area. A Collector road is a major road
Palouse Ranger District 170 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement that accesses Local roads. Collector roads have adequate road geometry to accommodate large and varying traffic volumes. They typically have aggregate surfacing and have higher design speeds. Road 1963 (Park Road) is the main collector road through the analysis area. The road is under the Jurisdiction of the North Latah County Highway District.
Local roads are typically single lane, aggregate or native surfaced roads with turnouts. They have tighter road alignments and typically have seasonal restrictions. Local roads consist of 100% of the Forest Service System Roads or 40.62 miles within the analysis area.
Maintenance Level
Maintenance levels describe the level of maintenance and road standard that is applied to each individual road. The Forest Service designates Maintenance Levels into two categories; Operational and Objective Maintenance Level. Objective Maintenance Level is the planned maintenance level of a road. The Operational Maintenance Level reflects the actual maintenance level of the road. The maintenance levels vary from Level 5 which is a high standard two lane road to Level 1 which is a road in storage not open to vehicle traffic. There are no Level 4 or 5 roads in the project. The following tables show the existing operational and objective maintenance levels for the Forest Service System Roads within the project boundary.
Table 3.10.0 Existing Operational Maintenance Level
Operational Maintenance Level Miles Level 1 (Storage) 23.68 Level 2 (High Clearance Vehicles) 16.94 Level 3 (1 Lane Passenger Car) 0 Level 4 (2 Lane Aggregate) 0
Level 5 (2 Lane Paved) 0 Total 40.62
Table 3.10.1 Existing Objective Maintenance Level
Objective Maintenance Level Miles
Level 1 (Storage) 14.58 Level 2 (High Clearance Vehicles) 19.29 Level 3 (1 Lane Passenger Car) 6.66 Level 4 (2 Lane Aggregate) 0
Level 5 (2 Lane Paved) 0 Total 40.62
A detailed table of all roads within the analysis area, with length, function class and maintenance level can be found in the appendix of the Little Boulder Travel Analysis.
Palouse Ranger District 171 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Access Management
The Forest Service manages vehicle access on roads and trails for various reasons: protection of soil and water resources, wildlife security, reduction of road maintenance, and to avoid conflict with other users.
There is a Forest Supervisor’s order prohibiting use of any motor vehicle on other than designated routes. There are some exemptions to this restriction such as travel to dispersed sites and use of oversnow vehicles. All of the current designated routes on the Palouse Ranger District are listed in the Clearwater National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (7/2016). This map identifies all road, trails and areas designated for motor vehicle use under CFR 212.51.
18.11 miles or 45% of the System Roads in the project area have a yearlong restriction to motor vehicles. A yearlong restriction typically applies to the public, allowing for administrative use as needed. Often, these roads are in storage and receive little maintenance.
10.23 miles or 25% of the road mileage in the project area do not have any vehicle restrictions. An example of this would be the Schoolhouse Gulch, Road 4761 which is a main road through the project. This road and others without access restrictions are the primary routes within the project area. These roads have higher maintenance levels and designed for yearlong use, but are often snow covered during winter months.
6.85 miles or 17% of the road mileage in the project area has yearlong closures to full size vehicles but are open to vehicles less than 50” wide (ATV’s, motorcycles, etc.). A road with this type of restriction are Road 3306-C Little Boulder C (Open to vehicles less than 50”, OYS).
5.44 miles or 12% of the roads in the project area have some type of seasonal restriction. Road 4722 (South Fork Little Boulder Creek) has a restriction to full size vehicles except from 10/1 – 6/15. This is an example of a restriction in place to minimize damage caused by vehicle use in wet conditions.
Below is a table showing the existing condition of access restrictions on Forest Service System Roads within the project area.
Table 3.10.2 Existing Access Restrictions Existing Access Restrictions Miles Percent of System Roads
OSA-1 (Open Seasonally to all Vehicles) 5.15 13%
OSS-3 (Open Seasonally to Small Vehicles) 0.29 1%
OYA (Open Yearlong to All Vehicles) 10.23 25%
OYS (Open Yearlong to Vehicles < 50”) 6.85 17%
RYA (Restricted Yearlong to All Vehicles) 18.11 45%
Total 40.62
Palouse Ranger District 172 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.10.3 Regulatory Framework
3.10.3.1 Forest Plan Consistency Forest wide Management Direction with regard to roads and transportation will be met in accordance with the 1987 Forest Plan. The goal for roads can be found on page II-3; objectives on page II-7, and standards on page II-33.
3.10.4 Environmental Consequences
3.10.4.1 Methodology Existing roads under Forest Service jurisdiction within the project area were reviewed by an interdisciplinary team; both authorized and unauthorized roads were evaluated. Roads that no longer served a purpose, were redundant, or had unacceptable effects on adjacent natural resources were recommended for decommissioning. Roads that were not anticipated to be used in the near future but would still serve a function were recommended for storage. Unauthorized roads that were expected to be beneficial to the area transportation system were recommended for inclusion in the Forest Service authorized road system, the remaining unauthorized roads were recommended for decommissioning.
As described earlier, the Cherry Dinner EIS had a thorough travel analysis that addressed road and trail concerns within the majority of the Little Boulder project area. The Cherry Dinner EIS included approximately 23 miles of road decommissioning and 22 miles of road storage. The majority of these roads were located in the Little Boulder project area. Due to the recent road storage and decommissioning projects that were included in the Cherry Dinner Travel Analysis, it was not necessary to recommend many new roads for decommissioning or storage within the Little Boulder project area.
3.10.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1:
This alternative would take no action with regard to the National Forest transportation system within the project area. The 5.2 miles of new system road would not be constructed and the 0.3 miles of road would not be decommissioned. Travel management in the analysis area would remain the same and the minimum road system identified in the Little Boulder Travel Analysis would not be implemented. Due to limited funds, only the main travel routes within the project area would receive maintenance within a 3 to 5 year cycle. Other system roads with in the project area may receive maintenance if they are determined to be a public safety hazard or are causing significant resource damage, however, these roads are determined on a case by case basis and it is difficult to estimate road miles maintained for these roads.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Road Construction, Reconstruction and Maintenance
Alternative 2 and 4 would implement the preferred minimum road system as recommended by the Little Boulder travel analysis. Alternatives 2 & 4 propose to construct approximately 5.2 miles of local standard road to the National Forest Transportation System. The road locations would be built near ridges or mid-slope to prevent water crossings and draws as much as possible. The alignment, grades, road widths, road template slopes and drainage features would be of the most
Palouse Ranger District 173 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
current design standards for a Local class road. A local class road attempts to follow the terrain as much as possible thus limiting the excavation and clearing required. The alignment is more sinuous and the grades can roll or have steep pitches.
Alternative 3 proposes to use existing roads within the project area. 14.9 miles of road would be reconditioned and 8.2 miles would be reconstructed. Temporary roads would be built to access timber units but would be decommissioned after the project.
Road maintenance work consists of grading roadbeds, cleaning drainage structures, cutting roadside vegetation and removing small slumps and slides.
Road reconstruction work typically involves reshaping the road prism, stabilizing the road subgrade, culvert installation, road surfacing, and heavy brushing. The Forest Service identified the road maintenance needs and they are summarized in the following table for each alternative. A detailed list of the road work is found in the Little Boulder Travel Analysis.
Ruby Creek Crossing
All alternatives consider the proposal to install a vented ford structure on Road 3308, where the road crosses Ruby Creek. Currently there is a low water crossing at this location. The vented ford design would allow vehicle traffic to pass over the stream during low flows, and overtop during high flows, without damage to the structure or impact to the stream
Quarry Reclamation and Development
Two quarries sites in the project area will be further developed to provide material for road maintenance and also to mitigate safety concerns near Forest Road 4761. This proposed work is consistent between all alternatives.
Quarry #1 is located at MP 0.0 on Road 4761. The quarry has a rock vertical wall on the north boundary and is a popular shooting destination. North of the quarry is the Potlatch River and the Potlatch Canyon Trail. The Potlatch Canyon Trail is a popular recreation destination and is less than 100 yards from the quarry. The quarry will be further developed and reclaimed to provide rock material for road maintenance and also address the safety concerns of the shooting activity.
Quarry #2 is located at MP 0.4 on Road 4761. Quarry #2 will be further developed towards the east. Estimated area of disturbance is 2 Acres. It is anticipated that some material from Quarry #2 will be placed at Quarry #1 for reclamation purposes.
Access Management
For alternatives 2 and 4, the access management recommendations would be the same. The new system roads proposed would be restricted yearlong to motorized use (RYA). Alternative 3 is very similar to alternatives 2 and 4, however this alternative does not propose any new road construction and proposes 2.1 miles of non-system roads be decommissioned after the timber sale.
The following tables summarize the road density, road activities, and access management recommendations from the Little Boulder Travel Analysis.
Palouse Ranger District 174 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3.10.3 Road Density of the Little Boulder Project by Alternatives Road Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative (Miles) (miles) (miles) 4 (miles)
Total Road Miles (FS & non FS) 60.3 65.2 58.2 65.2
Total FS System & Non System Road 42.8 47.6 40.6 47.6 Miles
Total Road Density (Road Miles/ 19.43 3.1 3.4 3.0 3.4 Square mile)
FS Road Density (FS Miles/ 16.25 Square 2.6 2.9 2.5 2.9 Miles)
Table 3.10.4 Road Actions of the Little Boulder Project by Alternative Road Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (miles) (miles) (miles) (miles)
Road Reconditioning 0 14.9 14.9 14.9
Road Reconstruction 0 9 8.2 9
New Specified Road Construction 0 5.2 0 5.2
Non-System Road added to FS System 0 1.8 0 1.8
Non-System Road decommissioning 0 0.3 2.1 0.3
Temporary Road Construction 0 10.2 11.6 9.9
Table 3.10.5 Proposed Access of the Little Boulder project by Alternative Proposed Access Alternatives Existing (miles) Alt 2 & 4 (miles) Alt 3 (miles)
OSA-1 (Open Seasonally to all Vehicles) 5.15 5.15 5.15
OSS-3 (Open Seasonally to Small 0.29 0.99 0.99 Vehicles)
OYA (Open Yearlong to All Vehicles) 10.23 8.8 8.8
OYS (Open Yearlong to Vehicles < 50”) 6.85 8.28 8.28
RYA (Restricted Yearlong to All Vehicles) 18.11 24.4 17.4
Total 40.6 47.6 40.6
Palouse Ranger District 175 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.10.4.3 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for road transportation is the boundary of the Little Boulder analysis area and the National Forest System Roads and unauthorized roads wholly or partially within that boundary. It is at this project level scale that the proposed action and purpose and need can be addressed and analyzed with the appropriate level of detail.
Alternative 1: The cumulative effect of implementing Alternative 1 – no action would result in a transportation system that would remain static; road improvements through proposed reconstruction and relocation would not be implemented. An older, dated system would remain in place, road maintenance costs would not be reduced and a minimum road system would not be established.
Alternatives 2 & 4: Alternatives 2 & 4 would start the trend toward a complete road system. Historic roads that no longer serve a purpose would be returned to natural resource production. Proposed reconstruction and road maintenance in these alternatives would address deferred maintenance items which have been accruing over time thus easing future maintenance responsibilities, and the proposed new construction would allow for long term forest management of areas where access is unavailable.
Alternative 3: Alternative 3 would use temporary roads that would be decommissioned after the project. This alternative would not address the long term need to access land previously accessible before the Cherry Dinner road decommissioning projects (Road 3306). Future projects would be left to build temporary roads in the same locations, increasing overall transportation costs and impacts to the land.
Palouse Ranger District 176 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.11 SOILS 3.11.1 Introduction
3.11.1.1 Issues Addressed • Key Issue: Soil stability and erosion hazards: Effects to soil conditions
• Issue Indicator: Acres of proposed activity areas with potentially unstable soils and high erosion hazards
Surface erosion (e.g. sheet, rill, gully erosion) and mass wasting erosion events (e.g. landslides, debris torrents/avalanches, rotational slumps) impact soil productivity, water quality and channel morphology. Soil erosion can result in decreased soil productivity at a site due to the loss of surface soils which contain higher organic matter and volcanic ash content compared to the subsurface soils. Removal of vegetation and/or ground disturbance associated with timber harvest, road construction, or prescribed fire can increase erosion on certain landtypes. Six road- related landslides are known to have occurred during or following the 1995-1996 rain-on-snow flood events.
• Analysis Issue: Soils - Effects to soil productivity.
• Issue Indicator: Number of treatment units requiring unit-specific special design measures to meet Region 1 Soil Quality Standards (SQS)
Past management activities (timber harvest, roads, mining, and grazing) in the project area have caused soil disturbance (e.g. compaction, displacement, erosion, loss of organic matter) and decreased soil productivity. Surface soils in the project area, and particularly those with intact ash-influenced surface soil (i.e. ash cap), are fundamental in supporting site productivity due to much greater water infiltration rates and moisture- and nutrient-holding capacities than underlying soil horizons. The ashcap and ash-derived soils common in much of the project area have low bearing capacity and therefore are highly susceptible to compaction, displacement and loss of site productivity. The Region 1 Soil Quality Standards (R1 SQS) (USDA 2014) require that detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) does not exceed 15% of an activity area and that coarse woody debris (CWD) retention is appropriate to the habitat type. In areas that exceed 15% DSD, the combined detrimental effects of the current project (implementation and restoration) should not exceed the DSD levels present before the activity and activities should be directed toward a net improvement in soil quality.
3.11.2 Affected Environment
3.11.2.1 Scope of Analysis The Little Boulder project area (approx. 12,425 acres) is located primarily in the Hog Meadow Creek-Potlatch Creek and East Fork Potlatch River subwatersheds in the subbasin on the Palouse Ranger District. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the soils resource are assessed within each individual activity area, defined by individual harvest and fuels treatment unit boundaries and associated skid trails, landings and temporary roads. Productivity effects are spatially static and productivity in one location does not influence productivity in another location, thus it is appropriate to spatially limit the geographic boundary to the activity area. (USDA 2011).
Palouse Ranger District 177 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Impaired productivity due to management actions can take several decades to recover, depending on soil texture, depth of compaction and extent of displacement, erosion or loss of organic material (Powers et al. 2005; Froehlich et al. 1983). Impacts from tree harvest and/or prescribed burning are considered to extend at least 20 years after the action. Within proposed activity areas, this analysis considers in detail the impacts from 1960s to present, as well as 20–50 years into the future. Legacy impacts from railroad and horse logging that occurred from approximately 1918- 1929 are also included in the soils analysis and productivity assessments.
3.11.2.2 Existing Condition
Soils across the project area vary by slope, aspect, parent material, texture, depth, vegetative cover, and microclimate. Soils are generally deep (45 to +60 inches) and well-drained with volcanic Mazama ash cap or mixed-ash topsoil overlying coarser sandy or gravelly loam subsoil. Ash and loess dominated surface horizons are more common and typically deeper on northern to and eastern aspects. Surface soils on southern aspect slopes often lack a distinct Mazama ash cap or mixed-ash horizon, but are instead commonly composed of weathered loess or basalt parent materials. Poorly drained soils with higher subsurface clay content and perched water tables are common in swales, valley bottoms and depositional areas.
Volcanic ash deposited by wind after eruptions in the Cascade Range has greatly influenced the local landscape and soils. The most influential eruption was that of Mt. Mazama (~6,700 years ago) located in southwestern Oregon at Crater Lake. Soils weathered and developed from volcanic ash are fundamental to the overall high productivity of the project area due to very high infiltration rates and water-holding capacities compared to the coarser-grained soils weathered from bedrock parent materials. Ash-dominated topsoils can also moderate some of the instability associated with subsoils in the project area.
Subsoils in the project area are primarily derived from Border Zone metamorphic rocks (38% of project area). These subsoils have a mica content that can contribute to higher clay contents, higher mass wasting potentials and lower bearing strengths compared to other subsoils in the project area. Alluvial soils weathered from Palouse loess or Columbia River basalts are found on 29% of the project area. These soils often have a naturally dense fragipan layers that can result in perched water tables and regeneration challenges. These alluvial soils with missing ashcaps are often droughty and can have a high compaction potential. Subsoils derived from Belt series quartzites occur on 18% of the project area. Subsoils weathered from Columbia River basalt and Palouse loess parent material are found on 10% of the project area. About 5% of the project area has subsoils derived from undifferentiated, typically weakly weathered parent materials.
Ecological land units used to describe and evaluate the project are the larger landscape-scale landtype associations (LTAs) and smaller-scale landtypes (Wilson et al. 1983). Landtype associations and landtypes are mainly defined and delineated by similarities in soils, landforms, geologic parent materials and plant associations. These factors affect biotic distributions, hydrologic function, soil erosion and productivity, natural disturbance regimes and other ecological processes. The major LTA landforms in the project area are low-relief rolling hills (67%) and colluvial midslopes (28%). The distribution of LTAs in the project area is displayed in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Palouse Ranger District 178 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3.11.0 Landtype Association Composition for the Little Boulder project area.
% of Project LTA Description LTA Groups Area Alluvium and Palouse Silts, Low-relief, Rolling Hills, Non-fragipan Non-umbric low-relief rolling 48% Belt Series, Low-relief, Rolling Hills, Non-umbric hills Border Zone, Low-relief Rolling Hills, Non-umbric Belt series, Colluvial Midslopes Border Zone, Colluvial Midslopes Colluvial Midslopes a 28% Stream Breaklands Basalt, Colluvial Midslopes-dry Alluvium and Palouse Silts, Low-relief, Rolling Hills, Umbric low-relief rolling hills 19% Fragipan Basalt/Loess Alluvial Deposits Low elevation stream bottoms; 4% alluvial deposits Low Elevation (<4500') Stream Bottoms & Meadows
Mass Wasted Areas Mass Wasted 0.5%
a Approximately 1000 acres of breakland landforms exist in the project area. The Forest LTA grouping includes these areas within the colluvial midslope group.
Low relief rolling hills are gently rolling uplands areas with slopes ranging from 10-30%. This LTA group occupies 67% of the project area. Topography is generally flat to rolling. Soils are a result of deep chemical weathering. Because of the deep soils and gentle topography, these contain some of the most productive sites on the Forest. Soils in this LTA can also have dense water-restricting layers with clay accumulation (fragipans) that can result in high water tables. Umbric surface layers (relatively high organic matter, low base nutrient content, and low pH) that support very moist habitat types are also common. Landtype erosion hazards are generally low to moderate except in areas with alluvial soils weathered from Palouse loess or Columbia River basalts that have high subsurface and parent material erosion potential. When excavations expose these subsoils, they are subject to severe rutting and compaction from machine or vehicle traffic when wet. Road cutbank sloughing and ditch erosion can also be a maintenance problem in these areas.
Colluvial midslopes are transitional landforms with slopes typically ranging from 30 to 60%. This LTA group occupies 28% of the project area. Soil creep, surface erosion, and mass wasting events are the dominant erosional processes. Ridges and convex to straight (planar) sidelopes are common and have overall low to moderate erosion hazards. Concave areas that accumulate surface and subsurface water have increased potential for surface erosion and mass wasting. Specifically, steep and dissected areas with Border zone parent materials containing micaceous schists have high mass wasting potential. The stream breakland landforms included in this LTA grouping generally have slopes over 60% and exceed 100% in some areas. Soil stability and mass wasting concerns are typically high in breakland areas, due to steep slopes and complex, dissected topography.
Palouse Ranger District 179 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Streambottoms, alluvial deposits (4% of project area) are predominantly alluvial, and consist of floodplains, old stream terraces, meadows and frost pockets. These are meandering, low gradient streams that are moderately to very sensitive to changes in flow and sediment regime. Many of these areas have saturated soils and wetland vegetation. Although mass wasting and surface erosion hazard ratings are generally low, there is a risk of sedimentation from roads in close proximity to streams due to high parent material erosion hazards.
Mass wasted areas occupy 0.5% of the project area. These areas have already experienced mass wasting events (e.g. landslides, debris torrents/avalanches, rotational slumps). Some of these have arrived at their final, stable angle of repose, but other areas retain a high potential for further movement. The areas have a combination of wet areas and dry scarp slopes.
Figure 3.11.0 Project Area Landtype Associations
Soil Stability and Erosion Hazards Table 2 displays the potential for mass wasting, debris avalanches, surface erosion, subsurface erosion and parent material erosion according to landtypes within the project area. Landtype erosional characteristics are based on the Land System Inventory for the Clearwater National Forest (Wilson et al 1983).
Palouse Ranger District 180 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table3.11.1 LTA Group Erosion Hazards in project area
LTA Group Mass Debris Surface Subsurface Parent Material Wasting Avalanche Erosion Erosion Erosion (% of area) Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Low-relief, Rolling L (non-umbric), M, L (non- Hills (67%) L, M L L, M H (umbric) umbric) H, M (umbric) Colluvial Midslopes H, L L L, M L, M M, L (28%) Low elevation stream bottoms; L L L L, M L, H alluvial deposits (4%) Mass wasted VH M L M M (0.05%) (VH: very high; H: high; M: moderate; L: low; dominant rating listed first).
Past management activities have influenced the existing soil stability and erosion potential in the project area, with roads having the greatest impacts. Harvest operations and motorized recreation are other activities that have increased soil erosion and instability. Natural erosion and mass wasting events (i.e. landslides, debris flows) have occurred and will continue to occur in the project area. These events, often associated with fire disturbance and intense weather events, have shaped the project area landscape.
During storm and flood events in the 1995-1996 period, over 860 landslides occurred across the Clearwater National Forest, with high frequency in the vicinity of the project area. A survey was conducted to review these landslides and five factors were identified to assess the inherent risk of landslides on the Clearwater National Forest (McClelland et al. 1997). The analysis was based upon an inventory of landslides that occurred on the Forest during storm events in the fall of 1995 and the winter/spring period of 1996. Six road-related landslides are known to have occurred during or following the 1995-1996 rain-on-snow flood events in the project area. The information reported by McClelland was modified, based on corrections made to the landslide database (Clearwater National Forest 2000). Table 3 displays landslide risk factors and frequency of slide occurrence determined by the 1997 study. The five factors, which confirmed previous findings by Megahan et al (1977) are: slope angle, geologic parent material, landform, aspect and elevation. These factors are commonly used to assess landslide hazard and slope stability on the Forest.
Table 3.11.2 Landslide Hazard Factors, Frequency of Slide Occurrence and Hazard Risk Rating (McClelland et al. 1997).
Factor Type Rating Border Zone metamorphics (1.06 slides/1000acres) High Belt Series metasediments (0.56 slides/1000 acres) Moderate Geologic Idaho Batholith granitics (0.28 slides/1000 acres) Parent Moderate Material Volcanics (0.16 slides/1000 acres) Low Sediments (0.16 slides/1000 acres) Low
Palouse Ranger District 181 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3001-3500’(1.66 slides/1000 acres) High less than 2000’ (1.65 slides/1000 acres) High 2501’-3000’ (1.48 slides/1000 acres) High 3501’-4000’ (1.10 slides/1000 acres) Moderate Elevation 2001’-2500’ (0.90 slides/1000acres) Moderate 4001’-4500’ (0.85 slides/1000 acres) Moderate 4501’-5000’ (0.50 slides/1000 acres) Low above 5000’ (few) Low south (21.8% of the slides) High southwest (20.8%) High Aspect west (16.8%) Moderate
southeast (14.9%) Moderate Northwest, north, northeast, east (few) Low Greater than 56% (2.00 slides/1000 acres) High 46-50% slopes (0.73 slides/1000 acres) Moderate Slope Angle 51-55% slopes (0.59 slides/1000 acres) Moderate 41-45% slopes (0.43 slides/1000 acres) Low less than 35% (few) Low mass wasted slopes (1.72 slides/1000 acres) High breaklands (1.12 slides/1000 acres) High Landform stream terraces/valley bottoms (0.70 slides/1000 acres) Moderate colluvial midslopes (0.54 slides/1000 acres) Moderate low-relief hills, frost-churned ridges (few) Low
Geology, slope angle, and landform are considered to be the most important factors since elevation and aspect generally impact climatic conditions (whether the precipitation occurred as rain or snow) and the storm direction.
Subsoils in the project area are primarily derived from Border Zone metamorphic rocks (38% of project area). These subsoils have a mica content that can contribute to higher clay contents, higher mass wasting potentials and lower bearing strengths compared to other subsoils in the project area. Alluvial sediments and volcanics weathered from Palouse loess or Columbia River basalts are found on 29% of the project area. These soils often have a naturally dense fragipan layers that can result in perched water tables and regeneration challenges. These alluvial soils with missing ashcaps are often droughty and can have a high compaction potential. Subsoils derived from Belt series quartzites occur on 18% of the project area. Subsoils weathered from Columbia River basalt and Palouse loess parent material are found on 10% of the project area. About 5% of the project area has subsoils derived from undifferentiated, typically weakly weathered parent materials.
The geologic parent material of the Little Boulder project area is comprised of Border Zone metamorphics (38% of project area), alluvium (sediments) from Palouse loess and Columbia River basalt volcanics (39%), Belt series metasediments (18%), and undifferentiated parent material (5%) (Wilson et al 1983). The soil stability and landslide hazards associated with Border Zone metamorphics is high, with Belt series metasediments is moderate, and with alluvial sediments and volcanics is low.
Palouse Ranger District 182 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Slope angles in the project area range from <1% to >100%. Slope angle is closely associated with landform, since certain landforms typically have steeper slopes than others. Low-relief, rolling hills are relatively stable with slopes ranging from 10-30%. Colluvial midslope landforms, which generally have slopes ranging from 30-60%, have overall moderate stability hazards, but do contain high hazard areas on steeper slopes, concave areas, southerly aspects, thin soils, and unstable parent materials. Mass wasted slopes and breakland areas (typically >60% slope) are the most unstable landforms in the project area.
Aspects vary widely across the project area. South, southwest, west and southeast aspects have high landslide hazard ratings, based on previous landslide occurrence on the forest. North, northeast, northwest, and east aspects have low landslide hazard ratings due to the lower frequency of slides observed on these aspects.
Elevations within the project area range from 2160 feet on the Potlatch River at the southwest project boundary to 4160 feet on the watershed divide between Little Boulder and Boulder Creek (southern project boundary). Overall, most of the project area is in the high to moderate landslide hazard elevation range.
Soil Productivity Soil productivity is defined as the inherent capacity of the soil resource, including the physical, chemical, and biological components, to support resource management objectives. It includes the growth of specific plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities (USDA 2014).
Past management activities have impacted the existing productivity of the soils in the project area. Decreased productivity in the project area is mostly the result of soil compaction, displacement and erosion on roads and skid trails. Down coarse woody material (CWD) is generally low and below recommended amounts in areas with previous activities due to past timber and slash removal.
Compaction, displacement and productivity Soil compaction can result from the use of mechanized equipment during harvest practices. This often leads to a decrease in total porosity and increased soil strength and volumetric water content, which can result in increased water runoff and soil erosion, less rooting volume, and poor aeration (Curran et al. 2005; Page-Dumroese et al. 2006a, Greacen et al. 1980). The effects of compaction on soil properties can lead to decreased plant growth and soil productivity (Powers 1990, Froehlich et al. 1985).
Researchers have also found the detrimental effects of compaction on productivity to be variable in duration and extent, dependent on soil texture and other site specific factors affecting air and water balance in the soil (Curran et al. 2005; Powers et al. 2004; Page-Dumroese et al. 2006b; Froehlich et al. 1985; Fleming et al. 2006). Surface layers to a depth of several centimeters generally recover to undisturbed bulk densities faster than the subsurface layers, but the effects of compaction can last for decades (Froehlich et al. 1985). Recovery after soil compaction can occur from a variety of physical and biological processes. Physical recovery processes include freeze- thaw and wetting-drying cycles which are very site-specific. Biological recovery of soils affected by compaction is dependent on the activity of roots and soil organisms. Soil decompaction activities would enhance the decomposition activity of soil microorganisms by improving water and gas infiltration and exchange.
Palouse Ranger District 183 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Surface soil loss through displacement and mixing with less productive substrata decreases soil productivity. This occurs during temporary road construction, excavation of skid trails and landings, and displacement of soils during ground based harvest. The loss of the Mazama ash cap layer would reduce the water-holding capacity and increase the overall soil bulk density. These effects would decrease available soil moisture and tree root penetration. Since volcanic ash is not replaced, the effects of erosional losses of the ash cap would be long-term.
Organic matter and productivity Soil organic matter is fundamentally important to sustaining soil productivity (Powers et al. 2005; Powers 2002) but can be influenced by fire, silviculture activities, and decomposition and accumulation rates. Forest soil organic matter influences many critical ecosystem processes, including water-holding capacity and the formation of soil structure. Soil structure influences soil gas exchange, water infiltration rates and water-holding capacity. Soil organic matter is the primary location for nutrient cycling and humus formation by microorganisms, which enhances soil cation exchange capacity and overall fertility. Soil organic matter is most concentrated in the surface soil horizons. Surface soil displacement (e.g. excavations, ground-based machinery disturbance, log-skidding) and erosion can result in a loss of soil organic matter.
Soil organic matter depends on inputs of biomass (e.g. vegetative litter, fine and coarse woody debris) to build and maintain the surface soil horizons, support soil biota, enhance moisture- holding capacity, and prevent surface erosion. Woody debris in the form of slash also provides a practical and effective mitigation for reducing harvest impacts on soil physical function and processes.
The retention of CWD is essential to maintaining soil organic matter, soil productivity and sustainable forest ecosystems (Graham et al. 1994). Regional guidance on retention of CWD recommends following guidelines such as those contained in Graham et al. (1994). Graham recommended CWD amounts of 7–15 tons/acre for drier habitat types (e.g. Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine) and 17–33 tons/acre for moister habitat types (e.g. western redcedar). Retaining these amounts of down CWD and providing for future recruitment through the natural addition of snags and standing trees should provide sufficient nutrients and organic material for long–term soil productivity (100-300 years).
Thin and Rocky Soils Project area soils have overall high productivity; yet exceptions exist, particularly in areas of thin, coarser textured and rockier soils with minimal volcanic ash influence. These soils are less productive and have a relatively low water-holding capacity. They are often found on warmer and more exposed southerly aspect slopes, thus these sites can be droughty and present regeneration problems. Thin and rocky soils in the project area are often associated with a higher watershed sensitivity to vegetation removal. These areas have a higher potential for increased peak flows in streams, due to changes in snow interception, distribution and melt processes and decreased evapotranspiration in the years immediately following harvest. Retention of the ash cap and ash- influenced topsoil is critical to maintain productivity and erosion protection on these areas (Wilson et al. 1983).
3.11.3 Regulatory Framework Federal law directs land management to avoid permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and to maintain or improve soil quality, and state laws have similar goals. Soil quality is the capacity of a specific kind of soil to function, within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to
Palouse Ranger District 184 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and support human health and habitation and ecosystem health. Soil productivity is the inherent capacity of the soil resource to support appropriate site-specific biological resource management objectives, which includes the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities to support multiple land uses. Soil function includes soil biology, soil hydrology, nutrient cycling, carbon storage, soil stability and support and filtering and buffering.
The Little Boulder project was designed to meet Forest Plan direction and the standards set forth in the following federal and State laws and regulations.
3.11.3.1 Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500 Watershed and Air Management Manual Region 1 has one FSM supplement related to soil management applicable to this project--The Region 1 Soil Quality Standards, FSM Soil Supplement 2500-99-1. Except for this regional supplement, national FSM direction applies.
Region 1 FSM Soil Supplement 2500-99-1: updates and clarifies the previous soil quality supplement (FSH 2509.18-94-1, Chapter 2) based on recent research and collective experience. The analysis standards address basic elements for the soil resource: (1) soil productivity (including soil loss, porosity; and organic matter), and (2) soil hydrologic function. These Regional Soil Quality Standards require that detrimental management impacts to the soil resource are less than 15 percent of an activity area and that retention of coarse woody material is appropriate for the habitat type. Detrimental impacts include compaction, rutting, displacement, severely burned soil, surface erosion and soil mass movement In areas where more than 15% detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration should not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality.
3.11.3.2 Region 1 Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Provides direction in Region 1 for the implementation of Watershed Conservation Practices or Best Management Practices (BMPs). Implementation of BMPs would minimize effects of management activities on soil and water resources and protect water-related beneficial uses. Best Management Practices are designed to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act (Sections 208 and 319 Non-point Source Pollution) and State of Idaho Water Quality Standards.
3.11.3.3 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 This Act recognizes the “fundamental need to protect and where appropriate, improve the quality of soil, water, and air resources.” NFMA directs management of soil and land productivity to avoid “substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land …. And … to maintain or improve soil quality”, and to “insure that timber will be harvested from National Forest System lands only where…. soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged”.
3.11.3.4 Idaho Forest Practices Act (1974) and Idaho Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) The Forest Practices Act was passed by the 1974 Idaho Legislature to assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest trees and to maintain forest soil, air, water, vegetation, wildlife, and aquatic habitat. This act regulates forest practices on all land ownership in Idaho. Forest Practices on National Forest lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to water quality (IDAPA
Palouse Ranger District 185 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
20.02.01). Idaho Forestry BMPs are included in the Idaho Forest Practices Act. Idaho Forestry BMPs are measures determined to be the most effective and practical means of preventing or reducing pollution inputs from forest practices (timber harvesting, forest road construction and maintenance, forest tree residual stocking and reforestation, use of chemicals, and the management of slash and the use of prescribed fire) in order to achieve water quality goals.
3.11.3.5 Forest Plan Consistency The Clearwater Forest Plan standards related to soils listed on page II-33 of the Plan would also be met as explained in Table 10. Best Management Practices and project design measures used to meet Forest Plan standards would fulfill the objectives related to soils in the management areas in the project area shown in Table 10.
Table 3.11.3 Forest Plan Standards and Compliance Standard Summary Compliance Achieved By
Manage activities on lands with ash caps such Project design and mitigation measures to that bulk densities on at least 85 percent of the minimize soil erosion, compaction and area remain at or below 0.9 gram/cubic displacement. Treatment units were evaluated for centimeters. disturbance (including compaction, compared to undisturbed soil on-site) using Regional Soil Quality Standards and the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Soil improvement activities would occur on areas with prior impacts to achieve a net improvement in soil productivity.
Design resource management activities to Design and mitigation measures to maintain or maintain soil productivity and minimize improve soil productivity and stability were erosion. developed and applied throughout this project and are described in the analysis.
Minimum coordinating requirements on land Units with high and very high mass wasting and types with high or very high mass stability or parent material erosion hazards were identified and parent material erosion hazard ratings are: visited in the field to assess stability and erosion hazards. Temporary and new permanent road •The field verification of the mapped unit and locations were reviewed, refined and predicted hazard rating. design/mitigation measures for road construction developed. •Review road locations using a team consisting of an engineering geologist, hydrologist, soil scientist, and a silviculturist. Assess concerns and possible mitigation measures to determine if a geotechnical investigation is needed
•After the "P" line has been located, stake mitigating road designs, using the original ID team members and road designer.
Review silvicultural prescriptions and unit Landtype 50 occurs in the project area, but no locations on landtype 50 (old slump) to harvest, fuels or road activities are proposed on this landtype. Other unstable areas were identified
Palouse Ranger District 186 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
determine whether vegetation removal may on other landtpes in the project analysis area. Unit contribute to slope instability. boundaries and road locations have been adjusted to avoid unstable areas. Further identification and delineation of unstable areas will occur during layout and appropriate mitigation measures implemented to maintain stability.
3.11.4 Environmental Consequences
3.11.4.1 Methodology The soils analysis used GIS-generated queries, maps, reports, aerial photos, and field monitoring and review to analyze the effects of the proposed activities on the soil resource. All of the proposed harvest units were visited by soils specialists to evaluate soil disturbance, stability, sensitivity and productivity in 2014, 2015 and 2016. In proposed harvest units and in fuels treatments units with previous mechanized harvest activity, soil disturbance was evaluated during field visits using the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (FSDMP) (Page-Dumroese et al., 2009). Additional areal measurements of soil disturbance were used to supplement FSDMP data.
The FSDMP consists of sampling along random azimuths at fixed point-spacing. At each sampling point, visual measurements were made that documented factors related to soil disturbance including forest floor condition, soil compaction, displacement, rutting, platy structure and burn intensity. Disturbance class and the presence of DSD were determined at each point, and the percent DSD of each treatment unit was calculated.
A soil stability and erosion hazard assessment used landtype characteristics (Wilson et al. 1983), five primary landslide factors (slope angle, geologic parent material, landform, aspect and elevation) (McClellan et. al 1997; Megahan et al. 1978), and field reviews to determine erosion risks. Areas of unstable and sensitive soils have been identified to inform treatment prescriptions, harvest/burning plans and road construction.
Additional soil and site characteristics were also obtained from activity areas, such as duff/litter depth, texture, rock content, root distribution, CWD and vegetation composition. Landtype associations (LTAs) were used to describe terrestrial characteristics and disturbance processes for the project area.
Data Assumptions and Limitations Field soil survey methodology based on visual observations can produce variable results among observers, and the confidence of results is dependent on the number of observations made in an area (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006a). The existing and estimated values for DSD are not absolute and best used to describe the existing soil condition. The percent additional DSD expected from a given activity is an estimate since DSD is a combination of such factors as existing groundcover, soil texture, timing of operations, equipment and burning methods used, skill of the equipment operator and fire personnel, the amount of wood or fuels targeted for removal, and sale administration. The DSD estimates of proposed activities used in this project are mostly based on local monitoring and research results (Archer 2008, Reeves et al. 2011). The DSD estimates of proposed activities also assume that stated project design criteria, mitigation measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented and that soil recovery occurs over time.
Palouse Ranger District 187 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Scientific Uncertainty and Controversy Site and soil productivity relies on complex chemical, physical, and climatic factors that interact within a biological framework. For any given site and soil, a change in a key soil variable (i.e. bulk density, soil loss, nutrient availability, etc.) can lead to changes in potential soil productivity. Defining the threshold at which productivity is detrimentally disturbed has been controversial. Powers (1990) notes the rationale for the 15% limit of change in soil bulk density was largely based on the collective judgment of soil researchers, academics, and field practitioners, and the accepted inability to detect changes in productivity less than 15% using current monitoring methods. Powers cites that the soil quality guidelines are set to detect a decline in potential productivity of at least 15%. This does not mean that the Forest Service tolerates productivity declines up to 15%, but that it recognizes problems with detection limits.
Currently soil quality standards are being studied by a cooperative research project called the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity Study (LTSP). The 5-year results were recently published (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006b; Flemming et al. 2006; Sanchez et al. 2006). The LTSP study is ongoing and provides the best available science to resource professionals. In a ten-year study, there was no observed reduction in tree growth as a result of compaction or organic matter removal in plots with soils generally similar to those found in the Little Boulder project area (silt loam) (Powers et al., 2005). The authors highlight that these results are relatively short-term with many site- and soil-specific factors involved. Future results from this long-term study should be beneficial and informative to assessing harvest practices on soil productivity.
Additional controversy surrounds the use of the term ‘irreversible’ in NFMA. NFMA has guidelines that “insure that timber will be harvested from NFS lands only where soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged.” The DSD described in this analysis does not necessarily result in irreversible damage. DSD is reversible if elements that support productivity processes (i.e. organic matter, moisture, top soil, and soil biota) are in place and time is allowed for recovery. Irreversible damage to soils in the Little Boulder project area could result from the loss of the volcanic ash cap through erosion or removal by excavation for temporary roads and/or skid trails. Decommissioning of temporary roads and skid trails, which includes recontouring and recovery of excavated and displaced ash cap topsoil, is expected to initiate recovery of soil productivity functions over time. The new permanent roads proposed in this project would result in an irreversible loss of the soil resource through removal of the road- disturbed area from the productive land base and addition to the Forest transportation system.
3.11.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and indirect effects on the soils resource are assessed within each individual activity area, defined by individual harvest and fuels treatment unit boundaries and associated skid trails, landings and temporary roads.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 would maintain the existing soil productivity and stability risks. This alternative would not increase existing DSD or improve existing soil productivity. Recovery of soil productivity in areas currently detrimentally disturbed would occur over time, but recovery would be slow over several decades. Large woody debris from dead trees would fall on the ground and contribute to soil organic matter, water-holding capacity and soil stability. Processes such as freeze-thaw, wet-dry, animal burrowing and root growth would slowly loosen compacted soils over time. In the absence of wildfires, these recovery trends would occur at varying rates and
Palouse Ranger District 188 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement extents across the project area. Soil stability and erosion risks would remain the same since no vegetation removal, prescribed burning, road construction or decommissioning would occur.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Soil Stability and Erosion Hazards Soil stability and erosion hazards were identified in activity areas and temporary road locations using GIS data such as slope, aspect, parent material, landtype, stability/erosion hazard ratings, hillshade images, aerial photos and field investigations. Unit boundaries and road locations were adjusted throughout project planning to avoid most unstable and sensitive areas and further delineation will occur during layout. Overall, soil stability and erosion hazards are low to moderate for the project activity areas for all action alternatives, but high hazard areas exist.
The results of the landslide/stability hazard assessment based on the five primary landslide factors (slope angle, geologic parent material, landform, aspect and elevation) are displayed by alternative in Table 4. Based on this assessment, areas within treatment units have a mostly moderate or low stability hazard rating. Alternative 2 has approximately 23 acres with high landslide and soil stability hazards in 14 units. Alternative 3 includes 14 high hazard acres in 12 units, and alternative 4 contains 14 acres in 15 units. High hazard acres do not exceed 1.5 % of total treatment area for any action alternative. No high landslide/stability hazard areas are present in proposed fuels treatment units based on this assessment, thus data for fuels treatments is not displayed here.
Table 3.11.4 Summary of results for five-factor landslide hazard assessment for harvest treatment units by action alternative. High Moderate Low Number Hazard Hazard Hazard High of Units Moderate Low (% of (% of (% of Hazard with High Hazard Hazard total total total Acres Hazard Acres Acres treatment treatment treatment Acres acres) acres) acres)
Alternative 2 23 14 1.5 1372 91.5 105 7 Alternative 3 14 12 1 1035 90 102 9 Alternative 4 14 15 1.5 798 85.5 125 13
Table 3.11.5 Acres of high landslide hazards in project treatment units according to five-factor landslide hazard assessment.
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 High High High High Total High Total High Total Hazard Hazard Hazard Unit Hazard Unit Hazard Unit Hazard Unit (% of (% of (% of Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Unit) Unit) Unit)
Palouse Ranger District 189 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
15 20.1 86 0.1 0.1 86 0.1 ------19 1.2 36 3.4 1.2 36 3.4 1.2 36.4 3.4 20 2.8 24 11.4 2.8 24 11.4 1.7 24.2 6.9 30 6.2 7 91.4 6.2 7 91.4 6.2 6.8 91.4 31 0.1 13 0.8 0.1 13 0.8 ------33 0.8 183 0.4 0.7 83 0.8 0.1 29.5 0.1 33a 0.7 73 1.0 0.7 64 1.1 0.7 38.4 1.9 33b 0.2 71 0.3 0.2 55 0.4 0.2 37.8 0.6 36 3.8 155 2.4 0.3 67 0.4 1.7 37.6 4.6 36a 5.1 101 5.0 ------0.2 20.7 0.8 36c ------0.2 18.4 0.9 37 ------0.1 13.1 0.8 38a ------0.1 19.4 0.4 38b ------0.5 9.8 5.2 40 1.1 24 4.4 1.1 24 4.4 0.5 17.3 3.1 40a 0.6 67 1.0 0.6 67 1.0 ------40b ------0.2 37.6 0.6 46 0.3 17 1.6 0.3 17 1.6 0.2 16.7 1.0 Total 43 ------14.3 ------13.8 ------
Unstable areas throughout the proposed harvest units were also identified in the field and and mapped (available in GIS project file). Indicators used to identify unstable and landslide-prone soils include: (a) moist seeps (wallows, springs) and other wetland areas with high water tables (indicated by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation such as sedges, lady ferns, sword fern, Boykina, etc.); (b) past landslide locations, and areas of obvious soil movement indicated by curved and/or buttressed tree boles, active soil slumping, soil creep, leaning trees, tension cracks, loose surface rock fragments; and (c) headwalls, concave slopes and dissections (horizontally and vertically) at or exceeding 60% slope that accumulate surface and subsurface water.
Acreage estimates of unstable soils identified in the field are shown in table 3.11.6. Field observations documented approximately 21 acres of unstable landslide prone soils in each of the action alternatives.
Table 3.11.6 - Acres of unstable landslide prone soils in project treatment units based on field observations.
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable Landslide Unstable Landslide Unstable Landslide Unit Landslide Total Prone Landslide Total Prone Landslide Total Prone Prone Unit Soils Prone Unit Soils Prone Unit Soils Soils Acres Soils Acres Soils Acres (% of (% of (% of (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Unit) Unit) Unit) 9 0.4 71 0.5 0.4 71 0.5 ------
Palouse Ranger District 190 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
13 0.6 104 0.6 0.6 106 0.6 ------13c ------0.6 27 2.3 19 2.2 36 6.1 2.2 36 6.1 2.2 36 6.1 20 6.3 24 26.2 6.3 24 26.2 6.3 24 26.1 33a 11.3 73 15.5 11.3 64 17.7 11.3 38 29.3 36c ------0.4 18 2.0 40a 0.2 67 0.4 0.2 67 0.4 ------TOT 21.0 ------21.0 ------20.8 ------AL
Across all alternatives according to both assessment methods, units 19, 20, 33a, and 36a have the highest percentage of unit area (5% to 29% of individual unit area) with potentially unstable slopes determined through field observations or by the five factor landslide hazard assessment. According to the five-factor assessment, greater than 90% of unit 30 has high stability hazards based on unstable parent material and south to southwest aspects throughout the unit. However, slope gradients are low to moderate (<45%) on most of the unit and no unstable landslide prone areas were identified during field surveys. Unstable areas in treatment units would be further delineated during unit layout using site-specific stability indicators (see Design Feature) and maps available in GIS project file. Unstable areas would receive a no-harvest, no-ignition PACFISH buffers.
Areas of moderate to high instability requiring heavy live-tree retention (~50% existing tree retention) to maintain soil stability were also identified in units 10, 13a, 13b, 20, 33a, 39, 40, 40a, 43, and 49. (26 to 29 acres total depending on alternative). Locations are available in the GIS project file. Moderately unstable areas in treatment units would be further delineated during implementation.
Landtype erosion hazards were used to evaluate erosion characteristics in the activity areas and the temporary and new permanent road locations. This evaluation was used to identify high hazard areas requiring specific mitigation and design features to minimize erosion risk. Additional information on these landtype erosional characteristics in relation to project activities are available in the project file.
Surface erosion potential based on landtype is low to moderate for all activity areas in all action alternatives. Isolated areas of higher surface erosion potential exist where the ash layer has been displaced or lost and the surface soil is more heavily influenced by the grussic granitic parent material. This occurs most often on steep, southerly aspect slopes and is often associated with exposed or shallow bedrock and mixed rocky soil. These sensitive soils are more susceptible to disturbance impacts and erosion and could present regeneration challenges. Highly sensitive areas with very thin and rocky soils would be avoided or would have increased tree retention to protect the site and support soil stability, productivity and regeneration.
Landtype-based debris avalanche potential is low in almost all activity areas in all action alternatives, except for very small areas with moderate potential.
High parent material and subsurface erosion hazards are present in units 2, 3, 10, , 15, 15a, 22, 25, 26, 32, 46, and 49. The main activity concern in these areas are deep excavations into the subsurface soils, such as those that could occur with temporary roads, excavated skid trails and associated landings. Temporary road construction is proposed in units 15a, 26, 32, and 49 would
Palouse Ranger District 191 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
have particular emphasis placed on minimizing excavation depth in these areas with parent material and subsurface soil erosion hazards. These temporary roads are proposed to be located on low-relief ridgetop areas requiring minimal excavations or have segments on existing excavated templates that would not require extensive new excavations.
Mass wasting potential according to landtype hazard ratings is generally low to moderate for most activity areas and road locations in the actions alternatives, but high mass wasting potential areas are present. Units 19, 20, 30, 33a, 36, 36a, 40 and 40a contain areas with high mass wasting potential according to landtype mapping. Field visits identified unstable and landslide prone areas in these units as well areas that are stable and retained in the treatment units. Unstable areas would be further delineated during layout and would receive no-harvest and no-ignition PACFISH buffers and temporary roads would not be located on unstable areas.
For new temporary roads and excavated skid trails, appropriate mitigation measures and BMPs would be implemented to prevent potentially adverse impacts from surface erosion and mass failures (see Mitigation/Design Features). Proposed road locations have been reviewed, refined and appropriate mitigation/design measures developed. Roads would not cross highly sensitive and unstable areas such as streams, wetlands, areas with wet or poorly-drained soils or unstable steep concavities and dissections that accumulate water. Road designs would include properly spaced and located drainage crossings to minimize risks to soil and slope stability in unstable areas. Site-specific stability would be further assessed during layout to determine the most stable road locations and specific design measures. After use, these areas would be decompacted and recontoured to recover excavated topsoil, large woody material would be placed on the surface and seeding and planting would occur to support soil recovery and stability.
Soil Productivity
Compaction, displacement, rutting, severe burning, surface erosion, loss of surface organic matter, and soil mass movements can all reduce site productivity. For the purpose of the project, proposed harvest and fuels treatment units and temporary roads considered activity areas.
Assumptions: Much research has been conducted on the extent of ground disturbance from harvest activities. Disturbance has been shown to range from 4 to over 40 percent, depending on equipment used, method and season of operation, and silvicultural prescription (Clayton 1987, Clayton 1990, McNeel et al. 1992, Tepp 2002). Megahan (in USEPA 2005) documented the highest amount of disturbance came from tractor yarding, with lesser amounts from skyline and aerial methods. For estimating the potential amount of increased DSD created by proposed activities, the following assumptions were made for ground based skidding, skyline yarding, temporary road construction and fuels treatments.
• DSD from proposed ground based skidding are estimated at 8 to 12% (average 10%) of an activity area based on dry-season (spring, summer, fall) operation and use of designated skid trails, and less disturbance during winter harvest operations (Archer 2008, Reeves 2011). DSD is generally limited to main skid trails and landings. Soil disturbance can be minimized by using existing skid trails and/or by designating the locations of new skid trails (Froehlich and McNabb 1983, Korb 2004).
• Estimated DSD from proposed skyline yarding are 4% of an activity area and disturbance is mostly concentrated at landings (Archer 2008, Reeves 2011).
Palouse Ranger District 192 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Temporary road construction is estimated to impact an area with an average 25 feet width, about 3 acres per mile of road. This is based on the assumption of a running road surface 12-15 feet wide and an additional area 3-6 feet in width cleared of vegetation on each side of the road where the soil would likely be displaced and the organic litter layer disturbed and/or removed. Temporary roads located on existing road prisms are not considered an increase in DSD.
• Activity-generated slash would be machine-piled and burned on slopes less than 35% where needed to increase survival of leave-trees. Machinery would utilize existing trails for piling operations. On steeper ground, broadcast and jackpot burning would be used for fuels reduction and site preparation. Treatment of slash and site preparation in timber harvest units is already incorporated in the DSD estimates discussed above. Pile and burning slash on existing skid trails would overlap DSD on already disturbed areas and minimize new soil impacts (Korb 2004).
• DSD from fuels treatments without timber harvest is estimated at 1 to 5 % (average 3%) (Neary et al. 2005, Archer 2008, Burgoyne and Ford 2013). This assumes an overall low severity burn and overall light depth of burn with patches of moderate depth of burn, machine travel would be restricted to slopes <35%, and that relevant standards, BMPs, and project design features for avoidance of RHCAs, minimization of soil disturbance, and rehabilitation of machine routes would be the same as those for timber harvest units. Additional activity descriptions considered in the analysis are described in the previous Activities Analyzed section of this report.
Based on the above DSD assumptions, the proposed harvest and fuels treatment activities could cause DSD on approximately 149 acres for Alternative 2, 126 acres for Alternative 3, or 101 acres for Alternative 4, with the estimated increase of DSD in the activity areas ranging from 3.0 to 24.8% (see project file). The highest percent increase in DSD occurs in units with proposed ground-based yarding methods and units that require temporary road construction. Many units have existing disturbed areas (i.e. roads, trails, landings) that could be reused and rehabilitated, thus minimizing the amount of new DSD.
Implementation of project design measures and BMPs would minimize new DSD from proposed harvest and post-harvest slash treatment activities. Skid trails, landings, and temporary roads used for this project would be decommissioned and rehabilitated, initiating recovery of soil productivity function on these areas. Decommissioning and rehabilitation activities include decompaction, recontouring, adding coarse wood and organic matter, and seeding/planting. These activities are expected to improve water infiltration, reduce the potential for weed invasion, minimize erosion and stabilize slopes, and improve tree growth and vegetation establishment.
Down CWD expressed in tons/acre is generally below or a the low range of the guidelines (Graham et al. 1994) in most proposed harvest and fuels treatment units with previous activities due to past tree and slash removal through burning and whole-tree yarding. Down CWD was observed at the mid or upper range of the guidelines in mature forest areas without previous harvest or in areas of blowdown. The depth of forest floor organic material in the form of litter and duff is generally on the low end or below what is expected for the habitat types and age classes in the treatment units and averages about 1.2 inches in depth. Thinner litter and duff layers exist on drier sites compared to the thicker litter and duff layers on the more moist sites. Some areas with little to no duff or litter cover exist. Field observations documented areas of thin litter/duff layers (<.75 inches) and areas of bare soil with missing forest floor in many activity
Palouse Ranger District 193 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
areas. Areas of thin or absent duff are most common in large openings with sparse vegetation, on hot, dry, southerly aspects and in areas with very thin, rocky soils. Some of these impacted areas are related to past-management, but some areas naturally have thinner litter and duff layers.
For regeneration units, standing trees would be retained as individuals or in groups. In addition, 7–33 tons/acre (depending on habitat type and aspect) of down woody material would be left in the interior of each unit. By adhering to these design elements, the action alternatives would meet Region 1 Soil Quality Standards and CWD guidelines and maintain soil organic matter and surface cover.
Fire can remove organic matter from the soil or change the soil physical, chemical and biological soil properties, depending on the severity of burn, temperatures, and burn depth. High-severity fires with high soil temperatures can remove substantial amounts of surface organic matter, alter biological, chemical and physical properties, and create water repellent soils that may result in soil erosion through mass wasting, sheet, rill and gully erosion. Low-severity burns with a light burn depth have a low potential to negatively affect soils. The prescribed fire proposed to treat activity-generated fuels i.e. pile, broadcast, jackpot burning) in harvest units and in fuels treatments (without timber harvest) is expected to emulate an overall low-severity, low-intensity fire with minimal detrimental impacts to soils. Most of the burned area would retain adequate ground cover, roots mats, live grasses, shrubs, trees, and woody debris. These retained elements would provide nutrient replenishment and soil stability to support beneficial physical, biological, and chemical soil processes fundamental to soil productivity (Neary et al. 2005). Small and isolated areas of high severity burn with detrimental soil impacts are expected where fuels are plied and burned. These impacts are incorporated into the DSD estimates. Unstable and sensitive soils would be avoided during burning activities
3.11.4.3 Cumulative Effects This analysis considers in detail the impacts from 1960s to present, as well as 20–50 years into the future. Cumulative effects areas are the same as the direct and indirect effects areas previously described (individual treatment units), but the cumulative effects time frame considers past, present and future activities that affect the soil resource. Impaired soil productivity due to management actions can take several decades to recover, depending on soil texture, depth of compaction and extent of displacement, erosion or loss of organic material (Powers et al. 2005; Froehlich et al. 1983). Impacts from timber harvest and/or prescribed burning/fuels treatments can exist at least 20 years after the action. Legacy impacts from railroad and horse logging that occurred from approximately 1918-1929 are also included in the soils analysis and productivity assessments.
Past Activities Past disturbances from natural processes and management-related activities have influenced the existing condition of the soils. Past management activities include recreation, mining, fire suppression, road construction and maintenance, and previous timber harvest activities. Past harvest and associated road and railroad grade construction have caused the greatest impacts to the soil resource. Soil disturbance from these activities was incorporated into the DSD calculations.
Timber Harvest: Since 1960, approximately 3449 acres (28%) of the project area has been harvested to some extent. About 940 acres of previous harvest has occurred within the current proposed treatment units. Fifty-percent of the past harvest occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. The most common detrimental impacts from these past harvests observed in the proposed units are
Palouse Ranger District 194 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
soil compaction, displacement, and severely burned areas at landings. In the 1910s and 1920s, mainly selective harvest occurred throughout the project area that utilized horse and railroad- logging methods. The most common detrimental disturbance apparent from these older harvests are due to heavily compacted and displaced soils associated with old railroad grades.
In the 1960s and 1970s, tractor logging, dozer piling and mechanical site preparation frequently resulted in extensive compaction, rutting and areas of scraped or displaced topsoil and organic matter. Ground-based logging occurred on slopes exceeding 35% and dense networks of excavated roads and skid trails were commonly constructed. Forest practices have changed over the last few decades. Project design measures, BMPs, and Forest Plan guidelines have been developed in order to reduce the extent of DSD and maintain soil productivity and stability. Common practices now include minimized road systems, riparian buffers, designated skid trails, retention of woody material, operating under dry conditions, planting trees and seeding, and limiting ground-based skidding activities to slopes less than 35%. Fuel treatment techniques have changed from dozer piling to excavator piling along designated trails, so that less soil displacement occurs while the woody material is moved, reducing the detrimental effects to soil.
Fuels Treatments: Since 1961, fuels treatments have occurred in the project area and in many of the units proposed for treatment in this project. The most common fuels treatments have been piling (often with heavy machinery) and burning of material remaining after timber harvest. Other activities included crushing, compacting or chipping fuels; and broadcast or jackpot burning. Effects of past fuels treatments on soils in the proposed treatment units were observed in many of the proposed treatment units. The most common effects are low down coarse woody debris amounts and thin or missing forest floor material as a result of aggressive machine-piling and high soil burn severity.
Wildfire: Since 1900, one large 5,030 acre wildfire occurred in the project area in 1938 and is the most recent disturbance in many of the proposed treatment units. From 1977 through 2005, 11 small fires have been reported. Wildfire suppression is an emphasis in the project area, yet detrimental soil disturbance due to wildfire suppression activities in the project area was not observed in the proposed treatment units.
Roads: Approximately 40.6 miles of Forest Service system roads and over 20 miles of other roads (nonsystem and non-Forest roads) exist in the project area, which has directly disturbed and impaired productivity on over 300 acres or over 2 percent of the project area. Non-system roads and associated DSD from compaction, displacement and erosion exist in several units. Although system roads are excluded in the DSD determination and whether projects meet Forest Plan and Regional soils standards, these roads do result in long-term to permanent impairment of soil productivity and are a part of the existing soil condition. Road impacts include topsoil and subsoil displacement, mixing and erosion. Road-related landslides have occurred in the project area, resulting in downslope soil disturbance. Over 17 miles of road decommissioning has occurred in the project area. The project proposes to decommission 0.3 miles of road. Decommissioning would not result in new DSD, and would have positive effects on soils by initiating recovery of soil productivity functions.
Grazing: The project area has been part of a grazing allotment since the 1940s. Grazing impacts to soils were observed in many of the proposed treatment units. Areas of compaction, bare soil and weeds due to heavy livestock use contribute to detrimental soil disturbance in several proposed treatment areas. Effects from grazing on soils tend to be greatest in meadow areas, seeps, and springs, where impacts include grass and forb utilization, potential for bank destabilization and channel widening.
Palouse Ranger District 195 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Recreation: Impacts to soils from recreation include enlargement of dispersed camping sites, and development of user-created routes. Dispersed camping is generally located on already disturbed sites along system roads. No dispersed campsites or user-created routes were observed in the proposed units. Effects from recreation activities are primarily associated with full-size vehicles and OHVs using system or non-system roads and trails during wet conditions, creating wheel ruts that concentrate water flow and increase erosion and failure potential.
Ongoing and foreseeable actions Within the proposed activity areas (harvest and fuels treatment units), ongoing and foreseeable actions consist of road and trail maintenance, closure of user-created routes, noxious weed treatments, fence maintenance and fire suppression. Road and trail maintenance would occur on existing system routes and would likely decrease surface and mass erosion risks on roads due to improved and maintained drainage. Motorized recreation and dispersed-camping activities may increase in the future, but increased DSD is not expected since effects on soils should be limited to designated existing routes and existing dispersed-camping areas due to restrictions on off-route travel. Noxious weed treatments would provide a benefit to soil productivity and stability by promoting native vegetation. Fence maintenance activities would not result in adverse effects to soil resources. Fire suppression activities could DSD, but the occurrence, extent, or intensity of suppression efforts cannot be estimated or predicted.
Alternative 1 - No Action:
This alternative maintains the existing condition, similar to the direct and indirect effects conclusion. It would not alter the current soil erosion or landslide potential and would retain the same amount of coarse woody material, both standing and down. Existing DSD would persist with natural recovery of surface layers of compacted soils.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
The cumulative effects of past and proposed activities in the action alternatives were determined by adding the estimated new DSD from the proposed project activities (increases ranging from 1.0% to 20.4%) to the existing DSD (ranging from 0% to 13.3%) (Tables 7 and 9). Potential cumulative DSD within the treatment units is estimated to be between 3% and 24.8% without implementation of unit-specific design measures. (See project file for detailed information on individual units).
Table 3.11.7 - Existing and Post-activity Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DSD) for Harvest Treatment Units
Harvest Treatment Units : Existing and Post-activity Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DSD) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Existin Unit Unit Unit g Cumulat Tem Exist Cumulati Cumulati Temp. Existin Temp. DSD ive Post- p. ing ve Post- Uni ve Post- Unit Unit Rd. b g DSD Rd. b (%) activity Rd. b DSD activity t activity (Miles (%) (Miles DSD (%) (Mile (%) DSD (%) DSD (%) ) ) s)
2 0.0 10.0 0.00 2 0.0 10.0 0.00 2 0.0 10.8 0.00 a a a 3 10.0 <15 0.00 3 10.0 <15 0.00 3 10.0 <15 0.00 4 0.0 14.0 0.30 4 0.0 14.0 0.30 4 0.0 14.0 0.30 6 0.0 13.6 0.08 6 0.0 13.6 0.08 6 0.0 13.6 0.08
Palouse Ranger District 196 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
7 0.0 11.5 0.60 7 0.0 11.5 0.60 7 0.0 11.5 0.60 9 1.1 10.3 0.52 9 1.1 10.4 0.55 9 1.1 13.7 0.59 10 0.0 10.0 0.00 10 0.0 10.0 0.00 10 0.0 10.0 0.00 13 2.2 13.3 0.66 13 2.2 13.3 0.66 13 0.0 14.9 0.66 13a 2.2 11.1 0.47 13a 2.2 11.1 0.47 13a 0.0 13.7 0.47 2.2 10.0 0.12 13b 2.2 10.0 0.12 13 2.2 8.4 0.12 13b b 15 1.0 13.8 1.01 15 1.0 13.8 1.01 13c 2.2 12.6 0.28 15a 1.0 14.6 0.26 15a 1.0 14.6 0.26 15 1.0 13.9 0.52 2.6 8.0 0.09 19 2.6 8.0 0.09 15a 0.0 <15c 0.70 19 c 20 0.0 4.0 0.00 20 0.0 4.0 0.00 19 2.6 8.0 0.09 22 0.0 10.0 0.00 22 0.0 10.0 0.00 20 0.0 4.0 0.00 25 4.3 14.3 0.00 25 4.3 14.3 0.00 22 0.0 10.0 0.00 26 0.9 11.4 0.86 26 0.9 11.4 0.86 25 4.3 14.3 0.00 30 3.3 11.9 0.15 30 3.3 11.9 0.15 26 0.9 12.6 0.86 31 1.8 14.2 0.16 31 1.8 14.2 0.16 30 3.3 11.9 0.15 a a 32 10.0 <15 0.28 32 10.0 <15 0.49 31 1.8 14.3 0.16 a 33 3.3 13.9 0.56 33 0.0 14.6 1.40 32 10.0 <15 0.28 a 33a 3.3 9.8 0.25 33a 3.3 11.5 0.28 33 3.3 <15 0.49 33b 3.3 12.9 0.29 33b 3.3 14.3 0.29 33a 3.3 10.6 0.25 0.0 10.0 0.00 36 1.0 13.6 1.12 33 3.3 14.6 0.29 34 b 36 1.0 9.1 1.15 39 0.0 5.8 0.10 33c 3.3 14.0 0.08 36a 1.0 11.0 0.00 40 0.0 9.2 0.49 34 0.0 10.0 0.00 37 3.3 12.4 0.00 40a 8.6 13.4 0.70 36 1.0 9.9 0.60 a 39 0.0 5.2 0.04 42 10.0 <15 0.00 36a 1.0 12.6 0.12 0.0 4.0 0.00 43 0.0 12.8 0.32 36 1.0 14.1 0.20 40 b 40a 8.6 13.4 0.70 46 0.0 11.3 0.12 36c 1.0 10.1 0.32 a 42 10.0 <15 0.00 49 0.0 14.5 0.96 37 3.3 12.4 0.00 43 0.0 14.7 0.34 38 1.0 5.0 0.00 46 0.0 11.9 0.12 38a 1.0 5.0 0.00 49 0.0 12.3 0.96 38 2.0 6.0 0.00 b 39 0.0 5.2 0.04 40 0.0 4.0 0.00 40a 8.6 12.6 0.00 40 8.6 14.0 0.56
b a 42 10.0 <15 0.00 43 0.0 14.7 0.34
Palouse Ranger District 197 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
46 0.0 11.9 0.12 49 0.0 13.6 0.96 aCumulative DSD % in Units 3, 32, 33 and 42 incorporates special design criteria to remain <15% DSD following project activities. Potential cumulative DSD for these units without incorporating special design measures ranged from 17.1% to 24.8%. bTemporary road miles included in DSD estimate for unit. One mile of new temporary road equivalent to 3 acres of new DSD. Several temporary roads will be constructed on existing templates and on other already disturbed areas, with particular attention given to temporary road locations in Units 30, 31, 32, 40a, 40b, and 49. cAlternative 4 Unit 15a would require winter logging on adequately compacted snow or frozen ground in order to comply with the R1 Soil Quality Standards standard following project activities.
Depending on the specific alternative, 3 to 4 harvest units would require implementation of unit- specific design measures in order to meet Regional soil standards (Table 8). These measures would limit the amount of increased DSD from project activities and reduce the amount of existing DSD by decommissioning and rehabilitating existing skid trails, landings, and roads in or adjacent to the units.
The project would meet the R1 SQS for all treatment units by limiting the extent of DSD to <15% following project implementation, except for harvest unit 15a in Alternative 4 which is expected to be at 20.4% DSD following project activities and would not meet the Region 1 Soil Quality Standards .
Table 3.11.8 - Unit-specific design measures to meet Region 1 Soil Quality Standards. Design Unit Number Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Measures (number of (number of (number of units) units) units) Units expected Alt 2: 3, 32, 42 3 3 4 to exceed the 15% standard Alt. 3: 3, 32, 42 without special design Alt. 4: 3, 32, 33, 42 measures to limt new disturbancea Number of Proposed Harvest Units 34 31 42 aEstimated to be from 17.1 to 24.8% DSD based on standard new DSD estimates without special design measures to limit new disturbance
Special Design Feature: Special attention is required for the units listed in Table 9 to limit new soil disturbance and remain below 15% DSD following project implementation. Methods to meet this requirement may include the following: main skid trails would be located only on existing disturbed areas with minimal, one-pass trails occurring on undisturbed ground; cut-to-length forwarder systems would be used; equipment used for machine piling or mastication of activity slash would remain on designated skid trails; and logging system layout designs would limit the amount of new DSD (portions of the unit would be dropped if the layout plan cannot reach the entire unit while staying under the 15% standard). The estimated allowable new DSD (acres or % of proposed unit area) have been calculated for each unit. In addition, all used skid trails and
Palouse Ranger District 198 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
landings exhibiting DSD and all temporary roads would be decommissioned (see Design Features).
Maximum allowable acres of new DSD are as follows:
• Alternative 2: unit 3, 0.3 acres (5.7% of unit); unit 32, 1.4 acres (5.0% of unit); unit 42, 0.7 acres (4.9% of unit)
• Alternative 3: unit 3, 0.3 acres (5.7% of unit); unit 32, 1.4 acres (5.0% of unit); unit 42, 0.7 acres (4.9% of unit)
• Alternative 4: unit 3, 0.3 acres (5.7% of unit); unit 32, 1.4 acres (5.0% of unit); unit 33, 2.5 acres (8.5% of unit); unit 42, 0.7 acres (4.9% of unit)
Table 3.11.9. Existing and Post-activity Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DSD) for Fuels Treatment Units
Fuels Treatment Units: Existing and Post-activity Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DSD) All Action Alternatives
Existing Existing Existing Cumulative Post- Cumulative Post- Cumulative Post- Unit DSD Unit DSD Unit DSD activity DSD (%) activity DSD (%) activity DSD (%) (%) (%) (%)
1 8.6 11.6 47 0.0 3.0 62 0.0 3.0 5 0.0 3.0 48 0.0 3.0 63 0.0 3.0 8 0.0 3.0 50 1.7 4.7 64 6.7 9.7 11 0.0 3.0 51 2.7 5.7 65 3.3 6.3 14 0.0 3.0 53 0.0 3.0 66 0.0 3.0 17 3.0 6.0 54 0.0 3.0 67 13.3 <15a 18 0.0 3.0 55 5.0 8.0 68 6.4 9.4 23 0.0 3.0 56 4.0 7.0 69 3.3 6.3 24 0.0 3.0 57 1.0 4.0 70 6.7 9.7 27 0.0 3.0 58 1.6 4.6 71 13.3 14.3b 44 7.5 10.5 60 0.0 3.0 45 3.3 6.3 61 6.6 9.6 a For fuels treatment Unit 25 (all alternatives), soil restoration (decompaction, recontour, slash, seed) would occur on at least 0.20 acres of existing disturbed areas to improve soil productivity. Existing disturbed skid trails available for restoration are identified near the south end of Road 820309 (see map in soils project file). (see soils project file). bActivities limited to hand-work in Unit 71 are expected keep cumulative DSD % <15% DSD following project activities to meet the Region 1 Soil Quality Standard.
For fuels treatment Unit 25 (all alternatives), soil restoration (decompaction, recontour, slash, seed) would be required on at least 0.20 acres of existing disturbed areas in the unit in order to meet the R1 Soil Quality Standard. Existing disturbed skid trails available for restoration are identified near the south end of Road 820309 (see map in soils project file).
Palouse Ranger District 199 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The standard estimates of new DSD from project activities used for this project are based on designation of skid trails but do not incorporate reuse of existing disturbed skid trails, landings and roads in a unit. Since existing skid trails and nonsystem roads were identified and are present to varying extent in most units, opportunities for reuse of existing disturbed areas are present which will decrease the amount of new DSD from proposed harvest and temporary road activities. New DSD can be minimized by using existing skid trails and/or by designating the locations of new skid trails (Adams and Froehlich and 1981, Froehlich and McNabb 1983), and this project is designed to capitalize on reuse opportunities followed by decommissioning and rehabilitation of disturbed areas to promote soil recovery.
Restoration of existing disturbed skid trails and non-system roads through decommissioning would directly improve soil conditions, processes and functions in the units by decompacting soils and adding CWD and other organic matter to the existing skid trail or road surface. Skid trail and road decommissioning following harvest would utilize methods similar to the Forest’s road decommissioning methods utilized for over 15 years. Soil structure, water infiltration, aeration, root penetrability, and soil biological activity improvements are observed with road decommissioning techniques used on the Forest. A local soil study on the Forest (Lloyd et al. 2013) observed improved infiltration rates and soil bulk densities on decommissioned roads recover to values similar to never-roaded areas at 1, 5, and 10 years following decommissioning. In this same study and timeframe, soil organic matter, total carbon and nitrogen pools and processes increased to levels similar to never-roaded surfaces. Skid trail and road decommissioning following reuse would also improve slope stability and decrease long-term erosion.
Previous harvest in the project area occurred primarily with horse-yarding in the 1910s and 1920s, and with ground-based heavy equipment from the 60s to present. Assuming soils in these previously harvested areas were subject to some degree of compaction, displacement and extensive vegetation removal, the generally low existing DSD existing across activity areas indicates that recovery processes have occurred over the past 100 years in the project area. The active soil restoration on existing disturbed areas proposed for the project is expected to accelerate soil recovery and improve soil properties (e.g. bulk density, infiltration rates, soil organic matter, carbon, nitrogen) and provide support for continued long-term recovery of soil functions and productivity.
Palouse Ranger District 200 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.12 VEGETATION 3.12.1 Introduction
3.12.1.1 Issues Addressed • Key & Analysis Issue: Watershed condition – [effects to water quality] and forest vegetation (species composition, old growth, forest health, productivity, future access, and regeneration).
o Issue Indicator (species composition): Percent distribution of existing versus historic forest cover types and successional stages within the project area.
o Issue Indicator (forest health, productivity, regeneration): Number of acres restored by regenerating insect and disease (I&D) resistant early-seral species.
o Issue Indicator (old growth): Percent of Forest Service lands designated for management as old growth habitat or that are within 20 years of meeting old growth criteria.
• Analysis Issue: Climate Change – effects to natural resources from climate change.
o Issue Indicator: Capacity of treated stands to sequester carbon 3.12.2 Affected Environment
3.12.2.1 Scope of Analysis Vegetation outside of the 12,425 acre project area is not proposed for treatment and is not likely to be affected by the proposed action or the alternatives. Therefore, the vegetation effects analysis area is the Little Boulder project area.
For the purposes of old growth analysis, the Forest has been divided into old growth analysis units (OGAU) which are approximately 10,000-acre watersheds (timber compartments) or a combination of smaller watersheds (sub-compartments). The Little Boulder project contains proposed treatment units within the sub-watersheds (12th level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)) of Corral Creek, Hog Meadow-Potlatch Creek, East Fork Potlatch River, West Fork Potlatch River, and Long Meadow Creek.
The Little Boulder project area includes parts of OGAU 209 and 210. OGAU 210 contains 5,303 acres. Of this acreage, only 54 acres of the Little Boulder project area falls within OGAU 210. This amounts to 1% of OGAU 210 and no treatments are proposed there. Given the insignificant amount of OGAU 210 that overlaps with the Little Boulder project area, OGAU 210 will not be analyzed with this project. Only OGAU 209 will be analyzed for old growth effects.
3.12.2.2 Existing Condition
Species Composition Much of this language is presented in Chapter 1 as vegetative conditions is a driving factor of the purpose and need.
Palouse Ranger District 201 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Historically, western white pine dominated the landscape in the inland northwest and in the project area in the first part of the 20th century. Historic estimates put white pine at nearly 34% of forest coverage in North Idaho prior to 1920, and in some areas white pine was as high as 80% of forest coverage (Losensky, 1994.) In the past, white pine stands were maintained by stand- replacing fires which historically occurred at regular 50-150 year intervals.
Many factors led to the decline of western white pine and overall changes in species composition in the project area over the past 100 years. Many of these changes happened as a direct result of human actions. Important causes of change within the analysis area were human settlement, fire suppression, timber harvest practices, and the introduction of white pine blister rust to North Idaho around 1920. Blister rust caused a rapid reduction of white pine in the area, leaving only 2% of the historic population of white pine alive today.
White pine blister rust has shaped the composition of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest and continues to impact vegetation in the Little Boulder project area today. Current stocking levels of white pine in the project area are far below historic levels and are struggling to rebound due to the magnitude of the impact of white pine blister rust on the species. Blister rust continues to affect white pine trees that are not naturally or genetically bred to be resistant, often killing the trees within the first 10-20 years of life.
Ponderosa pine stands in the project area have also departed in composition and structure from historic conditions. Ponderosa pine thrive with open growing conditions in well-spaced stands maintained by periodic low-severity fires. Regular fire return intervals maintain tree spacing, discourage fir encroachment in the understory, and encourage the continuation of natural ponderosa pine regeneration on the site (Kaufmann, 2005). In addition, regular low-severity fires reduces the risk of crown fires occurring in these forest types. Crown fires did not occur in ponderosa pine forests historically, but today nearly all ponderosa pine forests are far denser and more vulnerable to crown fire than before (Kaufmann, 2005). These crown fires can be catastrophic and can reset the landscape back to an unforested state when they occur.
Without consistent fires to cultivate and renew ponderosa stands, ponderosa pine trees have been competing for space and nutrients with shade-tolerant species like grand fir and Douglas-fir. Ponderosa pine stands within the project area are at risk for eventual conversion from pine to fir forest types, which are less resistant to I&D and less resilient after wildfire. Ponderosa pine trees that are stressed because of drought, nutrient competition, or lack of sunlight are more prone to the compounding issue of bark beetle attacks. All of these factors have been causing ponderosa pine mortality in the Little Boulder project area.
In addition, there is evidence that ponderosa pine seedlings procured from off-site, non-local seed sources were planted in parts of the project area in the 1930s in an effort to rehabilitate the forest after stand-replacing wildfires (Citation). Field visits to these stands have revealed that these off- site ponderosa pine trees are not thriving and are experiencing sickness and mortality. This is likely due to elevational, topographic, and other differences between site conditions in the Little Boulder project area and site conditions where the seed was originally procured.
Fire suppression policies have also caused changes to forest composition in the project area. The presence and role of fire has largely been removed from the landscape through different management policies of land owners. Ownership within and surrounding the Little Boulder project area is best described as checkerboard in nature. Lands within and adjacent to the project area are owned and managed by a mix of private, industrial timber, state, and federal land owners. As a result of the proximity of communities, rural residences, and human improvements the
Palouse Ranger District 202 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
majority of the Little Boulder project area occurs within Latah county-designated wildland urban interface (WUI). By Clearwater Forest Plan direction all wildfires that occur on the Palouse Ranger District on National Forest Service lands are fully suppressed. This policy, which is intended to protect communities and Forest resources in the event of a wildfire, has shaped the landscape and altered the natural functioning of fire-maintained ecosystems during the last century that it has been in place.
With the proposed Little Boulder project and other recent projects like the Cherry Dinner EIS, the Palouse Ranger District has worked to re-introduce the regular presence of fire on the landscape through fuels treatments and prescribed burning. Due to the steady increase over the last quarter century of fire suppression costs, fire season length, and fire season severity, an emphasis has been placed on treatment of fuels within these WUI areas across all ownerships. Fuel treatments seek to reduce the severity of fire effects, increase the success of fire suppression efforts, and use fire as a natural tool to restore ecosystems.
Past harvest activities have also changed stand composition in the project area. Previous regeneration harvest within the project area had an impact on the species that currently dominate the area. Historically the tendency was to rely on natural regeneration after large-scale timber harvest for reforestation. In many cases this allowed shade-tolerant species like grand fir and Douglas-fir to take hold, lacking enough natural early seral species on the landscape after harvest as a sufficient seed source. In cases where past harvest simply salvaged white pine that had been killed by blister rust, the harvest would not have created sufficient openings for early seral species, such as white pine and western larch, to regenerate successfully.
Early seral species such as pine and larch are declining in the Little Boulder project area. The lack of healthy white pine and overstocking in ponderosa pine stands in the project area has further encouraged the growth of shade-tolerant species and the subsequent spread of root disease in these susceptible species. Stand exam and field review data show that the forest types in the project area are now dominated primarily by grand fir, western red cedar, and Douglas-fir. Table 3.12.0 shows the historic and current distribution of forest cover types in the project area. Table 2 shows the same historic and current distributions stated as successional stages.
Moving and restoring stands within the Little Boulder project area toward a composition of early seral species would improve species diversity, stand productivity, and disturbance resiliency and would reduce densities in overstocked stands. This would lead to improvements in forest health, watershed health, and wildlife habitat, and would provide sustainable long-term economic outputs.
Palouse Ranger District 203 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3.12.0 - Current and Historical Species Composition (Losensky, 1994.) Forest Cover Type Historical Current Project Distribution Distribution
White Pine 34% 1%
Larch 10% 1%
Douglas-fir 13% 18%
Ponderosa Pine 21% 2%
Grand Fir 2% 60%
Lodge Pole Pine 11% 2%
Spruce-fir/Subalpine fir 9% 1%
Cedar - 15%
Table 3.12.1 - Current and Historical Forest Successional Stages Successional Stage Historical Current Project Distribution Distribution
Early Seral (0-40 years) 44% 15% (1,864 acres)
Mid Seral (41-140 years) 32% 66% (8,201 acres)
Late Seral (141+ years) 20-25% 19% (2,361 acres)
In regards to framing a vegetation management analysis through the lens of historic forest composition, there is new research suggesting that this common strategy used by forest managers will have to be reconsidered with a changing climate (Frankel, et al. 2012). The use of this approach in analyzing the effects of vegetation projects will become problematic and even unrealistic as forest conditions outside of historic ranges become more common. However, the Forest Service Climate Change Resource Center suggests that: “forest managers, whether working at the local or the landscape scale, should be aware of current and historic forest health conditions in their jurisdictions, and then integrate that knowledge with climate change projections.” (Frankel, et al. 2012). For the purposes of this analysis, it is appropriate and useful to frame some portion of the discussion around a concept of historic forest conditions and departures from those conditions that have occurred either naturally or as a result of human actions. In this way the analysis can propose management actions that would promote forest health by taking lessons from historic conditions rather than suggesting that fully restoring those conditions is realistic.
Forest Health (Insects & Disease) The forest has become more susceptible to insect and disease agents as a result of the species composition changes previously described. Many of these species composition changes are tied to
Palouse Ranger District 204 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
human actions such as fire suppression and past harvest activities. In the past, the natural maintenance and thinning effect of regular low-severity fires created open growing conditions for early seral species and encouraged vigorous, large diameter tree growth. These trees were less stressed, less predisposed to the effects of I&D, more adapted to wildfire, and provided a good seed source for natural regeneration.
The result of past actions within the project area has led to increased stand density, reduced tree vigor, and a prevalence of shade-tolerant species such as grand fir and Douglas-fir, which are more susceptible to the spread of root disease and fungus. Stand exam and walk-through data revealed that root disease is evident in most stands in the project area to varying degrees, with some stands showing extensive impacts from root rot, such as large pockets of dead and wind- thrown trees. Mortality from insects and disease, wind throw, and natural thinning from over- stocked stands are prime contributors to the development of excess fuel loadings, which increases the likelihood for wildfire.
Comprehensive stand exams followed by field reviews identified the following insects and diseases present in the project area: (1) root rot pathogens, such as, Armillaria spp, Phaeolus schweinitzii, Fomes annosus, and Phellinus werii that slow tree growth and spread from tree to tree, eventually killing pockets of trees; (2) dwarf mistletoe, Arceuthobium spp., a parasitic plant that spreads from overstory to understory trees and reduces growth in Douglas-fir and western larch by girdling branches and tree boles; (3) Indian paint fungus, Enchinodontium tinctorium, a heart rot pathogen common in grand fir; (4) white pine blister rust, Cronartium ribicola, a five- stage introduced fungus that has caused widespread white pine mortality; (5) Douglas-fir beetle; (6) western pine beetle; and (7) mountain pine beetle.
Bark beetles often attack trees that are already stressed by primary factors like root disease. These compounding insect and disease issues often eventually lead to tree death. Armillaria root disease is the most common root rot pathogen present in the project area due to the prevalence of grand fir and the tendency of the disease to spread from tree to tree through root systems. Results from longer term monitoring suggest that many root disease-infected stands of Douglas-fir and grand fir would have a net loss of 50-90% of stand volume in 20-30 years starting at age 50-80. Stands that have been thinned and mixed species stands with a component of pine and larch lose volume less quickly when the spread of root diseases can be interrupted by the presence of less- susceptible species (Hagle, 2008).
Old Growth In the Little Boulder Project Area: The Forest Plan standard for the retention of old growth is that the Forest will maintain at least 10% of the forest in old growth, and that at least 5% of each 10,000-acre old growth analysis unit will be managed for old growth.
OGAU 209 contains 13,337 acres. Of this acreage there are 281 acres of retained existing old growth and 672 acres of step down old growth. This acreage totals about 7% of OGAU 209, exceeding the Forest Plan standard of 5%. In addition, 1,391 acres of recruitment potential old growth exist within OGAU 209. Recruitment potential consists of areas that are not currently meeting old growth standards but that can be retained and managed for future old growth recruitment if project-specific or resource-specific needs arise or to help meet the 10% Forest Plan standard. Table 3.12.2 shows the amount of old growth and step down acreage that has been identified within the Little Boulder project area and within OGAU 209.
Palouse Ranger District 205 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3.12.2 - Acres of Old Growth in the Little Boulder Project Area and in OGAU 209 Old Growth Category Within the Little Within Percentage of Boulder Project Area OGAU 209 OGAU 209
Retained Existing Old 281 281 2% Growth
Step Down 516 672 5%
Recruitment Potential 1,068 1,391 10%
Forest Wide Scale: The most recent Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data for the Clearwater National Forest indicate that approximately 9.4% of the Forest is old growth, which is below the Forest Plan standard of 10% (Bush, et al. 2006). In order to ensure that the Forest is moving toward meeting the 10% standard, Forest direction is to retain stands that meet old growth and step down criteria. The Little Boulder Project would not harvest timber in verified old growth or step down habitats.
Climate Change Forests are in continual flux, emitting carbon into the atmosphere, removing carbon from the atmosphere, and storing carbon as biomass (sequestration). Over the long-term, through one or more cycles of disturbance and regrowth (assuming the forest regenerates after the disturbance), net carbon storage is often zero because re-growth of trees recovers the carbon lost in the disturbance and decomposition of vegetation killed by the disturbance (McKinley, et al. 2011; Ryan, et al. 2010; Kashian, et al. 2006).
The project area can be characterized as a patchwork of stands ranging from sapling and pole- sized stands that have been previously harvested to sawtimber-sized stands dominated by a mix of Douglas-fir, grand fir, and western redcedar in some areas; and lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine in others. Generally most of these areas are stocked more heavily than desired, thus competition for water and nutrients is high and the trees in the area are more susceptible to drought, insects, disease, and fire. At this stage of their development, these stands are estimated to be net carbon sinks. That is, they are likely sequestering carbon faster than they are releasing it to the atmosphere, which provides a benefit to the global carbon cycle. However, the strength of that sink has likely been weakened in some stands due to tree mortality from root rot and bark beetles.
The second strategic goal of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Strategic Plan for FY 2014- 2018 is to “Ensure our national forests and private working lands are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water resources” (USDA, 2014). The Strategic Plan emphasizes, among other things, restoring the health of fire-adapted ecosystems and addressing the spread of insects and diseases that kill trees. In its National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change, the Forest Service addresses this strategic goal by suggesting management responses that will be used by forest managers to meet this goal. A major component of this guidance includes, “building resistance to climate-related stressors such as drought, wildfire, insects, and disease,” and “promoting the uptake of atmospheric carbon by forests and the storage of carbon in soils, vegetation, long-lived wood products, and recycled wood materials.” (USDA Forest Service, 2011).
Palouse Ranger District 206 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Given these guidelines for responding to climate change, the project area is not currently meeting Forest Service climate change guidance. As a specific example, Armillaria root disease in western states is predicted to increase in severity under a changing climate scenario (Frankel, et al. 2012).Taking action through forest management, including harvesting infected trees, planting I&D-resistant species, and implementing fuels-reduction treatments would help meet these goals by mitigating the continued spread of I&D, increasing forest carbon storage, creating long-lived wood products, and reducing the threat of wildfire and related carbon emissions.
3.12.3 Regulatory Framework
3.12.3.1 National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA, Section 6 parts E and F) Timber harvest will occur only where:
(i) soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged;
(ii) there is assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within five years after harvest;
(iii) protection is provided for streams, stream-banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat; and
(iv) the harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber.
Where regeneration harvests are planned:
(i) for clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan;
(ii) the interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary has been completed and the potential, environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic impacts on each advertised sale area have been assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale with the multiple use of the general area;
(iii) cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain;
(iv) there are established according to geographic areas, forest types, or other suitable classifications the maximum size limits for areas to be cut in one harvest operation, including provision to exceed the established limits after appropriate public notice and review by the responsible Forest Service officer one level above the Forest Service officer who normally would approve the harvest proposal: Provided, That such limits shall not apply to the size of areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm; and
Palouse Ranger District 207 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(v) such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber resource.
3.12.3.2 Forest Service Manual The Silvicultural Practices Manual states that the following policies will be adhered to for prescribing and monitoring silvicultural practices that are used in the restoration and sustainable management of National Forest System lands (FSM 2470.3):
(i) Use only those silvicultural practices that are best suited to the land management objectives for the area.
(ii) Ensure practices are applied so as to sustainably manage forest vegetation resources, as directed in the land management plan.
(iii) Prescribe treatments that are practical in terms of the cost of preparation, administration, transportation systems, and logging methods.
(iv) Monitor practices using procedures specified in land management plans to ensure that the objectives are met.
(v) Before scheduling stands for regeneration harvest, ensure, based on literature, research, or local experience, that stands to be managed using even-aged management methods can be adequately restocked within five years of final harvest.
(vi) Inform minorities and women about the opportunities in contracting for silvicultural activities.
(vii) Perform silvicultural activities in a cost-effective manner consistent with resource management objectives. Ensure work performed by force account and by contract meet the same quality standards.
(viii) Include the verification of acreages reported for reforestation and stand improvement attainment as a standard item on appropriate timber program or activity reviews.
3.12.3.3 Forest Plan Consistency Clearwater National Forest Plan Goals for Timber Management. The Little Boulder project would meet these Forest Plan goals. (Clearwater National Forest Plan, II-2)
• Provide a sustained yield of timber and other outputs at a level that is cost- efficient and that will help support the economic structure of local communities and will provide regional and national needs.
• Select on the ground those silvicultural systems that will be the most beneficial to long-term timber production, but modified as necessary to meet other resource and management area direction.
Clearwater National Forest Plan Standards for Timber Management. The Little Boulder project would meet these Forest Plan goals. (Clearwater National Forest Plan, II- 25)
Palouse Ranger District 208 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Require silvicultural examination and prescriptions before any vegetative manipulation takes place.
• Design timber sales to consider cost-effectiveness while maintaining long-term sustained yield and protecting soil and water resources.
• Perpetuate white pine as a commercial tree species.
• Plan for adequate restocking on all lands managed for timber within five years after final removal.
Clearwater National Forest Plan Management Areas. Vegetation management activities proposed for this project are located primarily within Forest Plan management area E1-Timber Management. Vegetation Management will also occur to a lesser extent in the following Forest Plan management areas: C4- Key Big-Game Winter Range/Timber Management, and A4-Visual Travel Corridors (Clearwater National Forest Plan, III-1).
E1- Timber Management: This management area contains most of the land within the Little Boulder project. Of the project area’s 12,425 total acres, 9,766 acres occurs within E1 ground. Lands within management area E1 are intended to provide optimum, sustained production of wood products and to produce timber in a cost effective way while providing adequate protection of soil and water quality. The Little Boulder project would meet Forest Plan standards for this management area. The standards given in the Clearwater Forest Plan for management area E1 include the following (Clearwater National Forest Plan, III-57):
• Schedule timber harvest using logging and silvicultural methods appropriate for the stand and the terrain.
• Maintain stocking control commensurate with the level of management intensity.
• Identify and maintain suitable old-growth stands and replacement habitats for snag and old-growth dependent wildlife species. (See Old Growth Report in the Little Boulder project record for Old Growth analysis). Clearwater National Forest Plan Standards for Wildlife and Fish (Clearwater National Forest Plan, II-23). Provide for old-growth dependent wildlife species by:
• Maintaining at least 10 percent of the Forest (including Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness) in old-growth habitat.
• Selecting at least 5 percent of each approximate 10,000 acre watershed (timber compartment) or a combination of smaller watersheds (subcompartments) within forested nonwilderness areas to manage as old- growth habitat.
Palouse Ranger District 209 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.12.4 Environmental Consequences
3.12.4.1 Methodology Inventory
Species Composition/ Forest Health: Stand inventory data were collected by conducting intensive stand exams, which were completed for all proposed treatment units. Stand exams were performed according to national Common Stand Exam (CSE) protocol. Stand exams were accomplished in the project area in 2016. In addition, the proposed units were field reviewed and diagnosed by the district silviculturist. Field review consisted of visiting proposed units, performing walk through examinations, completing stand diagnoses, and making recommendations for appropriate treatments based on observed stand conditions.
Old Growth: The definition of old growth on the Clearwater National Forest (CNF) follows descriptions from Green et al. (1992). A Geographical Information Systems (GIS) database for old growth and step down habitats has been developed for the CNF. This database contains stand-based information derived from a variety of sources. Some portion of the data are based on comprehensive old growth exams and/or comprehensive stand examinations. Stand exams are performed according to national Common Stand Exam (CSE) protocol and are considered highly accurate for determining if a stand meets the definitions of Green et al. In cases where stand exams are not available, data are usually based on the Most Similar Neighbor (MSN) model or remote sensing analysis from aerial imagery interpretation. The accuracy of estimates of step down and old growth forest habitat derived from these other methods has not been determined.
Stand exams were conducted within the proposed Little Boulder treatment units in 2016. Stand exams were loaded into FSVeg after data collection was complete. The exams were then post- load processed, linked to FSVeg Spatial, and a summary database was created. The summary database was used to populate the GIS old growth database for the CNF with the most current old growth data for the project area.
Analysis
Sepcies Composition/ Forest Health: Stand exam and field review data were used to describe the existing condition of the project area and to analyze the effects of the project alternatives. Effects were analyzed as they relate to the three vegetation indicators mentioned previously: species composition, insects and disease, and climate change. Analysis of species composition relied on a literature review of historic forest conditions and investigation of current stand exam data. Insect and disease analysis relied on a review of stand exam data and observations made in the field. Climate change was analyzed in two ways; first with a qualitative discussion of carbon sequestration and release in vegetation within the project area; and second, an analysis of the effect the alternatives will have on global climate change.
Old Growth: The GIS old growth database and the OGAU feature class were overlaid on the Little Boulder project area in GIS and an assessment was made of the percent of Forest Service lands designated as old growth, step down, or recruitment potential habitat within OGAU 209.
In addition to GIS analysis, all proposed treatment units were field reviewed and diagnosed by the district silviculturist. Field review consisted of visiting the proposed units, performing walk through examinations, completing stand diagnoses, and making recommendations for appropriate stand treatments.
Palouse Ranger District 210 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.12.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects
Species Composition Alternative 1:
If the no-action alternative is selected, early seral species such as western larch, western white pine, and ponderosa pine may continue to decline. The absence of wildfire resulting from fire suppression combined with a lack of active timber management would mean early seral species restoration would not occur. The project area would continue to be dominated by overstocked and declining stands composed primarily of grand fir, Douglas-fir, and cedar in most areas. Western larch in particular relies on disturbance for natural regeneration to take place, including bare mineral soil or a burned seedbed, so western larch is not expected to regenerate naturally (Fiedler and Lloyd, 1995).
Western white pine populations have declined enough that it is unlikely that this species would return to its past prevalence without intervention (Fins et al 2001). Under the no-action alternative, canopy gaps of sufficient size and openness are not expected to create conditions to allow western white pine to outcompete grand fir and other shade tolerant competitors (Jain et al 2004).
Ponderosa pine would continue to experience competition for nutrients and space in the form of fir encroachment in the understory. Ponderosa pine relies on regular low-severity fires to maintain open growing conditions for large trees and sufficient gaps for natural ponderosa pine regeneration. With a no-action decision, the growing conditions that allow ponderosa pine to thrive would be unlikely to develop naturally on the landscape.
Understory vegetation, ladder fuels, and continuous crown cover would pose a risk for increased fire activity and for ground fire to transition to crown fires. The close proximity of the project area to developed areas on the Palouse poses an unacceptable risk to human safety in the event of wildfire. As a result, active fire suppression would continue to occur in the project area for the foreseeable future, further contributing to the species compositional changes and ecological consequences brought about by fire suppression.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
The effects to vegetation of all the proposed treatments would be reduced competition for sunlight, water, and soil nutrients in both retained and newly planted trees. All regeneration treatments would produce a two-aged stand, where most of the trees in the existing stand would be removed to produce a fully exposed microclimate for the development of a new age class. Prescribed burning and slash treatments would enhance site conditions for the planting and successful establishment of early seral seedlings. Proposed regeneration and fuels treatments would result in increased growth and vigor of forest vegetation in the treated units. Additional indirect effects would be increased shrub and herbaceous vegetation production for 10 or more years after implementation, resulting in increased forage for wildlife. Soil organic material would increase as slash left on the ground would decay over time in the treated areas.
Each of the alternatives would contribute to the project’s purpose and need of improving species diversity, stand productivity, and disturbance resiliency by reestablishing early seral tree species and reducing stand densities in overstocked stands. The presence of shade tolerant species such as grand fir and Douglas-fir would likewise be reduced. The regeneration harvest component of these action alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to “perpetuate white pine"
Palouse Ranger District 211 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(Clearwater Forest Plan II-25), to “provide a sustained yield of timber outputs” (Clearwater Forest Plan II-2), and to use “silvicultural methods appropriate for the stand and the terrain” (Clearwater Forest Plan III-58).
Alternative 2 would treat the most acres, thus creating the most comprehensive opportunities for earl-seral restoration, fuels reduction, and insect and disease mitigation. This alternative best addresses the project’s purpose and need. Alterative 3 proposes no new road building, which would provide reduced access for harvest activities and fewer treated acres. Alternative 4 proposes no harvest openings larger than 40 acres, however, there are situations in which forest openings larger than 40 acres are appropriate, as in the case of insect and disease mitigation.
Forest Health (Insect & Disease) Alternative 1:
If Alternative 1 is selected, insect and disease activity would cause increasing tree mortality. Stands composed primarily of grand fir and Douglas-fir would continue to experience mortality caused by tree diseases such as root rot and mistletoe. These stands would also experience mortality caused by the compounding stressors of disease and beetle activity (Hagle 2004). Early seral species that are resistant to I&D would have a difficult time regenerating naturally with overall higher stocking levels and competition for resources in existing stands.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Each of the three action alternatives would emphasize active vegetation management to improve resistance to insects and disease. Tree species with greater resistance to insects and disease would be planted in units proposed for regeneration harvest. This could include the planting of western larch, ponderosa pine, and genetically-bred, rust-resistant white pine in regeneration units. Fuels treatments would reduce sub-merchantable tree stocking, thus reducing competition for resources among healthy trees and increasing overall stand health.
Alternative 2 would treat the most acres, thus creating the most comprehensive opportunities for earl-seral restoration, fuels reduction, and insect and disease mitigation. This alternative best addresses the project’s purpose and need. Alterative 3 proposes no new road building, which would provide reduced access for harvest activities and fewer treated acres. Alternative 4 proposes no harvest openings larger than 40 acres, however, the prevalence of insects and disease documented in the project area creates the need for management responses that match the scale of these issues (Anderson and Palik, 2011). Scattered smaller treatments with widely distributed I&D concerns are not likely to be effective at the landscape scale. Openings would be centered on problem areas and treatments would promote the health and growth of I&D-resistant species.
Old Growth Alternative 1:
If the no action alternative is selected, there would be no direct or indirect effects to this resource in the short term. In the long term, in the absence of treatment, large-scale wildfires could burn in the analysis area and the levels of I&D could increase, potentially reducing the extent of mature and old growth forest habitats. Proposed fuels treatments which would be designed to reduce ladder fuels and promote healthy growing conditions for large trees would not occur. Additional mortality of old growth and mature trees would be expected from I&D, including the spread of I&D from proposed treatment areas into old growth stands. Late-seral and mid-seral stands would
Palouse Ranger District 212 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
recruit to step down and old growth status over time, barring disturbance such as wildfire or root disease.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Per Forest Plan direction, none of the action alternatives propose timber harvest in existing or step down old growth, therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to this resource in the short term. In the long term, proposed harvest units in the project area would contribute to the project’s purpose and need of improving species diversity and stand productivity, reestablishing early seral tree species, and reducing stand densities in overstocked stands. These treatments would reduce competition for resources among healthy trees and increase overall forest health. This would benefit existing old growth and step down habitat by decreasing the amount of insect and disease spreading into these areas or major disturbances such as wildfire threatening these habitats.
Timber harvest is proposed in some stands that are currently designated as recruitment potential, however, it is recommended that these stands be removed from recruitment potential as part of the Little Boulder NEPA Decision. See Attachment A in the project file for stand details. These stands are not currently meeting old growth criteria, and it is not expected that they will ever reach old growth status. The prevalence of disease within these stands (primarily Indian paint fungus and Armillaria root disease) makes it unlikely that they would reach the age and stand criteria necessary for old growth. For further documentation refer to the Little Boulder project file for field survey data and the Region 1 Old Growth report for these stands. These stands currently overlap with Little Boulder timber harvest units T19, T20, T30, and T31.
This will amount to a loss of 148 acres of recruitment potential old growth within OGAU 209. The 5% standard for OGAU 209 will still be met through retained existing and step down old growth after these changes are made.
Fuels treatments are proposed that overlap with some old growth and step down stands in the Little Boulder project area. The proposed fuels treatments would maintain and enhance old growth characteristics in these areas and would mimic historic disturbance patterns. Historically, old growth forests on the Palouse ranged from dry-site, open stands maintained by frequent low- severity fire, to denser, wet sites maintained by mixed-severity fires (Spies, et al. 2005). Human activities such as logging, grazing, and fire suppression have changed many of the natural disturbance patterns and historic forest structures that existed in this area.
The proposed fuels treatments include increasing crown base height and removing sub- merchantable trees in the understory followed by prescribed burning. Silvicultural principles would be used to achieve multiple objectives, including reducing stand density, influencing species composition, and affecting surface and ladder fuel strata in order to change and reduce fire behavior potential. Prescribed burn prescriptions would follow Forest direction for burns in old growth or step down habitats. This direction requires that prescriptions be written to accomplish the intent of maintaining existing old growth and providing recruitment of future old growth, and not written with the intended result of creating regeneration stands (Reilly, 2006).
If implemented, the proposed fuels treatments would maintain open growing conditions in the understory, decrease competition for resources, and promote resilience in the largest trees. In addition, performing these treatments would decrease the likelihood of high-severity fire occurring in these stands and the potential loss of old growth habitat (Spies, et al. 2005).
Palouse Ranger District 213 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Climate Change Alternative 1:
There would be no direct human-induced emissions of carbon into the atmosphere under the no action alternative. Forest stands would likely continue to function as carbon sinks until the next disturbance event (fire, wind, insect infestation, etc.) occurs. When the next stand-replacing disturbance event (high tree mortality) occurs, the affected areas would convert to a carbon source (emitting more carbon than is being sequestered). This state would continue for up to a decade or more until the rate of forest regrowth, assuming trees regenerate, meets and exceeds the rate of decomposition of the killed trees. As stands continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase (typically peaking at an intermediate age and then gradually declining, but remaining positive) (Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004). Carbon stocks would continue to accumulate, although at a declining rate, until again impacted by subsequent disturbance.
As discussed elsewhere, the risk of high mortality disturbance events is greater under the no action alternative. The long-term ability of these forests to persist as a net carbon sink is uncertain. Drought stress, forest fires, insect and disease outbreaks, and other disturbances may substantially reduce existing carbon stock (Galik and Jackson 2009, Hicke et al. 2012). Climate change threatens to amplify risks to forest carbon stocks by increasing the frequency, size, and severity of these disturbances (Dale, et al. 2001; Barton 2002; Breashears and Allen 2002; Westerling and Bryant 2008; Running 2006; Littell, et al. 2009; Boisvenue and Running 2010). Leaving areas of forest densely stocked, as in the no action alternative, maintains an elevated risk of carbon loss due to disturbance. Timber harvest, prescribed fire, and other management actions are often suggested as climate change “adaptation actions” because they may increase forest resilience to these multiple stresses, and thus increase the likelihood of sustaining forest carbon benefits in the long-term (Millar, et al. 2007; Joyce, et al. 2008; Ryan, et al. 2008b). The no action alternative foregoes such climate change adaptation actions.
3.12.4.3 Cumulative Effects The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the analysis areas used to assess the potential cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives are listed in Appendix A.
Species Composition The past actions that have most significantly affected species composition in the Little Boulder Project area are the introduction of white pine blister rust, fire suppression, and past harvest activities. The changes in species composition that have occurred as a result of white pine blister rust and fire suppression were described in the preceding direct and indirect effects analysis portion of this report. Past harvest activities have contributed to approximately 1,792 acres (14%) of the project area being treated with regeneration harvest methods and approximately 2,046 acres (16%) being treated with intermediate harvest methods in the last 57 years. Refer to the appendices for a complete list of past timber harvest activities on National Forest lands in the Little Boulder project area. No present or reasonably foreseeable vegetation projects beyond those in the current project would affect species composition in the analysis area, however, white pine blister rust, fire suppression, and natural succession toward mid- and late- seral species would continue to play a role on the landscape.
Alternative 1:
The cumulative effect of implementing Alternative 1 would be to allow long term trends in early seral species loss to continue. Recent and past vegetation management projects in the same area,
Palouse Ranger District 214 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
including the recently implemented Cherry Dinner EIS, have made progress in early seral species restoration and reforestation. Alternative 1 represents a lost opportunity to contribute to previous efforts within the project area to promote forest health and forest restoration through active vegetation management and reforestation. Fire suppression would continue to be implemented as the only way to treat increasing fuel loads, further adding to early seral species loss through competition and overstocked stands.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
The cumulative effects of implementing Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be the same as anticipated direct and indirect effects of implementing either of these alternatives. Under any alternative the amount of early seral species would increase due to active forest management and reforestation planting. If any of the action alternatives are selected, regeneration harvest and fuels treatments would occur, which would assist in the restoration of early seral species. Competition for resources in overstocked stands would decrease and improvements in forest health would be seen. Under Alternative 2 a total of 2,688 acres would be treated, the equivalent of 22% of the project area. This alternative best addresses the project’s purpose and need. Under Alternative 3 a total of 2,335 acres would be treated, the equivalent of 19% of the project area. Under Alternative 4 a total of 2,688 acres would be treated, the equivalent of 17% of the project area.
Forest Health (Insect & Disease) Alternative 1:
If the no-action alternative is selected I&D trends would continue. Forest health would decline as dense stands of grand fir and Douglas-fir are impacted by I&D and infestations spread to adjacent stands. Ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine would continue to experience impacts from bark beetles and the remaining western white pine would decline further due to the effects of white pine blister rust.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Cumulative effects for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be very similar to those described under direct effects. All three of the action alternatives would likely show improvements in the resistance and resilience of regenerated stands through reforestation of I&D-resistant species. All three of the action alternatives trend the project area toward conditions where insects and disease are less dominant on the landscape. Alternative 2 best addresses the project’s purpose and need.
Old Growth Past, present, and future activities within the analysis area that affect old growth habitat include natural occurrences such as wildfire, insect infestations, and tree diseases; and human-caused activities such as fire suppression and timber harvest. Past timber harvest in particular has impacted old growth by fragmenting habitat, changing patch sizes, increasing roads and related human disturbance, increasing edge effects, and reducing old growth habitat. In addition, large diameter early seral tree species have been replaced by less disease-resistant species such as grand fir and Douglas-fir, which struggle to develop and sustain old growth characteristics as a result of disease susceptibility. Only mid-seral, non-old growth stands that are declining, primarily due to I&D and overstocking, have been considered for regeneration harvest.
Alternative 1:
Palouse Ranger District 215 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The no action alternative would have no cumulative effects on old growth forest habitats because there would be no direct or indirect effects to this resource from this alternative. In the long term, in the absence of treatment, large-scale wildfires could burn in the analysis area and the levels of I&D could increase, potentially reducing the extent of mature and old growth forest habitats. Proposed fuels treatments which would be designed to reduce ladder fuels and promote healthy growing conditions for large trees would not occur. Additional mortality of old growth and mature trees would be expected from I&D, including the spread of I&D from proposed treatment areas into old growth stands. Late-seral and mid-seral stands would recruit to step down and old growth status over time, barring disturbance such as wildfire or root disease.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
The action alternatives would not change the amount of old growth or step down forest habitat in the short term because no existing stands of these habitats would be proposed for timber harvest treatments. The proposed fuels and harvest treatments could encourage future recruitment of old growth by treating I&D issues and promoting overall forest health and large tree vigor. In the regeneration harvest units the prescriptions would include leave tree retention, with an emphasis on retaining the largest and healthiest trees. After harvest these leave trees would be competing for fewer resources and would be healthier overall, potentially making them available for future old growth recruitment. The proposed fuels treatments would also maintain open growing conditions in the understory, decrease competition for resources, and promote resilience in the largest trees. Performing these treatments would decrease the likelihood of high-severity fire occurring in these stands and the potential loss of old growth habitat (Spies, et al. 2005).
Climate Change None of the alternatives would have a discernable impact on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or global warming. This is due to the limited changes in both the rate and timing of carbon flux predicted within these relatively few affected forest acres, the global scale of the atmospheric greenhouse gas pool, and the multitude of natural events and human activities that globally contribute to that pool.
Although not a statutorily defined purpose of National Forest System management, forests do provide a valuable ecosystem service by removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in biomass (Galik and Jackson 2009). U.S. forests are a strong net carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than they emit (Houghton 2003; US EPA 2013; Heath, et al. 2011). For the period 2000 to 2008, U.S. forests sequestered (removed from the atmosphere) approximately 481.1 teragrams (Tg) of carbon dioxide per year, with harvested wood products sequestering an additional 101 Tg per year. National Forests accounted for approximately 30 percent of that net annual sequestration. National Forests contribute approximately 3 Tg of carbon dioxide to the total stored in harvested wood products compared to about 92 Tg from harvest on private lands (Heath, et al. 2011).
The total carbon stored on the Clearwater National Forest is approximately 142 Tg, or about thirty-two one hundredths of one percent (0.0032) of approximately 44,931 Tg of carbon stored in forests of the coterminous U.S. (Heath, et al. 2011). The Little Boulder Project would affect only a tiny percentage of the forest carbon stock of the Clearwater National Forest, and an infinitesimal amount of the total forest carbon stock of the United States.
Within the U.S., land use conversions from forest to other uses (primarily for land development or agriculture) are identified as the primary human activities exerting negative pressure on the
Palouse Ranger District 216 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement carbon sink that currently exists in this country’s forests (McKinley, et al. 2011; Ryan, et al. 2010; Conant, et al. 2007). The affected forest lands in this proposal would remain forests after the treatments are implemented, not converted to other land uses, thus long-term forest services and benefits would be maintained.
Palouse Ranger District 217 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.13 VISUALS 3.13.1 Introduction
3.13.1.1 Issues Addressed • Analysis Issue: Visual resources - effects to visual characteristics/ impacts to scenery within the project area.
• Issue Indicator: Visual quality objectives (VQOs) are achieved in compliance with the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan.
3.13.2 Affected Environment
3.13.2.1 Scope of Analysis The geographic scope of the scenery analysis for the Little Boulder Project includes areas visible from key locations both within and outside the area of interest. The spatial context takes in both the area around Little Boulder Campground and the Potlatch Canyon Trail and the State Highways to the north and east. Key visual points bounding the visual resource area include the components of both these road corridors. Table 3.13.1 and Figure 3.13.4 show all key viewpoints or viewing corridors and their sensitivity levels identified in the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan that are relevant to the Little Boulder Project’s scenic quality analysis. Direct and indirect effects analysis focuses on the viewshed and viewpoints from which the proposed activities can be seen, and the extent proposed treatment units affect the visual quality objectives assigned to that piece of ground. The cumulative effects area is similar to that for the direct and indirect effects, except that it takes into account the whole viewshed, as opposed to focusing on the individual units and surrounding area. The temporal scope of the analysis is limited to the 30 to 35 years following harvest activities. This time period is the length of time openings created by regeneration harvest are likely to be evident given the growing conditions of the area.
3.13.2.2 Existing Condition The Little Boulder area of interest is located approximately 3 miles east of the community of Deary, Idaho. The analysis area is part of the Palouse Plateau and has one moderately sized river, the Potlatch River that bisects the area. The moderately steep canyon walls of the Potlatch River are covered with coniferous vegetation intermingled with rock outcrops and open grass areas. The river course has fairly slowly flowing water and is known for its distinctive columnar basalt cliffs in the area near Little Boulder Campground. The Potlatch Canyon trail is very popular with local and regional visitors and offers an accessible pathway along the river to allow disabled visitors and others with mobility impairments to enjoy the river corridor and a more rigorous hiking trail that follows the ridgeline above the river.
Palouse Ranger District 218 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 3.13.0 – Potlatch Canyon Trailhead is located off of Forest Road 1963 near Little 0Boulder Campground. It received year-round use. It was originally a railroad line that was converted into a trail in the early 1990s. The deciduous vegetation along the river supports a large song bird population.
Unlike the columnar basalt cliffs seen along Potlach Creek, the smaller tributaries have no distinctive visual features and the landforms are typical of the area. The landscape is rolling uplands visible to the viewer traveling the interior roads intermingled with open grazing and farm land. The vegetation in the analysis area is mixed coniferous species with some deciduous vegetation along the river’s edge, especially surrounding the private residences. Other mixed conifers, composed mostly of grand fir and Douglas-fir, are found across the rolling hills
Figure 3.13.1 - The analysis area is viewed from State Highway 8 near Ruby Creek. The mixed coniferous vegetation has a large component of western larch as this fall view shows.
Palouse Ranger District 219 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement adjacent to the streams. While most of the hillsides have a continuous canopy of coniferous vegetation there are areas of open grass meadows and patches of deciduous shrubbery.
Recreation users visiting the Little Boulder project area participate in recreation pursuits including developed camping at Little Boulder Campground and dispersed recreation activities such as berry-picking, hunting, fishing, camping, driving for pleasure, historical exploration and enjoying the various winter and summer trails.
There is evidence of past harvest activities within the area of interest. Most of these past harvest activities are still visible but have vegetated to the point that they often don’t appear as distinctive openings. While some openings are still evident, they do not tend to dominate the existing landscape character. These openings are in various stages of regeneration but most would take at least 10 to 15 years to appear as only natural timber stands without man-made openings.
Figure 3.13.2 - This Google Earth image shows past harvest activities in the central portion of the analysis area. The green line is the project area boundary. Openings along the edges of the project area are private lands included in the analysis area.
Palouse Ranger District 220 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
In the central portion of the area there are a number of large openings found across the rolling uplands above the river canyon. Most of these are not visible from any sensitive viewpoints. These units meet the VQOs of Modification and Maximum Modification in the middleground and background viewing zone from State Highway 3 and 8. These openings are not visible from the river corridor. Openings created by agricultural practices on private holdings and private timberlands adjacent to the area can be found throughout the area.
Figure 3.13.3 - This view from State Highway 3 shows the project area in the background and the mixed agricultural and forest land in the foreground. There are several residences located in the area.
3.13.3 Regulatory Framework General direction for scenery management is provided in Forest Service Manual 2380 (Landscape Management). Specific visual resource management direction is provided by the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan and is described in terms of visual quality objectives (VQO). Forest plan VQO standards and guidelines were based on the Visual Management System described in Agriculture Handbook Number 462, National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2 (PF-Doc. PI-R02). The visual management system was revised in 1995, and is now known as the Scenery Management System. The revised guidelines are provided in Agricultural Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (USDA Forest Service 1995; PF Doc. VIS-R01).
3.13.3.1 Forest Plan Consistency The project would comply with Forest Plan forest-wide standards for visual resources in the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan. Full details of consistency of the project with the Forest Plan are located in the project record.
Table 3.13.0 – Compliance of projects with Forest Plan Visual Quality Standards Forest Plan Standards – Visual Quality Resource
Palouse Ranger District 221 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Standard # Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By
All landscape-altering activities will meet With design measures outlined in adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs). Chapter 2, the proposed harvest 1 Duration of visual impacts should meet the activities will meet the Adopted guidelines outlined for each VQO in VQOs for the Little Boulder Agriculture Handbook No. 462-Chapter 2. Project.
The Little Boulder project area currently meets the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan VQOs of Retention, Partial Retention, Modification and Maximum Modification in the foreground, middleground and background viewing zones from all identified viewpoints and viewing corridors. Although there are currently harvest units that appear as openings they do not dominate the existing landscape character of the area.
The following table outlines the visual quality objectives listed in the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan.
Table 3.13.1 - Listing of key viewpoints, their sensitivity level and visual quality objectives found within the Little Boulder Project area. Viewpoints or viewing corridors come from the 1987 Clearwater National Forest plan. View Point or Viewing Sensitivity Foreground Middleground Background Corridor Level 0 – ¼ mi. ¼ mi. – 3 mi. 3 mi. – 5+ mi.
Little Boulder Campground 1 Retention Modification Maximum Modification
Potlatch Canyon Trailhead 1 Retention Modification Maximum Modification
Potlatch Canyon Trail 1 Retention Modification Maximum Modification
State Highway 3 2 Modification Maximum Maximum Modification Modification
State Highway 8 2 Modification Maximum Maximum Modification Modification
Little Boulder Road FR 3306* 3 Maximum Maximum Maximum Modification Modification Modification
Potlatch River Road FR 3332” 3 Maximum Maximum Maximum Modification Modification Modification
Palouse Ranger District 222 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.13.4 Environmental Consequences
3.13.4.1 Methodology Although the Visual Management System (PF Doc. VIS-R02) has been replaced by the Scenery Management System (PF Doc. VIS-R01), this analysis uses terminology used in the forest plan which was developed and written under the former. A crosswalk between the two systems is found in Agricultural Handbook 701, Appendix A (PF Doc. VIS-R01). Visual quality objectives (VQOs) are based on the area seen from sensitive viewpoints such as travel corridors, urban areas where the forest background scenery is important and other features where there may be a high visual sensitivity level. These visually sensitive viewpoints are outlined in the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan Appendix G. A variety of tools were used in the visual resource analysis including analyzing VQO maps, field visits and visibility modeling.
Using ArcMap 10.3 (ESRI Inc., 1999-2009), GIS shapefiles of harvest units were overlaid on spatially rectified VQO displaying scenic variety class, distance zones and sensitivity levels, and quality objectives across the area of interest. Original VOQ maps were prepared for the 1987 forest plan using the process outlined in the Agriculture Handbook Number 462 (1976; PF Doc. VIS-R02).
Treatment units and their associated VQOs were evaluated in relation to visually sensitive viewpoints identified in the forest plan to determine the extent to which proposed activities would likely be seen, and the likelihood that those activities would adversely affect VQOs. VQO maps prepared under the forest plan are very general in nature. Scenic class and sensitivity level can provide a general understanding; however, the maps can’t always illustrate how visible specific treatments would be from locations of concern, or the extent to which treatments are likely to stand out or blend with existing scenic features.
Initial field reconnaissance was done to further assess the visibility of potential treatments in the context of the current landscape. Points on VQO maps with direct line of site to treatment units were identified. Units were observed from these locations, using unit maps. Proposed harvest activities are found in all viewing zones when viewed from key viewpoints. To assist in determining unit visibility, the analysis used Google Earth (Google Inc. 2016). Treatment units for each alternative were imported into Google Earth and draped over the landscape. Units were then viewed from ground level or “street view” at a variety of representative sensitive locations, including: Little Boulder Campground, Potlatch Canyon Trailhead and Trail, State Highways 3 and 8, and FR 1963. This 3-D modeling gives a different perspective on how visible a given area is from a specific geographic location. A limitation of using Google Earth for determining visibility is that near view screening from adjacent trees cannot be taken into consideration. For instance, if you are on a trail or road, the 3-D imaging cannot place you down amongst the trees, where your view might be obscured by trees and other vegetation in the foreground. These areas were then field verified and digital photography was compared to the Google images to determine the final effect on the visual resource.
After establishing relative sensitivity of affected areas when viewed from key viewpoints, Agricultural Handbooks 462 and 701 were used as references to determine if proposed activities were likely to modify the landscape to the extent that visual quality objectives could not be met.
Palouse Ranger District 223 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.13.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1:
With no harvest activity planned to occur under Alternative 1 (no action) there would be no direct or indirect short-term effects to the scenic condition of the area. The openings in forest cover that are visible as a result of past forest management would continue to recover tree growth, and over time would fill in unnatural appearing openings. The existing man-made openings would remain visible for another 10 to 15 years. There is some evidence of insect and disease activity within the project area. Dead and dying trees, which would appear as individual and groups of dead trees scattered across the landscape will be found throughout the area. This may increase further risk of wildfire as the amount of dead and dying vegetation increases. While for some, this may have a negative impact on the scenic quality of the area, these activities are considered natural processes, and the resource area would continue to meet assigned VQOs.
Effects Common to all Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Non-Commercial Fuel Reduction Treatments – The two categories of treatments are divided between Low/Modified Thinning and Pre-Commercial Thinning. Both of these treatments retain the majority of the stand structure of an area and therefore would have minimal effects on scenery. These treatments would not affect the scenic quality of the project area.
Intermediate Harvest – Pre-commercial thinning is proposed, including fuel treatments afterwards. These activities are located throughout the project area. For these harvest units the majority of the large canopy trees will be retained, retaining enough stand structure that the scenic quality of the area would not be affected.
Transportation System – New temporary road construction is proposed in all alternatives will be visible from roads and trails within the area of interest, but will be naturalized after the project is complete and will therefore have no long term effect on the scenic quality of the area. The limited extent of this activity will have minor visual effects within the overall area of interest.
New system road construction is proposed in the central portion of the project area and just south of State Highway 8. All of the proposed system roads follow the top of the ridge and should not be visible from any critical viewpoints. Therefore this activity will meet the VQOs of Modification and Maximum Modification designated for these areas.
Reconstruction, reconditioning, and system road maintenance of existing roads would have minor evidence of disturbance in the short term, but would have no visual impacts in the long term.
Proposed road decommissioning that requires partial or full re-contouring would have some short term visual effects, but in the long term this activity will improve the landscape character of the area by removing the road prism and allowing it to naturalize. Abandonment of the road would also allow for overgrowth of the road and the appearance would reflect a more natural landscape.
Quarry development is proposed. This activity would occur in existing quarry areas. This should not have additional effects on the visual condition of the area and in the long term the quarry would be rehabilitated after use.
Watershed Improvements – All proposed watershed improvements would have minimal visual effects in the short term, but would improve the visual condition of the rivers and streams in the area and would therefore have a positive effect on the visual quality of the landscape being
Palouse Ranger District 224 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
studied. This is especially true for the 4.0 miles of stream bank stabilization proposed for the East Fork Potlatch River and its tributaries.
Site Preparation and Reforestation – All of the proposed harvest areas will be prepared for reforestation and then replanted with appropriate coniferous species. These activities, while having a short term impact on the scenery of the affected area, will have a positive long term effect on the area because it accelerates the process of revegetation.
Alternative 2:
This analysis is mainly concerned with the landscape that can be observed from viewpoints identified in the forest plan. (See Table 3.13.1 and Figure 7.) Proposed activities that are blocked from these viewpoints by terrain are considered to be in compliance with VQOs. Proposed management actions that have concern from a scenic resource standpoint are evaluated for how they conform to naturally occurring features that exist or could be created by natural events. Many of the proposed management features have short term visual effects, but would not have long-term scenic effects. Road maintenance is an example of a management action that rarely has a long-term effect on scenic resources and is covered in the Effects Common to All Action Alternatives section.
The Little Boulder area of interest is located within the foreground, middleground and background viewsheds of State Highways 3 and 8, Little Boulder Campground, Potlatch Canyon Trailhead and Trail, Forest Road 1963, and the their associated recreation facilities. Proposed units would be visible from one or more of the viewpoints found within and surrounding the area of interest. A selection of simulations will be presented here. For a more complete listing of the simulated effects of harvesting please refer to the full listing of viewpoints and simulations located in the project file.
Figure 3.13.4 - Critical Viewpoints for Little Boulder Project. Routes or use areas with high concern for scenery are red and moderate concern are yellow. All other routes are in black or grey.
Palouse Ranger District 225 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
State Highways 3 and 8 – State Highway 3 follows much of the northern border of the project area. State Highway 8 parallels the northeastern and eastern boundary near Ruby Creek. There are numerous views of the units located on the north-facing and east-facing ridgelines from these travel corridors.
Views from State Highway 3 is screened by vegetation for a portion of the length of the roadway, but there are also large stretches with view of the project area. There are three fuels units, F23, F24 and F55, which are visible within the foreground viewing zone of the highway. Since harvesting will not occur in these units, they will appear the same as a natural fire event when complete and will meet the VQO of Partial Retention from the highway. Within the middleground viewing zone from Highway 3, visible harvest units include four clearcut units (T19, T20, T32, and T33a) and six seed tree units (T25, T26, T30, T31, T33b, and T49). Interspersed with the harvest units are fuels units F53, F54, F57, F58, F60, F62, and F63. The mix of harvest units and fuels units will have the appearance of a fire event when complete. Fuels units that are adjacent to harvest units will have edges that appear feathered as they would in a natural fire event. Any of the units with straight edges are along private lands that have agricultural openings and will blend in with the existing agricultural landscape. The mix of harvest with fuels units and the size and shape of the harvest units will have the appearance of natural openings and will meet the VQO of Modification from this travel corridor. All units in the background are screened by vegetation or topography from the highway.
There are no units within the foreground viewing zone from State Highway 8. In the middleground viewing area are fuels units F01, F08, and F11, seed tree harvest units T09, T10, T 13, T13a, and clearcut units T07 and T13b. The harvest units are spread across the ridgeline, with the retention of large sections of stand structure for water courses along the ridgeline, the openings will appear as natural fire openings. With design measures to retain stand structure and to create openings with natural edges, the proposed harvest will meet the VQO of Modification and Maximum Modification from the highway. All background views from the highway area screened by topography.
Little Boulder Campground and Potlatch Canyon Trail – Little Boulder Campground and Potlatch Canyon Trail are accessed off of State Highway 3 by the Park Road FR 1963. Both the Little Boulder Campground and the Potlatch Canyon Trail have a VQO of Retention and FR 1963 has a VQO of Partial Retention. From Little Boulder Campground, seed tree harvest unit T26 is visible in the foreground. All other harvest units are screened by topography from the campground. Fuels units F45, F69, and F70 are also visible from the campground. Design measures to retain stand structure, feather the edges of harvest unit boundaries, and reduce visual impacts of skyline harvest activities would be needed to meet the VQO of Retention in the foreground and Partial Retention in the middleground from the viewshed of the campground. Within the fuels units, there would be no harvesting, so these areas would have the appearance of a natural fire events and would therefore meet the VQOs from the campground.
The Potlatch Canyon Trail begins at the trailhead adjacent to the Little Boulder Campground and then loops across the ridgetop just north of the Potlatch River. The trail returns to the river’s edge for the remainder of the loop. The last mile of the trail along the river has a paved surface and is accessible to the disabled. Within the foreground viewshed of the trailhead and trail, seed tree units T26, T30, T31, and T32 are visible. Clearcut units T19 and T20 are also visible on the eastern end of the trail. Fuels unit F27, F57, and F58 are also within the foreground of the trail. For the harvest units, design measures to retain stand structure, feather the edges of harvest unit boundaries, and reduce visual impacts of skyline harvest activities would be needed to meet the
Palouse Ranger District 226 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
VQO of Retention in the foreground from the trail. Two of the fuels units actually cross the trail. Removal of dead and dying trees along the trail will actually enhance the scenic quality of the trail by opening up vistas and removing downed material.
Little Boulder Creek and Schoolhouse Gulch Drainages – The central portion of the analysis area has the remaining harvest units. This area also has areas of recently harvested openings. There are no visually sensitive corridors or use areas within this portion of the analysis area. With stand structure retention and edge feathering, these units would meet the VQOs of Modification and Maximum Modification designated for those areas.
Summary of Effects:
Harvest activities proposed for this project would be visible from several viewpoints (see Table 3.13.1 and Figure 3.13.4) but would be designed to emulate the openings created by natural processes within the area. Openings would be designed appear natural with variable retention of stand structure and openings that emulate the natural openings found in the area. Long term, the harvesting will improve the health and resilience of the forest by encouraging the growth of more resilient coniferous species. While the openings would be apparent and in some cases may dominate the existing landscape character of the area, especially in the background viewing zone, the harvesting will meet the VQOs of Retention, Partial Retention, Modification and Maximum Modification where appropriate. Given the design measures outlined for all visible units, Alternative 2 would meet the forest plan visual quality objectives.
Alternative 3:
State Highways 3 and 8 – Proposed harvest and fuels units in Alternative 3, which are visible from State Highways 3 and 8, are the same as Alternative 2. The same design measures would be needed to meet the VQOs for these travel corridors.
Little Boulder Campground and Potlatch Canyon Trail - Proposed harvest and fuels units in Alternative 3 that are visible from Little Boulder Campground, Potlatch Canyon Trail, and FR 1963, are the same as Alternative 2. The same design measures would be needed to meet the VQOs for these travel corridors and use area.
Palouse Ranger District 227 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Little Boulder Creek and Schoolhouse Gulch Drainages – Within the central portion of the analysis area, several harvest units included in Alternative 2 are not included in Alternative 3. Seed tree units T33, T33b, and T36; clearcut units T34 and T37; and shelterwood unit T36a are not included in Alternative 3. This will reduce the visual impact of harvesting in the central portion of the analysis area. With design measures to retain stand structure and feather the edges of units, the proposed activities will meet the VQOs of Modification and Maximum Modification for the area
Figure 3.13.5 - Views from FR 3329 show seed tree harvest units in the central portion of Little Boulder Creek canyon. Clearcut and seed tree units included in Alternative 2 and not included in Alternative 3.
Summary of Effects:
Harvest activities proposed for this project would be visible from several viewpoints (see Table 3.13.1 and Figure 3.13.4) but would be designed to emulate the openings created by natural processes within the area. This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 with the exception of reduction of five moderately sized units adjacent to Little Boulder Creek. Openings would be designed to appear natural with naturally shaped edges and retention of some stand structure. Long term the openings will improve the health and resilience of the forest. While the openings would be apparent and in some cases may dominate the existing landscape character of the area, especially in the background viewing zone, will meet the VQOs of Retention, Partial Retention, Modification and Maximum Modification where appropriate. Given the design measures outlined for all visible units, Alternative 3 would meet the forest plan visual quality objectives.
Alternative 4:
State Highways 3 and 8- Within Alternative 4 there is some reduction in the size of harvest units that are visible from State Highways 3 and 8. From State Highway 3 units T26 and T49 would be reduced and would no longer be visible from the highway. From State Highway 8 units T09, T13a, and 13b have been reduced. All of the fuels units will remain the same. With design measures outlined in Alternative 2, Alternative 4 will also meet the VQOs within the viewshed of the state highways.
Palouse Ranger District 228 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Little Boulder Campground and Potlatch Canyon Trail - Only one harvest unit that is visible from Little Boulder Campground and Potlatch Canyon Trail will be reduced in Alternative 4. Harvest unit T26 is reduced from approximately 84 acres to 22.6 acres in Alternative 2 to 22 acres in Alternative 4. This unit is very visible and a reduction in this unit would reduce the visual impact of harvest in this area. The fuels units that are visible from the campground and trail in Alternative 2 are the same in Alternative 4. With design measures, especially for units in the foreground viewshed from the campground and trail would be needed to meet the Forest Plan VQOs.
Little Boulder Creek and Schoolhouse Gulch Drainages – Most of the harvest units proposed in Alternative 2 have been reduced in size in Alternative 4. For several of the larger units proposed in Alternative 2 they have been divided into smaller individual units that area separated from other units by significant un-harvested areas in Alternative 4. These smaller units have also been designed emulate the size and shape of natural openings. Design measures to retain stand structure and opening size and shape would meet the Forest Plan VQOs of Modification and Maximum Modification for these areas.
Summary of Effects:
Harvest activities proposed for this project would be visible from several viewpoints (see Table 3.13.1 and Figure 3.13.4) but would be designed to emulate the openings created by natural processes within the area. Openings would be designed appear natural with naturally shaped openings and retention of stand structure. Long term, the openings will improve the health and resilience of the forest. While the openings would be apparent and in some cases may dominate the existing landscape character of the area especially in the background viewing zone will meet the VQOs of Retention, Partial Retention, Modification and Maximum Modification where appropriate. Given the design measures outlined for all visible units, alternative 4 would meet the forest plan visual quality objectives.
3.13.4.3 Cumulative Effects Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Analysis
Openings created by timber harvest activities from past projects are still evident within the area of interest. Although most openings have regenerated, some still appear as distinctive openings with lineal edges. A few naturally shaped openings are found across the rolling uplands in the center of the analysis area. Smaller and less noticeable openings are still visible along the ridgeline above the Potlatch River from viewpoints along State Highways 3 and 8, but these are rarely noticeable. Harvest activities began in the area in the 1960s, with the most recent harvest units occurring in the 2008 – 2011, including the Cabin Fever, Cherry Pit and Dinner Bucket Stew Timber Sales.
Palouse Ranger District 229 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
There have been a number of Forest Service timber sales that have occurred in the general area but outside of the designated project area boundary between 1974 and 2010. Most of the older sales are no long visible, but there are some harvest areas from more recent sales that still appear as openings, including: Abe’s Animals, Cougar 1 and 2, Feather Creek, Nat Brown, Brown Divide, Corralled Bear and Bear Stew. Other management activities such as pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, salvage logging, road construction, and road maintenance have not had a significant visual impact on the viewsheds within the area of interest and therefor have not had a long term effect.
Figure 3.13.6 - Past harvest areas retained stand structure, created openings with natural edges and retain screening to meet the Forest Plan VQOs for the project area.
Present activities in the area included the Brown Divide timber sale which includes 60 acres of regeneration harvest and 9 acres of commercial thinning. This harvest is not visible from critical viewsheds in the project area.
Foreseeable future harvest activities in the area include the Moose Creek project located near Bovill, Idaho and the Neva project located to the east of Little Boulder. Both projects will be designed to meet the Forest Plan VQOs.
Other past, present and future activities including tree planting, public use, trail construction and maintenance, pre-commercial timber stand improvements. These activities would have no significant effect on the visual condition of the area of interest because they do not create large enough man-made openings to alter the inherent landscape character to the degree that it would become a dominant visual element within the viewshed.
State and Private Activities
There is extensive private timberland harvest to the south and east of the project area. Although the Potlatch Corporation lands are nearby, they are screened by topography and the harvest activities are not visible from critical viewpoints such as Little Boulder Campground, Potlatch Canyon Trail and State Highways 3 and 8. Other private harvesting is on a smaller scale around
Palouse Ranger District 230 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
residential area and appear more as the mixed agricultural/timberland character that is evident from the communities of Deary and Helmer. State land near the project area also has experienced some harvesting, but these areas are also not within the viewshed of critical viewing areas within the Little Boulder project.
Alternative 1 - No Action:
There would be no man-made change in the scenic quality of the area of interest in Alternative 1 in the short term. The existing man-made openings would continue to re-vegetate and within 10 to 15 years would no longer appear as distinctly as openings. Alternative 1 would not change the existing landscape character of the geographic area encompassed within the Little Boulder area of interest.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Past harvest activities are visible in the central portion of the analysis area. Most proposed units within the Little Boulder Project will be also be visible to some extent from the roads, trails and recreation sites within the area of interest, but the changes will meet the visual quality standards of the Forest Plan. Openings will be visible but will reflect the size and shape of natural fire activity. In critical viewsheds, more stand structure will be retained and logging activities will be designed to emulate natural fire patterns. Given the aspect and growing history of the area, the openings created by this proposal would no long appear as openings within 30 to 35 years, but should appear as an area that has experienced the natural process of wildfire.
Palouse Ranger District 231 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.14 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE 3.14.1 Introduction This section addresses the analysis issue identified in section 3.14.1.1.in the subsequent sections (Affected Environment/ Environmental Consequences), and groups species according to the following categories:
• Habitat Considerations Common to Multiple Terrestrial Wildlife Species
• Forest Service Sensitive Species
• Management Indicator Species (MIS)
• Threatened, Endangered, & Proposed Species
Information regarding “Migratory Landbirds, Old Growth, Snags, & Coarse Woody Debris” is located in the terrestrial wildlife specialist report located in the project record. The project may impact migratory landbird species or their associated habitats, but impacts are not expected to be detectably adverse to populations. Given the footprint, duration, and design criteria, potential impacts of the Little Boulder project are not expected to result in changes to the populations or viabilities of migratory landbirds on the Forest. Old growth associated terrestrial wildlife species may be impacted by the proposed activities. Fuels treatments could result in the reduction of old growth characteristics, and regeneration treatments would result in the reduction in potential old growth recruitment availability. However, the Little Boulder project would not prohibit old growth Forest standards from being met, because no old growth would be treated and the minimum standard for old growth would be retained. Finally, the snag and coarse woody debris assessment suggests there would be little risk to population viability of snag associated terrestrial wildlife species.
After preliminary assessment, three threatened or endangered species, four Forest Service sensitive species, and three Management Indicator Species, were considered but eliminated from further analysis. This conclusion was reached based on one or more of the following: (1) the species would not be affected by proposed activities, (2) there is a lack of suitable habitat for and presence of the species in or near the project area, or (3) if the species were to be affected by the project it would be at an unmeasurably low level that would not likely impact the population.
The project would have no effect on: Canada lynx or grizzly bear. The project would not likely jeopardize the North American wolverine. The project would have no impact on the following sensitive species: harlequin duck, black-backed woodpecker, Coeur d’Alene salamander, or ring- necked snake. The project would not change the population viability of the following management indicator species: belted kingfisher, grizzly bear, or shiras moose.
These “no effect, no impact, & no change to viability” species may not be addressed in further detail within this DEIS, but information can be found in the project record within the terrestrial wildlife specialists report.
3.14.1.1 Issues Addressed • Analysis Issue: Fish and wildlife - effects to stream habitat and effects to threatened, endangered, or candidate species; sensitive terrestrial and aquatic species; management
Palouse Ranger District 232 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
indicator species (MIS); and other species of interest that are present in the project area. (see section 1.7.2)
• Issue Indicator(s): Specific issue indicators for each group and/or species presented in the terrestrial wildlife section can be found in the individual analysis sections within the Environmental Consequences discussion (section 3.14.4)
3.14.2 Affected Environment
3.14.2.1 Scope of Analysis Spatial Bounds of Analysis Areas: The direct and indirect effects analysis areas is customized to each species according to the site, their habitat, or territory size. The cumulative effects analysis areas for terrestrial wildlife species are generally derived from the same methods as the analysis area for species specific direct and indirect effects evaluation, but the footprint extends to include non-Forest lands. The cumulative effects analysis area for bats is the 12,435 acre entirety of the Project area. These analysis areas are appropriate because they are large enough to contain all direct and indirect effects and remain small enough to ensure effects are not diluted.
Temporal Bounds of Analysis Areas: Short-term effects are defined as 10 years or less, while long-term effects are bound at 40 years. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analyses for all terrestrial wildlife species are temporally bound at 40 years. Ten years is an adequate short-term bound, because it is during this time that increased shrub or herbaceous vegetation production would result from after regeneration harvest. Forty years is an appropriate timeframe to assess long-term effects, because after this time forest succession in post-regeneration harvest stands would begin converting to establishment of the stem exclusion structural stage dominated by pole size trees. Although Project effects would persist beyond 40 years, or beyond the long- term, the potential for natural disturbances remains unpredictable. Namely, disease and wildfire complicate estimates of landscape conditions beyond the long-term timeframe.
3.14.2.2 Existing Condition
Habitat Common to Multiple Terrestrial Wildlife There are multiple species that have common habitat needs and therefore would be commonly affected by the proposed action. Particular habitat conditions that multiple species are associated with in regard to the Little Boulder Project, include: mature forests, dead trees (snags), wet (riparian) areas, and shrub or herbaceous openings. These habitats and associated species are listed below:
1. Mature forests: species include - bald eagle, fisher, flammulated owl, northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, and some migratory birds
2. Dead trees (snags): species include - bald eagle, Bats, fisher, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, and some migratory birds
3. Wet (riparian) areas: species include - bald eagles, Bats, fisher, western toad, and some migratory birds
4. Shrub or herbaceous openings (early seral conditions or young forest): species include - rocky mountain elk, white-tailed deer, and some migratory birds
Palouse Ranger District 233 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Within these groups, there are more specific quantities, qualities, and arrangements of forested environment conditions that terrestrial wildlife species prefer. These habitat specifications include amounts, attributes, and juxtaposition of: tree species, tree size, canopy cover, forest connectivity, opening sizes, and edge.
The project area contains all common habitat conditions described above. The arrangement of openings and mature forests in the project area, as a result of past-actions, are linear in their transitions and are simplifications of forest structure. Forested riparian areas in the project area average greater than 60% canopy cover, while post-harvest areas would be 15-25% canopy cover for the first decade. About 25% of the stands that are proposed for regeneration harvest have 25- 40% canopy cover, while about 75% of the stands proposed for harvest have 40-60%.
More detailed information regarding common habitat conditions for multiple species (in terms of forest arrangement (opening, size, mature forest connectivity, and edge), dead trees, tree species composition, and individual disturbance) can be found in the terrestrial wildlife specialists’ report located in the project record.
Forest Service Sensitive Species The following sensitive species are addressed further because there is suitable habitat for, or expected presence of the species in or near the project area, and the species and/or their habitat may be affected by proposed activities. The project may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species for the following sensitive species: bald eagle, fringed myotis, long- eared myotis, long- legged myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, fisher, flammulated owl, western (boreal) toad, gray wolf, and pygmy nuthatch.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Population: Rangewide, the bald eagles population has increased substantially since the 1970s (Buehler 2000). The number of active nest sites in Idaho has increased almost 5–fold in the last 20 years (Sallabanks 2005). The long-term (1966 to 2015) and short-term (2005-2015) trend of bald eagles in Idaho is increasing by 5.93 and 8.5% (Sauer et al 2008). Most of the sighting records on the Forest are from the Middle Fork of the Clearwater and the Lochsa River corridors. Data for the Forest is available for 2005, 2011, and 2012, but it is not provided here because the survey routes are far from the Project area.
Occurrence: There were 234 bald eagle nesting territories in Idaho in 2007 (IDFG 2008). There are less than 50 sightings and 2 nest sites on record within a mile of the North Fork and Palouse Ranger Districts. The most likely nesting opportunities proximal to the Project area are at Spring Valley Reservoir about 15 miles west of the Project (Sauder 2017), or at Moose Creek reservoir about 4 miles north of the Project. However, these areas are on state lands and there are limited detection records associated with them. Bald eagles have been sighted at least five times in the Project area, along Ruby Creek and the East Fork Potlatch River. It is unknown whether bald eagles use the area to nest or roost during winter, but there are nesting, foraging, and roosting opportunities.
Habitat: Habitat is available at the District and Project level, but the quality and value of the area to bald eagles is unknown. There are limited records on breeding or winter use of the area. There are 175 miles of fish-bearing streams on the District, 20 miles (or 11%) of which are in the Project area. The Ruby Creek, Little Boulder Creek, or Potlatch River drainages are the areas bald eagles would be most likely to forage in the Project boundary. Perch, roost, or nest sites are likely to occur within view of these drainages, so this supports the ¼ mile buffer rationale for the analysis area.
Palouse Ranger District 234 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Given the size of bald eagle nests, nest site availability is limited by the number and distribution of large trees or snags along these riparian corridors
Bats (Chiroptera): Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)
Species Account: The fringed myotis, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, and townsend’s big-eared bat (Bats) have similar foraging and roosting needs, with regard to forests and potential impacts from vegetation management. They share an insect prey base and use trees or snags with existing cavities or furrowed bark for roosting. Foraging habitat is generally described as forested stands, meadows, or their edges. Bats may travel several miles from roosts to their preferred foraging locations, with frequent use of riparian corridors for foraging or travel. There is no set amount or quality of forested habitat identified in the literature as necessary to support the Bats. Relevant to this Project, the literature recognizes: (1) the importance of insect abundance, in terms of forage corridors associated with intact riparian areas; and (2) roost availability associated with snags.
Population, Surveys, & Occurrence: The long-eared myotis is one of the most widely reported bats in northern Idaho (Romin and Bosworth 2010), but it and long-legged myotis are considered moderate conservation concerns (Weller 2005). The present population status of fringed myotis may be uncommon or rare through most of its western range (Baker and Lacki 2006), as it was one of the least common detected species during surveys in northern Idaho (Romin and Bosworth 2010). Surveys on the District include riparian area captures (2004-2005) and abandoned mine pre-closure assessments (2002-2004). Long-eared and long-legged myotis were the 1st and 3rd (251 and 124 respectively) most abundant captures in the Elk River area (during 2004-2005, 17), roughly 7 miles east of the Project area. Bat surveys have been conducted inconsistently across the Region, Forest, and on the District.
Project Habitat & Occurrence: There are no known abandoned mines, caves, or building structures available for use by roosting Bats in the Project area. The 2 dead trees per acre greater than 15” dbh would have the highest likelihood of being suitable roost trees. Bats have not been routinely surveyed for in the Project area, but the area provides foraging and roosting opportunities in the form of riparian corridors, forested edges, meadows, and large diameter snags. Documented occurrences of long-eared and long-legged myotis are in the vicinity (less than 2 miles east) of the Project. A mist netting effort in 2005 surveyed sections of water in the Project area, but the only capture was a big brown bat at Helmer’s pothole. Use of the Project area by foraging Bats is likely, but the location of Bat roosts is unknown, so all four sensitive species are assumed present.
Fisher (Pekania pennanti)
Habitat on the Forest, District, and Project Area: Modeled fisher habitat mapped in 2008 indicate there were 686,899 acres of winter habitat and 365,710 acres of summer habitat (Samson 2006, updated by Bush and Lundberg 2008). The District has 42,216 acres modeled as probable occupied habitat, of which 32,372 acres (77%) are mature forest. This accounts for a fraction of the District, which is interspersed with non-Forest lands, so the mature forest is not highly connected. Given Fisher’s apparent association with cedar tree species, it is worth noting that cedar is distributed across 15% of the Project area. Three of the stands (146 acres) assessed by the silviculturist for regeneration were identified as culminated or old and nearing the end of its life cycle (Berry 2017). It is these types of stands that would likely contain ample decadent structures
Palouse Ranger District 235 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
to support resting or denning. There has been no stand conversion type natural disturbances in the Project area in the past 12 years.
Habitat in the Analysis Area: The analysis area has 10,737 acres of probable habitat, of which 3,991 acres are mature forest. Therefore 12% of the mature probable habitat on the District is in the analysis area. This equates to 31% (3,991 acres) of the analysis area on Forest lands as mature while 3% (370 acres) is considered open. There is less than 50% mature forest arrangement that is not in highly connected complex shapes, and does have isolated patches.Therefore, the existing condition does not meet the complex forest pattern that fisher tend to occupy. However, the analysis area does remain below the open area ‘threshold’ comprising ≤5% of the landscape. Broader considerations on forest connectivity, opening and edge habitat is provided in the habitat qualities common to multiple terrestrial wildlife section.
Distribution: Fisher distribution is thought to be similar to historic levels in the northern Rocky Mountains (USDI 2011), while western populations remain at low levels. In Idaho, fisher’s occur in the Selkirk Mountains to the north, the Clearwater and Salmon River Mountains in central Idaho, and the Bitterroot Range, including the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, in the north-central portion of the state (USDI 2011). The Lochsa River area of Idaho appears to have some of the highest fisher densities in the region, with approximately 1 fisher per 24,000 acres. Since very little information is known about Northern Rockies fisher population status and trend (Lewis and Hahn 2012), it was recommended that long-term monitoring plans for fishers be developed to prioritize conservation measures (Lofroth et al 2010).
Surveys: Between 2002 and 2006, a study on fishers was conducted in the Clearwater sub-basin and eastern slope of the Bitterroot-Selway Ecosystem in Idaho and Montana (Schwartz et al 2013). Systematic surveys for fishers in the Region, using a 5 x 5 mile grid hair snare grid, began in 2004 (Lewis and Hahn 2012) and have continued annually at various locations. Fishers were detected at 5% of survey points (222 out of 4,813 snares) in 8 years. There was an Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) Clearwater Region study of fisher ecology conducted from 2006-2010 (Sauder and Rachlow 2014). IDFG radio-collared nine female fisher on the Forests during winter from 2012 to present.
Occurrence: Idaho has not allowed trapping of fishers since the 1960’s, but incidental trapping of individuals requires reporting. Trapping resulted in reported mortality of 22 individuals over 40 years, whereas the condition of 98 trapped individuals were not indicated and survival of the 107 live releases is unknown, but some studies found survivability as low as 50 percent (USDI 2011). Fisher are known to occur on the District, but there are no detections on record in the Project area. There are nine records on the District, with the three closest recorded observations at 6.5 miles to the east and 5.5 miles to the south of the Project. Given the patchy arrangement of habitat on the District, population size is probably relatively low and individual home ranges relatively large. Hypothetically, assuming half of an average fisher home range needs to be mature, than the District could support up to 6 females.
Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus)
Forest & District: The Forest was estimated to have 15,900 acres of flammulated owl habitat in 2008 (Samson 2006). The flammulated owl’s estimated population level was at the state target in 2004 (Groves et al 1997). On the District, it is estimated there is 6,651 acres of habitat, but it is patchy and disconnected with 72 openings (2,909 acres) greater than 20 acres in size, and only 11 openings (999 acres) greater than 60 acres in size. Therefore, hypothetically speaking, the District
Palouse Ranger District 236 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
could support 11 to 72 pairs of Flammulated owls. There have been surveys on the District in 2005 (41 and 42) and 2008 (43) which yielded one positive detection far north of the Project area.
Project: Flammulated owl habitat is patchily distributed on Forest lands in the Project Area, with the largest contiguous patch at 111 acres (the only one greater than 60 acres), and only 10 patches that may be large enough to support a breeding pair (greater than 20 acres). The analysis area contains 591 acres of flammulated owl habitat and could hypothetically support up to 10 pairs. The remainder of modeled habitat outside of the analysis area is scattered throughout the western portion of the Project area in such small isolated patches that it is not considered suitable. Flammulated owls have not been surveyed for, and there are no records of them, in the Project area.
Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas)
Forest, District, & Project Species Account: Western toads are known to occur on the Forest and use a variety of habitat. The roughly 44,046 acres of riparian no-harvest buffers on the District are the most likely western toad use areas. Breeding and non-breeding use could occur in the project area. There is one western toad detection record in the Project area.
Gray Wolf (Canis lupis)
State, Forest, & Project Population: The Idaho wolf population has expanded in size and distribution since initial reintroductions in 1995, reaching Endangered Species Act recovery goals by the end of 2002 (IDFG and Nez Perce Tribe 2013). Wolf monitoring and management activities have been reported by Wolf Management Zones since 2008 and there are four partially on the Forest, each of which include several Game Management Units. Annual estimates of the number of wolves in Idaho are as follows (year, number): 2005, 518; 2006, 673; 2007, 764; 2008, 849; 2009, 856; 2010, 777; 2011, 768; 2012, 722; 2013, 684; 2014, 78; and 2015, 786 (Husseman and Struthers 2016). IDFG manages the number of wolves by harvest or control through agency removal and legal take. The project area falls into the Palouse/Hells Canyon Wolf Management Zone.
Project Occurrence: The two territories that overlap the Project area, are the Long Meadow and Giant Cedar packs. However, the Long Meadow pack is considered terminated. Giant Cedar is the only remaining pack out of four in the Palouse Hells Canyon Wolf Management Zone. The other three packs in the Zone were considered no longer extant at the end of 2015. The Giant Cedar pack did not qualify as a breeding pair in 2015 and there are no known den or rendezvous sites in the project area. However, considering that the project area is in the known foraging area of at least one wolf pack, it is likely that individual wolf are often or sometimes within the project area and could be present during implementation.
Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea)
Pygmy nuthatches have strong preference for ponderosa pine habitat, especially older, open habitats at elevations up to 3,000 meters or roughly 9,800 feet. They forage on insects and require high snag densities because they nest in natural or excavated cavities. Nesting occurs from April through mid-August. Pygmy nuthatch home ranges are small, averaging about 5 acres in some areas. Pygmy habitat is defined for this analysis as ponderosa pine dominated forests with 10- 60% canopy cover.
Palouse Ranger District 237 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Management Indicator Species The following management indicator species are addressed further because there is suitable habitat for, or expected presence of the species in or near the Project area, and the species and/or their habitat may be affected by proposed activities. The Project may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species for the following management indicator species: northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, rocky mountain elk, white-tailed deer, and American marten.
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Region, Forest, District- Habitat & Occurrence: A 2005 survey of the frequency of northern goshawk presence in the USFS Northern Region detected them in 39% of available habitat in road-accessible areas (ibid and Kowalski 2005). The long-term (1966 to 2015) and short-term (2005-2015) trend of northern goshawks in Idaho is declining by 3.59 and 2.42% (Sauer et al 2008). Northern goshawk are known to occur on the Clearwater National Forest (CNF) and Palouse Ranger District. The CNF was estimated to have 31,801 acres of nesting habitat, 62,012 of post-fledgling area habitat, and 575,596 acres of foraging habitat in 2008 (Samson 2006, updated by Bush and Lundberg 2008). Past monitoring records are disassembled and outdated, but from what has been reassembled at this time, it is believed the North Fork Ranger District may have at one time supported 6 territories, while the Palouse Ranger District supported 15 territories. Additionally, there are records of 4 territories on non-Forest land immediately adjacent to Palouse Ranger District lands. It is unknown how much vegetation management has occurred in these territories over the past 30 years and it is unknown which territories remain viable or active. Monitoring documented presence in 4 territories across the District in 2016 and 2017.
Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)
Habitat estimates indicate the Forest had approximately 268,718 acres of nesting and 338,680 acres of foraging habitat in 2008 (Samson 2006, updated by Bush and Lundberg 2008). Recent surveys confirm pileated woodpeckers are more likely to occupy sites with taller trees and more closed canopy and they are often found on more southerly facing slopes (Miller et al 2016). Furthermore, they are more often found where there is a higher Douglas-fir and western larch component, and less often at points with ponderosa pine (ibid and Garrett et al 1996). According to estimates based on common stand exam data, 15% of the project area is in the early seral stage which is considered pileated woodpecker foraging habitat (Berry 2016). Eighty-five percent of the project area is considered nesting habitat because it is in a mid-seral successional stage or later, with 19% of the area in late-successional, or preferred habitat conditions (ibid). There is a 1,171 acre contiguous patch of old growth recruitment potential in the project area, however there is only an 88 acre patch of step down and retained existing old growth.
Occurrence: The trend for pileated woodpeckers from 1966 to 2012 was slightly declining for the state of Idaho (Sauer et al 2008). Pileated woodpeckers are a common year-round residents of the Forest. Landbird surveys conducted on the Forest, estimates pileated woodpeckers have well distributed occupancy (White et al 2013, Baumgardt et al 2014). Pileated woodpecker drilling evidence was documented throughout roughly 1/3 of the project area, or 35 out of 91 points, that were surveyed during field review in 2015 (Dronen 2017). There are 30 recorded pileated woodpecker detections on the District, of which 2 are in the project area (IDFG 2016). Given the average territory size, the project area could contain up to 12 pairs.
Hypothetical Home Ranges: Three of the hypothetical home ranges have over 250 acres of old growth status, but the majority of that is recruitment potential. Six of the hypothetical home
Palouse Ranger District 238 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
ranges are dominated by over 60% canopy cover. Four of the hypothetical home ranges are over 30% dominated by greater than 15” dbh trees, while four are less than 20% composed of 15” dbh or greater trees. Five of the hypothetical home ranges have over 30% openings assuming non- Forest land is open, but only one has over 40% openings. Two of the hypothetical home ranges had over 40% harvest activities in the past 50 years. None of the hypothetical home ranges are 75% grand fir dominated. It is impossible to know how many pairs the Project area actually or could support because territories could take on any manner of configurations, but based on the habitat model and hypothetical home ranges, there is probably at least three suitable territories in the Project area.
Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus) & White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
Forage & Cover: Herbaceous and browse forage availability and abundance in past timber harvest units has declined over time. Generally, after the short-term in post-regeneration harvest, shrubs become decadent, or their height exceeds the reach of ungulates. Then forested stands become established and shade out the understory, so tree canopy cover increases, resulting in a decrease in forb, grass, and shrub forage. Forage is available in the project area, primarily in past regeneration harvest units (for the short-term), open forests, meadows, and adjacent agricultural croplands. Hiding cover is available in forest stands mid-seral or older, and in patches of young forest stands depending on arrangement and size of trees.
Security: Human population and access to the Forest has dramatically increased relative to historic conditions. Ungulate security declines with road construction, because the associated increase in human access, results in increases of elk mortality from hunting. Additionally, the increased use of off-road vehicles, has increased human access to the Forest over the past long- term. These vehicles became more affordable and technology enhanced their off-road capabilities enabling more cross country travel. The effectiveness of road restrictions are compromised when off-road motorized vehicles negotiate behind gates and barriers. The current total road density in the Project area is 3.1 miles per square mile. There is no security available in the Little Boulder EAU, and the 8% security in the East Ruby EAU would not change this Project. The Little Boulder EAU would not experience any change to potential use roads with this Project.
Habitat & Habitat Effectiveness: Although, the project area is not recognized as winter range in the Forest Plan, elk use the breaks of the Potlatch River as winter range, so the analysis area includes both summer and winter habitat. Currently, both EAUs are below the habitat effectiveness objective of 50%, but above the 25% Plan standard. Forage comprises about 3% of the Project area due to the roughly 400 acres of regeneration harvest that was implemented in past 10 years. There is a high level of motorized vehicle use in the Project area. Lack of security is the primary driver for low habitat effectiveness in both EAUs, due to the amount of roads open to motorized use. There is 100% cattle use of both EAUs, so competition for forage could be high. Given the Project area is predominantly surrounded by non-Forest land, it is likely the relative value of cover and security in this area is high for elk.
Population & Occurrence: The elk in the Project area are part of the Palouse Zone (Game Management Units 8, 8A, and 11A). They are at or above population objectives, with high cow numbers and adequate bull numbers (IDFG 2014). The management direction is to maintain bull elk population and decrease cow elk population. The herd is highly productive due to timber harvest and high quality agriculture crops, but the population is limited by social tolerance and agricultural impacts. Population objectives for the Zone are 1,125-1,725 cows and 115-415 bulls. In 2009, surveys detected 2,153 cows and 411 bulls (ibid). Elk use and abundance specific to the Project area is unknown. In 2015, surveyors documented game trails at 77% of the plots in the
Palouse Ranger District 239 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Project area, and in 2014 surveyors documented game trails at 70% of the points, but they did not indicate species use (Dronen 2017). There are no known calving areas in the Project area (Hickey 2016).
Comparison of Literature: The Interagency Guidelines for Managing Elk Habitats and Populations (Servheen 1997) is an updated reference on elk summer habitat management that suggests analyzing for motorized trails. However, the calculations for roads, livestock, security, cover, and forage are essentially the same as Leege 1984. The elk vulnerability model attempts to analyze elk depredation from hunting, natural mortality factors, and road effects (access for hunters), and then extrapolate this information to determine trends in elk mortality per Game Management Unit. However, the elk vulnerability model has limited applications for use with Forest projects due to the scale of analysis and mortality factors. Specific examples of limitations include extrapolating road densities beyond Forest lands and accounting for IDFG’s changes in hunting seasons or alteration of gender numbers allowed for hunting.
White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
White-tailed deer (deer) are widely dispersed and occupy a variety of habitats. Deer need cover, warmth, and forage in the winter. They are drawn to south facing slopes, or old forests that intercept snow, in order to avoid extra energy expenditure. Although deer and elk differ in their habitat needs or use of forests, the foundation of their needs is similar, so the affected environment of forage and cover in the elk section below is applicable here, and the environmental consequences of vegetation management through timber harvest and prescribed fire are also similar to those of elk and as such, applicable to deer.
Population & Occurrence: The Project area falls into IDFG’s Data Analysis Unit (DAU) 3 and GMU 8A. The area attracts hunters because success rates and the opportunity to harvest a mature buck are amongst the highest in the State. From 1994 to 2003, the harvest data at the DAU level indicated an average of 3.4 hunters per square mile with 1.5 harvests per square mile, totaling 87,057 individuals (IDFG 2004). GMU 8A had 1,962 individuals harvested in 2016. Deer winter along the Potlatch River and there is one population area identified in the southwest portion of the Project area (Rand 1985).
American Marten (Martes americana)
Forest Populations & Project Habitat: In IDFG’s Clearwater Region, multiple marten were detected each year during snow track surveys in the winter of 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005- 2006 (53). Marten have been incidentally detected during IDFG and USFS Northern Region sponsored fisher surveys in: 2002 to 2006, 2004 to 2011, and 2006 to 2010. However, there are no detection records on the Palouse Ranger District and the project area is near the edge of the range of the marten in the state. The project area has 5,575 acres above 3,000 feet, which is equivalent to about one female home range. Approximately 74% of this area is dominated by greater than 60% canopy cover, 35% is dominated by greater than 15” dbh trees, 52% has a north aspect, and 73% is grand fir dominant. However, the area does not have deep persistent snow pack and 24% of it is open. Additionally, there is hardly any (only two stand exam plots with) spruce, but western red cedar and lodgepole pine are available.
Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Species North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo)
Palouse Ranger District 240 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
A Forest Service Sensitive Species, the North American Wolverine is currently proposed for consideration as a threatened species, but no critical habitat has been designated. The mammal prefers high elevation alpine and boreal forests that are cold and receive enough winter precipitation to maintain deep persistent snow into the late spring. There are 3-5 records of wolverines on the Palouse Ranger District, about 11 miles east and 16 miles north of the project area, but those were likely dispersing individuals. There are no detections and no suitable habitat in or near the project area. None of the proposed activities are considered a threat to the distinct population segment and the cumulative effects would not result in barriers to dispersing individuals. Therefore, the Little Boulder Project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the distinct population segment of the North American Wolverine.
Canada Lynx (Felis lynx)
Habitat & Occurrence: The Forest is classified as a secondary area because it has historical records of Canada lynx presence with no record of reproduction, or no recent surveys to document present of Canada lynx or reproduction. There have been four Canada lynx sightings on the District, from the years 1977-1984, and about 20 observation records within approximately 30 miles of the Project area. There are no Canada lynx analysis units and no modeled lynx habitat on the District. There is no designated critical Canada lynx habitat within the Forests boundary, so the Project area does not include any Canada lynx critical habitat. There is no linkage area in the vicinity of the Project, so the link objective, standard, and guidelines do not apply to all projects. The Canada lynx detections closest to the Project area, are approximately: 3, 8, and 19 miles north, 5, 8, 16, 18, and 20 miles south and west.
Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos)
Population & Status: Although the grizzly bear is listed as a threatened species, the grizzly bear is not listed as occurring or potentially being affected by activities in the Project area (IPac). However, the grizzly bear is listed as known or believed to occur in Clearwater and Idaho Counties (ECOS). Anecdotal and unverified sightings of grizzly bears on the Forests occur infrequently. Forest records show reports as much as every few years to a few every decade. Approximately 25% of black bears on the forest are not black-colored (Servheen and Shoemaker 2010), which can make accurate species identification difficult even for experienced observers. Grizzlies in portions of Idaho and Montana are listed as an experimental non-essential population.
Occurrence: Until 2007, when one male grizzly was killed on the North Fork Ranger District in the northern Bitterroot ecosystem in Idaho, it was widely accepted that there were no grizzly bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem. DNA from the killed grizzly, show the bear was transient from the Selkirk ecosystem. There is no documented population or any female bears within the Bitterroot Recovery Zone in the Bitterroot Mountains of east-central Idaho, so it is considered currently unoccupied (USDI 2011) per the definition of a population of grizzly bears (USDI 2000). Camera and extensive hair sampling surveys were conducted in 2008-2009, but failed to detect grizzly bears (Servheen and Shoemaker 2010). There are no grizzly bear observations on the District, but there are 50-80 sighting records on the North Fork Ranger District, primarily from the 1950s-1980s. In conclusion, there would be no Project effects on grizzly bear or their habitat because they are very unlikely to be present and the Forest is not recognized as having any occupied habitat that is necessary for the recovery of the species.
Palouse Ranger District 241 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.14.3 Regulatory Framework
3.14.3.1 Endangered Species Act The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was contacted as part of the informal consultation process using the Information, Planning, and Conservation decision support system (IPac) for a list of endangered, threatened, or proposed species that may be present in the Project area. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species and ensure any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally-listed species, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. This project is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act for terrestrial wildlife and the consultation code is: 01EIFW00-2017-SLI-0161 (USDI 2016). The only threatened, endangered, or proposed terrestrial wildlife species listed for this Project (from that system) is the North American wolverine, which is proposed for federal listing and currently under review for Threatened status. This biological assessment section also provides no effect rational for Canada Lynx and Grizzly Bear.
3.14.3.2 Forest Plan Consistency Viability, Biological Diversity, & Regional Forester Designated Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species on the Clearwater National Forest: The Forest is required to manage wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the Forest Plan area (36 CFR Part 219). The Forest is bound by federal statutes (Endangered Species Act 1973, National Forest Management Act 1976), regulation (USDA Fish and Wildlife Policy 9500-004), and agency policy (Forest Service Manual) to conserve biological diversity on National Forest System lands and assure sensitive species populations do not decline or trend toward listing under the Endangered Species Act. Sensitive species are those identified by the Regional Forester where viability may be a concern. This includes evidence of a current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or habitat suitability that would substantially reduce species distribution. Federal laws and direction applicable to sensitive species include the National Forest Management Act and Forest Service Manual (sections 2600 and 2670). The Forest Service is required to manage habitat of the species listed as sensitive to prevent further populations declines. Impacts of Forest activities must not impact sensitive species without analysis of the significance of the adverse effects and the activities cannot result in a loss of species viability or create significant trends toward federal listing. This report conforms to the standards set forth in the Forest Service Manual to conduct analyses to review programs and activities to determine their potential effect on sensitive species and to prepare biological evaluations.
Forest Plan Designated Management Indicator Species: Management Indicator Species (MIS) are designated per Forest Service Manual (section 2621) requirements. They are defined as plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during Forest Plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent. The reason for MIS is described to fulfil the role to estimate the effects of each Plan alternative on fish and wildlife populations through selecting species because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities. Planning alternatives shall be stated and evaluated in terms of both amount and quality of habitat and of animal population trends of the management indicator species. Population trends of the management indicator species will be monitored […in cooperation with State fish and wildlife agencies, to the extent practical…] and relationships to habitat changes determined. The
Palouse Ranger District 242 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
monitoring requirements for MIS includes a report every 5 years, and the latest one is available in the Project record (USDA 2012). This monitoring is specifically addressed as a requirement in the development of annual programs of work as funding allows.
Forest Plan Management Areas: The Clearwater Forest Plan identifies two management areas in the Project boundary. The majority of the Project is considered E1 timber producing land to be managed for healthy timber stands to optimize potential timber growing. There are also less than 80 acres of the Project in the C4 management area, which is designated as big game winter range located, generally on steep breaklands on north aspects, with mixture of browse and trees. However, management area C4 composes less than 1% of the Project area, and there are no proposed actions in that area under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Since there are no specific management area directions to demonstrate compliance, C4 ground is not addressed further.
3.14.4 Environmental Consequences
3.14.4.1 Methodology Analysis methods used to determine direct, indirect, and cumulative effects vary by grouping or individual species and are provided within the sections below.
3.14.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects
Habitat Common to Multiple Terrestrial Wildlife Alternative 1:
Forest Arrangement: There would be no actions taken under Alternative 1, so there would be no direct or indirect effects on terrestrial wildlife species habitat. Without regeneration or fuels treatment, Alternative 1 would retain current terrestrial wildlife species habitat levels, such that the current population trends of terrestrial wildlife species would not be affected. No removal, alteration, modification, or degrading or terrestrial wildlife species habitat would occur. No cover would be reduced and no openings or edge would be created if Alternative 1 were selected, so forest fragmentation would not increase and forest connectivity would not decrease. There would continue to be mature forest habitat available for fisher, flammulated owl, northern goshawk, and pileated woodpecker. Conversely, ponderosa pine habitat amount and quality may be reduced over time if there is large tree mortality from dense stands. Mortality of mature ponderosa pine would result in impacts to flammulated owl or pygmy nuthatch habitat and individuals if they use these stands.
Tree Mortality & Snag Recruitment: The absence of treatment under Alternative 1, may result in increased tree mortality or snag recruitment from wildfire, insect epidemics, or disease outbreaks. For example, early seral species such as western larch, western white pine, and ponderosa pine may continue to decline, and the Project area would continue to be dominated by densely stocked stands composed primarily of grand fir, Douglas-fir, and cedar in most areas.
Specifically, root disease-infected stands of Douglas-fir and grand fir could have a net loss of 50- 90% of stand volume in 20-30 years starting at age 50-80 (Berry 2016). Ponderosa pine would continue to experience competition for nutrients and space from fir encroachment in the understory. Alternative 1 would allow the trends in early seral species loss to continue where there is dense vegetation layers inhibiting growth of older more established trees.
Palouse Ranger District 243 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Disturbance, Injury, & Mortality: There would be no actions taken under Alternative 1, so there would be no direct or indirect effects on individual terrestrial wildlife species. Alternative 1 would not result in injury, mortality, disturbance, movement alterations, or temporarily displacement of terrestrial wildlife species, so there would be no added risk to individuals. Therefore, the breeding, overwintering, and foraging behaviors of terrestrial wildlife species could continue uninterrupted in the Project area. However, there would be no benefits from watershed restoration activities.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Species Composition & Planting: Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would harvest trees susceptible to insect and disease in an effort to improve resistance to disturbance. Tree species with greater resistance to insects, disease, and fire would be planted in harvest units. Specifically, white pine that has been bred selectively for blister rust resistance, western larch, and ponderosa pine would be planted, so the amount of these early seral species would increase. Harvest would occur in the following tree species composition dominated areas, as proportional to the existing condition or presence and availability of the type in the Project area: 9-14% grand fir, 14-23% Douglas-fir, 14- 23% shade intolerant conifer mix, 20-28% lodgepole pine, and 1-7% ponderosa pine. Regeneration harvest would promote early-seral stages and fuels treatments would encourage or maintain mid- and late-seral stages.
Species Composition Associations with Terrestrial Wildlife: The reduction of grand fir dominated stands by 9-14% would reduce availability of snags, foraging trees for pileated woodpecker, nest trees for northern goshawks, and den sites for fisher. The reduction of lodgepole pine by 20-28% would reduce availability of fisher and marten habitat. The reduction of Douglas-fir dominated stands by 14-23% would reduce availability of some wintering ungulate, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker habitat. Conversely, the promotion of ponderosa pine through preferential leave tree retention in harvest units (followed by planting it) and decreasing competition from fuels treatments, would improve pygmy nuthatch and flammulated owl habitat qualities.
Disturbance, Injury, & Mortality: Potential Project disturbances to terrestrial wildlife include injury, mortality, increases in human presence, equipment noise, smoke, vehicle traffic, movement alteration, and habitat reduction. If it is determined that “additional iterations of [fuels] treatments … [are necessary to be] applied (every 3-7 years over a period of ~20 years) in order to improve or maintain efficacy of the original treatment”, then repeat disturbances to individual terrestrial wildlife species could occur. Additionally, if individual terrestrial wildlife species are using harvest units, they may be subjected to repeat disturbances from subsequent activity fuel or site preparation treatments, and planting of seedlings within five years after final harvest. No treatment is proposed across 74-80% of the Project area, so these areas could provide refugia for terrestrial wildlife species.
Habitat Attributes: Terrestrial wildlife species habitat can benefit from the retention of leave trees in clumps intended to mimic a mosaic of trees that might survive after a natural disturbance such as wildfire. Additionally, the emphasis on retaining the largest trees, as is proposed in this Project’s harvest units, can retain habitat quality given the associations with large trees of bald eagle, Bats, fisher, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, and northern goshawk. However, the emphasis on retaining the healthiest early-seral tree species would decrease habitat quality for fisher, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, and northern goshawk because of the reduction of structural variability and diverse species composition. The post-harvest result of a two-aged stand simplifies forest structure through removing multi-story conditions. Preference for early seral tree species reduces variable species composition mix. In combination, the resulting two- aged stand
Palouse Ranger District 244 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
of large, healthy, early seral tree species, reduces heterogeneity which could impact fisher, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, and northern goshawk habitat quality. Conversely, there would be an increase in growth and vigor of trees and (shrub or herbaceous) understory vegetation production for 10 or more years after implementation. This could increase forage habitat for white-tailed deer and rocky mountain elk and through increase of prey habitat of: bald eagle, fisher, flammulated owl, gray wolf, pileated woodpecker, and/or northern goshawk.
Forest Connectivity: Regeneration harvest would decrease canopy cover from weighted averages of 23% to a weighted average of 18% (as shown in table 2). Alternative 2 has the largest proposed treatment footprint, and therefore has the highest amount of potential for affecting how terrestrial wildlife species move about the landscape. Alternative 4 would have the least effect on how terrestrial wildlife species move about the landscape because it retains the highest amount of forested cover connectivity and contributes the least amount of contiguous openings relative to alternatives 2 and 3. Habitat quality would not be retained for flammulated owl, fisher, northern goshawk, and pileated woodpecker, because the average 18% canopy cover retention is below the 40% canopy cover preferred by those species.
Openings & Edge: The Project’s proposed regeneration harvest patch openings vary by size, amount, and distribution, according to alternative. Large contiguous openings would result in greater risk of predation or avoidance of the areas, for flammulated owl, fisher, northern goshawk, and pileated woodpecker, because they select for areas with greater than 40% canopy cover. Whereas post-harvest openings would average about 18% canopy cover and would not again reach 40% cover of mature trees until approximately 100 years. It takes roughly a century for the forest types in the Project area to again develop mature sawtimer. This is because a regenerated stand is reset to the initiation stage of forest succession and must develop into the stem reinitiation phase before it would provide cover and structure to support mature forest associated terrestrial wildlife. Approximate post-harvest opening sizes including the existing openings are provided in Table 3.14.0. This is provided for a relative alternatives comparison about the arrangement of conditions across the Project area. It is best used to augment aerial imagery and is only a snapshot of how openings, including stands in the initiation phase, compare to forest cover continuity. It does not tell us how actual terrestrial wildlife habitat or movements would be altered.
Table 3.14.0 - Post-harvest opening sizes (in number of patches and acres) and edge miles Alternative # Total Average Med, Max Edge miles
1 104 1,083 10 2, 163 80
1 cumulative 72 3,118 43 5, 840 106
2 28 1,500 54 23, 327 59
2 cumulative 76 4,618 61 6, 1687 155
3 27 1,152 43 24, 170 48
3 cumulative 76 4,270 56 6, 864 154
4 41 937 23 20, 68 43
Palouse Ranger District 245 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
4 cumulative 99 4,055 41 10, 840 147
Road Work: Roads decrease security areas, increase human interaction, and increase disturbance potential for terrestrial wildlife. Lack of road construction under Alternative 3 would have the least amount of vehicle disturbance to terrestrial wildlife species and would decrease potential for injury or mortality from vehicle collision relative to Alternatives 2 and 4. Although access on the new road would remain restricted yearlong, the 5.2 miles of construction in Alternatives 2 and 4 may interrupt fisher, gray wolf, rocky mountain elk, white-tailed deer, or western toad movements if they bisect travel corridors. The 1.8 miles of non-system road that would be added to the system may result in similar effects of interrupting terrestrial wildlife species movements. Otherwise, road activities are very similar between Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, so they would have a negligible differentiation of effects on terrestrial wildlife species.
Range Activities: Similarly to road work, the three miles of new fence proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, could interrupt movements of gray wolf, rocky mountain elk, and white-tailed deer. The other proposed range activities would not have measurable effects on terrestrial wildlife species. Rather, these activities may benefit terrestrial wildlife or help to offset Project effects through helping maintain resilient native upland and riparian meadow grass and forb plant communities.
Forest Service Sensitive Species Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Desired Condition, Indicator, Measure, & Analysis Area: The desired condition for bald eagles is to retain perch or nest trees along rivers and major streams. The potential for disturbance to roost, nest, or perch sites is the indicator used to assess potential for the Project to impact bald eagles or their habitat. The measure used to evaluate this indicator is the amount of project activities near fish bearing streams in the project area. This measure is appropriate because it accounts for the most likely bald eagles use areas where foraging opportunities are optimal. The analysis area for bald eagles is a ¼-mile buffer of fish bearing streams in the project area. Specifically, the analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the 5,202 acres of this area that are on Forest. The cumulative effects analysis area is 6,707 acres.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 would not affect bald eagles or their habitat because no fuels or regeneration treatment actions would occur. Large trees and snags that are currently on the landscape would remain available for use as perch, roost, or nest sites because there would be no regeneration harvest. There would be no risk of smoke disturbance from fuels activities. There would be no noise disturbance from machinery during implementation, because there would be no actions taken. Ongoing activities, such as recreation, cattle grazing, timber harvest on non- Forest land, and fire suppression would continue, however they would not result in additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality to bald eagles. Alternative 1 would not contribute to direct or indirect effects, and there would also be no cumulative effects to bald eagle habitat or populations, so Alternative 1 would have “no impact” on the bald eagle.
Qualitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Regeneration harvest could remove perch, roost, or nest sites if they occur in treatment units. Project activities in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would disturb individual bald eagles and remove or reduce quality of perch, roost, or nest sites if they exist in harvest or fuels units. However, the riparian buffer design criteria should protect most primary foraging, perch, roost, or nest areas
Palouse Ranger District 246 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
from activity impacts. Additionally, Project activities could result in injury or mortality of individual bald eagles. For instance, if there is an increase in ungulate road kill or carrion associated with log truck haul loads, bald eagles may forage in road ways, subjecting themselves to higher probability of vehicle collision.
Quantitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Disturbances associated with Project activities could occur across 17-19% of the analysis area. Increases in human presence, equipment noise, smoke, and vehicle traffic could result in bald eagles avoidance of the area during implementation. There is potential for regeneration removal effects on perch, roost, or nest sites on up to 459 acres (9%) from Alternative 2, 426 acres (8%) from Alternative 3, and 385 acres (7%) from Alternative 4. Fuel treatments in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could reduce qualities of perch, roost, or nest sites (if they occur) across 502 acres or 10% of the analysis area.
Bats (Chiroptera): Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)
Desired Condition, Indicator, & Measure: The desired condition for Bats is to retain snags and a variety of forest vegetation conditions. Status of riparian corridors and snag abundance are the indicators selected to assess Project effects. The measures used to evaluate the indicators include a predominantly qualitative review of riparian corridors, no treatment areas, forested edge, and relative snag abundance.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 would not affect Bats or their habitat because no fuels or regeneration treatment actions would occur. Large trees and snags that are currently on the landscape would remain available for use as roost sites because there would be no harvest. The potential for increase in forage due to increased edge habitat would not occur. There would be no risk of smoke disturbance from fuels activities because there would be no prescribed fire.
Ongoing activities, such as recreation, cattle grazing, timber harvest on non-Forest land, and fire suppression would continue, however they would not result in additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality to the Bats. Alternative 1 would not contribute to direct or indirect effects, and there would also be no cumulative effects to habitat or populations of the Bats.
Alternatives 2, 3, & 4:
Bat roost sites in trees or snags would be removed by regeneration harvest if they are present in treatment units of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Regeneration harvest also has the potential to result in injury or mortality of individual Bats if they are roosting in snags or hollow trees that are felled during implementation. This is especially true if the 2 dead trees per acre greater than 15” dbh were felled or removed. Snag retention design criteria should maintain some dead trees, but it is unknown how many and which ones would be kept and if they would benefit Bats. The 6-40 leave trees per acre that remain in regeneration units, could provide future snags or roost habitat. Additionally, riparian no-harvest buffers are interspersed throughout the units at a rough ratio of 1:3. Increases in the amount of forested edge by 44 to 63 miles, may benefit Bat foraging habitat. However, without monitoring, the quality or value of the edge increase is unknown. Fuels
Palouse Ranger District 247 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
treatments would have a negligible effects on Bats, though prescribed fire could both consume and produce snags or roost sites.
Fisher (Pekania pennant)
Desired Condition, Indicator, Measure, and Analysis Areas: The desired conditions for fishers are outlined in the forest connectivity and openings section above. Mature fisher habitat versus openings in probable occurrence areas, is the indicator that will be used to assess Project effects. This will be measured in terms of acre amounts (%) that can be applied to represent likelihood of presence or species persistence. The analysis area is derived from is a 200 meter buffer of the contiguous patch of probable habitat that intersects the Project area. The direct and indirect effects analysis area is 12,722 acres and the analysis area selected for evaluating cumulative effects to fishers is 16,246 acres. These are both appropriate because the areas are larger than an average female home range, and therefore large enough to evaluate all Project impacts to availability of habitat to support fisher.
Methods: The methods for estimating potential Project impacts to Fisher habitat or individuals, are a combination of a relative probability model (Sauder 2014) and existing vegetation data (Barber and Vanderzanden 2014). Stands composed predominantly of trees greater than 15” diameter at breast height (DBH) were selected as a surrogate for mature forests and overlapped with probable habitat. Open areas were identified as dominated by vegetation compositions of: forests of less than 10% canopy cover, grass/forbs, shrubs, sparse vegetation, urban, transitional forests, and areas regenerated through logging in the past 12 years.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 would not affect fisher or their habitat because no fuels or regeneration treatment actions would occur. Large trees, snags, and coarse woody debris that are currently on the landscape would remain available for use as den sites. There would be no regeneration harvest or fuels treatment, so there would be no alteration of forest structure. There would be no increases in openings or decreases in mature forest habitat continuity because trees would continue to grow without harvest. There would be no risk of noise or human presence disturbance without action. Ongoing activities, such as recreation, cattle grazing, timber harvest on non-Forest land, and fire suppression would continue, however they would not result in additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality to fisher. Alternative 1 would not contribute to direct or indirect effects, so there would also be no cumulative effects to fisher habitat or their distinct population segment.
Qualitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Forest Connectivity: Regeneration harvest in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would alter the Fisher’s landscape by decreasing canopy cover and creating openings that interrupt forest connectivity. Reducing canopy cover decreases a fisher’s ability to move through the stand. Interrupting forest connectivity could decrease hunting success and increase predation risk and energy expenditure. Fisher may venture into regeneration harvest openings along the edges to forage as forest cover returns and openings are reduced. However, the removal of large trees, snags, and coarse woody debris decreases fisher habitat quality and therefore likelihood of their use of openings. The combination of low amounts of mature habitat and increase in openings would result in a decreased probability of Fisher occupancy.
Structure: Regeneration harvest would eliminate coarse woody debris and snags beyond the long- term. Therefore denning, resting, and foraging opportunities would not be available in treated
Palouse Ranger District 248 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
areas. The potential for removal of den and rest sites is most likely in stands with a high amount of structural diversity in moist or mesic forest types. Therefore, the harvest of stands that are culminated would remove decadent structures that could support resting or denning. Regeneration harvest does not maintain structural diversity that is important to support fisher and their prey species. This degradation of forest structure makes stands unsuitable for fisher use. Fuel treatments would reduce habitat quality for fisher as a result of the simplification of forest structure and reduction of understory structural components. Specifically, removal or consumption of down logs and snags would decrease den or rest site availability.
Disturbance & Displacement: The increase of human, vehicle, and equipment activity in the Project area during implementation could cause disturbance or displacement of fisher. Presence and noise disturbance would have the most effect on fisher if ground-disturbing activities overlap with denning or early kit-rearing areas. However, the chances of actually disturbing up to one female fisher, and/or her 1-3 kits per breeding season, are relatively low given the relatively low amount of treatment overlap with habitat. Additionally, the normal operating season for logging implementation (mid-June to mid-October), in combination with the relatively low likelihood of species presence, decreases potential impacts. That said, in a worst case scenario, denning fisher could be subject to repeat disturbances in a single year as they move their den sites, and over the course of multiple years, as implementation progresses when it overlaps with the reproductive season. Beyond the long-term, fishers would likely avoid all treatment areas.
Quantitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
The quantitative potential for Project effects on fisher habitat are presented in table 4. These figures are based on the amount of removal of mature probable habitat from regeneration. Regeneration harvest decreases canopy cover from about 23% to about 18%. Regeneration harvest common among Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would increase openings to 4-5% and reduce mature forests on up to 1% of the analysis area. Additionally, potential for modification of mature habitat through fuels treatments would occur on up to 4% (174 acres) of the analysis area for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Ground disturbance could occur on up to 10% of the combined mature probable fisher habitat in the analysis area, so it could be perceived that a female fisher has a low likelihood of denning in the area during the time of implementation. Conversely, 90% of the analysis area would be left undisturbed, so if a fisher were present, it may be able to relocate to no-harvest areas adjacent to treatment units.
Table 3.14.1 - Amount (acres) of Probable Mature and Probable Open Fisher Habitat Changes by Alternative. Probable Habitat Existing Alternatives 2 3 4
in Mature Forest 3,991 Proposed for treatment 227 212 114
Remaining post-treatment 3,764 3,779 3,877
in Open Areas 3,894 Post-treatment 597 582 484
Cumulative post-treatment 4,121 4,106 4,008
Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus)
Palouse Ranger District 249 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Desired Condition, Indicator, Measure, & Analysis Area: The desired condition for flammulated owls is to retain and restore breeding habitat patches as described above. Flammulated owl habitat is the indicator used to evaluate effects, while acreage of this habitat is the measure.
Habitat is defined as ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir dominated forests, consisting predominantly of large trees (greater than or equal to 15” DBH), in stands of greater than or equal 40% canopy cover. The analysis area was derived through buffering suitable habitat patches large enough to support breeding pairs within of the Project area by their forage distance (½ mile). The analysis area for direct and indirect effects encompasses 4,878 acres and the analysis area for assessing cumulative effects encompasses 6,522 acres.
Alternative 1: Alternative 1 would not affect flammulated owls or their habitat because no fuels or regeneration treatment actions would occur. Large trees, snags, and coarse woody debris that are currently on the landscape would remain available for use as nest sites and for fledglings learning to hunt because there would be no regeneration harvest or fuels treatment that would alter forest structure. There would be no increases in openings or decreases in mature forest habitat continuity because there would be no regeneration harvest. The risk of large or legacy ponderosa pine tree mortality that are critical for flammulated owl breeding activities would not be reduced because many stands would remain densely stocked with high inter-tree competition for light and water resources. There would be no risk of noise or human presence disturbance during implementation of all activities, because there would be no actions taken. Ongoing activities, such as recreation, cattle grazing, timber harvest on non-Forest land, and fire suppression would continue, however they would not result in additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality to flammulated owl. Alternative 1 would not contribute to direct or indirect effects, and there would also be no cumulative effects to flammulated owl habitat or their population.
Qualitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Habitat: Qualitative effects common among Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, include the reduction of flammulated owl habitat through regeneration harvest, and the modification of habitat through fuels treatments. Regeneration harvest would result in forest cover reduction to an average of 18% canopy post-harvest which is below the minimum amount preferred by flammulated owls. Regeneration harvest is distributed such that impacts to habitat would not reduce the number of patches available to below breeding patch size minimums. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would include fuels treatment activities in flammulated owl habitat that would alter, but should maintain its’ suitability. Fuel treatments open the understory for new shrub growth which could improve foraging opportunities for flammulated owls.
Disturbance: Project activities that occur in habitat during the nesting period, have the potential to disturb or displace breeding owls, reduce reproductive success, result in injury or mortality, and/or disrupt mating or nesting behaviors. Fuel and regeneration treatments would interrupt the continuity of horizontal or vertical vegetation, and remove snags and down wood. The resulting decreased structural diversity of stands reduces usability by flammulated owl fledglings. Treatment could decrease nesting probability and increase predation risk if fledglings use the area. Alternatively, young stands with dense mid-canopy tree thickets and a lot of understory growth makes foraging more difficult because maneuverability decreases.
Quantitative effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Habitat & Individuals: Alternative 2 would remove approximately 90 acres (15%) of flammulated owl habitat in the analysis area through regeneration harvest. Approximately 184
Palouse Ranger District 250 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
acres of habitat, could be altered, but maintained, through fuels treatments in alternative 2. The combination of these alternative 2 activities could result in potential disturbance to individuals on up to 46% of available habitat. Alternative 3 would remove approximately 48 acres (8%) of habitat through regeneration harvest and alter approximately 155 acres of habitat through fuels treatments, resulting in potential disturbance to individuals on up to 34% of available habitat. Alternative 4 would remove approximately 38 acres (6%) of flammulated owl habitat through regeneration harvest and alter approximately 156 acres of habitat through fuels treatments, resulting in potential disturbance to individuals on up to 33% of available habitat. Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 on flammulated owl habitat are provided in table 5.
Breeding: Portions of the following units fall directly within flammulated owl habitat patches that are large enough to support breeding pairs, and would therefore have the most potential to impact individuals, especially if they were implemented between 1 May and 31 July: T49, F51, F50, F57, F58, and F14. The viability of these habitat patch areas for future short or long-term breeding use would be reduced, due to regeneration harvest resulting in decrease of canopy closure below 40% and removal of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees greater than 15”+ DBH, so habitat would not be maintained or restored in these areas.
Table 3.14.2 - Treatment Type by Alternative that Could Result in Impacts to Flammulated Owl Habitat in their Analysis Area (acres). Alternative 2 3 4
Treatment Type Fuels Regen Fuels Regen Fuels Regen
Potential Impacts 184 90 155 48 156 38
Disturbance 46 34 33
Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas)
Desired Conditions, Analysis Area, Indicator, & Measure: The desired condition for western toad is to retain or restore warm, unshaded pools, spring pools, ponds, lake shallows, and slow- moving portions of streams for breeding and rearing. The analysis area for the western toad is derived from a 300 foot (.05 miles) buffer of all streams in the Project area. This encompasses 5,626 acres for direct and indirect effects and 6,398 acres for cumulative effects. This is the approximate daily travel distance of dispersing toadlets and is appropriate because it would encompass the most likely terrestrial habitats western toads use when dispersing beyond riparian areas for foraging and hibernacula. The indicator to measure impacts to western toads is the amount or acres of proposed activity within the analysis area.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1would not affect western toads or their habitat because no fuels or regeneration treatment actions would occur. Riparian breeding and upland dispersal areas of western toads would remain unaltered without action. There would be no additional risk of injury, mortality, or disturbance of western toads during implementation, because there would be no machinery present or activities implemented. Ongoing activities, such as recreation, cattle grazing, timber harvest on non-Forest land, and fire suppression would continue, however they would not result in additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality to western toad. Alternative 1 would not contribute to direct or indirect effects, and there would also be no cumulative effects to western toad habitat or their population.
Palouse Ranger District 251 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Direct & Indirect Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Proposed regeneration and fuels treatment activities in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could alter existing non-breeding habitat for the western toads. However, riparian buffers would protect all streams, ponds, springs, or seeps and therefore breeding sites. Western toads may be impacted if their use areas overlap with the removal of trees and reduction of ground cover through regeneration harvest and fuels treatments. Gopher baiting to increase survival rates of planted seedlings in post-harvest units would impact western toad hibernacula. The result of warming and drying of exposed soils post-harvest, could make the up to 803 acres (14%) of habitat in treatment areas unsuitable for western toads in the short- term. If western toads are present in treatment areas during implementation, individual mortality could occur. Road work activities may eliminate or impact pools that could be used by western toads. Specifically, reconditioning or reconstruction at water crossings and culvert replacement or ditch cleaning activities have the highest potential for impact. Long-term reduction in sediment from .3-2.1 miles of road decommissioning would be beneficial to this water-dependent species.
Gray Wolf (Canis lupis)
Desired Condition, Analysis Area, Indicator, & Measure: The gray wolf occupies diverse habitats, from open meadows to heavily forested stands in broad territories where they travel extensively in search of prey. Non-forested land is not anticipated to be suitable habitat for wolves (USDI 2011). They are sensitive to disturbance at denning and rendezvous sites. Gray wolves on the Forest are part of the population removed from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife in 2011 (ibid and USDI 2012). The desired condition for gray wolves is to retain ungulate populations and protect den sites. The analysis area for the gray wolf includes the two territories that overlap the Project area. This encompasses 56,425 acres for direct and indirect effects and 324,109 acres for cumulative effects. The indicator and measure for assessing project effects are qualitative disturbance potential and change to prey base.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 would not affect gray wolf or their habitat because there would be no increase in human activity in the Project area related to fuels or regeneration treatments. Down wood or coarse woody debris would remain available for use as den sites because there would be no reductions from regeneration harvest or fuels treatment. There would be no risk of noise or human and machinery presence disturbance during implementation, so no interruption of rendezvous sites or movement patterns would occur. Ongoing activities, such as recreation, cattle grazing, timber harvest on non-Forest land, and fire suppression would continue, however they would not result in additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality to gray wolves. Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on gray wolf habitat or populations.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
The increase in human and equipment activity in the Project area during implementation of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, could disturb individual wolf on up to 5% of the analysis area. Specifically, the increase of activity in the Project area could add to the risk of wolf mortality from shooting, trapping, and vehicle strikes. Although, they could be displaced or avoid the area during implementation, it is unlikely to have much or any impact because they are alert and fleet. Disturbance of den site potential from fuels and vegetation activities is possible. However, this is not likely relative to the mobility of the species, their large territories, and because they have numerous den sites. No effect on the wolf prey base should occur because cervid habitat and use
Palouse Ranger District 252 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
is predicted to be improved or remain static. There could be a minor change in habitat use patterns of prey species due to disturbance and displacement from regeneration and road activities. However, ungulate population levels should not be affected and no reductions in high quality big game habitat would occur.
Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea)
Desired Condition, Analysis Area, Indicator, & Measure: The desired condition for pygmy nuthatch is ponderosa pine tree and snag retention. The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects encompasses 458 acres. This is an appropriate analysis area because it is the amount of pygmy nuthatch habitat in the Project area. It is likely breeding pygmy nuthatches use the Project area because they are rather common, but there have been no surveys for them. The indicator and measure for assessing Project effects are the amount habitat acres that would be affected.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 would not affect pygmy nuthatch or their habitat. Trees, snags, and coarse woody debris that are currently on the landscape would remain available for use as nest sites because there would be no regeneration harvest or fuels treatment that would alter forest structure. There would be no increases in openings or decreases in mature forest habitat continuity without action. The risk of ponderosa pine tree mortality would not be reduced, because without action many stands would remain densely stocked with high inter-tree competition for light and water resources. There would be no risk of noise or human presence disturbance, because there would be no actions taken. Ongoing activities, such as recreation, cattle grazing, timber harvest on non- Forest land, and fire suppression would continue, however they would not result in additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality to pygmy nuthatch. Alternative 1 would not contribute to direct or indirect effects, and there would also be no cumulative effects to pygmy nuthatch habitat or their population.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Regeneration harvest would result in the removal of 13% (59 acres) of pygmy nuthatch habitat in the analysis area if Alternative 2 were implemented. Alternative 3 would result in a 2% reduction of pygmy nuthatch habitat, and 4% of habitat would be removed from Alternative 4. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would disturb, alter, or modify, an additional 67% of habitat through fuels treatments. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of individual pygmy nuthatches, on up to 69-80% of the habitat in the analysis area, if they are present or breeding in the area during implementation.
Management Indicator Species Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Desired Condition, Indicators, Measures, & Methods: The desired condition for northern goshawk is outlined in the habitat and management direction sections above. The indicators used to show consistency with the direction outlined above, are habitat quality and availability in the known home ranges and post-fledgling areas. The acreage amounts of these habitats, in terms of tree species, size, canopy closure, and arrangement, are the measure used to evaluate the above indicators. The source of measurement or methods of this analysis generally follow those set forth by the Region (in ibid), but are adjusted to account for actual species use of the Project area. Northern goshawk nesting habitat is defined for this analysis as trees greater than 10 inches
Palouse Ranger District 253 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
diameter at breast height with greater than 40 percent canopy cover, while foraging and post- fledgling area habitats include a suite of vegetative conditions.
Analysis Area: The analysis area for northern goshawk encompasses 8,416 of Forest land for the evaluation of direct and indirect effects and 13,035 acres for the evaluation of cumulative effects. This area was selected because it is a circular buffer approximation of the three known home ranges centered on the three known nests in the Project area. This is appropriate for direct and indirect effect evaluation because it includes all proposed treatment that may affect actual use breeding northern goshawk habitat. It is appropriate for cumulative effects evaluation because it is large enough to contain several home ranges, which is the maximum expected actual use capacity of the area, and effects would be diluted at a larger scale.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 would not affect northern goshawks or their habitat because no fuels or regeneration treatment actions would occur without action. Large trees, snags, and coarse woody debris that are currently on the landscape would remain available for use as nest sites and for fledglings learning to hunt because forest structure would not be altered. There would be no increases in openings or decreases in mature forest habitat continuity without action. The risk of large or legacy tree mortality would not be reduced because many stands would remain densely stocked with high inter-tree competition for light and water resources. There would be no risk of noise or human presence disturbance to northern goshawk because there would be no actions taken. Ongoing activities, such as recreation, cattle grazing, timber harvest on non-Forest land, and fire suppression would continue, however they would not result in additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality to northern goshawk. Alternative 1 would not contribute to direct or indirect effects, and there would also be no cumulative effects to northern goshawk habitat or their population.
Qualitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Fuels treatment activities in alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could modify, reduce, or improve northern goshawk habitat, but would maintain habitat suitability. Prescribed fire could remove or enhance prey habitat through the rearrangement of understory vegetation or production of scattered dead trees. Modification of northern goshawk habitat could affect occupancy or reproduction, especially in or adjacent to breeding centers. However, the degree to which treatments could occur without affecting life history requirements is unknown, especially given no surveys were conducted in fuels units.
Regeneration harvest in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would decrease the amount and suitability of northern goshawk nesting, PFA, and foraging area habitats. Regeneration eliminates nesting habitat by reducing stand structure and canopy cover. Large-diameter retention trees in harvest units would provide limited structural diversity into the future. The size or arrangement of openings in combination with vegetative structure, are factors that influence post-harvest habitat quality. Increases in fragmentation and decreases in heterogeneity have lasting effects on the ability for areas to grow into habitat. The average of 18% canopy cover left in regeneration units, may have foraging value if there is a flush of prey that corresponds with short-term post- treatment increases in understory growth.
Mortality, Injury, & Disturbance: Individual northern goshawks may be disturbed by Project activities under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. However, this disturbance is not expected to affect their survival or reproduction. Mature individuals could likely move away from implementation areas
Palouse Ranger District 254 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and should not be injured or killed. Immature northern goshawks are more likely than adults to be subjected to direct mortality or injury, but the potential for Project activities to disturb or displace northern goshawks during the nesting period would be limited. Species specific design criteria would serve to mitigate these potential effects. However, surveys were not conducted in fuels only treatment units, so likelihood of impacts to individuals are unknown.
Quantitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Regeneration harvest common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have the following effects, based on foraging habitat quantifications where there are greater than 40% canopy cover and 5” dbh in the home range.
Reduction of Habitat: Alternative 2 would remove approximately 227 acres of habitat in the PFA, 1,311 acres of foraging habitat, and 1,180 acres of potential nesting areas. Alternative 3 would remove approximately 173 acres of PFA habitat, 1,035 acres of foraging habitat, and 939 acres of potential nesting areas. Alternative 4 would remove approximately 174 acres of habitat in the PFA, 823 acres of foraging habitat, and 722 acres of potential nesting areas. Fuel treatments common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would alter, but maintain, (87-89 acres) 9% of northern goshawk PFA habitat.
Retention of Habitat: Conversely, Alternative 2 would retain approximately 63% of habitat in the PFA, 41% of foraging habitat, and 28% of potential nesting areas. Alternative 3 would retain approximately 67% of habitat in the PFA, 43% of foraging habitat, and 29% of potential nesting areas. Alternative 4 would retain approximately 67% of habitat in the PFA, 44% of foraging habitat, and 31% of potential nesting areas. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would retain 240 acres of nesting habitat per home range. However, potential nesting areas would drop below 39% in the analysis area and in each of the home ranges. Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 on northern goshawk habitat are provided in table 3.14.3.
Breeding: Portions of the following units fall directly within northern goshawk post-fledgling areas, and would therefore have the most potential to impact individuals: T15, T15a, T13, T36, T36a, T40, T40a, T49, F48, and F50. This regeneration harvest in post-fledgling areas amounts to 249 acres in Alternative 2, 173 acres in Alternative 3, and 178 acres in Alternative 4. The viability of these northern goshawk post-fledgling areas for future short or long-term breeding use would be reduced due to the decrease in canopy closure below 40%, decrease in 10”+ dbh trees, increase in openings greater than 5 acres, and decrease in potential nesting areas. For example, the Hog Meadow (formerly known as Cherry Pit) territory, less than one mile (nest about two miles) north of the Project, successfully bred in 2013 next to a blown down stand, but in 2014 and 2015 breeding attempts failed and there were no detections in 2016. Therefore, it has not successfully bred since the blow down stand abutting the nest was salvaged to reduce disease spread before mid-July in 2013.
Table 3.14.3 - Amount of Northern Goshawk Foraging, Potential Nesting, and Recently Occupied Post-Fledgling Area Habitat. Post-treatment Acres (%) Existing Alt2 Alt3 Alt4
Recently Occupied Post-Fledgling Areas
Canopy cover 40% + and size of Tree/10” + 1,008 (81) 781 (63) 835 (67) 834 (67)
Palouse Ranger District 255 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Home Range Foraging Areas
Tree/0” – 4.9” 830 (6) 802 (6) 821 (6) 822 (6)
Tree/5” – 9.9” 1,233 (10) 1,173 (9) 1,208 (9) 1,192(9)
Tree/10” plus 6,145 (47) 5,121 (39) 5,083 (39) 5,314 (41)
Canopy cover 40% + and size of 5” or larger 6,590 (51) 5,279 (41) 5,555 (43) 5,767 (44)
Home Range Nesting Areas
Nesting habitat in the foraging area Canopy 4,927 (38) 4,676 (36) 3,916 (30) 4,144 (32) cover 40% + and size of 10” +
Potential nesting areas = nesting habitat in the 4,775 (37) 3,595 (28) 3,836 (29) 4,053 (31) foraging area in stands of at least 40 acres
Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)
Desired Conditions, Indicators, Measure, & Analysis Area: The desired conditions for pileated woodpeckers are outlined in the territory and management direction sections above. The indicators to measure potential for Project impacts to pileated woodpeckers, are: (1) the rough percentage estimate in the variation of successional stage spread across the Project area, and (2) the amount of habitat in hypothetical home ranges. (The amount of 300 acre old growth stands per 10,000 acres suitable habitat was not chosen as an indicator, because it is provided for, as communicated in the affected environment section, and it is not proposed for alteration under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, so it would not be a meaningful measure since it doesn’t change.) The design criteria that no treatments are planned in old growth or riparian areas, should maintain some of the highest quality pileated breeding habitats. The analysis area is derived from the maximum coverage of hypothetical home ranges, which amounts to ten, in a circular 1,000 acre configuration. This analysis area encompasses 8,526 acres for direct and indirect effects, and 10,000 acres for cumulative effects.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 would not affect pileated woodpeckers or their habitat because no fuels or regeneration treatment actions would occur. Large trees and snags that are currently on the landscape would remain available for use as nest and foraging sites because there would be no alteration of forest structure. There would be no increases in openings or decreases in mature forest habitat continuity without action. The potential benefits to pileated woodpecker from the Project, resulting in beyond long-term increase in tree sizes due to decreased stocking and decreases in insect and disease, would not occur. The risk of large or legacy tree mortality would not be reduced because many stands would remain densely stocked with high inter-tree competition for light and water resources. There would be no risk of noise or human presence disturbance during implementation of all activities, because there would be no actions taken. Ongoing activities, such as recreation, cattle grazing, timber harvest on non-Forest land, and fire suppression would continue, however they would not result in additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality to pileated woodpecker. Alternative 1 would not contribute to direct or
Palouse Ranger District 256 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
indirect effects, and there would also be no cumulative effects to pileated woodpecker habitat, hypothetical home ranges, or their population.
Qualitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Habitat: Regeneration harvest would eliminate habitat in the short-term through the removal of snags that could be used for nesting or foraging, and in the long-term through the reduction of mature trees that could become snags. The remaining average of 18% canopy cover in regeneration treatment units would not provide preferred habitat components for pileated woodpecker. Treatments designed to reduce forest insect and disease, in turn reduces pileated woodpecker foraging habitat. Fuels treatments common among Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could alter, reduce, or improve pileated woodpecker habitat. These modifications could increase habitat patchiness or fragmentation and decrease future availability. The decrease in foraging areas and removal of future nesting habitat could be partially offset by some fuels treatment snag contributions.
Mortality, Injury, & Disturbance: Disturbance from noise and human or equipment presence during Project activities, could displace woodpeckers during the nesting season or deter use of nesting, foraging, or roosting areas. Timber harvest has been shown to reduce reproductive success of pileated woodpeckers (28). Disturbance could reduce reproductive success and equipment could result in individual injury or mortality especially if a nesting tree is felled while in use. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may reduce the likelihood of pileated woodpeckers to occupy the Project area into the future. The treatment’s resulting in restoration of their preferred tree species could have beneficial impacts. However, these potential benefits are not credible, because they would not be realized until beyond the long-term, and the species has apparently adapted to benefit from the current forest composition, including insect outbreaks in grand-fir (41).
Quantitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Old Growth & Succession: Project impacts would reduce pileated woodpecker habitat on 8-12% of the area from the 6-9% estimated decrease in mid-seral successional stages and 2-3% estimated relative decrease in late seral successional stage (table 3.14.4). (However, these are purely estimates based on a subsample of the Project area. Additionally, the decreases involve a relatively small fraction of the area and move the area closer to the historic condition.) The contiguous patch of old growth recruitment potential in the Project area would be reduced up to 7% from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. However, the patch would remain above 1,000 contiguous acres, which is well above that required to meet the 300:10,000 acre minimum described in the Forest plan. Adult pileated woodpeckers could likely find refugia in 74-80% of the Project area that would remain undisturbed.
Table 3.14.4. Estimated Post-Treatment Distribution of Successional Stages (derived from 23). Successional Historic Existing Post Alt 2 Post Alt 3 Post Alt 4 Stage
Early Seral 44% 15% 27% 24% 23%
(0-40 years)
Mid Seral 32% 66% 57% 59% 60%
Palouse Ranger District 257 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(41-140 years)
Late Seral 20-25% 19% 16% 17% 17%
(141+ years)
Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus)
Desired Conditions, Analysis Area, Indicators, & Measure: The desired conditions for both ungulates deer is retention or creation of forage, security, and cover habitat. Elk habitat effectiveness is the indicator used to show consistency with plan direction. This is appropriate because it accounts for a combination the measures of cover, security, and forage. These measures assess potential Project effects on elk using methods from the Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho (Leege 1984). The Project area contains portions of Hog Meadow, East Ruby, and all of the Little Boulder Elk Analysis Units. Hog Meadow is not addressed further because it barely overlaps the Project area, and the few acres of fuels treatments in the area would not affect habitat effectiveness. The analysis area includes the East Ruby and Little Boulder Elk Analysis Units. This encompasses 5,994 acres for direct and indirect effects, and 6,098 acres for cumulative effects.
Methods: The Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho (ibid) considers road density, livestock grazing, security areas, cover, and forage for evaluating summer elk range. The disturbance to elk from roads is based upon the amount of traffic, the season and type of traffic, and the amount of buffer available to separate the disturbance from elk (ibid). The presence of cattle may compete with elk for forage availability. Elk security areas are places where wildlife can retreat to for safety when affected by disturbances. In general, security areas are over 250 acres in size and >0.5 mile from an open road or trail. Cover is vegetation screening that provides hiding cover to an elk from human detection at 200 feet or less, while thermal cover provides tree canopies that intercept snow and reduce wind effects during the winter season. Forage is found in openings that produce grass, herbs, and/or shrubs for elk consumption.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 would not affect elk or their habitat because no fuels or regeneration treatment actions would occur. Thermal and hiding cover would increase, but forage and openings would decrease without action. Although there would be no direct or indirect effects, ongoing activities such as recreation, motorized road use, and cattle grazing would continue. The continuation of ongoing activities would not result in additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality of elk, because those activities have been going on so long and are considered part of the background existing condition. There would be no additional noise or human and machinery presence disturbance. Therefore, elk use of the Project area would continue similarly to current patterns, because no interruption of movement would occur without action. Timber harvest and activities on non-Forest lands would continue, but no cumulative effects would result, so elk populations would not be affected. Compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, elk would not benefit from road decommissioning or increase in forage from regeneration harvest.
Qualitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:
Palouse Ranger District 258 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Cover, Forage, & Habitat Effectiveness: Qualitatively speaking, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would impact elk cover and forage to varying degrees, resulting in changes to habitat effectiveness. Forage conditions would improve through the increase in shrubs and herbaceous cover, resulting from the reduction of forest cover. Both regeneration harvest and fuels treatments would result in an increase of elk forage availability. The increase in forage should benefit elk, but given forage is not a limitation to the Palouse Zone herd, the benefits are unknown. Though cover is relatively abundant in both EAUs, the decrease may have effects if they rely on the area for security. Conversely, the removal of trees would reduce hiding cover, and screening cover along open and closed roads. These reductions in cover increase human visibility of elk, and therefore potential for mortality from hunting.
Security: Changes to security, due to road work in Alternatives 2 and 4, would result in changes to elk habitat effectiveness. Decommissioning .3 to 2.1 miles of road would qualitatively increase elk security, however qualitative decreases in elk security could occur. Additionally, the location of new temporary roads on upper hillslope or ridgetop positions potentially increases conflict with elk. Alternatives 2 and 4 would implement the preferred minimum road system as recommended by the Project’s travel analysis.
Disturbance: Elk could be subject to short-term disturbance under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Displacement from noise associated with Project activities could occur if individuals are present during implementation, but is not expected to substantially interfere with normal breeding or feeding behavior. During implementation, elk may be disturbed by increased traffic from administrative use on closed roads. Specifically, there would be log trucks, equipment, and Forest workers conducting Project activities. However, the retention of existing access restrictions would limit impacts. Three miles of new fence could disturb or change elk movement patterns.
Vulnerability: Elk vulnerability to hunting may increase in the short-term with the loss in cover as trees are removed, potentially increasing human visibility and human-caused mortality (Rowland et al. 2000, Rowland et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005). Open road densities would remain above what is considered high open road densities (2.41 miles per square mile; Rowland et al. 2000). The Project’s maintenance of existing road access restrictions and not increasing the amount of open roads, would result in elk habitat maintenance (Frair et al. 2008). Elk vulnerability is calculated at the game management unit scale (Servheen et al. 1997), so alternations of road densities at the project scale would not be detectable at the game management unit. Thus, there would be no change in elk vulnerability from the project.
Quantitative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4: Elk habitat effectiveness would remain below the objective, but above the standard if alternatives 2, 3, or 4 were implemented. There would be an increase in openings or forage and decrease in cover in the East Ruby EAU by 10-15%, and 8- 15% in the Little Boulder EAU (table 3.14.5). The other potential use transportation category would increase by 1-3% in the analysis area. Specifically, the 1.8 miles of new non-system ridgetop road in Alternatives 2 and 4, could be qualitatively detrimental to elk security. Under alternatives 2 and 4, the road density would be increased, due to the proposed road construction, by 0.3 miles to 3.4 miles per square miles, while Alternative 3 would result in a 0.1 mile decrease in density.
Table 3.14.5 - Elk Habitat Effectiveness and Contributing Factor Changes per Alternative EAU Habitat Existing Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Little Effectiveness 38 39 38 39 Security Area 0 0 0 0
Palouse Ranger District 259 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Boulder Openings 1 16 9 10 (3,705 Hiding Cover 89 74 80 79 acres) Potential Use 54 54 54 54 Roads Potential Use 100 100 100 100 Cattle Potential Use 70 73 71 72 Other East Ruby Effectiveness 29 42 42 42 (2,394 Security Area 8 8 8 8 acres) Openings 5 21 21 15 Hiding Cover 87 71 71 77 Potential Use 38 54 54 54 Roads Potential Use 100 100 100 100 Cattle Potential Use 75 78 78 77 Other White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
Alternative 1 would not affect white-tailed deer or their habitat because no fuels or regeneration treatment actions would occur. Potential for effects on white-tailed deer from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are very similar to those of Rocky Mountain Elk. The increases in forage could benefit deer, except where opening sizes exceed those used by deer. Decreases in cover, and potentially security, could impact deer. Effects are expected to be generally neutral or undetectable given the size of the project relative to both the GMU and DAU scales, especially considering that the population ranks among the highest in the State. Therefore, no changes to the population viability of white-tailed deer would be expected as a result of Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4.
American Marten (Martes americana)
Desired Condition, Analysis Area, Indicator, & Measure: The desired condition for American marten is to retain or promote mature spruce-fir forest and large dead or down wood. The analysis area for American marten is 5,575 acres for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The indicator and measure is the amount of area in a forested condition. Coarse woody debris, snag, and old growth analyses indirectly address potential for Project effects on American marten.
Alternative 1 would not impact martens or their habitat because no activities are proposed. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would increase openings in the analysis area, therefore having direct and indirect effects on marten through the alteration of forest arrangement. Alternative 2 would retain 60% of the analysis area in a forested condition, alternative 3 would retain 66% of the analysis area in a forested condition, and alternative 4 would retain 68% of the analysis area in a forested condition. Specifically, regeneration harvest affects marten through reduction in canopy cover, to below that which is preferred, and targeted removal of grand fir. The removal of dead and down wood from regeneration harvest and fuels treatments would decrease den availability. Although, the action alternatives would reduce forest cover, over 60% of the analysis area would be maintained in a forested condition. Additionally, actual American marten use of the area is expected to be low because it is on the edge of their range and the current condition of the habitat is low quality. There are no cumulative effects to marten from Alternatives 2, 3, or 4.
Palouse Ranger District 260 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.14.4.3 Cumulative Effects
Habitat Common to Multiple Terrestrial Wildlife General Considerations of Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts to terrestrial wildlife species populations and habitats are addressed through consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include road and trail construction, timber harvest, natural or prescribed fire, grazing, weed introductions, mining, and recreation. The results of past actions often partly shape or contribute to existing conditions reflected in the species specific affected environment section. Current or ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future activities may contribute to effects of the Project, if they overlap in time and/or space with proposed activities and terrestrial wildlife species analysis areas. Based on consideration of these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, it is determined if the Project would have any incremental effect that would result in a cumulatively significant effect.
Openings: Past activities have altered the availability of habitat for terrestrial wildlife species. The loss of medium and large trees in openings from timber harvest has reduced the older forest component that is important for den or nest, and roost or rest habitat of bald eagle, flammulated owl, bats, fisher, northern goshawk, and pileated woodpecker. Reducing snags, down wood, and minimal residual large tree components in regeneration areas, reduces the structural diversity and cover preferred by flammulated owl, fisher, pileated woodpecker, and northern goshawk.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would contribute to these alterations through increasing disruption of mature forest connectivity, which would be cumulative to past, present, and other foreseeable harvest activities. Regeneration harvest in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, in combination with past activities on Forest land would result in approximately 110 openings totaling 2,585 acres, with a maximum of 941 acres, an average of 24 acres, and a median of 3 acres on Forest lands. Assuming non-Forest lands are open, all lands in the Project area could amount to 77 openings totaling 4,620 acres with an average of 60 acres and median of 6 acres.
Forest Connectivity: Alternative 4 would retain the highest amount of forested habitat connectivity and contribute the least amount of cumulative forested habitat fragmentation relative to Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 2 would moderately reduce forest connectivity in the Project area, all of which would be cumulative to past, present, and other foreseeable harvest activities. Alternative 3 would also contribute to cumulative effects in terms of forested connectivity disruptions. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would contribute to cumulative increases in shrub and herbaceous vegetation production for 10 or more years after implementation, resulting in increased forage for prey of: bald eagle, fisher, flammulated owl, or gray wolf. Further cumulative contributions to connectivity, fragmentation, or edge effects could amount from the Project’s adjacency to non-Forest land on 24 miles of the area’s perimeter, while 2 miles is connected to Forest land.
Ongoing Actions: The ongoing actions of fire suppression, livestock grazing, firewood cutting or gathering, weed introductions, mining, and recreation are considered, but effects of them are not itemized in species specific sections. This is in part because effects are subtle or difficult to quantify and are not expected to cumulatively effect terrestrial wildlife individuals or habitat. Additionally, effects of these ongoing actions are not elaborated on partly because these activities are long-term recurrences that are considered absorbed and reflected in the baseline or existing condition, as portrayed in the affected environment sections. This is appropriate because each of those activities if on Forest lands has undergone its own assessment process and it is assumed terrestrial wildlife have adapted to those activities. Finally, effects of these ongoing actions are
Palouse Ranger District 261 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
not elaborated on partly because they are not related to the Project proposal and so have different effects and different incremental contributions. All ongoing activities would contribute cumulatively to human disturbance of terrestrial wildlife species. For example, across the Project area, open roads facilitate access that enable human-wildlife interactions and increased probability of disturbance. Ongoing actions include harvest on non-Forest (state and non-Forest) lands, and 69 acres of Forest land (Brown Divide project) that would probably be complete by the time implementation starts for this Project.
Foreseeable Future Activities of fuels treatments and timber harvest on both Forest non-Forest lands are the only activities specifically assessed for their contributions to cumulative effects on terrestrial wildlife. Over 1,600 acres of vegetation and fuels treatment on Forest land (Moose Creek and Neva projects) are scheduled to occur in the reasonably forseeable future. The Moose Creek project would not overlap spatially or temporally with any sensitive species analysis areas for this Project, so it is not considered further in the biological evaluation. The Moose Creek project would only overlap with the gray wolf analysis area, so it is not considered beyond that in the MIS report. The Neva project has little potential for spatial or temporal overlaps with this Project, and there is no project proposal, so there is no quantitative contributions to cumulative effects, only a qualitative mention of it where there would be overlap with terrestrial wildlife species analysis areas.
Forest Service Sensitive Species
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could contribute cumulative effects to the bald eagles through disturbance on up to 29% of the Analysis Area. Timber harvest, recreation, road or trail maintenance, livestock grazing, and road construction has resulted in changes to bald eagles habitat and possibly repeat disturbances to breeding, roosting, or foraging behavior. The combination of Project activities, lack of species detections, widespread use of riparian no- harvest buffers, and road decommissioning or watershed improvement activity benefits limit potential for cumulative effects. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in combination with past, present or ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable projects, are not expected to cumulatively result in a measurable impact to bald eagles habitat or their populations.
Bats (Chiroptera): Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could contribute to cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions on Bats. Loss of roost availability has occurred from snag removal due to past and ongoing timber harvest. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 should maintain primary foraging habitat through no-harvest riparian buffers that are well distributed across the Project area. Additionally, the near future 2 Mile Meadow project should benefit Bat foraging through restoration of hydrologic systems. Conversely, the lesser or non-existent riparian protections on non-Forest lands are expected to continue to only provide marginal travel corridors or reduced foraging habitats.
Fisher (Pekania pennanti)
Palouse Ranger District 262 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, in combination with reasonably foreseeable future actions, would contribute to the cumulative effects of past and present activities that shaped current habitat conditions for the fisher. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would cumulatively contribute to an increase in the amount of open areas in up to 25% of the analysis area, thus further decreasing the probability of fisher occupancy of the area. Mature forest structure is considered unavailable on non-Forest lands, so there would be no cumulative contribution to decrease from non-Forest land, because ongoing logging has been routine for decades. The proposed Neva project may further decrease mature probable habitat availability in the analysis area.
Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus)
Past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest on non- Forest lands has and will continue to reduce large-diameter, mature or old growth ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch. Thereby, these past actions removed or reduced flammulated owl nesting and foraging habitat across a maximum of 25% of the analysis area. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would contribute to these cumulative effects through the modification and loss of additional habitat. Conversely, regeneration treatments may be successful in promoting the species dominance types flammulated owls prefer resulting in beyond long-term habitat improvements. No future actions on Forest overlap in time or space with the analysis area, so there would be no contribution to cumulative effects.
Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas)
Past timber harvest, livestock grazing, and road construction has reduced or removed western toad habitat. Trampling is still a possibility in riparian areas because they are used by cattle in the Potlatch Creek allotment. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would contribute cumulative effects of non- Forest activities on up to 25% of the analysis area. However, this is relatively low given riparian no-harvest buffers have minimized the effects of activities on western toad primary habitat for over two decades.
Gray Wolf (Canis lupis)
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have negligible contributions to cumulative effects on wolves because they could impact less than 1% of analysis area disturbance. However, 83% of the area could be affected due to non-Forest land influences. Ongoing activities, such as recreation, cattle grazing, timber harvest on non-Forest land, and fire suppression would continue. However, alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in little additional risk of disturbance, injury, or mortality to gray wolves. The combination of gray wolf mobility, relatively short-term increase of human exposure during Project implementation, and potential increase in prey use of the area from increased openings or forage, all reduce or offset potential effects.
Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea)
There is no pygmy nuthatch habitat on non-Forest land in the Project area, so although past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would continue, this Project would not contribute cumulative effects on pygmy nuthatch.
Management Indicator Species Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Palouse Ranger District 263 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would contribute to the cumulative effects of the Project on northern goshawk. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities, including timber harvest on non- Forest lands, have and would continue to affect the amount and suitability of northern goshawk nesting and foraging habitat. Cumulative reductions in canopy cover, snags, down wood, and large trees likely reduce the ability of northern goshawks to successfully breed in the area. Alternative 2 and 3 would cumulatively result in 45 and 74 acres of openings respectively for two of the three PFAs. The third PFA would have 165 acres of openings if Alternative 2 were implemented and 89 acres of openings if Alternative 3 were implemented.
Alternative 4 would result in 37, 53, and 122 acres of openings respectively per PFA. The Neva project could spatially overlap one of the recently occupied home ranges, but details on treatment type and locations have not been determined.
Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would contribute to the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on pileated woodpecker or their habitat. The contributions of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would further reduce abundance and distribution of snags and mature forest in contribution to past timber harvest. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would further reduce mid and late-seral habitats by decreasing the availability of nesting habitat, and altering foraging or drumming sites, similarly to past harvest. Beyond the long-term, it is possible the trajectory of habitat conditions could be altered such that pileated woodpecker are no longer favored given their association with insects and grand fir which is not compatible with management emphases on forest health.
Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus) & White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could contribute to cumulative effects on elk or their habitat, in both the Little Boulder and East Ruby EAU. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that may cumulatively impact elk habitat effectiveness, include road and trail maintenance, cattle grazing, big game hunting, motorized recreation, and dispersed-camping. Most of these activities are considered routine and ongoing, with virtually no effects to the habitats through which they pass. However, these activities can displace or increase mortality risk of elk. Additionally, ongoing permitted cattle grazing can reduce the quality and quantity of forage available for elk.
Past timber harvest converted hiding and thermal cover into forage, but those stands harvested in the long-term past have progressed back to cover. Past timber harvest and road building reduced forest connectivity and security areas. Harvest activities removed hiding and screening cover along open and closed roads which increases illegal access opportunities. Road work in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would contribute to these past decreases in security. Regeneration harvest in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would contribute to these past increases in forage and corresponding reductions in cover. The future Neva project would probably have regeneration proposals that overlap the Ruby Creek Elk Analysis unit furthering the increase in forage.
American Marten (Martes americana)
There are no cumulative effects to marten from Alternatives 2, 3, or 4.
Palouse Ranger District 264 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Palouse Ranger District 265 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.15 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS See section 3.7.4.3, for a discussion/ disclosure of cumulative effects on hydrology. 3.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road.
40 CFR 1502.16 requires a review of any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved should this project be implemented. An irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is related to the use of non-renewable resources and the effect that the use (or depletion) of these resources would have on future generations. Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction of a specific resource that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame, such as fossil fuels. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action, such as groundwater depletion. The alternatives and design criteria analyzed in this project would have no irreversible or irretrievable effects on natural or depletable resources in the project area, or their conservation potential. 3.17 Other Required Disclosures NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with …other environmental review laws and executive orders.” No other required disclosures have been identified for this section.
Palouse Ranger District 266 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Preparers and Contributors The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and other organization and individuals during the development of this environmental impact statement:
Interdisciplinary Team Members (USFS)
Stephanie Berry, Forester (Acting) – Vegetation
Alan Carlson, Assistant Fire Management Officer – Fire/ Fuels
Eric Crook, Hydrologist – Hydrology
Alyssa Fellow, Wildlife Biologist – Wildlife
Mike Hays, Botanist - Botany
Kathryn Howisey, Range & Weeds Specialist – Range
Stephanie Israel, NEPA Planner – IDT Leader
Robbin Johnston, Anthropology/ Historian – Cultural Resources
Diana Jones, Landscape Architect - Visuals
Dan Kenney, Fisheries Biologist – Fisheries
Adam McClory, Recreation Specialist - Recreation
David Ratliff, Civil Engineer – Transportation/ Roads
Andre Snyder, Soil Scientist – Soils
Thomas Spong, Supervisory Forester - Economics
Tribal Organizations
Nez Perce Tribe
Federal, State, and Local Agencies
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
State Historic Preservation Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Palouse Ranger District 267 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
References Botany
Blake, J. and C. Ebrahimi. 1992. Species Conservation Strategy and Monitoring Plan for Blechnum spicant for northern Idaho, Idaho Panhandle National Forest and Clearwater National Forest. USFS Regional Office, Missoula MT. 14 pp. plus appendices.
Bohlin, A., L. Gustafsson, and T. Hallingback. 1977. Skirmossan, Hookeria lucens, I Sverige. Hookeria lucens (Musci) in Sweden.) Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 71:273-284.
Caicco, S.L. 1988. Status report for Calochortus nitidus. Unpublished report. On file at: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. 54 p plus appendices.
Chadde, S. and Kudray, G. 2001. Conservation Assessment of Botrychium simplex (Least Moonwort). Unpublished report for USDA Forest Service, Region 9.
Christy, J.A. and D.H. Wagner. 1996. Guide for the Identification of Rare, Threatened or Sensitive Bryophytes in the Range the Northern Spotted Owl, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and Northwestern California. BLM, OR-WA Office, Portland Oregon.
Cousens, M.I. 1981. Blechnum spicant: Habitat vigor of optimal, marginal and disjunct populations and field observations of gametophytes. Botanical Gazette 142(2): 251-258.
Gray, K. 1999. Personal communication concerning Rhizomnium nudum.
Greenlee, J. (1997). Cypripedium fasciculatum Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Lolo National Forest. Missoula MT.
Hammet, A. 2001. Table summarizing the results of the Blechnum spicant monitoring plots at Distillery Bay, Priest lake Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests (1991-1997). Unpublished. On file at: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. 1p.
Harrod, R.J.; Knecht, D.E.; Kuhlmann, E.E.; Ellis, M.W. and Davenport, R. 1997. Effects of the Rat and Hatchery Creek fires on four rare plant species. Pages 311-319 in: Proceedings – Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and habitats Conference, Nov. 13-16, 1995, Coeur d’Alene, ID. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, WA.
Hays, M.R. 2016. Clearwater National Forest. Field observations of Cardamine constancei.
Hays, M.R. 1995. Clearwater National Forest. Field observations of Cypripedium fasciculatum.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 730 p.
Kelly, D. (1994). “Demography and conservation of Botrychium australe, a peculiar sparse mycorrhizal fern.” N.Z. J. Bott. 32:393-400.
Koponen, T. (1973). “Rhizomnium (Mniaceae in North America.” Annales Botanici Fennici 10:1-26.
Johnson, F. D.; Crawford, R. C. 1978. Ecology and distribution of six species of sensitive plants of northern Idaho (Clearwater basin sensitive plants study). Unpublished report by the College of Forestry, Wildlife & Range Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Laaka, S. 1992. The threatened epixylic bryophytes in old primeval forests in Finland. Biological Conservation 59:151-154.
Palouse Ranger District 268 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Lake, L. 2002. Nez Perce National Forest. Personal communication
Lichthardt, J.J. (2002). Conservation strategy for clustered lady’s-slipper orchid (Cypripedium fasciculatum) in U.S. Forest Service Region 1. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID.
Lichthardt, J. 2000. Monitoring of rare plant populations on the Clearwater National Forest: fourth annual summary report, Clustered lady’s slipper orchid – Aquarius RNA, Henderson’s sedge – Aquarius RNA, crinkle-awn fescue – Aquarius RNA, Constance’s bittercress – North Fork Ranger District. Unpublished report for the Clearwater National Forest. On file at: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. 15 p.
Lichthardt, J.J. (1999). Action Plan for sensitive plant species on the Clearwater National Forest (Draft). Report to the Clearwater National Forest SO, Orofino, ID. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID.
Lichthardt, J. and R.K. Moseley. 1994. Ecosystem analysis and conservation planning for the Clearwater Refugium, Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests. Unpublished report for the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests. On file at: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. 40 p plus appendices.
Mancuso, M. and R. Moseley. 1994. Vegetation description, rare plant inventory, and vegetation monitoring for Craig Mountain, Idaho. Unpublished report for the Bonneville Power Administration. On file at: Idaho Department of Fish and Game Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. 146 p plus appendices.
Montgomery, J.D. 1990. Survivorship and predation changes in five populations of Botrychium dissectum in eastern Pennsylvania. Am. Fern J. 80:173-182.
Mousseaux, M. 1996. Draft Botanist Report for the St. Joe Geographic Assessment.
Mousseaux, M. 1995. Botanist Idaho Panhandle NF. Personal Communication concerning Cardamine constancei.
Pipp, A. 1999. Botanist, BLM, Coos Bay, OR. Personal communication concerning Cypripedium fasciculatum.
Schofield, W.B. 1992. Some Common Mosses of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum. 394 pp.
Vance, N. and L. Lake. 2001. Response of clustered ladyslipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum) to partial overstory removal and prescribed fire in north central Idaho. Preliminary draft. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR. 4 p.
Wagner, H. 1999. Personal communication concerning Botrychium sp.
Welch, W.H. 1962. The Hookeriaceae of the United States and Canada. The Bryologist 65:24.
Wiklund, K. 2002. Substratum preference, spore output and temporal variation in sporophyte production of the epixylic moss Buxbaumia viridis. Journal of Bryology, 24:187-195.
Cultural Resources
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 1995 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Bulletin 15. National Park Service. Washington, DC.
Palouse Ranger District 269 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Fire & Fuels
Agee, J, and C Skinner 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments, P. 92-94. In: Forest Ecology and Management 211 (2005) 83-96.
Anderson, H. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior. NFES 1574. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-122, April 1982. 22p.
BD Act (16 U.S.C. 490, August 11, 1916)
BEHAVE Plus 5.0.5, Computer Model
Clean Air Act, 1963, 1977, 1990, 1999, (42 U.S.C. 7401-7626)
Clearwater National Forest Landtype Associations, August 31, 1995
Clearwater National Forest Plan 1987
Clearwater Subbasin Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, 1997
Covington, J. 1994. Changes in Forest Conditions in Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems of Western North America, p. 15-18. In: Proceedings of the Conference: Forest Health and Fire Danger in the Inland Western Forests. Washington State University Symposium, September 8-9, 1994. Spokane, WA.
Fiedler, C., and C. Keegan. 2003. Reducing Crown Fire Hazard in Fire-Adapted Forests of New Mexico. P.39-48. In: Omi, P.N., and J.A. Linda, tech. eds. 2003. Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration: Conference proceedings; 2002. 16-18 April; Ft. Collins, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-29. USDA, Forest Service, RMRS 475p.
Finney, M., and J. Cohen. 2003. Expectation and Evaluation of Fuel management Objectives. P. 353-366. In: Omi, P.N., and J.A. Linda, tech. eds. 2003. Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration: Conference proceedings; 2002. 16-18 April; Ft. Collins, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-29. USDA, Forest Service RMRS. 475p.
Graham, R., A. Harvey, M. Jergensen, T. Jain, J. Tonn, and D. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP-477. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 12p.
Graham, R., A. Harvey, T. Jain, and J. Tonn. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in Western forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, PNRS. 27p.
Graham, R., S. McCaffrey, and T. Jain, tech. eds. 2004. Science basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120. April 2004. 43p.
Habeck, J. R., and R. W. Mutch, 1973. Fire Dependent Forests in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Quaternary Research, Vol. 3, No. 3.
Healthy Forest Restoration Act 2003 (P.L. 108-148)
HFRA, 2003
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), 9/96.
Johnston, Robbin. Palouse Ranger District Archaeologist, Communication. November 7-9, 2007
Martinson, E., and P. Omi. 2003. Performance of Fuel Treatments Subjected to Wildfires. P. 7-14. In: Omi, P.N., and J.A. Linda, tech. eds. 2003. Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration:
Palouse Ranger District 270 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Conference proceedings; 2002. 16-18 April; Ft. Collins, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-29. USDA, Forest Service, RMRS. 475p.
Montana/Idaho Airshed Group Operating Guide (2010)
National Fire Plan, 2000. See also USDA/USDI 2001 and 2006.
National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), 2008
Ottmar, R, J. Peterson, B. Leenhouts, and J. Core. 2001. Smoke management: Techniques to reduce or Redistribute Emissions. Chapter 8, pp. 141-159. In: Hardy, C., R. Ottmar, J. Peterson, J. Core, and P. Seamon. Eds. 2001. Smoke management guide for prescribed and wildland fire. 2001 Edition. National Wildfire Coordination Group, Boise, Idaho. NFES 1279. PMS 420-2. December 2001. 226p.
Smith, D.M. 1962. The Practice of Silviculture (1986 reprint, eight edition). John Wiley and Sons, New York. 527pp.
Smith, J. and W. Fischer, 1997. Fire Ecology of the Forest Habitat Types of Northern Idaho. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-363. Sept, 1997. 142p.
Teie, W.C., and B.F. Weatherford, 2000. Fire in the west: The wildland/urban interface fire problem. Report to the Council of Western State Foresters. Deer Valley Press, Rescue, CA. 80p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Circular No. 61 May, 1926
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-year Comprehensive Strategy. August, 2001.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-year Strategy Implementation Plan. December, 2006
Fisheries
Adult Technical Team. 2012. Nez Perce Tribe Nacó’x (Chinook salmon) and Héeyey (steelhead) adult escapement and spawning ground survey. 2011 summary report, April 2012. Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Fisheries Resources Management, Lapwai, ID. 29pp. (earlier reports also cited).
Arnsberg, B., P. Groves, F. Mullins, D. Milks. 2016. 2015 Snake River fall Chinook salmon spawning summary. Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho Power Company, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. January 2016, 6 pp. (earlier reports also cited)
Banks, R. and B.J. Bowersox, B.J. 2014. Potlatch River steelhead monitoring and evaluation project. Annual Report 2012. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, February 2014.
Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6.
Bowersox, B.J. and N. Brindza. 2006. Potlatch River Basin – Fisheries Inventory; Latah, Clearwater, and Nez Perce Counties, Idaho, 2003-2004. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, September 2006, Report # IDFG 06-16.
Carter, K. 2005. The effects of temperature on steelhead trout, coho salmon, and Chinook salmon biology and function by life stage: Implications for Klamath Basin TMDLs. August 2005. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 26 pp.
Palouse Ranger District 271 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. 1994. Habitat Conditions and Salmonid Abundance in Little Boulder Creek and Two Unnamed Streams Within the Potlatch Drainage, Palouse Ranger District, Spring 1993. Contract report no. 53-0276-3-5, prepared for U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.
Clearwater Biostudies, Inc. 2006. Habitat conditions and fish abundance in selected streams with the Potlatch Creek drainage, Palouse Ranger District, Summer 2005; Draft report to the Clearwater National Forest. Canby, OR. Contract No. 53-0276-4-84.
Clearwater National Forest. 1987. Forest Plan. September 1987, Orofino, ID.
Clearwater National Forest. 1996. Potlatch River grazing allotments environmental assessment. June 1996. Palouse Ranger District. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.
Clearwater National Forest. 1997. Clearwater Subbasin Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: Potlatch, Lolo/Orofino Creek Watersheds.
Clearwater National Forest 2000. Section 7 watershed biological assessment - Potlatch River drainage – mainstem Clearwater River subbasin. Determination of effects of ongoing and proposed activities based on the matrix of pathways and indicators of watershed condition for steelhead trout, fall Chinook salmon and bull trout. June 26, 2000. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.
Clearwater National Forest, 2008. Cherry Dinner Record of Decision, Palouse Ranger District.
Clearwater National Forest, 1988-2009. Annual monitoring report & evaluation reports. Found online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nezperceclearwater/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5408439
Cochnauer, T. and C. Claire. 2009. Evaluate status of Pacific lamprey in the Clearwater River and Salmon River drainages, Idaho. Report by Idaho Department of Fish and Game to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.
Columbia River DART, Columbia Basin Research, University of Washington. (2013). Available from http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart
Crook, E. 2017. Little Boulder Watershed Report. For Palouse Ranger District, Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.
Everett, S, C. Beasley, R. Johnson, C. Davenport, R. Larson, and FishPro Division of HDR Engineering (NPT). 2006. Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Project; Coho Salmon Master Plan,Clearwater River Basin, 2003-2004 Annual Report, Project No. 198335000, 134 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP- 00004035-1)
Fellow, A. 2017. Little Boulder Wildlife Report. For Palouse Ranger District, Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho. Fuller, R.K., Kucera, P.A., and J.H. Johnson. 1985. A Biological and Physical Inventory of the Streams Within the Nez Perce Reservation. Final report submitted to the Bonneville Power Administration. Department of Fisheries Management, Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, Idaho. August 1985. Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jurgensen, M.F.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R.; Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP-477. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, lntermountain Research Station. 12 pp. Griffith, J. S. 1988. Review of competition between cutthroat trout and other salmonids. Pages 134–140 in R. E. Gresswell, editor. Status and management of interior stocks of cutthroat trout. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 4, Bethesda, Maryland.
Grunder, S. 2011. The status of Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) in Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. July 2011.
Palouse Ranger District 272 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Hammond, R.J. 1979. Larval biology of the Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentatus (Gairdner) of the Potlatch River, Idaho. Master’s Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2008. Potlatch River subbasin assessments and TMDLs. Lewiston Regional Office, September 2008.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2014. Idaho’s 2012 Integrated Report. IDEQ Water Quality Division. Boise, January 2014.
Isabella Wildlife Works 1994. Fisheries Survey Report, Potlatch River #1 and #2, Palouse Ranger District. Contract No. 53-0276-3-39. Final report submitted to U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.
Isabella Wildlife Works. 1995. Fisheries survey report, East Fork Potlatch River, Palouse Ranger District, February 1995. Report to the Clearwater National Forest. Viola, ID. Contract No. 53-0276-4-36.
Kee, E. and D. Schoen. 2009. Ruby Creek Habitat Survey. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, ID.
Kinney, J. 1995. Summary Report of Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Project, 1994 Field Results - Potlatch River Basin. Report submitted to Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, Lewiston, Idaho. Jones, R.M. and P.K. Murphy, 1997. Watershed Condition Clearwater National Forest. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho. 49 pp.
Kanda, N., R.F. Leary, and F.W. Allendorf. 2002. Evidence of introgressive hybridization between bull trout and brook trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 131: 4, pp. 772-782.
Lysne, S.J. and B.R. Krouse. 2011. Margaritifera falcate in Idaho using museum collections and GIS to demonstrate a declining trend in regional distribution. Journal of the Idaho Academy of Science 47(2) 33-39.
May, B.E., B.J. Writer, and S. Albeke. 2012. Redband trout status update summary. Prepared by Wild Trout Enterprises, LLC. Bozeman, Montana.
Murphy, P.K. 1986. Water Quality Status Report For Lower Clearwater River Tributaries, Nez Perce Reservation, Idaho. Water year 1986. Technical report 86-6. Department of Fisheries Management, Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, Idaho. 37 pages.
Nedeau, E.J., A.K. Smith, J. Stone, and S. Jepsen. 2009. Freshwater mussels of the Pacific Northwest, Second edition. The Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon.
Nez Perce Tribe. 2012. Clearwater River coho restoration: a tribal success story. Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Fisheries Management. Lapwai, Idaho. 4 pp.
Pauley, G.B., B.M. Bortz and M.F. Shepard. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) steelhead trout. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.62). 24p. US Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-81-4.
Peterson, D.P., Fausch, K.D., and White, G.C. 2004. Population ecology of an invasion: effects of brook trout on native cutthroat trout. Ecol. Appl. 14(3): 754–772.
Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Brook trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.24. 42 pp.
Palouse Ranger District 273 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Resource Planning Unlimited. 2007. Potlatch River watershed management plan. Sponsored by Latah County Soil and Water Conservation District. Moscow, ID. October 2007.
Rieman, B.E., J.T. Peterson, and D.L. Myers. 2006. Have brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) displaced bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) along longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63: 63–78 (2006).
Smith, K. 2015. PACFISH buffer monitoring report, Summer 2014. Lochsa District, Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forests, Kooskia, Idaho.
Smith, K. 2016. PACFISH buffer and temporary road monitoring and miscellaneous timber sales observations report. Lochsa/Powell Districts, Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, Kooskia, Idaho. December 2016.
Snyder, A. 2017. Little Boulder Soils Report. For Palouse Ranger District, Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.
Thurow, R. 1987. Evaluation of the South Fork Salmon River Steelhead Trout Fishery Restoration Program. Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan. Job Completion Report, Contract No 14-16-0001-86505. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Per FSM File Code 2670/1950, August 17, 1995; Streamlining Biological Evaluations and Conclusions for Determining Effects to Listed, Proposed and Sensitive Species.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Decision notice and finding of no significant impact for the interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. February1995.
Ward, D.L., B.J. Clemens, D. Clugston, A.D. Jackson, M.L. Moser, C. Peery, and D.P. Statler. 2012. Translocating adult Pacific lamprey within the Columbia River basin: state of the science. Fisheries 37(8): 351-361.
Wertz, L.B. and J. Kinney. 1995. 1994 beneficial use reconnaissance project. Potlatch River Watershed of Latah, Clearwater, and Nez Perce Counties, North Central Idaho. Water quality summary report no. 31. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, Lewiston, Idaho.
Hydrology
Ager, A.A. and C. Clifton. 2005. Software for calculating vegetation disturbance and recovery by using the equivalent clearcut area model. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-637. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 11 p.
Bosch, J.M.; Hewlett, J.D. 1982. Review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of hydrology, 55:3—23.
Burroughs, E.R., Jr.; Watts, F.J.; Haber, D.F. 1984a. Surfacing to reduce erosion of forest roads built in granitic soils. In: O’Loughlin, C.L.; Pearce, A.J., eds. Proceedings, symposium on effects of forest land use on erosion and slope stability. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, East-West Center: 255-264.
Burroughs, E.R., Jr.; King, J.G. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-264. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 21 p.
Palouse Ranger District 274 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Clinton, B. D. 2011. Stream water responses to timber harvest: Riparian buffer width effectiveness. Forest Ecology and Management 261 (2011) 979–988
Clearwater Biostudies, Inc. 1993. Habitat Conditions and Salmonid Abundance in Little Boulder Creek and two unnamed streams within the Potlatch Drainage, Palouse Ranger District, Spring 1993.
Clearwater Biostudies, Inc. 2006. Habitat Conditions and Salmonid Abundance in Selected Streams within the Potlatch Creek Drainage, Palouse Ranger District, Summer 2005. Contract No. 53- 0276-4-84.
Croke, J., Mockler, S., Fogarty, P., and Takken, I. 2005. Sediment concentration changes in runoff pathways from a forest road network and the resultant spatial pattern of catchment connectivity. Geomorphology, 68:257-268.
Dun, S, J. Q. Wu, W. J. Elliot, J. R. Frankenberger, D. C. Flanagan, D. K. McCool. 2013. APPLYING ONLINE WEPP TO ASSESS FOREST WATERSHED HYDROLOGY. Transactions of the ASABE Vol. 56(2): 581-590
Dunne, Thomas and Luna B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Elliot, W.J., D.E. Hall, D.L. Scheele. 1999. WEPP: Road (Draft 12/1999), WEPP Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion, and Sediment Delivery. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Technology and Development Program. San Dimas, CA. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp.
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., R.B. Foltz, and P.R. Robichaud. 2000. Measuring and modeling soil erosion processes in forests. Landwards, vol. 55, No. 2, 18-25.
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.
Frankenberger, J.R, S. Dun, D.C. Flanagan, J.Q. Wu4, W.J. Elliot. 2011. DEVELOPMENT OF A GIS INTERFACE FOR WEPP MODEL APPLICATION TO GREAT LAKES FORESTED WATERSHEDS. ISELE Paper Number 11139, Presented at the International Symposium on Erosion and Landscape Evolution Hilton Anchorage Hotel, Anchorage, Alaska, September 18-21, 2011.
Gerhardt, Nick. 2000. A Brief History of Water Yield and ECA Guidelines on the Nez Perce National Forest.
Grace, Johnny McFero, III. 2002. Sediment movement from forest road systems. Resource; Dec 2002; 9, 12; ProQuest Natural Science Collection pg. 13
Haupt, H.F., and W.J. Kidd, Jr. 1965. Good Logging Practices Reduce Sedimentation In Central Idaho. Journal of Forestry, Sept. 1965, 664—670.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2014. Idaho’s 2014 Integrated Report, Final, February 2017, Prepared by Cara Hastings and Jason Williams, Idaho Department of
Palouse Ranger District 275 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Quality Water Quality Division 1410 North Hilton Boise, Idaho 83706. Available at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/60179654/idaho-2014-integrated-report.pdf
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2009. Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads, approved by the EPA in February 2009. Available at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/clearwater-river- subbasin/
IDAPA 20.02.01 Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act. Available at https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/2000/20/0201.pdf
IDAPA 37.03.02 Beneficial Use Examination Rules Available at https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/37/0302.pdf
IDAPA 37.03.07 Stream Channel Alteration Rules. Available at https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/2008/37/0307.pdf
IDAPA 58.01.02. Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment requirements. Title 1, Chapter 2, State of Idaho, Boise, Idaho. Available at: http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/0102.pdf Isabella Wildlife Works. 1994. Fisheries Survey Report. Potlatch River #1 . Palouse Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest Solicitation #RFQ R1-5-93-49.
Isabella Wildlife Works. 1995. Fisheries Survey Report. East Fork Potlatch River. Palouse Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest Contract #53-0276-4-36.
Jones, Richard M. and Patrick K. Murphy. 1997. Watershed Condition Report, Clearwater National Forest.
Jones, J.A. 2000. Hydrologic processes and peak discharge response to forest removal, regrowth, and roads in 10 small experimental basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, 36(9):2621-2642.
Kochenderfer, J. N. 1970. Erosion control on logging roads in the Appalachians. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-158, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA.
Lane, P.N.J., and Sheridan, G.J. 2002. Impact of an unsealed forest road stream crossing: water quality and sediment sources. Hydrological Processess, 16:2599-2612.
Luce, C.H., and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vol. 35, No. 8, pgs. 2561–2570.
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
Megahan, W.F.; King, J.G. 2004. Erosion, sedimentation, and cumulative effects in the northern Rocky Mountains. In: Ice, G.G.; Stednick, J.D., eds. A century of forest and wildland watershed lessons. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 201-222. Chapter 9.
Mockler, S.; Croke, J. 1999. Prescriptive measures for the prevention of road to stream linkage. In: Rutherford, I.; Bartley, R., eds. Proceedings, second Australian stream management conference. Canberra, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology: 2: 451-456.
Moore, R.D.; Wondzell, S.M. 2005. Physical hydrology and the effects of forest harvesting in the Pacific Northwest: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 41(4): 763–784.
Palouse Ranger District 276 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
NOAA.1998. Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition for Chinook, Steelhead, and Bull Trout. Pfankuch, 1978. Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation.
Stednick John D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber water yield harvest on annual water yield. Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95.
Stuart, G.W.; Edwards, P.J. 2006. Concepts about forests and water. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(1): 11-19.
Sweeney, B. W. and J.D. Newbold. 2014. Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 50, No. 3, 560-584.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1984. Gravel and grass surfacing reduces soil loss from mountain roads. Forest Science. 30(3): 657-670.
Swift, L. W., Jr. 1984. Soil losses from roadbeds and cut and fill slopes in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 8(4):209-216.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1988. Forest access roads: design, maintenance, and soil loss. In: Swank, W.T.; Crossley, D.A., eds. Forest hydrology and ecology at Coweeta. Ecological Studies Vol. 66. New York: Springer-Verlag: 313-324. Chapter 23.
Takken, I., J. Croke, and P. Lane. 2008. Thresholds for channel initiation at road drain outlets. Catena 75:257–267.
USDA Forest Service. 1973. Forest Hydrology: Hydrologic Effects of Vegetation Manipulation, Part II.
USDA Forest Service. 1983. Land System Inventory, Clearwater National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Cherry Dinner. Palouse Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 2016. Effectiveness of Best Management Practices that Have Application to Forest Roads: A Literature Synthesis. Pamela J. Edwards, Frederica Wood, and Robin L. Quinlivan. Forest Service Northern Research Station, General Technical Report NRS-163 October 2016.
USDA-NRCS. 2016. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed February 7—17, 2016.
Yuan, Y., Binger, R.L. and Locke, M. 2009. A review of effectiveness of vegetative buffers on sediment trapping in agricultural areas. Ecohydrology 2:321-336.
Zhang, Xuyang, Xingmei Liu, Minghua Zhang, R. A. Dahlgren, and M. Eitzel. 2010. A Review of Vegetated Buffers and a Meta-analysis of Their Mitigation Efficacy in Reducing Nonpoint Source Pollution. J. Environ. Qual. 39:76–84. Soils
Adams, P.W., H. A. Froehlich. 1981. Compaction of Forest Soils. Pacific Northwest Extension publication 217. Oregon State University, Washington State University and University of Idaho Extension Services; and USDA.
Archer, 2008. Clearwater NF Soil Monitoring. Soils Report. Clearwater National Forest; Orofino, ID
Palouse Ranger District 277 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Burgoyne, T. and Ford M. 2013. Post Burn Monitoring on the Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forest. Nez Perce-Clearwater NF. Orofino, ID.
Burroughs, E.R. and J.G.King. 1984. Surface Erosion Control on Roads in Granitic Soils. (Draft)
Burroughs, E.R. and J.G.King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- 264.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT.
Clayton, J.L.; Kellogg, G ; Forester, N. 1987. Soil disturbance Tree-growth relations in central Idaho clearcuts. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-372. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 6p.
Clayton, J.L. 1990. Soil disturbance resulting from skidding logs on granitic soil in central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-436. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 8p.
Clearwater National Forest, 1995. Clearwater NF Landtype Associations.
Clearwater National Forest. 1994, 1997-2009 Annual Monitoring Reports.
Clearwater National Forest, 2000. Clearwater National Forest 1995-1996 Landslides Database (revised).
Curran, M.P., R.L. Heninger, D.G, Maynard, and R.F. Powers. 2005. Harvesting effects on soils, tree growth, and long-term productivity. In C.A. Harrington and S.H. Schoenholtz eds. Productivity of Western forests: a forest products focus. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-642. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 176p.
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.
Ferguson, D.E.; Byrne, J.C.; Coffen, D.O. 2005. Reforestation trials and secondary succession with three levels of overstory shade in the Grand Fir Mosaic Ecosystem. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-53. Fort Collins CO: USDA, Forest Service, RMRS. 16p.
Ferguson, D. E.; Johnson-Maynard, J. L.; McDaniel, P. A. 2007. The Grand Fir Mosaic Ecosystem -- History and Management Impacts. In: Page-Dumroese, Deborah; Miller, Richard; Mital, Jim; McDaniel, Paul; Miller, Dan, tech. eds. 2007. Volcanic-Ash-Derived Forest Soils of the Inland Northwest: Properties and Implications for Management and Restoration. 9-10 November 2005; Coeur d’Alene, ID. Proceedings RMRS-P-44; Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 175-184.
Fleming R.L., R.F. Powers, N.W. Foster, J.M. Kranabetter, D.A. Scott, F. Ponder Jr., S. Berch, W.K Chapman, R.D. Kabzems, K.H. Ludovici, D.M. Morris, D.S. Page-Dumroese, P.T. Sandborn, F.G. Sanchez, D.M. Stone, and A.E. Tiarks. 2006. Effects of organic matter removal, soil compaction, and vegetation control on 5-year seedling performance: a regional comparison of Long-Term Soil Productivity sites. Can. J. For. Res. 36:529-550.
Foltz, R.B., H. Rhee, and K.A. Yanosek, 2007. Infiltration, erosion, and vegetation recovery following road obliteration. Transactions of the ASABE. 50(6): 1937-1943.
Froehlich, H., A.; McNabb, D.H. 1983. Minimizing Soil Compaction in Pacific Northwest Forests. Paper Presented at Sixth North American Forest Soils Conference on Forest Soils and Treatment Impacts.
Palouse Ranger District 278 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Froehlich, H.A., D.W. R. Miles, and R.W. Robbins. 1985. Soil bulk density recovery on compacted skid trails in central Idaho. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49: 1015-1017.
Greacen, E.L., and Sands, R. 1980. Compaction of forest soils. A review. Aust. J. Soil Res. 18: 163–189.
Graham, R. T, A. E. Harvey, M. F. Jurgensen, T. B. Jain, J. R. Tonn, D. S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Research Paper INT-RP-477.
Graham, R.T., T.B. Jain, and A.E. Harvey. 1999. Fuel: Logs, sticks, needles, duff and much more. In Proceedings, Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop. Crossing the millennium: integrating spatial technologies and ecological principles for a new age in fire management. L.F. Neunschwander, K.C. Ryan, G.E. Gollberg, and J.D. Greer (editors). Boise, Idaho.
Korb, Julie E., Nancy C. Johnson, and W. W. Covington. 2004. Slash Pile Burning Effects on Soil Biotic and Chemical Properties and Plant Establishment: Recommendation for Amelioration. Restoration Ecology Vol 12 (1): 52-62.
Lloyd R.A., Lohse K.A., and Ferré. 2013. Influence of road reclamation techniques on forest ecosystem recovery Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, Vol. 11(2): 75–81.
McClelland, D.E. R. B. Foltz, W. D. Wilson, T. W. Cundy, C. M. Falter, C. Rabe, R. Heinemann, J. A. Saurbier, and B. Schuster. 1997. Assessment of the 1995 and 1996 Floods and Landslides on the Clearwater National Forest, Part 1: Landslide Assessment.
McNeel, J.; Ballard, T. 1992. Analysis of site stand impacts from thinning with a harvester- forwarder system. Journal of Forest Engineering. 4 (1):23-29.
Megahan, Day and Bliss. 1978. Landslide Occurrence in the Western and Central Northern Rocky Mountain Physiographic Province in Idaho. Clearwater National Forest. Orofino, ID
Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, A. Abbot, T. Rice, J, Tirocke, S. Farley, and S. DeHart. 2006a. Monitoring Changes in Soil Quality from Post-fire Logging in the Inland Northwest. Forest Service Proceedings. RMRS-P-41. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station:605-613.
Page-Dumroese, D. S., M. F. Jurgensen, A.E. Tiarks, F. Ponder Jr., F.G. Sanchez, R.L. Fleming, J.M Kranabetter, R.F. Powers, D.M. Stone, J.D. Elioff, and D.A. Scott. 2006b. Soil physical property changes at the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compaction. Can. J. For. Res. 36:551-564.
Page-Dumroese, D.S., A.M. Abbott, T.M. Rice. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. 2 vols.
Powers, R.F. 1990. Are we maintaining the productivity of forest lands? Establishing guidelines through a network of long-term studies. In Proceedings: Management and Productivity of Western-Montane Forest Soils, 10–12 April 1990, Boise, Idaho. Compiled by A.E. Harvey, L.F. Neuenschwander, and I.D. Boise. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-280. pp. 70–89.
Powers, R.F. 2002. Effects of soil disturbance on the fundamental, sustainable productivity of managed forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station:63-82.
Powers, R.F., F.G. Sanchez, D.A. Scott, and D. Page-Dumroese. 2004. The North American Long-term soil Productivity Experiment: Coast-to-Coast findings from the First Decade. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-34:191-206.
Palouse Ranger District 279 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Powers, R.P., D. A. Scott, F.G. Sanchez, R.A. Voldseth, Page-Dumroese, D.S., J.D. Elioff, and D.M. Stone. 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and Management 220:31-50.
Reeves, D., D. Page-Dumroese, and M. Coleman. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance associated with timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Research Paper RMRS-RP-89
Rone, Gina. 2011. Summary of Soil Monitoring on the IPNF 1980s to 2010.
Sanchez, F.G., A.E. Tiarks, J.M. Kranabetter, D.S. Page-Dumroese, R.F. Powers, P.T. Sanborn, and W.K. Chapman. 2006. Effects of organic matter removal and soil compaction on fifth-year mineral soil carbon and nitrogen contents for sites across the United States and Canada. Can. J. For. Res 36:565-576.
Tepp, J.S. 2002. Assessing visual soil disturbance on eight commercially thinned sites in northeastern Washington. Res. Note. PNW-RN-535. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 20p.
USDA Forest Service. 1990-2009. Clearwater National Forest Soil and Water BMP Audit Summary. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Clearwater National Forest. Orofino, Idaho.
USDA Forest Service. 1999-2009. Clearwater National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Reports. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Clearwater National Forest. Orofino, Idaho.
USDA Forest Service 2014. Northern Region. Forest Service Manual, R-1 Supplement No. 2500-2014-1. Chapter 2550-Soil Management.
USDA Forest Service, 2011. Northern Region. 2011. Region 1 Approach to Soils NEPA Analysis Regarding Detrimental Soil Disturbance In Forested Areas: A Technical Guide.
USEPA 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry. United Sates Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
Wilson, D., J. Coyner, and T. Deckert. 1983. Land System Inventory: First Review Draft, Clearwater National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, ID. 399p.
Vegetation
Anderson, P.; Palik, B. 2011. Silviculture for Climate Change. (October, 2011). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Web. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/silviculture
Barton, A. M. 2002. Intense wildfire in southeastern Arizona: transformation of a Madrean oak-pine forest to oak woodland. Forest Ecology and Management 165: 205-212.
Boisvenue, C. and S.W. Running. 2010. Simulations show decreasing carbon stocks and potential for carbon emissions in Rocky Mountain forests over the next century. Ecological Applications 20(5): 13-2-1319.
Breashears, D.D., and C.D. Allen. 2002. The importance of rapid, disturbance-induced losses in carbon management and sequestration. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11:1-5.
Palouse Ranger District 280 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Bush, R., Berglund, D., Lundberg, R. 2006. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report. Estimates of Old Growth for the Clearwater National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Report 06-06 v1.0
Clearwater National Forest. 1987. Clearwater National Forest Plan, as amended. Orofino, Idaho.
Conant, R.T., K. Paustian, F. García-Oliva, H.H. Janzen, V.J. Jaramillo, D.E. Johnson, S.N. Kulshreshtha. 2007. Chapter 10 Agricultural and Grazing Lands. In: CCSP, 2007. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [King, A.W., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M. Fairman, R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, A.Z. Rose, and T.J. Wilbanks (eds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA, 242 pp. Available online at: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific- assessments/saps/sap2-2
Dale, V.H, L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience 51:723–734.
Depro, B.M., B.C. Murray, R.J. Alig, and A. Shanks. 2008. Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation: Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008) 1122–1134.
Fiedler, C.E. and D.A. Lloyd. 1995. Autecology and Synecology of Western Larch. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-INT-319. p 118-122.
Fins, L., J. Byler, D. Ferguson, A. Harvey, M.F. Mahalovich, G. McDonald, D. Miller, J. Schwandt, and A. Zack. 2001. Return of the giants: Restoring white pine ecosystems by breeding and aggressive planting of blister rust-resistant white pines. Station Bulletin 72. Moscow: University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources.
Finkral, A.J. and A.M. Evans. 2008. Effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 2743-2750.
Forest Service. 2014. Forest Service Manual. FSM 2400 Forest Management. Chapter 2470 Silvicultural Practices. National Headquarters, Washington, DC.
Frankel, S.; Juzwik, J.; Koch, F. October, 2012. Forest Tree Diseases and Climate Change. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Web. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/forest-disease
Galik, C.S. and R.B. Jackson. 2009. Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 2209–2216.
Green, P., Joy, J., Sirucek, D., Hann, W., Zack, A., Naumann, B. 1992. Old-Growth Forest Types of the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service Northern Region. R-1 SES 4/92.
Hagle, S. 2008. Management Guide for Armillaria Root Disease. Forest Health Protection and State Forestry Organizations. US Forest Service.
Hagle, S. 2004. Management Guide for Root Disease. Forest Health Protection and State Forestry Organizations. US Forest Service.
Palouse Ranger District 281 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Heath, L.S., J.E. Smith, C.W. Woodall, D.L. Azuma, and K.L. Waddell. 2011. Carbon stocks on forestland of the United States, with emphasis on USDA Forest Service ownership. Ecosphere 2(1):art6 doi:10.1890/ES10-00126.
Hicke, Jeffery A., Craig D. Allen, Ankur R. Desai, Michael C. Dietze, Ronald J. Hall, Edward H (Ted) Hogg, Daniel M. Kashiam, David Moore, Kenneth F. Raffa, Rona N. Sturrock, and James Vogelmann. 2012. Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the United States and Canada. Global Change Biology (2012) 18, 7-34, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2496.2011.02543x
Houghton, R.A. 2003. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850-2000. Tellus B: 378-390. Jain, T., Graham, R., Morgan, P. 2004. Western white pine growth relative to forest openings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34: 2187-2198.
Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.C. Moser, R.P. Neilson, K. O’Halloran, and D.L. Peterson. 2008. National Forests. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3-1 to 3- 127. Available online at: http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap4-4/sap4-4-final-report- Ch3-Forests.pdf
Kashian, D.M., W.H. Romme, D.B. Tinker, M.G. Turner, and M.G. Ryan. 2006. Carbon storage on landscapes with stand-replacing fires. BioScience 56: 598-606.
Kaufmann, M.R., Fule, P.Z., Romme, W.H., and Ryan, K.C. 2005. Restoration of ponderosa pine forests in the interior western U.S. after logging, grazing, and fire suppression. Stanturf, J.A. (Eds.). Restoration of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Chapter 31, pp. 481-500). CRC Press.
Losensky, B. J. 1994. Historical Vegetation Types of the Interior Columbia River Basin - Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Pregitzer, K.S. and E.S. Euskirchen. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10: 2052-2077. Available online at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118805398/PDFSTART
McKinley, D.C., M.G. Ryan, R.A. Birdsey, C.P. Giardina, M.E. Harmon, L.S. Heath, R.A. Houghton, R.B. Jackson, J.F. Morrison, B.C. Murray, D.E. Pataki, and K.E. Skog. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. In press. Ecological Applications.
Millar, Constance I., Nathan L. Stephenson, and Scott L. Stephens. 2007. Climate Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications: Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 2145-2151.
Mitchell, S.R., M.E. Harmon, and K.E.B. O’Connell. 2009. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 19: 643- 655.
National Forest Management Act of 1976.
North, M., M. Hurteau, and J. Innes. 2009. Fire suppression and fuels treatment effects on mixed-conifer carbon stocks and emissions. Ecological Applications, 19(6), 2009, pp. 1385–1396.
Palouse Ranger District 282 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Pregitzer, K.S. and E.S. Euskirchen. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10: 2052-2077. Available online at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118805398/PDFSTART
Reinhardt, E. and L. Holsinger. 2010. Effects of fuel treatments on carbon-disturbance relationships in forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecol. Manage. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.015.
Reilly, T. 2006. White Paper and Attachment: Old Growth Direction. USDA Forest Service Clearwater National Forest.
Running, S.W. 2006. Is global warming causing more, larger wildfires? Science 313: 927-928.
Ryan, M.G., D.M. Kashian, E.A.H. Smithwick, W.H. Romme, M.G. Turner, and D.B. Tinker. 2008a. Joint Fire Science Program Project Number: 03-1-1-06. Final Report on Carbon cycling at the landscape scale: the effect of changes in climate and fire frequency on age distribution, stand structure, and net ecosystem production. Unpublished report for BLM Agreement/Task Order Number: 1422RAH03-0041 available online at: http://www.firescience.gov/projects/03-1-1- 06/project/03-1-1-06_03-1-1-06_final_report.pdf
Spies, T.A., Hemstrom, M.A., Youngblood, A., Hummel, S. 2006. Conserving Old-Growth Forest Diversity in Disturbance-Prone Landscapes. Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 2, 351-362. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Swanson, M. 2012. Early Seral Forest in the Pacific Northwest: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Current Science. Willamette National Forest and the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Partnership.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Tkacz, B., Dillard, D., et al. 2011. National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change. FS-957b. USDA Forest Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2014. Strategic Plan FY 2014-FY2018. USDA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry, in Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2011. 2013. Chapter 7. Report is available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html
Westerling, A.L. and B.P. Bryant. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change: 87(Suppl. 1): S231-S249.
Visuals
USDA, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agric. Handbook. 701. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 246 p.
USDA, Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter: The Visual Management System. Agric. Handbook. 462. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 47 p.
Cooley, Patrick; Dickerson, Gary; Maffei, Tom; Novak, Lis. 2009. Scenic Resource Mitigation Menu & Design Considerations for Vegetation Treatments. [Unpublished] Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 8 p.
Wildlife
Palouse Ranger District 283 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Barber, Jim and Dave Vanderzanden. 2014. The Region 1 Existing Vegetation Map Products (VMap). USDA Forest Service.
Baumgardt JA, Sauder JD, Nicholson KL. 2014. Occupancy modeling of woodpeckers: maximizing detections for multiple species with multiple spatial scales. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 5(1):198–207.
Bechard, Marc J., C. Stuart Houston, Jose H. Sarasola and A. Sidney England. 2010. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). The Birds of North America Online
Berg, Nathan Daniel. 2009. Snowshoe Hare and Forest Structure Relationships in Western Wyoming. Master of Science. Utah State University.
Berry, Stephanie. 2016. Vegetation Analysis, Little Boulder Project. Project Record.
Berry, Stephanie. 2016b. Little Boulder Project, Silvicultural Old Growth Analysis and Old Growth Recommendations. Project Record.
Berry, Stephanie. 2017. Little Boulder Treatment Unit Summary. Project Record.
Bollenbacher, Barry, Renate Bush, Renee Lundberg. 2009. Estimates of Snag Densities for Northern Idaho Forests in the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, Montana.
Brewer, Lorraine T, R Bush, JE Canfield, and AR Dohmen. 2009. Northern Goshawk, Northern Region Overview, Key Findings and Project Considerations.
Buehler, DA. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The Birds of North America Online.
Bull, EL, and JA Jackson. 1996. Pileated woodpecker, Dryocopus pileatus. The Birds of North America.
Bull, Evelyn L. 2009. Dispersal of Newly Metamorphosed and Juvenile Western Toads (Anaxyrus Boreas) in Northeastern Oregon, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4(2):236-247.
Bull, Evelyn L., CG Parks, and TR Torgersen. May 1997. Trees and Logs Important to Wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW- GTR-391.
Bush, Renate and Renee Lundberg. September 2008. Wildlife Habitat Estimate Updates for the Region 1 Conservation Assessment. Numbered Report 08-04 v1.0.
Bush, Renate, D. Berglund, A. Leach, R. Lundberg, A. Zack. 2006. Estimates of Old Growth for the Northern Region and National Forests. Region 1 Vegetation, Classification, Inventory, and Analysis Report #06-03, 2006, http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/forest/inv/fia_data/analysis.htm.
Buskirk, SW and RA Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283- 296 in Ruggiero et al 1994.
Carlson, Alan. 2017. Little Boulder Fire/Fuels & Air Quality Analysis. Project Record.
Cassirer, E.F., C.R. Groves, and R.L. Wallen. 1991. Distribution and population status of Harlequin Ducks in Idaho. Wilson Bulletien. 103:723-725.
Palouse Ranger District 284 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chen J, Franklin J, Spies T. 1990. Microclimatic pattern and basic biological responses at the clearcut edges of old-growth Douglas-fir stands. Northwest Environ Journal. 6:424–425
Chen, J, J Franklin, T Spies. 1995. Growing-Season Microclimatic Gradients from Clearcut Edges into Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests. Ecological Applications. 5(1).
Clough, Lorraine T. 2000. Nesting Habitat Selection and Productivity of Northern Goshawks in West- Central Montana.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2015. All About Birds. ------Calliope Hummingbird. http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Calliope_Hummingbird/id> ------Fox Sparrow.
Coulter, M.W. 1966. Ecology and management of fishers in Maine. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, University College of Forestry. Ph.D. thesis.
Curry, Tierra R. 2013. Before the Secretary of the Interior, Petition to List the Northern Rockies Distinct Population Segment of Fisher (Pekania Pennanti) as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity on Behalf of All Parties.
Detrich, P.J., and B. Woodbridge. 1994. Territory fidelity, mate fidelity, and movements of color- marked northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biol. 16:130-132.
Dronen, Greg. 2017. Field Summary Document. Project Record.
Earle, R.D. 1978. The fisher-porcupine relationship in Upper Michigan. Houghton, MI: Michigan Technical University. M.S. thesis.
Evers, D. C., N. M. Burgess, L. Champoux, B. Hoskins, A. Major, W. M. Goodale, R. J. Taylor, R. Poppenga and T. Daigle. 2005. Patterns and interpretation of mercury exposure in freshwater avian communities in northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology no. 14 (1-2):193-221.
Franklin J and Forman R. 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: Ecological consequences and principles. Landscape Ecol 1:5–18
Franklin J, Lindenmayer D, MacMahon J et al. 2000. Threads of continuity: Ecosystem disturbance, recovery, and the theory of biological legacies. Conserv Biol Pract 1:8–16
Garrett, Kimball L.; Raphael, Martin G.; Dixon, Rita D. 1996. White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). In: Poole, Alan; Gill, Frank B., editors. The birds of North America, No. 252. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences; 24 p.
Graham, RT, AE Harvey, MF Jurgensen, TB Jain, JR Tonn, DS Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains.
Green, Pat, J Joy, D Sirucek, W Hann, A Zack, and B Naumann. April 1992, errata corrected February 2005. Old-Growth Forest Types of the Northern Region. Groves, C, F Atkinson, TG Shepherd, and G Servheen. 1997. Density, Distribution, and Habitat of Flammulated Owls in Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist. 57: 116-123.
Hahn, Thomas P. 1996. Cassin's Finch (Haemorhous cassinii), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America
Palouse Ranger District 285 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Hargis, Christina, JA Bissonette, DL Turner. 1999. The Influence of Forest Fragmentation and Landscape Pattern on American Martens. Journal of Applied Ecology. 36(1):157-172.
Hayward, GD, and J Verner. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment. General Technical Report RM-253. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Hickey, Clay. 2016. Personal Communication. IDFG Game Biologist.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan, 2008- 2012. IDFG, 600 Walnut, Box 25, Boise, ID 83707. 94pp
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2011, 2012, 2013. Statewide moose progress report, surveys, and inventories. Boise, Idaho.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2013. White-tailed deer Progress Reports, 1993-2013.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Nez Perce Tribe. 2013. 2012 Idaho wolf monitoring progress report. IDFG, Boise, ID; Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Recovery Project, Lapwai, ID.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2013. Idaho Elk Management Plan, 2014-2024.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2016. Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System. Geospatial dataset of wildlife observations.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2017. Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise (ID): Grant No.: F14AF01068 Amendment #1. Available from: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/. Sponsored by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
Jones, JL. 1991. Habitat Use of Fisher in Northcentral Idaho. Unpublished thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.
Jones, JL and EO Garton. 1994. Selection of Successional Stages by Fishers in Northcentral Idaho.
Kennedy,P. L.,J. M. Ward, G. A. Rinker,andJ.A.Gessarnan.1994. Postfledging areas in northern goshawk horne ranges. Studies in Avian Biology. 16: 75-82.
Kenney, Dan. 2017. Little Boulder Fisheries and Aquatics Specialist Report. Project Record.
Kirkeminde, Margaret. February 2017. Old Growth Data Update. Geospatial dataset. Koehler, G. M., and M. G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the Selway- Bitterroot Wilderness. Journal of Wildlife Management 41: 500-505.
Koehler, G. M., W. R. Moore, and A. R. Taylor. 1975. Preserving the pine marten: management guidelines for western forests. Western Midlands. 2:31-36.
Kohm K, Franklin J (eds). 1997. Creating a forestry for the 21st century: The science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, DC
Kowalski, Skip. 2005. Frequency of Northern Goshawk Presence in the Northern Region, 2005 Survey. North, MP and WS Keeton. 2008. Chapter 17 Emulating Natural Disturbance Regimes: an Emerging Approach for Sustainable Forest Management. In Lafortezza et al. Patterns and Processes in Forest Landscapes.
Palouse Ranger District 286 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Leege, TA. 1984. Guidelines for evaluating and managing summer elk habitat in northern Idaho. In Wildlife Bulletin 11. Boise, Idaho: Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Lewis, C and Hahn B. 2012. Fisher Monitoring Report for the Northern US Rocky Mountains/ Region One USFS.
Lofroth, EC, Raley, CM, Higley, JM, Truex, RL, Yaeger, JS, Lewis, JC, Happe, PJ, Finley, LL, Naney, RH, Hale, RH, Krause, AL, Livingston, SA, Myers, AM, and RN Brown. 2010. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in Southerncentral British Columbia, Western Washington, western Oregon, and California- Volume I: Conservation Assessment. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.
Martin, Raphael G and Marshall White. January 1984. Use of snags by Cavity Nesting Birds in Sierra, Nevada. Wild Monograph. No. 86.
McGrath, Michael T, Stephen DeStefano, Robert A. Riggs, Larry L. Irwin andGary J. Roloff. Spatially Explicit Influences on Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat in the Interior Pacific Northwest. 2003. Wildlife Monographs, No. 154, pp. 1-63.
Miller, RA, AL Gibbons, BG Gleitsmann, C Hansen, and JD Carlisle. 2016. 2016 Avian Species Monitoring on the Nez Perce- Clearwater National Forests. Intermountain Bird Observatory, Boise State University.
Moser, Brian W and Edward O Garton. 2009. Short-Term Effects of Timber Harvest and Weather on Northern Goshawk Reproduction in Northern Idaho. Journal of Raptor Research. 43(1):1–10. The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.
Naney, R. H., L. L Finley, E. C. Lofroth, P. J. Happe, A. L. Krause, C. M. Raley, R. L. Truex, L. J. Hale, J. M. Higley, A. D. Kosic, J. C. Lewis, S. A. Livingston, D. C. Macfarlane, A. M. Myers, and J. S. Yaeger. 2012. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in South-Central British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California–Volume III: Threat Assessment. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Powell, RA. 1979. Mustelid spacing patterns: variations on a theme by Mustela. Zeitschrift fur. Tierpsychologie. 50: 153-165.
Powell, RA and WJ Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73 in Ruggiero et al 1994.
Powers, LR, A Dale, PA Gaede, C Rodes, L Nelson, JJ Dean, and JD May. 1996. Nesting and food habits of the Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) in southcentral Idaho. Journal of Raptor Research 30:15–20
Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, and D.A. Boyce. 2007. Northern goshawk habitat: an intersection of science, management, and conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1047-1055.
Reynolds, RT and B Linkhart. 1992. Flammulated owls in ponderosa pine: evidence of preference for old growth.
Reynolds, RT, RT Graham, MH Reiser, RL Bassett, PL Kennedy, DA Boyce, Jr., G Goodwin, R Smith, and EL Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA, Forest Service General Technical Report RM-217. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. 90 pages.
Romin, SJ and WR Bosworth. 2010. Northern Region Bat Species Occurrences in Idaho. Idaho
Palouse Ranger District 287 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Department of Fish and Game.
Sallabanks, Rex. 2005. Idaho Bald Eagle Nest Monitoring: 2004 Annual Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.
Samson, FB. 2006. 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.
Sauder, JD. 2014. Landscape ecology of fishers (Pekania pennanti) in north-central Idaho. Ph.D., University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Sauder, Joel. 2017. Personal Communication. Non-Game Wildlife Biologist, Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Sauder, JD and J Rachlow. 2014. Both forest composition and configuration influence landscape- scale habitat selection by fishers (Pekania pennant) in mixed coniferous forest in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 314(2014) 75-84.
Sauer, JR, JE Hines, and J Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. (Archived) USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD
Schwartz, MK, NJ DeCesare, BS Jimenez, JP Copeland, and WE Melquist. 2013. Stand- and Landscape- Scale Selection of Large Trees by Fishers in the Rocky Mountain of Montana and Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management. 305:103-111.
Servheen, C and R Shoemaker. 2010. Bitterroot Mountains bear DNA and camera survey: 2008- 2009. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
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.
Spinelli, Michael. 2017. Personal Communication. Sale Administrator.
Squires, John R and Patricia L Kennedy. 2006. Northern Goshawk Ecology: An Assessment of Current Knowledge and Information Needs for conservation and Management. Studies in Avian Biology. 31:8-62.
Squires, JR, and RT Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis. The Birds of North America, No. 298. 32 pp.
States, Jack. 1985. Hypogeous, mycorrhizal fungi associated with ponderosa pine: sporocarp phenology. In: Proceedings of the 6th North American conference on mycorrhizae.
Talbert, Dennis E. 2008. MIS & TES Wildlife and Plant Resources Ecology and Management – NEPA Support. Cherry Dinner Project.
Toweill, Dale. 2011. Moose. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Progress Report; July 2010 to June 2011.
USDA Forest Service. 1987. The Forest Plan, Clearwater National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan.
USDA Forest Service. 2012. Clearwater Forest Plan Monitoring Report.
Palouse Ranger District 288 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
USDA Forest Service. 2013. Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests Target Stand for Multiple Objectives By Habitat Type Groups.
USDA Forest Service. 2015. Common Stand Exam Protocols for Monitoring Snags, Large-trees, and Down-logs. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report 15-11 v1.0
USDA Forest Service. Old Growth Summary, All Little Boulder CSE [Common Stand Exam]. Project Record. R1 Depot FSVeg Tools.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS).
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1940, as amended in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Record of decision and statement of findings and final rule on establishment of a nonessential experimental population of grizzly bears in Bitterroot Area of Idaho and Montana.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Eagle Conservation Recommendations.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Eagle Post-delisting Monitoring Plan.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher in its United States Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat. 50 CFR Part 17. Vol. 76, No. 126.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reissuance of 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. Federal Register: Vol. 76, No. 87, 25590-25592.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. USFWS, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office. Missoula, MT.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, IDFG, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2012. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2011 Interagency Annual Report.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Little Boulder Project Consultation Letter. Code: 01EIFW00-2017-SLI-0161. 25 November.
Vinkey RS, Schwartz MK, McKelvey KS, Foresman KR, Pilgrim KL, Giddings BJ, LoForth EC. 2006. When reintroductions are augmentations: the genetic legacy of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Montana. Journal of Mammalogy. 87(2):265–271.
Wagner, Nic. 2017. Personal Communication. Forester. Palouse Ranger District.
Wasserman, TN, SA Cushman, and DO Wallin. 2012. Multi scale habitat relationships of Martes
Palouse Ranger District 289 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement americana in northern Idaho, USA.
Wasserman, TN, SA Cushman, MK Schwartz, and DO Wallin. 2010. Spatial scaling and multi- model inference in landscape genetics: Martes americana in northern Idaho. Landscape ecology, 25(10), 1601- 1612.
Weller, TJ. 2005. Species Accounts: Long-eared myotis. Western Bat Working Group.
White, C. M., N. J. Van Lanen, D.C. Pavlacky Jr., J. A. Blakesley, R. A. Sparks, M. F. McLaren, J. J. Birek and D. J. Hanni. 2013. Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR): 2012 Annual Report. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Brighton, Colorado, USA.
Wiggins, D. A., D. W. Holt and S. M. Leasure. 2006. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), The Birds of North America Online
Woodbridge, B and CD Hargis. 2006. Northern Goshawk Inventory and monitoring technical guide. General Technical Report WO-71. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Palouse Ranger District 290 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Glossary Access – Usually refers to a road or trail route over which a public agency claims right-of-way available for public or administrative use.
Activity – A measure, course of action, or treatment that is undertaken to directly or indirectly produce, enhance, or maintain forest and range land outputs or achieve administrative or environmental quality objectives.
Activity fuels – the woody debris generated from any activity on the Forest, such as firewood gathering, pre-commercial thinning, timber harvesting, and road construction.
Administrative site – Areas such as work centers, fire lookouts, permitted ranch headquarters, seed orchards, communication sites, utility corridors, developed campgrounds, and other areas that are occupied or used by the Forest Service during the administration of work associated with national forest lands.
Affected Environment – The biological and physical environment that will or may be changed by actions proposed and the relationship of people to that environment.
Age class – A group of trees that started growing (regenerated) within the same time frame, usually 20 years. A single age class would have trees that are within 20 years of the same age, such as 1–20 years or 21–40 years.
Allotment (grazing) – Area designated for use by a prescribed number of livestock for a prescribed time.
Alternative – One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for decisionmaking.
Anadromous fish – Fish that hatch in fresh water, migrate to the ocean, mature there, and return to fresh water to reproduce, for example, salmon and steelhead.
Aquatic ecosystem – Waters that serve as habitat for interrelated and interacting communities and populations of plants and animals. The stream channel, lake or estuary bed, water, biotic communities and the habitat features that occur therein.
Aspect – The direction a surface faces. A hillside facing east has an eastern aspect.
ATV – All-Terrain Vehicle. A type of off-highway vehicle that travels on three or more low- pressure tires; has handle-bar steering; is less than or equal to 50 inches in width; and has a seat designed to be straddled by the operator.
Basal area – The area of the cross-section of a tree trunk near its base, usually 4 1/2 feet above the ground. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by trees. The term basal area is often used to describe the collective basal area of trees per acre.
Basalt – A finely or fine grained, dark, dense volcanic rock.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) – The set of standards in the Forest Plan which, when applied during implementation of a project, ensures that water related beneficial uses are protected and that State water quality standards are met. BMPs can take several forms. Some are defined by State regulation or memoranda of understanding between the Forest Service and the States. Others are defined by the Forest interdisciplinary planning team for application
Palouse Ranger District 291 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Forestwide. Both of these kinds of BMPs are included in the Forest Plan as forestwide standards. A third kind is identified by the interdisciplinary team for application to specific management areas. A fourth kind, project level BMPs, is based on site specific evaluation, and represents the most effective and practicable means of accomplishing the water quality and other goals of the specific evaluation, and represents the most effective and practicable means of accomplishing the water quality and other goals of the specific area involved in the project. These project level BMPs can either supplement or replace the Forest Plan standards for specific projects.
Big game – Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting resource.
Big game summer range – A range usually at higher elevations, used by deer and elk during the summer.
Big game winter range – A range usually at lower elevation used by migratory deer and elk during the winter months.
Biological Assessment – An assessment required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to identify any threatened, endangered, or candidate species which is likely to be affected by a proposed management action, and to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed action on the species or their habitats.
Biophysical – The combination or grouping of biological and physical components in an ecosystem.
Biophysical environments – Plant association group (PAG) - Vegetation classification using similar moisture and temperature environments resulting in similar fire regimes.
Biomass – Biological material derived from living, or recently living organisms. In the context of biomass as a resource for making energy, biomass can be defined as pieces that are generally not large enough to have commercial sawlog value, but meet the minimum requirement of 12 feet long to a 3-inch top. This material may be used for pulp chips, co-generation of electricity, commercial fuel pellets, post and poles, small sawlogs, and other non-traditional uses.
Browse – Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs on which animals feed; in particular, those shrubs which are utilized by big game animals for food.
Buffer – A land area designated to block or absorb impacts to the area beyond the buffer. For example, a streamside buffer is often retained to reduce impacts of a harvest unit.
Candidate species – Plant and animal species that may be proposed for listing as endangered or threatened in the future by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NFMS); these species have no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Canopy – In a forest, the branches of the uppermost layer of foliage. It can also be used to describe lower layers in a multistoried forest.
Canopy cover – The proportion of the forest floor covered by the vertical projection of the tree crowns.
Canopy closure – The amount of ground surface shaded by tree canopies as seen from above. Used to describe how open or dense a stand of trees is, often expressed in 10 percent increments.
Palouse Ranger District 292 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Capability – The potential of an area of land and/or water to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow resource uses under a specified set of management practices and at a given level of management intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, practices such as silviculture, or protection from fires, insects, and disease.
Carrying capacity – The number of animals or plants that can be maintained over a specific period on a specified amount of land without damage to either the organisms or the habitat.
Cavity – A hole in a tree often used by wildlife species, usually birds, for nesting, roosting, and reproduction.
Channel (stream) – The deepest part of a stream or riverbed through which the main current of water flows.
Channel morphology – The dimension (width and depth), shape and pattern (sinuous, meandering, or straight) of a stream channel.
Channel type – A system developed by hydrologist Dave Rosgen to classify and characterize similar stream channels. Water surface gradient and substrate particle size are the primary stream features used. Other features include bankfull width, width to depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, and floodprone width.
Clearcut with reserves – A regeneration or harvest method that removes up to 90% of trees to establish a new stand.
Closed canopy – Greater than or equal to 60 percent canopy cover within the moist and cold upland forest potential vegetation groups; greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group.
Closure – The administrative order that does not allow specified uses in designated areas or on Forest
Commercial harvest – The selling of timber from national Forest lands for the economic gain of the party removing and marketing the trees.
Commodities – Resources with commercial value; all resource products which are articles of commerce, such as timber, range, forage, and minerals.
Coarse woody debris or material – Pieces of woody material derived from tree limbs, boles, and roots in various stages of decay, having a diameter of at least three inches.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) – A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register (FR) by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government.
Conifer – A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, spruce, or fir tree.
Connectivity – The arrangement of habitats that allow organisms and ecological processes to move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by corridors of appropriate vegetation. Connectivity is the opposite of fragmentation.
Palouse Ranger District 293 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Consultation – The term refers to a requirement under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries with regard to federal actions that may affect listed threatened and endangered species or critical habitat.
Corridor – A tract of land forming a passageway. Can refer to areas of wildlife movement, boundaries along rivers, or the present or future location of a transportation or utility right-of-way within its boundaries.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) – An advisory council to the President established by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The council reviews federal programs for their effects on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental matters.
Cover – (1) Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish, sometimes referred to as “hiding cover.” Cover may be dead or live vegetation, boulders, or undercut stream banks. Animals use cover for protection from predators, or to ameliorate conditions of weather, or in which to reproduce; (2) the area of ground covered by plants of one or more species.
Critical habitat – Specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species on which are found those physical and biological features (1) essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat does not include the entire geographic area which may be occupied by a Threatened or Endangered species.
Crown – The part of a tree containing live foliage; treetops.
Cultural resource – The physical remains of human activities, such as artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc., and the conceptual content or context, such as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events as a sacred area of native peoples, etc., of an area.
Cumulative effects or impacts – Cumulative effects or impacts are the impacts on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time. Effects and impact are synonymous (40 CFR 1508.7).
Decommission (road) – Activity that results in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state. Decommissioning removes the road segment from the Forest road inventory and it is no longer used to calculate maintenance costs for the transportation system. Decommissioning can include activities such as closing entrances to roads; scarifying road surfaces or decompacting (sub-soiling) to establish vegetation and reduce run-off; seeding road to control erosion; partial to full restoration of stream channel by removing culverts and fills; and removing unstable portions of embankments.
Density (stand) – The number of trees growing in a given area, usually expressed in terms of trees per acre.
Design criteria – Provides the parameters, including guidelines, for how future site-specific activities can occur within the context of the plan.
Palouse Ranger District 294 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Designated critical habitat – Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species at the time of listing under Endangered Species Act that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Desired future condition – A portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and objectives are fully achieved.
Detrimental soil disturbance – Compaction, displacement, erosion, loss of organic matter, and decreased soil productivity
Developed recreation – Recreation that occurs where improvements enhance recreation opportunities and accommodate intensive recreation activities in a defined area.
Diameter at breast height (DBH) – Tree diameter measured at 4.5 feet from the ground.
Direct effects – Impacts on the environment caused by the action, which occur at the same time and place.
Disease – A harmful deviation from normal functioning of physiological processes, usually pathogenic or abiotic in origin.
Disjunct – Populations that are separated geographically from the main distribution of a species. Many plants with disjunct populations are biologically unique because they are not found again for dozens to over one hundred miles. Disjunct populations are thus rare in this portion of their distribution.
Dispersed (recreation) – Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site, for example, hunting or backpacking.
Dispersed campsites – Primitive sites typically used for overnight, dispersed recreation. Usually includes a hardened area around a fire pit, a barren area, and/or user-constructed facility.
Disturbance – Events that alter the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or aquatic habitats. Natural disturbances include, among others, drought, floods, wind, fires, wildlife grazing, and insects and diseases. Human–caused disturbances include, among others, actions such as timber harvest, livestock grazing, roads, and the introduction of exotic species.
Diversity – The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan.
Draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)– A detailed written statement as required by Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Duff – Organic matter in various stages of decomposition on the floor of the forest.
Early seral species – Early seral refers to plants that are present soon after a disturbance or at the beginning of a new successional process
Ecosystem function (processes) – The flow and cycling of energy, materials, and organisms in an ecosystem. Examples of ecosystem processes include the carbon and hydrologic cycles, terrestrial and aquatic food webs, and plant succession, among others.
Palouse Ranger District 295 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Ecosystem – A complete interacting system of living organisms and the land and water that make up their environment; the home places of all living things, including humans.
Endangered species – A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Endangered species are identified by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Endemic – Term applied to populations of potentially injurious plants, animals, or viruses that are at their normal, balanced, level, in an ecosystem in contrast to epidemic levels. Plant and animal diseases which are prevalent in or peculiar to a certain locality.
Environment – The aggregate of physical, biological, economic, and social factors affecting organisms in an area.
Environmental analysis – An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short and long term environmental effects which include physical, biological, economic, social, and environmental design factors and their interactions.
Environmental assessment (EA) – A concise public document for which a Federal agency is responsible that serves to: (1) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact; (2) aid an agency's compliance with the National Environmental policy Act when no Environmental Impact Statement is necessary; and 93) facilitate preparation of an environmental impact statement when one is necessary.
Ephemeral – A channel in which streamflow occurs inconsistently, infrequently, or seasonally and, except during periods of streamflow, does not intersect the local groundwater table (e.g., streams that flow only as the direct result of rainfall or snowmelt).
Erosion – The wearing away of the land surface by wind, water, ice, gravity, or other geological activities. Erosion can be intensified by human activities (such as road building) that may reduce the stability of soils or slopes.
Federally listed species – Species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Fine fuels – Fast-drying fuels, generally with a comparatively high surface area-to-volume ratio, which are less than ¼ -inch in diameter and have a time lag of one hour or less. When dry, these fuels readily ignite and are rapidly consumed by fire.
Fire behavior – How fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography.
Fire-dependent – Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically composed of species that evolved with and are maintained by periodic fire.
Fire hazard – the potential magnitude of fire behavior and effects as a function of fuel conditions for any particular forest stand or landscape.
Fire-intolerant – Species of plants that do not grow well or die from the effects of too much fire. Generally, these are shade-tolerant species.
Fire-tolerant – Species of plants that can withstand certain frequency and intensity of fire. Generally, these are shade-intolerant species.
Palouse Ranger District 296 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Fire regime – A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in the absence of modern human intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993). Coarse scale definitions for natural (historical) fire regimes have been developed and interpreted for fire and fuels management. The five natural (historical) fire regimes are classified based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity of the fire (the amount of vegetation replacement) and its effect on the dominant overstory vegetation. These five natural fire regimes are defined in the fuels Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality section of the EIS.
Fire-return interval – The average number of years between successive fires in a designated area.
Fire risk – the chance of a fire starting from any ignition source, determined by using the frequency of past fire starts.
Fire severity or burn severity – Severity describes the aboveground and belowground organic matter consumption from fire. Aboveground measures include tree crown canopy scorch, crown volume kill, and bole height scorch. Belowground and soil measures include ash deposition, surface organic matter, belowground organic matter contributing to soil structures, and heat- induced oxidation of minerals. Fire severity ratings (low, moderate, and high) are based on standards in Forest Service Handbook 2509.13.
Fire suppression – All work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operation, beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished.
Floodplain – The lowland and relatively flat areas joining inland and coastal waters including debris cones and flood-prone areas of off-shore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent (100-year recurrence) or greater chance of flooding in any given year (Executive Order 11988, Section 6c); or the area of relatively flat land adjacent to streams that is inundated during times of high flow; or an area formed by the deposition of stream-transported sediment.
Floodplain function – Collectively, the normal physical and biological processes that are responsible for the formation and maintenance of river floodplains and the biotic communities that inhabit them.
Forb – Broad-leafed, herbaceous, nongrass-like plant species other than true grasses, sedges, and non-woody plants; fleshy leafed plants; having little or no woody material.
Forage – Vegetation (both woody and non-woody) eaten by animals, especially big game and livestock.
Foreground – The part of a scene or landscape that is nearest the viewer.
Forest health – The condition in which forest ecosystems sustain their complexity, diversity, resiliency, and productivity while providing for human needs and values. It is a useful way to communicate about the current condition of the forest, especially with regard to resiliency, a part of forest health that describes the ability of the ecosystem to respond to disturbances. Forest health and resiliency can be described, in part, by species composition, density, and structure.
Forest type – A classification of forest land based on the live tree species present.
Palouse Ranger District 297 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Fragmentation – The breakup of a large land area (such as a forest) into smaller patches that are isolated from the original area. Fragmentation can occur naturally (as by stand-replacing wildfire) or from human activities (such as road building).
Fuel ladder – Shrubs, small trees, and low growing branches that allow fire to move from the ground to the tree crowns.
Fuel – Combustible material that includes vegetation such as grass, leaves, ground litter, plants, shrubs, and trees. Includes both living plants; dead, woody vegetative materials; and other vegetative materials which are capable of burning.
Geographic Information System (GIS) – A computer program for manipulating landscape configuration data.
Habitat – The place where a plant or animal finds what it needs to survive, either year-round or seasonally.
Habitat effectiveness – The measure of how open roads affect utilization of habitat by elk.
Harvest – (1) Felling and removal of trees from the forest; (2) removal of game animals or fish from a population, typically by hunting or fishing.
Hiding cover – Vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of an adult elk from a human’s view at a distance of 200 feet or less.
Indirect effects – Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.
Intensity (fire intensity) – The rate of heat/energy release for an entire fire at a specific time.
Intermittent stream – A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from streams or some surface source, such as melting snow.
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) – A group of individuals with different training assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no one scientific discipline is sufficiently broad to adequately solve the problem. Through interaction, participants bring different points of view to bear on the problem.
Invasive species – Any non-native plant, such as spotted knapweed or yellow star thistle, which when established may become destructive and difficult to control by ordinary means of cultivation or other control practices.
Irretrievable – A category of impacts that applies to losses of production or commitment of renewable natural resources.
Irreversible – A category of impacts that applies to non-renewable resources, such as minerals. Losses of these resources cannot be reversed. Irreversible effects can also refer to effects of actions on resources that can be renewed only after a very long period, such as the loss of soil productivity.
Issue – A matter of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource management activities or land uses. To be considered a “significant” EIS issue, it must be well defined, relevant to the
Palouse Ranger District 298 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
proposed action, and within the ability of the agency to address through alternative management strategies.
Ladder fuels – Fuels that provide vertical continuity between strata. Fire is able to carry from the surface fuels by convection into the crowns with relative ease.
Landing – Any place where cut timber is collected before further transport from the timber sale area.
Late seral species – Late or old seral refers to plant present during a later stage of plan community succession (mature and old-growth forest).
Mechanical treatments – Vegetation changes done by mechanical cutting methods instead of by other means, such as prescribed burning.
Merchantable timber – Timber that can be bought or sold.
Middleground – A term used in visual management to describe the portions of a view extending from the foreground zone out to 3 to 5 miles from the observer.
Management area – An aggregation of capability areas which have common management direction and may be noncontiguous in the forest. Consists of a grouping of capability areas selected through evaluation procedures and used to locate decisions and resolve issues and concerns.
Management direction – A statement of multiple use and other goals and objectives, the associated management prescriptions and the associated standards and guidelines for attaining them.
Management indicator species (MIS) – A plant or animal which, by its presence in a certain location or situation, is believed to indicate the habitat conditions for many other species.
Mine – A mining claim on which the claimant has gained title to all property rights; the land is no longer public domain, and is private property.
Mining claims – A geographic area of the public lands held under the general mining laws in which the right of exclusive possession is vested in the locator of a valuable mineral deposit. Includes lode claims, placer claims, mill sites and tunnel sites.
Mitigation – Measures designed to counteract environmental impacts or make impacts less severe.
Model – A theoretical projection in detail of a possible system of natural resource relationships. A simulation based on an empirical calculation to set potential or outputs of a proposed action or actions.
Monitoring – A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives of a project and its mitigation activities are being realized.
Mortality – The loss of a population due to all lethal causes, often referring to the rate of death of a species in a given population or community.
Palouse Ranger District 299 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Mosaic – A pattern of vegetation in which two or more kinds of plant communities are interspersed in patches, such as a meadow between stands of old growth.
National Forest System – All National Forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domains of the United States; all National Forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means; the National Grasslands and land utilization projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012); and other lands, waters, or interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as part of the system.
National Register of Historic Places – A listing maintained by the National Park Service of areas which have been designated as being of historical value. The Register includes place of local and State significance as well as those of value to the nation as a whole.
No action alternative – An alternative where no management activities would occur beyond those currently under way. The development of a No Action Alternative is requested by regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.14). The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives.
Objective – A specified statement of measurable results to be achieved within a stated time period. Objectives reflect alternative mixes of all outputs of achievements which can be attained at a given budget level. Objectives may be expressed as a range of outputs.
Off-highway vehicle; OHV – Vehicles such as four and three wheelers, motorcycles, and bicycles which are designed to operate on primitive roads and trails, or to navigate cross country where there are no constructed travelways.
Old growth – Old forests often containing several canopy layers, variety in tree sizes and species, decadent old trees, and standing and dead woody material.
Overstory – The upper canopy layer; the plants below comprise the understory.
PACFISH – The Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Environmental Assessment for the interim strategies for managing anadromous fish producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. Published by the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management in 1995.
Perennial stream – A stream that flows throughout the year from its source to mouth.
Pile burning – Cut material piled either by hand or mechanical – resulting from logging or fuel management activities – are burned during the wetter months to reduce damage to residual stand and to confine fire to the size of the pile. Piling allows material to cure, producing less smoke and rapid consumption when burned.
Prescribed fire – The intentional use of fire under specified conditions to achieve specific management objectives.
Prescription – Management practices selected and scheduled for application on a designated area to attain specific goals and objectives.
Palouse Ranger District 300 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Proposed action – In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, the project, activity, or action that a Federal agency intends to implement or undertake and which is the subject of an environmental analysis.
Public involvement – A Forest Service process designed to broaden the information based upon which agency decisions are made by (1) informing the public about Forest Service activities, plans, and decisions, and (2) encouraging public understanding about and participation in the planning processes which lead to final decision making.
Ranger district – Administrative subdivision of the Forest supervised by a District Ranger.
Rangeland (range) – Land on which the principle natural plant cover is composed of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs that are valuable as forage for livestock and big game.
Record of Decision – A document separate from but associated with an environmental impact statement that publicly and officially discloses the responsible official's decision about an alternative assessed in the environmental impact statement chosen for implementation.
Redd –Spawning nest made by salmon or steelhead in the gravel bed of a river.
Reforestation – The restocking of an area with forest trees by either natural or artificial means such as planting.
Regeneration – The renewal of a tree stand by establishing young trees naturally or artifically
Resident fish – Fish that spend their entire life in freshwater: examples include bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout.
Resiliency – The capacity of a plant community or ecosystem to maintain or regain normal function and development following disturbance.
Revegetation – The reestablishment and development of plant cover. This may take place naturally through the reproductive processes of the existing flora or artificially through the direct action of man; eg. reforestation, range reseeding.
Riparian area – Areas with distinctive resource values and characteristics that are comprised of aquatic and riparian ecosystems, 100-year floodplains and wetlands. They also include all upland areas within a horizontal distance of approximately 100 feet from the edge of perennial streams or other perennial water bodies.
Riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) – Portions of watersheds where riparian- dependent resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. RHCAs include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent headwater streams, and other areas where proper ecological functioning is crucial to maintenance of the stream’s water, sediment, woody debris and nutrient delivery systems. RHCAs are further defined into four categories:
Category 1 – Fish-bearing streams: consist of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest.
Palouse Ranger District 301 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Category 2 – Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: consist of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest.
Category 3 – Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edge of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest.
Category 4 – Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslide- prone areas: This category includes features with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics.
Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail.
Road decommissioning – Road decommissioning would eliminate future use of the road with the objective of restoring hydrological function. This can include subsoiling and seeding as necessary.
Road density – Miles of road per square mile
Road maintenance – Road maintenance activities include blading and shaping road surfaces, repairing a damaged ditch-relief culvert, rocking existing drain dips and grade sags where needed, rocking wet areas of road, brushing, removal of danger trees, and dust abatement.
Roadless Area – An area of National Forest which (1) is larger than 5,000 acres or, if smaller, is contiguous to a designated wilderness area or primitive area, 92) contains no roads, and (3) has been inventoried by the Forest Service for possible inclusion in the wilderness preservation system.
Roadless Area Review and Evaluation – comprehensive process instituted in June 1977 to identify roadless and undeveloped land areas in the National Forest System and to develop alternatives for both wilderness and other resource management. The second roadless area review and evaluation was conducted on public lands in 1977. This inventory has been updated for this analysis to exclude any area affected by recent development and no longer considered roadless.
Scoping – The early stages of preparation of an environmental analysis to determine public opinion, receive comments and suggestions, and determine issues during the environmental analysis process. It may involve public meetings, telephone conversations, or letters.
Sediment – Any material, carried in suspension by water, which will ultimately settle to the bottom of streams.
Sediment yield – The amount of material eroded from the land surface by runoff and delivered to a stream system.
Sensitive species – A sensitive species is one that has been designated by the Regional Forester because of concern for population viability. Indications for concern include significant current or
Palouse Ranger District 302 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or in habitat capability that would reduce an existing species distribution.
Seral – Refers to the sequence of transitional plant communities during succession. Early seral refers to plants that are present soon after a disturbance or at the beginning of a new successional process (such as seedling or sapling growth stages in a forest); mid-seral in a forest would refer to pole or medium saw timber growth stages; late or old seral refers to plants present during a later stage of plant community succession (such as mature or old forest stages).
Shade-intolerant species – Species of plants that do not grow well in the shade of others. They are species that develop on a site soon after a major disturbance. Ponderosa pine and western larch are shade-intolerant tree species.
Shade-tolerant species – Species of plants that grow well in the shade of others. Douglas-fir is a relatively shade-tolerant tree.
Silviculture – The practice of manipulating the establishment, composition, structure, growth, and rate of succession of forests to accomplish specific objectives.
Site productivity – The production capability of specific areas of land.
Skid trails – A travelway through the woods formed by loggers dragging (skidding) logs from the stump to a log landing without dropped a blade and without purposefully changing the geometric configuration of the ground over which they travel.
Skyline – A cableway stretched tautly between two spars and used as a track for log carriers
Slash – The residue left on the ground after timber cutting or after a storm, fire, or other event. Slash includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, branches, bark, etc.
Snag – A standing dead tree used by birds for nesting, roosting, perching, courting, or foraging for food and by some mammals for escape cover, denning, and reproduction.
Soil compaction – The reduction of soil volume. For instance, the weight of heavy equipment on soils can compact the soil, making it hard and dense, and thereby changing it in some ways, such as in its ability to absorb water. After compaction, it is difficult for roots to penetrate because the soil holds less oxygen and water.
Soil productivity – The capacity of a soil to produce a specific crop such as fiber and forage, under defined levels of management. It is generally dependent on available soil moisture and nutrients and length of growing season.
Stand – A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in species composition, arrangement of size classes and condition on a relatively similar site.
Stand density – Refers to the number of trees growing in a given area, usually expressed in trees per acre.
Stand structure –The mix and distribution of tree sizes, layers, and ages in a forest. Some stands are all one size (single-story), some are two-story, and some are a mix of trees of different ages and sizes (multistory).
Palouse Ranger District 303 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Standard – An objective requiring a specific level of attainment; a rule to measure against; a guiding principle.
Stream order – A measure of the position of a perennial stream in the hierarchy of tributaries. First order streams are unbranched streams; they have no tributaries. Second order streams are formed by the confluence of two or more first order streams. Third order streams are formed by the confluence of two or more second order streams; they are considered third order until they join another third order or larger stream.
Subwatershed – A drainage area of approximately 20,000 acres, equivalent to a 6th-field hydrologic unit code (HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field HUC) are contained within a watershed (5th-field HUC), which in turn is contained within a subbasin (4th-field HUC).
Successional stage – The development of forest communities over time. With a lack of disturbance, forest development generally consists of early, mid, and late successional communities that tend toward a stable climax state.
Early successional – Vegetative communities that tend to recolonize a site following a disturbance. These communities tend to be comprised of pioneer species that are fast-growing and shade intolerant. Some examples of early seral tree species include ponderosa pine, western larch, and western white pine.
Late successional – Vegetative communities that tend to follow early and mid-successional communities. These communities tend to be comprised of species that are slow growing and shade tolerant. Some examples of late seral tree species include grand fir and subalpine fir.
System road; Forest System Road; Forest Service Road – A road that is part of the Forest development transportation system, which includes all existing and planned roads, as well as other special and terminal facilities designated as Forest development transportation facilities.
Temporary roads – Roads which are constructed for a one time or short term use which are not expected to be utilized in the future. These roads will be obliterated after the need is past.
Terrestrial – Living or growing on land; not aquatic.
Thermal cover – Cover used by animals to ameliorate effects of weather; for elk, a stand of coniferous trees 40 feet or taller with an average crown closure of 70% or more.
Thinning – An intermediate cutting method designed to reduce stand density in order to improve growth of the residual trees, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality resulting from inter-tree competition.
Threatened species – Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or a specific portion of their range within the foreseeable future as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Timber - A general term for the major woody growth of vegetation in a forest area.
Topography – The configuration of land surface including its relief, elevation, and the position of its natural and man-made figures.
Tractor logging – A logging method that uses tractors to carry or drag logs from the stump to a landing.
Palouse Ranger District 304 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Trailhead – The parking, signing, and other facilities available at terminus of a trail.
Underburn – A burn by a surface fire that can consume ground vegetation and ladder fuels.
Understory – The trees and woody shrubs growing beneath the overstory.
Vegetation management – Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest vegetation for multiple-use purposes.
Viewshed – A total landscape as seen from a particular viewpoint.
Visual quality objective (VQO) - A set of measurable goals for the management of forest visual resources.
Visual resource – The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetative patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors.
Watershed – The entire region drained by a waterway (or into a lake or reservoir). More specifically, a watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water to the stream flow at that point.
Wetlands – Areas that are permanently wet or intermittently covered with water. Wetlands generally include swamps, bogs, seeps, wet meadows, and natural ponds.
Wildfire – A human or naturally caused wildland fire that does not meet land management objectives.
Yarding – Hauling timber from the stump to a collection point.
Palouse Ranger District 305 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Index
A I Access, ii, vi, vii, 38, 48, 53, 100, 101, 172, 174, 175, 294 insect and disease, 4, 5, 13, 16, 90, 93, 97, 201, 204, air quality, 19, 34, 91, 92, 96, 102, 105, 185 205, 207, 211, 212, 214, 224, 243, 256 issues, ii, iii, 1, 10, 11, 13, 16, 35, 41, 56, 155, 205, 212, 215, 302, 305 B Issues, 11 Biological Assessment, 23, 112, 295 BMP, 145, 283 L landslide prone, vii, 46, 190, 191, 192 C landtype associations, 178 Cherry Dinner, ii, vii, 1, 2, 10, 14, 79, 100, 135, 136, landtypes, 103, 177, 178, 180 151, 170, 173, 176, 202, 214, 275, 280, 292 logging system, 83, 84, 198 Clean Water Act, 12, 138, 144, 185 Clearcut w/reserves, 19, 20, 21, 22, 38, 42, 43 M coarse woody debris, 16, 46, 177, 184, 195, 231, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 253, 273, 276 management indicator species, ii, 12, 108, 232, 237, commercial harvest, 16, 18, 22, 33, 56, 90, 91, 98, 242 101, 102, 104 MIS, ii condition class, 91 monitoring, 111, 117, 128, 141, 236 Monitoring, 133, 187, 237 D N design criteria, 0, iii, 11, 46, 74, 80, 187, 198, 231, 246, 247, 254, 255, 264 Nez Perce Tribe, 10, 11, 77, 122, 123, 134, 236, 265, desired future condition, 84, 111 274, 275, 276, 277, 289, 293 noxious weeds, 47, 169, 268, 270 E O economics, 89 equivalent clearcut acres, 11, 12, 52 old growth habitat, 201, 213, 215, 216 erosion hazards, ii, 11, 177, 179, 180, 186, 189, 191 P F PACFISH, 8, 46, 125, 126, 127, 131, 141, 142, 144, fire regime, i, 6, 12, 90, 93, 94, 95, 300 152, 153, 191, 192, 277, 303 Fish habitat, ii, 11 pre-commercial thinning, 32, 104, 229, 294 forest health, 4, 11, 12, 200, 201, 203, 204, 212, 214, public involvement, 10 215, 263, 300, 307 Forest Plan, vi, vii, ix, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 18, 47, 48, 63, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 97, 100, 103, 106, R 109, 111, 116, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 141, 142, Recreation, 157, 219 144, 145, 155, 160, 173, 185, 186, 195, 202, 205, reforestation, 18, 47, 85, 86, 87, 104, 186, 203, 208, 208, 209, 211, 212, 217, 218, 221, 222, 223, 228, 214, 215, 224, 304 229, 230, 238, 241, 242, 273, 275, 284, 292, 294 riparian buffer, 246 road decommissioning, ii, 1, 9, 10, 14, 36, 38, 87, 127, H 132, 135, 136, 152, 162, 165, 173, 176, 195, 200, 224, 251, 258, 261 Hazardous Fuels Reduction, 4, 6 road density, 52, 138, 174 heritage, 79, 80 Road Density, 140, 149, 152 road reconditioning, ii, 9, 14, 36, 38 road reconstruction, ii, 9, 14, 36, 87, 130
Palouse Ranger District 306 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
S sedimentation, i, 5, 11, 12, 134, 136, 138, 180, 280 Sensitive Plants, vi, 58 Sensitive Species, viii, 58, 65, 74, 106, 108, 124, 126, 231, 233, 240, 245, 261, 277 snags, 21, 22, 47, 184, 232, 233, 234, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 256, 260, 263, 290
T timber harvest, ii, iii, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 26, 36, 41, 57, 64, 70, 71, 75, 77, 81, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 93, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 116, 127, 132, 135, 136, 141, 151, 154, 155, 156, 177, 193, 194, 195, 201, 203, 209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 229, 238, 239, 246, 247, 249, 251, 252, 253, 256, 260, 261, 262, 263, 278, 283, 298
W water quality, 11, 46, 125, 135, 136 watershed improvement, ii, iii, 9, 13, 26, 35, 38, 45, 56, 261 Watershed Improvements, 224 wildland urban interface, i, 6, 9, 92, 100, 202
Palouse Ranger District 307
Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix A Little Boulder Past, Present, Foreseeable Activities
Past Actions: Activity Project Year Treatment Acres Impacts name/Location Within Little Boulder Project Boundary: (Includes the following primary HUC12 Subwatersheds: Hog Meadow-Potlatch Creek, East Fork Potlatch River) FS Timber Potlatch Creek TS 1978 -20 acres seed tree Seed tree Harvest harvest FS Timber Starvation Ridge 1979 -287 acres liberation cut Liberation and Harvest TS -31 acres single tree single tree cuts selection FS Timber Another Bug 1979 -19 acres salvage Salvage cut Harvest Salvage FS Timber Boulder Creek 1979 -50 acres seed tree Seed tree Harvest Pulp TS harvest FS Timber Little Boulder (1st) 1980 -53 acres clearcut Harvest, piling, Harvest -295 acres improvement burning, cut planting -126 acres precommercial thin -96 acres liberation cut FS Timber Little Boulder LP 1993 -122 acres clearcut Harvest, piling, Harvest -7 acres shelterwood burning, planting FS Timber Empty Bucket TS 1982 -15 acres liberation cut Harvest, piling, Harvest -37 acres clearcut burning, planting FS Timber Pig Wallow 1989-1990 -60 acres shelterwood Harvest, piling, Harvest -6 acres liberation cut burning, -24 acres salvage planting FS Timber North Park 1993 -128 acres clearcut Harvest, piling, Harvest burning, planting FS Timber Cabin Fever TS 1991 (1st entry) -71 acres clearcut (1991) Harvest, piling, Harvest 2003 (2nd entry) -70 acres seed tree (1991) burning, -52 acres shelterwood planting (2003) -70 acres clearcut (2003) -45 acres commercial thin (2003) -7 acres salvage (2003) FS Timber Cherry Pit TS 2008-2011 -311 acres shelterwood Harvest, piling, Harvest -128 acres seed tree burning, -228 acres commercial planting thin -102 acres imporovement FS Timber Dinner Bucket 2008-2011 -191 acres seed tree Harvest, piling, Harvest Stew TS -92 acres clearcut burning, -30 acres improvement cut planting
Palouse Ranger District 309 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-195 acres commercial thin Grazing Potlatch Creek 1935-1951: Allotment boundary Some site grazing Sheep grazing; was finalized to its specific allotment #38 animal numbers current borders in suppression reached a high of 1960. Total allotment of high- 6,637 sheep in acres 18,177, Forest value forage 1938, declining Service acres 14,133. species over steadily till time due to cattlemen took overgrazing, over in 1952. At introduction a high point, they of noxious grazed 291 pair on weeds; all ownerships, but possibly reached the some current stocking streambank rate of 218 pair de- total across all ownerships in stabilization 1997. and channel widening. (No historical monitoring to prove or disprove, but effects are visible and cattle likely at least contributed.) Network of historically used cattle trails through timber across the allotment. Noxious Hog Meadow With one site- Within the project Control of weed Creek-Potlatch specific boundary there are noxious treatment Creek, East exception approximately 1500 weeds, Fork Potlatch outside the inventoried acres of slowing the River, West project area, noxious weeds and rapid spread Fork Potlatch herbicide use on 500 acres that have of invasive River Forest Service been treated within plant subwatersheds began in 2000, the last ten years. species; following minimal
Palouse Ranger District 310 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
approval of the collateral Palouse Noxious damage to Weed EA. Prior native forbs to that, Latah and shrubs. County has used some herbicides within these drainages on county roads since the early 1970s. Outside of Little Boulder Project Boundary (to the east and south): (Includes the following primary HUC12 Subwatersheds: Long Meadow Creek, East Fork Potlatch River) FS Timber Round Meadow (1974), West Meadow Various Harvest, piling, Harvest Salv (1976), Cloverleaf (1976), Oviatt burning, Imprv Cut and Salvage (1980), West planting Meadow OSR (1982), Lost Salvage (1984), Round Meadow OSR (1984), One More Time OSR (1985), Back Again (1987), Blind Luck (1989), Fat Bug and Little Bug Salvage (1989), Butter and Eggs (1991), Long Meadow Breaks (1992), Neva Hill Salvage (1993), Long Meadow Salvage (1996), Neva Butterfield Salvage (1998), 1445 Salvage (1999) Outside of Little Boulder Project Boundary (to the north): (Includes the following primary HUC12 Subwatersheds: Hog Meadow-Potlatch Creek, Corral Creek, West Fork Potlatch River) FS Timber West Fork EIS (2002): Abes Animals, Various Harvest, piling, Harvest Cougar 1 and 2, Feather Creek, Nat burning, Brown, Brown Divide planting
FS Timber Coralled Bear EIS (2005): Bear Stew TS -374 acres regen Harvest, piling, Harvest (2010) -86 acres intermediate burning, -582 acres commercial planting thin State/Private Harvest
Present Actions: Activity Acres Impacts FS Timber -9 Acres commercial thin Harvest, site prep, burning, Harvest- Brown Divide—nearly -60 acres regeneration planting complete Grazing, Potlatch Creek 14,133 acres on Forest Current grazing system is Allotment #38 Service ownership, 18,177 161 cow/calf pairs acres on the allotment across permitted on Forest ownerships. Service, 218 total across other ownerships, with fixed numbers grazed season-long in each of
Palouse Ranger District 311 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
three pastures. Impacts include grass and forb utilization, potential for streambank de- stabilization and channel widening. Historical stock trails are still used for animal movement, fence maintenance, and salt dispersal; potential for those to conflict with recreational ATV use and watershed decommissioning efforts. Noxious weed treatment Approved herbicides are Removal of noxious sprayed along road and trail weeds, minimal collateral prisms, trailheads, dispersed damage to native forbs campsites, and at Little and shrubs, small chance Boulder campground. of chemical introduction. State/Private Harvest Foreseeable Future Activities:
Activity Location Impacts FS Timber Subwatershed: Portions of West Harvest of 1600 acres. Fuels Harvest-Moose Creek Fork Potlatch River Treatments 300 acres. Temp road construction, new road construction, range improvements, watershed improvements. Noxious weed treatment Along all system and non- Removal of noxious system road and trail prisms, weeds, minimal collateral trailheads, dispersed damage to native forbs and campsites, and at Little shrubs, small chance of Boulder campground; chemical introduction potential for spot-spraying in meadows, particulary in McGary meadows, as conditions permit, prior to and after the Two-Mile Meadow project is completed. Grazing 14,133 acres on Forest Grass and forb utilization, Service ownership, 18,177 potential for streambank acres on the allotment across de-stabilization and ownerships. channel widening. Historical stock trails are still used for animal
Palouse Ranger District 312 Little Boulder - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
movement, fence maintenance, and salt dispersal; potential for those to conflict with recreational ATV use and watershed decommissioning efforts. State/Private Harvest
Palouse Ranger District 313