United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Emmett Ranger District, Boise National Forest, Boise, Valley and Gem Counties, Idaho March 2016
For More Information Contact:
Richard Newton, Emmett District Ranger 1805 Highway 16, Room 5 Emmett, ID 83617 Phone: 208-365-7000 Email: [email protected] Fax: 208-365-7037
Photo: View of the High Valley Project Area, looking northeast from above Forest Road 643P in September, 2014. John Riling, North Zone Silviculturist
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.1
1 An update to the USDA Design Standards (January 2013) included an updated EEO statement that is currently under review. This template will be revised and posted online when the official updated statement is available.
High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents Chapter 1—Purpose and Need for the Proposal ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 What is the Purpose of this Environmental Assessment and how is it Organized? ...... 1 Where Would the Proposed Action Be Located? ...... 1 Why Has the Project Been Proposed (Purpose and Need)? ...... 3 Purpose 1 ...... 4 Purpose 2 ...... 6 Purpose 3 ...... 6 Purpose 4 ...... 7 What is the Proposed Action? ...... 7 What is the Key Forest Plan Management Direction Used to Inform Development of the Proposed Action for this Area? ...... 12 Restoration and Maintenance of Priority Forested Acres ...... 12 Restoration of Forested Stands in the Upper and Lower Little Squaw Creek Subwatersheds ...... 13 Fire Management and the Wildland-Urban Interface ...... 13 Watershed Function Improvement ...... 14 Transportation System Management ...... 14 Removal of Wood Products as an Outcome of Forest Maintenance and Restoration Treatments on Acres in the Suited Timber Base ...... 14 What Decisions are to be made? ...... 15 Chapter 2—Issues and Alternatives ...... 16 What Public and Tribal Involvement have Occurred to Date? ...... 16 What Major Issues were Identified? ...... 17 What would it Mean to Not Meet the Need? What is the No Action Alternative? ...... 17 What Other Actions were Considered? ...... 17 Alternative Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 17 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...... 20 How do the Alternatives Compare to Each Other? ...... 25 Chapter 3—Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 30 What are the Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative Action, Compared to the “No Action” Alternative? ...... 30 Vegetation ...... 32 Fire and Fuels ...... 47 Wildlife ...... 53
i High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources ...... 75 Fish Habitat ...... 91 Transportation ...... 92 Economics ...... 97 Grazing/Range ...... 98 Climate Change ...... 99 Noxious Weeds ...... 100 Chapter 4—Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 102 What Agencies and Persons have been Consulted? ...... 102 Literature Cited ...... 104 Appendices ...... 109 Appendix A: Design Features ...... 109 Design Features Common to Alternatives B and C ...... 109 Design Features Specific to Alternative B ...... 115 Design Features Specific to Alternative C ...... 115 Appendix B: Silvicultural Prescriptions ...... 117 Free Selection Silvicultural System ...... 117 Group Selection with Reserves ...... 118 Regeneration ...... 118 Improvement Cut ...... 118 Stand Improvement Methods ...... 119 Variable-Density Thin from Below (VDT) ...... 119 Non-commercial Tree Thinning Within Structurally Diverse Stands ...... 119 Submerchantable Thin ...... 119 Prescribed Fire ...... 120 Prescriptions within Riparian Conservation Areas ...... 121 Prescriptions within Meadow and Aspen Patches ...... 121 Appendix C: Fuels Treatments ...... 122 Appendix D: Cumulative Effects: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities ...... 123
ii High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
List of Tables Table 1. Comparison acres of treatments within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) for Alternatives B and C ...... 25 Table 2. Comparison of Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) maximum vegetation and fuels treatment intensities for the action alternatives ...... 25 Table 3. Comparison of alternatives by proposed treatments and outcomes ...... 26 Table 4. Comparison of alternatives by how well they address the purpose and need of the High Valley Project following implementation of all proposed treatments ...... 27 Table 5. Comparison of alternatives by how well they address the major issues of the High Valley Project following implementation of all proposed treatments ...... 29 Table 6. Wildlife species considered, species status, and associated source habitat suite and family...... 57 Table 7. Modeled source white-headed woodpecker habitat, displayed as a percentage of the total project area (7,736 acres) for the High Valley Project ...... 59 Table 8. Modeled suitable flammulated owl habitat, displayed as percentage of the total project area (7,736 acres) for the High Valley Project...... 61 Table 9. Elk habitat indicators and indicator components by alternative ...... 71 Table 10. Summary of effects to watershed condition indicators (WCI) by alternative and timeframe (Forest Plan Appendix B Table B-3) ...... 77 Table 11. Transportation effects by alternative ...... 94 Table 12. Financial assessment, appraised value (PNV), and other project costs and associated surplus funds by alternative ...... 98 Table 13. Agencies, organizations, and individuals contacted and/or consulted during the planning process for the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project ...... 102
List of Figures Figure 1. High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Vicinity Map ...... 2 Figure 2. Proposed thinning for both action alternatives for the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project ...... 10 Figure 3. Proposed modifications to the transportation system and wetlands for the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project ...... 11 Figure 4. Visual display of Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) zones and proportion of RCA acres for the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project ...... 23 Figure 5. Insect and disease composite hazard rating summarized for the Project Area by alternative and simulation year ...... 35 Figure 6. Wildfire hazard rating as modeled in the Forest Vegetation Simulator for the High Valley Project for all alternatives by modeled year ...... 36 Figure 7. Relative tree density, measured as a percentage of maximum Stand Density Index, for all alternatives through the modeling horizon ...... 38
iii High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Figure 8. Ponderosa pine species composition, measured as a percentage of Stand Density Index, for all alternatives through the modeling horizon ...... 40 Figure 9. Landscape patch and pattern, as measured with the wildfire hazard rating following all proposed treatments in 2035 for Alternatives A, B, and C ...... 42 Figure 10. Wildfire hazard rating summarized within Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) zones by alternative and year...... 45 Figure 11. Wildfire hazard rating in the year 2024 by alternative ...... 50 Figure 12. Wildfire hazard rating by alternative summarized for stands within the wildland-urban interface (WUI) ...... 52 Figure 13. Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) contribution to wildfire hazard rating for the wildland-urban interface (WUI) by alternative and RCA zone ...... 52 Figure 14. Modeled source white-headed woodpecker habitat, displaying effects for temporary (2019), near-term (2035), and long-term (2055) for Alternatives A and B...... 65 Figure 15. Modeled source flammulated owl habitat, displaying effects for temporary (2019), near-term (2035), and long-term (2055) for Alternatives A and B ...... 66
iv High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Acronyms Used Within the Document Below you will find acronyms used in this document. For further information on these acronyms or definitions of technical terms used in this document, please reference the 2010 Boise National Forest Amended Forest Plan Glossary, Acronyms and Scientific Names located at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5394056.pdf (Forest Service 2010b).
BFC Boise Forest Coalition
CCF Centum (hundred) cubic feet
CWD Coarse woody debris
DBH Diameter at breast height
EA Environmental Assessment
FONSI Finding of Non-Significant Impacts
FVS Forest Vegetation Simulator
GIS Geographic Information System
HRV Historical range of variability
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
Idaho CWCS Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
IDT Interdisciplinary team
LWD Large woody debris
MIS Management Indicator Species
MMBF Thousand thousand (million) board feet
MPC Management Prescription Category
NFMA National Forest Management Act
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFS National Forest System
PVG Potential Vegetation Group
v High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
PAR Proposed Action Report
RCAs Riparian Conservation Areas
ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
SPTH Site potential tree height
SDI Stand Density Index
SDImax Stand density index, measured as a percent of maximum
SWRA Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic
TEPC Threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species
TES Threatened and endangered species
VQO Visual Quality Objective
WCI Watershed condition indicator
WUI Wildland-urban interface
vi High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1—Purpose and Need for the Proposal Introduction The Forest Service is proposing to conduct forest restoration and hazardous fuels reduction activities using commercial and non-commercial vegetation treatments and prescribed fire; to improve watershed function through road maintenance, construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning activities and wetland restoration; and to support local economies by providing wood products.
What is the Purpose of this Environmental Assessment and how is it Organized? The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental In Chapter 1, Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National you will find: Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant • The purpose of this federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses Environmental the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects Assessment and how it is which would result from the Proposed Action and organized alternatives of the High Valley Integrated Restoration • A description of the High Project (High Valley Project) on the Emmett Ranger Valley Integrated District of the Boise National Forest (Forest). Restoration Project Area • Why we are proposing Chapter 1 identifies the Purpose and Need for the actions (the purpose and Proposed Action, scope of the Proposed Action, and need for action) decisions to be made. Chapter 2 identifies the public • A description of our involvement which lead to the issues and alternatives, Proposed Action Chapter 3 discloses the environmental effects of each • alternative, and Chapter 4 shows with whom we What Forest Service Management direction consulted during our Project’s development. applies This document is tiered to the Final Environmental • Criteria for making a Impact Statement (FEIS) and planning record supporting decision the 2003 Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended in 2010 (2010 Forest Plan; Forest Service 2010b), including monitoring reports. Detailed information supporting the analyses presented in this document is incorporated by reference, including specialist reports for each resource, and, unless specifically noted otherwise, is contained in the project record.
Where Would the Proposed Action Be Located? The High Valley Project is located approximately 4.0 miles southwest of Smiths Ferry, Idaho. The Project Area covers approximately 7,736 acres in the Upper and Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatersheds, surrounding High Valley, Idaho (Figure 1). The Project Area is located entirely on National Forest System (NFS) lands in Sections 13, 23–27, and 34, T. 11 N., R. 2 E.; Sections 17 and 30, T. 11 N., R 3 E.; Sections 25, 26, 33-36, T. 10 N., R. 2 E.;
1 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 17-20, and 30, T. 10 N., R. 3 E.; Sections 1-4, T. 9 N., R. 2 E., Boise Meridian, Valley, Boise, and Gem Counties, Idaho.
Figure 1. High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Vicinity Map
2 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
The High Valley Project Area falls within one of two Forest priority landscapes designated by the Governor of Idaho and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture for forests that are at high risk of insect and disease mortality under Section 8204 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill). Why Has the Project Been Proposed (Purpose and Need)? In collaboration with the Boise Forest Coalition (BFC), the Emmett Ranger District initiated planning for the west side of the District in February 2012. The BFC, formed in September 2010, is a citizen-led, collaborative group comprised of stakeholders from a broad range of outside interests, including the environmental community, timber industry, recreational groups, and State and County government. The mission of the BFC is to provide the Forest with management recommendations developed through consensus that address natural resource, economic, recreational, and societal needs. The Project Area is identified in the Forest Plan (Forest Service 2010a) as a high- priority are for restoring vegetation and What is Restoration? short-term wildlife habitat, and the two subwatersheds encompassing the Project Area are identified as having impaired For biological and physical resources, function based on the nationwide Watershed “restore” means to repair, re-establish, or recover ecosystem functions, Condition Classification analysis. The processes, or components so that they Project Area includes wildland urban- are moving toward or within their interface (WUI) areas with a surrounding range of desired conditions. For the high wildfire hazard and does not include Recreation, Scenic Environment, suitable habitat for threatened and Heritage, Lands, Special Uses, endangered species (TES). Due to the high Wilderness, Roads and Facilities need for treatment and relatively low resources, restore means to use complexity, members of the BFC felt the management actions to re-establish High Valley Project Area would be a desired resource conditions” (USDA Forest Service 2010a). suitable location to provide management recommendations to address the restoration needs of the area. Based on the need to improve current conditions, the BFC developed specific recommendations for the High Valley Project including restoring forest and ecological health, reducing forest fuel hazards, creating economic opportunities, producing forest products, and maintaining and enhancing fish and wildlife habitats. Specific vegetation recommendations focused on restoring and maintaining forest vegetation and providing economically valuable timber products. Road management recommendations reflected access needed for long-term forest management, treatment or removal of roads with limited value for public recreation and forest management, and removal of roads adversely affecting watershed health. The Emmett Ranger District used these and other recommendations to inform the development of the four purpose and need statements detailed below and the Proposed Action and to ensure the High Valley Project’s consistency with Forest Plan direction.
3 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Purpose 1
Manage forest structure and species composition to accelerate development of large tree size class stands dominated by early seral tree species (e.g., ponderosa pine [Pinus ponderosa]) that would contribute to achievement of Forest Plan desired vegetation and associated wildlife source habitat conditions. Increase landscape resiliency to uncharacteristic disturbance events and promote fire’s ecological role in achieving desired conditions.
Need 1 Increase the proportion of ponderosa pine in Potential Vegetation Groups (PVGs) 2, 5, and 6 to Forest Plan desired conditions (Forest Service 2010a, Appendix A, Table A-5, p. A-8). A PVG is a group of habitat types sharing similar environmental characteristics, site productivity, and disturbance regimes. Vegetation across any landscape which historically developed under similar wildfire frequencies and intensities can be categorized into "fire regimes". Fire regimes are often characterized by the effects of fire on the over-story vegetation. If most of the dominant over- story tree canopy is expected to survive a fire event, it is considered a nonlethal fire. By contrast, a fire event consuming or killing 90% or more of the existing vegetation is considered to be a lethal fire regime. If the intensity is in between, it is classified as a mixed fire regime, either mixed1, or mixed2 (Forest Service 2010b). The majority (82%) of the project area is categorized as mixed1 fire regime and is comprised of cool, moist grand fir (Abies grandis) in PVG 6. The nonlethal fire regime (PVGs 2 and 5) occupies 15% of the Project Area; 3% is classified as non-forest or riparian habitat. The desired condition is landscapes dominated by early seral species in the nonlethal and mixed1 fire regime. Currently, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is overabundant in PVGs 2 and 5 within the Project Area. Grand fir, a climax species, is overabundant in the overstory and understory of PVGs 5 and 6, exceeding the desired conditions for species composition by a wide margin. Tree densities need to be reduced to balance species composition towards early seral dominance, allow for ponderosa pine regeneration, and increase the vigor of existing ponderosa pine throughout the Project Area. Improving conditions for successful ponderosa pine regeneration would promote old forest and source habitats for associated sensitive species in the long term.
Need 2 Change structure of small and medium tree size class stands in all PVGs to accelerate progression towards the large tree size class and old forest habitat dominated by early seral species such as ponderosa pine. Tree size class reflects the physical development stage of a forest stand. The grass/forbs/shrub/seedling (GFSS), sapling, small, and medium tree size classes in the High Valley Project Area represent a relatively small percentage of the acres within the various PVGs, while the large tree size class generally dominates the Project Area. Currently, species composition within the large tree size class is dominated by late seral species, such as grand fir, rather than the desired early seral species, such as ponderosa pine.
4 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Need 3 Reduce densities in plantations and create a more natural grouping of irregularly spaced tree clumps (Forest Service 2010d). Tree densities within plantations are resulting in inter-tree competition which is substantially slowing progression toward the interconnected large tree patches lacking in the Project Area. The uniform tree spacing created from the initial planting needs to be broken up to create a more natural structure capable of developing functional old forest habitat and source habitat for white-headed woodpeckers and flammulated owls. This condition would emulate natural vegetative patterns more typical of the forest types when historical disturbances were operating on the landscape.
Need 4 Remove conifer encroachment to allow for desirable meadow function and species diversity. Fire exclusion has allowed conifer trees (e.g., ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine [Pinus contorta]) to populate areas they did not inhabit in the presence of historical fire disturbance.
Need 5 Manage conifer succession within aspen clones to improve the extent and diversity of aspen within the Project Area. The majority of the forested acres within the Project Area are dominated by conifer species, with aspen occurring primarily as small inclusions within stands or along stand edges. The lack of historical disturbances (e.g., fire) is homogenizing the landscape towards climax conditions, resulting in decreased structural diversity, vigor, and the extent of aspen across the Project Area.
Need 6 Restore habitat for wildlife species, such as the white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) and flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) within the forest types they historically occupied. Restoring ponderosa pine forests in PVGs 2 and 5 would benefit bird species, such as the white-headed woodpecker, a species of conservation concern according to the 2010 Forest Plan (Forest Service 2010a) and State of Idaho (IDFG 2005). Restoring ponderosa pine communities in PVG 6 in the Project Area would benefit the flammulated owl, a Region 4 Sensitive species. These restoration efforts would also benefit other wildlife species associated with forests which were historically dominated by ponderosa pine.
Need 7 Manage vegetation in riparian conservation areas (RCAs) to reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire and restore ecological functions. Fire suppression and historic management practices have increased the forested vegetation wildfire hazard within RCAs. Shade-tolerant climax species, such as grand fir, have increased ladder fuel and tree density conditions beyond what would have historically existed under nonlethal and mixed1 fire return intervals.
5 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Need 8 Introduce fire disturbance within the Project Area. Excluding fire on forested landscapes has resulted in a lack of tree density regulation; culturing of vegetation attributes (e.g., crown base height, root depth, and understory composition); increase surface fuels and proportions of small coarse woody debris; and restricted natural ecosystem processes (e.g., regeneration, favoring of early seral species composition, nutrient cycling, regulating succession, diversity, biogeochemical processes, and creation of cavities for wildlife habitat). Fire exclusion has fostered a dense under- and mid-story condition dominated by shade-tolerant species with ladder fuels contributing to a high potential for active crown fire initiation and spread. Shade- tolerant species, such as grand fir, are inherently less resilient to fire disturbance with crowns often extending to the forest floor. Similar to forested locations, excluding fire as a natural disturbance process has resulted in decadent shrub and grass communities throughout the Project Area. Conifer encroachment is inhibiting the health, vigor, and diversity of these communities, including isolated aspen clones.
Purpose 2
Reduce the fuels hazard and risk of crown fire spread, focusing more intense surface fuel treatments within the wildland-urban interface.
Need 1 Reduce the fuels hazard from an existing condition conducive to high-intensity surface fires, spotting, crown fire initiation, and crown fire spread. These hazards include high surface fuel loading, extensive ladder fuels, and/or continuous dense over-story canopy. Approximately 4,654 acres are delineated as WUI within the 7,736-acre Project Area. Within the WUI, hazard reduction treatments are needed to reduce the risk of wildfire to values based on their spatial context, relationship to topography, fire and weather patterns, and hazards on adjacent non-NFS lands.
Need 2 Address a request by the Idaho Department of Lands for long-term management access to State Endowment Lands located in Section 36, Township 11 North, Range 2 East. Allowing access to State land could facilitate wildfire hazard reduction efforts within the WUI and support Forest Plan Objectives FROB02 and FROB05 (Forest Service 2010a).
Purpose 3
Improve watershed function through restoration of aquatic resources and road-related impacts to wildlife, fish, soil, and water resources while providing for the transportation system necessary to meet short and long-term management needs.
6 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Need 1 Address undesirable impacts to soil and water quality and restore hydrologic function and riparian habitat. The wetland in the Little Squaw Creek drainage is degraded due to the current road design, culvert placement, removal of beaver, and impacts from livestock grazing. The need exists to raise the water table, moderate peak flows, and increase summer flows in this tributary perennial stream.
Need 2 Reduce degradation resulting from road-related impacts to improve the quality of soil, water, fish and wildlife habitat. Several roads within RCAs are producing fine sediment into streams, which can impair aquatic function and degrade riparian habitat.
Purpose 4
Utilize wood products resulting from restoration and fuel reduction treatments to support local and regional economies and offset the cost of project implementation.
Need 1 Provide a predictable and recurring supply of wood products from lands identified in the Forest Plan as suitable for timber management. Providing wood products that contribute to sustaining a wood products processing industry is essential for continuing forestland restoration and maintenance services in southwestern Idaho and for supporting local and regional economic sustainability. Activities are proposed within Management Prescription Category (MPC) 5.1 (Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes) as designated in the Forest Plan (Forest Service 2010a). Most forestlands in MPC 5.1 have been identified in the Forest Plan as suitable for timber management where wood products produced from treatments are an outcome of achieving restoration objectives. MPC 5.1 emphasizes restoring or maintaining vegetation within desired conditions to provide a diversity of wildlife habitats, reduce risk from undesirable disturbance events, and support sustainable human uses of resources (Forest Service 2010a, p. III-90). What is the Proposed Action? The Emmett Ranger District proposes the following activities to accomplish each purpose. To accomplish Purpose 1, the following activities are proposed: • Implement tree thinning restoration activities with wood product removal (i.e., commercial harvest) on roughly 5,729 acres, including 357 acres within RCAs. All treatments with wood product removal would be followed by submerchantable tree thinning (i.e., trees less than 8 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]) and activity fuel abatement treatments, as described under Purpose 2 (Figure 2). • Thin trees without wood product removal on approximately 1,013 acres, including 684 acres within RCAs (Figure 2). • Conduct restoration prescribed fire treatment on roughly 4,098 acres (Figure 2).
7 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
• Conduct the following road maintenance, construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning activities associated with the High Valley Project to facilitate commercial timber harvest (Figure 3): 2 o Construct 0.4 miles of road on existing unauthorized routes o Reconstruct (realign) 2.6 miles of road on new prism and 1.8 miles of road on existing prism
o Construct 5.6 miles of temporary roads on new prism and 3.0 miles on existing unauthorized routes
o Conduct aggregate surface road maintenance by replacing existing aggregate surface on 9.0 miles and placing spot aggregate on 5.3 miles for targeted sediment reduction
o Conduct 64.5 miles of road maintenance activities to facilitate commercial sawlog removal and to address current and future sediment production throughout the Project Area To accomplish Purpose 2, the following activities are proposed: • Mitigate activity fuels associated with tree thinning treatments on 6,743 acres using one or a combination of the following activities: whole tree yard, lop and scatter, mechanical pile and burn, hand-pile and burn, mechanical jackpot burn, and hand pile jackpot burn (Figure 2). • Implement fuel abatement prescribed fire treatments on 5,213 acres (Figure 2) • Construct 0.1 miles of road to provide access to State Endowment Lands to help facilitate wildfire hazard reduction efforts within the WUI. A cost share and easement would be established for the newly constructed road, and NFS road 606 would be converted from Maintenance Level (ML) 1 to ML 2 closed year-round (Figure 3) To accomplish Purpose 3, the following activities are proposed: • Decommission 8.5 miles of NFS roads and 18.8 miles of unauthorized routes, reducing road density by 0.3 miles per square mile (mi/mi2) across the Project Area and 1.9 mi/mi2within RCAs (Figure 3) • Restore the wetland area in the Little Squaw Creek drainage by decommissioning NFS road 643G, realigning NFS road 643S, and implementing a wetland restoration strategy, which includes building a buck and pole fence livestock exclosure for up to 25 acres, redesigning a culvert, and establishing habitat suitable for beaver reintroduction. Though actions associated with road maintenance, surfacing, and
2 Unauthorized can be used interchangeably with unclassified, as defined in the 2010 Forest Plan (Forest Service 2010a). Unauthorized or unclassified roads are roads on NFS lands which are not managed as part of the Forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as trails. Unclassified roads also include roads which were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon termination of the authorization (36 CFR 212.1).
8 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
realignment were addressed under Purpose 1, these actions would contribute to improving the quality of soil, water, and wildlife habitat in this location (Figure 3). To accomplish Purpose 4, the following activities are proposed: • Provide commercial sawlogs and miscellaneous wood products to support the local and/or regional economy. Associated design features for the Proposed Action are included in Appendix A. Detailed information on proposed silvicultural prescriptions and fuels treatments are included in Appendices B and C. This alternative is consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and complies with all laws, regulation, and policy (see specialists’ reports and Forest Plan consistency table in the project record). The Proposed Action numbers and description of purpose and need presented here have been updated from the High Valley Proposed Action Report (PAR) based on detailed analysis and improved mapping accuracy and to add clarity based on questions raised during scoping.
9 Page intentionally left blank High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Figure 2. Proposed thinning for both action alternatives for the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project
10 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Figure 3. Proposed modifications to the transportation system and wetlands for the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project
11 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
What is the Key Forest Plan Management Direction Used to Inform Development of the Proposed Action for this Area? In 2003, the Forest issued a revised Forest Plan (Forest Service 2003). On July 1, 2010, Forest Supervisor, Cecilia R. Seesholtz, issued an amendment to the 2003 Forest Plan to integrate a wildlife conservation strategy (WCS) for the forested biological community. This Forest Plan WCS complements the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Idaho CWCS) (IDFG 2005) by building on the broad-scale conservation needs identified in the Idaho CWCS for the Forest area. The Forest Plan vegetation management strategy calls for managing vegetation within desired conditions falling into the historical range of variability (HRV) using a combination of passive and active management (Forest Service 2010a, p. 6). The strategy is based on the assumption that conditions within the HRV will promote a network of habitats to support the diverse array of native and nonnative vertebrate wildlife species. The Forest Plan identifies conservation and restoration of low- to mid-elevation ponderosa pine forests as a management priority. The analysis for the 2010 Forest Plan amendment found that habitats for some wildlife species have declined substantially compared to historic conditions (Forest Service 2010b). An underlying philosophy of the 2010 Forest Plan and the WCS is that restoring desired conditions within the HRV and emulating natural disturbance processes where they are not currently operating as desired, within individual forested stands and across landscapes, will contribute to species conservation and recovery (Noss 1987; Hunter et al. 1988; Haufler et al. 1996; Raphael et al. 2000; Wisdom et al. 2000; McComb and Duncan 2007; Forest Service 2010a, p. 6). The 2010 amendment added a comprehensive and diverse set of management direction for vegetative and wildlife habitat conservation and restoration. Wildlife guideline WIGU15 emphasizes using conservation principles to identify treatment priorities, design restoration treatments, and help understand the effects of proposed activities on vegetative and wildlife habitat diversity (Forest Service 2010a p. III-28 and Appendix E). The Forest Plan includes objectives identifying the need to focus restoration-related management activities for the remainder of the planning period within priority watersheds. In addition, the Forest will address and integrate related multiple-use objectives in vegetative restoration projects where practical and efficient to do so. The Proposed Action for the Project addresses the following priorities and management objectives from the 2010 Forest Plan. Restoration and Maintenance of Priority Forested Acres The 2010 Forest Plan focuses forest restoration and maintenance in low- to mid-elevation forests dominated by ponderosa pine in the nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes. The Forest Plan also emphasizes areas occupied by wildlife species of concern, such as the white-headed woodpecker. The 2010 Forest Plan includes a Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Strategy (Strategy) that lists Forest-wide restoration priorities. The Forest Plan Strategy identifies the area included within the High Valley Project as a high priority for restoration and specifies that active treatments are needed for restoration. The
12 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Strategy also identifies all area within the project as a high priority for short-term wildlife habitat restoration. High priority, active forest restoration watersheds were historically dominated by nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes. These areas are most likely to be successfully restored because of their current acreage in medium and large tree class size (Forest Service 2010b, Appendix A, p. A-16). In addition, maintenance activities designed to retain patches within desired conditions are used to develop and sustain functional landscape patches over time. To facilitate development of this structure, the Forest Plan provides a standard (VEST03) to retain forest stands that meet the definition of large tree size class (Forest Service 2010a, Appendix A, page A-6) and a guideline to retain all legacy trees (VEGU08). The Proposed Action would maintain and restore forested stands/landscape patches in the nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes and components necessary for functioning wildlife habitat, such as legacy trees, within the Project Area.
Restoration of Forested Stands in the Upper and Lower Little Squaw Creek Subwatersheds The Project is located in Management Area (MA) 16, Sage Hen Reservoir. Objective 1622 (Forest Service 2010a, p. III-317) identifies a need to restore vegetative conditions in PVGs 2, 5, and 6 within MA 16, emphasizing the large tree size class in all watersheds. The following additional Forest Plan objectives are key to the development of the Proposed Action: • Forest Plan Objective 1624 identifies a need to manage vegetation in riparian areas to reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire. • Forest Plan Objective 1672 identifies a need to focus source habitat restoration activities within the Little Squaw Creek watershed in areas field-verified to have good-to-excellent conditions for restoring old forest pine stands. A primary objective of treatment would be to expand the overall patch size of old forest habitat. • Forest Plan Objective 1676 further clarifies that occupied white-headed woodpecker source habitat identified during project planning for vegetative management projects within the Little Squaw Creek watershed should be maintained and adjacent patches should be developed to facilitate movement and dispersal of individuals. • Forest Plan Objective 1647 identifies a need to manage the landscape to reduce the hazard from uncharacteristic wildfire and insect epidemics, with primary emphasis on forestland supporting ponderosa pine.
Fire Management and the Wildland-Urban Interface In spring 2014, the Forest developed a step-down process for identifying the WUI zone, using documentation from Delineation of a Community Protection Zone under the Idaho Roadless Rule (Forest Service 2011a) and the Handbook for Wildland-Urban Interface Communities (NASF 2004). This process was used to define where hazardous fuels pose risks to life, property, infrastructure, and firefighter safety. The boundary was delineated based on potential fire behavior and physical features that could be used as effective fuel breaks, such as a road and ridge top. Forest Plan Objective 1655 highlights the need to initiate prescribed fire and mechanical treatments within WUIs to reduce fuels and wildfire
13 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
hazards. It also emphasizes coordinating with local and tribal governments, agencies, and landowners in the development of County Wildfire Protection Plans to manage fuel loadings to reduce wildfire hazards.
Watershed Function Improvement The Forest Service completed a national assessment of the current condition and prioritization of subwatersheds on NFS lands. The National Watershed Condition Framework (Forest Service 2011b) identified the Upper and Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatersheds as having impaired function, with a need for active restoration to improve watershed and aquatic conditions. These subwatersheds are functioning at risk based on the Watershed Condition Classification completed in 2010 for all NFS subwatersheds. The functioning at risk classification is largely due to impaired habitat conditions because large woody debris is lacking, road densities are very high, and road maintenance is needed. The following Forest Plan objectives are relevant to this Proposed Action: • Forest Plan Objective 1610 identifies a need to locate subwatersheds for restoration to remove major sources of management-related fine sediment. • Forest Plan Objective 1617 identifies a need to reduce sediment from roads in the Little Squaw Creek drainage by improving maintenance and surfacing as needed. • Forest Plan Objective 1618 identifies a need to repair or restore the beaver pond area in the Little Squaw Creek drainage.
Transportation System Management The Forest Plan identifies objectives to cooperate with other agencies regarding transportation management to attain resource goals (FROB02), and include the public in developing a shared transportation system serving the needs of all parties to the extent possible (FROB05) (Forest Service 2010a). Where opportunities exist to reduce road-related degradation, mitigations such as relocation, obliteration, closure, and changes in management strategy, alteration, or discontinuance should be considered (FRGU11), especially within RCAs (FRGU05) (Forest Service 2010a). The Proposed Action supports the need for coordinating transportation needs with other agencies while reducing degradation from road- related impacts.
Removal of Wood Products as an Outcome of Forest Maintenance and Restoration Treatments on Acres in the Suited Timber Base The 2010 Forest Plan amendment reallocated acres previously assigned to MPC 5.2 (Commodity Production Emphasis) to MPC 5.1 (Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis). Although this reallocation does not change the number of acres in the suited timber base, it does change the focus of treatments from an emphasis on wood product growth and yield to an emphasis on forest restoration with wood products as an outcome or byproduct of restoration activities. All acres within the Project Area are now allocated to MPC 5.1. The Proposed Action includes removing wood products as a byproduct of forest restoration and maintenance treatments, which facilitates Forest Plan Objective 1646 to manage suited
14 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
timberlands for a sustained yield and even flow of forest products, while reducing sediment delivery and progressing toward desired vegetation conditions. What Decisions are to be made? The Responsible Official for this project is the Forest Supervisor. The Responsible Official will consider public comments, an internal analysis of this project, and the consequences of similar projects. The Responsible Official will assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects, along with current policy, law, and regulation and will determine the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation needed for this project. After such consideration, the Responsible Official may choose to • select the proposed action and adopt the project as written; • modify the proposed action and/or adopt a modified version of the project; • select Alternative C or adopt a modified version of Alternative C; or • select the no action alternative. In making this decision, the Responsible Official will consider the following questions: • How well does the alternative meet the Purpose and Need described in this EA? • How well does the alternative progress the Project Area toward the desired conditions which will contribute to accomplishing Forest Plan objectives identified in the previous section? • How well does the alternative address the issues generated from comments received from interested parties? • Does the alternative mitigate potential adverse effects identified in the analysis as needed to support a finding of non-significant impacts (FONSI)?
15 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2—Issues and Alternatives What Public and Tribal Involvement have Occurred to Date? In 2012, the BFC began focusing on concerns and opportunities on the west side of the Emmett Ranger In Chapter 2, District, an area that spans over 100,000 acres. Specifically, you will find: the BFC assessed NFS lands within the Little Squaw Creek watershed for restoration opportunities. The BFC provided • Public and tribal specific recommendations for the High Valley Project involvement in the project Area—which includes Upper Little Squaw Creek and Lower Little Squaw Creek—that covered a variety of • Major issues subjects, such as transportation, vegetation management, identified recreation, fire/fuels, wildlife, range, hydrology, aquatic • What would happen if resources, weeds, and monitoring. The collective we didn’t meet the recommendations were used by the Forest Service to need of the project inform the development of the Proposed Action. • Other actions considered The scoping period to gather information on the Proposed • A comparison of Action was initiated on February 27, 2015. Legal notices alternatives were published in the Idaho Statesman and Emmett Messenger Index. Scoping documents were mailed to 152 parties (including local property owners in the High Valley Project vicinity), as well as posted on the Forest project website. The GovDelivery email notification system delivered the scoping documents to an additional 43 interested parties who chose to receive electronic notification. The scoping notice was also posted at the Ola Post Office, Ola Community Center, Sweet Post Office, and Montour Store. The mailing list includes private individuals, recreationists, ranchers, County commissioners, Congressional staff, and representatives from environmental conservation groups, the timber industry, and State agencies. During the scoping phase of this project, the Forest Service consulted with individuals and federal, State, tribal, and local agencies. Tribal consultation was completed according to the consultation protocols established with each tribe. The Nez Perce Tribe and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes were notified of this project in writing on February 24, 2015. The Shoshone Paiute Tribe was consulted during the Wings and Roots meeting on March 12, 2015. In response to scoping efforts, 9 interested parties provided comments on a variety of interests, including potential impacts on old forest habitat, road and trail networks, wildfire susceptibility, water quality, fisheries, treatments in RCAs, silvicultural prescriptions, wildlife habitat, economics of treatment options, and availability of wood products. The planning record contains all written comments received and discloses how the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) addressed those concerns within supporting resource analyses. During the analysis process, Agency representatives responded to comments, met informally with interested parties to discuss the project when requested, and provided the BFC with updates at BFC scheduled meetings when requested.
16 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
What Major Issues were Identified? NEPA directs the Forest Service to focus on a full and fair discussion of issues and identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant. Primary public concerns we identified are listed below. Other concerns raised were either not relevant or site-specific to the High Valley Project, or we were able to address them through Project design. Please refer to the project record for a complete description of issues and how they were resolved. • Effects of commercial treatment within the RCA—Commercial removal within RCAs, including heavy equipment and skidding, may affect watershed function, such as stream shade, and cause negative impacts to sensitive riparian soils, water quality, riparian habitat, and contribution of large wood and large coarse woody debris. Riparian soils could be impacted even if heavy machinery is not authorized within the buffers themselves by compaction through skidding.
o Resource Sections Issue is Addressed: Vegetation, Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources • Effects of road activities on water quality—Construction and reconstruction of roads may harm water quality and riparian habitat.
o Resource Sections Issue is Addressed: Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources What would it Mean to Not Meet the Need? What is the No Action Alternative? The No Action Alternative, Alternative A, would not implement the activities described in the Proposed Action, providing a baseline against which impacts of the various action alternatives can be measured and compared. Under Alternative A, the High Valley Project would not be implemented, although all other ongoing activities such as recreational activities, public fuelwood gathering, livestock grazing, and motorized travel would continue. Current fire management strategies in the analysis area would be expected to continue. Existing conditions would continue, including hazardous fuel conditions, the existing road and trail network of both NFS and unauthorized routes, and degraded watershed conditions. Opportunities would be lost for wildlife habitat improvement and vegetation conditions with associated wildfire hazards would continue to trend away from desired conditions. What Other Actions were Considered? Alternative Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail Two additional potential alternatives were identified following the public notice and comment period. These two alternatives were considered, but not developed in detail as described below.
17 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Alternative 1—Maximize Economic Return and Increase Restoration Opportunities Using Additional Timber Harvest
Assumptions Analyze an alternative that uses silvicultural methods that would still address the Purpose and Need identified for the High Valley Project, would be consistent with laws (i.e., National Forest Management Act [NFMA; 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iv)]), would maximize the economic return, and would increase restoration opportunities.
Conclusion The IDT developed the current Proposed Action to address identified needs while producing an economically viable project (i.e., revenue would be greater than implementation costs), but it does not maximize economic return. An alternative maximizing economic return would most likely not meet Purposes 1, 2, or 3. Typically, even-aged silvicultural systems provide the most economic return, but treatment methods within these systems, such as shelterwood, seed tree, and clear cutting, do not align well with achieving the desired uneven-aged conditions described for the PVGs within the Project Area and, therefore, would not meet Purpose 1 for the High Valley Project. Though strictly maximizing economic return violates NFMA, we made an assumption the request was to maximize economic return and still comply with all regulations. The Proposed Action development process included an analysis identifying noneconomically viable options dictated by access and existing conditions. The free selection silviculture system (Graham 2007) was identified as best suited to address the identified Purpose and Need for the High Valley Project and was consistent with recommendations provided by the BFC. This system allows for a mixture of methods—such as those mentioned in the scoping comment—providing more flexibility to incorporate a hybrid of silvicultural methods (described in the vegetation resource technical report) to foster resilient ecosystems that maintain a functional forest with all its parts (e.g., plants, animals, biological legacies, and vegetation successional stages and their juxtaposition) and environment (e.g., canopy gaps, forest floor conditions) characteristic of endemic levels of native disturbances (e.g., insects, disease, fire), while providing a variety of wood products to support local and regional economies. The IDT reviewed additional harvesting techniques which would remove more material from the forest to extend the time the wildfire hazard rating would remain lower in the WUI and to increase the economic value of the project. However, the IDT determined that reducing tree canopy cover beyond what is proposed, particularly within PVG 6, is likely to increase shrub response and would have an unintended increase in wildfire hazard. Other more cost- effective treatment methods were considered, such as over-story removal and skip-gap- thinning; but these methods provide less flexibility for reducing small-to-medium tree densities and adjusting species composition than the methods proposed (Appendix B). Though commercial removal closer to the stream channel was considered, the IDT did not carry it forward to ensure a balance between vegetation and watershed/aquatic resource needs, such as providing for long-term large woody debris recruitment, shade, and microclimate. Harvesting within one site potential tree height (SPTH) (refer to SPTH in the Alternative 2 description below) from water bodies would likely result in additional fine
18 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
sediment delivery to stream channels and a reduction in stream shade, which would conflict with objectives for Purpose 3. As discussed in FEMAT (1993), nearly all stream functions influenced by forest trees are protected within 1 SPTH of the stream. Additionally, the Idaho Forest Practices Act (IFPA) requires a 75-foot-wide tree retention buffer for fish bearing streams, with two options for retaining enough trees within this zone to allow for adequate stream shading. Not harvesting within 1 SPTH, as proposed for both action alternatives, would meet the IFPA shade rule based on stand exam data calculated using Option 1 of the IFPA formula for Class 1 Streams. Following proposed thinning treatments, mean relative stocking was estimated to be 56 for RCA Zone 1 (no treatment) and 43 for RCA Zone 2 (non-commercial thin), meeting the IFPA relative stocking requirements. A more intensive thinning treatment, such as harvesting closer to streams, would potentially compromise consistency with the IFPA. This alternative was dropped from further consideration because it did not meet Purposes 1, 2, or 3 because the alternative treatment methods designed to maximize economic return would not achieve the desired uneven-aged conditions within the Project Area, could result in increased shrub response leading to a potential increase in the wildfire hazard, and would provide less flexibility for reducing small-to-medium tree densities and adjusting species composition. Furthermore, commercial removal closer to the stream channel would not ensure a balance between vegetation and watershed/aquatic resource needs and may compromise the High Valley Project’s capability to meet IFPA requirements. The Responsible Official determined the Proposed Action addresses economic return to the extent feasible, while focusing treatments on restoration as directed by the Forest Plan (Forest Service 2010a). An economic analysis has been completed to further clarify this discussion and is available in the project record.
Alternative 2—Protect Large Trees and Expand Overall Patch Size of Old Forest Habitat by Retaining All Trees Greater Than 18 Inches Diameter at Breast Height
Assumptions Analyzing an alternative or disclosing when removing large trees would be necessary to address the Purpose and Need identified for the High Valley Project. Large trees, as defined within the Forest Plan are ≥20 inches dbh (Forest Service 2010a).
Conclusion Managing diameter limits has been shown to result in tradeoffs that often have negative impacts to ecosystem diversity and can restrict the ability to achieve restoration objectives for species composition, stand structure, and wildfire hazard reduction (Abella et al. 2006). A study conducted in vegetation types similar to the High Valley Project Area on the Forest provides site-specific information about the tradeoffs associated with the use of diameter limits (USDA Forest Service 2015). This report (USDA Forest Service 2015) compared the effects of a 20-inch dbh limit with the Forest’s site-specific silvicultural prescriptions for achieving the desired conditions identified in the 2010 Forest Plan. Results indicated the 20-inch dbh limit would eliminate flexibility for developing openings for ponderosa pine regeneration, would not achieve or would compromise density reduction objectives, would result in a simplified stand structure with less diverse species composition in the understory,
19 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
and would have implications for the long-term retention of live large ponderosa pine. Therefore, this alternative was dropped from further consideration because it would not have adequately met Purposes 1 and 2 of the High Valley Project. To account for the importance of large trees, particularly older (≥150 years) large trees, in achieving desired conditions, the High Valley Project includes design features to conserve this structure. Of specific importance are trees that contribute to the development of old forest habitat, including legacy and legacy-like trees. Legacy ponderosa pine and legacy-like Douglas-fir and grand fir trees would be protected by Design Feature VM-2. A large tree age analysis was completed for the High Valley Project (project record) and for projects with similar vegetative conditions on the Forest (USDA Forest Service, 2015). These analyses confirmed a poor correlation between tree age and diameter (R2 = 0.39) but determined field personnel were able to interpret the legacy and legacy-like rating systems described in the guide to successfully identify older trees, providing a more reliable approach for conserving old trees. Design Feature VM-1 would ensure stands currently meeting the definition of large tree size class would retain at least the minimum number of large trees (≥20 inches dbh) necessary to remain in that condition. However, because the project is focused on developing resilient landscapes and large tree source habitat for wildlife, silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to retain and recruit development of early seral (e.g., ponderosa pine) large diameter trees to enhance and promote wildlife species emphasized by the wildlife conservation strategy (Forest Service 2010a). As described and further explained in the vegetation technical report (project record), thinning competing conifer trees as described for the action alternatives—with a focus on large tree and legacy/legacy-like tree retention—would increase the distribution and extent of stands in the large tree size class (≥10% canopy cover of trees ≥20 inches dbh); improve the desired species composition of large trees; and provide the flexibility required to promote structural diversity and ecosystem resilience (refer to Table 4, Purpose 1).
Alternatives Analyzed in Detail One additional alternative (Alternative C, Reduced RCA Treatment Intensity) was developed to address public concerns identified in the “What Major Issues were Identified?” section above, joining Alternative A (No Action) and Alternative B (Proposed Action) to be analyzed in detail.
Alternative C—Reduced RCA Treatment Intensity Alternative C was developed in response to public comments to limit vegetation removal within RCAs to non-commercial opportunities to account for potential effects of commercial treatment on watershed function, such as stream shade; contribution of large wood; and negative impacts to sensitive riparian soils, water quality, and riparian habitat. This alternative is identical to Alternative B (Proposed Action), with the exception of treatments in the RCAs and the associated design features (Appendix A). In RCAs, less intensive fuel treatment methods would be used and no commercial timber harvest would occur.
20 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Site Potential Tree Height To facilitate a comparative analysis between alternatives, different zones within the RCA were delineated based on the SPTH. For delineating RCAs, a SPTH is the height that a dominant or co-dominant tree within a stand is expected to attain at an age of 200 years. Option B in the 2010 Forest Plan was used to determine RCA distances, using 1 SPTH for intermittent streams and 2 SPTHs for perennial streams. One SPTH was delineated as 130 feet in PVG 6, 120 feet in PVG 2, and 110 feet in PVG 5 for the High Valley Project. Four RCA zones were identified for different levels of treatment intensity within the RCA based on the distance from the waterbody and SPTH: RCA Zone 1 (0–30 feet); RCA Zone 2 (30–75 feet); RCA Zone 3 (75 feet–1 SPTH); and, for perennial streams, RCA Zone 4 (1 SPTH–2 SPTHs). For example, Zone 4 in PVG 6 would be 130–260 feet, but would only be 110–220 feet for PVG 5. RCA Zone 4 does not apply to intermittent streams. Figure 4 visually displays RCA zones and the proportion of RCA acres for the High Valley Project. For Alternative C, 1,041 acres of non-commercial thinning would occur in RCA Zones 2, 3, and 4, compared to Alternative B, where 684 acres of non-commercial thinning would occur in RCA Zones 2 and 3, and 357 acres of commercial thinning would occur in RCA Zone 4. No treatment occurs in RCA Zone 1 for either alternative. Additionally, Alternative C would not allow direct ignition of fire within the RCA, and surface fuels would be lopped and scattered or piled and not burned within the RCA to simultaneously break up the fuel continuity and address concerns regarding sensitive soils. Table 1 compares acres of treatments within RCAs between Alternatives B and C and Table 2 compares the maximum vegetation and fuels treatment intensities proposed within RCAs for each action alternative. Though Table 2 displays the most intense potential treatment, actual vegetation and fuels treatments could include less intense activities, such as non-commercial thinning instead of commercial thinning. Cells highlighted in grey indicate consistency between alternatives. Associated design features for Alternative C are included in Appendix A. Detailed information on the silvicultural prescriptions and fuel treatments proposed under Alternative C is included in Appendices B and C. This alternative is consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines and complies with all laws, regulations, and policies (refer to specialists’ reports and Forest Plan Consistency Table available in the project record).
21 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Figure 4. Visual display of Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) zones and proportion of RCA acres for the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project
23 Page intentionally left blank High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Table 1. Comparison acres of treatments within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) for Alternatives B and C Alternative B Alternative C Treatment (acres) (acres) Thinning with product removal (commercial) inside RCAs 357 0 Thinning with no product removal (non-commercial) inside RCA 684 1,041 Total Acres Thinned within RCAs 1,041 1,041 Active ignition within RCAs 749 0
Table 2. Comparison of Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) maximum vegetation and fuels treatment intensities for the action alternatives Alternative B Alternative C RCA Intermittent or Distanceb Zonea Perennial Stream Vegetation Fuels Vegetation Fuels Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment 1 0–30 feet Both No treatment No treatment Same as Alt B Same as Alt B Non-commercial 2 30–75 feet Both Backing fire Same as Alt B Same as Alt B thin 75 feet to Non-commercial 3 Both Active ignitiond Same as Alt B Backing fire 1 SPTHc thin 1 SPTH to Commercial Non-commercial 4 Perennial Active ignition Backing fire 2 SPTH thine thin Note: Grey cells indicate consistency between alternatives\ aRCA zones were defined for the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project to allow for a more straightforward discussion on proposed activities and effects. bProposed treatment distances from stream channels, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands. RCAs are defined using Option 2 in the Forest Plan (Forest Service, 2010a, p B-34), using one site-potential tree height for intermittent streams and two site potential tree heights for perennial streams. cSPTH = site potential tree height, defined as 130 feet for PVG 6, 120 feet for PVG 2, and 110 feet for PVG 5. dActive ignition, also referred to as direct ignition, includes activities such as pile burning. eWhere commercial harvest is proposed, cables from equipment such as an off-road jammer would be allowed to extract timber, but the equipment’s tracks would not be allowed within the RCA.
How do the Alternatives Compare to Each Other? Table 3 presents a comparison of each alternative by proposed treatments and outcomes. Additional information on proposed treatments and outcomes for each alternative is included in the project record.
25 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Table 3. Comparison of alternatives by proposed treatments and outcomes Actions Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of Thinning Treatment Outside Riparian Conservation 0 5,372 Same as Alt B Thinning with Area (RCA) (acres) product removal Within RCA (acres) 0 357 0 Thinning with no Outside RCAs (acres) 0 329 Same as Alt B product removal Within RCAs (acres) 0 684 1,041 Harvest Volume in CCF Volume estimate 0 61,725 (32.1) 58,075 (29.8) (MMBF) Fire/Fuels Treatments Activity fuel Outside RCA 0 5,702 Same as Alt B abatement Within RCA 0 1,041 Same as Alt B Fuels abatement burn Outside RCA 0 4,633 Same as Alt B (temporary term: 0– Within RCA 580 0 3 years) 0 Restoration burn Outside RCA 0 3,681 Same as Alt B (near-term: 15– Within RCA 0 417 0 25 years) Transportation System National Forest System (NFS) open yearlong roads 22.2 19.7 Same as Alt B (miles) NFS open seasonal roads (miles) 9.3 9.8 Same as Alt B NFS closed roads (miles) 36.7 35.1 Same as Alt B Total NFS roads (miles) 68.2 64.6 Same as Alt B RCA NFS open yearlong roads (miles) 3.9 3.4 Same as Alt B RCA NFS open seasonal roads (miles) 2.8 2.8 Same as Alt B RCA NFS closed roads (miles) 9.9 6.4 Same as Alt B Total RCA NFS roads (miles) 16.6 12.6 Same as Alt B Unauthorized or unclassified routes (miles) 21.0 0.0 Same as Alt B Motorized trail open yearlong—NFS road 654 (miles) 0.5 0.5 Same as Alt B Total NFS road density (miles/miles2) 5.6 5.3 Same as Alt B Total RCA NFS road density (miles/miles2) 7.9 6.0 Same as Alt B Total decommission miles 0.0 27.3 Same as Alt B Total road construction miles 0.0 9.1 Same as Alt B Total road realignment miles 0.0 4.4 Same as Alt B Total aggregate surface miles 14.3 19.6 Same as Alt B Total proposed road maintenance (miles) 0.0 64.5 Same as Alt B
Table 4and Table 5 display how well the alternatives address the purpose and need and the major issues of the High Valley Project. Cells highlighted in grey represent the largest improvement.
26 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Table 4. Comparison of alternatives by how well they address the purpose and need of the High Valley Project following implementation of all proposed treatments Need Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Purpose 1 Need 1: Increase the proportion of ponderosa pine in PVGs 2, 5, and 6 to Forest Plan desired conditions. 30% 42% 39% Measure: Percent species composition of ponderosa pine Need 2: Change structure of small and medium tree size class stands in all PVGs to accelerate progression towards the large tree size class and old forest habitat 5% 14% 13% dominated by early seral species such as ponderosa pine. (363 acres) (1,034 acres) (1,001 acres) Measure: Percent of forested stand acres in the large tree size class with the desired species composition of ponderosa pinea. Need 3: Reduce densities in plantations and create a more natural grouping of irregularly spaced tree clumps. 0 acres 868 acres Same as Alt B Measure: Acres of plantation that would receive thinning treatment. Need 4: Remove conifer encroachment to allow for desirable meadow function and species diversity. 0 acres 234 acres Same as Alt B Measure: Acres of potential meadow restoration Need 5: Manage conifer succession within aspen clones to improve the extent and diversity of aspen within the 97% 96% Project Area. 0 acres (7,234 acres) (7,216 acres)b Measure: Percent of forested acres that would receive thinning and/or burning treatment. Need 6: Restore ponderosa pine forest habitat for focal bird species, such as the white-headed woodpecker. <1% 34% 32% Measure: Percent of suitable habitat for white-headed (20 acres) (2,608 acres) (2,457 acres) woodpecker. Need 7: Manage vegetation in riparian conservation areas (RCAs) to reduce the threat of uncharacteristic Very High Moderate High wildfire and restore ecological functions. Measure: Wildfire hazard rating within RCAs Need 8: Introduce fire disturbance within the Project Area to promote ecological processes. 0% 53% 48% Measure: Percent of acres that would be treated with a (0 acres) (4,098 acres) (3,681 acres) restoration prescribed burn. Purpose 2 Need 1: Reduce the wildfire hazard Measure: Wildfire hazard rating for the Project Very High Moderate Same as Alt B Area Need 2: Address request by the Idaho Department of Lands for long-term management access to No Yes Same as Alt B State Endowment Lands. Measure: Access provided or not
27 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Need Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Purpose 3 Need 1: Address undesirable impacts to soil and water quality and restore hydrologic function and riparian habitat within the beaver pond wetland area of Little No Yes Same as Alt B Squaw Creek. Measure: Implement the Little Squaw Creek wetland restoration strategy. Need 2: Reduce degradation resulting from road related impacts to improve the quality of soil, water, fish and 7.9 miles/miles2 6.0 miles/miles2 Same as Alt B wildlife habitat. Measure: Road density within RCAs Purpose 4 Need 1: Provide a predictable and recurring supply of wood products from lands identified as suitable for None 61,725 CCF 58,075 CCF timber management. Measure: Estimated total harvest volume aDesired species composition of ponderosa pine is 80% for the nonlethal fire regime and 60% for the mixed1 fire regime. bThe difference between thinning and burning treatments is 18 acres of prescribed burn only treatment in RCA Zone 2 (30-75 feet).
28 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Table 5. Comparison of alternatives by how well they address the major issues of the High Valley Project following implementation of all proposed treatments Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Issue 1: Effects of commercial treatment within the RCA-Commercial removal within RCAs, including heavy equipment and skidding, may affect watershed function, such as stream shade, and cause negative impacts to sensitive riparian soils, water quality, riparian habitat, and contribution of large wood and large coarse woody debris. Riparian soils could be impacted even if heavy machinery is not authorized within the buffers themselves, by compaction through skidding. Heavy mechanical equipment, such as skidders or yarders, would not be permitted within the RCA, but commercial harvest would occur outside of one SPTH from each stream channel. Commercial treatment would be prohibited within one SPTH of a waterbody to provide for long-term large woody debris recruitment, shade, and microclimate. No commercial harvest is proposed in Though a small amount of soil disturbance would No commercial harvest RCAs. occur within commercially treated RCAs from is proposed in RCAs. skidding logs, keeping heavy equipment out of RCAs would prevent nearly all compaction resulting from commercial harvest. Other riparian areas, including wetlands and broader valley bottoms with well-established riparian vegetation, would not be treated with this proposal, except as proposed under Purpose 3. Issue 2: Effects of road activities on water quality-Construction and reconstruction of roads may significantly harm water quality and riparian habitat. The road reconstruction proposed for this project is associated with road realignment where existing roads within RCAs are replaced with roads farther from stream channels. The result of road realignment would be reduced sediment delivery to streams and reduced riparian impacts in the short-term to long- term time frames. No new road construction would No road construction or reconstruction occur within RCAs Same as Alternative B is proposed. Temporary road construction would have a temporary to short-term immeasurable negative effect to water quality riparian habitat at two intermittent stream crossings. After completion of project-related activities, these roads would be recontoured and riparian habitat would be restored in the long-term timeframe.
29 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Chapter 3—Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives What are the Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative Action, Compared to the “No Action” Alternative? This section summarizes and compares the environmental effects of the alternatives relative to the factors used in In Chapter 3 determining significance. Addressing environmental effects you will find this way focuses this assessment on pertinent effects • necessary to make a decision, allowing for a concise The effects of the Proposed Action and document as directed by the Council of Environmental alternatives Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA • (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508). More details regarding the What monitoring would occur that isn’t affected environment, conclusion about potential effects, a part of the applicable Forest Plan and regulatory direction, and review proposed action or of best available science are available in specialist reports alternatives for each resource and other supporting documentation in the project record. The High Valley Project has limited context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27), individually or cumulatively, to the biological, physical, social, or economic components of the human environment. This project would have no adverse effect upon public health or safety, consumers, civil rights, minority groups and women, prime farm land, rangeland and forestland, roadless areas, and American Indian Treaty Rights. The IDT designed the project to minimize effects on resources, including visual quality, recreation, cultural resources, air quality, and rare plants, as described below. For the visual quality resource, the proposed vegetation and road management activities for Alternatives B and C would meet visual quality objectives (VQOs) as viewed from the sensitive route NFS road 643, and as represented on the Forest Visual Quality Objective map. VQOs were established for various landscapes across the Forest based on esthetic concerns, type of user in an area, and the user’s overall expectation for visual quality within an area, and indicate allowable levels of induced change on the landscape. For this project, Design Features RR-2, RR-3, RR-4, RR-5, RR-6 were developed to ensure compliance with Forest Plan guidelines regarding duration of visual impacts from ground-disturbing and vegetation removal activities, appearance of slash and harvest residues remaining after project completion, and appearance of ridgeline silhouettes. Refer to the scenic environment technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis regarding effects to visual quality. For the recreation resource, the recreation resource analysis showed that Alternatives B and C would not substantially affect recreational resources or users because recreational experiences would be maintained within the Project Area; potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from proposed activities would be mitigated by design features; and no modification of summer or winter Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a classification
30 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
system in which components of recreation settings and facilities are organized and arranged along a continuum ranging from very primitive to highly concentrated settings and experiences, would result. Refer to the recreation resource technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis regarding effects to recreation. For cultural resources, activities proposed under Alternatives B and C, including prescribed fire, are expected to have No Adverse Effect on historic properties in the Project Area. Application of project Design Features CR-1 and CR-2 would ensure known and newly discovered historic properties and cultural sites would be protected during implementation. Refer to the cultural resource technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis regarding effects to cultural resources. For the air quality resource, the air quality analysis shows that Alternatives B and C would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5. Though temporary direct impacts (1–3 days) on air quality would occur with implementation of the action alternatives. Proposed fuel treatment activities, including prescribed underburning and burning of landing piles, hand piles, and machine piles would comply with NAAQS for PM2.5, including within all sensitive areas, such as High Valley, Smiths Ferry, and Ola, based on Smoke Impact Spreadsheet (SIS) calculations (USDI EPA 2011). All burning would comply with the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group Smoke Management Plan and is designed to meet the requirements of State of Idaho IDAPA, State administrative rule for air quality and the policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (Interim Policy). Refer to the air quality resource technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis. For the rare plant resource, Alternatives B and C would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects or impacts on all but one threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, sensitive or Forest watch (TEPCSW) plant species because no known populations exist within the High Valley Project Area. Proposed activities, such as road construction and prescribed burning, may impact individuals of the sensitive plant species least phacelia (Phacelia minutissiuma), but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing. Though small areas with suitable habitat components exist at higher elevations in the Project Area, it is highly unlikely that least phacelia exists in the Project Area based on surveys conducted within the Project Area. Additionally, Design Feature BT-1, which requires pre-disturbance surveys within potential habitat areas for Sensitive and Watch species, would protect individual least phacelia plants. If plants are identified during these surveys, activities would be modified to avoid impacts to individual plants to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, no loss of viability is expected for this species, or any potential populations or individuals of sensitive or Forest Watch plant species, and proposed activities would not reduce plant biodiversity. Refer to the rare plant resource technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis. For the following resources, in depth information is conveyed to identify how the alternatives address the Purpose and Need or any issues or concerns associated with that resource: vegetation, fire and fuels, wildlife, soil, water, riparian, and aquatic resources, fish habitat, transportation, economics, grazing/range, climate change, and noxious weeds.
31 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Vegetation This section describes how the alternatives address Purpose 1, to manage forest structure and species composition to accelerate development of large tree size class dominated by early seral tree species (e.g., ponderosa pine) and increase landscape resiliency to uncharacteristic disturbance events and promote fire’s ecological role by focusing on the effects of the various alternatives on characteristics of the vegetative environment in the High Valley Project Area. Additionally, this section addresses issues and concerns identified during public scoping that commercial removal within RCAs may affect contribution of large wood in RCAs; proposed activities would harm forest resources and reduce biodiversity, such as weak and dying conifer trees; and proposed activities, including use of heavy equipment and road construction, would not restore or create a healthier forest. Refer to the vegetation resource technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis.
Background Landscape ecosystem resiliency, or landscape resiliency, is described as the ability to recover to an original or desired state over time after disturbance. Disturbance events can be abiotic (fire and drought) or biotic (insects and disease). The 2010 Forest Plan uses historical fire regimes as the context for landscape resiliency. The historical fire regime heavily influenced the patch size, spatial distribution, and vertical/horizontal diversity of structural elements of old forest habitat for the associated PVGs. A Potential Vegetation Group (PVG) is a group of habitat types that share similar environmental characteristics, site productivity, and What is Landscape Ecosystem disturbance regimes. Three PVGs occur in the Project Area: PVG 2, which can be described as Resiliency and Why is it Important? warm, dry Douglas-fir/moist ponderosa pine; PVG 5, which can be described as dry grand fir; In ecology, landscape resiliency is the and PVG 6, which can be described as cool, ability of an ecosystem to absorb moist grand fir. Across the Project Area, PVG 6 disturbances before changing to a occupies the majority of the Project Area at state or trajectory that is entirely new 82%; whereas, PVG 2 occupies 7% and PVG 5 to the system. Such disturbances can occupies 8%. The remaining 3% of the area is include fire, drought, insects and identified as shrub, grass, rock, riparian, or diseases. water. From a broad perspective, the desired condition is to develop a landscape Within the Project Area, PVGs 2 and 5 that is within the historical range of represent the nonlethal fire regime, in which variability, specifically within a historical fires burned at an interval of 5 to condition that provides suitable 25 years, resulting in relatively homogenous wildlife habitat that has evolved patches dominated by large ponderosa pine resiliency to a changing environment trees with small inclusions of smaller tree size and resistance to uncharacteristic disturbance events. classes. Historically, periodic fires in PVGs 2 and 5 inhibited the development of continuous ladder fuels of saplings or pole-sized trees that could carry fire into the crowns of larger ponderosa pine trees. Forested stands experiencing frequent low- or mixed-severity fire disturbances develop old forest habitat with primarily a
32 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
single-story structure, which has been described as uneven-aged stands composed of relatively small, even-aged groups or patches interspersed with herbaceous openings and canopy gaps (Kaufman et al. 2007). These stands primarily occur in the lower to mid- elevations; are typically less dense; consist of fairly open clumps of large trees; and have small-to-moderate accumulations of understory conifers and large coarse woody debris/logs. PVG 6 in the Project Area is part of the mixed1 fire regime, in which historical fires burned relatively frequently and maintained the dominance of earlier seral tree species, including ponderosa pine and, to a lesser degree, Douglas-fir. As a result of past fire suppression and management activities, such as historic timber harvest, large ponderosa pine are absent or reduced in these PVGs compared to desired conditions. To display the effectiveness of each alternative in meeting the purpose and need between temporary (0–3 years; 2019), short-term (3–15 years; 2025), near-term (15–25 years; 2035), and long-term (>15 years; 2055) time frames, effects were analyzed by alternative for years 2019 (following simulated thinning treatments); 2025 (following fuel abatement, prescribed burning, and regeneration); 2035 (following restoration burning and regeneration); and 2055 (long-term). Though specific years were used in the modeling and analysis (i.e., 2019, 2025, 2035, and 2055), the actual implementation date for each phase would vary. For Alternatives B and C, treatments would be the same for all locations outside of the RCA and within RCA Zones 1 and 2. Treatment differences occur in RCA Zones 3 and 4 for the action alternatives. Refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA zones.
Indicators The following vegetation indicators were analyzed to measure alternative effectiveness at meeting the Purpose and Need desired conditions and addressing issues and concerns for the vegetation resource. Landscape ecosystem resiliency measures: • Insect and disease hazard rating • Wildfire hazard rating Restoration of desired conditions to improve ecosystem resiliency measures: • Stand Density Index (relative tree density), measured as a percent of maximum (percent SDImax) • Percent of ponderosa pine species composition • Landscape biodiversity, measured by the wildfire hazard rating • Meadow and aspen restoration, measured by acres of meadow restoration • RCA restoration, measured by the wildfire hazard rating in the RCA and effects to large woody debris
33 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Environmental Effects
Landscape Ecosystem Resiliency Effects to Insects and Disease Hazard Rating
Summary: Alternative A would result in a moderate insect and disease rating and trend towards high/moderate-high by 2055. Alternative B would stay within the desired condition of low-moderate through the long term. Alternative C would deviate from the desired condition toward a moderate rating in the long term. Therefore, Alternative B would contribute the greatest to landscape ecosystem resiliency.
Direct and Indirect Effects Primary insects and diseases of concern within the Project Area are western pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, Ipps pine engraver, western spruce budworm, and Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine mistletoe. The insect and disease hazard was quantified for the Project Area using the stand susceptibility rating system (Jorgensen 2013). Hazard numbers are 1 (low), 1.5 (low- moderate), 2 (moderate), 2.5 (moderate-high), and 3 (high). This hazard rating was used to assess ecosystem resiliency, with a desirable low-moderate (1.5) hazard, allowing for endemic levels of disturbance and associated snag and coarse woody debris recruitment, while reducing the likelihood for uncharacteristic levels of disturbance. Individual stands could fluctuate above or below this condition, but endemic disturbances would regulate the condition between stands and, therefore, perpetuate landscape resiliency. Figure 5 shows the existing condition for insect and disease hazard rating is outside the desired condition and trends away from the desired condition, shown by the red box, under Alternative A. Through manipulating forest structure (density, horizontal and vertical distribution) and composition (favoring early seral species such as ponderosa pine and western larch), Alternative B would stay within the desired condition throughout the modeling horizon. Alternative C would deviate from the desired condition over the long term (2055).
34 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
3.0
2.5 Desired Range Desired 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 Insect and Disease Hazard Rating Hazard Disease and Insect 2019 2025 2035 2055 Year
Alt A Alt B Alt C
Figure 5. Insect and disease composite hazard rating summarized for the Project Area by alternative and simulation year
Effects to Wildfire Hazard Rating
Summary: Alternative A would result in a very high wildfire hazard rating. For Alternatives B and C, the wildfire hazard would be reduced to moderate, and Alternative B would provide the lowest wildfire hazard for all modeled years, therefore contributing the most to landscape ecosystem resiliency.
Direct and Indirect Effects The wildfire hazard rating summarizes horizontal and vertical tree structure and surface fuel conditions, combining crowning index (canopy connectivity and density) and torching index (tree heights/age). Ratings are 1 (low), 2 (moderate), 3 (high), 4 (very high), and 5 (extreme). The desired condition relative to wildfire hazard equates to a moderate rating, which would consist of forest conditions consistent with the historical disturbance processes that occurred within the various vegetation types. Science suggests conditions that emulate historical levels of disturbance result in the highest level of ecosystem functionality and species diversity, which is important to overall landscape resiliency. For this reason, wildfire hazard rating was used to assess landscape resiliency and patch/pattern diversity for each alternative through time. The Project Area has a high wildfire hazard rating and is outside of desired conditions, shown by the red box in Figure 6, and portions of the Project Area are highly susceptible to a stand- replacing wildfire due to abundant ladder fuels, decadent brush, and continuous canopies. Under Alternative A, this condition would progress towards a very high rating. Following vegetation treatment proposed under Alternatives B and C, the wildfire hazard would be reduced to moderate in 2019 (Figure 6), consistent with Forest Plan Objective 1647. Following the completion of all fuel abatement activities in 2025, the wildfire hazard would be at its lowest level for the modeling horizon, showing a distinguishable difference between the action alternatives with Alternative B displaying the most reduced hazard. The distinction
35 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
between action alternatives would be further expanded by 2035, following the restoration burn, though both alternatives would maintain a moderate wildfire hazard. The variance can be attributed to the different thinning treatments within the RCAs and lack of direct ignition in RCAs proposed under Alternative C. In the absence of disturbance from 2035 to 2055, both action alternatives would transition back into a high wildfire hazard rating. However, over the same time period, Alternative A would result in a very high rating. Alternative B would provide the lowest wildfire hazard for all modeled years.
4.0
3.0 Desired Range Desired
2.0
1.0 Wildfire Hazard Rating Hazard Wildfire
0.0 2019 2025 2035 2055 Year
Alt A Alt B Alt C
Figure 6. Wildfire hazard rating as modeled in the Forest Vegetation Simulator for the High Valley Project for all alternatives by modeled year
Restoration of Desired Conditions to Improve Ecosystem Resiliency Effects to Stand Density Index
Summary: Alternative A would become further departed from the desired condition, reaching the self-thinning stage of relative density by 2055. Alternative B would stay within the desired range throughout the modeling horizon. Alternative C would stay within the desired range, until the long term, when it would exceed the competitive exclusion stage and enter the full site occupancy stage of relative density. Alternative B would provide the most benefit to relative density throughout all modeled years, therefore showing the most improvement for ecosystem resiliency.
Direct and Indirect Effects Tree density, commonly referred to as stand density, provides a measure for assessing important ecological thresholds that govern tree vigor and the ability to withstand endemic disturbances and requirements for regeneration of early seral species (e.g., ponderosa pine). Stand Density Index (SDI) is an expression of relative density based on the predictable relationship between average tree size and trees per acre. This relationship, independent of both stand age and site quality, provides a basis to develop an understanding of the competitive interactions between individuals in a population. For this reason, SDImax was
36 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
selected as a measure to address ecosystem resiliency. SDImax is the stand density index measured as a percent of maximum. The desired condition for stand density is maintaining an average density in the Project Area between 25% and 40% SDImax, which would allow for the desired diversity of density and structural components across the landscape, promote ecosystem resiliency, and reduce the hazard for uncharacteristic disturbance events.3 Stand density for the Project Area is currently outside the desired condition for relative density, exhibiting features of the full site occupancy stage, with minimal forage production, limited opportunities for regeneration of early seral species, and decreased growth into the large tree size class. Inter-tree competition is reducing tree vigor, limiting the ability to recover from endemic stressors and making trees more susceptible to uncharacteristic disturbances. Though predominantly ponderosa pine, tree densities within plantations are resulting in inter-tree competition which is substantially slowing progression toward the inter-connected large tree patches lacking in the Project Area. In the absence of disturbance, Alternative A would become further departed from the desired condition, as indicated by the red box in Figure 7, reaching the self-thinning stage of relative density. Under this condition, opportunities for regeneration of early seral species would be scarce to non-existent, providing no opportunity to correct desired species composition. Structural diversity would be limited to established trees, and canopy densities would continue to homogenize. Most trees not currently in the upper diameter of the medium tree size class would likely die before reaching the large tree size class. Plantations would become stagnant, producing small incremental growth and competitive-induced mortality, and in the absence of an uncharacteristic disturbance event, would create limited opportunities for expanded growing space. As succession homogenizes conditions in later stages, wildlife habitat quality for species such as the white-headed woodpecker and flammulated owl would be degraded and the high demand for water would reduce and diminish riparian functions. Aspen clones would begin to die off and meadow encroachment would accelerate. Due to the competition-induced stress on trees, the likelihood for an uncharacteristic disturbance event would increase. Following treatments proposed under Alternatives B and C, tree density levels for the Project Area would drop into the competitive exclusion stage by 2019 (Figure 7). For Alternatives B and C, target densities for thinning 868 acres of plantations would be 20%–30% SDImax, and 502 acres of plantations would be prescribed burned. These activities would improve long-term growth and opportunity to reach the large tree size class and create tree groups and openings allowing for regeneration. Over the long term, proposed vegetation treatments
3 Research suggests that relative densities between 35% and 40% SDImax are appropriate for capturing “near maximum” stand growth, while a 25% SDImax represents the onset of competition (Long and Shaw 2005), providing a valid ecological range for managing resiliency. Using this approach, stands in need of regeneration to achieve desired species composition should be managed at or below 25% SDImax. Stands managed below 40% SDImax would exhibit less competitive stress than stands exceeding this level, expediting residual tree growth into the large tree size class. Stands exceeding 60% SDImax are in the self-thinning stage. The self- thinning stage exhibits high competitive stress with minimal-to-no forage production and exhibits stagnation with minimum individual tree diameter growth and low resiliency from stand-replacing disturbance events.
37 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
would increase the structural diversity necessary to develop functional old forest habitat and source habitat for white-headed woodpeckers and flammulated owls. Restoration burning would maintain the desired range of tree density conditions for Alternative B through 2035. Due to the lack of prescribed burning and limited tree thinning within RCAs, Alternative C would progress into full site occupancy over this same timeframe, departing from the desired condition for relative density by 2055, while Alternative B would hover at the upper end. Alternative A would continue in a departed condition for all years. Alternative B would provide the most benefit to relative density throughout all modeled years; therefore, showing the most improvement for ecosystem resiliency.
70 60 50 Desired Range Desired 40 30
Percent SDImax 20 10 0 2019 2025 2035 2055 Year
Alt A Alt B Alt C
Figure 7. Relative tree density, measured as a percentage of maximum Stand Density Index, for all alternatives through the modeling horizon
Effects to Species Composition
Summary: Under Alternative A, ponderosa pine species composition would fall below 30% in the long term, becoming further departed from the desired condition. Though Alternatives B and C would increase ponderosa pine species composition over the long term, Alternative B would show the greatest improvement in ponderosa pine species composition, rising to nearly 50% in the long term, and, subsequently, would show the greatest improvement to ecosystem resiliency.
Direct and Indirect Effects A guiding attribute of ecosystem resiliency is species composition, with early seral tree species, such as ponderosa pine, facilitating important ecosystem processes. Ponderosa pine is a focus for restoration, in part, because as an early seral species it is known to have characteristics reflective of resilience, such as thick bark, resin, a high crown-base height ratio, and an extensive rooting zone, but also because of its relative importance to focal wildlife species. The presence of ponderosa pine is reflective of a healthy ecosystem consisting of diversity in patch structure, with forest openings large enough for its
38 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
regeneration and enough light to allow for the persistence and growth of a shade-intolerant species. For these reasons, species composition of ponderosa pine, measured as a percentage of SDI, was selected as a measure to address ecosystem resiliency. The desired species composition for ponderosa pine is 80% in the nonlethal fire regime and 60% within the mixed1 fire regime. Considering 82% of the Project Area falls within the mixed1 fire regime, 60% was used as the desired condition for the Project Area as a whole, indicated by the red line in Figure 8. Ponderosa pine composition is currently only about 31%. The combination of past management activities and absence of fire disturbance has resulted in an existing condition dominated by late seral grand fir, a species which is less resilient to disturbance than ponderosa pine. Grand fir is overabundant in the overstory and understory of PVG 6, exceeding the desired conditions for species composition by a wide margin. Additionally, Douglas-fir is also overabundant in PVGs 2 and 5 within the Project Area. Under Alternative A, ponderosa pine species composition would diminish through time, further departing from the desired condition and falling below 30% by 2055 (Figure 8). Silvicultural prescriptions proposed under Alternatives B and C have been designed to retain and recruit development of early seral (e.g., ponderosa pine) large diameter trees to enhance and promote wildlife habitat emphasized by the WCS (please refer to Appendix B: Silvicultural Prescriptions). Vegetation treatments proposed under Alternatives B and C would create forested stands which would emulate stands experiencing frequent low- or mixed-severity fire disturbances and develop into old forest habitat, which has been described as uneven-aged stands composed of relatively small, even-aged groups or patches interspersed with herbaceous openings and canopy gaps (Kaufman et al. 2007). Legacy and legacy-like trees would be protected with Design Feature VM-2 to conserve these ecologically unique and limited resources. Design Feature VM-1 would ensure stands currently meeting the definition of large tree size class would retain the minimum number of large trees (≥20 inches dbh) necessary to retain that condition. A primary objective of treatment is to expand the overall patch size of old forest habitat, consistent with Forest Plan Objective 1672. Following the proposed vegetation treatments, species composition of ponderosa pine would improve under both action alternatives, with Alternative B exceeding 40% in 2019. The composition of ponderosa pine represented on the landscape would continue to improve through time for both action alternatives, with Alternative B showing the greatest amount of improvement, rising to nearly 50% by 2055 (Figure 8).
39 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
60.0 Desired ≥60 Mixed1; ≥80 Nonlethal≥60 Desired Mixed1; ≥80 50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Ponderosa Pine Species Composition Species Pine Ponderosa 2019 2025 2035 2055 Year
Alt A Alt B Alt C
Figure 8. Ponderosa pine species composition, measured as a percentage of Stand Density Index, for all alternatives through the modeling horizon
Effects to Landscape Biodiversity
Summary: Alternative A would have lower biodiversity compared to Alternatives B and C as conditions would homogenize to a grand fir cover type with contiguous dense canopy cover and ladder fuels. Activities proposed under Alternatives B and C are essential tools to restore degraded forest conditions and effects and would restore forest resources to desired conditions, including the natural biodiversity inherent in the nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes across the landscape.
Direct and Indirect Effects A commenter was concerned during the scoping process that proposed activities for Alternatives B and C would harm forest resources and reduce biodiversity, such as weak and dying conifer trees. However, the intent of the High Valley Project is to develop or maintain the types of diversity that would have occurred historically. Vegetation is a cornerstone of biological diversity, and many biophysical processes and functions are connected to vegetative conditions. Vegetation is an integral part of ecosystem composition, function, and structure: vegetation shapes, and in turn, is shaped by the ecosystems in which it occurs. It provides plant and animal habitat and determines how fire, insects, disease, and other disturbance processes and functions operate across the landscape. Vegetative condition is often the single most important component determining how landscapes are used and the interactions between biological and physical resources. Conservation of biodiversity is important at all levels, including genetic, species, and ecosystem, and vegetation unites a large share of the components and processes contributing to these levels. Landscape ecology involves understanding the basic principles of structure, function, and change and using these principles to formulate and resolve issues. Another important concept in understanding landscapes is spatial and temporal scales. Landscapes function as multi-
40 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment level, cross-connected, patchwork hierarchies, with patterns and processes interacting across 4 spatial scales: ecoregion, local landscape, successional patches, and tree neighborhoods (Hessburg 2015). The Project Area is used to reflect the landscape (local landscape as described above), which is the unit of measure for characterizing patch, pattern, and resiliency to disturbances important to biodiversity. Fire (i.e., historical fire regimes) and insects and disease operated within a historic range of variability, and the intent of the High Valley Project is not to eliminate these disturbance processes or to move the hazard in all stands to low levels, but rather, to create conditions across the landscape where these processes would operate endemically. This distinction is important because these disturbance agents and associated processes contribute to functional components such as snags, cavities for nesting, and coarse woody debris, as well as provide a food source for many wildlife species. The wildfire hazard rating incorporates metrics such as surface fuels (coarse woody debris), canopy cover (connectivity), multi-story conditions (ladder fuels), and to an extent, species composition (shade-tolerant species such as grand fir have lower crown-based height and result in a higher fire hazard). These components can be used to describe landscape ecosystem health and create linkages between the vegetation, fire/fuels, and wildlife resources. When the wildfire hazard rating is modeled spatially with ArcGIS and temporally with Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Figure 9), it is a useful tool for assessing effects to major disturbance processes, including the variability and scale that organize ecosystem components such as successional patches and tree neighborhoods (tree group/clump structure), governing “bottom-up” control of landscape processes and patterns (Hessburg 2015). Alternative A would have lower biodiversity compared to Alternatives B and C as conditions homogenize to a grand fir cover type with contiguous dense canopy cover and ladder fuels. The lack of biodiversity under Alternative A is depicted in Figure 9. Alternatives B and C emphasize development of conditions that would function as old forest habitat, which includes snags and large down logs of desirable species (e.g., ponderosa pine), as well as tree groups and clumps dominated by early seral species. These conditions are a particular focus of the treatments in plantations where the objective is to reduce the uniform spacing created from the initial planting by developing more natural groups of irregularly spaced clumps. Because fire, insects, and disease were historically the primary disturbance agents for the High Valley landscape, facilitating the largest change and shaping the landscape patch and pattern, the wildfire hazard rating and insect and disease composite rating were used to compare landscape resiliency between alternatives. Using the wildfire hazard rating, Figure 9 highlights how the action alternatives would create biodiversity in tree structure and coarse woody debris (surface fuels) relative to patch and pattern across the landscape compared to Alternative A. These changes to patch and pattern shown in Figure 9 are important components for landscape resiliency and wildlife habitat connectivity, and they facilitate migration and opportunities for nesting and foraging habitat, while reducing the threat for uncharacteristic disturbance events. Thus, activities proposed under Alternatives B and C are essential tools to restore degraded forest conditions to desired conditions, including the natural biodiversity inherent in the nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes.
41 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Figure 9. Landscape patch and pattern, as measured with the wildfire hazard rating following all proposed treatments in 2035 for Alternatives A, B, and C
42 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Effects to Meadow and Aspen Restoration
Summary: No meadow or aspen restoration is proposed under Alternative A. Alternatives B and C propose 234 acres of restoration, but Alternative B would provide the greatest benefit because larger conifers competing with aspen and meadow integrity could be removed and direct ignition of prescribed fire could occur in portions of the RCA, therefore, showing the greatest improvement in ecosystem resiliency.
Direct and Indirect Effects Historically, fire helped maintain the ecotone between meadows and forested stands and assisted with the persistence of seral aspen throughout the landscape. Over time, without disturbance, as conifers become established, soil conditions beneath their canopies begin to change, making seedbeds more conducive to establishment of conifer and forest shrub and herb species and less conducive to meadow species. This interaction is similar for aspen; over time, without disturbance, aspen patches shift to conifers as conifers establish within the aspen. However, with historical fire regimes in nonlethal and mixed1 landscapes, these small and scattered aspen inclusions would persist through low-to-high intensity fire. Currently, meadow encroachment is occurring with an ecotone shift from meadow to forest along the Forest boundary and along the border of stands designated as non-forested within the Project Area. Fire exclusion has allowed coniferous trees (e.g., ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine) to populate areas they did not inhabit in the presence of the historical fire regime. Though aspen is present throughout most of the Project Area, the majority of the forested acres within the Project Area are dominated by conifer species, with aspen occurring primarily as small inclusions within stands or along stand edges. The lack of historical disturbances (e.g., fire) is homogenizing the landscape towards climax conditions, resulting in decreased structural diversity, vigor, and the extent of aspen across the Project Area. Since no treatments would occur under Alternative A, no benefits, such as increased species and structural diversity, vigor, and extent, to meadows or aspen patches would occur, and meadow encroachment and forest succession would continue, leading to the loss of meadow and aspen patches. Alternatives B and C would benefit meadows by maintaining the ecotone between meadows and forested stands through removal of encroaching conifers on 234 acres. Additionally, aspen structure, distribution, and diversity would be improved throughout the Project Area where tree density reduction is proposed. Where meadows and aspen patches overlap RCAs, treatments would be the same under Alternatives B and C up to 75 feet from the stream channel and would generally be of low benefit because only non-commercial thinning would occur in RCA Zone 2. Alternative B, which would allow direct ignition of fire 75 feet and further from streams and would remove larger conifers competing with aspen and meadow integrity in RCA Zone 4 (Refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA zones), would provide more benefit than Alternative C, which would not allow direct ignition and would limit conifer removal within RCAs.
43 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Effects to Riparian Conservation Areas Restoration
Summary: Alternative A would result in a very high wildfire hazard rating within RCAs. Alternatives B and C would improve tree resiliency to uncharacteristic disturbance within the RCAs, as measured by the wildfire hazard rating, and would reduce the wildfire hazard to moderate. Alternative B would provide the lowest wildfire hazard for all modeled years; therefore, showing the greatest improvement in ecosystem resiliency. Current large woody debris and recruitment are functioning appropriately and are not expected to be negatively affected by Alternatives A, B, or C.
Direct and Indirect Effects Riparian vegetation is functioning at risk due to localized impacts from timber harvest, roads, recreation, and livestock grazing, resulting in undesirable tree densities, species composition, and wildfire hazard. Fire suppression and land management practices have increased the forested vegetation wildfire hazard within RCAs. Shade-tolerant climax species (e.g., grand fir) have increased ladder fuel and tree density conditions beyond what would have historically existed under a nonlethal and mixed1 fire return interval. Within the RCA, a moderate wildfire hazard is desired because, similar to desired conditions for the entire High Valley landscape, a moderate hazard would allow for the diversity of conditions inherent within a properly functioning RCA, reflecting a resilient ecosystem. No actions are proposed under Alternative A, and undesirable tree densities and species composition would persist, leading to reduced ecosystem resiliency within the RCA. Figure 10 illustrates conditions would continue to depart from desired conditions, as reflected by the red box, for riparian vegetation measured using the wildfire hazard rating. Conversely, Alternatives B and C would include 1,041 acres of tree thinning, and Alternative B would include 749 acres of active ignition prescribed burning treatments within RCAs. These thinning activities would increase tree growth rates, increase nutrient and water availability, improve tree vigor, and breakup and reduce tree canopy density. Prescribed burning would reduce surface fuels, raise crown base heights, and deepen rooting zones. Both treatments, combined or independently, would improve tree resiliency to uncharacteristic disturbance within RCAs as measured by the wildfire hazard rating (Figure 10). Following burning activities, the difference between ecosystem resiliency as measured by the wildfire hazard rating within RCAs for Alternatives B and C would become more pronounced in the short term (2025). By the near-term (2035), Alternative B would remain a moderate hazard while Alternative C would progress outside the desired condition towards a high hazard and Alternative A would approach a very high hazard. Alternative B would continue to show the lowest hazard by 2055, with Alternative C in the upper end of a high hazard and Alternative A closer to a very high hazard (Figure 10). Treatment in the RCA is important for reducing susceptibility to uncharacteristic wildfire. Many of the stream channels within the High Valley Project Area are small channels with very narrow riparian areas. In these cases, the majority of the RCA is composed of the same vegetative conditions as the proposed upland treatment areas. Though commercial harvest would occur in RCA Zone 4 for Alternative B (Refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for
44 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
a description of RCA zones), heavy mechanical equipment, such as skidders or yarders, would not be permitted within the RCA (Design Feature SW-1). The material would be removed from the RCA using a cable, most likely with the use of an off-road jammer equipped with cable and tongs. Typically, off-road jammers operating in the immediate area are equipped with about 300 feet of cable. The RCA Zone 4 width is within the operable constraints of an off-road jammer.
Figure 10. Wildfire hazard rating summarized within Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) zones by alternative and year
Of the elements listed as important for riparian processes and ecological functions in the Appendix B of the Forest Plan, stream shading, sediment control, and large woody debris recruitment are the elements most likely to be affected by vegetation treatments within the RCAs. Please refer to the “Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section for a discussion on stream temperature and sedimentation; large woody debris will be discussed here. Large wood enters stream channels by a variety of mechanisms, including the toppling of dead trees, windthrow, debris avalanches, deep seated soil movements, undercutting of streambanks, and redistribution from upstream sources. Because landslides are unlikely within most of the Project Area as only 1% of the Project Area is considered moderate-to- high risk for landslides, most of the large woody debris recruitment in the High Valley analysis area would originate from RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3 (refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA zones). Currently, large woody debris is functioning appropriately within the areas proposed for treatment. Since no commercial timber harvest would occur in RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3, changes to large woody debris recruitment would be negligible, and current and future large woody debris
45 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
recruitment would be maintained under Alternatives B and C. For Alternatives B and C, the 684 and 1,041 acres, respectively, of non-commercial thinning within the RCA would increase growth into the large tree size class and provide potential large woody debris sooner than would occur under overstocked conditions for Alternative A. Promoting mature tree growth and future large woody debris recruitment would increase shading (lowering stream temperatures); channel complexity/pool formation; and sediment storage capacity (refer to soil, hydrology, and fisheries resource technical reports) and would reduce the potential for undesirable wildfire effects (Figure 10). The benefit of commercially treating 357 acres within the RCAs under Alternative B would be improved ecosystem resiliency and reduced risk of an uncharacteristic wildfire because these treatments would remove trees throughout all size classes and reduce stand densities compared to Alternative C (Figure 10). In the context of the commercial vegetation treatments proposed under Alternative B, which include removing logs within RCA Zone 4, the vegetation, fisheries, and hydrology resource analyses conclude that trees proposed to be felled within the RCA are not needed for achieving soil, water, riparian, and aquatic (SWRA) desired conditions. This determination is based on the analysis of riparian processes and ecological functions as well as associated WCIs found in the Hydrology and Fisheries sections. Additionally, the High Valley Project identifies a need to address upland vegetation conditions within RCAs that are departed from desired conditions primarily due to higher stand densities and abundance of ladder fuels. Commercial treatment in RCA Zone 4 is intended to address Purpose 1, Need 7 to “Manage vegetation in riparian conservation areas (RCA) to reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire and restore ecological functions”. Removing trees felled within the RCA is an important component of addressing this need because departed vegetative conditions and associated risks to riparian-upland transition zones would not be addressed through non-commercial mechanical treatment alone. By establishing a trend toward desired vegetation conditions, riparian-upland transition zones are expected to be more resilient when subjected to natural disturbance processes. This resiliency to disturbance processes is important for maintaining a trend toward properly functioning riparian and ecological processes such as controlling long-term sediment, properly shading streams, and maintaining a sufficient amount of recruitable large woody debris. These conclusions provide rationale for consistency with Forest Plan Standard SWST10 and Forest Plan Objective 1624.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for the vegetation resource is the Little Squaw Creek watershed. This watershed was determined to be an appropriate boundary as watersheds tend to encapsulate important ecosystem functions and processes related to vegetation. The High Valley Project falls within the Upper and Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatersheds. Also included in the Little Squaw Creek watershed is the Soldier Creek subwatershed, which is primarily State and private ownership. Past and ongoing activities within the Project Area were considered in the baseline data and accounted for in the existing condition and vegetation discussions. One ongoing timber sale on private property (Potlatch Timber Corporation) and two reasonably foreseeable future timber sales on State ownership are known.
46 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Because Alternative A would not change the current trend in departure from desired vegetative conditions, an increase in the likelihood for an uncharacteristic disturbance event could result in the loss of wildlife habitat, property, life, and ecosystem services. Fire suppression costs under this alternative would continue to grow as potential fire behavior becomes less predictable, requiring more expensive suppression strategies. Collectively, the direct and indirect effects of actions proposed under Alternatives B and C would contribute to the improvement of the vegetation resource within the Project Area and the cumulative effects analysis area. Although the proposal to construct a new road to provide the State of Idaho an access point into State lands does not automatically trigger other actions on those lands, if the Idaho Department of Lands would treats the identified section within the WUI, their vegetation treatments would cumulatively improve landscape resiliency when combined with the action alternatives. In general, State and private lands have been treated more intensively due to differences in regulations that govern management. As a result, forested stands on State and private lands lack structural diversity, have fewer snags and less potential for snag creation, and have fewer large trees; thus, wildfire hazard is often low. Implementing the proposed activities would improve vegetative conditions for the Project Area as a whole; therefore, improving landscape resiliency for the cumulative effects area. The action alternatives are designed to improve forest resiliency to wildfire, which would allow more opportunities for indirect suppression strategies and a broader maintenance of ecological processes throughout the Little Squaw Creek Watershed.
Fire and Fuels This section describes how the alternatives address Purpose 2, to reduce the fuels hazard and risk of crown fire spread within the WUI. Specifically, how treatments included in an alternative reduce the risk of wildfire to values within the WUI based on their spatial context, relationship to topography, fire and weather patterns, and hazards on adjacent non-NFS lands are disclosed. In addition, how each alternative responds to the request by the Idaho Department of Lands for long-term management access to State Endowment Lands and the importance of this access to help facilitate overall wildfire hazard reduction efforts within the WUI are also disclosed. Refer to the fire and fuels resource technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis for this resource section.
Background A fuels treatment matrix was designed to help What is the Wildland-Urban determine the appropriate method, location, and timing for treatment. In addition to the parameters defined in Interface? the fuels treatment matrix, the method identified for activity fuel treatment was based on hazard (fuel The wildland-urban interface conditions/potential fire behavior) and risk (fire (WUI) is the line, area, or zone occurrence/typical fire spread). A WUI Protection where structures and other Flow Chart was developed to identify appropriate human developments meet or locations for more intense activity fuel abatement intermingle with wildland or methods, such as pile and burn or mastication, relative vegetative fuel. to the spatial context of structures. Structures were
47 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
located using a combination of data provided by Valley County, field surveys, and aerial imagery. Using prescribed fire addresses two separate needs and has, therefore, been separated into two categories for the High Valley Project. The first category focuses on fuels abatement activities designed to mitigate the wildfire hazard associated with fuels created from vegetation treatments (activity fuels) and to address wildfire hazard resulting from existing surface fuels (natural fuels). The second prescribed fire category is focused on restoration. Restoration burning is proposed to culture vegetative attributes (crown base height, root depth, and understory composition); reduce surface fuels; regulate the proportion of small coarse woody debris; and maintain tree densities. It would also foster ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling, favor early seral species composition, regulate succession, maintain diversity, improve cavity creation potential, prepare sites for regeneration, and affect most biogeochemical processes. Refer to Appendix B: Silvicultural Prescriptions for additional information on prescribed fire treatments proposed by the High Valley Project. Effects were analyzed by alternative for years 2019 (following simulated thinning treatments), 2024 (following fuel abatement and prescribed burning treatments), 2034 (following restoration burning treatments), and 2055 (long term).
Indicators Wildfire Hazard Rating • The wildfire hazard rating is described as the 20-foot wind speed necessary to move a surface fire through the understory into the crowns and sustain an active crown fire and is a function of the composite rating of the torching index and the crowning index. The wildfire hazard rating is divided into 5 categories: low, moderate, high, very high, and extreme. Access for the Idaho Department of Lands to State Endowment Lands • Each alternative was also measured by whether or not access for the Idaho Department of Lands to State Endowment Lands is facilitated.
Environmental Effects
Effects to Wildfire Hazard Rating in the Wildland Urban Interface and Non-Wildland- Urban Interface
Summary: Alternative A would result in a very high wildfire hazard rating across the Project Area. For Alternatives B and C, the wildfire hazard would be reduced to moderate, with Alternative B providing the lowest wildfire hazard for all modeled years. The wildfire hazard rating would be reduced substantially for all years within the WUI under Alternatives B and C compared to Alternative A, lowering the risk of sustained crown fire and reducing the potential for erratic fire behavior, undesirable fire effects, and the threat to structures. Alternative B would the greatest improvement for wildfire hazard reduction within the WUI.
48 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Direct and Indirect Effects The desired wildfire hazard rating within the WUI is low to moderate. A rating of low to moderate indicates forest conditions could withstand higher wind speeds with trace occurrences of active crown fire initiation and spread. Less intense wildfires would allow for safer and more successful suppression tactics using ground resources. Currently, the wildfire hazard rating indicates a majority of the Project Area is high or very high with isolated pockets rated as extreme. Potential fire behavior associated with these wildfire hazard ratings is undesirable, particularly within the WUI. The desired wildfire hazard rating within the WUI encapsulates the desired condition for landscape ecosystem resiliency and patch/pattern diversity, accommodating for spatial locations where having a low wildfire hazard is necessary to allow for safe and effective wildfire management for values at risk. Wildfire hazard would be strategically reduced to protect values at risk through more intense surface fuel treatments, such as pile and burning versus lop and scatter. Wildfire Hazard Rating Across the Project Area Under Alternative A, wildfire hazard within and outside the WUI would trend towards very high with an increased portion of areas classified as having an extreme wildfire hazard rating by 2055. Following vegetative and fuel abatement treatments proposed under Alternatives B and C, conditions would trend towards a low wildfire hazard in 2024, particularly within the WUI, reflecting a more manageable potential fire behavior condition consistent with Forest Plan Objective 1647 (Figure 11). The lower left panel of Figure 11 displays an expanded view of changes within the RCAs for Alternatives B and C. Implementing Alternatives B and C would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire behavior within the analysis area by reducing overstory density, reducing ladder fuels, and treating activity fuels; thereby limiting the fire’s ability to transition from a surface fire to a crown fire and perpetuate through the crowns. Fuel reduction activities would be conducted across the Project Area.
49 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Figure 11. Wildfire hazard rating in the year 2024 by alternative
50 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Wildfire Hazard Rating within the Wildland-Urban Interface Under Alternative A, the wildfire hazard rating within the WUI would be outside the desired range for all modeling years (shown by the red box in Figure 12). Based on the assessment of wildfire hazard rating for Alternative A, if a wildfire were to occur and a surface fire transitioned to the crowns, stand replacement fire behavior would likely result for all modeled years. This type of fire behavior would be a challenge to suppress before reaching values at risk within the WUI, particularly during periods of extreme drought and erratic weather conditions. Suppressing wildfire would likely be less safe and more difficult and costly due to the expected increase in erratic fire behavior conditions likely to result under Alternative A. The wildfire hazard rating would be reduced substantially for all years within the WUI under Alternatives B and C compared to Alternative A, lowering the risk of sustained crown fire and reducing the potential for erratic fire behavior; undesirable fire effects (size, intensity, and severity); and the threat to structures consistent with Forest Plan Objective 1655 (Figure 12). For both action alternatives, the wildfire hazard increases in 2034, but stays within desired conditions within the WUI; by 2055, the rating would increase outside the desired range. If a wildfire initiated within the Project Area, greater flexibility in the use of suppression tactics would be available for the action alternatives compared to Alternative A. Breaking up fuel continuity across the landscape would increase the likelihood that if a crown fire were to initiate, it would exhibit passive crown fire behavior and return to a surface fire. Treatments proposed under Alternative C would result in slightly less hazard reduction in RCA Zones 3 and 4 compared to Alternative B because fewer acres would be commercially treated (Figure 13; refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA Zones). Alternative B would provide the greatest improvement for wildfire hazard reduction, sufficiently reducing the potential fire behavior within the WUI to allow for safe and effective wildfire management (Figure 13).
51 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Desired Desired
Figure 12. Wildfire hazard rating by alternative summarized for stands within the wildland-urban interface (WUI)
Figure 13. Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) contribution to wildfire hazard rating for the wildland-urban interface (WUI) by alternative and RCA zone
52 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Effects to Access
Summary: Alternative A does not provide access to State Endowment Lands. Alternatives B and C provide access to State Endowment Lands.
Direct and Indirect Effects The Idaho Department of Lands does not have access through the Project Area to State Endowment Lands. Under Alternative A, access through the Project Area to State Endowment Lands would not change. Under Alternatives B and C, Idaho Department of Lands would have access through the Project Area to State Endowment Lands through the construction of a new road. Based on past tree density and surface fuel activities completed in similar vegetation types by Idaho Department of Lands, if the State were to conduct vegetation management activities on State land, these activities are likely to facilitate wildfire hazard reduction efforts within the WUI and support Forest Plan Objectives FROB02 and FROB05.
Cumulative Effects Past and ongoing activities within the Project Area were considered in the baseline data and accounted for in the existing condition and fire and fuels discussions. Though the proposal to construct a new road to provide the State of Idaho an access point to State lands does not automatically trigger other actions on those State lands, if Idaho Department of Lands would treat the identified section within the WUI, their vegetation treatments would cumulatively reduce the wildfire hazard when combined with the action alternatives. In addition, one reasonably foreseeable timber sale on State land and one ongoing timber sale on private land (Potlatch Timber Corporation) are planned within the cumulative effects area. Collectively, the direct and indirect effects of actions proposed under Alternatives B and C when combined with the foreseeable and ongoing tree reduction projects outside the Project Area would contribute to the improvement of the wildfire hazard rating within the Project Area and the cumulative effects analysis area. The action alternatives are designed to improve forest resilience to wildfire, which would allow more opportunities for indirect suppression strategies and a broader maintenance of ecological processes throughout the Little Squaw Creek watershed.
Wildlife This section documents the wildlife species considered in this analysis, including the effects determination for TEPC species, Region 4 Sensitive species, migratory birds, and management indicator species (MIS). The section describes how the alternatives address Purpose 1, Need 6, to restore forested habitat for two wildlife focal species within the forest types they historically occupied, including the white-headed woodpecker in PVGs 2, 5, and 6 and the flammulated owl in PVG 6. This section also describes how the alternatives address Purpose 3, Needs 1 and 2, to reduce undesirable impacts to riparian and wetland habitat. Two focal species were assessed to help determine how well the alternatives address this need: Columbia spotted-frog (Rana luteiventris) and North American beaver (Castor canadensis).
53 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
An additional focus of this section describes how the alternatives address Purpose 3, Need 2, to reduce road related disturbance What is a Focal Species? impacts to wildlife species. Rocky Mountain elk (Cervis elaphus) was the selected focal Focal species are those species selected species for this portion of the analysis. during fine scale analysis to represent This section concludes with a brief discussion other species within a source habitat family and to address expected or of effects to Forest MIS and species associated potential changes to key ecosystem with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. attributes. The species used in this Refer to the wildlife resource technical report analysis were selected by evaluating available in the project record, including the key environmental conditions and Biological Assessment (BA) for ESA listed ecological functions associated with species in the family and selecting species and Biological Evaluation (BE) for species representing those correlates sensitive species, for the detailed supporting and functions potentially affected by analysis. the action alternatives. Additional species were selected as Background focal species to implement species The wildlife species considered in the analysis specific forest plan direction (i.e., elk of the High Valley Project included all and beaver). TEPCS, MIS, and migratory birds. Focal The focal species concept is described species were selected from this list, and then by Lambeck (1997) and a discussion of used in this assessment to disclose expected or this concept can be found in the 2010 potential effects of alternatives. The selection Forest Plan Wildlife Technical Report (Nutt et al. 2010). of focal species used for analysis was determined by the following rationale to first screen TEPCS species as potential focal species: • The project area and Emmett Ranger District are outside the current and historic range for the greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus); therefore, this species was not selected. • Eight species (southern Idaho ground squirrel [Spermophilus brunneus endemicus], northern Idaho ground squirrel [Spermophilus brunneus brunneus], bighorn sheep, peregrine falcon, yellow-billed cuckoo, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, spotted bat and common loon) were not selected due to the lack of source habitat and/or key habitat features within the Project Area. • Five species (three-toed woodpecker, boreal owl and great gray owl, Canada lynx, and wolverine) associated with forested habitats were not selected as focal species because they do not use stands in PVGs 2, 5, and 6; the only PVGs present within or adjacent to the Project Area as source habitat. • Eleven species remained that could potentially be present within the project area and that were closely tied to forested and range habitat (white-headed woodpecker, black- backed woodpecker and pileated woodpecker, fisher, northern goshawk, flammulated
54 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
owl, gray wolf, mountain quail, and Townsend’s big-eared bat) and riverine and non- riverine riparian and wetland habitat (bald eagle and Columbia spotted frog). The white-headed woodpecker and the flammulated owl were chosen from the list of TEPCS species to represent, respectively, effects to source habitat for species that utilize low- elevation old forest and broad-elevation old forest. The Columbia spotted frog was chosen to represent effects to riverine riparian and wetland habitats. An additional species, the North American beaver was included in this analysis as a focal species to help address the ecological importance of restoring/enhancing the Little Squaw Creek wetland. Lastly, the Rocky Mountain elk was selected as a focal species due the species’ sensitivity to disturbance from roads and trails, which makes it useful to discuss potential impacts from road and related-road management activities (e.g., road construction, reconstruction and maintenance). Therefore, effects of the High Valley Project on habitat were assessed through analyses of proposed activities on these 5 selected focal species: white-headed woodpecker, flammulated owl, Columbia spotted frog, North American beaver, and Rocky Mountain elk. These 5 species will be the only species discussed in detail in this EA. The focal species concept is described by Lambeck (1997) and a discussion of this concept can be found in the 2010 Forest Plan Wildlife Technical Report (Nutt et al. 2010). Additional information about wildlife species considered but not presented in detail is available in the wildlife technical report, located in the project record, which includes the BA and BE for TEPCS species.
Indicators The following wildlife indicators were analyzed to measure alternative effectiveness at meeting the purpose and need, desired conditions and addressing issues and concerns. Restoration of Forested Habitat • Effects to white-headed woodpecker suitable habitat, measured by percentage of source habitat in total project area • Effects to flammulated owl habitat, measured by percentage of source habitat in total project area Restoration of Riparian and Wetland Habitat • Effects to Columbia spotted frog habitat, as measured by the • Effects to beaver habitat, as measured by the restoration of wetland habitat Reduction in Wildlife Habitat Disturbance Effects related to Roads • Effects to Rocky Mountain elk habitat, measured by changes in road density and related management activities that influence security cover Management Indicator Species • Effects to white-headed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, and black-backed woodpecker, measured by impacts to source habitat within the project area compared to across the planning unit.
55 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Migratory Birds • Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, measured by the effectiveness of included design features to minimize disturbance during breeding seasons, retaining key habitat features such as snags important to breeding sites.
Environmental Effects Table 6 summarizes the wildlife species considered by source habitat suite and family, each species’ status, whether or not it was selected as a focal species, and the What is Source Habitat? effects determination for TEPC, and R4 Sensitive species for Alternatives B and C of the High Valley Source Habitat: Source habitats are Project. MIS, Rocky Mountain elk, and North American those characteristics of beaver are also included in Table 6. macrovegetation (i.e., cover types and Alternative A, No Action, proposes not treatments that structural stages) that contribute to would change the current condition of wildlife habitat, stationary or positive population and therefore effects to wildlife habitat would be the growth for a species in a specified area and time (Wisdom 2000). result of natural disturbance, or lack thereof. Alternatives B and C would have No Effect/No Impact Source Habitat Family: A collection of focal species that share similarities in to the following Threatened, Endangered and Candidate source habitats, with the similarities species because they are not present in the area and/or arranged along major vegetative do not have source habitat within the project area:, themes. southern Idaho ground squirrel, northern Idaho ground Source Habitat Suite: A collection of squirrel, Canada lynx, and yellow-billed cuckoo. There source habitat families that share are no Federally Proposed species listed for the High similarities across major vegetative Valley Project Area. A total of 27 species have been themes. considered in this analysis with 5 species identified as focal species and used for effects indicators to describe how the alternatives address Purpose 1, Need 6 and Purpose 3, Need 1 and 2 (Table 6).
56 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Table 6. Wildlife species considered, species status, and associated source habitat suite and family Selected Effects Source Family Family Species Species Focal Determinationb for Habitat Number Name Statusa Species Alternatives B and C Low White-headed 1 Elevation, S/MIS Yes MIc woodpecker Old Forest American three- S No NI toed woodpecker Black-backed MIS No N/Ad woodpecker Boreal owl S No NI Broad Fisher S No NI Suite 1: 2 Elevation, Flammulated owl Yes MI Forest Only Old Forest S Great gray owl S No NI Northern S No MI goshawk Pileated MIS No N/Ad woodpecker Canada lynx T No NE Forest 3 Mountain quail S No MI Mosaic Wolverine S No NI Gray wolf S No MI Rocky Mountain Forest and S No NI bighorn sheep 5 Range Rocky Mountain Mosaic N/A Yes N/Ac elk Peregrine falcon S No NI Forests, Spotted bat S No NI Suite 2: Woodlands, 7 Townsend’s big- Combination and S No MI eared bat of Forest and Sagebrush Rangeland Greater sage 11 Sagebrush S No NI grouse Northern Idaho T No NE Grassland ground squirrel and Open- Southern Idaho 12 C/S No NI canopy ground squirrel Sagebrush Columbian sharp- S No NI tailed grouse Bald eagle S No MI Columbia spotted S Yes MI Riverine frog Suite 4: 13 Riparian and North American Riverine and N/A Yes N/A Wetland beaver Non-riverine Yellow-billed Riparian and T No NI cuckoo Wetland Non-riverine 14 riparian and Common loon S No NI wetland aSpecies Status: T=threatened; E=endangered; P=proposed; C=candidate; and; NE=Nonessential Experimental (USFWS 2015); S=sensitive (USFS R4 2013); MIS=Forest Plan management indicator species (Forest Plan Appendix E); and SOI=Species of Interest. bNI=No Impact, NE=No Effect, MI=May impact individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. cDetailed discussion is contained in this document dNo change in overall population or source habitat trend at Forest scale
57 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Restoration of Forested Habitat
Effects to White-headed Woodpecker
Summary: For Alternative A, white-headed woodpecker source habitat would be absent in the long term (2055), whereas Alternatives B and C would comparably increase source habitat to 20% and 18%, respectively, in the long term (2055), with Alternatives B and C showing the greatest improvement in 2035.
Direct and Indirect Effects White-headed woodpecker is a Region 4 Sensitive species and a MIS. This species is found mainly in open and mature ponderosa pine and mixed ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests (Moore and Frederick 1991, Wisdom et al. 2000). A strong correlation exists between white- headed woodpecker presence and large diameter (≥20 inches dbh) live and dead ponderosa pines (i.e., snags) (Blair and Servheen 1995; Dixon 1995a, 1995b, 1998; Moore and Frederick 1991). Densities of white-headed woodpeckers have been shown to increase as old forest ponderosa pine habitat increases (Dixon 1995b). Important source habitat components are an abundance of large diameter ponderosa pine trees with prolific seed production, a relatively open canopy, and availability of snags for nest cavities (Garrett et al. 1996). On the Forest, vegetative communities possibly providing source habitat conditions include PVGs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (Nutt et al. 2010). While the drier habitat types in PVGs 3 and 6 can develop cover types with ponderosa pine in the larger size classes and open canopies, these conditions are not found as commonly across the Forest as in PVGs 1, 2, and 5. Large diameter snags are an essential habitat feature for white-headed woodpecker. Currently, only 1% of the project area is classified as suitable habitat for white-headed woodpecker (Table 7). Under Alternative A, source habitat would be absent from the project area in the long term (2055) (Table 7). Both action alternatives comparably improve the distribution and quantity of habitat, with Alternative B showing slightly greater improvement over time (Table 7). Under Alternatives B and C, silvicultural treatments, combined with processes facilitated by fire, help to create and maintain an open forest canopy (canopy cover in the 25%–50% range) in large tree size class structure, dominated by ponderosa pine capable of providing white- headed woodpecker habitat. Modeling4 showed measurable improvement of source habitat under both action alternatives, consistent with Forest Plan Objective 1676 which clarifies that occupied white-headed woodpecker source habitat should be maintained and adjacent patches should be developed to facilitate movement and dispersal of individuals. Source habitat would be the highest for Alternative B (34% of project area) in 2035 (Table 7).
4 Modeling parameters used to determine source habitat for the modeling scenarios for this species were taken from Site Scale Modeling Parameters (Hergenrider 2009g) and can be found in the project record.
58 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Table 7. Modeled source white-headed woodpecker habitat, displayed as a percentage of the total project area (7,736 acres) for the High Valley Project Year Alternative 2015 2019 2025 2035 2055 Alternative A (No Action) 1% 3% 1% <1% 0% Alternative B (Proposed Action) 1% 19% 26% 34% 20% Alternative C 1% 18% 25% 32% 18%
Cumulative Effects Past activities have contributed to the existing condition by removing large ponderosa pine trees, facilitating removal of snags for fuelwood collection, or altering ecological disturbance processes such that ecological functions have been compromised by changes in tree species composition and size class. These activities include timber sales and salvage, the firewood program, construction and maintenance of roads and trails, and fire suppression (see Appendix D). Ongoing activities of personal use fuelwood cutting and the William’s Creek Project implementation, which is restoring forested vegetation and has associated fuels treatments, and reasonably foreseeable management activities of timber management and road construction on State Endowment Lands could directly or indirectly affect this species or its habitat by removing large diameter snags directly; facilitating access to snag habitat for removal under the fuelwood program; managing tree stand size classes for sizes other than large trees; and removing legacy trees, particular ponderosa pine, or targeting ponderosa pine for removal rather than retention. Activities from these ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities could also directly affect white-headed woodpecker individuals if active nest trees are felled or actions disrupt nesting pairs during the critical nesting period. The High Valley Project would not cumulatively add to these effects because silvicultural prescriptions are designed to develop or retain the structural habitat components important to white-headed woodpecker habitat (large diameter live and dead ponderosa pine, open canopy conditions, legacy ponderosa pine) and design features are included in the High Valley Project to avoid disrupting nesting success during the critical nesting period through timing restrictions. Alternative A would not change the current condition of white-headed woodpecker habitat components and, therefore, would have no cumulative effect. However, under Alternative A, vegetation would shift away from desired conditions, and habitat for white-headed woodpecker would be nonexistent in the long term, primarily by reductions in ponderosa pine and increases in canopy cover. Therefore, the overall effect of this alternative, when combined with ongoing activities within the analysis area, is a decreasing trend in source habitat quantity and quality within the analysis area into the long term. Alternatives B and C would increase source habitat quantity and patch size in both the short and long term as canopy cover is reduced and species composition is shifted to favor ponderosa pine. The reduction in road miles available to fuelwood cutting would decrease by 2.0 miles across the project area, and risks associated with open roads within white-headed woodpecker would decrease in both the short and long term, directly where reductions occur within source habitat and indirectly where reductions occur adjacent to source habitat.
59 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Roads within the analysis area used for log haul and vehicle traffic in the High Valley Project would cumulatively add to log haul and vehicle traffic from the ongoing Williams Creek Project and reasonably foreseeable management activities on State Endowment Lands. The cumulative disturbance from these activities to individual white-headed woodpeckers would be minimal due to implementation of design features to reduce effects to the species during nesting periods. Sensitive Species Determination of Effect—Alternatives B and C may impact white-headed woodpecker individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.
Effects to Flammulated Owl
Summary: For Alternative A, flammulated owl suitable habitat would increase to 67% in 2035 before starting to decline over the long term (2055). Alternatives B and C would decrease habitat from 57% to 22% when tree densities are reduced; however, design features protecting snags in occupied flammulated owl habitat (WL-7) and introducing timing restrictions (WL-5) have been established to mitigate potential negative effects. With these design features, some acres depicted as losing source habitat could still provide habitat for some flammulated owl pairs. For Alternatives B and C, habitat would increase above existing levels to 79% in the long term based on the change in vegetation species and structural composition.
Direct and Indirect Effects Flammulated owl is a Region 4 Sensitive species and a focal wildlife species for the project. Breeding habitat for flammulated owls combines open, mature montane pine forests for nesting, scattered thickets of saplings or shrubs for roosting and calling, and grassland edge habitat for foraging (IDFG 2005, Reynolds and Linkhart 1987, Goggans 1986); which are all necessary across multiple spatial scales (e.g., microhabitat, home range, landscape) (Wright 1996). Old forests of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir are key components of home ranges for flammulated owl (Reynolds and Linkhart 1992) as these forest types support a particular abundance of favored lepidopteran prey (McCallum 1994). Flammulated owls nest in previously excavated cavities in snags and live, large diameter trees (Bull et al. 1990, McCallum and Gehlback 1988). Habitat for flammulated owls is strongly associated with upper slopes or ridges (Groves et al. 1997, Bull et al. 1990, Barnes 2007). Flammulated owls are obligate cavity nesters (IDFG 2005) and can take advantage of insect irruptions, such as spruce budworm outbreaks (McCallum 1994, O’Neil et al. 2001, Marcot 1997). Source habitat for flammulated owl was modeled5 based on percent canopy cover (≥40% of the large tree size class of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir cover types equals suitable habitat). For Alternative A, flammulated owl habitat would increase from 57% to 67% in 2035, and then decrease in 2055 as forest stands succeed. Modeling showed that when tree densities are reduced under Alternatives B and C, flammulated owl habitat would markedly decrease in the next 10 years before beginning to increase by 2035. Design feature WL-7 minimizes the effect of this habitat change by targeting certain snags in occupied
5 Modeling parameters used to determine source habitat for the modeling scenarios for this species were taken from Site Scale Modeling Parameters (Foust 2011) and can be found in the project record.
60 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
flammulated owl habitat to retain existing vegetation around and provide a microsite that may still provide potential nesting opportunities within foraging habitat. The habitat model is unable to account for the subtleties of this design feature. Flammulated owl habitat under Alternatives B and C is shown to increase more than Alternative A and above existing conditions by 2055 (Table 8). Table 8. Modeled suitable flammulated owl habitat, displayed as percentage of the total project area (7,736 acres) for the High Valley Project. Alternative 2015 2019 2025 2035 2055 Alternative A (No Action) 57% 57% 59% 67% 66% Alternative B (Proposed Action) 57% 22% 14% 20% 79% Alternative C 57% 23% 17% 24% 79%
Cumulative Effects Past activities contributing to the existing condition within the analysis area include timber sales and salvage, the fuelwood program, construction and maintenance of roads and trails, and fire suppression (refer to Appendix D). These activities have affected flammulated owl source habitat by facilitating removal of snags for fuelwood collection or altering ecological disturbance processes such that ecological functions have been compromised by changes in tree species composition and density, favoring development of flammulated owl source habitat. Personal use fuelwood cutting, the Williams Creek Project, and reasonably foreseeable management activities on State Endowment Lands could directly or indirectly affect this species or its habitat. Personal use fuelwood cutting can result in higher rates of snag loss along roads, decreasing available nest site habitat. Public access on roads opened for proposed treatment activities in the High Valley Project would be managed through the use of Design Feature RM-5 to maintain the risk of snag loss at a comparable level to existing conditions. This design feature minimizes any cumulative effects of snag loss with ongoing personal fuelwood gatherers. The Williams Creek Project is expected to decrease the amount of flammulated owl source habitat in the short term and would increase the amount of habitat in the long term. The High Valley Project would similarly affect flammulated owl habitat and would, therefore, cumulatively add to a decline in source habitat in the short term and the subsequent increase after 2045. Management of State Endowment Lands (a reasonably foreseeable future action) could result in a road network throughout the State property and use of timber management to reduce stand density and maximize economic returns to the State of Idaho. Flammulated owl habitat possibly occurring on those lands would potentially be changed to a nonhabitat condition. The High Valley Project’s reduction in source habitat under Alternatives B or C would cumulatively add to this potential effect through the short term. Alternative A would not change the current condition of flammulated owl habitat and, therefore, would have no cumulative effect. However, in the long term, under Alternative A, vegetation would move away from desired conditions and source habitat would decrease, primarily by reductions in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir and increases in canopy cover. Therefore, the overall effect of this alternative, when combined with ongoing activities
61 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
within the analysis area, is a long-term decreasing trend in source habitat quantity and quality within the analysis area. Alternatives B and C would reduce source habitat compared to the existing condition immediately following implementation, but would result in a long-term increase in source habitat abundance and patch size as species composition is shifted to favor ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir and canopy cover eventually recovers to preferred densities. These alternatives also manages the risk of disturbance during the breeding season from proposed activities with Design Features WL-5 and WL-7, which impose timing restrictions in occupied habitat and retain nesting habitat through the retention of micro-site vegetation around potential nest snags within suitable habitat. Road miles available to fuelwood cutting would decrease by 2.0 miles; therefore, risks associated with open roads are likely to decrease in both the short and long term; this effect cumulatively offsets the effects of ongoing personal use fuelwood cutting activities occurring along open roads in the analysis area. Log haul and vehicle traffic from the High Valley Project would cumulatively add to disturbance of individual birds on breeding territories near roads that would also be affected by log haul and vehicle traffic from the Williams Creek Project and reasonably foreseeable activities on State Endowment Lands. The cumulative disturbance from these activities to individual flammulated owls would be minimal because these owls are tolerant of humans and nest abandonment is rare. While the effects of mechanical disturbance have not been addressed, moderate disturbance is not likely to have an adverse impact (Hayward and Verner 1994). Sensitive Species Determination of Effect—Alternatives B and C may impact individuals or habitat but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability
Effects to Source Habitat Patch and Pattern for White-headed Woodpecker and Flammulated Owl
Summary: The High Valley Project Area is used to reflect the landscape, which is the unit of measure for characterizing habitat patch, pattern, and resiliency to disturbances important to biodiversity, such as the source habitat, including old forest habitat, for Family 1 and Family 2 represented by white-headed woodpecker and flammulated owls, respectively, in this analysis. The patch and pattern analysis in the “Vegetation” section shows similar trends in improvement of vegetation diversity for Alternative B and C as observed in the wildlife modeling for both white-headed woodpecker (Figure 14)and flammulated owl (Figure 15). Refer to Figure 9 for overall displays of forest structural diversity for each alternative following all proposed treatments.
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A would continue to provide increasingly isolated and disconnected patches of source habitat in the long term (2055) for white-headed woodpecker (Figure 14) and would maintain large, connected patches of source habitat for flammulated owl (Figure 15). The patch and pattern analysis showed that Alternatives B and C develop larger, more extensive and connected patches of desired vegetative conditions within fire regimes
62 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
(Figure 9) and, therefore, provide a greater opportunity for developing source habitat, including old forest habitat important to species associated with the low elevation old forest habitat and broad elevation old forest habitat families. The Wildfire Hazard Ratings displayed in Figure 9 show large patches of extreme and high risk acres throughout the High Valley Project Area under Alternative A by 2035. For PVGs 2, 5, and 6, these disturbance processes are not reflective of processes expected in those plant community types under nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes. Under Alternatives B and C, habitats in PVGs 2, 5, and 6 show a more varied risk to wildlife fire hazard in 2035, with large, connected patches of low risk habitats, containing clumped inclusions of moderate or high risk. Little area exhibits very high or extreme risk. This display of wildfire risk is more consistent with what would be expected under the nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes. Emulating patch sizes and distribution patterns which would be expected under natural disturbance regimes is congruent with wildlife needs. Thus, consistent with the overall conclusions above, the white-headed woodpecker focal species analysis showed increases in total source habitat and formation of larger patch sizes within the analysis area throughout the modeling period for both Alternatives B and C, with more connected and evenly distributed habitat from which potential home ranges could be formed (Figure 14). This is a substantial improvement over Alternative A, where existing habitat occurs in small, isolated patches, and eventually disappears from the landscape in the long term (Figure 14) due to increasing canopy cover and reduction of large size class seral tree species such ponderosa pine. Conversely, flammulated owl patch and pattern habitat analysis shows that Alternatives B and C would substantially decrease patch size and dilute habitat connectivity in the short term following treatments due to reduced canopy covers but would provide more source habitat in the long term with greater patch size and connectivity as canopy cover of desired early seral trees species increases (Figure 15). Retention and recruitment of canopy cover of early seral tree species under Alternatives B and C is important to overall habitat quality, including recruitment of components important to restoring old forest habitat. Conversely, under Alternative A, while canopy cover is retained, early seral species representation is reduced, thus overall source habitat quality declines. Cumulative Effects The patch and pattern analysis shows that Alternatives B and C would provide greater vegetation diversity, including development of habitat features important to old forest habitat, across a larger landscape when combined with the ongoing Williams Creek Project and reasonable foreseeable projects (refer to Appendix D) within the cumulative effects boundary, compared to Alternative A. The improvements in amount and distribution of source habitat, including recruitment of components important to restoring old forest habitat under Alternatives B and C, also provide for connectivity to source habitat outside of the High Valley Project Area in the adjacent ongoing Williams Creek Project. The reasonably foreseeable actions on State endowment lands would potentially enhance foraging habitat for white-headed woodpeckers, building upon home range and nesting habitat improvements on adjacent NFS lands. While vegetation management objectives for State endowment lands are different than for NFS lands, the overall reduction of canopy cover and change in species composition would cumulatively
63 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment enhance white-headed woodpecker habitat by increasing patch size and potential home development. Flammulated owls would see similar decreases in overall habitat quantity in the short term across the larger landscape of the cumulative effects area as shown in the High Valley Project Area boundary (Figure 15). Reasonably foreseeable private forest land management would likely continue to focus on intensive management and maintaining long-term low canopy cover with stands dominated by seral species composition within the cumulative effects boundary.
Restoration of Riparian and Wetland Habitat
Effects to Columbia Spotted-Frog
Summary: Alternative A would not change the existing quality and quantity of Columbia spotted frog source habitat. Alternatives B and C would increase Columbia spotted frog source habitat with the restoration of the Little Squaw Creek wetlands. Benefits from the reduction in RCA road density within the project area from 7.9 mi/mi2 to 6.0 mi/mi2, could benefit this species by improving water quality if spotted frog habitat occurs along these streams. Vegetative riparian source habitat would be maintained through design features that protect core RCA habitat. Thinning treatments in RCA Zones 2, 3, or 4 are designed to provide for riparian ecologic functions and processes, such as stream shading, nutrient cycling, and coarse woody debris recruitment, to continue. These functions and processes are assessed using watershed condition indicators (WCIs) and are discussed in more detail in the hydrologic portion of this EA.
Direct and Indirect Effects Columbia spotted frog is a Region 4 sensitive species and a focal wildlife species for the project. Key features of source habitat for the Columbia spotted frog include the aquatic site itself, its banks and bank-side vegetation, and the conditions of the surrounding uplands. These features can be correlated with WCIs used to assess the conditions of the watershed. The pathways relevant to the Columbia spotted frog include watershed condition, water quality, channel conditions and dynamics, and flow/hydrology. The Beal Pond and Little Squaw Creek wetland are special habitat features identified for the Columbia spotted frog. Alternative A would not change the current condition of spotted frog habitat components, such as streamside riparian habitat. Existing high RCA road densities (7.9 mi/mi2) within the analysis area would continue to degrade long-term water quality through sedimentation.
64 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Figure 14. Modeled source white-headed woodpecker habitat, displaying effects for temporary (2019), near-term (2035), and long-term (2055) for Alternatives A and B.
65 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Figure 15. Modeled source flammulated owl habitat, displaying effects for temporary (2019), near-term (2035), and long-term (2055) for Alternatives A and B
66 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Disturbance—The analysis area provides overwintering, breeding, and post-breeding habitat for the Columbia spotted frog. Overwintering activities would not be impacted because no work would occur adjacent to source habitat during the hibernation period. Breeding and post-breeding individuals, if present, could be impacted under Alternatives B and C by thinning activities occurring within riparian habitat during spring or summer. However, because most, if not all, breeding activity occurs immediately adjacent to standing water or a waterbody, the 30-foot no treatment buffer within RCAs as protected by the Design Features SW-1 (Alternative B) and SW-2 (Alternative C) would minimize or avoid disruption of breeding activities. In addition, thinning within RCAs is expected to have a low risk of mortality to dispersing individuals since heavy machinery would not be used. A temporary disturbance effect from thinning crews working within RCAs could occur and instream culvert work and wetland restoration activities could result in some level of disturbance or even mortality; however, adult spotted frogs are fairly mobile, exhibiting movements up to 1.4 miles (Bull 2005), which would reduce their risk of being harmed or killed during thinning, culvert installation, or wetland restoration activities. Habitat—Restoring the Little Squaw Creek wetland (Purpose 3, Need 1) would increase source habitat quality and quantity within the 25-acre wetland by creating water inlets and pool habitat where emergent vegetation could re-establish. Fencing of the wetland would also protect the wetland edges from trampling and allow riparian vegetation to establish, which would provide hiding cover, shade, and bank stabilization. Because thinning activities would not occur within a 30-foot buffer of any stream (Design Features SW-2 [Alternative B] and SW-2 [Alternative C]), no effect to riparian habitat would occur within this no-treatment zone. And because breeding activities typically occur within or directly adjacent to water, this buffer would prevent or minimize impacts to breeding habitat. In addition, effects to riparian habitat would not be expected from commercial thinning within RCA Zone 4 because most riparian vegetation occurs within RCA Zone 1, and, to a lesser extent, in RCA Zones 2 and 3 (see the “Soils, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section). (Refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA Zones.) The hydrology analysis also concluded the proposed action would be expected to maintain or improve short- and long-term water quality within the analysis area, primarily from applying aggregate on native-surfaced roads, decommissioning authorized and unauthorized routes, and, more specifically, reducing RCA road miles from 7.9 mi/mi2 to 6.0 mi/mi2, all of which would contribute to an overall reduction in sediment delivery. No change to effects from chemical contaminants is expected due to provisions found within Design Features SW-6 and FF-2. Where these actions occur along waterbodies providing Columbia spotted frog source habitat, these actions would positively benefit the species. In addition, Design Features WL-3, FF-1, SW-4, and SW-7 have been incorporated into the High Valley Project to protect reproductive success and habitat within RCAs and would further reduce potential effects to spotted frogs from habitat modification or disturbance. Cumulative Effects No reasonably foreseeable activities are expected to occur within the analysis area. Road maintenance is an ongoing activity which can directly or indirectly affect this species or its habitat. Road maintenance activities, such as grading, resurfacing, or cleaning culverts,
67 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
occurs primarily within existing road corridors but can impact spotted frogs through disturbance or displacement where activities occur in RCAs. Ongoing grazing could also affect spotted frogs by impacting water quality (sedimentation) and streamside riparian habitat. Alternative A would not change the current condition of spotted frog habitat components, such as streamside riparian habitat, and, therefore, would have no cumulative effect. Existing RCA road densities (7.9 mi/mi2) within the analysis area, which are currently within the high classification, would continue to degrade long-term water quality through sedimentation while the Little Squaw Creek wetland would continue to function in a degraded condition. Ongoing road maintenance, unauthorized road use, grazing, and noxious weeds would continue. Alternatives B and C would increase the overall quantity and quality of source habitat for this species by restoring the Little Squaw Creek wetland and would maintain the existing quality of riparian source habitat through design features protecting core RCA habitat and thinning treatments retaining the majority of stand density. Alternatives B and C would improve short- and long-term water quality through proposed road improvements and decommissioning. As a result, the cumulative effect of this alternative, when combined with ongoing activities and reasonably foreseeable actions within the analysis area, is a short- and long-term improving trend in source habitat quality. Sensitive Species Determination of Effect—Alternatives B and C may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability
Effects to North American Beaver
Summary: Alternative A would maintain the existing degraded condition of the Little Squaw Creek wetland. Establishment of beaver would not be expected to occur without restoration actions to develop conditions conducive to beaver occupation. Alternatives B and C would restore wetland ecological functions and processes by creating the necessary habitat requirements for successful beaver reintroduction and habitat occupation, which would increase the probability for successful wetland restoration and expansion for the entire 25-acre wetland complex.
Direct and Indirect Effects The beaver is a species of interest (SOI) that was added as a focal species to help address the ecological importance of restoring/enhancing the Little Squaw Creek wetland. Forest Plan Objective 1618 identifies a need to repair or restore the beaver pond area in the Little Squaw Creek drainage. The beaver has been identified as a tool to assist in restoring the wetland. The beaver is a denizen of streams, lakes, and ponds. It is famous for the elaborate nests (“lodges”) that it constructs out of trees and mud. Beavers are also well-known for their ability and eagerness to dam up streams, creating “beaver ponds.” The sound of running water apparently serves as the stimulus for such construction activities. Dams are constructed from a foundation of rocks and mud on which tree limbs are piled. Leaves and mud are then packed around the limbs as mortar. Standing water behind these dams provides the beaver with a pool of water around which to move, provides protection from predators, and serves as
68 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
storage for winter food. Proposed treatments to restore the Little Squaw Creek wetland could enhance and create more habitat for species like the Columbia spotted frog, moose, flycatchers, ducks, and sandhill cranes, while raising the water table in the area. The beaver would assist in restoring the wetland and create additional ecological benefits to multiple resources. Alternative A would maintain the existing conditions of the Little Squaw Creek wetland; without implementation of targeted restoration actions, development of conditions conducive to beaver occupation are not likely to result. Thus, the likelihood of establishing this species in the area over time is much lower under this alternative than under Alternatives B or C where targeted restoration would be implemented. For Alternatives B and C, source habitat would be considered to be the 25 acres of wetland and RCA zones surrounding this location. Wetland restoration activities temporarily excluding cattle and decommissioning roads within the wetland and adjacent RCA zones would create conditions allowing riparian vegetation to flourish and develop habitat components needed by beaver. By increasing the water table with culvert modifications on NFS road 643 and allowing for woody vegetation establishment with cattle exclusion, the wetland would be more attractive to beaver, potentially allowing for the successful reintroduction of beaver, a necessary tool to restore the full ecological process and function of the wetland complex. As nature’s engineer, the beaver would be a useful tool to accomplish the restoration objective identified in the Forest Plan. Cumulative Effects Alternative A would not change the current condition of source habitat for beaver and, therefore, would have no cumulative effect. Alternative A would maintain the existing condition of source habitat as ongoing road maintenance, unauthorized road use, grazing, and noxious weeds would continue to degrade the wetland. Alternatives B and C would increase the quality and quantity of source habitat from restoring the Little Squaw Creek wetland. As a result, the cumulative effect of these alternatives, when combined with ongoing activities and reasonably foreseeable actions within the analysis area, is a short- and long-term improving trend in source habitat quality. Beaver reintroduction may be negatively affected from the NFS road 643 remaining open yearlong and, therefore, would continue to make potentially reintroduced beavers susceptible to trapping, hunting, and recreational shooting.
Reduction in Wildlife Habitat Disturbance Effects Related to Roads
Effects to Rocky Mountain Elk
Summary: Alternative A would maintain elk security habitat in the short term with an increasing trend in the long term (2055) as stand densities increase over time. Road density and road-related security habitat would remain unchanged and forage as a component of summer habitat would continue to incrementally decrease in the long term as stand densities increase over time and shade out many shrubs, forbs and grasses from the understory.
69 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Alternatives B and C would reduce open road densities within the analysis area and would have a beneficial long-term effect to summer habitat. Security habitat would decrease in the short term but would eventually recover to near existing levels in the long term while remaining below what would have occurred under Alternative A in the same modeling year (2055). The silvicultural prescriptions are designed to retain clumps rather than evenly distributed trees, continuing to provide hiding cover and increasing available sunlight to the ground, which would stimulate growth of shrub, forb, and grass forage. Alternative C would retain slightly more security habitat in the short term (2,213 acres) than Alternative B (2,058 acres).
Direct and Indirect Effects Rocky Mountain elk was selected as a focal species for this project due to the potential for impacts from roads and related management activities. Vulnerability is a key factor in assessing habitat quality for elk. Lyon and Christiansen (2002) identified several indicators for assessing vulnerability, including road density, security cover, and the interaction of security cover with road density, which influence elk vulnerability to hunting mortality. Cited by Lyon and Christensen (2002), several studies demonstrated a relationship between high road densities and high rates of hunting mortality of elk, while low road densities equated to lower rates of hunting mortality. Past timber projects that reduced canopy cover below 40% likely reduced elk security cover within affected stands. Past management practices that constructed roads, such as timber sales and motorized trail construction, increased the open route density within the analysis area, which in turn, reduced the amount of security cover over 0.5 miles from an open road. These past management practices likely contributed to an overall reduction in elk source habitat quantity and quality within the analysis area. Under Alternative A, elk habitat conditions would remain similar to that described for the existing condition. No habitat modification or changes in road density would occur. Road densities would remain at 2.02 mi/mi2 (Table 9); densities above 1.7 mi/mi2 are considered high risk and could substantially affect use of the habitat by elk. Forage as a component of summer habitat would continue to incrementally decrease as stand densities increase over time and shade out many shrubs, forbs, and grasses from the understory; forage would increase in other areas where natural disturbances created openings within the canopy. Summer Habitat—Alternatives B and C would reduce open road density as it relates to the area of influence for summer habitat by closing approximately 2.5 miles of open roads. Even though the entire analysis area would remain 100% within the area of influence of an open road following implementation, this reduction in open road density would incrementally reduce the potential for disturbance in this highly affected area. Opening the canopy within dense stands with limited understory can increase forage for elk (Leege 1984, p. 4). Within dense PVG 6 stands, proposed commercial treatments (group selection with reserves or improvement) would create openings, and noncommercial treatments (submerchantable thin) would reduce understory densities, both of which would allow sunlight to reach the ground to encourage grass, forb, and shrub growth. Plantations would continue to provide high-quality forage due to variable density thin from below treatments which would maintain a more open understory.
70 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Table 9. Elk habitat indicators and indicator components by alternative Existing Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Elk Habitat Indicator and Condition Indicator Components 2015 2019 2055 2019 2055 2019 2055 Acres of elk security habitat 589 604 617 338 598 353 598 >0.5 miles from an open route Acres of security habitat within 6,070 6,167 7,391 2,058 6,664 2,213 6,718 analysis area Open road density in analysis area 2.02 2.02 2.02 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 (mi/mi2)a aRoad density for elk analysis included all open yearlong motorized routes, such as NFS and county roads. The road density analysis in the Transportation Section only refers to NFS roads. Vulnerability During Hunting Season—The amount of security habitat (stands with greater than 40% canopy cover) would be reduced by about 4,012 and 3,857 acres under Alternatives B and C, respectively, as many treated stands move to and remain within the low canopy cover class in the short and early long term. The reduction in security habitat would result from commercial thinning, precommercial thinning, and thinning from below treatments which would remove tree boles as well as a percentage of the understory that would otherwise hide elk. These treatments would occur in forested stands and plantations. Open road density would decrease from 2.02 mi/mi2 to 1.81 mi/mi2 under these two alternatives (Table 9). Security habitat greater than 0.5 miles from an open road would be reduced from the existing 589 acres to 338 and 353 acres, respectively, for Alternatives B and C during the short and near term. Reducing the size of this block of habitat would increase overall stress on elk during the hunting season because they would have less habitat to use to reducing impacts from hunting pressure. While reducing stand density, harvest and thinning activities would likely reduce the ability of elk to hide. However, silviculture prescriptions that emphasize retaining clumps rather than evenly distributed trees would still provide some hiding cover, along with large shrubs that exist throughout the Project Area. Treated stands following harvest would be comprised of several tree size classes of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir in the understory, with groups of even-aged saplings occurring in the understory and created openings interspersed throughout. The structural diversity resulting from these prescriptions would likely provide some concealment for big game. In addition, the shrub layer (e.g., willow, mountain maple, ceanothus, ash, elderberry, and ninebark) would largely remain intact and likely increase in size and abundance following treatments that reduce canopy cover, allowing more light to reach the forest floor. In summary, the reduction in open road density would incrementally reduce the potential for disturbance to elk during the summer. However, while the amount of security habitat greater than 0.5 miles from an open route moves above the existing condition by the end of the modeling period in 2055, the indicator remains below what was modeled for the same modeling year under Alternative A. Silvicultural prescriptions retaining trees in clumps and potential increases in understory density as well as reductions in open road density may offset some of the reduction in security habitat, but there would be an overall incremental reduction in available security habitat not affected by open roads during the fall hunting season.
71 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Cumulative Effects Past activities contributing to the existing condition within the analysis area include timber sales and salvage, construction and maintenance of roads and trails, grazing, and fire suppression. Using some of the roads within the analysis area for log haul and the associated increase in vehicle traffic from the ongoing Williams Creek Project and reasonably foreseeable management activities on State Endowment Lands could cumulatively increase disturbance to individual elk. The following ongoing activities may also cumulatively affect the Rocky Mountain elk or its habitat. Motorized use occurs within the analysis area and is expected to continue and incrementally increase. Road maintenance activities are a source of disturbance and displacement of elk and are also expected to continue. Weeds and their seed may be transported on maintenance equipment, contributing to spread of weeds and degradation of habitat. Noxious weeds indirectly impact ungulates by reducing the quality and quantity of forage habitat. Alternative A would not change the current condition of elk security habitat, and, therefore, would have no cumulative effect. Alternatives B and C, in conjunction with past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would have a short-term cumulative effect on disturbance from vegetation treatments and harvest operations and post-harvest fuel treatments and restoration of fire process activities. While Alternatives B and C improve security habitat greater than 0.5 miles from an open road in the long term, security habitat would still be less than what would have occurred under Alternative A at the same point in time (2055) and a substantial decrease in available security habitat would occur in the temporary and short term. Risks associated with roads would decrease incrementally as road density decreases. The vulnerability risk rating would remain at a level comparable but slightly decreasing from the existing condition when considering road density only; however, coupled with the decrease in security cover in the Project Area, the benefits of the road density change would be moderated. Design Features NX-1 through NX-5 would minimize the cumulative effect of noxious weed introduction and/or spread in the analysis area.
Management Indicator Species
Summary: Alternatives B and C would incrementally contribute to larger efforts to improve the quantity and quality of source habitat for white-headed woodpeckers on the Forest. For the pileated and black-backed woodpeckers, both action alternatives would reduce source habitat abundance below Alternative A, primarily from reductions in canopy cover. However, considering the increasing trend of source habitat due to departed conditions on the Forest, the loss of source habitat under Alternatives B and C would not change the overall trend for population or source habitat for these species.
The Forest Plan defines MIS as representative species whose habitat conditions or population changes are used to assess the impacts of management activities on similar species in a particular area (Forest Service 2010a). Forest MIS were selected largely due to their use of snag habitats but also because of their association with old forest habitats, departed conditions, and natural disturbance patterns within forest communities. These types of
72 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment habitats are also areas where effects from management actions are of greatest interest due to current conditions, the types of management activities in those habitats, and the dependence of numerous wildlife species, especially species of conservation concern, on those habitats. Three wildlife species, the white-headed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, and black- backed woodpecker, were identified as MIS in the Forest Plan (Forest Service 2010a).
White-Headed Woodpecker White-headed woodpecker was one of the focal species discussed above; those disclosures are not repeated here. From an MIS disclosure perspective, the white-headed woodpecker was selected as an MIS in the Forest Plan because it is likely linked to a suite of other species that use source habitats tied to large trees, open canopy conditions, large snags, and old-forest habitat in low-elevation forests dominated by ponderosa pine that developed under nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes. Alternatives B and C would be consistent with the Forest Plan for activities encouraged within a short-term High Priority Watershed and an active, high Vegetation Restoration Priority area. Although the number of acres being affected would not demonstrably change source habitat trends at the Forest scale, the High Valley Project does incrementally contribute to larger efforts to improve the quantity and quality of source habitat. Although individual white-headed woodpeckers may be affected by proposed activities, any individuals within the Project Area benefiting from improvements to source habitat would incrementally contribute toward a positive population trend but would not affect population trends at the Forest scale. Refer to the wildlife technical report and Forest Plan monitoring reports available in the project record for supporting information.
Pileated Woodpecker The pileated woodpecker was selected as a MIS for the Forest because of its association with broad-elevation old forest and habitat components, including large trees, snags, and logs. Both action alternatives would reduce source habitat abundance within the analysis area below what would be expected to occur under Alternative A, primarily from reductions in canopy cover that reduce densities to less than 60% for nesting and 30% for forage habitat. Nesting habitat would correspondingly decrease under both action alternatives. However, considering the increasing long-term trend of source habitat due to departed conditions on the Forest, the loss of source habitat under Alternatives B and C would not change the overall trend for source habitat for this species. Although individual pileated woodpeckers may be affected by proposed activities which reduce source habitat, the impact would not result in a loss of this species’ presence or ability to survive and reproduce in the Project Area due to the abundance of habitat that would remain into the long term. The individuals within the Project Area contribute toward but do not largely represent the pileated woodpecker population at the Forest scale, and no change in population trends at that scale would occur as a result of the High Valley Project. Refer to the wildlife technical report and Forest Plan monitoring reports available in the project record for supporting information.
73 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Black-Backed Woodpecker Black-backed woodpeckers were selected as a MIS for the Forest in 2010 (Forest Service 2010a) because of their association with high numbers of snags in disturbed forests, use of late-seral old forest conditions, and relationship with beetle outbreaks in the years immediately following fire or insect or disease outbreaks. Source habitat for this species in the High Valley Project Area is comprised of ‘green’ habitat. That is, forested habitat which is not undergoing an outbreak of forest bark beetles or has not been recently (<10 years) burned. In general, treatments proposed under Alternatives A and B would reduce source habitat for black-backed woodpeckers compared to Alternative A. Overall, existing habitat would become unsuitable as a result of canopy cover reductions. However, reducing source habitat within PVG 6 habitat types was necessary to shift species composition to desired conditions in stands where ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir were being outcompeted by grand fir. Similar to that disclosed for pileated woodpeckers, considering the increasing trend of source habitat on the south end of the Forest, the loss of source habitat within the analysis area would result in no measurable change in overall trend for population or source habitat for this species. Refer to the wildlife technical report and Forest Plan monitoring reports available in the project record for supporting information.
Migratory Birds
Summary: Alternatives B and C would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act but may result in an “unintentional take” of individuals during proposed activities. However, the High Valley Project complies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Director’s Order #131 related to the applicability of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to federal agencies and requirements for permits for “take”. In addition, this project complies with Executive Order (EO) 13186.
Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act applies when an action is proposed, thus Alternative A will not be discussed. The Forest Service and USFWS have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to promote the conservation of migratory birds as a direct response to EO 13186 (Forest Service and USFWS 2008). One of the steps outlined for the Forest Service is applicable to this analysis: “Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors.” The Forest Service additionally agreed, to the extent practicable, to evaluate and balance benefits against adverse effects, pursue opportunities to restore or enhance migratory bird habitat, and consider approaches for minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. For the analysis of migratory birds in this project, the Idaho Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Ritter 2000) was used to identify relevant migratory bird species and habitats. This plan takes a habitat-based approach to conserving bird populations in Idaho and correlated priority bird species with 4 habitats of highest priority as well as 10 habitats identified as important (Ritter 2000). Analysis of the flammulated owl and white-headed woodpecker assessed potential impacts to the Dry Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir/Grand Fir Forests IDPIF priority habitat. Refer to the wildlife technical report available in the project record for a detailed discussion on species and analysis procedures.
74 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
In general, effects to migratory birds from proposed activities have been minimized by considering the timing of activities to minimize disturbances during the breeding season; retaining snags for nesting structures; and retaining the integrity of breeding sites. Proposed vegetation management activities have been developed to shift macro-vegetative structure (tree size class, tree species composition, or tree canopy cover) toward desired conditions representative of the historic range of variability of those plant communities. In addition to retaining the integrity of breeding sites, these activities are expected to continue to provide for migration routes and stopover habitat. Alternatives B and C would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act but may result in an “unintentional take” of individuals during proposed activities. However, the High Valley Project would comply with the USFWS Director’s Order #131 related to the applicability of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to federal agencies and requirements for permits for “take”. In addition, this project complies with EO 13186 because the analysis meets agency obligations as defined under the 2008 MOU between the Forest Service and USFWS (Forest Service and USFWS 2008) designed to complement EO 13186. If new requirements or direction result from subsequent interagency MOUs pursuant to EO 13186, this project would be reevaluated to ensure it is consistent.
Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources This section describes how the alternatives address Purpose 3 to improve watershed function through the restoration of aquatic resources and road-related impacts to wildlife, fish, soil, and water resources while providing for the transportation system necessary to meet short- and long-term management needs, by focusing on the improvement of watershed function associated with project activities. Additionally, this section addresses issues and concerns identified during public scoping regarding effects of commercial treatment within RCAs, specifically that commercial removal within RCAs, including heavy equipment and skidding, may affect watershed function, such as stream shade, and negatively impact sensitive riparian soils, water quality, and riparian habitat, and that construction and reconstruction of roads may significantly harm water quality and riparian habitat. Refer to the hydrology resource technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis. The High Valley Project Area includes approximately 2,071 acres of Upper Little Squaw Creek and 5,665 acres of Lower Little Squaw Creek, both of which drain into the Payette River via Squaw Creek.
75 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Indicators The following indicators were analyzed to measure alternative effectiveness at meeting the Purpose and Need desired conditions and to What is a Watershed Condition address issues and concerns. Analyses for water Indicator (WCI)? quality, streamflow hydrology, and WCIs have been taken from the list of WCIs in the 2010 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2010a, WCIs are an integrated suite of aquatic (including biophysical components), Appendix B. riparian (including riparian– Watershed Condition Indicators associated vegetation species), and hydrologic (including uplands) • Primary Indicators-Water Quality condition measures intended to be used Stream temperature at a variety of watershed scales. WCIs o represent a diagnostic means to o Sediment determine current conditions and assist in determining future conditions Chemical contaminants o associated with implementing • Secondary Indicators-Flow/Hydrology and management actions or natural Watershed Conditions restoration over time.
o Changes in peak/base flows o Changes in drainage network o Road density and location o Disturbance history o Disturbance regime o Riparian conservation areas Soils • Effects to sensitive riparian soils • Slope stability • Detrimental disturbance • Total soil resource commitment Temperature, sediment, and chemical contaminants indicators have been designated as primary indicators because these indicators are water quality and habitat components that may be directly affected by the action alternatives. Other relevant WCIs were designated as secondary indicators which may influence or be influenced by the primary indicators.
Environmental Effects
Effects to Watershed Condition Indicators
Direct and Indirect Effects Table 10 summarizes the effects to WCIs by alternative and timeframe.
76 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Table 10. Summary of effects to watershed condition indicators (WCI) by alternative and timeframe (Forest Plan Appendix B Table B-3) Upper Little Squaw Creek Subwatershed Lower Little Squaw Creek Subwatershed Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Baseline Baseline Pathways/Indicator A Effectsb B Effectsb C Effectsb A Effectsb B Effectsb C Effectsb Conditionsa Conditionsa Trendc Trendc Trendc Trendc Trendc Trendc Water Quality Temperature – IDEQ FR M:N M:-*/-*/+* M:-*/-*/+* FR M:N M:-*/-*/+* M:-*/-*/+* Standards Sediment/turbidity – FUR M:N M:-*/+/+ M:-*/+/+ FR M:N M:-*/+/+ M:-*/+/+ Other fishes Chemical Contamination/Excess FR M:N M:-*/+*/+* M: -*+*/+* FA M: -*/N/N M: -*/N/N M: -*N/N Nutrients Flow/Hydrology Change in Peak/Base FUR M:-N M:N/+*/+* M:N/N/+* FR M:N M:N/N/+* M:N/N/+* Flows Change in Drainage FR M:N M:N/+*/+* M:N/+*/+* FR M:N/+*/+* M:N/+*/+* M:N/+*/+* Network Watershed Conditions Road Density and FUR M:N M:N/+/+ M:N/+/+ FUR M:N/+/+ M:N/+/+ M:N/+/+ Location Disturbance History FR M:-* M:-*/+*/+* M:-*/+*/+* FA M:-*/+*/+* M:-*/+*/+* M:-*/+*/+* Riparian Conservation FR M:-* M:-*/+*/+* M:-*/+*/+* FR M:N M:-*/+*/+* M:-*/+*/+* Areas (RCAs) Disturbance Regime FR M:-* M:-*/+*/+* M:-*/+*/+* FR M:-*/+*/+* M:-*/+*/+* M:-*/+*/+* a: Functionality for baseline conditions: FA = Functioning Acceptably, FR = Functioning at Risk, FUR = Functioning at Unacceptable Risk. b: Effects to Functionality Class: M = Maintain (within functionality class), D=Degrade (change functionality class), NI = No Influence, I = Improve (change functionality class). c: Trend effects: N = No trend, - = negative trend, + = positive trend, +/-=uncertain trend, may be positive or negative * indicates negligible impact. Timeframe: For Alternative A:Long-term. For all action alternatives: T/S/L. T = Temporary (0-3 years). S = Short-term (3-15 years), L = Long-term (15+ years).
77 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Effects to the Stream Temperature Watershed Condition Indicator
Summary: All alternatives would maintain the existing functionality of the temperature WCI in the temporary, short-term, and long-term time frames which is Functioning at Risk (FR) in the Upper Little Squaw Creek and Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatersheds. Percent stream shading, and inversely stream temperature, would immeasurably decrease (degrade) under each action alternative in the temporary (0–3 years) and short-term (3–10 years) timeframes due to vegetation losses during road decommissioning within RCAs, and immeasurably increase (improve) in the long term (15+ years) due to vegetation regrowth after road decommissioning and wetland restoration, as compared to Alternative A. Only negligible differences in effects exist between Alternatives B and C with regard to the temperature WCI.
Direct and Indirect Effects Elevated stream temperatures are detrimental to cold water fisheries and negatively affect the ability of cold water species, such as rainbow trout, to spawn, rear, and inhabit streams identified as potential habitat (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). The stream temperature indicator is currently FR in the Upper Little Squaw Creek and Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatersheds based on Idaho Water Quality Standards for cold water biota. Alternative A would perpetuate the existing condition in all timeframes. The temperature WCI would continue to be FR for both subwatersheds due to elevated stream temperatures. Alternatives B and C would maintain the existing functionality of the temperature WCI for all timeframes. Within the Upper Little Squaw Creek and Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatersheds, percent stream shading, and inversely stream temperature, would immeasurably decrease (degrade) under each action alternative in the temporary (0–3 years) and short-term (3–10 years) timeframes due to vegetation losses during road decommissioning within RCAs, and immeasurably increase (improve) in the long term (15+ years) due to vegetation regrowth after road decommissioning, cattle exclusion, and wetland restoration, as compared to Alternative A. Immeasurable changes in shade mean the magnitude of the effect is anticipated to be small, localized, and/or negligible in the context of the entire analysis area. Only negligible differences in effects exist between Alternatives B and C with regard to the temperature WCI because the proposed tree thinning activities are consistent for RCA Zones 2 and 3.
Effects of Specific Activities Roughly 4.7 miles of NFS roads and 4.6 miles of unauthorized routes are proposed for decommissioning within RCAs under either Alternative B or Alternative C. In conjunction with road decommissioning, 6 perennial stream crossings in the Upper Squaw Creek subwatershed and 12 perennial stream crossings in the Lower Squaw Creek subwatershed would be eliminated. Stream shade would be reduced slightly in the temporary and short- term timeframes where these roads, routes, and crossings are within 1 SPTH (Table 2) of stream channels due to potential vegetation losses (refer to Chapter 2 for a discussion on site potential tree height). However, in the short term to long term, stream shade would improve as these roads revegetate and provide improved shade for stream channels. Refer to the “Transportation” section for specific miles of road-related activities.
78 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Road realignment (construction) is not expected to affect shading in the temporary time frame. Only 0.7 miles of realignment are proposed in RCAs. One road segment in the RCA, comprising 0.3 miles, is proposed on an existing unauthorized road prism located outside of 1 SPTH (Table 2) of the stream channel. The other two segments cross RCAs of intermittent stream channels and, therefore, would not affect stream temperature because these streams do not flow during the hot summer months. Effects to shade and stream temperature from temporary road construction and decommissioning would be expected to be negligible because temporary roads would not be located within 1 SPTH (Table 2) of perennial channels and temporary routes would be decommissioned and reclaimed after use (Design Feature RM-5). On intermittent channels, temporary road construction is proposed for 0.37 miles within RCAs with 2 stream crossings, of which, 0.27 miles would occur on existing unauthorized routes. All proposed temporary roads within 1 SPTH (Table 2) of any intermittent streams would not affect stream temperature because these streams do not flow during the hot summer months when stream temperature is a limiting factor for cold water fisheries. Both action alternatives include non-commercial thinning (with no product removal), and Alternative B includes commercial timber harvest (with product removal) within RCAs. Non-commercial thinning is proposed in RCA Zones 2, 3, and 4 for both alternatives (refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA zones). Commercial thinning is proposed in RCA Zone 4 for perennial stream channels under Alternative B, but not under Alternative C. No activities would occur in RCA Zone 1 for either action alternative. Commercial treatments proposed in RCAs would not affect stream shading because previous research has demonstrated that harvesting outside of RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3 does not measurably reduce stream shade (Beschta 1987, and Moore et al. 2005, FEMAT 1993). Non-commercial tree thinning in RCA Zones 2, 3, and 4 within the High Valley Project Area would be limited to smaller diameter trees, which are often shorter in height and typically do not contribute to stream shade outside of 30 feet from a streambank. Based on field data transects completed within the Project Area, contributions of stream shade primarily occur from riparian plant communities directly adjacent to the stream and from trees directly adjacent to the stream along the streambank. Dominant cover types found within RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3 of randomly selected intermittent and perennial channels were composed of high shrubs, including alder, willow, and dogwood. These species provide the primary stream shading in the Project Area and would not be affected by either action alternative. On only 11% of the sites, the dominant shade species consisted of conifers, while two sites were nonforested. Based on these field data, the defined silvicultural prescriptions, existing literature, and professional judgment, proposed non-commercial thinning activities within RCAs are not expected to measurably reduce stream shade. Furthermore, thinning is expected to reduce competition between individual trees and increase availability of sunlight and nutrients to grow larger trees over time, resulting in increased potential long-term shade. Both action alternatives include prescribed fire activities to reduce fuel loads of naturally occurring fuels and fuels generated by thinning activities, but these activities would not affect stream temperature. Recent research in central Idaho investigating the effect of prescribed fire on steam temperature and other riparian attributes found no statistically significant change in maximum stream temperature occurring as a result of applying prescribed fire
79 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
(Arkle and Pilliod 2010). Furthermore, a backing prescribed fire would burn at reduced intensity within the RCA, as compared to the uplands, due to increased relative humidity and fuel moisture. Though the potential for isolated torching of individual or small groups of trees exists from a backing fire within the RCA, potentially reducing shade around streams, these incidences are expected to be limited and would not occur to the extent that they would measurably influence stream temperatures. Wetland restoration activities would improve temperature conditions on the small tributary to Little Squaw Creek. Excluding cattle would eliminate browsing of riparian shrub vegetation, and restoring wetland functions and processes would help maintain higher base flows in this tributary, reducing summer high stream temperatures consistent with Forest Plan Objective 1618.
Effects to the Sedimentation Watershed Condition Indicator
Summary: While Alternatives B and C would result in a measureable improvement in the sediment/turbidity WCI in the long term, resulting from road decommissioning, road realignment, and aggregate surfacing, elevated in-stream fine sediment conditions would continue in the long term in both subwatersheds due to high mileage of roads located within RCAs. Therefore, the sediment/turbidity WCI would incrementally improve under both action alternatives, but remain functioning at unacceptable risk (FUR) for the Upper Squaw Creek subwatershed and FR in the Lower Squaw Creek subwatershed in the long term. Under Alternative A, the sediment/turbidity WCI would continue to be FUR in the Upper Little Squaw Creek subwatershed and FR in the Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatershed due to elevated in-stream fine sediment.
Direct and Indirect Effects The sediment/turbidity indicator is FUR in the Upper Little Squaw Creek subwatershed and FR in the Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatershed. The existing transportation system represents the largest contribution to these ratings. Based on the MK Model results of sediment delivery, roads deliver sediment to stream channels at stream crossings and in locations where roads are less than 68 feet from stream channels. The existing road system includes 11.8 miles of road within 68 feet of a waterbody and 258 perennial or intermittent stream crossings within the 2 subwatersheds. Under Alternative A, the sediment/turbidity WCI would continue to be FUR in the Upper Little Squaw Creek subwatershed and FR in the Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatershed due to elevated in-stream fine sediment. Under Alternatives B and C, sediment delivery to streams would measurably increase in the temporary timeframe (0–3 years) due to road decommissioning, temporary road construction, road reconstruction, and road realignment and measurably decrease below current levels during the short term (3–10 years) and long term (15+ years) due to road decommissioning, road realignment, and aggregate surfacing as described below. While both action alternatives would result in a measureable improvement in the sediment/turbidity WCI in the long term, elevated in-stream fine sediment conditions would continue in the long term in both subwatersheds due to the high mileage of roads located within RCAs. Therefore, the sediment/turbidity WCI would incrementally improve under both action alternatives but
80 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
remain FUR for the Upper Squaw Creek subwatershed and FR in the Lower Squaw Creek subwatershed in the long term. Streams in the analysis area fully meet beneficial uses and would continue to do so with implementation of either action alternative.
Effects of Specific Activities Changes in the transportation system represent the largest overall contributions and reductions in sediment delivery over the life of the project. Please refer to the “Transportation” section for specific miles of road-related activities. Temporary increases in sediment delivery are attributed to road decommissioning, temporary road construction, road reconstruction, and road realignment. Decreases in sediment delivery in the short and long term are attributed to road decommissioning, road realignment, and aggregate surfacing consistent with Forest Plan Objectives 1610 and 1617. Design features RM-1, RM-3, RM-5, SW-5, and SW-9 would be implemented in association with these alternatives to assist in maintaining sediment control. The MK Model predicts decommissioned roads could deliver sediment up to 108 feet at the 95% confidence level. The 3.6 miles of road proposed for decommissioning within 120 feet of a waterbody would likely deliver sediment to streams in the temporary timeframe due to ground disturbance necessary for road decommissioning. However, best management practices (BMPs) required for road decommissioning activities would greatly reduce the potential for sediment delivery (Design Features RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, and SW-5). Additionally, extensive experience with road decommissioning projects on the Forest indicates that substantial revegetation of these sites occurs within 2–3 years, reducing sediment delivery to the temporary timeframe (0–3 years). Unauthorized routes proposed for decommissioning include 23 stream crossings and 6.2 miles of route within 120 feet of a waterbody. Though decommissioning these routes can deliver sediment to streams in the temporary timeframe, sediment delivery would be reduced compared with the existing condition or under Alternative A in the short to long term due to improved water drainage, revegetation of decommissioned road prisms, and removal of steam crossings. The 0.2 miles of proposed temporary road construction within 120 feet of a stream channel with 2 intermittent stream crossings would deliver sediment to streams in the temporary time frame based on predicted MK Model sediment delivery distances. However, BMPs required for road management activities would greatly reduce the potential for sediment delivery (Design Features RM-3, SW-5, and SW-9). Additionally, temporary roads would be fully obliterated within 3 years of project completion, reducing sediment delivery from these roads in the short to long term (Design Feature RM-5; Nelson et al. 2012). The MK Model predicts sediment delivery distances from road treatments to range from 38 feet to 119 feet in the temporary timeframe. The High Valley Project proposes to reconstruct 4.4 miles of NFS road, 1.8 miles on existing road prisms, as part of the road realignment (relocation) proposal. These roads would replace 5.1 miles of NFS roads, most of which are closer to waterbodies than the proposed realignment. Of the 4.4 miles of road proposed for construction as part of the realignment, about 0.4 miles would be located within 120 feet of stream channels, potentially delivering sediment to stream channels in the temporary timeframe. However, BMPs required for road realignment activities would greatly reduce the potential for sediment delivery (Design Features RM-3, SW-5, and SW-9).
81 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
New construction not proposed as part of the road realignment includes 0.5 miles of new road. These road segments would not deliver sediment to streams because they would be constructed over 1,500 feet from the nearest waterbody. Research indicates that aggregate surfacing reduces sediment delivery to streams where these roads are within the sediment delivery distance to waterbodies (Ketcheson and Megahan 1996), and that placing aggregate surfacing on native surface roads could reduce sediment delivery from the road surfaces by 70%–85% (Renig et.al. 1991). For Alternatives B and C, aggregate would be placed on 5.3 miles of NFS roads that currently have native surfacing, and an additional 9.0 miles of aggregate would be placed on roads where existing aggregate needs to be replaced, thereby reducing sediment delivery to streams compared to Alternative A. Neither Alternative B nor Alternative C would be expected to result in measurable sediment delivery from timber harvest, tractor skid trails, landing construction, or commercial thinning in RCA Zone 4 for Alternative B due to the incorporation of buffer distances from streams (refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA zones). Based on the MK sediment delivery model, sediment from tractor or skyline yarding within commercial timber harvest units would not travel farther than the buffer distance of 1 SPTH (Table 2; Megahan and Ketcheson 1996, Ketcheson and Megahan 1996). The closest proposed commercial harvest to any stream channel is outside of the 1 SPTH (Table 2); therefore, sediment is not expected to travel to the waterway from commercial thinning activities, including those proposed within the RCA. Furthermore, erosion associated with vegetation treatments is limited to areas which receive ground disturbance from machinery and/or equipment used to move and process logs, as well as landings and roads used to facilitate hauling logs from the units. Though skid trails, landings, and haul roads can contribute sediment to streams depending on the distance from those areas to the stream, for proposed commercial treatments in RCAs, no new landings or haul roads would be constructed and no heavy machinery or equipment would be allowed off existing roads. Trees felled within RCA Zone 4 would be yarded to existing roads using cables or tongs, and then removed. Because yarding and hauling trees within RCA Zone 4 is limited to the use of existing routes and proposed temporary roads, these operations are not expected to measurably increase sediment delivery. For Alternatives B and C, sediment delivery to streams is not expected to occur from non- commercial tree thinning, including non-commercial thinning proposed in RCA Zones 2, 3, and 4. Non-commercial thinning would occur by individual fallers cutting trees with chainsaws and hand piling or scattering material and would not occur closer than 30 feet to any waterbody. Because no heavy equipment or machinery would be used to conduct these activities, ground disturbance would be limited and soil that may be eroded and delivered as sediment to streams would not be exposed. Therefore, no sediment delivery to streams is expected from these activities. The MK Model estimates the sediment delivery distance for timber harvest, machine piling, or mastication at the 95% confidence level to be less than 9 feet. Therefore, mechanical slash piling and fuels mastication would not deliver sediment to waterbodies in the High Valley analysis area because slash piling and mastication using heavy equipment would only occur outside of the RCA.
82 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Effects to the Chemical Contaminants Watershed Condition Indicator
Summary: Alternatives A, B, and C would maintain the existing condition for the chemical contaminants WCI in all timeframes, which is FR in the Upper Squaw Creek subwatershed and functioning acceptably (FA) in the Lower Squaw Creek subwatershed.
Direct and Indirect Effects The chemical contaminants/nutrients indicator is FR in the Upper Little Squaw Creek subwatershed and FA in the Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatershed. Though no 303(d) listed streams, sources of excessive nutrient loading, or known sources of chemical contamination occur within either subwatershed, grazing in the Upper Little Squaw Creek subwatershed is likely affecting nutrients within the subwatershed, contributing to the FR rating. Under Alternative A, the chemical contaminants/nutrients WCI would continue to be FR in the Upper Little Squaw Creek subwatershed and FA in the Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatershed. Alternatives B and C would maintain the existing condition for the chemical contaminants WCI because both action alternatives incorporate design features for all project-related activities intended to address the potential for chemical contamination of surface water from fuel and or chemical releases associated with equipment used during implementation of proposed activities (Design Feature SW-6).
Effects to Secondary Watershed Condition Indicators
Summary: Alternatives A, B, and C would maintain the existing baseline condition, and Alternatives B and C would have long-term immeasurable beneficial effects for changes in peak/base flows, changes in drainage networks, disturbance history, disturbance regime, and RCAs resulting from road decommissioning, road realignment and aggregate surfacing, vegetation management activities, and prescribed fire. The only difference in effects trends between Alternatives B and C for these WCIs is a positive short-term effect to change in peak/base flows for Alternative B compared to no change for Alternative C.
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis for the secondary WCIs changes in peak/base flows, changes in drainage networks, disturbance history, disturbance regime, and RCAs, showed that Alternatives A, B, and C would maintain the existing baseline condition as indicated in Table 10, and Alternatives B and C would have long-term immeasurable beneficial effects resulting from road decommissioning, road realignment, and aggregate surfacing. Effects to these WCIs follow the trend with sediment to a lesser degree and result in immeasurable corresponding effects. The functionality classes for all of these WCIs would be maintained in their current status with movement toward desired conditions in the long term. The only difference in effects trends between Alternatives B and C for these WCIs is a positive short-term effect to change in peak/base flows for Alternative B compared to Alternative C.
83 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Peak/Base Flow Watershed Condition Indicator Alternative A would perpetuate the existing condition with regard to the changes in peak/base flows WCI, which is currently FUR in the Upper Little Squaw Creek subwatershed due to 13 irrigation diversions, high road densities, and vegetation conditions being outside desired conditions. The change in peak/base flows WCI is FR in Lower Little Squaw Creek due to high road densities and vegetation conditions being outside desired conditions. Sala et al. (2001) show that changes in successional status and species composition are tied to changes in transpiration and, in turn, water yield, indicating that fire exclusion likely reduces water yield. Alternative A leaves the Project Area at a high risk for uncharacteristic wildfire for all timeframes. This effect results in a negative trend for this indicator in the short and long term. Of the numerous disturbance processes impacting wildland watersheds, fires have the greatest potential to alter water yield and streamflow generation processes (Neary et al. 2005). Under Alternative A, if a fire were to occur, it is likely that changes in vegetation cover and soil infiltration processes would occur commensurate with soil burn severity (Parson et al. 2010) and would result in relatively large increases in peak flows. Under each of the action alternatives, an immeasurable improvement in peak/base flows in the long term is expected in the Project Area due to vegetation management activities, prescribed fire, and road decommissioning. Vegetation thinning and prescribed fire would shift vegetation conditions toward desired conditions and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire as well as reduce effects of fire exclusion on overall water yield. Reductions in the road network are expected to reduce accelerated stream flow routing by roads, resulting in lower peak flows. While numerous miles of roads would remain in the subwatersheds, the negative effect of roads on water yield would be incrementally reduced. The combination of these effects would result in a stream flow regime more reflective of an undisturbed watershed of similar size and characteristics. Based on field review, 14 of 18 transects contained upland vegetation to within less than 30 feet of the adjoining waterbody within the RCA. Under Alternative A, these upland timber types would be at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and could result in increased flows should a fire occur within these untreated stands. The difference in effect for peak/base flows between the action alternatives is caused by the 358 fewer acres of commercial vegetation treatment in these portions of the RCA containing upland vegetation under Alternative C than under Alternative B. Fewer acres treated correspond to increased risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, translating to potential increases in peak/base flows. These additional vegetation treatments within the RCA cause Alternative B to show a positive trend for change in peak/base flows in the short term compared to Alternative C.
Riparian Conservation Areas Watershed Condition Indicator Interested public concerns regarding riparian habitat led to analysis of effects of proposed actions on RCAs. Alternative A would perpetuate the existing condition with regard to the RCAs WCI, which is FR for both subwatersheds. The FR status is primarily due to the high amounts of roads within RCAs which increase sediment delivery and reduce potential shade along streams. Additional factors contributing to the current functionality of the RCAs WCI include vegetation conditions being outside of desired conditions. Additionally, Alternative A would leave the Project Area at high risk to wildfire and insect infestation due to higher stand densities and abundance of ladder fuels resulting from fire exclusion over the past century
84 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
(refer to “Vegetation” and “Fire and Fuels” sections). If a large fire were to occur, negative effects to sediment and temperature (as well as other WCIs) would be expected as increased erosion and reductions in stream shade are likely to occur after a large scale fire. All action alternatives are expected to maintain the existing functionality of the RCAs WCI in the long term. An immeasurable degrade to this indicator is expected in the temporary timeframe with measurable improving trend to the WCI in the short and long term. Immeasurable temporary negative effects to the RCAs WCI are associated with temporary road construction, road realignment, and road reconstruction which would result in ground disturbance and increased sediment delivery in the temporary timeframe (refer to sediment WCI discussion). Both action alternatives include closure, realignment, and decommissioning of roads within RCAs, which benefits overall RCA function in the short and long term. Alternatives B and C would decommission 6.4 miles of NFS roads and unauthorized routes in RCAs. Decommissioning these routes is expected to reduce sediment delivery and increase stream shade in the short term to long term. The temperature and sediment WCIs discussions include details about increases in stream shade associated with reductions in RCA roads and reductions in sediment associated with road decommissioning. Proposed vegetation management activities within RCAs for Alternatives B and C are expected to benefit the RCAs WCI in the long term. Commercial and non-commercial thinning as well as prescribed fire within RCAs are directed at reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire in the long term. Vegetation treatments within RCAs are not expected to reduce stream shade or increase sediment delivery in the short and long term. Though negligible reductions in shade from prescribed burning and non-commercial thinning within RCAs could occur in the temporary timeframe, these reductions are expected to be small and immeasurable due to the buffer width distances associated with prescribed fire ignition (75 feet), thinning activities (30 feet), and mastication (outside RCAs) as well as burn prescriptions designed to limit moderate and high severity burning (refer to the temperature WCI discussion above). In the long term, reducing stand densities within RCAs would allow for increased growth of larger trees, which may increase shade. Additionally, reductions in stand densities and ladder fuels are designed to reduce wildfire risk throughout the Project Area. In the long term, reducing stand densities within RCAs as proposed with Alternative B commercial thinning within the RCA, would allow for increased growth of larger trees, which may reduce wildfire risk to a greater extent compared to Alternative C (refer to the “Fire and Fuels” section). Riparian restoration treatments would improve the RCAs WCI in the Upper Little Squaw Creek subwatershed by restoring healthy riparian vegetation through cattle exclusion in the Little Squaw Creek wetland and, if determined advantageous after 3 years, by restoring beaver to this area. These treatments would allow existing willow, alder, and dogwood to recover from heavy grazing. Restoring this riparian habitat would allow for successful reintroduction of beaver, which would likely sustain long-term wetland restoration benefits for the historic beaver pond area in the Little Squaw Creek wetland.
Cumulative Effects to Watershed Condition Indicators The cumulative effects area encompasses the Upper Little Squaw Creek and Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatersheds, including roughly 33,602 acres. Past and ongoing management actions have been considered in describing the baseline existing condition for the WCIs.
85 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Reasonably foreseeable activities that could potentially affect these WCIs include ongoing and future wildfire suppression activities, timber harvest on State and private lands, timber harvest and road management by Idaho Department of Lands on State of Idaho land, and continued grazing on NFS, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Idaho Department of Land, and private lands. Alternative A would not change the functional rating for the WCIs. As a result, no additional or cumulative effects, either indirectly or directly related to the planned management actions, would occur under Alternative A. For Alternatives B and C, sediment delivery from the High Valley Project would not be measurable. Though ongoing and foreseeable activities would be expected to deliver sediment to stream channels in the cumulative effects area, neither Alternative B nor Alternative C would be expected to cumulatively result in a measurable change in sediment conditions to these streams. Because both action alternatives incorporate design features for all project-related activities intended to address the potential for chemical contamination of surface water from fuel and or chemical releases associated with equipment utilized to implement proposed actions, no measurable cumulative effects to the chemical contaminants/nutrients WCI would be expected from Alternative B or C in combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable future projects within the water resources cumulative effects area. Because the action alternatives are designed to improve watershed function through the restoration of aquatic resources and road-related impacts and would result in a long-term benefit to temperature, changes in peak/base flows, changes in drainage networks, disturbance history, disturbance regime, and RCAs, Alternatives B and C would result in a negligible improvement in these WCIs in conjunction with other past, ongoing, and future activities in the cumulative effects area.
Soil Indicators Effects to Sensitive Riparian Soils
Summary: Alternative A would not affect riparian soils because no activities which would change the current condition are proposed. However, if a wildfire were to occur within these riparian areas, soils could be impacted by burning of riparian vegetation; consumption of the surface organic layer; and, in the case of high-severity fire, by changing the chemical composition of the upper layers of the soil. Because no activities are occurring within 30 feet of stream channels (RCA Zone 1), and only non-commercial activities are occurring in RCA Zones 2 and 3 for Alternatives B and C, effects to riparian soils from Alternatives B and C would be immeasurable for all timeframes (refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA zones). Fuels activities would be expected to have an immeasurable beneficial effect to riparian soils in the short term and long term by reducing the risk of high-severity wildfire within and adjacent to riparian soils.
86 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
In the 25 acres proposed for wetland restoration, riparian soils would be improved in the temporary to long-term timeframes through cattle exclusion fencing and modifications to the transportation system.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Riparian soils are located immediately adjacent to the small headwater streams within most of the Project Area, generally within 20 feet of stream channels. Alternative A would not affect riparian soils because no activities which would change the current condition are proposed. However, if a wildfire were to occur within these riparian areas, soils could be impacted by burning of riparian vegetation; consumption of the surface organic layer; and, in the case of high-severity fire, by changing the chemical composition of the upper layers of the soil. Treatments in the RCA proposed under Alternatives B and C are important for reducing susceptibility to uncharacteristic wildfire. Many of the stream channels within the High Valley Project Area are small channels with very narrow riparian areas. In these cases, the majority of the RCA is composed of the same soil and vegetative conditions as the proposed upland treatment areas and does not contain riparian soils. For Alternative B, 357 acres of commercial treatment are proposed in RCA Zone 4, though no heavy mechanical equipment, such as skidders or yarders, would be permitted within the RCA (Design Feature SW-2). Keeping heavy equipment out of RCAs should prevent nearly all compaction due to commercial harvest. Though a small amount of soil disturbance would occur within commercially treated RCAs from skidding logs, riparian soils would not be affected because this activity would occur within the portion of the RCA where soils and vegetation characteristics are more similar to the upland soils and vegetation outside of the RCA, which do not contain riparian soils. Commercial treatment would be prohibited within RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3, which would help provide for long-term large woody debris recruitment, shade, and microclimate. As discussed by FEMAT (1993), nearly all stream functions influenced by forest trees are protected within 1 SPTH of the stream (Table 2). For Alternative B and C, non-commercial tree thinning would occur in RCA Zones 2, 3, and 4. Non-commercial thinning would have an immeasurable temporary effect to riparian soils. Removing some trees in RCA Zone 2 could reduce litter fall and cause an immeasurable impact to organic inputs to riparian areas. The remaining trees and the riparian vegetation adjacent to streams would continue to provide adequate organic inputs to riparian areas. In the short to long term, vegetation would recover and continue providing organic inputs to riparian soils. Road decommissioning, road realignment, and unauthorized route decommissioning would have an immeasurable temporary negative effect to riparian soils at the 18 stream crossings proposed for removal. These riparian areas are currently affected by ground disturbance associated with the roads. Decommissioning these roads would improve riparian soil conditions in the short to long term by restoring the soil elevation and allowing the development of moist riparian soils by removing the road prisms that result in dry upland soil
87 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
conditions. Over time, as these soils revegetate, moist riparian soil conditions would be restored. Temporary road construction would have temporary to short-term negative effects to riparian soils at 2 intermittent stream crossings. At these crossings, upland soils would be placed over riparian soils. After completing project-related activities, these soils would be removed and riparian soils would be restored in the long term. The proposed wetland restoration would directly benefit up to 25 acres of riparian soils for all timeframes for both action alternatives. The proposed saw-buck fencing would reduce cattle impacts of compacting soft riparian soils and reducing riparian shade through browsing of riparian vegetation. Fuels activities would not be expected to affect riparian soils in the temporary timeframe. No prescribed fire ignitions would occur within RCA Zones 1 and 2. Fire would be allowed to back into riparian areas. Prescribed fire would occur during times of relatively high humidity and moist duff conditions which would prevent consumption of soil organic layers. Fuels activities would be expected to have an immeasurable beneficial effect to riparian soils in the short and long term by reducing the risk of high-severity wildfire within and adjacent to riparian soils. Ongoing and foreseeable future activities which could result in cumulative effects to riparian soils along with the action alternatives include grazing, dispersed recreation, and road maintenance and use. These activities would not, together with the action alternatives, measurably affect sensitive riparian soils because current BMPs are designed to mitigate negative effects. Effects to Slope Stability
Summary: Under Alternative A, no activities are proposed which could affect landslide risk. However, the risk of wildfire and resultant surface erosion and lack of vegetative cover could potentially trigger landslides. Under Alternatives B and C, 66 and 56 acres, respectively, of lands modeled as moderate-to- high landslide hazard occur within commercial treatment units; however, Design Feature SW-9 restricts harvest and prohibits ground-based skidding on field-identified landslide prone areas, minimizing the direct and indirect effects of harvest activities on slope stability. Additionally, Alternatives B and C would reduce the miles of road identified as potentially landslide prone from 0.92 miles to 0.78 miles. Furthermore, both Alternatives B and C reduce the risk of wildfire occurring; thus, reducing the potential for surface erosion and lack of vegetative cover triggering a landslide compared to Alternative A, with Alternative B reducing the risk to the greatest extent of all alternatives.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Landslides are a part of a watershed’s natural disturbance regime and contribute to proper watershed function and development of aquatic habitat by providing coarse sediment and large woody debris. Although landslides are naturally occurring events, human-caused disturbances, such as road construction and, to a lesser extent, timber harvest, can increase the potential for and occurrence of landslides. The Forest Plan requires identifying landslide
88 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
prone areas (Forest Plan Standards SWST12, SWGU03, and SWGU04). Landslide risk is low for this Project Area; roughly 1.1% of the Project Area modeled as moderate-to-high risk for landslides and no past landslides were identified in the Project Area. Under Alternative A, no additional vegetation treatments would occur that could affect landslide risk. However, the risk of wildfire would increase as fuel loads increase, and high- severity wildfire could trigger landslides due to increased surface erosion from lack of vegetative cover and increased saturated soils due to the lack of transpiration. These risks would recover over a number of years but would remain high at least into the short term. Within the Project Area, 0.9 miles of existing NFS roads and unauthorized routes exist on areas identified as landslide prone. Since roads are a primary source of landslides, these roads would continue to be at risk of failure. Neither Alternative B nor Alternative C should influence hillslope stability or increase the frequency of landslide occurrence. Under Alternative B, 66 acres (1.2%) of commercial units occur on lands modeled as moderate-to-high landslide hazard while Alternative C has 56 acres (1.0%). Design Feature SW-9 restricts harvest and prohibits ground-based skidding on field-identified landslide prone areas. Incorporating field evaluation criteria would minimize the direct and indirect effects of harvest activities on slope stability. Though approximately 0.40 miles of temporary road is proposed on lands modeled as moderate-to-high hazard for landslide prone, field verification of this area (Design Feature SW-9) would determine the subsequent management restrictions necessary for avoiding and preventing landslides. Both action alternatives would reduce the miles of road identified as potentially landslide prone from 0.92 miles to 0.78 miles. Past, ongoing, and foreseeable future activities which could result in cumulative effects to landslide risk along with the action alternatives include past timber harvest and road maintenance and use. These activities would not, together with the action alternatives, increase landslide risk. Effects to Detrimental Soil Disturbance
Summary: Alternative A proposes no new treatments which could affect detrimental disturbance (DD) and would continue to meet Forest Plan Standard SWST02. Alternatives B and C would exceed 15% DD in 17 and 15 activity areas, respectively, in the temporary and short-term time frames; however, all activity areas would drop to less than 15% DD in the long term, meeting the requirements of Forest Plan Standard SWST02.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects DD is the alteration of natural soil characteristics resulting in immediate or prolonged loss of soil productivity and soil-hydrologic conditions. At least 85% of an activity area should be in a non-detrimentally disturbed condition (Forest Plan Standard SWST02). Stated another way, no more than 15% of an activity area should have detrimentally disturbed soil after the management activity is completed. Existing DD in proposed activity areas for Alternatives B and C ranges from 0% to 10.7%, and is meeting Forest Plan Standard SWST02. The existing DD is largely attributed to past timber harvest.
89 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Alternative A would not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect DD and would continue to meet Forest Plan Standard SWST02 because no new treatments would occur that could affect DD. For this analysis, activities proposed under Alternatives B and C contributing to DD consist of commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning, hand piling and burning, machine piling, and burning/mastication and prescribed fire treatments. Through these activities, Alternatives B and C would exceed 15% DD in 17 and 15 activity areas, respectively, in the temporary and short-term time frames as a result of soil displacement due to commercial thinning and road decommissioning; however, all activity areas would drop to less than 15% DD in the long term based on observations of vegetative recovery for similar projects, thus meeting the requirements of Forest Plan Standard SWST02. Design Feature VM-8 would ensure this standard would be met. Past and ongoing activities in the activity areas associated with the High Valley Project were considered in the existing condition baseline. Foreseeable future activities would be minimal and should not cause a measurable, cumulative increase to DD. Effects to Total Soil Resource Commitment
Summary: Under Alternative A, total soil resource commitment (TSRC) would remain at 8.1%, and would not meet Forest Plan Standard SWST03 in any timeframe. Though Alternatives B and C would increase TSRC in the temporary timeframe to 11.5% and 11.3%, respectively, they would meet SWST03 by trending toward 5% in the short term and long term when TSRC is estimated to drop to 6.9% for both action alternatives.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The Forest Plan defines TSRC as the conversion of a productive site to an essentially non- productive site for a period of more than 50 years. Examples for TSRC include classified or unclassified roads, designated skid roads, landing areas, parking lots, mining dumps or excavations, dedicated trails, developed campgrounds, and other dedicated facilities. Productivity on areas identified as TSRC range from 0% to 40% of natural condition. Currently, TSRC within the activity area is 8.1%. This level is above the threshold for Forest Plan Standard SWST03, which is no greater than 5% TSRC. Because Alternative A does not propose any activities, TSRC would remain at 8.1%. For this alternative, TSRC would not meet Forest Plan Standard SWST03 in any timeframe. Though Alternatives B and C would increase TSRC in the temporary time frame to 11.5% and 11.3%, respectively, they would meet SWST03 by trending toward 5% in the short term and long term, with TSRC estimated to drop to 6.9%. This value represents a 1.2% reduction over the existing condition, moving TSRC in the Project Area toward the threshold of 5%. Design Feature VM-8 would help ensure this standard would be met. Because no activities are proposed for Alternative A which would change the current condition of TSRC, no cumulative effects would occur. For Alternatives B and C, past and ongoing activities were considered in the existing condition baseline for TSRC. No foreseeable future activities are proposed which would affect TSRC.
90 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Fish Habitat
Summary: Alternatives A, B, and C wouldn’t have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to fish habitat or fish species. The project would not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect fish habitat conditions reflected by the WCIs. All 9 functionality ratings would be maintained, with the greatest improvement in the sediment/turbidity WCI.
This section describes how the alternatives address Purpose 3, to improve watershed function through the restoration of aquatic resources and reduction of road-related impacts to wildlife, fish, soil, and water resources while providing for the transportation system necessary to meet short and long-term management needs, by focusing on the improvement of watershed function associated with project activities. This section also addresses the issues and concerns that proposed activities could harm forest resources and reduce biodiversity.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects No listed or sensitive fish species are present within the analysis area for fisheries, nor is critical habitat present. Additionally, only the temperature, sedimentation/turbidity, chemical contamination/nutrients, change in peak/base flows, change in drainage network, road density/location, disturbance history, disturbance regime, and RCAs WCIs were deemed relevant to the High Valley Project. Alternative A would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect to fish habitat or fish species because no activities are proposed which would change the current condition. Alternatives B and C would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects or impacts on listed or sensitive fish species or habitat, and suitable habitat would not be altered because no listed or sensitive fish species are present within the analysis area for fisheries, nor is critical habitat present. Therefore, no loss of viability is expected for any fish species, and proposed activities would not reduce fish biodiversity. Alternatives B and C would not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect habitat conditions reflected by the WCIs because all 9 functionality ratings would be maintained. Though the High Valley Project may slightly impact some of the metrics used in the WCI condition ratings, it would not affect habitat conditions reflected by the WCIs (Table 10). Please refer to the “Effects to Watershed Condition Indicators” analysis in the “Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section for additional information on specific effects to WCIs. For example, as discussed in the “Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section, the sediment/turbidity WCI would show some improvement based on reducing the road density and location WCI, but not enough to change the functionality rating, (Table 10). Additionally, design features would reduce impacts from sediment delivery and further protect the RCAs and, consequently, WCIs. As discussed in the “Soil, Water, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section, both action alternatives would maintain the existing functionality of the temperature WCI in all timeframes, which is FR in both the Upper Little Squaw Creek and Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatersheds. Within the Upper Little Squaw Creek and Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatersheds, percent stream shading, and inversely stream temperature, is expected to immeasurably decrease under each action alternative in the temporary (0–3 years) and short- term (3–10 years) timeframes and immeasurably increase in the long term (15+ years).
91 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Immeasurable changes in shade translate to a small, localized and negligible magnitude of effect in context of the entire analysis area. The difference in effect to the temperature WCI between Alternatives B and C is small. Therefore, Alternatives B and C would not substantially affect fish habitat, as no change to the Integration of Pathways are anticipated from this project. Refer to the fisheries resource technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis.
Transportation
Summary: Alternatives B and C are identical with respect to proposed transportation activities and effects. Compared to Alternative A, Alternatives B and C would change NFS road miles by decreasing Maintenance Level6 (ML) 1 miles from 35.7 to 32.0, decreasing ML 2 miles from 20.5 to 18.5, and increasing ML 2 (Administrative Use Only) miles from 0.5 to 2.6; ML 3 miles would remain the same. To improve road-related impacts to watershed function, Alternatives B and C would decrease open road density from 1.83 to 1.63 mi/mi2 and total road density from 5.64 to 5.34 mi/mi2. Aggregate surface miles would increase from 2.0 to 4.8 miles, and road miles within RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3 would decrease from 11.8 to 8.6 miles (refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA zones). Approximately 8.5 miles of authorized NFS roads and another 18.8 miles of unauthorized or unclassified routes would be decommissioned.
This section describes how the alternatives address Purpose 3, to improve watershed function through the restoration of aquatic resources and reduction of road-related impacts to wildlife, fish, soil, and water resources while providing for the transportation system necessary to meet short- and long-term management needs by focusing on the improvement of watershed function associated with project activities. Additionally, this section addresses concerns identified during public scoping regarding assessment of additional roads for decommissioning as part of the Travel Analysis Process (TAP). Refer to the transportation resources technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis.
Indicators Motor Vehicle Use (MVUM) Designations • Designation type (miles) Improvement in road-related impacts to watershed function • Open and total road density (mi/mi2) • Aggregate surfacing (miles) • Roads within RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3 (miles) • Road decommissioning (miles)
6 ML 1: Intermittent service roads closed to vehicular traffic. ML 2: Roads open for public or permitted use by high clearance vehicles. ML 3: Roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car.
92 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A does not propose changes to the transportation system in the analysis area. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects would result from implementing Alternative A. The existing NFS road system, as well as the total road density in the analysis area, would remain at current levels. The motorized wheeled vehicle designations, as illustrated on the annual Emmett Ranger District MVUM, and the open road density would also remain at the current levels under this alternative. The miles of aggregate surfacing would remain unchanged and continue to degrade in effectiveness over time. The number of NFS road miles within RCAs would be maintained at current levels. Finally, about 21.0 miles of unauthorized and unclassified routes in the analysis area would continue to exist. Alternatives B and C are identical for transportation system modifications, treatments, and actions. These alternatives would modify the transportation system in the analysis area based on recommendations from an interdisciplinary science-based roads analysis process, the Forest-wide TAP Addendum #1 to the Final Report (09/30/2015) (Forest Service 2016). The action alternatives include constructing 0.5 miles of new authorized NFS road and 8.6 miles of temporary road. Temporary roads constructed as part of the vegetation management activities would be decommissioned after implementation activities have been completed. All 0.5 miles of the new construction road segments and approximately 1.8 miles of the proposed 4.4 miles of realignment discussed below would use existing unauthorized or unclassified7 routes. During new construction and reconstruction by realignment, existing unauthorized routes would be used where these routes currently exist, which would decrease the amount of soil disturbance and potential construction costs. About 0.1 miles of the proposed new construction would connect NFS road 606 to State Endowment Lands located in Section 36, Township 11 North, Range 2 East. This new connection would grant long-term access to State Lands managed by the Idaho Department of Lands by granting an easement request. A future cost share agreement between the Forest Service and Idaho Department of Lands for NFS road 606 would help reduce long-term road maintenance costs to the Forest Service on about 1.4 miles of NFS road. The current ML 1 designation would change on this segment of NFS road 606 to ML 2, to allow for long-term administrative access. The inclusion of 0.1 miles of new construction would facilitate cooperation between the Idaho Department Lands and Forest Service and a shared transportation system serving the needs of multiple parties to achieve fuels reduction and vegetation management within the WUI, consistent with Forest Plan Objectives FROB02 and FROB05. In the analysis area, 64.5 miles of NFS roads would receive general road maintenance and 4.4 miles would be reconstructed thru realignment of existing NFS roads. The existing prisms would be decommissioned once realignments are completed. Unauthorized routes in the Project Area would be decommissioned except for those used as existing prisms to facilitate new construction or realignment of NFS roads. The total miles by maintenance level would remain unchanged for ML 3 roads but would increase for ML 2 roads and
7 As noted in the Proposed Action description in Chapter 1, unauthorized can be used interchangeably with unclassified, as defined in the 2010 Forest Plan. Unauthorized or unclassified roads are roads on NFS lands that are not managed as part of the Forest transportation system.
93 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
decrease for ML 1 roads (Table 11). The decrease in NFS road miles and minor adjustments in maintenance levels would slightly reduce annual road maintenance costs by $1,471. Table 11 summarizes the effects of each alternative on the transportation system within the High Valley Project Area. Table 11. Transportation effects by alternative Action Alternative A Alternatives B and C Road Maintenance Level (ML) (miles) ML 3 11.5 11.5 ML 2 20.5 18.5 ML 2 (Administrative Use Only) 0.5 2.6 ML 1 35.7 32.0 TOTAL 68.2 64.6 Motor Vehicle Use Map by Designation (miles) National Forest System (NFS) Road—Open to All 22.2 19.7 Vehicles, Yearlong NFS Road—Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal 7/1 to 9/30 9.3 9.8 NFS Road—Open to Vehicles 50 inches or Less Only, 0.5 0.5 Seasonal (Dual Designation NFS road 654) Open and Total Road Density (mi/mi2) Open Road Density 1.83 1.63 Seasonal Road Density 0.77 0.81 Total Road Density 5.64 5.34 Aggregate Surface Miles (miles) Total aggregate surfacing within Project Area 14.3. 19.6 Total aggregate surfacing on NFS Roads within Riparian 2.0 4.8 Conservation Area Zones 1, 2, and 3 Roads within Riparian Conservation Area Zones 1, 2, and 3 (miles) Road—Open Yearlong 2.4 2.0 Road—Open Seasonally 2.0 2.0 Total Road Mileage 11.8 8.6 Road Decommissioning (miles) Authorized Roads 0 8.5 Unauthorized Roads 0 18.8
Motor Vehicle Use Designations Alternatives B and C would decrease the miles of NFS roads “Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong” from 22.2 to 19.7 miles while the miles of NFS roads “Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal” would increase from the current level of 9.3 to 9.8 miles. The miles of road “Open to Motorized Vehicles 50 Inches and Less, Yearlong” would remain unchanged at 0.5 miles (Table 11).
Open and Total Road Density Under Alternatives B and C, open road density would decrease from about 1.83 to 1.63 mi/mi2. Seasonal roads, those NFS roads “Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal” from July 1–
94 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
September 30 would increase from 0.77 to 0.81 mi/mi2. Total road density of the authorized transportation system on NFS lands would decrease from 5.64 to 5.34 mi/mi2 (Table 11).
Aggregate Surfacing Aggregate surfacing greatly reduces the amount of erosion and potential sediment What is Aggregate Surfacing? delivery from roads. Placing aggregate surfacing on native surface roads could reduce surfacing loss from the road by 70% to Aggregate surfacing is the application 85%. For Alternatives B and C, the miles of of aggregate, which can be gravel, aggregate road surfacing would increase from crushed stone, or sand, to the road surface. 14.3 to 19.6 miles. About 9.0 miles of replacement aggregate (resurfacing) would be Aggregate resources often come from quarries or “gravel pits” located across applied to the existing 14.3 miles because the the Forest. existing aggregate has exceeded its useful life Aggregate surfaced roads are more span of about 20 years. Use of the Ferncroft colloquially known as “gravel roads”. aggregate pit, located within the analysis area on NFS road 654E, would substantially decrease hauling cost per unit. Aggregate surfacing mileage for roads within RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3 would increase from about 2.0 to 4.8 miles (Table 11).
Roads within Riparian Conservation Area Zones 1, 2, and 3 The total road miles of the authorized transportation system within RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3 on NFS lands would decrease from 11.8 to 8.6 miles (refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA zones). The miles of roads “Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong” would decrease from 2.4 to 2.0 miles, while the roads “Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal” would remain unchanged at 2.0 miles (Table 11). A total of 3.8 miles of NFS road would be decommissioned within RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3. The majority of these miles would occur on roads closed yearlong.
Road Decommissioning Interested public concerns regarding assessment of additional roads for decommissioning as part of the TAP led to an analysis of effects of proposed decommissioning activities. No road decommissioning is proposed under Alternative A. An addendum to the Forest-wide TAP has been prepared for the Upper and Lower Little Squaw Creek subwatersheds, and Alternatives B and C would implement recommendations within the scope of the High Valley Project identified in the addendum (Forest Service 2016). This TAP, Boise Forest Coalition (BFC) recommendations, IDT meetings, and resource effects and future needs were used to inform the Responsible Official of transportation needs within the Project Area. Roads proposed for closure and obliteration were assessed for future fire or timber management needs, and based on the high density of roads within the Project Area, were determined to not be needed. Additional roads were considered for decommissioning with the TAP but were decided against because additional decommissioning would not substantially influence WCIs or influence open road density for
95 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
wildlife focal species when measured against the benefits of the roads for activities, such as vegetation restoration, fuels reduction, and wildfire suppression. Consistent with Forest Plan Guideline FRGU11, approximately 8.5 miles of authorized NFS roads have been identified under Alternatives B and C for decommissioning, and another 18.8 miles of unauthorized or unclassified routes would be decommissioned, thus reducing road density by 2.0 mi/mi2 across the Project Area. Additionally, the 8.6 miles of temporary roads constructed to facilitate vegetation management activities would be decommissioned following implementation. Within RCAs in the Project Area, the current road density is 7.87 mi/mi2. Alternatives B and C would reduce RCA road density within the Project Area to 6.00 mi/mi2, consistent with Forest Plan Guideline FRGU05. About 3.92 miles of road would be decommissioned within RCAs. About 4.4 miles of road would be realigned for the primary purpose of reducing NFS road miles within the RCAs. The RCA road miles within RCA Zones 1, 2, and 3 would decrease from 11.8 miles to about 8.6 miles through decommissioning. Alternatives B and C would not decommission roads or routes affecting other federal, State, or County agencies, nor would any cost share roads be affected. Tribal governments have been consulted and the public has been involved in project development and the proposed actions are based on recommendations provided by the BFC, consistent with Forest Plan Objective FROB05. The High Valley Project would not decommission or close any routes identified by either a County or State that has been identified as an RS2477 route.
Cumulative Effects Past and ongoing activities within the Project Area were considered in the baseline data and have been accounted for in the existing condition. The ongoing Williams Creek Stewardship Project would potentially use some of the same NFS roads as the High Valley Project for log and aggregate hauling purposes. This coincident use, especially along NFS roads 643, 643M, 654, and 654E, would be expected to produce higher volumes of log truck, gravel truck, and heavy equipment use. Because conflicts between public use and implementation of multiple projects could potentially increase, Design Feature VM-5 has been developed to mitigate transportation conflicts between public use and project-related implementation activities. Though the increased use on some road segments could increase the loss rate of aggregate and native road surfaces, the reapplication of aggregate surfacing proposed under Alternatives B and C would alleviate this concern. Cumulative effects to the transportation system could be expected from projects associated with the Idaho Department of Lands. Increased use of NFS roads 606, 620, and 643 could occur within the cumulative effects boundary. These NFS roads and some secondary roads could see increased use patterns for log hauling and road maintenance. However, cost share agreements would assist in the maintenance and decrease overall road maintenance costs for the federal government.
96 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Economics
Summary: Overall, Alternative B would produce the most volume, revenue, and jobs compared to the other alternatives, producing 31.7 million board feet (MMBF); $2,161,800; and 726 jobs, respectively. Alternative A would produce no volume or jobs, and would cost $430,100. Alternative C would produce 29.8 MMBF of volume, $1,877,600 of revenue, and 684 jobs.
This section describes how the alternatives address Purpose 4, to use wood products resulting from restoration and fuel reduction treatments to support local and regional economies and offset the cost of project implementation, by focusing on economic outcomes associated with project activities. Additionally, this section addresses issues and concerns identified during public scoping regarding whether any economic benefit would occur for local communities. Refer to the economics resource technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The Project Area is located within Boise, Gem, and Valley counties, where timber sales and their associated activities affect these local communities and other nearby areas based on their impact to employment. Under Alternative A, no new management activities would be implemented in the analysis area. No wood products would be removed from the analysis area, nor would submerchantable trees be thinned. Additionally, the transportation system would remain at its current level and fire and fuels conditions would remain on their current trajectory. This alternative would have no effect on employment opportunities in Boise, Gem, or Valley counties. Though no expenses would be incurred for sale preparation, contract administration, thinning operations, prescribed burning activities, road improvements, or road decommissioning, given the incurred cost for this NEPA analysis (Table 12), this alternative would be considered “below cost” by approximately $430,100. Alternatives B and C would remove an estimated 31.7 MMBF (60,872 CCF) and 29.8 MMBF (57,318 CCF), respectively, of wood products and generate a potential net value (PNV) of approximately $2,949,000 and $2,626,600, respectively (Table 12). By generating wood products from carefully designed and mitigated forest restoration treatments, Alternatives B and C facilitate Forest Plan Objective 1646 to manage suited timberlands for a sustained yield and even flow of forest products, while reducing sediment delivery and progressing toward desired vegetation conditions. Wood products and work associated with implementing restoration activities under these alternatives would also help sustain economies in the local communities of Boise, Gem, and Valley counties and adjacent areas by creating jobs. The total private sector estimated jobs created and supported under Alternatives B and C would be 726 and 684 jobs, respectively. Given the PNV and estimated Forest Service costs, Alternative B would be considered “above cost” by approximately $2,161,800, and Alternative C would be considered “above cost” by approximately $1,877,600. The cost of restoration and other activities would be less than the PNV (revenue generated from timber sale receipts and available for funding restoration items) by about $430,300 for Alternative B and $154,500 for Alternative C
97 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
(Table 12). Therefore, supplemental funding would not be necessary to fund restoration or other activities for either action alternative. Cumulatively, the ongoing Williams Creek Project would generate a slight improvement in PNV for both Alternatives B and C from decreased project-related road maintenance costs associated with the shared use of the NFs roads 643 and 643M within the High Valley Project boundary. Reasonably foreseeable vegetation management projects on lands managed by the Idaho Department of Lands are not anticipated to cumulatively impact the financial assessment or revenue generated by either alternative but may cumulatively impact the level of jobs and economic activity in Boise, Gem, and/or Valley counties and surrounding communities by providing increased volume harvested in the foreseeable future. The financial assessment or revenue generated by either alternative might be increased from efficiencies gained from the potential use of “Good Neighbor Authority” (2014 Farm Bill), which would allow the Forest Service and the Idaho Department of Lands to work across jurisdictional boundaries to accomplish restoration related activities. Table 12. Financial assessment, appraised value (PNV), and other project costs and associated surplus funds by alternative Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Net volume CCF (MMBF) 0 60,872 (31.7) 57,318 (29.8) Potential net value (PNV) $0 $2,949,000 $2,626,600 Commercial treatment costsa –$430,100 –$787,200 –$749,000 Net revenue (PNV minus costs) –$430,100 $2,161,800 $1,877,600 Restoration Project Expenditures Other project costsb $0 –$2,518,700 –$2,472,100 Surplus funds (absolute value of PNV $0 $430,300 $154,500 minus other project costs) a Commercial treatment costs include costs associated with the commercial harvest, such as, cutting, skidding, loading, hauling, brush disposal, and minimum road improvements or construction necessary to facilitate the removal of wood products, NEPA, sale preparation and contract administration costs. b Other project costs include road costs (maintenance, decommission, etc.) and other proposed activities not associated with commercial harvest.
Grazing/Range
Summary: Alternative A would not change the existing grazing allotment permits, and overstory vegetation would continue to reduce production of understory forage. Proposed management activities for Alternatives B and C are compatible with current grazing allotment management strategies and would increase understory forage production and the availability of forage across the Project Area, improving conditions for the rangeland resource. Additionally, Alternatives B and C would minimize potential effects of project activities to allotment management and forage availability through Design Feature RG-1.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The High Valley Project Area includes portions of 5 different cattle and horse grazing allotments. Alternative A would not alter the cattle and horse grazing permit system; therefore, Alternative A would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect to the permit system and would not substantially affect the range resource. However, under this alternative,
98 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
canopy cover would continue to increase, which could result in decreased forage production because of increased shade, thus reducing available forage for livestock and wildlife. Proposed vegetation management activities under Alternatives B and C are compatible with current grazing allotment management strategies. Implementing Alternatives B and C would increase understory forage production and the availability of forage across the Project Area, improving conditions for the rangeland resource. Implementation strategies would be designed to conserve vegetative communities used as grazing allotments. If rest is determined to be required following implementation of prescribed burning activities, the District Range Management Specialist would work with the permittee to minimize impact as described for Design Feature RG-1. Though project activities proposed under Alternatives B and C, such as forest thinning, reforestation, prescribed fire, and riparian enhancement treatments, could affect allotment management and forage availability for livestock, design features limit negative effects to the range resource and the grazing permittees. Design Feature RG-1 requires notifying the District Range Management Specialist of the timing of project activities, including commercial harvest, fuel abatement, prescribed fire, non-commercial thinning, and road activities, who would, in turn, inform permittees through the allotment annual operating instructions (AOI) of pending project activities to minimize the potential for conflicts and allow for short-term modification of grazing practices where necessary. Short-term modifications of grazing practices during project implementation would be coordinated with the hydrologist, fish biologist, and soil scientist to ensure Forest Plan compliance. Range improvements within the Project Area, such as fences, cattle guards, troughs, and spring developments, would be protected from proposed activities through coordination of treatments between the Range Specialist and the specialist in charge of the treatment. Because the grazing allotments would continue to be administered with design features limiting negative effects to range resources and permittees, the action alternatives would not have substantial effects directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, to the range resource. Refer to the range resource technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis.
Climate Change
Summary: Alternative A does not make forested vegetation more resilient to disturbances, including climate change. The effects of Alternatives B and C would be consistent with policy and science regarding ecological conditions and resilience to climate change. Alternatives B and C would shift vegetative conditions toward desired conditions fostering resistance and resilience to disturbance, including those associated with a changing climate, but Alternative C would have less magnitude (refer to the “Vegetation” section).
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects According to the 2010 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2010a), the effects of climate change on projects were addressed through the development of Forest-wide desired conditions assumed to foster resistance and resilience to disturbance, including those associated with a changing climate. Forests with vegetative conditions similar to historical conditions are more resilient to drought, epidemic levels of insect pathogens, and severe
99 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
wildfire (Fule et al 2009). Stands and landscapes that are more fire resistant will likely also be more resilient and resistant to climate change (Stephens et al. 2012). Alternative A would have no direct or indirect effects on the vegetative conditions that would make forested vegetation more resilient to disturbances, including climate change. Cumulatively, older untreated and undisturbed vegetation within and adjacent to the Project Area would continue to advance successionally, trending away from desired conditions. Though areas of ongoing treatment outside of the High Valley Project, such as the Williams Creek Project, would have reduced density, altered species composition, and increased heterogeneity in contrast to vegetative conditions under Alternative A, the cumulative risk that epidemic insect outbreaks would spread across large contiguous areas would continue to increase. Disturbances, including insect epidemics, stand-replacing wildfire, and climate change, singly or in combination, would potentially produce uncharacteristic effects across large portions of the area, which would further reduce the resilience of the landscape to advance towards desired conditions in the event of a disturbance. In comparison to Alternative A, Alternatives B and C would advance vegetative conditions towards desired landscape resiliency conditions by decreasing the insect and disease and wildfire hazard ratings (refer to the “Vegetation” section). Alternative B proceeds towards desired resiliency conditions to a greater extent than Alternative C due to the increased vegetation treatments proposed within the RCAs. The effects of both alternatives would be consistent with policy and science regarding ecological conditions and resilience to climate change. Cumulatively, Alternatives B and C would contribute to a greater diversity of heterogeneous conditions across associated landscapes more consistent with the historical fire regimes than Alternative A. The treated areas, in combination with the Williams Creek Project, would develop stand species composition, structural conditions, and insect and disease patterns that would break up the continuity that currently exists. In the event of disturbance within the Project Area and the surrounding area, the treated areas, in combination with the Williams Creek Project, would be more resilient to disturbances, including wildfire and climate change, and would contribute to a more resilient and diverse landscape. For Alternative C, resilience would be slightly lower than Alternative B due to the difference in treatments in the RCAs (refer to the “Vegetation” section). Refer to the climate change technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis.
Noxious Weeds
Summary: Though implementing Alternatives B and C could increase the potential for the introduction of new noxious weed species or spread of known noxious weed species in the Project Area based on the proposed ground-disturbing activities and temporary modification of the transportation system, the introduction of mitigations through the design features would diminish the risk for weed dispersal.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Known noxious weed populations of concern in the High Valley Project Area are rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), and Canada
100 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
thistle (Cirsium arvense). Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) was also recently reported within the area. Most noxious weed populations occur on roadsides and are surrounded by desirable plants. The Forest’s Integrated Weed Management Program has identified these weed populations and is working toward containment and, where possible, eradication of known populations through treatments overtime. Though implementing Alternatives B and C could increase the potential for the introduction of new noxious weed species or spread of known noxious weed species in the Project Area based on the proposed ground-disturbing activities and temporary modification of the transportation system, the introduction of mitigations through the design features identified in Appendix A (NX-1 through NX-5) would diminish the risk for weed dispersal. Also, the spread of weeds would be slow because of the relatively heavy undergrowth of PVG 6 (82% of Project Area) and the expected quick recolonization of the disturbed areas by native plant species. Furthermore, in larger areas, proposed reseeding with native or appropriate plants and perennial treatment would reduce the growth of infestations. With implementation of Alternatives A, B, and C, the North Zone noxious-weed crew would continue to monitor and treat noxious weed populations in the area as part of the Forest’s Integrated Noxious Weed Program. Therefore, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative risk of weed increase would be minimal, and the careful and timely implementation of monitoring and treatment would avoid or minimize the likelihood of introduction and/or spread of weeds in disturbed areas. Refer to the noxious weeds technical report available in the project record for the detailed supporting analysis, including evaluations of herbicides used to treat noxious weeds as part of the Forest’s Integrated Noxious Weed Program.
101 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Chapter 4—Agencies and Persons Consulted What Agencies and Persons have been Consulted? Table 13 displays a list of Native American tribes, collaborative groups, agencies, elected officials, and In Chapter 4 organizations and businesses consulted for input during you will find: project development. Additionally, numerous individuals • A list of the agencies were consulted for input, either through formal scoping or and persons informal contacts with specific resource specialists. consulted during Scoping documents were mailed to 152 parties (including project development local property owners in the project vicinity), as well as posted on the Forest project website. The GovDelivery email notification system delivered the scoping documents to an additional 43 interested parties who chose to receive electronic notification. A complete list of agencies and persons consulted is available in the project record. Table 13. Agencies, organizations, and individuals contacted and/or consulted during the planning process for the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Native American Tribes Nez Perce Tribe Shoshone Bannock Tribe Shoshone Paiute Tribe Collaborative Groups Boise Forest Coalition Agencies Elected Officials Bureau of Land Management Boise County Commissioners Idaho Department of Lands Congressional Representative Mike Simpson Idaho Dept of Water Resources Elmore County Commissioners Idaho Dept. of Agriculture Gem County Commissioners Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality Representative Raul Labrador Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Senator James E. Risch Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission Senator Mike Crapo U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Valley County Commissioners U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Organizations and Businesses Advocates for the West Idaho Woolgrowers Assn. Blue Ribbon Coalition Irrigation Disrict Center (c/o Donna Gestin) Boise Valley Fly Fishermen J R Simplot Company (c/o Ron Graves) Canaday Family LTD Partnership Kling Holding Company Center for Biological Diversity M & T Ranches LLC Citizens Utility (c/o Peter Zeidel Val Group) Marcum Land Company Inc. Conservative Baptist Assoc of Ore-Ida (C/O Richard Shaw) National Rifle Association of America Deadwood Outfitters National Wild Turkey Federation Fly Fishers of Idaho Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Golden Eagle Audubon Sierra Club Greater Garden Valley Area Chamber of Commerce Sierra Vista Properties Inc
102 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Hood & Ryan Partnership Silver Creek Property Owners Assn. Idaho ATV Association, Inc. Tamarack Resort LLC Idaho Cattle Association Terteling Land Co Idaho Mining Association The Lands Council Idaho Outfitters and Guides Assn. The Nature Conservancy Idaho Rivers United The Wilderness Society Idaho Sporting Congress Treasure Valley Trail Machine Assn. Idaho State Bowhunters Trout Unlimited Idaho Timber Corporation Western Lands Project Idaho Whitewater Association
103 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Literature Cited Arkle, R.S., and D.S. Pilliod. 2010. Prescribed fires as ecological surrogates for wildfires: A stream and riparian perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 893–903. Barnes, K.P. 2007. Ecology, habitat use, and probability of detection of flammulated owls in the Boise National Forest. Thesis, Master of Science in Biology, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho. Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. Streamsides Management: Forestry and Fishery Interaction. University of Washington, College of Forest Research, Seattle, Washington. pp. 191–232. Blair, S., and G. Servheen. 1995. A species conservation assessment and strategy for the white-headed woodpecker, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region (R-1) and Intermountain Region (R-4), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 44 p. Bull, E.L., A. Wright, and M. Henjum. 1990. Nesting habitat of flammulated owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Res. 24(3): 52–55. Dixon, R.D. 1995a. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat-use, and behavior of white-headed woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Rep. 93-3-01. Dixon, R.D. 1995b. Ecology of white-headed woodpeckers in the central Oregon Cascades, A Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science with a Major in Wildlife Resources in the College of Graduate Studies, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho Dixon, R.D. 1998. An assessment of white-headed woodpeckers in a regional landscape, USDA Forest Service Contract #101-ecol-98, Report also serves as supplemental report to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (#63506193) Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment, USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, US Dept. of Commerce NMFS, USDI National Park Service, USDI BLM, Environmental Protection Agency. Forest Service. 2003. Land and resource management plan for the Boise National Forest, Volumes 1–2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID. Forest Service. 2010a. Boise National Forest land and resource management plan. Volumes 1–2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID.
104 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Forest Service. 2010b. Record of decision for the final environmental impact statement and forest plan amendment to facilitate implementation of the 2010 plan scale wildlife conservation strategy: Phase 1—Forested biological community. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID. Forest Service. 2010c. Final Environmental Impact Statement Supporting Forest Plan Amendments to Integrate the Boise National Forest Wildlife Conservation Strategy, Phase 1: Forested Biological Community, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID. Forest Service. 2010d. Groups and Clumps in Nonlethal and Mixed1 Fire Regimes. U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID. Forest Service. 2011a. Delineation of a Community Protection Zone (CPZ) Under the Idaho Roadless Rule. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise, ID. Forest Service. 2011b. Watershed Condition Framework: A framework for assessing and tracking the changes to watershed condition. FS-977. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Forest Service. 2015. Legacy tree guide for the Boise National Forest, Version 1.5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID. Forest Service. 2016. Forest-wide Travel Analysis Process Addendum #1 to the Final Report (09/30/2015) for the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project. Foust, Joe. 2011. Documentation of modeling parameters from peer-reviewed literature for ,Fisher, Flammulated Owl, Northern Goshawk, and Pileated Woodpecker. USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID 10p. Fulé, PZ., J.E. Korb, and R. Wu. 2009. Changes in forest structure of a mixed conifer forest, southwestern Colorado, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 258. pp 1200-1210 Garrett, K.L., M.G. Raphael and R.D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed woodpecker. In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., eds. The birds of North America. No. 252. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 24 p. Goggans, R. 1986. Habitat use by flammulated owls in northeastern Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Graham, R.T., T.B. Jain, and J. Sandquist. 2007. Free selection: a silvicultural option. In: Powers, Robert F., tech. editor. Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: proceedings of the 2005 national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-203, Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: p. 121-156. Groves, C.R., B.Butterfield, A. Lippincott, B. Csuti, and J.M. Scott. 1997. Atlas of Idaho’s wildlife: integrating gap analysis and Natural Heritage information. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Boise, Idaho. Haufler, J.B., C.A. Mehl, and G.J. Roloff. 1996. Using a coarse-fìlter approach with species assessment for ecosystem management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(2):200–208.
105 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, tech. editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 214p. 3 Maps (ref pgs 22, 23, 92, 100, 101) Hergenrider, Nadine. 2009g. White-headed Woodpecker documentation of site-scale modeling parameters. USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID 12p. Hessburg, Paul F.; Churchill, Derek J.; Larson, Andrew J.; Haugo, Ryan D.; Miller, Carol; Spies, Thomas A.; North, Malcolm P.; Povak, Nicholas A.; Belote, R. Travis; Singleton, Peter H.; Gaines, William L.; Keane, Robert E.; Aplet, Gregory H.; Stephens, Scott L.; Morgan, Penelope; Bisson, Peter A.; Rieman, Bruce E.; Salter, R. Brion; Reeves, Gordon H. 2015. Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific landscapes: seven core principles. Landscape Ecology. 30(10): 1805-1835. Hunter, M. L. Jr., G. L. Jacobson, Jr., and T. Webb, III. 1988. Paleoecology and the coarse- filter approach to maintaining biological diversity. Conservation Biology 2(4):375– 385. Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2005. Idaho comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. IDFG, Idaho Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. Jorgensen, C.L., L. Lazarus, J.C. Roberts, D. Bennett. 2013. Stand Susceptibility Rating System: Central Idaho Forest User’s Guide Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service. Region 4. Forest Health Protection. Boise Field Office, Boise ID. Kaufmann, M. R., D. Binkley, P. Z. Fule, M. Johnson, S. L. Stephens, and T. W. Swetnam. 2007. Defining old growth for fire-adapted forests of the western United States. Ecology and Society, 12(2):15. Ketcheson, Gary L.; Megahan, Walter F. 1996. Sediment production and downslope sediment transport from forest roads in granitic watersheds. Res. Pap. INT-RP-486. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11 p. Lippke, Bruce and Larry Mason. 2005. Implications of Working Forestry Impacts on Jobs and Local Economies. College of Natural Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. McComb, B., and S. Duncan. 2007. Biodiversity conservation in contemporary landscapes, stressors, and ranges of variability: Scientific and social views. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, and Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Marcot, Bruce G. 1997. The species-environment relations (SER) modeling approach of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project. Analysis Notes (USDA Forest Service, Washington Office/Ecosystem Management Analysis Center, Fort Collins, CO 7(2):11-15 McCallum, D. A. 1994. Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus). In The Birds of North America, No. 93 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D. C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
106 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
McCallum, D. Archibald, and Frederick R. Gehlbach. 1988. Nest-site preferences of flammulated owls in western New Mexico. The Condor, Vol. 90, No.3, pp.653-661. Megahan, Walter F.; Ketcheson, Gary L.; 1996. Predicting Downslope Travel of Granitic Sediments from Forest Roads in Idaho. Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 32, NO. 2, April 1996 12 p. Moore, Teresa L. and Glenn P. Frederick. 1991. Distribution and Habitat of Flammulated Owls (Otus Flammeolus) in West-Central Idaho, Challenge Cost Share Project, Payette National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game Moore, R. Dan, D. L. Spittlehouse, and Anthony Story, 2005. Riparian Microclimate and Stream Temperature Response to Forest Harvesting: A Review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 41(4):813-834. Nelson N., Luce C., Black T., Cissel R. 2014 (DRAFT). GRAIP_Lite: A Tool for Large Scale Assessment of Road Erosion. U.S. Forest Service Research and Development, Department of Agriculture, Boise Idaho. National Association of State Foresters (NASF). 2004. Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland-Urban Interface Communities. National Wildfire Coordination Group (NWCG). 2001. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire, 2001 Edition. USDA, USDI, and National Association of State Foresters. PMS420-2, NFES 1279, December 2001. Noss, R. F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41:11–37. O'Neil, Thomas A., David H. Johnson, Charley Barrett, Marla Trevithick, Kelly A. Bettinger, Chris Kiilsgaard, Madeleine Vander Heyden, Eva L. Greda, Derek Stinson, Bruce G. Marcot, Patrick J. Doran, Susan Tank, and Laurie Wunder. 2001. Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat Relationship in Oregon and Washington. Northwest Habitat Institute. In D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Raphael, M. G., R. S. Holthausen, B. G. Marcot, T. D. Rich, M. M. Rowland, B. C. Wales, and M. J. Wisdom. 2000. (Draft) Effects of SDEIS alternatives on selected terrestrial vertebrates of conservation concern within the interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Reinig, Lyn, Ron L. Beveridge, John P. Potyondy, and Fred M. Hernandez. 1991. BOISED User’s Guide and Program Documentation, Version 3.01. Boise National Forest. Unpublished document. 193 p.
107 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Reynolds, R. T. and B. D. Linkhart. 1987. The nesting biology of Flammulated Owls in Colorado. Pages 239–248 In Biology and conservation of northern forest owls (R. W. Nero, R. J. Clark, R. J. Knapton, and R. H. Hamre, Editors). USDA, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM- 142, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Rieman, Bruce E. and John D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull Trout. General Technical Report INT-302. Shindler, B., R. Gordon, S.M. McCaffrey, and E. Toman. 2011. Collaborating for Healthy Forests and Communities: A Guide for Building Partnerships Among Diverse Interests. Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State. Steele, R. and K. Geier-Hayes. 1992. The Grand Fir/Mountain Maple Habitat Type in Central Idaho: Succession and Management. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-284. 90 p. Stephens, S.L.; McIver, J.D; Boerner, R.E.J.; Fettig, C.J. Fontaine, J.B.; Hartsough, B.R.; Kennedy, P.L.; Schwilk, D.W. 2012. The Effects of Forest Fuel-Reduction Treatments in the United States. BioScience, 62(6): 549-560. USDI Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Visibility In Mandatory Federal Class 1 Areas, 1994-1998. A Report To Congress. EPA website: www.epa.gov/visibility/report/CHAP01.pdf Wisdom, Michael J.; Holthausen, Richard S.; Wales, Barbara C.; Hargis, Christina D.; Saab, Victoria A.; Lee, Danny C.; Hann, Wendel J.; Rich, Terrell D.; Rowland, Mary M.; Murphy, Wally J.; Eames, Michelle R. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. Ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). Wisdom, M. J., A. A. Ager, H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, and B. K. Johnson. 2005. Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk. In: The Starkey project: A synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American wildlife and natural resources conference, M. J. Wisdom, ed, 67–80. Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS. Wright, V. 1996. Multi-scale analysis of flammulated owl habitat use: owl distribution, habitat, and conservation. University of Montana. 91 p. Thesis. Yensen, E. 1991. Taxonomy and distribution of the Idaho ground squirrel, Spermophilus brunneus. Journal of Mammalogy 72:583-600.
108 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Appendices Appendix A: Design Features Design Features Common to Alternatives B and C
Botanical BT-1—Pre-disturbance surveys will be conducted within potential habitat areas for sensitive and watch species (e.g. small phacelia, moonwort species) by a qualified botanist prior to ground disturbing activities. If plants are identified during pre-disturbance surveys within a proposed disturbance area, an appropriate plant conservation area (PCA) will be delineated and activities will be modified to avoid impacts to individual plants to the maximum extent practicable.
Cultural Resources CR-1—Avoid and protect all known historic properties during project implementation. CR-2—Contract provisions shall include requirements that in the event new cultural sites are discovered, ground-disturbing activities in the area shall stop until a qualified archaeologist is consulted and appropriate mitigation identified, as needed, to avoid/protect these sites. These provisions will be included as stipulations in any contracts associated with the project.
Fire and Fuels FF-1—Construct no fire line and/or hand line within RCAs. FF-2—Store hazardous material utilized for burning activities outside of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). FF-3—Restrict burning activities to early spring or fall to avoid nesting periods for ground- nesting birds. The wildlife biologist would be consulted during development of the burn plan. FF-4—Refer to the Alternative specific design features following this section. FF-5—Landing slash piles created as a result of harvest activities would be available for biomass utilization and/or firewood opportunities to the public. Burn material left on site in the future.
Noxious Weeds NX-1—Avoid or reduce the introduction and spread of weed seeds and propagates by including provisions in all contracts to ensure appropriate off-road equipment is cleaned. All contractors and/or purchaser of any timber sale shall be required to ensure that, prior to moving onto the sale area, all off-road equipment are cleaned and free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain seeds. NX-2—Ensure seed mixes and/or plant materials used during restoration and soil erosion prevention activities shall be comprised of certified weed-free native or desirable non-native seed mixes and/or native cultivars, as recommended by the Forest or District botanist.
109 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
NX-3—Require all straw and/or hay, brought to the Project Area for land management purposes, be certified weed-free. NX-4—Evaluate aggregate source(s) for noxious weed presence under the direction of the Forest or District Noxious Weed Specialist. If noxious weeds are present at the aggregate source(s), treat noxious weeds as provided for in existing plans and environmental documents in effect at the time of implementation, remove and set aside the material to a depth of 6 inches, and use aggregate from depths greater than 6 inches for project activities. NX-5—During project implementation, report the identification of undocumented noxious weed populations in the Project Area to the District Weed specialist for inclusion in noxious weed treatment plans as provided for in existing plans and environmental documents in effect at the time of implementation.
Range RG-1—Notify the District Range Management Specialist of the timing of project activities, including commercial harvest, fuel abatement, prescribed fire, non-commercial thinning, and road activities. Inform permittee(s), through the allotment annual operating instructions (AOI), of pending project activities to minimize the potential for conflicts and allow for short-term modification of grazing practices where necessary. Short-term modifications of grazing practices during project implementation should be coordinated with the hydrologist, fish biologist, and soil scientist to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan Rangeland Resource direction.
Road Management RM-1—Road decommissioning may include, but is not limited to, some or all of the following activities: scarification of road bed, partial to full re-contour, removal of culverts and stabilization of stream crossings, elimination of access from connecting roads, and seed/mulch all disturbed areas with approved seed mixture (NX-2). In addition, to deter future use of these routes, access points may be recontoured or partially recontoured, and barrier devices, such as boulders, berms, slash material at access points, and/or some combination of barriers, may be used. All NFS roads proposed to be decommissioned from the Forest NFS Transportation System would be removed once decommissioning activities are complete. Determination of methods to be used would be completed on a site-by-site basis during project implementation. RM-2—On decommissioned roads, remove culverts with the objective of providing a stable, self-maintaining site. However, IDT analysis may determine if culverts may be left when risks and consequences are weighed against the costs of culvert removal (Refer to Regional Policy on Treatment of Culverts for Decommissioned and Obliterated Roads, File Code 2520, letters of August 14 and December 13, 2000). Other site-specific actions would be performed to reduce risks. RM-3—Install erosion control devices as required to minimize sediment delivery to streams from road management activities, including new roadbed construction, road maintenance, and/or road decommissioning activities where activities occur in RCAs. Erosion control devices may include, but are not limited to, certified weed-free straw wattles or bales, slash filter windrows, and/or biodegradable erosion cloth. The District Hydrologist or Fisheries
110 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Biologist in consultation with the Engineering Representative/Timber Sale Contract Administrator shall determine the locations within the RCAs where erosion control devises are required and the most cost effective sediment control method. Erosion control materials would be allowed to deteriorate in place. RM-4—Construct all road realignment segments prior to decommissioning the original routes in order to maintain motorized access. RM-5—Public motorized access shall be restricted on all permanent and temporary roads built for the purpose of supporting of vegetation management during activity implementation. Temporary roads would be fully obliterated within three years from when the project is completed.
Recreation and Scenic Resources RR-1—Prohibit snow plowing on established groomed snow routes within the Project Area, including associated haul routes, from December 15 to March 15 where plowing would conflict with established winter recreation use periods. RR-2—The ridgeline silhouette should have a textural effect of small, natural-appearing openings rather than large, thinned areas and unnatural-appearing breaks. RR-3—Ensure that forest stand composition changes as viewed in foreground/ middleground/ background are textural, with small, natural openings and not symmetrical in shape. Avoid straight lines and right angles. Ensure that openings resemble the form, line, and texture of those found in the surrounding natural landscape with edges feathered to avoid a shadowing effect. RR-4—Design skyline corridors for cable yarding without linear edges by utilizing existing openings and clearing the vegetation to promote meandering edges. RR-5—To meet visual quality objectives in the Forest Plan, do the following within the immediate foreground (300 feet) of National Forest System road 643: • Cut stumps to 12 inches or less on the uphill side to reduce visibility. • Lop and scatter slash below 36 inches (less if visually intrusive). Remove material in excess to other resource needs or pile and burn within one field season. • After project completion, spread remaining slash so that it appears to be naturally occurring downed material. RR-6—Blend temporary roads and skid trails into the characteristic landscape of the surrounding area. Create cut and fill banks to be sloped to accommodate natural revegetation and to reduce sharp contrasts viewed from any distance. Where temporary roads and skid trails meet a primary travel route open to motorized use, they should intersect at a right angle and, where practicable, curve after the junction to minimize the length of route seen from the primary travel route.
Soil, Water and Fisheries SW-1-- Consistent with Forest Plan standard SWST10, trees or snags that are felled within RCAs (commercial or non-commercial) will be left unless determined not to be necessary for achieving soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions as described in Appendices A
111 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
and B of the Forest Plan. Felled trees or snags that are left in RCAs shall be left intact unless resource protection (e.g., the risk of insect infestation or wildfire is unacceptable) or public safety requires bucking them into smaller pieces. SW-2—Refer to the Alternative specific design features following this section. SW-3—Provide fish passage at all new and reconstructed stream crossings of existing and potential fish-bearing streams. Acceptable ranges for gradient, water flow velocity, jump/drop height, and other parameters would be based on the best scientific data available. SW-4—Water drafting locations, methods, and timing shall be approved by the Engineering Representative/Timber Sale Contract Administrator in consultation with the fisheries biologist and/or hydrologist. Screen opening size for intake hoses shall be the standard 3/32 inch or smaller. SW-5—Seed disturbed areas with an approved seed mixture (Design Feature NX-2). Erosion control devices, such as certified weed free straw wattles or bales, slash filter windrows, and biodegradable erosion cloth, should be maintained during all road management activities adjacent to streams to minimize delivery of sediment, and natural materials would be allowed to deteriorate in place. SW-6—Store no fuel in RCAs. Refueling or servicing of vehicles or equipment should not take place within RCAs unless there is no other alternative. In the event there is no acceptable alternative site for these activities, refueling or servicing sites must be approved by Engineering Representative/Timber Sale Contract Administrator in consultation with District Hydrologist and/or Fish Biologist. All equipment shall be in good repair and free of leakage of lubricants, fuels, coolants, and hydraulic fluid. SW-7—All log landings should be located outside of RCAs. Consult the District Hydrologist or Fish Biologist and the Forest Archeologist, if site-specific circumstances necessitate a log landing to be located within the RCAs. For log landings located within the RCA, erosion control devices such as erosion cloth, biologs, and/or certified weed-seed-free straw bales should be installed between the landing and the stream to prevent delivery of sediment (Burroughs and King 1989). The District Hydrologist or Fisheries Biologist would assist the Timber Sale Contract Administrator in determining the most effective sediment control method. Soil erosion control measures would be allowed to deteriorate in place. SW-8—Upon completion of harvest activities, reshape constructed landings used in association with this project to provide adequate drainage. Landings should be ripped to a depth of 12–18 inches, slash would be spread over at least 30% of the landing area, and the area would be planted with a Forest Service approved seed mixture (Design Feature NX-2). SW-9—Use the SINMAP analysis results in addition to guidelines developed by Chatwin et al. (1994) during project implementation to field-verify or identify moderate- and high- hazard landslide prone areas where commercial timber harvest and road construction is proposed. Site-specific management measures or mitigations shall be required where the proposed activities might initiate landslides.
Vegetation Management VM-1—Retain all existing forested stands that meet the definition of large tree size class (Forest Service 2010a, Appendix A) or old forest habitat (Forest Service 2010a, Appendix E).
112 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Management actions may occur within these stands as long as they continue to meet the definitions of large tree size class and old forest habitat. VM-2— All ponderosa pine and western larch trees meeting the definition of a legacy tree consistent with the Forest’s Legacy Tree Guide (Forest Service 2012) should be designated for retention during sale preparation except where removal is required for safety mitigation or operational purposes such as landings or yarding trails/corridors and associated with temporary road construction, road reconstruction, and road maintenance activities. In addition, other late seral-to-climax conifer species (e.g., Douglas-fir and grand fir) that exhibit legacy-like characteristics (generally are the very large trees; Van Pelt 2008) should be designated for retention. VM-3— Within units, or portions of units, outside RCAs where commercial product removal is allowed, include contract provisions to haul cull logs back into the units if during the layout process, the large size class of coarse woody debris is determined to be lacking and the addition of the cull logs back into the units is consistent with wildfire hazard reduction objectives within the wildland-urban interface. Refer to SW-1 below for activities within RCAs. VM-4—Ensure that appropriate contract provision(s) are used to limit the potential buildup or spread of Ips in stands containing ponderosa pine. VM-5—Prohibit log haul on weekends (all day Saturday and Sunday); all major holidays (New Years, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and the day after, Christmas eve and Christmas day); and the opening day of deer, elk, and turkey general hunting seasons. VM-6—Post warning and/or closure signs on authorized haul routes and adjacent to active logging operations to inform the public of logging operations and truck traffic hazards. VM-7—Timber Sale Administrator shall approve skid trails prior to development and use, to limit impacts to plantations and/or other resources. VM-8—Yard trees whole to the landing and manufacture them at the landing from tractor/jammer units to reduce compaction and aid in soil amelioration. After manufacturing, the tops/limbs/branches would be hauled back and utilized as slash material on skid trails where consistent with fuel reduction objectives. Upon completion of project activities, all newly constructed skid trails and existing unauthorized routes used to implement project activities would be reclaimed by blocking access at all access points; utilizing re-contouring of slope, earthen barriers, and/or placement of barriers such as rock or CWD; scarifying or ripping to a depth of 12 inches; scattering slash over scarified/ripped surface to achieve at least 30% coverage of the surface; and revegetating with certified weed free grasses, shrubs, and/or trees. Any material used for revegetation activities would meet requirements of Design Feature NX-2. VM-9— If, during implementation of vegetation treatments, the project silviculturist identifies insufficient representation of viable desired tree species, restoration augmentation may be implemented. Restoration augmentation would consist of planting ponderosa pine or western larch seedlings (i.e. desired early seral tree species). VM-10—Retain trees in group/clump horizontal spatial patterns where feasible to facilitate long-term snag recruitment.
113 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Wildlife WL-1—Retain all snags ≥10 inches DBH and >30 feet tall to meet the desired range as identified in Appendix A of the Forest Plan (Forest Service 2010, p. A-11) unless they pose safety hazards and have to be felled. Where snags have been determined to be a safety hazard (timber sale OSHA requirements, roadside hazard trees) and must be felled, live trees of sufficient diameter shall be left to provide for snag replacement as needed to achieve desired conditions. WL-2—Provide snags, snag replacement trees, and CWD, including those with broken tops, cavities, lightning scars, and dead portions, in clusters if available rather than uniformly spaced. Priority should be given to large (≥20 inches d.b.h.) snags and trees for snag recruitment over smaller diameter snags and trees. WL-3—Include protective measures for Threatened, Endangered, and Regional 4 Sensitive (TES) Species against unforeseen events in the timber sale contracts and other project-related contracts (non-commercial thinning). Mandatory provisions of the timber sale contract (currently contract provision B(T)6.24) provide protective measures for any TES plant or animal species identified in the Project Area during the entire period that the sale is under contract. WL-4—Restrict vegetation treatment within a 650-foot radius of an active goshawk nest tree to retain vegetative structure around the nest site. In addition, no commercial harvest, non- commercial thinning, mechanical fuel abatement, or road construction/reconstruction activities should occur within a 1,500-foot buffer (Jones 1979) around active goshawk nest tree(s) from March 1 to August 15 to avoid disrupting nesting activities. Timing restrictions shall only be required for active nest sites. Timing restrictions shall not restrict planned road use patterns, public access, or log hauling. Because goshawks commonly move to alternate nest sites within a territory, the nest site location must be re-identified annually. WL-5—The following timing restriction shall be implemented in treatment units that have been identified to have occupied flammulated owl habitat in 2013-2015 surveys in order to minimize disruption of reproductive activity. This includes not implementing commercial harvest, non-commercial thinning, fuel abatement, or road construction/reconstruction activities from May 1 to August 15 (WIST02 and WIST03), based on the 2013-2015 flammulated owl occurrence map.8 WL-6—Upon discovery of an active bald eagle nest during project implementation, the following timing and spatial restrictions on proposed activities shall be implemented to minimize or avoid disruption of reproductive activity: 1. No commercial harvest, non-commercial thinning, mechanical fuel abatement, or road construction/reconstruction activities shall occur within 660 feet of the nest tree (USFWS 2007) for the duration of the nesting period (February 1 through August 31) (Kaltenecker 2000);
8 Refer to the project record for a detailed listing of the applicable stands, include map which displays spatial locations.
114 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
2. Removal of overstory trees should not occur within 330 feet of the nest tree (USFWS 2007) to retain nesting stand characteristics including perch trees. Thinning of trees in the understory should occur outside of the nesting period or when eagles are otherwise not present as determined by the project wildlife biologist. Nest trees shall not be harvested. WL-7—In occupied flammulated owl medium to large tree size class stands in PVG 6 where, following mechanical treatment, it is estimated that canopy cover would be reduced to the low class (<40%), select 1 snag > 20” DBH per 10 acres (where available) to receive an 83- foot no treatment buffer where snag densities permit. This prescription would retain the structurally diverse vegetative condition that currently exists around that snag important to flammulated owl source habitat. WL-8—Existing vegetation would be maintained within one site potential tree height of elk wallows and natural licks (WIGU13) identified in RCAs (Refer to Site Potential Tree Height in Chapter 2). The Wildlife Biologist would be notified as soon as possible if a wallow is discovered by layout and marking personnel. The wildlife biologist or representative would review the site on the ground and determine whether the silvicultural prescription adequately protects the site and provides cover for wildlife use. Prescriptions may be modified to provide adequate cover if needed. This design feature applies to commercial and non- commercial vegetation treatments. Exceptions include the location of wallows on established road prisms (authorized or otherwise) required for harvest implementation (WIGU13).
Design Features Specific to Alternative B
Fire and Fuels FF-4 (Alternative B only)—Do not actively ignite broadcast fires or slash piles within 75 feet of the stream. Allow broadcast burns to back into this portion of the RCA or adjacent stands, where they would either go out by themselves or be extinguished if burning would be expected to result in unanticipated adverse effects.
Soil, Water and Fisheries SW-2 (Alternative B only)—Allow commercial harvest within the second site potential tree height of RCAs, but do not allow commercial harvest within one site potential tree height of stream channels, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands (Refer to Site Potential Tree Height in Chapter 2). Keep heavy mechanical equipment, such as skidders, out of the entire RCA. Allow thinning of non-commercial trees within RCAs except within 30 feet of stream channels, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands.
Design Features Specific to Alternative C
Fire and Fuels FF-4 (Alternative C only)—Do not actively ignite broadcast fires or slash piles within RCAs. Allow broadcast burns to back into RCAs or adjacent stands, where they would either go out by themselves or be extinguished if burning would be expected to result in unanticipated adverse effects.
115 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Soil, Water and Fisheries SW-2 (Alternative C only)—Tree felling within RCAs will be restricted to non-commercial thinning, except within 30 feet of stream channels, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands. Trees felled as part of non-commercial thinning within RCAs would be left onsite so long as retention is consistent with wildfire hazard reduction objectives within the wildland-urban interface. Piles will not be burned within RCAs.
116 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Appendix B: Silvicultural Prescriptions Silvicultural prescriptions for proposed vegetation treatment activities for Alternatives B and C are described here. Silvicultural prescriptions are defined in the context of an overarching system, and then subdivided into categories of methods used to achieve objectives within the system, detailing specific treatment options (methods) for each category. Treatment methods describe a process used to achieve objectives, not necessarily the tools best suited to achieve objectives (e.g., service contract or logging system). For the High Valley Project, the free selection (Graham et al. 2007) silvicultural system was used to frame prescriptions, with three treatment categories (regeneration, intermediate, and stand improvement) identified to facilitate achievement of the Proposed Action. Silvicultural methods within these categories used for the High Valley project include group selection with reserves cut, improvement cut, variable-density thin from below (VDT) and non-commercial thin, which are all described below. A submerchantable thin treatment is designed to follow either the improvement or group selection with reserves treatments. Silvicultural prescriptions were designed and modeled using techniques determined best suited to address the needs identified for Purpose 1 while also meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines for retention and recruitment of old forest habitat (i.e. WIST08 and WIST09); retention of the large tree size class (i.e. VEST03); retention of live and dead vegetative components (i.e. VEGU07); and snag retention (i.e. Management Area 16 Standard 1669). These proposed restoration activities were determined to adequately address Purpose 2 by reducing the fuels hazard and risk of crown fire spread within the WUI. As a result of this approach, no exemptions to Forest Plan standards and guidelines were needed to meet wildfire hazard reduction objectives within the WUI.
Free Selection Silvicultural System Free selection is an alternate approach to the classical even-aged, two-aged, and uneven-aged silvicultural systems. Graham (2007) described the free selection system as a multi entry, uneven-aged approach for vegetation management in the inland northwest, where forest composition and structure are paramount. The term “free” indicates that the timing and type of subsequent treatments are not predetermined. Instead, free selection allows for landscape- level treatments that respond to evolving desired conditions where the condition of the forest following treatment is the focus. This system is not constrained to traditional growth and yield or area regulation methods. Instead it allows for a hybrid of silvicultural techniques that foster resilient ecosystems to maintain a functional forest with all its parts (e.g., plants, animals, biological legacies, vegetation successional stages, and their juxtaposition) and environment (e.g., canopy gaps, forest floor conditions) that are characteristic of endemic levels of native disturbances (e.g., insects, disease, and fire). Design Features VM-2 and VM-3 would retain legacy and legacy-like trees and identify opportunities for improving the quantity of large CWD. Snags would be retained and “green snags” with evidence of cavities, damage, and rot suitable for nesting would be favored for retention with Design Feature WL-1. Treatments are designed to promote structural diversity within groups to facilitate functional diversity, such as the development of snags and cover for wildlife.
117 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Group Selection with Reserves This treatment is categorized as an uneven-aged regeneration method designed to improve conditions for successfully establishing natural or artificial regeneration. NFMA regulations require that harvested areas in this category be adequately restocked within 5 years of final harvest (36 CFR 219.27). With this cutting method, groups of trees are removed from areas up to1.5 acres in size to maintain an uneven-aged stand structure, while retaining legacy and legacy-like trees. Trees outside the regeneration groups, commonly referred to as “the matrix” would be thinned to achieve desired structural and species composition objectives. Under the free selection system, an improvement cut or any other treatment could be prescribed for the next entry, depending on future management objectives. The intent is not for a long-term, rotation-based, area regulation management regime often associated with a group selection silvicultural system. In addition, “regeneration harvesting” would not be completed using the same methods used historically, which resulted in an existing condition of homogenous even-aged plantations scattered across the Project Area. All legacy and legacy-like trees would be reserved (marked for retention).
Regeneration Opportunities to augment species composition by planting tree seedlings, or “regeneration”, will be evaluated for all prescription types, though planting is most likely to occur in group selection with reserves treatment units. Silvicultural prescriptions, particularly group selection with reserves, are designed to optimize the likelihood for natural regeneration. When natural regeneration of the desired species is not possible (e.g. lack of viable ponderosa pine in the overstory), and a need for additional trees has been identified by a silviculturist, artificial regeneration would be implemented. Reforestation practices would differ from historical practices in several important ways. When a need for artificial regeneration has been identified, target planting densities would be designed to achieve the desired condition without the need for multiple mechanical thinning activities. Target seedling densities would account for existing tree densities and anticipated mortality. Additionally, seedlings would be planted with variable spacing, using strategies such as only planting in locations with existing shade (e.g. stumps and downed logs). These types of methods would utilize the existing heterogeneity on the landscape to promote variability while planting and encourage long-term development of forest structure reflective of historical conditions. As a result of these practices and the variable tree densities retained following harvest, artificially reforested locations would have a dissimilar look and function from the existing “plantations” within the Project Area. Site preparation for regeneration would be completed using prescribed fire, a salmon blade, or utilize the disturbance from logging combined with hand tool scalping of competing vegetation around the planted tree.
Improvement Cut This treatment is categorized as an intermediate method that is designed to have moderate- level, short- to mid-term effects intended to shift conditions closer to long-term desired conditions. Improvement cutting is proposed for stands past the sapling stage to improve
118 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
their composition and quality. Trees of undesirable species, form, or condition are removed from the upper canopy, often in conjunction with an understory thinning. Cutting is designed to retain trees in a clumpy spatial distribution. In some cases, groups not to exceed 1.5 acres would be removed, particularly in locations of high grand fir or insect and disease occupancy. This prescription provides flexibility in achieving heterogeneous stand structure objectives, while allowing for retention of higher densities in areas with a more desired species composition. An important distinction from the group selection with reserves cut is that regeneration could occur within the stand but not across the stand due to fewer opportunities resulting from higher density retention. Retaining a higher tree density would allow for a higher total percent canopy cover, which is desirable for species such as flammulated owl.
Stand Improvement Methods Stand improvement (SI) treatments, formerly known as Timber Stand Improvement (updated in 2014; FSM 2470) are designed to improve the composition, structure, condition, health, and growth in young or small and medium sized trees. The goal of SI activities is to improve forest resiliency, or to accomplish other objectives by regulating stand density, removing competing vegetation and fuel ladders, and maintaining soil productivity.
Variable-Density Thin from Below (VDT) VDT is the selective felling, deadening, or removal of trees from a young stand, while maintaining a specific stocking or stand density range. This treatment would be most commonly applied to plantations and depending on the size of the trees, the wood products could be utilized as biomass or only treated with a fuel abatement activity. Trees would be retained in a group pattern, allowing for interconnected canopies once the trees approach maturity. The likelihood for natural regeneration is increased by grouping densities in plantations over 30 years old due to reproductive capabilities and the tree height to opening size relationship. Managing for variable densities in even-aged plantations accelerates the achievement of desired conditions, facilitating horizontal and structural heterogeneity while fostering uneven-aged stand conditions.
Non-commercial Tree Thinning Within Structurally Diverse Stands This treatment is designed similarly to VDT but due to limitations resulting from a combination of the existing condition and an inability to use mechanical (logging) equipment, treatment would not allow for thinning to a target density or throughout diameter classes due to operational and safety constraints, often limiting the size of tree that can be safely felled. This method would commonly be used within RCA Zones 2 and 3 for the Proposed Action and in RCA Zones 2, 3, and 4 for Alternative C in dense, structurally diverse stands (Refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA Zones). It would also be utilized in situations where sale prep layout determines a unit cannot be commercially harvested due to currently unknown constraints, such as complex skyline operations.
Submerchantable Thin This is not a standalone treatment but is prescribed following a commercial harvest (group selection or improvement cuts) to put the understory species composition on a trajectory
119 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
towards the desired condition and alleviate undesired competition and the wildfire hazard for residual trees.
Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire is proposed in both action alternatives to mitigate the wildfire hazard and to promote ecological functions and processes. The use of prescribed fire addresses two separate needs for the High Valley Project: fuels abatement of wildfire hazard and restoration. Fuels abatement using prescribed burning would occur to mitigate the wildfire hazard associated with fuels created from the vegetation treatments (activity fuels) and from existing surface fuels (natural fuels). Restoration burning is proposed to achieve vegetative attributes (crown base height, root depth, and understory composition), reduce surface fuels, regulate the proportion of small coarse woody debris (CWD), and maintain tree densities, and to foster ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling, favoring early seral species composition, regulating succession, maintaining diversity, improve cavity creation potential, prepare sites for regeneration and would affect most biogeochemical processes. Processes facilitated by fire, combined with the previously described silvicultural prescriptions help to create and maintain a forest structure that can develop and maintain functional wildlife habitat (Refer to wildlife technical report). The existing wildfire hazard would need to be reduced through a series of fuel abatement activities to create conditions favorable for safe and effective restoration burning. Fuels treatments are proposed to be completed in phases using a combination of professional experience and the processes outlined in the previously mentioned fuel treatment matrix and WUI Protection Flow Chart to determine where and when the most appropriate treatment is applicable. Whole tree yarding of commercial material would be completed in year 1 to minimize activity fuels. A lop/scatter, pile/burn, or mastication treatment would be implemented to mitigate activity fuels generated from submerchantable or non-commercial tree thinning in year three. Where necessary to reduce surface fuel loading for wildfire hazard reduction, prescribed burning (i.e. broadcast) would be completed to reduce surface fuels, primarily less than15 inches in diameter. Fuel abatement prescribed burning would address natural and activity fuels in lop/scatter and mastication units, and focus on natural fuels in pile/burn units. Burn blocks would be delineated to exclude newly regenerated stands or areas where environmental conditions would not provide a high probability of desired fire effects. Following the reduction of the wildfire hazard and an appropriate recovery period, allowing grasses and forbs to respond to a more open overstory condition, a restoration burn (i.e. broadcast) would be implemented. Though two broadcast burns would be implemented, they have distinctly different objectives and would therefore require subtle, yet important, differences in implementation tactics. The fuel abatement burn is intended to address the wildfire hazard and would be prescribed to eliminate, to the extent possible, the possibility of tree mortality. To accomplish this objective, burning would often take place in the spring, when fuel and herbaceous moisture levels are high and fire boundaries can be easily contained (e.g. between snow covered north aspects). The restoration burn is intended to foster ecologically important processes and functions. Historically, naturally ignited fires typically occurred in the fall and would have been regulated in size and severity by previous disturbances. The preceding treatments were designed to emulate historical disturbance,
120 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
allowing for a safe and effective prescribed fire in the fall. Restoration burning may need to occur in the spring to mitigate the risk associated with fire containment if fall “burn windows” of desired weather and fuel moistures are not available. Though cross benefits between the two prescribed burns in terms of wildfire hazard reduction and benefits to ecosystem dynamics would occur, all phases of the fuels treatment matrix and vegetation treatments are necessary to fully address the needs identified under Purpose 1.
Prescriptions within Riparian Conservation Areas Treatments within RCAs would be different between Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C. No direct ignition and only non-commercial tree thinning would occur within an RCA for Alternative C (Refer to Figure 4 and Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a description of RCA Zones). Alternative B would allow commercial removal within RCA Zone 4. Because RCA Zone 4 typically represents the same conditions as the upland vegetation, that portion of the RCA would be included with the upland treatment unit. Marking guides would be designed to retain a variable density across the treatment unit, including the portion that falls within Zone 4 of the RCA, with a target average density for the treatment unit as a whole. Treatments within Zone 4 would be similar to the rest of the unit; however, marking guides would provide instruction to seek opportunities to retain higher densities of large trees and groups within Zone 4. When higher densities of large trees and groups are retained within the RCA portion of the unit, densities would be reduced throughout the remainder of the treatment unit to balance the target average. To mitigate the potential for undesirable effects within the RCA, tracks from heavy equipment would not be allowed within the RCA. Non-commercial thinning treatments in RCA Zones 2 and 3 would be the same for both action alternatives. The target residual density within these sites is 25%–30% SDImax, though this objective would not be achievable throughout RCAs where high densities of trees too large to safely and effectively fell without commercial removal equipment exist. However; the increased potential for wood delivery and shade are considered desirable tradeoffs relative to structure and composition for these RCA zones. Thinning from below would help to reduce competition, improve vigor and growth of the surrounding trees, and reduce the hazard for an uncharacteristic disturbance event. Although short-term shade is likely to decrease, reducing competition would allow for long-term accelerated tree height and canopy growth.
Prescriptions within Meadow and Aspen Patches Treatments within and adjacent to meadows and aspen patches would be the same as the treatments applied to the surrounding conifers. The focus within these areas would be to remove conifers from meadows and aspen patches where no conflicts with other objectives or design features (e.g. legacy trees within aspen patches) exist. The benefit to meadows or aspen patches would be based on the variability of clumps, groups, openings and changes in conifer density that would occur across stands. During implementation, tree retention and removal would be designed to benefit meadow and aspen patch conditions where they occur within treatment units. Prescribed burning would also benefit meadows and aspen conditions where this treatment would occur. Potential differences between alternatives would occur where meadows or aspen patches overlap RCAs.
121 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Appendix C: Fuels Treatments Burn Landing Piles Landing piles created from harvest activities would be burned to manage the slash. Lop and Scatter Lop and scatter slash to a depth no greater than thirty six inches. Scattering of slash reduces large accumulations helping to reduce wildfire hazard and promoting decomposition. Hand Pile and Burn This treatment can be used on any slope and is a beneficial tool for working directly adjacent to forest boundaries because it is a more manageable fuel treatment due to the lower risk of fire spread. Burning would occur when sufficient moisture is present to reduce fire spread from piles. This treatment would reduce the amount of activity fuels created from thinning activities. Hand piling would not include larger diameter boles (≥15 inches diameter) that are an important ecosystem component for wildlife. Machine Pile and Burn This treatment is typically used on slopes less than 30%, where the ground is not too rocky to operate machinery. This is a beneficial tool for working directly adjacent to forest boundaries where slash created from harvest activities may be higher. This is a very manageable treatment due to the low risk of fire spread to private land because burning would occur when sufficient moisture is present to limit fire spread from piles. The benefits for hazard reduction would be similar to those described for pile burning, but the most noticeable difference is the size of material that could be piled. Material larger than 15 inches diameter would not be removed if needed to meet desired conditions in the Forest Plan for coarse woody debris. Mastication This treatment is typically used on slopes up to 30% where the ground is not too rocky to operate machinery. Masticating is a beneficial tool for working directly adjacent to forest boundaries and because it does not require burning, it can be safely used in locations where the use of fire may be a concern. The treatment rearranges the ground fuel/slash into a size that will decompose more rapidly. Reducing the timber harvest slash and surface fuel loading lowers the risk for crown fire initiation. Prescribed Fire Refer to Appendix B: Silvicultural Prescriptions.
122 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Appendix D: Cumulative Effects: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities within the Little Squaw Creek 5th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) that the High Valley Integrated Restoration Project falls within, and the Williams Creek Project boundary adjacent and east of the Project were considered in the cumulative effects analysis completed for this project (Figure 1 and Table 1). Some of the activities listed in the table may be outside the cumulative impact areas analyzed by individual resources areas and, therefore, may not be considered in every resource-specific analysis. Conversely, some cumulative impact analysis areas may extend well past the project area boundary and/or the boundary used to compile the list below and, thereby, could have additional activities specified in the resource specific technical reports. Table identifies the past, present/ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable project considered in each resource analysis. Refer to project record documentation, including each Resource Technical Report, for details as to which of the actions identified in this Appendix were addressed by each individual resource assessed.
123 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Figure 1. Past, Present/Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the High Valley analysis area
124 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Table 1. Past, Present/Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities
In Project Agency/ Map Index Project/Activity Date Area? Ownership Number PAST ACTIVITIES Past Reforestation Activities Reforestation 1960s 1960’s Yes USFS 1 Reforestation 1970s 1970’s Yes USFS 2 Reforestation 1980s 1980’s Yes USFS 3 Reforestation 1990s 1990’s Yes USFS 4 Reforestation 2000s 2000’s Yes USFS 5 Past Timber Stand Improvement Activities Timber Stand Improvement 1980s 1980’s Yes USFS 6 Timber Stand Improvement 1990s 1990’s Yes/No USFS 7 Timber Stand Improvement 2000s 2000’s Yes/No USFS 8 West Mountain South TSI 2010 Yes USFS 9 Past Vegetation Management Activities Cabwest 1991 Yes USFS 10 Campground Firewood Sale 2005 No USFS 11 Cold Eddy 1988 Yes/No USFS 12 Cold Eddy Cleanup T.S. 1996 No USFS 13 Dry Buck Slope 1998 Yes USFS 14 Ferncroft 1972 Yes/No USFS 15 High Valley 1993 Yes USFS 16 Highway 55 Salvage Reoffer 2002 No USFS 17 Holbrook Salvage 1961 No USFS 18 Kennedy Creek 1991 No USFS 19 Kennedy Cr 289 1995 No USFS 20 Kennedy Cr Salvage 1968 No USFS 21 Little Joe Tussock Salvage 1993 Yes USFS 22 North Fork Little Squaw Creek 1983 Yes USFS 23 North Fork Squaw Creek 1964 Yes USFS 24 North Kennedy Cottonwood 2004 Yes USFS 25 Ola Slope 1968 No USFS 26 Ola Slope Salvage 1972 No USFS 27 Ola Summit S&S 1980 No USFS 28 Padgett Creek 1969 Yes USFS 29 Pine Creek Meadow 1984 Yes USFS 30 Shirts Creek 1968 Yes/No USFS 31 Soldier Creek 1969 No USFS 32
125 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
In Project Agency/ Map Index Project/Activity Date Area? Ownership Number South Fork Pine Creek 1984 No USFS 33 Timber Gulch 1972 Yes/No USFS 34 Tripod Summit (67) 1967 Yes USFS 35 Whitlock Gulch 1979 No USFS 36 Williams Creek 1964 No USFS 37 Williams Decks 2009 No USFS 38 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2000 No Private 39 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2000 No Private 40 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2005 No Private 41 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2006 No Private 42 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2007 No Private 43 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2009 No Private 44 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2009 No Private 45 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2009 No IDL 46 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2011 No Private 47 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2012 No Private 48 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2012 No Private 49 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2012 No IDL 77 Non Forest Service Past Timber Harvest Activities 2013 No Private 50 Past Large Wildfire Activity Unknown 1915 No USFS/Other 52 Unknown 1919 No USFS 53 Unknown 1931 Yes USFS/Other 54 Unknown 1931 No Other 55 Unknown 1941 No USFS/Other 56 Unknown 1942 No USFS/Other 57 Unknown 1948 Yes USFS 58 Unknown 1961 Yes USFS/Other 59 Buck Creek 2010 No Other 60 Dry Buck 2010 No Other 61 Holbrook 2010 No USFS 62 Fletcher Butte Fire 2010 No USFS 63 Past Land Exchange Activity Land Exchange – USFS to IDL 1993 No IDL 64
126 High Valley Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
In Project Agency/ Map Index Project/Activity Date Area? Ownership Number PRESENT/ONGOING ACTIVITIES Present/Ongoing Transportation System including Roads and Road Maintenance Activities National Forest System Roads and Road Ongoing Yes USFS N/A Maintenance on MVUM Roads Other Jurisdiction Roads and Trails Ongoing No Other N/A Present/Ongoing Vegetation Management Activities Williams Creek Project Ongoing No USFS 65 Private Timber Harvest Activities 2015 No Private 51 Present/Ongoing Livestock Grazing Dry Buck Range Allotment - Cattle Ongoing No USFS 66 High Valley Range Allotment - Cattle Ongoing Yes USFS 67 Ola A Range Allotment - Cattle Ongoing Yes USFS 68 Ola Hill Range Allotment - Cattle Ongoing No USFS 69 Pine Creek Range Allotment - Cattle Ongoing Yes USFS 70 Tripod Range Allotment - Cattle Ongoing Yes USFS 71 Present/Ongoing Noxious Weed Treatment Boise National Forest Noxious Weed Program Ongoing Yes USFS N/A Present/Ongoing Recreation Big Eddy Campground Ongoing No USFS 72 Canyon Campground Ongoing No USFS 73 Cold Springs Campground Ongoing No USFS 74 Swinging Bridge Campground Ongoing No USFS 75 Dispersed Recreation Campsites Ongoing Yes USFS N/A Groomed Snowmachine Trails Ongoing Yes USFS/Other N/A Dispersed Recreation Activities/Hunting Activities Ongoing Yes USFS/Other N/A Fuelwood Gathering and Christmas Tree Harvest Ongoing Yes USFS/Other N/A Tree Harvest Present/Ongoing Private Ownership & Other Agency Private Dwellings including Residences, Cabins Ongoing No Private N/A and Ranches Agricultural Activities including Farming, Grazing, Ongoing No Private N/A and Pasture Timber Harvest and Timberland Management on Ongoing No Private and IDL N/A Multiple Ownerships Private, IDL, and Range Management and Livestock Grazing Ongoing No N/A BLM Present/Ongoing Fire Suppression Boise NF Wildfire Suppression Activities As needed Potential USFS/Other NA REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIVITIES Reasonably Foreseeable Vegetation Management Non Forest Service Timber Harvest Activities Future No Private N/A Timber Harvest IDL Section 36 (T.11 N.;R.2 E.) with Road Construction and Road Future No IDL 76 Decommissioning Vegetation Management Idaho Dept. of Lands Future No IDL 78 Vegetation Management Idaho Dept. of Lands Future No IDL 79
127