RICE RIDGE FIRE SALVAGE Agriculture

United States Department of RICE RIDGE FIRE SALVAGE Agriculture

Forest Environmental Assessment Service Seeley Lake Ranger District, Lolo National Forest June 2018 Missoula and Powell Counties, Montana

Cover Photo: Project area as seen from FS Rd. 4353

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Background and Project Setting ...... 1 Forest Plan Management Area Direction ...... 2 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 1.4 Proposed Action ...... 6 1.5 Public Involvement ...... 10 1.6 Issue Resolution ...... 11 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ...... 13 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 13 Alternative A ...... 13 Alternative B ...... 13 Alternative C ...... 13 Alternatives B and C ...... 13 Description of the Proposed Activities ...... 14 2.1.1 Resource Protection Measures ...... 18 Monitoring ...... 33 2.2 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 34 2.3 Conflicting Views Over Post-fire Salvage ...... 35 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 44 3.1 Vegetation ...... 44 3.1.1 Reforestation and Species Composition ...... 44 3.1.2 Forest Productivity and Growth ...... 48 3.1.3. Forest Product Value Recovered ...... 51 3.1.4. Old Growth ...... 54 3.1.5 Forest Carbon Cycling and Storage ...... 58 3.1.6 Botany ...... 60 3.1.7 Weeds ...... 63 3.2 Soils ...... 68 3.3 Hydrology ...... 77 3.4 Fisheries ...... 87 3.5 Wildlife ...... 112 3.5.1 Threatened and Proposed Species ...... 117 3.5.2 Sensitive Species ...... 151 3.5.3 Management Indicator Species ...... 162 3.6 Transportation System/Public Safety ...... 173 3.7 Heritage ...... 175 3.8 Recreation ...... 176 3.9 Economics ...... 179 3.10 Scenery ...... 184 Appendix A - References ...... 185 Appendix B – Maps ...... 221 Appendix C – Unit Details ...... 222 Appendix D – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 228

List of Tables Table 1. Management Areas within the Rice Ridge Project Area ...... 2 Table 2. BAER Actions ...... 3 Table 3. Summary of Proposed Activities in Alternatives B and C ...... 14 Table 4. Alternative B Aquatic Offsets ...... 17

Table 5. Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Project Resource Protection Measures ...... 18 Table 6. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 34 Table 7. Summary of Ecological Recommendations Provided in the Scientific Literature for Consideration in Post- fire Management ...... 37 Table 8. Summary of Wildfire in 2017 and Proposed Post-fire Salvage in 2018 at the Region, Forest, Ranger District, and Project Scale1 ...... 40 Table 9. Summary of Wildfire and Post-fire Salvage at the Region, Forest, and Project Scale from 2007-20161 ...... 41 Table 10. Acres of Salvage in each Tree Size Classification by Alternative ...... 42 Table 11. Acres of Salvage in each Tree Species Classification by Alternative ...... 42 Table 12. Acres of Salvage in each Burn Severity Classification by Alternative ...... 42 Table 13. Percent burned area and description of RVAG burn severity classes ...... 46 Table 14. Predicted volume defect by species for the first and second year following the Rice Ridge Fire ...... 52 Table 15. Average value reduction by species for fire-killed trees (USDA FS, 2017) ...... 52 Table 16. Pre-fire Old Growth Estimates ...... 55 Table 17. Potential Rice Ridge Fire Effects to Old Growth...... 56 Table 18. Burn severity within proposed units for the Rice Ridge Salvage Project ...... 68 Table 19. Summary of selected measures from PIBO stream surveys for the Rice Ridge Salvage area ...... 77 Table 20. NFS Road densities before and after Alternative B ...... 82 Table 21. Road mileage within 300 feet of stream channels for the existing conditions Alternative B ...... 82 Table 22. Alternative B modelled sediment production and delivery pre-, during- and post-implementation in tons/year ...... 84 Table 23. Alternative C modelled sediment production and delivery pre-, during- and post-implementation in tons/year ...... 84 Table 24. Sub-watershed Baseline Conditions ...... 87 Table 25. PIBO Data for the Rice Ridge Project Area...... 91 Table 26. Checklist for Documenting Bull Trout Effects of Alternative A on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators and Bull Trout Critical Habitat at the Project Scale1...... 95 Table 27. Checklist for Documenting Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Western Pearlshell Mussel Effects of Alternative A on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators at the Project Scale1 ...... 97 Table 28. Checklist for Documenting Bull Trout Effects of Alternative B on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators and Bull Trout Critical Habitat at the Project Scale1...... 102 Table 29. Checklist for Documenting Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Western Pearlshell Mussel Effects of Alternative B on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators at the Project Scale1 ...... 104 Table 30. Checklist for Documenting Bull Trout Effects of Alternative C on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators and Bull Trout Critical Habitat at the Project Scale1...... 108 Table 31. Checklist for Documenting Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Western Pearlshell Mussel Effects of Alternative C on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators at the Project Scale1 ...... 110 Table 32. Summary of effects of each alternative considered for the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project on wildlife, including Threatened, Proposed, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species that may exist on the Lolo National Forest. MIIH= May Impact Individuals or Habitat but is unlikely to lead towards loss of viability...... 113 Table 33. Average snag densities across the Lolo National Forest in 2017 (pre-fire), based on FIA data ...... 115 Table 34. Snags by size class, pre-fire density (indexed by canopy cover), and burn severity. Areas with the highest densities of med-large trees (≥10” dbh pre-fire) that burned at either low or high severities are highlighted in gray 116 Table 35. Canada lynx population and habitat status within the analysis area ...... 119 Table 36. Summary of estimated fire effects on forest structural stages, in acres, within 3 LAUs with proposed Rice Ridge Fire salvage activities. Data is based on geospatial mapping software. LAUs highlighted in red experienced very high levels of conversion to ESI from wildfire...... 120 Table 37. Post-fire updated baselines of structural stages, in acres, taking into account additive suppression effects, within the LAUs proposed Rice Ridge Fire salvage activities. Data is based on geospatial mapping software. See footnotes for explanation of color coding...... 121 Table 38. Summary of salvage harvest activities within and outside of LAUs within the Rice Ridge Project area. Numbers in parentheses are percentages of the total LAU impacted ...... 122 Table 39. Acres of salvage harvest within LAUs and critical habitat under Alternative B. Structural stages and lynx habitat were validated by the process described above. Acres are approximate because several units are a combination of more than one of the structural/habitat classes...... 123 ii

Table 40. Summary of salvage harvest activities within and outside of LAUs within the Rice Ridge Project area. Numbers in parentheses are percentages of the total LAU impacted...... 125 Table 41. NRLMD Objectives: Conservation measures applicable to all programs and activities with emphasis on Cottonwood Dunham, Morrell and Rice LAUs ...... 126 Table 42. NRLMD Standards and Guidelines: Conservation measures to address risk factors affecting lynx productivity with emphasis on Cottonwood Dunham, Morrell and Rice LAUs ...... 129 Table 43. The components of the PCE for lynx critical habitat as they pertain to the Rice Ridge Salvage action alternatives ...... 132 Table 44. Summary of post project lynx habitat conditions within LAUs in the project analysis area under Alternative B. Changes under Alternative C would be about 50% less...... 134 Table 45. Grizzly bear population information for the Rice Ridge Salvage project area ...... 137 Table 46. Summary of fire effects to bear management analysis areas (BMAA), in acres (and percent of total) within the Rice Ridge Fire, based on geo-mapping software ...... 138 Table 47. Summary of pre-fire, during, and post-fire baseline of open motorized access (OMRD), total motorized access (TMRD) and security core habitat within subunits on Lolo NF portion of Rice Ridge Fire, based on moving windows analysis. Numbers represent percentages...... 138 Table 48. Existing road densities and security core within the three subunits in the project area. Note: The Draft Conservation Strategy uses a slightly different rule set. Those numbers are in parentheses for the respective subunits...... 139 Table 49. Miles of road by category in Zone 1 using 3-mile buffer of Rice Ridge Fire perimeter ...... 140 Table 50. Pre-fire vegetation cover classes and associated Rice Ridge Fire intensities. Percentages of total are in parentheses ...... 141 Table 51. Alternative B proposed salvage activities within the PCA and Zone 1. PCA denotes Primary Recovery Area and subunits are analysis areas within the PCA...... 142 Table 52. Comprehensive results of moving windows analysis for the 3 grizzly bear subunits within the Rice Ridge Salvage project analysis area. Numbers in parentheses are based on GBCS rule set...... 144 Table 53. Summary of proposed actions and associated activities along with anticipated durations by alternative . 146 Table 54. Habitat for black-backed woodpeckers in the Rice Ridge Fire area, including existing amounts proposed for treatment under each alternative, and amounts post-treatment ...... 152 Table 55. Planned activities in mapped flammulated owl habitat in the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project area. Habitat mapping is based on pre-fire stand conditions plus SAVG burn severity data ...... 159 Table 56. Summary of habitat needs and species information for other Sensitive Species that were not considered further for the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project ...... 162 Table 57. Goshawk nesting habitat that would be harvested under either action alternative. Note that these assessments are based on conditions immediately post-fire, and do not account for delayed mortality of fire-affected trees, and thus overestimate of the amount of nesting habitat that is available...... 164 Table 58. Amount of modeled goshawk foraging habitat, by structural type, that would receive harvest under either of the action alternatives. Pink shading represents foraging areas that would be converted to Open Forage post- harvest, and orange shading represents areas that would be converted to Forested Forage post-harvest...... 165 Table 59. Estimates of existing (post-fire) pileated woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat in the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project area, as well as the amount of habitat that would remain post-harvest under each alternative...... 168 Table 60. Proposed acres of harvest under each alternative, comparing areas that provided cover for big game pre-fire (i.e., dense stands of larger trees) that burned at low vs. high severity, per SAVG data (categories in bold). Harvest type (Salvage Reforestation vs. Salvage) indicates whether post-fire visual obstruction would be very low or moderate, respectively...... 172 Table 61. Project Feasibility and Financial Efficiency Summary (2017$) ...... 180 Table 62. Other Resource Activity Costs ...... 181 Table 63. Economic Impacts (Employment and Labor Income), Total and Annual (2017$) ...... 181

List of Figures Figure 1. Basal area loss map (a RAVG product) within the Rice Ridge project area ...... 45 Figure 2. Cumulative total carbon stored in HWP manufactured from Northern Region timber using the IPCC/EPA approach. Carbon in HWP includes both products that are still in use and carbon stored at solid waste disposals sites (SWDS), including landfills and dumps (Stockmann et al. 2014)...... 59 iii

Figure 3. If a forest regenerates after a fire or other disturbance and the recovery is long enough, the forest will recover the carbon lost in the fire and in the decomposition of trees killed by the fire. This concept is illustrated here by showing carbon stored in forests as live trees, dead wood, and soil and how these pools change after fire. Model output is from an analysis published in Kashian et al. 2006...... 60

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Introduction

The Lolo National Forest (NF) is proposing to harvest dead and dying trees, cut hazard trees along roads, and plant tree seedlings within the perimeter of the Rice Ridge Fire which burned in the summer of 2017. The 38,830-acre Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Project (the project) is located on the Seeley Lake Ranger District in Missoula and Powell Counties immediately north and east of Seeley Lake, Montana (see maps in Appendix B). The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives and determine whether they may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This EA fulfills agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Lolo National Forest Plan, 40 CFR 1508.9, 36 CFR 220.7, and other relevant federal and State laws and regulations. This EA is intended to be a concise summary; more information about every resource assessed is available in the full specialists’ reports available online at https://www.fs.usda.gov/lolo. Additional project documentation is contained within the Project File located at the Missoula Ranger District office in Missoula, Montana.

1.2 Background and Project Setting

During the 2017 fire season, multiple wildfires burned over 227,000 acres of the Lolo NF, affecting approximately 10 percent of the Forest; 8 percent of its suitable base. The largest fire was Rice Ridge. The Rice Ridge Fire was ignited by lightning on July 24, 2017 affecting approximately 160,000 acres. Of this, about 159,430 acres was National Forest System (NFS) land (106,487 acres on the Lolo NF and 52,944 acres on the Flathead NF), 58 acres of State land, and 513 acres of private land. The Flathead NF land is within the Bob Marshall Wilderness and is not proposed for treatment in this project. The fire burned with varying severity, leaving a mosaic of burn patterns on the landscape that range from unburned islands to areas where the tree canopy was completely consumed. Many areas were burned by moderate to severe surface or crown fires that consumed all or most of the organic material on the forest floor. Viewed from a distance, some forest stands still appear green because the tree canopy was not burned. In these areas, many of the trees are actually dead or dying as their roots were killed by intense heat. The Rice Ridge Fire burned through much of the Center Horse Restoration Project area. Center Horse was a landscape (61,300-acre analysis area) integrated resource project designed to restore forest vegetation, fish habitat and water quality, provide wood products, and maintain a suitable transportation system. Planning for this project was authorized by the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP)1. Analysis for the project had been documented in a Final EIS and Draft Record of Decision (ROD). A fall 2017 Decision was anticipated with project implementation planned for summer 2018. After the fire, the Center Horse project and its analysis were set aside; no Final ROD was issued. Many of the proposed beneficial outcomes of this project are now foregone. At a broad, landscape scale, the project area is within the southwestern sub-region of the “Crown of the Continent”. The Crown of the Continent links the Canadian Rockies with the Greater Yellowstone

1 Congress established the CFLRP with Title VI of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The purpose of the CFLRP is to encourage collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Ecosystem and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness areas to the south. The Southwestern Crown Sub-region includes the Blackfoot, Clearwater, and Swan River valleys. The working forests on public and private lands within this sub-region bridge the gap between two of the region’s well-protected wilderness landscapes. Portions of the project area have undergone traditional timber harvest with associated roading, primarily in the 1960s and 1970s. Until 2017, fire had been actively and successfully suppressed across the project area for many decades. Given its proximity to the Blackfoot Clearwater Game Range, the project area is an important connector for big game moving between winter and summer range. Canada lynx and grizzly bears are present within the project area, as are several other Sensitive and Management Indicator Species. Streams provide habitat for native fish such as bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. The value of these streams to the aquatic ecology and fishery of the Blackfoot River watershed has generated numerous “partnerships” between downstream landowners that have conserved instream water levels, stabilized streams banks, removed fish passage barriers, and improved overall stream and riparian functions. Forest Plan Management Area Direction Considering salvage of dead and dying timber from a portion of the burned area is appropriate. About 38% of the Rice Ridge Fire burned land suitable for timber production in the Lolo Forest Plan2. Other areas not allocated to timber production allow for salvage of dead and dying trees within the limitations of other management objectives. The Lolo Forest Plan identifies twenty-nine management areas (MAs) that represent different management goals, resource potentials and limitations (Forest Plan, p. III-1). The project area contains ten of the twenty-nine management areas. Fire salvage activities are proposed in areas where timber harvest and salvage are permitted (Table 1). Table 1. Management Areas within the Rice Ridge Project Area

MA Acres in Project Salvage Description Suitability for Salvage Area Activities Proposed (Alt. B acres) Scattered Noncommercial Timber salvage may occur where 1 221 --- Forest Land access exists. Tree cutting will be limited to that required to eliminate safety 13 4,949 25 Riparian Areas hazards (see Table 5). Salvage allowed to meet goals and objectives. Provide for healthy stands of 16 21,761 3,323 Timber Management timber. Dead or down trees may be salvaged as constrained by habitat Timber Management on needs for cavity nesting wildlife 17 871 32 Steep Slopes species. Dead or down trees may be salvaged as constrained by habitat Grizzly Bear Habitat w/ needs for cavity nesting wildlife 20 2,880 831 Timber Management species. Timber harvest will be employed to improve or maintain old-growth 21 586 136 Old Growth habitat.

2 The Forest Plan guides all-natural resource management activities and establishes management standards for the Lolo National Forest. It describes resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability and suitability of lands for resource management. 2

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment MA Acres in Project Salvage Description Suitability for Salvage Area Activities Proposed (Alt. B acres) Dead or down trees may be Timber Management salvaged as constrained by habitat Visual Quality Objective of needs for cavity nesting wildlife 24 1,837 358 Retention species. Salvage allowed to meet goals and Timber Management objectives Visual Quality Objective of Provide for healthy stands of 25 3,703 787 Partial Retention timber Salvage allowed to meet goals and 26 401 110 Big game Summer Range objectives Salvage allowed to meet goals and 27 622 --- Not Economically Feasible objectives

Fire Rehabilitation After fire containment, various measures were taken to respond to the direct effects of the fire, suppression actions, and expected post-fire threats and hazards. Fire lines were rehabilitated, water bars installed, and road drainage structures maintained (more information about these activities is located in the Hydrology and Fisheries Specialists’ Reports). Areas of high use, including camps, staging areas, water pumping sites, and drop points, were scarified and seeded to minimize erosion and reduce weed establishment. Roadside trees that posed an imminent hazard were felled, and debris was removed from roads to ensure public and employee safety. The removal of fallen trees and debris from roads continued in autumn and early winter until heavy snows prevented access. Throughout winter, where access was feasible, decked logs, accumulated from constructed fuel breaks, were hauled to local mills. In addition, an evaluation of values at risk, considering imminent threats to human life and property, was conducted. This evaluation determined that Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) actions were needed to address immediate threats to public safety, values at risk, and resource damage. In addition to BAER, road maintenance and culvert/bridge replacement funded with post-fire disaster and CFLRP is ongoing in the project area (Table 2 and Appendix D). Table 2. BAER Actions

Treatment Miles Acres Locations Road Drainage Maintenance Culvert Maintenance 275 Construction of Sediment Basins 8 Construction of Road Way Sediment Barriers 1.45 Ditch Reconstruction 4.07 Construction of Surface Drainage 185 Linear Road Drainage Maintenance 99.92 Culvert Installation/ Upsizing 62 Trail Treatment (tread/drainage repair) 70 Culvert Removals 6 Large Stream Culverts, AOP 4 Weeds 3567.4

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment A portion of the BAER work was completed in fall 2017 before heavy rain and snow caused operations to cease. The remainder of BAER activities and other treatments funded by post-fire disaster relief and CFLRP will be completed in the summer of 2018. This work, collectively, will provide essential resource protections within the post-fire environment. Cumulative effects of BAER, post-fire disaster, and CFLRP activities are addressed in Chapter 3.

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

Salvage of burned timber enables the National Forest System (NFS) to contribute to local economies, provide wood products to society, and fund needed restoration and hazard reduction activities. After the Rice Ridge Fire, the Forest Service received public comments requesting the agency consider recovery of economic value from the burned forest to benefit the local economy in an area where a milling infrastructure is nearby 3. Other commenters requested the post-fire landscape be left without management. To address the spectrum of public input, the Forest Service developed the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Project to include salvage of economically feasible timber from accessible lands and retain some burned areas without management. The purpose of the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project is to:

 Recover the economic value of forest products in a timely manner to contribute to employment and income in local communities and avoid loss of commodity value

 Reduce hazards threatening human health and safety

 Re-establish forested conditions and/or facilitate recovery to meet management objectives outlined in the Forest Plan. Recover Economic Value to Support Communities and Avoid Commodity Loss One of the goals outlined in the Lolo Forest Plan is to provide a sustained yield of timber and other outputs at a level that will help support the economic structure of local communities and provide for regional and national needs (Lolo NF Plan, page II-1). As described above, a portion of the fire burned in areas allocated to timber production and other areas where salvage is allowed. The project is located within Missoula and Powell Counties on the Seeley Lake Ranger District. NFS land makes up 52 and 43 percent, respectively, of the land base of these counties. Thus, local communities have significant social and economic ties to NFS land. Forest products resulting from management on NFS land contribute to the local economy and to the sustainability of the forest products industry. Currently, Montana’s forest products industry is one of the largest components of manufacturing in the State and employs roughly 7,700 workers earning about $335 million in compensation annually. The majority of the industry is centered in western Montana where the project is located (Morgan et al. 2015). Most Montana mills are currently operating at less than full capacity and require an adequate supply of timber to remain viable and meet market demand (Morgan et al. 2015, 2017). Harvesting burned material would provide jobs associated with logging and milling and contribute to the supply of timber from NFS land, which makes up about 60 percent of the forest land in Montana. Timely implementation of salvage operations is necessary because the volume and quality of wood products deteriorate rapidly after fire. Insects (primarily beetles), stain and decay fungi, and weather all act as deterioration agents in fire-killed trees (USDA FS 2010, DeNitto et al. 2000, Lowell et al. 1992, and Hadfield and Magelssen 2006). Decay causes reductions in strength properties of wood,

3 The nearest lumber mill is located in Seeley Lake about two miles from the Rice Ridge Fire.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment rendering the wood useless from a structural standpoint, and thus, decreasing useable log volume. Insects introduce stain fungi and create boring holes that destroy the structural integrity of the wood. Weather checking (vertical cracks in the tree as it dries out) also contributes to loss. With time, the cracks go deeper into the tree, making it unusable for manufacturing lumber. As the fire-killed trees dry out, breakage during tree felling operations substantially increases. In addition to volume loss, timber can lose value due to the types of products or grade of products that can be manufactured from a log or tree. On average, product deterioration in the project areas is expected be 14 to 15 percent in the first year after the fire and 30 percent or more in year two. Loss of timber volume and value results in an accompanying loss of economic benefits to communities. More importantly, as dead trees deteriorate, they pose substantial safety hazards to forest workers. A combination of ground-based and cable yarding would be used to remove the fire-killed trees from within proposed salvage units. Cable yarding systems require hand-felling, resulting in exposure of sawyers and others to hazards. As time passes, the stability of fire-killed trees diminishes, putting workers at even higher risk. Reduce hazards threatening human health and safety There are 500 miles of road within the project area that are open seasonally or yearlong to public motorized travel. Forest roads in the burned area now present a unique hazard to the recreating public from falling snags, fire-weakened trees, and down trees across roadways. Personnel working within the fire perimeter have cleared trees from the roadway in recent months to gain administrative access for analysis and restoration activities. Travel hazards will continue in the project area over time with increasing mortality, weather events, and other environmental factors. The project area is used heavily year-round for recreation. Public and administrative use is expected to increase in the burned area over the next five or more years for mushroom picking, firewood collection, timber salvage, tree planting, BAER, and other post-fire stabilization and monitoring activities. Hunting (including guiding and outfitting) may also increase as big game forage re-establishes and flourishes in the nutrient rich post-fire environment. Public use is generally concentrated along roads and trails. However, dispersed use may occur away from the transportation system. Although some hazard trees have already been felled along open roads, without a more substantial effort to address high-risk trees, these hazards will continue to affect safe access for recreation, and ongoing and future management activities. There is a need to mitigate these hazards to protect the health and safety of the public, and forest managers and contractors conducting land management activities within the area. Cutting hazard trees along roads would improve the safety of forest users and maintain motorized access. Re-establish Forested Conditions and/or Facilitate Recovery The fire caused high levels of tree mortality in many areas. In some areas that burned at high severity, there is limited seed source remaining for natural tree regeneration. The National Forest Management Act requires that all suitable forested land in the NFS be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, degree of stocking, rate of growth and conditions of stand designed to secure the maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield management in accordance with land management plans (i.e., Forest Plans). Agency personnel have conducted an initial assessment and diagnosis of the entire burned area (outside of wilderness) to identify areas in need of reforestation or natural recovery in order to meet management objectives outlined in the Forest Plan. Based on this assessment there is a need for tree planting. Planting native tree seedlings would fulfill the Agency’s legal obligations, and enhance the overall recovery process and trend the vegetation component toward desired future conditions

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment outlined in the Forest Plan. Development of a diversity of tree species (particularly seral4 species), densities, and age classes across the landscape is consistent with the long-term management objectives for landscapes that are resistant and resilient when exposed to natural disturbances like drought, fire, insects, diseases, and long-term shifts in temperature and moisture regimes.

1.4 Proposed Action

The proposed action was developed to address the purpose and need for action. The Proposed Action, with some modifications was carried forward as Alternative B (modified proposed action) as described in Chapter 2, and analyzed in Chapter 3.

The proposed action included approximately 4,838 acres of salvage, hazard tree removal along seasonally or year-round open National Forest System Roads, maintenance of roads used for haul, about 16 miles of temporary road construction, reconstruction and temporary use of approximately 16 miles of existing undetermined roads (i.e., “temporary roads on existing templates”) and 11,533 acres of tree planting. Design criteria were included in the proposed action to minimize and/or avoid potential environmental impacts. Project Planning and Design - Determining Proposed Harvest Areas

As part of initial project design, a coarse filter analysis was used to identify where fire salvage would be economically feasible with fewer environmental effects. Not all portions of the Rice Ridge Fire were considered for salvage. Some areas were removed considering post-fire conditions, hazards and threats, product deterioration, and the need for resource protection. In addition, Forest Plan direction, road access, slope steepness, timber size and volume, fire severity and tree species deterioration, and other factors were taken into account. These parameters limited the scope of available salvage opportunities. Detailed information about the coarse filter is in the project file and on the Forest Service Northern Region (Region 1) web site at: https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=d3b3a962ed784e7096fbebfb75 031a75

Following application of the coarse filter analysis, field surveys were conducted and additional analysis completed to develop the proposed action. Field reconnaissance by experienced foresters focused on stands with dead and dying trees greater than 10 inches diameter breast height and containing cut volume greater than 8,000 board feet per acre (MBF). Existing road access and logging systems were also examined. Because of the lower economic value of burned trees, expensive logging methods such as helicopter yarding were not considered. Areas needing extensive new road construction were also excluded. Relevant science regarding the effects of and considerations for fire and post-fire management was reviewed and incorporated into the project design as appropriate. Although there are conflicting views about fire salvage (addressed later in Chapter 2), much of the literature suggests that environmental effects depend on the biophysical setting of the forest, pattern of burn severity, operational aspects of tree removal, scale of salvage operations, and other management activities. 1.4.1 Design Criteria and Direction Project-level design criteria were identified upfront to protect resources. The criteria are based on Forest Plan direction, Regional direction for Fire Salvage Projects (see Project File), relevant science, past experience with fire salvage, and site-specific evaluations that

4 Seral is an intermediate stage found in ecological succession in an ecosystem advancing towards its climax community. 6

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment found the criteria to be effective in meeting resource protection objectives. The criteria include best management practice (BMP) measures to minimize effects to fish and wildlife, and soil and water resources. For timber harvest and road development, BMPs also assure compliance with the Clean Water Act and State of Montana water quality standards. Aquatics and Listed Fish Avoid or limit fire salvage in areas where there are cumulative effects concerns for aquatic species, particularly those related to retardant misapplication. Use the 6th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) as the starting point for avoidance and modify up or down based on sound biological rationale.  No fire salvage in areas that contain bull trout or bull trout critical habitat where retardant misapplication occurred and fish mortality was observed.  Avoid fire salvage in areas that contain sensitive fish species where retardant misapplication occurred and fish mortality was observed, if adverse cumulative effects cannot be mitigated.  Minimize salvage in landscapes affected by retardant misapplication and implement mitigation measures where such salvage occurs.  Implement mitigation (including beneficial actions) where feasible to offset adverse effects. These actions may include but are not limited to:  Culvert replacement with aquatic organism passage (AOP) culvert.  Road surfacing and replacement of cross-drain culverts near fish-bearing streams.  Road relocation, storage, decommissioning or relocation opportunities. 303(D) Listed Streams If adverse effects are expected in impaired or threatened water bodies (i.e., Category 4 or 5), include mitigation actions in the project that improve habitat or water quality conditions as needed in addition to using BMPs to reduce project effects to water quality. Mitigation actions may include road improvements such as BMPs, surfacing, adding gravel or installing ditch relief culverts, or winter logging.  While BMPs are required for all ground disturbing activities to reduce the effects to water quality, additional activities to maintain beneficial stream uses may be implemented.  Category 4 waters may be covered by a watershed-scale TMDL or TMDL Implementation Plan, which may specify particular land management activities to attain and maintain water quality standards. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) Avoid fire salvage in RHCAs except where tree removal is needed to address threats or hazards to public safety or infrastructure, or where it is necessary to access salvage areas outside of RHCAs via temporary roads or skid trails.  Modification to RHCA widths and salvage harvest within RHCAs is an exception.  Identify RHCA boundaries prior to sale layout and preparation.  If additional protection “no cut” areas are desired in excess of RHCAs, these protection areas are not an expansion of the RHCA. Minimize road and landing locations in RHCAs (INFISH RF-2b).  Where roads or landings are needed within RHCAs, design should minimize ground disturbance and locate them as far away from water resources as possible to minimize the potential for sediment delivery to water resources.  Ground disturbance can be minimized by locating landings and temporary roads on existing

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment templates (i.e., undetermined roads).  When maintaining roads located in RHCAs, avoid side-casting of soil or snow during road maintenance operations (INFISH RF-2f). Water Quality BMPs Apply BMPs to all project activities to the extent necessary to minimize non-point source water pollution from forest practices. Stored roads that are opened for salvage activities will be closed after activities are completed. Limit opening to one year when possible, or ensure if open for multiple years they have the BMPs applied to be hydrologically benign. During use and throughout the period of project activity, maintain all roads to minimize sediment delivery to water bodies. Complete required reconstruction and maintenance, and ensure that all BMPs are in place prior to haul.  If hauling on frozen/snow covered roads, ensure BMPs are in place before allowing haul, unless agreed otherwise in consultation with the hydrologist and fisheries biologist. Transportation System Management No new system roads. Limit required road activities to the minimum required for fire salvage activities. Include appropriate Best Management Practices as design criteria. Analyze anticipated temporary road locations (recognizing precise alignment may not be known). Use of undetermined roads on the landscape may be necessary for fire salvage and should be included in the analysis. Tree Mortality All trees identified as being imminently dead due to fire injury as determined by the provided protocols will be treated as being currently dead in the assessment of the post-burn stand condition. Snag Management Comply with Forest Plan standards in regards to snag retention. Use Regional assessment tools to quantify snag levels across the Forest and landscape area. Wildlife Habitat – Canada Lynx To comply with Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) Standard Veg S1, S2: For the purpose of interpreting habitat conditions relative to Standard VEG S1 vegetation polygons will be considered to be in the early stand initiation structural stage (and temporarily unsuitable for snowshoe hares and lynx during winter) when < 25% canopy cover from live overstory trees remains immediately following a naturally occurring, stand-replacing disturbance event (wildfire, insect and disease infestation, and/or wind event). Such conditions are analogous to a shelterwood harvest treatment. All fire salvage projects will ensure compliance with planning objectives, standards and guidelines in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD). They will also reduce potential for adverse effects in mapped lynx habitat and USFWS Designated Lynx Critical Habitat (beyond those resulting from recent wildfire events) while still providing for fire salvage opportunities. The following criteria apply to mapped lynx habitat, as defined in the NRLMD and as

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment discussed in the Regional Forester’s Sept 2016 habitat mapping clarification memo. 1) Vegetation Structural Conditions (NRLMD – Standards VEG S1 and VEG S6) a) Utilizing the thresholds defined in Determining Lynx Habitat in Stand Initiation Structural Stage (VEG S1), identify all burned polygons which have experienced mortality such that they have transitioned to the stand initiation structural stage. These polygons are considered to have been regenerated by the activity of the fire and, as such, are available for fire salvage unless retention is otherwise indicated for connectivity purposes. All polygons proposed for harvest must be validated, either by image or field-based means, to confirm current structural stage condition. b) Vegetation Polygons maintained in post-fire multi-storied structural condition (Standard - VEG S6)  Within Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) that Exceed 30% Early Stand Initiation structural stage as defined in VEG S1: (i) Retain, and do not salvage harvest within, Vegetation Polygons 5 acres or larger in size that are currently in a multi-storied structural stage (as defined in the NRLMD EIS, pp 147-148). Retain, and do not salvage harvest within, Vegetation Polygons less than 5 acres in size if they provide habitat for snowshoe hare (SSH) and are juxtaposed such that retention of such patches would provide for connectivity between larger SSH foraging habitats.  Within Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) that Do Not Exceed 30% Early Stand Initiation Structural Stage as defined in NRLMD VEG S1: (i) In lynx habitat not designated as Critical Habitat by the USFWS - Exception #3 to VEG S6 may be implemented and Salvage Harvest may occur within Vegetation Polygons currently in a multi-storied structural stage. Exception #3 allows for reductions of SSH habitat as a result of salvage harvest in multi- storied habitats if Standard VEG S1 is met (NRLMD ROD Attachment 1, p. 4); however, any adverse effects to SSH habitat as a result will be clearly described, accounted for, and analyzed in NEPA and BA documents. (ii) In lynx habitat designated by the USFWS as Critical Habitat - Retain, and do not salvage harvest within, Vegetation Polygons 5 acres or larger in size that are currently in a multi-storied structural stage (as defined in the NRLMD EIS, pp 147-148). Retain, and do not salvage harvest within, Vegetation Polygons less than 5 acres in size if they provide habitat for snowshoe hare (SSH) and are juxtaposed such that retention would provide for connectivity between larger SSH foraging habitats. The intent of this criteria is to avoid adverse effects to snowshoe hare habitat within Lynx Critical Habitat (Primary Constituent Element – PCE 1a). c) Vegetation Polygons currently in the Stem Exclusion (SE) structural stage (post-fire) are available for salvage within Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) that Do Not Exceed 30% Early Stand Initiation Structural Stage. Vegetation Polygons currently in SE structural stage (post fire) are also available for salvage within LAUs that Exceed 30% Early Stand Initiation Structural Stage unless effects of salvage harvest activities would result in conversion of treated stands to the stand Initiation structural stage post-treatment (e.g., harvest activities that would result in incidental removal of green trees for skid trails, log landings, line-machine corridors, temporary roads and/or other harvest activities) such that Standard VEG S1 would not be met. Incidental removal of green trees does not include those green trees considered “imminently dead” as defined in the Mortality 9

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment direction. 2) Connectivity - Standard ALL S1 Connecting patches of remaining SSH habitats within burn perimeters is an important consideration when assessing Standard ALL S1. Retention of post-fire multi-storied polygons, as discussed in Criteria 1(b) above, will assist in providing connectivity between SSH foraging patches. But, retaining additional burned polygons (identified above as “available for salvage”), that still provides horizontal cover and are juxtaposed adjacent to and/or inter-mingled with larger multi-storied polygons, should also be considered for retention to provide movement corridors for SSH and lynx. 3) Temporary Roads – Standards VEG S1 and VEG S6 Effects of constructing temporary roads will be accounted for and analyzed relative to compliance with NRLMD VEG S1 and VEG S6. As noted above in Criteria 1(b), exception #3 to VEG S6 may be implemented in non-critical lynx habitat and within LAUs that do not exceed 30% early stand initiation structural stage; exception #3 to VEG S6 allows for reductions of SSH habitat in multi-storied stands as a result of salvage harvest activities (e.g., reductions resulting from skid trails, line machine corridors, temporary roads, and logging damage). In addition to Regional Direction for Fire Salvage Projects summarized above, design features also include best management practices (BMPs), which minimize effects on soil and water resources. For harvest and road management activities, BMPs are designed to assure compliance with the Clean Water Act and State of Montana water quality standards. For example:  Woody debris would be left within all vegetation treatment areas at levels outlined in the Lolo National Forest Coarse Woody Material Guide and Forest Plan to provide for soil productivity and wildlife habitat.  Within salvage units, healthy live trees that do not meet the screening for imminent mortality would be retained. Incidental live trees may be felled if determined to be a safety hazard to workers or if needed to facilitate skid trail, skyline corridor and/or temporary road placement. The location of skid trails, skyline corridors, and temporary roads would require approval by the Forest Service.  Forestry Best Management Practices would be utilized to minimize effects to soil and water.  Wildlife features such as wallows, mineral licks, and seeps would be protected.

1.5 Public Involvement Scoping On December 21, 2017, a scoping letter soliciting comments on the proposed action was mailed to 210 landowners, organizations, other agencies, Tribes, and individuals who had previously requested notification of like activities or who were identified as potentially affected by the project (e.g. adjacent land owners). The scoping letter and associated map were posted on the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) and the Lolo National Forest website. A project announcement and public meeting notice was sent to local media. The Forest Service held a public meeting on January 10, 2018 to share information about the project and encourage public comment. Seven people attended the meeting.

In response to scoping, thirty-eight comment letters were received. Comments ranged from being supportive of the proposal to those expressing concerns regarding specific aspects of the project. Those opposing the project requested the project be dropped or modified due to concerns over potential effects of proposed activities to forest resources (see below). In

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment contrast, other comments requested more salvage, using all means practical to harvest as much as possible, as fast as possible.

In addition, three commenters provided literature references to be considered. These references are included in the Project File and were made available to the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team for their consideration. Section 1.6, Issue Resolution, also explains how public comments were addressed. Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment: Federal, State, and Local Agencies Montana Department of Environmental Quality Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Montana Department of Natural Resource and Conservation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State of Montana U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management Tribes Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Nez Perce Tribe Other Missoula County Powell County Mineral County Lewis and Clark County Granite County Sanders County Ledger Mineral County Montana Ecosystem Defense Council Montana Council Trout Unlimited Alliance for the Wild Rockies American Wildlands The Nature Conservancy Lands Council Friends of the Wild Swan Western Watersheds Project F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Company Pyramid Mountain Lumber, Inc. Stimson Lumber Sun Mountain Lumber Tricon Timber, LLC A complete list of public contacts is included in the Project File.

1.6 Issue Resolution

Public comments received in response to scoping helped to identify concerns and issues relative to the proposed action. A summary of the comment analysis is located within the Project File. Issues raised by the public were addressed: 1) by developing alternatives to the 11

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Proposed Action; 2) in project design; 3) by creating resource protection measures; and, 4) through analysis to determine environmental effects. The issues raised in scoping that informed alternative development are summarized below: 1. Issue: Areas were excluded from harvest that may be economically viable and should be added. Comments included describing some general locations to re- evaluate, adding marginal areas between proposed units, expanding roadside harvest to all roads (whether open to the public or not), and taking a closer look at wildland- urban interface areas. Response: Alternative B was modified to add units or expand existing unit boundaries. Roadside harvest was not expanded to all roads in the project area because this would not meet the project’s purpose and need. 2. Issue: Using an area of 200 feet on either side of the road for hazard tree removal instead of 150 feet would better ensure public and agency personnel safety. Response: Expanding the area for hazard tree removal to 200 feet on either side of roads is not necessary due to the average height of trees in the project area; 150 feet is adequate to meet the project’s purpose and need. 3. Issue: Harvest needs to be reconsidered in Seeley and Trail Creek because buffers and BMPS would adequately protect the watersheds. Response: Units within the wildland-urban interface were added to Alternatives B and C. Adding these units also addresses Issue 1 above. 4. Issue: Helicopter logging should be included in the proposal because it could eliminate potentially expensive and environmentally damaging road construction. Response: Burned timber values do not support the economic feasibility of using helicopters to yard cut trees. Alternative C addresses this issue by not including any temporary road construction. 5. Issue: Building roads may cause unacceptable impacts to natural resources in the project area (road construction should be eliminated or minimized and/or roads should be decommissioned). Response: Alternative C addresses this issue by not including any temporary road construction. Road decommissioning was added to Alternative B to mitigate project effects to fish and water. 6. Issue: More temporary roads should be constructed to access and treat a greater number of acres. Response: Alternative B was modified to add units or expand existing unit boundaries. This also addressed Issue 1. Additional temporary roads were not needed to access the areas added. 7. Issue: Constructing temporary roads to harvest units in Morrell Creek would adversely affect this watershed and its tributaries. BMPs and additional mitigation measures should be considered to address sediment and disturbance associated with timber salvage and haul. Response: Alternative C addresses this issue by not including any temporary road construction. Alternatives B and C include Resource Protection Measures and aquatic offsets, to address sediment and other potential adverse effects of timber salvage and haul. In addition to the issues that informed alternative development (discussed above), analysis issues were also raised. They are integral to the effects analysis and are captured by resource in Chapter 3. 12

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES Section 102(2)(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Forest Service to study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action for any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. The Forest Service did this with the alternatives described below.

2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Three alternatives were considered in detail. Maps of the alternatives are located in Appendix B.

 Alternative A - No Action

 Alternative B - Modified Proposed Action

 Alternative C - No Temporary Road Construction Alternative A This alternative proposes no actions that are contained in Alternatives B and C. It provides a baseline for comparison of the environmental consequences of Alternatives B and C to the existing condition and is a management option that could be selected by the Responsible Official. The results of taking no action would be the current condition as it changes over time due to natural forces. Alternative A responds to public comments that expressed a desire for no post-fire management actions.

In this alternative, fire rehabilitation work described in Section 1.2, which is not a part of this proposal, will occur regardless of which alternative is selected. Other standard resource protection and recurrent maintenance activities such as access management and routine scheduled road maintenance will also continue in the project area. Ecosystem processes such as vegetation succession would continue their current trends. Alternative B Alternative B would salvage approximately 5,604 acres, remove hazard trees along 25 miles of road, and reforest approximately 16,526 acres. About 13 miles of temporary road would be constructed. Temporary roads would be returned to their natural contour and stabilized following use. In addition, approximately 18 miles of existing undetermined roads would be reconstructed for temporary use (i.e., “temporary road on existing templates”). All 31 miles would be stabilized following use. To offset potential effects on aquatic resources, approximately 27.5 miles of road would be decommissioned, 0.7 miles stored, and 1.6 miles constructed to re-route existing roads away from riparian areas (see Appendix B, Alternative B maps). Concurrent with the re-routes, about 2.3 miles of existing road would be designated as National Forest System Roads (NFSR). Alternative C Alternative C would salvage approximately 2,734 acres, remove roadside hazard trees along 28 miles of road, and reforest approximately 15,232 acres. No temporary roads would be constructed in this alternative. Undetermined roads would not be reconstructed for temporary use. Areas that would require temporary road construction and undetermined road reconstruction for salvage in Alternative B are not included in Alternative C. This alternative would not require the aquatic offsets for potential project effects on aquatic resources (see Table 3). Alternatives B and C Both alternatives B and C respond to the purpose and need described in Chapter 1 and public

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment comments. Table 3 displays the summary of proposed activities within Alternatives B and C. Refer to Appendix B for maps and Appendix C for unit-specific information. Table 3. Summary of Proposed Activities in Alternatives B and C

Proposed Activities Alternative B Alternative C Modified Proposed Action

Vegetation Treatments Harvest Salvage (acres) 1,240 695 Salvage with Reforestation (acres) 4,364 2,039 TOTAL (acres) 5,604 2,734 Roadside Hazard Tree Removal (miles) 25 28 Tree Planting (acres) 16,526 15,232 Road Treatments Temporary Road Construction (miles) 31 0 New Construction 13 Existing Template Reconstruction 18 Road Maintenance (miles NFSR) 115 94 Aquatic Offsets (miles) Decommissioning 27.5 0 Storage 0.7 0 Road Construction for Re-routes 1.6 0

Alternatives B and C would be implemented over an 8-to 10-year period. Timber salvage would likely be completed within 3 years. This would include stabilizing or decommissioning the temporary roads created for the sales with the exception of two roads (17509 and 17534) which had been previously decommissioned but would be re-opened for this project. These two roads would remain on the landscape (but closed to public access) for up to five years to facilitate tree planting (and then decommissioned). In years 4 to 6 some pile burning may continue as well as some road decommissioning and hazard tree removal. By year 8 years all work would likely be completed, however, some incidental tree planting may occur in years 9 and 10. Description of the Proposed Activities Vegetation Treatments Salvage Harvest Areas proposed for salvage5 in Alternatives B and C would fall into one of two categories: salvage or salvage and reforestation. A variety of silvicultural systems and logging systems would be used as appropriate for the conditions found at each site (tree species existing/desired on site, burn severity, slope, aspect, etc.) (see Project File). In identified salvage units, dead and dying trees that meet merchantability specifications6 would be removed. Fire injury and other factors would be used to identify imminent post-fire tree mortality7 and

5 The cutting of trees that are dead, dying, or deteriorating (e.g., because they are overmature or materially damaged by fire, wind, insects, fungi, or other injurious agents) before they lose their commercial value as sawtimber (USDA FS, LNF Forest Plan, p. VII-35).

6 For this project, merchantable dead trees are those that are at least 8 inches diameter at breast height, have at least an 8 foot pieces to a 5.6 inch top diameter, and are at least 33 percent sound.

7 USDA FS 2017. Region 1, Post-fire Assessment of Tree Status is a compilation of the latest scientific information on assessing when a tree is alive or will imminently die within three years after fire.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment inform selection for removal. These trees would be designated using various methods (e.g., cut or leave tree marking, species designation, etc.). Salvage Harvest without Reforestation Salvage harvest without reforestation, would occur in stands where tree mortality is such that the stand would still be considered adequately stocked (forested) following harvest. Dead and dying trees would be harvested to recover economic value. Incidental live tree removal may also occur in this treatment to facilitate logging operations, safety, and other site factors. Approximately 20% of the area proposed for salvage harvest would have no post-harvest reforestation needs. Salvage with Reforestation Salvage with reforestation would be applied to stands where the level of tree mortality is high and the stand would no longer be considered adequately stocked (forested) following harvest.8 The salvage harvest treatment would be the same as described above except these sites would be planted or reforested with native seedlings through natural regeneration following harvest. In some areas, standing dead or dying trees would be retained in the overstory to provide shade in order to prevent seedling insolation and facilitate seedling establishment where necessary (i.e., west to south aspects). Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Within the project area, approximately 91 miles of road are open to public and/or administrative use. Many areas along these roads have a heightened risk of hazard trees falling, blocking access, and creating risks to human safety (the areas initially identified for treatment pass through high to very high severity burn areas). Areas near high-use recreation sites including trails, trailheads, and rental cabins are also exposed to hazard trees. While some hazard trees have been felled, a more substantial effort is needed to address high-risk areas because hazard trees will continue to affect safe access and forest use. Cutting hazard trees along roads and near concentrated-use areas would improve the safety of Forest users. While Alternatives B and C include cutting roadside hazard trees along 25 and 28 miles of road, respectively, roadside areas within units would also be treated (as part of the unit treatment), and these estimates do not include the proposed temporary and undetermined roads along which additional hazard tree felling may occur. To reduce hazards, individual hazard trees would be felled and removed in high-risk areas within approximately 150-feet9 of open roads, haul routes, trails, and concentrated use areas. Hazard tree removal, in general, would not result in one long continuous clearing. Individual hazard trees would be removed based on their risk of falling and likelihood of striking an established road or trail. Trees classified as having imminent or likely failure potential would be felled. Felled hazard trees would be sold as various wood products or left on site. Mechanized equipment used to remove cut trees would remain on the road. Directional felling and cable yarding systems would be used to bring these trees to the road to be processed and hauled to a milling facility. Hazard trees located within riparian areas would be cut and left on the ground. Roadside hazard trees include dead, dying, and damaged trees within 150-feet of a road where any of the following conditions apply:  The tree is leaning more than 15° towards the road  The roots or part of the bole is compromised in such a way (cat faces on the bole, roots of one side of the tree burned off) that the tree would fall towards or onto the road

8 The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires that timber is harvested from NFS lands only where— there is assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within five years after harvest (16 U.S.C. § 1604 (3)(e)(ii)).

9 The 150-foot distance is based on dominant, mature tree heights found in the project area. 15

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment  Ground conditions would direct the tree towards the road such as steep slopes, unstable ground, etc.  The tree is perpendicular to the ground or has a less than 15° lean, but is exposed to the prevailing wind and the road is on the leeward side of wind prone areas (exposed ridges, saddles, canyons, etc.). Reforestation The fire resulted in extensive areas of high tree mortality with limited seed source remaining. Trees would be planted in Salvage and Reforestation areas where adequate natural regeneration is not anticipated.10 Planting would occur after harvest. Depending on site conditions, western larch, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce or whitebark pine seedlings may be planted. Reforesting the burned areas with native tree species (e.g., ponderosa pine and western larch) would fulfill the Agency’s legal obligations, hasten and enhance the overall recovery process, ensure forest productivity, and trend the vegetation toward desired future conditions outlined in the Lolo Forest Plan. Tree seedlings would also be planted outside of salvage harvest areas where the fire burned at moderate to high severity and adequate natural regeneration is not anticipated. Site preparation may include scalping of competing understory vegetation or incidental felling of trees to reduce competition and disease infection. Animal damage control (i.e., seedling netting for browse protection) may also occur. Road Treatments Maintenance Road maintenance and improvements to address state Best Management Practices (BMPs) requirements would be completed prior to log hauling to ensure safe and efficient haul and protect water quality in the project area. Maintenance would include activities such as surface blading, minor earth work (e.g., cut and fill reshaping), road surface reshaping, spot graveling, ditch cleaning and reshaping, roadside clearing and/or brushing, seeding disturbed areas, drain dip and cross drain cleaning and construction, culvert cleaning, armoring, and/or replacement, slash filter windrow and sediment trap construction near live water crossings.

Road maintenance activities would complement ongoing BAER, post-fire disaster, and CFLRP work to protect water quality. Temporary Road Construction Temporary roads would be constructed to access harvest units. Temporary roads fall into two categories: new construction and reconstruction of existing templates. New Temporary Road Construction These temporary roads are primarily short segments, located at ridgetop and upper slope locations, and include two potential stream crossings with either no structure or a 18-24” pipe depending on what is needed. Engineering design is not needed the temporary road segments because of their relatively simple construction based on the factors described. They would be constructed to the lowest standard possible to provide access for timber harvesting equipment and log trucks. Following project completion, these roads would be decommissioned. Decommissioning activities would include recontouring the ground to the approximate shape of the surrounding terrain, placing slash and debris on the reclaimed surface, seeding of native species.

10 The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requires that all suitable forested land in the NFS be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, degree of stocking, rate of growth and conditions of stand designed to secure the maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield management in accordance with land management plans (i.e., Lolo Forest Plan) (16 U.S.C § 1601(d) (1)). 16

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Reconstructing Existing Templates These are existing templates that are not part of the National Forest road system (also referred to as “undetermined roads”). Many of these roads were built prior to the Forest Plan for past timber harvest (1950s and 1960s) and were abandoned in place. These roads would need some improvement prior to haul. Improvement work may include clearing vegetation from the roadway, widening the prism to accommodate log trucks, and installing proper drainage. They include five stream crossings that would require installation of either no structure or a small culvert depending on what is determined at the time of their reconstruction. Following use for this project, these roads would be water-barred as needed, seeded, and closed to motorized use with an appropriate barrier (e.g., entrance recontour). Culverts would be removed and stream crossings restored to their natural shape. Aquatic Offsets Road work is proposed in the following four locations (see Appendix B, Alternative B map and Table 4). More information about these actions are included in the Transportation Specialist’s Report.  Little Shanley and Shanley’s “Tail” Decommissioning  Spring Creek (Clearwater-Cottonwood Road) 46942 Reroute  Morrell Road 4353 Reroute  Crown Spur Road 17483 Decommission

Table 4. Alternative B Aquatic Offsets

Total Activity Road # Miles Miles See Transportation Specialist’s Report Appendix A Decommission Non‐ ("Decommission" and 20 System Road "Temp Road Reconstruct Existing Prism and Decom"). Approximately 50 segments. 16005 2.9 17483 0.3 17483 0.6 Decommission NFSR 7.5 17539‐2 1.3 4353 0.9 4384 1.4 Store NFSR 4353 0.6 0.6 Construct NFSR for P46942‐ALT 0.6 1.6 Reroute P‐4353 1.0 Collateral Change‐Add to 46942 2.2 2.3 Official Road System 46942 0.1

These actions, which would occur concurrently with the other project activities (within the first three years), would benefit the watersheds’ long-term resiliency by decreasing the overall road density and moving two roads away from stream channels.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment 2.1.1 Resource Protection Measures

The following Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) would be included in the action alternatives to avoid or minimize harmful effects of the project’s activities. As mentioned under the Public Involvement section, the ID Team carefully considered all of the comments received on the proposed action and identified key issues. One way issues were resolved was by modifying the project’s design criteria or adding additional site- specific protection measures to reduce to negligible or eliminate potential effects. These measures are called RPMs in this document (see Table 5 below). The table also identifies standard operating procedures (S) that the Lolo NF has developed, which include BMPs that have been determined to be effective in minimizing potential environmental effects and are applied to all projects, if applicable.

The Comment Tracking and Issue Analysis (Project File) shows how RPMs were used and developed for the Proposed Action (Alternative B) to minimize potential effects and address comments made during scoping.

These RPMs are objective-based. This means that the desired condition or the condition to be avoided is identified first. Ways the objective can be met are identified and described in the table. Another method, determined to be equally or more effective in meeting the mitigation objective by a resource specialist and approved by a Line Officer, could also be used. Table 5. Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Project Resource Protection Measures

RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 Air Quality AQ-1 To meet air quality Landing piles would be ignited by hand generally during late fall or early All Units Force Account S B, C objectives winter. This would be regulated by the Idaho/Montana Airshed group and the Missoula and Powell County Air Quality Regulations for Airshed 3B to mitigate smoke effects. Botany BOT-1 To protect potential Buffer potential habitat for Howellia aquatilis (water howellia) from Entire Project Layout P B, C water howellia mechanical treatment with a minimum 150-foot buffer. Do not place burn habitat piles within 100 feet of designated ponds in the units with suitable habitat for water howellia (designated pond maps will be provided for project implementation). BOT-2 To protect and Review reforestation plans with East Zone Botanist and Silviculturist to ensure Units 004, Force Account P B, C restore whitebark prescription objectives and plant conservation measures are consistent with 41, 41a, 46, pine whitebark pine restoration objectives 47, 49, 59, (FSM 2400, SH 2470, 2478.3) 63, 64, 245, 435 BOT-3 To protect known Prior to treatment, delineate on the ground or map locations of known Units 030, Layout P B, C populations of populations of Howell’s Gumweed so they are avoided during management 050, 120, Howell’s gumweed activities, if feasible. 125, 210, 215

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 Roads 16377, 17507, 4353, 4385, 467, 477, 9976 BOT-4 To protect known Avoid tree planting around western pearlflower populations to take advantage Dunham Contract P B, C population of of the vernal seepage at the known site and reduce the risk of spotted Creek administration Western pearlflower knapweed. ponderosa .pine planting units Cultural Resources CULT-1 To protect known If previously unknown heritage resources are encountered during project Project Area Layout P B, C and potential cultural implementation, activities will be halted and an archeologist will be notified sites immediately. Three previously recorded cultural resources lie within the proposed project area. No sites are within any proposed project units. Two sites, Monture Guard Station and Morrell Mountain Lookout, have been *NRHP-evaluated as eligible. Center Ridge Lookout is *NRHP-ineligible. *NRHP- National Register of Historic Places listing. CULT-2 To protect surface Conduct commercial harvest activities over dry or frozen ground to prevent Project Area Sale S, P B, C and subsurface potential for rutting and soil displacement. Use standard timber sale or cultural resources integrated contract language.  Operation of harvesting and skidding equipment off of designated trails would be minimized unless dispersed skidding is approved during winter periods (ref. SOIL-1, SOIL-2). Noxious Weeds NW-1 To reduce or Tier weed treatments to the requirements specified in the Lolo National Forest Project Area Sale, Service S B, C eliminate the Integrated Weed Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2007). introduction or spread of noxious weeds and impacts of herbicide treatment

Recreation REC-1 To keep the public Notify the recreating public and special-use permit holders if there will be Entire Project Sale, Service, S B, C informed and address area, road, or trail closures in the project area. Use signing, local newspaper, Force Account safety concerns and Forest web page and other social media. REC-2 To reduce user Winter Operations Winter haul Sale, Force P B, C conflict and mitigate routes located Account safety hazards to on designated 19

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 winter recreationists When necessary, restrict winter haul to allow for snowmobile use and snowmobile and permittees permitted recreation event use on haul routes located on designated trails snowmobile trails (for example, no haul on periods such as weekends, federal holidays, and for the duration of permitted recreation events, mixed use, or

other timeframe options that meet intent).

Post warning signs at roads used as haul routes where they intersect designated snowmobile trails. Coordinate closure of system trails and corresponding signage with District Recreation Staff.

Maintain a minimum depth of snow on plowed haul routes located on designated snowmobile trails.

When feasible within a particular sale, limit concurrent use of haul routes located on designated snowmobile trails.

In consultation with District Recreation Staff, consider area closures in specific units if recreation activity is conflicting with harvest activities. REC-3 To reduce user Summer/Fall Operations conflict and mitigate In units with system trails, consider restricting summer/fall project activities to NFS Trail Sale, Force P B,C safety hazards to allow for weekend and federal holiday use of trails (for example, no project #429: Units Account summer/fall activities on weekends from 3:00 p.m. Friday to midnight Sunday and on 83, 84, 94, recreationists and federal holidays or other timeframe options that meet intent). 99, 160, 170, permittees 175, 390; Coordinate summer/fall haul to accommodate permitted recreation events on NFS Trail haul routes in coordination with District Recreation Staff (consider restricting #451: Unit haul for the duration of permitted recreation events where conflict could 83; NFS occur). Trail #246: Unit 15

Post warning signs at trailheads and along system trails where project activities are occurring. Coordinate closure of system trails and corresponding signage with District Recreation Staff.

In consultation with District Recreation Staff, consider area closures in specific units if harvest activities conflict with public recreation . REC-4 To ensure trail access Avoid staging equipment and vehicles at trailheads when trails are open to Morrell Sale P B,C for recreationists public use. Falls TH: Unit 355;

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 Swan Divide TH: Units 94, 95; South Morrell TH: Unit 375 REC-5 To eliminate or New temporary roads shall be obliterated after they have served the All tractor Sale P B reduce potential for Purchaser’s purpose. Obliteration shall consist of recontouring the road prism units adjacent illegal off-road including all cut and fill slopes to natural ground contour. In addition logging to open motorized use slash or other woody debris shall be placed and scattered uniformly on the top roads/system of the recontoured corridor. trails

For temporary roads on existing prisms, after a road has served Purchaser’s purpose, Purchaser shall give notice to the Forest Service and shall effectively block the road to normal vehicular traffic where feasible under existing terrain conditions. REC-6 To accommodate As determined by District Recreation Staff at the time of implementation, All roads Service, Force P B non-motorized paths (non-maintained, non-system trails) may be left on high-use routes that proposed for Account dispersed recreation fall on system roads to be decommissioned. decommissio use ning in the project area REC-7 To protect system Work with District Recreation Staff to ensure system trails and signs are Units 11, 12, Sale, Force P B, C trails and signs adequately marked and easily identifiable on the ground. Skid trails/haul 13, 14, 15, Account roads will not be located on system trails. If it is necessary to use a system 66, 80, 81, trail as a skid trail/haul road, prior approval from District Recreation Staff will 82, 83, 84, be required. If system trails are used as skid trails/haul roads, trails must be 85, 95 98, restored to their original width/tread condition. 98A, 99, 120, 125, 130, Any skid trail crossings will be perpendicular to system trails. The skid trail 160, 170, will curve as soon as feasible to minimize the distant view. Slash and debris 175, 180, will be placed on the skid trail for at least the “line-of-sight” to deter use by 185, 190, 270 recreationists post-harvest. 275, 280, 285, 325, If trails are temporarily closed due to project activities, the trail tread will be 335, 340, cleared of all slash immediately following completion of harvest, before the 345, 355, trail is re-opened. 360, 365, 375, 390, 405, 415, 420, 495

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 Soils Harvest Operations SOIL-1 To maintain soil Harvest Operations – Winter Operating Conditions Units 12, 13, Sale P productivity and Ground-based harvest would be restricted to Winter Operating Conditions. 53, 57, 66, reduce detrimental Winter operating conditions require frozen ground or depth of snow sufficient 120, 130, soil disturbance to support equipment and protect the soil surface. Because depth of snow 180, 185, necessary to protect forest floor varies with snow density, sufficient snow 190, 270, depth would be approved by the TSA. 275, 280, 285, 325, 335, 340, 355, 375, 385, 495 SOIL-2 “ During Summer Operating Conditions: All ground Sale S  Ground-based harvest would only occur on dry soils. Soil moisture would based units be evaluated at the bottom of the root tight layer (5-12 cm below soil harvested surface). Refer to Table B1 in Soil File 4 (Lolo NF Ground-Based during Harvest Guidelines) for dry soil, field assessment information. summer operating  Existing skid trails and landings would be reused to the extent possible in conditions order to limit new soil disturbance. (winter  Skid trails will be spaced a minimum of 75 feet apart to reduce soil excluded) disturbance unless approved by the soil scientist. SOIL-3 “ By purchaser agreement, in lieu of waterbars, slash of mixed sizes (at least All ground Sale S 50% <6 inches diameter) would be placed over skid trails to prevent erosion based units in units. Slash would cover approximately 65−70% of the road or trail to a harvested depth of approximately 2−3 inches where available (approximately 10-15 during tons/acre). summer operating conditions. SOIL-4 “ All ground-based harvest would be limited to slopes of 35% or less in All ground- Sale S B accordance with the Lolo National Forest Plan. based harvest units SOIL-5 “ If seasonally moist areas are present at time of harvest, Provide a 50 foot no All Units Sale S B equipment buffer around wet area.

SOIL-6 To prevent erosion, Leave all existing soil wood (wood in an advanced state of decay) unless it is All Units Sale S maintain soil deemed a hazard to equipment operations. productivity

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 SOIL-7 To prevent erosion, Sub-merchantable trees will be left in units. All units Sale P maintain soil productivity. SOIL-8 To maintain soil Activity units will be planted with trees by hand after harvest and post-harvest TBD Contract P productivity. activities are complete following the silvicultural prescription. SOIL-9 To reduce Landing Rehabilitation All landings Sale P detrimental soil . Existing landings would be re-used to the extent possible disturbance

SOIL-10 To reduce Landing Rehabilitation All ground- detrimental soil . Landing rehabilitation (erosion control) would occur on dry soils and would based disturbance be completed as follows: landings o Landing site preparation (scarification) to a depth of 4-6 inches would occur. o Site would be seeded using appropriate Lolo NF native grass mix SOIL-11 To reduce  Level of temporary road, excaline trail, and excavated skid trail All Sale P detrimental soil decommissioning would depend on existing condition of the site prior to temporary disturbance road or trail construction and would be decommissioned following site- roads, appropriate combinations of the following: excaline o Top soil and slash would be stored along the temporary road to trails, and the greatest extent possible and pulled back over the road surface excavated during decommissioning. skid trails in the project o Installed culverts would be removed area o The temporary road surface would have site preparation to a depth of at least 6 inches. For new temporary roads, excaline trails, and excavated skid trails that are not on an existing prism, site preparation may include recontouring, de-compaction, and/or scarification. o Site would be seeded using appropriate Lolo NF native grass mix o By purchaser agreement, in lieu of waterbars, slash of mixed sizes (at least 50% <6 inches diameter) would be placed over temporary roads and excaline trails to prevent erosion in units. Slash would cover approximately 65−70% of the road or trail to a depth of approximately 2−3 inches where available (approximately 10-15 t/a). Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Terrestrial and Aquatic Species (In General)

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 TES-1 To protect TES If any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species are located during project Entire Project Sale, Service S B, C species layout or implementation, the appropriate specialist (e.g., wildlife or fisheries biologist or botanist) will be notified. Alter management activities, if necessary, so that proper protection measures can be taken. Include timber sale contract provisions that require the protection of threatened, endangered and sensitive species (and/or habitat) in the timber sale contract. Water Quality and Fisheries WQ-1 To protect watershed  Apply INFISH riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) buffers to All Units Layout S, P B, C resources by stream courses and wetlands. reducing potential  Delineate RHCAs and boundaries of wetlands prior to activities to sedimentation from exclude ground-based equipment and other activities as follows: roads or harvest o 300-foot RHCA buffer for perennial, fish bearing streams. activities; protection of TES plant habitat; o 150-foot RHCA buffer for perennial, non-fish bearing protection of cultural streams and wetlands, ponds, lakes, reservoirs greater than 1 resource acre. o 100-foot RHCA buffer for intermittent streams and wetlands, ponds, lakes, reservoirs less than 1 acre. WQ-2 “ Roadside hazard trees may be felled within RHCAs, but trees will be left in All roadside Contract P B, C place. units WQ-3 To protect watershed Meet BMPs for forestry at a minimum. All activities would comply with All Units Sale S B resources by Forest Service Handbook 2509.22, Soil and Water Conservation Practices, reducing potential Montana Water Quality Best Management Practices. sedimentation from roads or harvest activities WQ-4 “ Prior to timber haul, implement and maintain appropriate BMPs and associated All Haul Sale, Service S B Soil and Water Conservation Practices designed to control surface drainage on Routes haul routes. If winter haul is to occur before planned road BMPs, the TSA will contact the appropriate engineer or hydrologist to assure that typical winter operating requirements are sufficient to mitigate sediment effects, or if specific BMPs will be necessary prior to winter operations. WQ-5 “ Obtain all necessary permits for activities that would disturb stream channels All Activities Sale S B, C (e.g., Joint Application for Proposed Work in Streams, Lakes and Wetlands in Montana). WQ-6 “ Install erosion control measures (i.e., weed-free straw bales, wattles, silt Culvert Sale, Service S B, C fences, hydro mulching, etc.) where necessary and retain them in place during Installations, and after ground-disturbing activities. To ensure effectiveness, erosion control Road devices would remain functional until disturbed sites (roads, culverts, Reconstructio

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 landings, etc.) are stabilized; typically for a minimum of one growing season n and Road after ground disturbing activity occurs. Construction Activities WQ-7 “ As field personnel identify wet areas and/or stream channels during project All Units Layout S B, C layout or implementation an appropriate no-activity buffer around the wet areas and streams would be discussed with an appropriate water and/or fisheries specialist, or as previously addressed by documentation or other similar situations (see WQ-1 and SOIL-11). Other BMPs for operating around wet areas would also be necessary. WQ-8 “ Install slash filter windrows at drainage outlet structures that are within 150 Haul Routes Sales S feet of a stream or wetland. WQ-9 “ Install BMPs (e.g., drain dips, waterbars, relief culverts, etc.) on temporary Temporary Sale S/P B roads that exist on the landscape for longer than one operating season to ensure Roads for proper road surface drainage

WQ-10 “ Install appropriately spaced drainage outlets on snow berms created on roads Winter Haul Sale S B during winter haul. Installation will occur with initial snow plowing and will Routes be maintained throughout spring run-off conditions. WQ-11 “ New temporary roads will be fully recontoured (closure lvl 5) when use is Temporary Sale S B completed. Temporary roads that use existing prism will have their original Roads width restored, surface ripped, slashed pull onto surface (closure lvl 3) and entrance recontoured. WQ-12 To protect watershed Conduct work in a manner which minimizes sediment delivery and site Culvert Sales S B, C resources by disturbance to the extent possible. Divert water around construction activities Replacement (Removal), reducing potential unless other methods result in less sediment delivery. Minimize clearing And Removal Service sedimentation from limits. An experienced fish biologist or hydrologist will be available upon (Replacement) roads or harvest request to assist with appropriate alignment and reshaping of the stream activities channel, bankfull width, floodplain, step-pools and grade control structures, transplants, etc. WQ-13 To prevent the spread Follow Northern Region aquatic invasive species prevention guidelines to All in-stream Sale, Service P B, C of aquatic nuisance prevent spread of invasives. activities. species WQ-14 Minimize potential Limit instream work to between July 15 and September 1 unless approved by All instream Sale (Removal), S B, C impacts to spawning the Project Fish Biologist and approved through the permitting processes. (i.e., activities. Service habitat of westslope when stream channel is dry). (Replacement) cutthroat trout, western pearlshell, and bull trout

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 WQ-15 Minimize Harvest/Haul Operations – Winter Operating Conditions Units #: Sale P B,C Cumulative Effects Ground-based harvest would be restricted to Winter Operating Conditions. 180, 185, to aquatics Winter operating conditions require frozen ground or depth of snow sufficient 190, 285, to support equipment and protect soil surface. Because depth of snow 340, 270, necessary to protect forest floor varies with snow density, sufficient snow 125, 325, depth would be approved by the TSA. 120, 94, 130, 355, 345, As approved by the TSA, log haul will occur when road surfaces are frozen to 335, 385, a depth that eliminates or minimizes surface rutting and sediment production. 98A, 420, 495, 66, 375, 275, 280, 405, 410 Wildlife – Grizzly Bears WL-G-1 To reduce the Remove garbage daily throughout the year. From April 1 through December All Activities Sale, Service, S B, C possibility of grizzly 1, store food and garbage in a vehicle or in a bear-proof container and remove Force Account food habituation and from the site each day to prevent build-up of odors that might attract grizzly associated bears. human/grizzly conflicts WL-G-2 To minimize the During project implementation, restrict public motorized access on all Temporary Force Account S B potential for grizzly temporary roads with effective closure mechanisms (i.e., gates or other and Undeter- bear mortality or methods that meet the intent). Post-project, ensure that all temporary roads are mined Roads displacement closed to all motorized access (permanent barriers, NOT GATES). associated with roads Wildlife - Lynx WL-L1 To ensure that 1. Use mapping data provided by the Regional Office in association All Units Prescription, P B, C patches of mature with on the ground validation to determine which units proposed for within LAU layout multi-storied forest treatment meet criteria of Early Stand Initiation (ESI). Under post boundaries providing lynx fire ESI conditions, fire has rendered the stands temporarily foraging habitat are unsuitable for lynx and salvage activities will not impart additional

protected. This RPM effects. is associated with 2. Ensure that treatments proposed in non-ESI lynx habitat stands are in NRLMD Standards stem exclusion stand types and not in mature multi-storied conditions. Veg S1, Veg S6 and If these criteria are met, within LAUs exceeding 30% ESI treatments R1 Fire Salvage can occur but only if they do not result in the treated stand being Design Criteria converted to ESI conditions. In other words, these treatments cannot (pages 18-21). be regeneration types or include associated activities that result in the incidental removal of green trees that are not already imminently dead.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 3. In LAUs not exceeding the 30% Veg S1 standard, regeneration treatments may be conducted in stem exclusion stands within mapped lynx habitat so long as the 30% ESI threshold is not exceeded. WL-L2 To ensure that 1. Buffer (during layout) and protect (during implementation) from All Units Layout, sale P B, C patches of mature logging related damage patches of lynx habitat in the mature multi- within LAU administration multi-storied forest storied structural stage greater than 1 acres. Buffered patches will boundaries providing lynx NOT be considered as part of the harvest units. foraging habitat are 2. Buffer (during layout) and protect (during implementation) from protected. This RPM logging related damage patches of lynx habitat in the mature multi- is associated with storied structural stage greater than 1 acres where these provide post NRLMD Veg S6 and fire habitat for snowshoe hares AND are juxtaposed so that they R1 Fire Salvage provide connectivity between snowshoe hare foraging areas. Design Criteria Buffered patches will NOT be considered as part of the harvest units. (pages 20-21). WL-L3 To ensure that Avoid construction of temporary roads through mature multi-storied All Layout, sale P B patches of mature lynx habitat that remains unburned or burned at low intensities. temporary administration multi-storied forest roads providing lynx occurring foraging habitat are within an protected. This RPM LAU is associated with NRLMD Veg S6 and R1 Fire Salvage Design Criteria (pages 20-21). Wildlife - Other WL-1a To ensure the On Warm-Dry Ecosites (habitat groups 2 and 3) retain 5-12 tons/acre downed All Units Prescription S B, C retention of downed woody debris where available. Force Account wood to maintain soil productivity and WL-1b provide wildlife On Cool-Moist Ecosites (habitat group 4) retain 12 to 20 tons/acre downed All Units Prescription S B, C habitat woody debris where available. Force Account

WL-2a To protect Northern If a goshawk nest is discovered within the project area during implementation, All Units Sale, P B, C Goshawks (MIS) apply mitigation measures to help ensure that nest sites and post-fledgling Prescription areas receive minimal disturbance.

A 40-acre no-harvest buffer would be placed around each active nest area to provide long-term nesting habitat (Reynolds et al. 1992). In addition, a 420-

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 acre, no-activity buffer would be put in place around the nest site from April 15 to August 15. WL-2b Conduct surveys for goshawks prior to harvest in nesting season in units that 34, 260, 265, Force Account P B, C fall within previously occupied territory and could provide post-fire suitable 430 habitat for goshawks. WL-3 To protect Elk (MIS) If elk wallows, licks, or springs or seeps frequented by elk are identified All Units Layout S B, C during layout, work with the wildlife biologist to determine appropriate measures to protect the feature, as per Forest Plan Standard 21. WL-4 To protect Avoid vegetation removal (including using large machinery as well as Units 210, Prescription P B, C flammulated owls chainsaws) during the nesting season (May 1 thru Aug 1) in units where 215 (Sensitive Species) flammulated owls have been detected. and their habitat Scenery SC-1 To protect the For units in scenic corridors (~150 feet) of NFS Roads #477, 4353, 4361, 4364 Units (B): Precription,, P B, C immediate and 4381 as well as NFS Trails #30, 30.1, 246, 429 and 451: 015, 020, Layout, Sale foreground scenic  Locate landings outside line of sight (~150 feet) where possible. 030, 044, integrity within Reuse existing landings to the extent feasible technically and 44A, 050, scenic corridors economically. Ensure landing created slash on or adjacent to the 054, 083, identified scenic corridors is removed by scattering, chipping, or 084, 087, other techniques. Landing clean up would include burning debris to 094, 095, at least 95% complete, with repiling/reburning if needed. 098, 98A, 099, 120,  Cut stumps to 8 inches or less in height. To the extent feasible, angle 125, 130, cuts away from roads so that stump interior is not visible within the 180, 185, direct line of sight (~150 feet) of scenic corridor. 190, 210,  Remove or burn all slash within line of sight (~150 feet) of scenic 255, 260, corridor trails identified before reopening or if not closed then within 285, 335, 6 months of completion of the phase of the project where trail is 340, 345, impacted. 355, 390,  Use cut tree markings wherever possible. If leave tree/boundary tree 405, 410, markings are necessary, no long-term timber marking paint would be 415, 430, 470 visible (use water based paint, black-out marks post implementation and 485 or use removable tree tags) within line of sight (~150 feet) of identified scenic corridors. Removal of tags or blacking out of paint Units (C): would occur within 6 months of completion of the phase of the 030, 44A, project where scenic corridor is impacted. 050, 083,  All flagging/boundary signs and tree tags will be removed within 6 084, 087, months of completion of each phase of the project. 098, 98A,  In mixed severity units overlapping or directly adjacent to scenic trail 099, 120, corridors identified, leave all live trees and as many snags as feasible 125, 130, 28

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 (technically and economically) to maintain trail character and define 180, 185, trail corridor. 190, 210, ,  In units overlapping or directly adjacent to scenic trail corridors 255, 260, identified, feather edges of units to avoid a shadowing effect in the 285, 335, salvage unit. Where the unit is adjacent to non-salvage units and/or 340, 345, unburned areas, to the extent feasible, create a transition zone where 355, 390, harvest is progressively reduced toward the outside edge of the unit. 415, and 430 SC-2 To protect the For units seen from scenic corridors (where an open view exists within a ½ Units (B): Layout, Sale P B, C foreground/ mile) of NFS Roads #477, 685, 720, 4343, 4353, 4361, 4365, 4381 and 4388 015, 021, middleground/ as well as NFS Trails #27, 30, 30.1, 246, 416, 429 and 451: 034, 057, background scenic  Follow natural topographic breaks and natural changes in vegetation 060, 061, integrity from scenic when laying out treatment areas and unit boundaries. Minimize 078, 085, corridors straight lines and geometric shapes to create treatment areas that 089, 090, mimic natural patterns. 90A, 91B, 98A, 175,  Edges will be shaped and/or feathered to avoid a shadowing effect in 205, 215, the salvage unit. Where the unit is adjacent to non-salvage units 270, 335, and/or unburned areas, to the extent feasible, create a transition zone 385, 425, 490 where harvest is progressively reduced toward the outside edge of the and 495 unit.

Units (C): 021, 057, 078, 085, 089, 090, 90A, 91B, 98A, 175, 270, 335, 425 and 495 SC-3 To protect the scenic For units seen from scenic corridors (where an open view exists within a ½ Units (B): Prescription, P B, C integrity viewed from mile) of NFS Roads #477, 685, 720, 4343, 4353, 4361, 4365, 4381 and 4388 020, 030, Layout, Sale, scenic corridors, as well as NFS Trails #27, 30, 30.1, 246, 416, 429 and 451: 034, 050, Force Account where skyline  To the greatest extent practical, locate skyline corridors in natural 054, 059, logging is proposed openings, or 060, 061, in mixed severity 062, 063,  Vary the distance between cable corridors, or burn units 064, 065,  Establish corridors more frequently than every 75 feet to minimize 088, 91B, residual damage and allow for narrower, less visible corridors, or 095, 098,  Retain irregular clumps of leave trees; leaving some larger clumps 100, 205, oriented up and down slope; lay out corridors between, not through 210, 389, the leave-clumps, to the greatest extent practical. 395, 470, 480 and 490

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1

Units (C): 030, 050, 059, 062, 063, 064, 088, 91B, 098, 205, 210, 389 and 480 SC-4 To protect the scenic For units seen from scenic corridors (where an open view exists within a ½ Units (B): Prescription, P B, C integrity of ridgeline mile) of NFS Roads #477, 685, 720, 4343, 4353, 4361, 4365, 4381 and 4388 015, 020, Layout, Sale, units viewed from as well as NFS Trails #27, 30, 30.1, 246, 416, 429 and 451: 021, 050, Force Account scenic corridors 054, 057,  Treatment boundaries should extend up and over ridgelines to 083, 084, eliminate the linear strip of trees above units. This is especially 087, 094, important along ridgelines silhouetted against the sky. 099, 175,  Where the unit is adjacent to non-salvage units or unburned areas, to 210, 215, the extent feasible, leave trees to visually connect the salvage unit to 385, 390, the adjacent landscape along the skyline. To the extent possible, 470, 480 and create a transition zone where harvest is progressively reduced toward 490 the outside edge of the unit along the skyline. Units (C): 021, 050, 054, 057, 083, 084, 087, 099, 175, 210 and 215 Forested Vegetation VEG-1 To ensure long-term Unsuitable inclusions where tree regeneration assurance is lacking, as All harvest Prescription, S, P B,C site productivity and identified by low tree stocking, low productivity potential (i.e., < 20 cubic units layout prevent resource feet/acre/year), and/or surface rock or scree, or subsurface rocky soil will be damage excluded from harvest and logging equipment to the greatest extent practicable. VEG-2 To protect Areas of acceptable regeneration that meet stand stocking and species All harvest Prescription, S B, C reforestation preference objectives will be protected from harvest to the extent practical units layout investments and promote landscape age class diversity

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 VEG-3 To provide Tree seedlings begin to suffer stem damage or tissue death (insolation) when All harvest Prescription, S, P B, C regeneration soil surface temperatures reach about 125 degrees Fahrenheit. In Montana, units where sale prep assurance seedling heat damage within mid-latitudes is most prevalent on flat and west to silviculturist southeast aspects in the summer (Helgerson 1998). Where young trees are prescribes vulnerable to microsite and macroclimatic conditions, they will be protected insolation from insolation by shading seedlings at the soil surface (FSM 2472.3). protection. Harvest treatments will retain sufficient dead or dying trees to provide All treatment hillslope shading and microsite development for seedling establishment on units that these high energy slopes. Retained trees will reflect the pre-fire size class were distribution within the stand including trees from the largest size classes previously available and will be reflected in unit prescription. The following species old growth preference for overhead snag retention would be applied: western larch, and were lost ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, other species. to the fire. VEG-4 To provide for long- As identified in the unit prescription, maintain in-stand post-fire complex Harvest units Prescription P B, C term landscape arrangements of large coarse woody debris, snags, and structural heterogeneity that were resilience to ensure these exceedingly rare habitat components remain within the previously landscape to the degree that their retention meets project objectives. old growth and were lost to the fire VEG-5 To provide Maintain reasonable (within ½ mile), drivable, roaded access for post-harvest Rd. #s 17534, Sale, Other P B, C regeneration reforestation activities for 5 years or until stands are certified as adequately 17509 assurance stocked. VEG-6 To provide Site preparation may include scalping of competing understory vegetation or Planting Service, Other S, C B, C regeneration incidental felling of small unmerchantable, undesirable (i.e., diseased) trees to areas assurance, ensure prevent competition with establishing regeneration and reduced potential for forest growth and pathogen infection to facilitate stand establishment. productivity VEG-7 To protect from Treat any ponderosa pine stumps with live cambium, greater than 12” dbh with Units with Sale S, C B, C Annosus root disease (Sporax or Cellu-Treat) to reduce the potential risk of Annosus root disease dying spread to the extent practicable. ponderosa pine VEG-8 To ensure tree stock In regeneration units where tree planting is planned, seed sources locally Planting Service, Other S, P B, C adaptability adapted to the site would be planted in protected areas with appropriate shade. areas VEG-9 To protect planted Animal damage control (i.e., tree netting or tubing) may occur where needed Planting Service, Other S, P B, C trees from browse to protect planted trees from animal browse damage. areas damage VEG-10 To protect from bark MCH or Verbenone may be applied within the analysis area to repel Douglas- Project area Other S, P B, C beetles fir or mountain pine bark beetles from individual trees or small areas.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment RPM Resource Objective Description of Resource Protection Measure Units Sale, Service, S/P2 Alt. Locations Others1 VEG-11 To reduce and protect Incidental girdling or felling may occur to reduce dwarf mistletoe, protect Planting Service, Other S, P B, C tree regeneration regeneration from infection, or create snags. areas from disease VEG-12 To prevent impact to All areas that met the old growth definition per Green et al. or the Forest Plan All Green et Other P B, C old growth stands prior to the fire, that are included in proposed salvage units, will be evaluated al./Forest and/or field surveyed as necessary to determine their old growth status prior to Plan old project implementation. Salvage operations would only occur in areas that no growth longer meet the old growth definition. VEG-12 is not applicable to hazard tree removal treatments.

1 Timber sale or other contract (Service contact); Other such as FS force account crew, silvicultural prescription, or treatment unit layout

2 S = standard operating procedure, meaning it is something the Seeley Lake Ranger District routinely does; P = project specific, meaning this is a resource protection measure developed by the ID Team or Region specifically for this project

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Monitoring Implementation and effectiveness monitoring would be conducted under this project to: (1) determine whether the original objectives of the activities are met; (2) determine the need for additional action; and (3) educate and assist in the design in future projects. Monitoring of the vegetation treatment activities implemented under contract would occur during and immediately following contract implementation. All preparation and subsequent project- associated operations would be monitored by Forest Service representatives to ensure compliance with specifications. Vegetation Monitoring of timber sales per agency policy (i.e., preparation, administration, sale activities, utilization, and accountability). Regeneration stocking surveys: all sites with planting or prescribed natural regeneration would be surveyed after the 1st, 3rd, and 5th growing seasons or until certified as adequately stocked. Old growth survey, timber marking inspection, and timber sale administration. Weeds Monitoring is a critical element of integrated weed management on the Seeley Lake RD. The project area is highly visited by staff, cooperators, permittees, and the public. Incidental monitoring for new invaders would occur well into the future. Treatments would be monitored for efficacy and re-treatment needs should noxious weed treatment occur. Monitoring of seed germination and establishment to discourage noxious weed propagation would occur on decommissioned roads, landings, burn piles, and other disturbance areas that are seeded as part of this project. Fisheries Portions of this project area (Morrell, Trail, and Cottonwood) are being monitored at the watershed scale with a combination of instream (Pacfish/INFISH Biological Opinion) and terrestrial (Geomorphic Roads Assessment and Inventory Package - GRAIP) protocols. The intent of this monitoring is to follow the impacts of a watershed scale action through its course of stream or segment impacts to its watershed scale influence. In addition there would be implementation monitoring to assure that actions are appropriately deployed on the ground. Soils Lolo NF soil monitoring (both at the forest and project level) is conducted using the National Soil Assessment Protocols (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009). Post-harvest monitoring is initiated 2-3 years following an activity. Monitoring is conducted by the Forest Soil Scientists or a trained crew. The threshold for change or action is compliance with Region 1 SQS. A unit must have less than 15% of its area in detrimental soil conditions or the cumulative effects from project implementation and rehabilitation should not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality (USDA 1999). If this threshold for change is reached, corrective actions are taken to restore or stabilize the impacted site and move the unit towards a net improvement in soil quality. For the Rice Ridge Salvage project, approximately 10% of units would be monitored following implementation. Required monitoring units would include Units 8, 29, 59, 87, 88, 275, 285, 395, 425, and 495. These units would be included in the forest monitoring database and would be part of an adaptive management study to assess soil disturbance in relation to burn severity and season of harvest. There is so much variation in burned forests and logging equipment that it is difficult for small scale research to provide general principles for mitigating ecological damage in the post fire environment.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Some research suggests that managers could benefit from comparing different practices and prescriptions in an operational context instead of relying solely upon scientific research (Duncan 2002). If DSD is greater than 15% in any monitored units, a soil rehabilitation plan would be developed to reduce site specific DSD and reach compliance with soil policy. Recreation Three monitoring items are included in the 1986 Lolo National Forest Plan for recreation. Item MON- REC-01 is designed to track effects of off-road motorized vehicle use and should be included in monitoring for this project. Indicators used to measure this item are: 1) Number of 36 CFR 261.15(h), Motorized Vehicle Violation Notice Citations; 2) Incident reports; 3) Warnings; and, 4) Number of Closure Orders (36 CFR 261, Subpart B) issued to address resource damage caused by off-road motorized vehicle use. These items should be monitored biannually. Monitoring would also include field observations of resource damage and field observations of gate/barrier damage and effectiveness (USDA Forest Service 2016(b)). Scenery The landscape architect or designee would monitor VQOs/SIOs in assigned timeframe (See Scenery Specialist’s Report Table 4). 2.2 Comparison of Alternatives

In summary, Alternatives B and C are consistent with the Lolo Forest Plan, laws, and other regulatory guidance. Both alternatives meet the purpose and need of the project by recovering economic value of forest products, reducing roadside hazards, and reforesting areas affected by the fire. Both alternatives would result in contributions to local economies. See Table 6. Table 6. Comparison of Alternatives

Alt. B Alt C. Yarding Method for Harvest1 Tractor 2,880 1,632 Tractor/Skyline 303 296 Skyline 1,454 567 Skyline/Tractor 657 191 Skyline/Tractor/Tracked Line Machine2 55 0 Skyline/Tracked Line Machine /Tractor 255 48 Roadside Hazard Tree Mitigation (mi.) 25 28 Temporary Road Construction (mi.) New Construction 13 0 Existing Template Reconstruction 18 0 Road Maintenance (miles NFSR) 115 94 Aquatic Offsets (mi.) Decommissioning 27.5 0 Storage 0.7 0 Road Construction for Re-routes 1.6 0 Tree Planting (acres) 16,526 15,232 Estimated Volume (CCF) 87,626 40,820 Estimated Part and Full Time Jobs Contributed3 (all activities) 680 375 (total) Estimated Labor Income Contributed (all activities) (total) $23,969 $12,529 (thousands of 2017$) 1 Some units would require multiple yarding systems; they are listed in order of prevalence with in the units.

2 Tracked Line Machine –a tracked excavator that has been adapted for logging practices to include winches and cables and a longer boom with pulleys that serve as a skyline tower; such as an excaliner. Excaline machines may be walked (propelled by their own power) to remote locations to reduce the 34

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment need for road construction. Yarding capabilities (length of reach) of an excaline machine are typically less than that of a skyline machine.

3 These may not be new jobs or income, but rather jobs and income supported by this project. 2.3 Conflicting Views Over Post-fire Salvage

Public debate over post-fire salvage has been ongoing for many years. Opponents argue that salvage should not be conducted because it causes damage to burned sites and removes dead trees that have important ecological value. The premise of some arguments is that there are no ecological benefits to post-fire salvage (Hutto 2006, Noss et al. 2006). Supporters argue that it is important to recover economic value to support community resiliency. Comments on both sides of the debate have been received on the Rice Ridge project. Opponents of the project cited numerous publications in support of their views. These publications are included in the record for this project and have been reviewed (if they were not already known) by the ID Team. The concepts from the literature are generally addressed below.

To begin with, even the term “salvage” is controversial (DellaSala and Hanson 2015, Lindenmayer and Noss 2006). Objectors to the term find it misleading and inappropriate. They cite to the dictionary definition of “salvage”, which means to recover or save from loss or destruction. They argue that fire is ecologically beneficial and that burned forests have not been destroyed and are not in need of saving. Instead, they suggest using the term, “post-disturbance logging”. For the Rice Ridge project, the term “salvage” simply means the harvest of dead, dying, or deteriorating trees (Forest Service Handbook 2409.26, Lolo NF Forest Plan FEIS, p. VII-35).

Several publications dispute the justification given for other post-fire salvage projects - that is: salvage is needed for forest restoration and/or to reduce fuels for future fires (e.g., Beschta et al. 1995, Karr et al. 2004, DellaSala et al. 2006, DellaSala and Hanson 2015). These arguments are not applicable to the Rice Ridge project because the purposes of salvage in this project are to recover some of the economic value to support communities and to address roadside hazards (see Chapter 1, section 1.3). Most of the provided literature discusses general negative ecological consequences that can result from salvage operations, primarily with respect to soils, hydrology, and wildlife habitat. However, several of these publications indicate that the effects vary depending on a wide range of factors such biophysical setting of the forest, pattern of burn severity, weather, operational aspects of tree removal, and other management activities (e.g., Peterson et al. 2009, Lindenmayer and Noss 2006, McIver and Starr 2001). Many publications also suggest that resource effects can be mitigated with applied protections (ibid). Recommended mitigation in the scientific literature is incorporated into the design of the Rice Ridge project as appropriate (Section 2.1.1). In reviewing the science regarding post-fire management actions, it is readily apparent that context matters in terms of understanding what was specifically studied and its applicability. For example, some studies lack an unlogged control making it difficult to discern what the resource effects were attributed to – e.g., the salvage, the fire, some pre-existing condition, or a combination thereof (McIver and Starr 2001). Some studies that examine effects to soils from tractor logging did not apply mitigation and thus caused high detrimental soil disturbance (e.g., Robichaud et al. 2011), whereas the Rice Ridge project applies soil mitigations. Other studies document adverse effects to aquatic resources because salvage is conducted in riparian areas (e.g., Minshall 2003; Reeves et al. 2006), which this project does not. Other publications identify adverse ecosystem effects from large-scale, intensive salvage operations after natural disturbances (e.g., Noss and Lindenmayer 2006; Foster and Orwig 2006). In contrast, this project treats a relatively small area. Further, more recent research (e.g., Peterson and Dodson 2016, Knapp and Richie 2016, Kukulok and Macdonald, 2007) indicates that vegetative recovery increases in richness and cover over time regardless of salvage treatments. The authors suggest that disturbance associated with high severity wildfire may present a bigger threat to vegetative recovery than the disturbance associated with salvage logging.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Currently, research is lacking to adequately quantify the spatial scale effects of fire and post-fire salvage operations; and to comprehensively address the range of effects that are produced by all combinations of fire and salvage intensity (Peterson et al. 2009). There is limited research and monitoring data concerning smaller scale salvage projects (like Rice Ridge) that are designed to minimize undesirable ecological effects. The Rice Ridge project is a relatively small scale project. It would conduct salvage on, at most, about 5,604 acres or 5 percent of the NFS land (Lolo NF) affected by the fire. Project design, relevant science, Best Management Practices, and site-specific Resource Protection Measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize the potential for adverse environmental effects (see Sections 1.4. and 2.1.1). Table 7 displays a summary from three publications that provide ecological recommendations for post-fire management and how these recommendations were considered in the design of the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Table 7. Summary of Ecological Recommendations Provided in the Scientific Literature for Consideration in Post-fire Management

Karr et Beschta Lindenmayer How addressed in the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Project Recommendations al. 2004 et al. 2004 and Noss (2006) Promote natural recovery Under Alternatives B and C, 100,883 acres (95%) and 103,753 acres (97%), respectively, of the NFS land within the fire perimeter would not be salvaged and would be left to natural   processes. Retention of old, large trees and snags Under Alternatives B and C, 100,883 acres (95%) and 103,753 acres (97%), respectively, of the NFS land affected by the Rice    Ridge Fire would retain all old, large trees and snags. Within salvage units, surviving large old trees would be retained. In addition, RPM VEG-3 requires retaining sufficient dead or dying trees in specific units where hillslope shading and microsite development is needed for seedling establishment. Protect soils against compaction and erosion Resource protection measures would be applied to protect soils (see Section 2.1.1). Areas where Regional soil quality standards    could not be met were dropped from consideration for salvage. Protect ecologically sensitive areas (e.g., No salvage activities would occur within the Bear-Marshall- reserves, roadless areas, steep slopes, fragile Scapegoat-Swan Inventoried Roadless Area or on fragile soils. soils) There are no designated reserves within the project area. Within identified salvage units located on slopes greater than 35 percent, fire-killed trees would be removed via a skyline yarding system. Erosion control measures would be applied to skyline corridors as    necessary. Rehabilitation of roads and fire lines, avoid Fire lines were rehabilitated during fall 2017 (see Chapter 3, creation of new roads Section 3.1). Project-associated road maintenance and resource protection measures, in concert with ongoing BAER work, would minimize soil erosion and sediment delivery from roads. BAER work also addresses undersized culverts. New permanent roads would not be constructed (other than the segments for the re-routes for aquatic offsets). Only temporary roads would be constructed for the project and would be decommissioned   following completion of salvage operations. Limit reseeding and replanting Tree planting with native species would occur on approximately 16,526 and 15,232 acres in Alternative B and C, respectively. Seed sources for natural tree regeneration within the fire perimeter are lacking in some areas due to the extent and severity of the fire. There is also a need to plant trees in some areas to meet legal   requirements under the National Forest Management Act (see Chapter 1, Section 1.3). Avoid new in-stream structures (e.g. sediment Not applicable traps, check dams) 

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Karr et Beschta Lindenmayer How addressed in the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Project Recommendations al. 2004 et al. 2004 and Noss (2006) Protect and restore watershed before fire   Not applicable. See Appendix D for past watershed restoration work within the project area. Continue research, monitoring, and assessment  To contribute to the body of knowledge about effects of post-fire of the effects of salvage treatments salvage on soils, monitoring would be required in Units 8, 29, 59, 87, 88, 275, 285, 395, 425, and 495. These units would be included in the forest monitoring database and would be part of an adaptive management study to assess soil disturbance in relation to burn severity and season of harvest. Educate the public on the natural role of Not applicable wildfires, allow natural regimes   Ban introduction of exotic species Tree planting and any erosion control seeding would be accomplished with native species (see Resource Protection  Measures in Section 2.1.1). Curtail livestock grazing No grazing is permitted on NFS land within the project area.

 Low-intensity removal or no harvesting in Salvage harvesting is not proposed in areas of unburned forest. unburned or partially burned patches

 Limit removal of biological legacies from Under Alternatives B and C, 100,883 acres (95%) and 103,753 particular areas (e.g. burned old growth acres (97%), respectively, of the NFS land within the fire stands) perimeter would not be salvaged and would be left to natural processes. Alternatives B and C include salvage of approximately 335 acres (24%) and 46 (3%) acres, respectively of 1,374 known pre-fire old growth stands. These stands would only be salvaged if they are  dead and no longer qualify as old growth. Surveys would occur to determine this. The remaining pre-fire old growth would remain intact and unaffected by the project (see Chapter 3, Section 3.1.4). Ensure maintenance and creation of essential Under Alternatives B and C, 100,883 acres (95%) and 103,753 habitat elements for species of concern acres (97%), respectively, of the NFS land within the fire perimeter would not be salvaged and would be left to natural processes. Habitat for species associated with post-fire environments, snags, and coarse downed woody material would remain abundant (see Chapter 3, Section 3.5). Sensitive plant populations would be protected (see Resource Protection Measures in Section 2.1.1). The planting of ponderosa pine, western larch, and whitebark pine  would perpetuate these native species that are of Regional concern. 38

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Karr et Beschta Lindenmayer How addressed in the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Project Recommendations al. 2004 et al. 2004 and Noss (2006) Protect aquatic ecosystems with adequate  No salvage would occur within Riparian Habitat Conservation riparian buffers Areas (RHCAs). Best Management Practices, erosion control measures, and additional Resource Protection Measures would minimize sediment delivery potential to streams. Road drainage maintenance and culvert replacements/removals under BAER would also enhance protection for aquatic systems.

Table adapted from Reilly et al. 2015

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Context of Salvage Operations Pertinent to the evaluation of resource effects for the Rice Ridge project, it is important to understand the context of the proposed salvage activities, in terms of scale and setting. Scale As previously stated, the Rice Ridge project is a relatively small scale project, which would conduct salvage on, at most, 5,604 acres or 5% percent of the Lolo NFS land affected by the fire (the fire perimeter also includes about 53,000 acres of Flathead NF lands on which no salvage is proposed). To put the proposed salvage in an even broader context, less than 5% of the area burned on the Lolo NF in 2017 is proposed for salvage, and less than four percent of the area that burned on NFS land in Region One would be salvaged, providing for an abundance of burned areas and post-fire habitat. Table 8 displays the acres of wildfire in 2017 and the post-fire salvage proposed in 2018 at the Region, Forest, District, and project scales. The acres of wildfire far surpass the acres of post-fire salvage. Table 9 summarizes the acres of wildfire and post-fire salvage at the Region, Forest, and District scales over the decade that preceded the 2017 fire season (2007-2016). For example, only about two percent of the acres that burned in the preceding decade was harvested. This information clearly shows that burned areas and post-fire habitats are abundant and would remain abundant at the scale of the District, Forest, and Region even after implementation of the Rice Ridge project and other post-fire salvage projects across the Lolo NF and other Forests in the Region. Table 8. Summary of Wildfire in 2017 and Proposed Post-fire Salvage in 2018 at the Region, Forest, Ranger District, and Project Scale1

Unit Total NFS land acres Wildfire on NFS land Proposed Post-fire Salvage on NFS land Acres and percent of NFS land Acres and percent of wildfire burned on NFS land Forest Service Region One 24,300,000 720,700 (3%) 24,353 (3.4%) Lolo National Forest 2,200,000 227,442 (10.3%) 10,820 (4.8%) Seeley Lake Ranger 333,214 110,524 (33%) 5,854 (5%)2 District

Rice Ridge Fire ------159,430 Alt B: 5,604 (3.5%) Alt C: 2,734 (1.7%) 1 Acres are approximate 2 Includes Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Alternative B (5,604 acres) and Liberty Fire Salvage (250 acres)

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 9. Summary of Wildfire and Post-fire Salvage at the Region, Forest, and Project Scale from 2007-20161

Unit Total Wildfire on NFS Post-fire Salvage on NFS NFS land 2007-2016 land 2007-2016 land Acres and percent Acres and percent of 2 (acres) of NFS land wildfire burned on NFS land Forest Service 24,300,000 2,147,230 (9%) 24,461 (1.1%) Region 1 Lolo National Forest 2,200,000 193,949 (9%) 4,4813 (2.3%)

Seeley Lake Ranger 333,214 44,257 (13%) 1,648 (3.7%) District Data Sources: FACTs data; fire history GIS layers; National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) 1Acres are approximate 2Includes all NFS lands (e.g., managed, roadless, Wilderness, and special designated areas) 3 Post-fire salvage included the 2007 Jocko and Chippy Fires (2,720 acres) and the 2016 Copper King Fire (1,761 acres)

The forest structure of the project area is very diverse. The horizontal and vertical structure of the tree layer is made up of many different tree diameter size classes and age classes from seedlings and saplings to old, mature trees that existed across the landscape. Prior to the Rice Ridge Fire, the approximate distribution of size classes were: 2 percent of the area was occupied by forest stands that were dominated by the seedling/sapling size class (0-5 inches DBH); 10 percent of the area by trees in a small size class (5-10 inches DBH); 75 percent by trees in a medium size class (10-15 inches DBH); and, 11 percent in a large size class (>15 inches DBH). By killing so many trees, especially where the fire burned with very high or high severity levels, the wildfire dramatically changed the distribution of the size classes. A rough estimate of post-fire size classes can be made at the project area scale with some assumptions:  All of the acres burned at high and very high severity experienced a stand-replacement event and now will be starting the stand initiation stage of development as described by Oliver and Larson (1996). Approximately 15,300 acres are now (or will be soon when they either regenerate naturally and/or planting) in the seedling/sapling size class.  For the areas that were either unburned or burned with less than 25% basal are loss, it is assumed that these roughly 17,300 acres remain in the size class that they were in prior to the wildfire.  Areas that burned at a moderate severity would likely be a combination of the current size classes and stand initiation across about 5,800 acres within the landscape. As such, approximately 40 percent of the project area is now in the beginning of the seedling/sapling class, a dramatic 38 percent increase across the landscape with a corresponding decrease in the mature size classes. Across the project area, a full range of tree species, size classes, and burn severities would be retained on NFS land, which would provide for a variety of post-fire habitat conditions. Although salvage is focused in areas of very high vegetation mortality, about half of the very high burn severity areas would be retained (see Table 12). While the project would salvage merchantable-sized dead trees (larger than 8 inches in diameter), the majority of dead trees of the larger size classes would be retained across the project area (see Table 10).

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 10. Acres of Salvage in each Tree Size Classification by Alternative

Tree NFS land Alternative B Alternative C Diameter Size (acres) Acres (percent of tree size Acres (percent of tree size Class (inches) class) class) 0 - 4.9 659 11 (0.2%) 7 (0.3%) 5 - 9.9 4,014 288 (5%) 111 (4%) 10 - 14.9 258,587 4,526 (81%) 2,221 (81%) 15 – 19.9 3,831 591 (11%) 262 (10%) > 20 535 129 (2%) 96 (4%) Data source: R1Vmap

Table 11. Acres of Salvage in each Tree Species Classification by Alternative

Dominant Tree NFS land Alternative B Alternative C 1 Species (% acres) Acres (percent of Acres (percent of dominant tree dominant tree species) species) ponderosa pine 1% 23 (0.4%) 16 (0.6%) western larch 11% 328 (6%) 161 (6%) Douglas-fir 63% 3,580 (64%) 1,564 (57%) lodgepole pine 3% 98 (2%) 68 (2%) mixed forest (no 4% 124 (2%) 83 (3%) species represents more than 40%) subalpine fir 16% 1,357 (24%) 776 (28%)

Engelmann spruce 1% 35 (0.6%) 29 (1%) Non-forest/private/no 2% 59 (1%) 37 (1%) data Data source: R1Vmap 1A dominant species makes up 40 percent or more of the mapping feature.

Table 12. Acres of Salvage in each Burn Severity Classification by Alternative

1 Burn Severity NFS land Alternative B Alternative C (% acres) Acres (percent of Acres (percent of burn severity class) burn severity class) Low 0% 9,236 517 (10%) 276 (10%) Moderate (0-25%) 7,896 1,008 (18%) 557 (20%) High (25-50%) 6,125 1,123 (20%) 649 (24%) Very High (+75%) 15,039 2,943 (53%) 1,248 (46%) No data 41 13 (0.2%) 4 (0.1%) Data source: Rapid Assessment of Vegetative Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) satellite mapping (RAVG) 1Based on vegetation basal area loss Summary The social value of economic benefits versus potential changes in resource conditions has been debated in scientific and policy forums for several decades (Peterson et al. 2009). NFS lands are managed for multiple uses and all of these values (social, ecological, and economic) must be considered. The challenge for post-fire management is to determine based on established management objectives, where and when post-fire salvage is appropriate and how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential for undesirable ecological

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment effects associated with proposed post-fire salvage activities.

The Rice Ridge project has been developed as a small scale salvage project in an area where the Lolo Forest Plan allows such activities. The project is designed to minimize undesirable ecological effects while realizing social and economic benefits.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS This section provides a summary of the environmental effects of the three alternatives (the No Action alternative and two action alternatives). It provides the necessary information to determine whether or not to prepare an environmental impact statement. Further analysis and conclusions about project effects are available in the resource reports and other supporting documentation cited in those reports. Information about past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable action in the project area can be found in Appendix D. 3.1 Vegetation

3.1.1 Reforestation and Species Composition

Issues/Concerns Raised in Public Comment Concerns about tree planting: unnatural spacing; no evidence there is lack of seed source due to severe fire; may harm natural regeneration; should consider drought and seedling mortality; should include planting in riparian areas; salvage may hinder natural regeneration; and, trees cannot establish and grow after salvage when all trees are removed.

Reforestation of the burned area is directed by law, regulation, and policy. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act states, "It is the policy of Congress that all forested lands in the National Forest System (NFS) be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, degree of stocking, rate of growth, and conditions of stand designed to secure the maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield management in accordance with land management plans." The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) allows salvage or sanitation harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger of insect or disease attack. “The Lolo Forest Plan provides for the maintenance of a diverse mosaic of vegetation development well- distributed across the Forest to insure ecological integrity (II-2). In the Forest Plan, the desired future condition (DFC) is a resilient landscape with a mix of species composition, structure, and function that ensures long-term sustainability, forest growth and productivity, and resistance and resilience to stressors (i.e., climate change, fire, pathogens). An assessment of natural seed source availability was conducted for the Rice Ridge Fire (Project File J3). Seed sources for natural tree regeneration are lacking in some areas due to the extent and severity of the fire. Trees in the project area have adapted to natural disturbances like wildfire. In fact, many of these tree species depend on fire as a disturbance mechanism to survive on the landscape (Habeck and Mutch 1973). Each tree species has its various characteristics influencing their relative resistance to being killed or injured by fire. The three species that have the highest degree of resistance (western larch, Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine) comprise approximately 75 percent of the cover type of the forest stands in the project area. These forests sustained very high losses irrespective of their resistance characteristics due to pre-fire forest density, fuel loading, fire flow, and burning conditions. Approximately 23 percent of the remaining forest cover types in the project area includes a mix of fire-resistant species. The species that are rated as having a medium degree of resistance (lodgepole pine) comprise approximately 3 percent of the cover type, and the species that are rated as low or very low (Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir) make up

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment approximately 17 percent of the cover type. Most fires burn with variable severity given a variety factors such as fuel loading, weather, slope, aspect, and time of day, season, etc. Burn severity as it pertains to the vegetation resource is the amount (percent) of tree’s basal area (BA) killed by the fire. The burn severity is broken down into four categories: very low/unburned (0% BA loss), low (0 - < 25% BA loss), moderate-high (25 - <75% BA loss), and very high (75% -100% BA loss). Descriptions of the top three severity classes can be found in Table 13 along with the percent of fire acres within each class. As illustrated in Figure 1 and in Table 13, 40 percent of the project area experienced very high basal area loss. Another 16 percent of the fire sustained between 25 and 75% basal area loss, while 21 percent had low or up to 25% basal are loss. Approximately 24% of the project are was unburned or sustained no basal area loss. Table 13 describes each of the severity classes based on observations and scientific publications. The fire burned so severely in places that there is near 100% tree mortality across multiple drainages. In some high severity areas, there is limited seed source remaining for natural tree regeneration (Chambers et al. 2016). Tree planting is proposed where desirable natural regeneration is not anticipated. In particular, much of Dunham Creek, between Monture Cabin and Lodgepole Creek Trailhead burned at high severity with little to no remaining seed source. This is where ponderosa pine was most prevalent prior to the fire. Planting ponderosa pine and western larch as appropriate (habitat type, aspect) is desired to restore these species, and ensure the regenerated forests are resistant to Armillaria root disease and meet the objectives of this project, the Forest Plan, and the NFMA. Generally, western larch would be planted on the north, northwest, northeast, and east aspects in the higher elevations where soil conditions are moister and more favorable. Ponderosa pine would be focused on the drier and warmer west, southwest, and south aspects at the lower elevations but could be planted on some of the harsher locations at higher elevations. Figure 1. Basal area loss map (a RAVG product) within the Rice Ridge project area

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 13. Percent burned area and description of RVAG burn severity classes

Basal Area Percent of Loss Project Description (burn Area severity)

These areas were burned by surface fire where tree mortality was relatively low or where fire small skips present. Tree mortality may be somewhat “patchy” in these areas. In areas of surface fire, delayed tree mortality that does occur from root collar girdling would likely be smaller understory trees, but some thin-barked overstory trees could also die. The understory shrubs, forbs, and grasses that were 0 < 25% 21% present before the fire will likely re-sprout and/or re-seed the area quickly. Still, (low) fire affected larger Douglas-fir (i.e., > 14” dbh) may be attacked by Douglas-fir beetles (DFB) in high risk stands. Direct tree mortality from the fire may not be great enough to create openings large enough for regeneration, but it is possible that DFB could result in high levels of mortality and a regeneration need in some areas over time.

Within these areas, the fire was a ground or surface fire with some individual and group tree torching or small crown runs. The overstory tree crowns were scorched by the fire. Although the fire often stayed on the surface, the fire intensity was fairly high due to dry fuels, large quantities of surface fuels, and the dry organic material on top of the soil. Mortality is highly variable and dependent upon the tree species and tree sizes present. Within moderate severity areas, there would 25-75% likely be areas with low mortality because of concentrations of thick-barked, fire- (moderate- 16% resistant species (Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and western larch) and/or trees with high) large diameters. Areas with high mortality due to of the presence of thin-barked species like lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and/or trees of small diameters or mortality attributable pathogens may be likely. Some areas would have had enough tree mortality to result in a regeneration need while others would remain forested and not invoke reforestation. This severity will have the greatest within group variability in the post-fire of the RVAG products. Second-order fire effects (i.e., DFB) may result in high levels of mortality.

These areas generally burned as active crown fires. The needles and small twigs/branches were mostly consumed and the tree mortality is expected in the 90 to 100 percent range. Most of these areas appear to have had complete 75% -100% consumption of needle debris and duff layers on the soil. Large patches of very (very high) 40% high severity fire may have consumed seed sources and cone bearing individuals and be far enough away from seed walls that natural regeneration could take 20- 50+years. Areas that burned at very high severity are stand-replacing events with a fire induced regeneration need.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A – No Action In Alternative A no planting would occur. Alternative A would not ensure that NFS lands in the project area are maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, degree of stocking, rate of growth,

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment and conditions of stand designed to secure the maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield management in accordance with the Forest Plan. Western larch or ponderosa pine would not be planted and would likely decline and potentially be lost from some sites. Sites with known root disease would naturally regenerate to predominately Douglas-fir. This would perpetuate and increase the severity of root diseases (Hagle and Goheen, 1988). Alternatives B and C Alternatives B and C would plant up to 16,526 and 15,232 acres, respectively. This would ensure that NFS lands in the project area are maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, degree of stocking, rate of growth, and stand conditions designed to secure the maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield management in accordance with the Forest Plan. Within the Rice Ridge fire area on the Lolo NF, 34,000 acres of natural regeneration and an additional 64,000 of natural recovery are prescribed. Of the total area needing regeneration, only 14 and 7 percent (Alternative B and C) would be planted. The remaining area would regenerate or recover naturally. In addition, some, or even much, of the area identified for planting may regenerate naturally to the desired species composition and stocking levels and, as such, planting would not occur. Given that forests are dynamic by nature and change due to delayed fire effects, mortality, and other factors, areas that were identified as salvage without reforestation may transition to salvage and reforestation during implementation due to tree mortality. The treatment assignments (i.e., salvage and reforestation) listed in Chapter 2 were based in part on burn severity, imminent mortality, known pathogen presence, other factors, and incomplete site-specific information some that requires ground- verification during the silvicultural assessment process. It’s important to clarify that all regeneration needs would be a result of the disturbance (i.e., fire injury, insects, disease) not the alternative treatments as designed. Areas with a regeneration need due to direct or imminent mortality would be prescribed as salvage and reforestation per policy. Areas without a regeneration need due to direct imminent mortality would be salvaged only, and reforestation would not be prescribed 11. Planting native tree seedlings would fulfill the Agency’s legal obligations, and enhance the overall recovery process and trend the vegetation component toward desired future conditions outlined in the Forest Plan. This activity would meet the purpose and need of the project to re-establish forested conditions and/or facilitate recovery to meet management objectives outlined in the Forest Plan. Additional information on planned planting and reforestation in the Rice Ridge fire area is in the Project File. Some studies indicate that post-fire salvage operations can reduce tree regeneration (Donato et al. 2006, Lindenmayer and Noss 2006). However, more recent studies have concluded that over the long-term there were no significant differences in vegetation establishment (richness and cover) between areas that were salvaged and areas that were not (Peterson and Dodson 2016, Knapp and Ritchie 2016). Some of the discrepancies between the two findings may be attributed to the amount of soil disturbance caused by the salvage operations, methods used for post-harvest site preparation (e.g. application of herbicide to reduce competition from shrubs, prescribed burning), and time lag between the fire and salvage activities. For the project, soil disturbance would be minimized through use of timber harvest BMPs and RPMs. Salvage would occur within the first two years following the fire before natural vegetation is well established. Regardless, tree planting would be conducted within salvaged areas to trend species composition toward resilient conditions. It is recognized some mortality of natural regeneration may occur due to crushing, removal of seed

11 A variety of silvicultural systems (i.e., seedtree, clearcut, etc.) and logging systems would be used as appropriate for the conditions found at each site (tree species existing/desired on site, burn severity, slope, aspect, etc.). Selected silvicultural systems would be based on site-specific conditions and are within the timber and vegetation practices outlined in the Lolo Forest Plan (see Project File).

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment sources, or removal of favorable microsites and that tree establishment is more difficult in a changing climate (Hungerford and Babbitt 1987, Kozlowski 2002, Helgerson 1990, Gray and Spies 1997, Aussenac 1999, Harvey et al. 2016, Roccaforte et al. 2012, Allen et al. 2010). Diurnal temperature fluctuations can also be more extreme on logged sites directly affect seedling survival (Fontaine et al 2010). RPM VEG- 03 addresses this concern. Units with diagnosed seedling insolation concerns are listed in the Project File. Weather, including drought and post-planting seedling mortality would be considered in the regeneration prescriptions. In the absence of appreciable July rain, seedling mortality is known to exceed 80%. One approach to mitigate post-planting mortality would be to not plant an entire drainage in one spring. By planting 50% of a drainage one year, and planting 50% in another year, there would be less likelihood severe drought years would result in concentrated planting failures as experienced in 2003, 2007 and 2017. Planting densities would incorporate anticipated seedling mortality. Third year survival of planted sites over the last 2 decades is roughly 60%. Planting on a trees per acre basis most often, and utilizing existing microsites, as opposed to a rigid spacing would be conducted. This coupled with gaps from seedling mortality, regeneration clumps and stand variability is highly desired where species such as ponderosa pine would be most successful. Variable density planting utilizing stationary microsites would be favored over a gridded approach. Planting riparian areas is not proposed. Experience has shown that these areas recover with sprouting and other species far more rapidly than other areas of the forest given moisture availability. Riparian areas (Little Blue Joint, Chicken Creek) were planted following the 2000 fires on the adjacent Bitterroot NF, and monitoring deemed the activity unnecessary in riparian habitats. Cumulative Effects Alternative A When considered with past, present or future actions there would be no known or measurable cumulative effect on reforestation and species composition with no action. Alternatives B and C In Alternatives B and C there would be a small cumulative benefit in reforestation and species composition where these activities may occur on other ownership in the project area. However, it is unknown if these actions are planned. Any planting on private lands would be very small in nature as NFS lands account for 99% of the project area. Additionally, approximately 250 acres of ponderosa pine will be planted on warm, dry habitats type that were severely burned within the Dunham Creek drainage in 2018. This action would be small cumulative benefit when considered with Alternative B or Alternative C. Where BAER or other post-fire road closure activities would reduce road access to the suitable timber base, there would be a negative cumulative effect on reforestation and species composition because access to potentially large areas would be reduced thereby precluding planting or other cultural activities. 3.1.2 Forest Productivity and Growth

Issues/Concerns Raised in Public Comment Concern about pathogens: bark beetles may kill 55-90% of stands post-fire; bark beetles populations may build and spill over to non-NFS lands; bark beetle control is ineffective: and, dwarf mistletoe control is ineffective.

Lolo Forest Plan Forest-wide standards require: Implementation of the principles of integrated pest management to be accomplished through sound silvicultural prescriptions. Silvicultural practices will be designed to consider past, current, and

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

potential impacts from insects and diseases Biological and vegetative management practices will be utilized to control insect and disease infestations. Chemical control will be recommended when other methods are ineffective and only after following all required procedures ((LNF Forest Plan, p. II-20, standard 56 and 57). Primary conifer species in the analysis area are Douglas-fir, western larch, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. Prior to the Rice Ridge Fire, approximately 99% of the project area supported mixed conifer forests. The forested vegetation patterns visible today within the area were shaped by natural and human-caused disturbance events. Prior to 2017, timber harvest, and almost 200 years of successful fire exclusion shaped much of the pre-fire vegetation condition. Without fire, forest conditions in the project area had shifted to predominantly dense stands dominated by shade-tolerant trees (i.e., Douglas-fir, subalpine fir). In the Inland Northwest, shade-tolerant species tend to be more prone to a variety of insects and diseases including western spruce budworm (WSB), Douglas-fir beetle (DFB), root and butt rot diseases, and dwarf mistletoe (Hessburg and others 1994). Root diseases, root and butt rot, and dwarf mistletoes are all present within the project area. Root diseases are a notable long-term management concern as evidence of root disease affecting both Douglas- fir and ponderosa pine hosts was confirmed across most of the Douglas-fir dominated analysis area (Lockman and Steed 2011). These root and butt rots affect primarily shade-tolerant stress making them susceptible to windthrow, breakage, and Douglas-fir beetle infestation. Armillaria ostoyae (also recognized as A. solidipes) root disease is present in many locations throughout the project area including areas proposed for treatment) (Lockman and Steed 2011). Phaelous schweinitizii is also prevalent in the project area. These two agents often co-exist, with P. schweinitzii infecting trees very early in their life, causing an overall decline in the vigor as the tree ages. Armillaria is a “disease of the site” (Hagle, 2008). That is, established mycelia of this fungus are essentially permanent, so the best course to minimize losses is to manage for tree species that are resistant (ponderosa pine, western larch). In general, Douglas-fir and true firs are the most susceptible species in the project area, while pines and western larch are the most tolerant. Fire-injured trees can provide suitable habitat for bark beetles and wood borers. Of primary concern in the Rice Ridge Fire area is the Douglas-fir beetle (DFB), an aggressive bark beetle that can erupt and cause severe mortality when a catalyst (i.e., wildfire) occurs, conditions are favorable for DFB development, and suitable host trees abundant. The DFB beetle favors large (≥14” DBH) Douglas-fir, older than 120 years, and with stocking densities 150 square feet basal acre or greater. Large Douglas-fir are particularly attractive when there are multiple stresses in a stand, such as: Armillaria or schweinitzii root and butt rots, drought, and Western spruce budworm (WSB) defoliation, all known to be prevalent where suitable Douglas-fir hosts remain in the project area (Lockman and Steed 2011). DFB activity was noted in Douglas-fir-dominated stands including pre-fire old growth during field surveys in 2017. Prior to the fire, outbreak potential was increasing in the project area due to extensive root disease, Douglas-fir tree size and species composition, stand density, and old age (Lockman and Steed 2011). Beetles infest larger, older trees in densely stocked stands, normally killing small groups of trees following some type of stand disturbance. During outbreaks, groups exceeding 100 trees or larger are often killed within a 2-3 year period. Where susceptible trees are abundant, beetle populations can build up rapidly. Damage is greatest in dense stands of older, larger-diameter Douglas-fir (Schmitz and Gibson 1996). Following the 2000 fire in the adjacent Bitterroot NF, post-fire mortality was extreme due to DFB attack. Moderate to high hazard unburned stands within the fire perimeter sustained between 15 and 85 percent basal area loss due to DFB attack and outbreak conditions post-fire (USDA 2005). The conditions within the Rice Ridge project area where suitable hosts remain are at moderate to extreme hazard and risk due to fire damage and other injurious agents (root disease, western spruce budworm, dwarf mistletoe, drought).

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

These injurious agents, coupled with fire-damage, result in stress complexes that contribute to tree decline and death far more readily than fire injury alone and would be carefully evaluated and considered when salvage harvest12 site-specific silvicultural prescriptions are prepared per the Forest Plan. Direct and Indirect Effects The productivity of the Forest’s commercial forest lands range from 20 cubic feet per acre per year in warm, dry pine-bunchgrass types to 164 cubic feet per acre per year on the most productive site on the western portion of the forest (Forest Plan, VI-13). Within the project area the average productivity potential, as determined by habitat type, of areas proposed for salvage ranges from approximately 40 to 100 cubic feet per acre per year (Pfister et al. 1977). Alternative A – No Action Alternative A would not actively regenerate or ensure appropriate species mix and stocking to ensure forest productivity and growth within five years. This alternative would result in highly variable conditions across the project area with the western portion likely regenerating naturally with lodgepole pine, western larch and Douglas-fir. The pre-fire Douglas-fir dominance would result in primarily Douglas-fir regeneration within the eastern portion of the project area. Where pathogens (i.e., root disease, dwarf mistletoe) are present these pathogens would be perpetuated. Root diseases, primarily Armillaria, are active pathogens on much of the Forest (Forest Plan, VI-13), and known to be widespread and causing damage across much of the project area (Lockman and Steed 2011). The Lolo Forest Plan states that dwarf mistletoes are causing a Forest-wide growth reduction of more than 3 million cubic feet per year. Damage is most severe in unmanaged old growth Douglas-fir and western larch stands and in young stands established under an infected overstory (Forest Plan, VI-27). Under the No Action alternative, diseases would be perpetuated infecting residual trees and regeneration. Diseased and unhealthy trees would reduce stand productivity and perpetuate diseased, dysgenic stands over time. To reduce the impact of root disease, species composition must be shifted in favor of root disease-tolerant species (i.e., ponderosa pine and western larch); this is not anticipated under Alternative A. Alternative B Alternative B would salvage and regenerate (Salvage with Reforestation) approximately 4,364 acres with desired species composition, stocking, stand health to ensure forest productivity and growth as appropriate for each habitat type. These sites would be reforested within five years of harvest with disease-resistant species. The most successful management option for minimizing tree loss/mortality within root disease-infected stands is to manage for tree species (ponderosa pine, western larch, and lodgepole pine) that are the most tolerant to the disease (Lockman and Steed 2011). By planting ponderosa pine and western larch, the severity of the disease would likely be lessened over time (Hagle and Goheen, 1988). This is the most frequently used approach to managing root disease problems in western North America (USDA Forest Service, 1991, p. 155). Planting is the only reasonable course of action to restore genetic diversity and ecosystem function in cases where areas of cone-bearing donors for desirable natural regeneration are scant or absent. The planting program in the Northern Region relies on the most sophisticated seed transfer guidelines for conifers, modeling patterns of genetic variation in adaptive traits in three dimensions. Reforestation with desired species composition and stocking levels would ensure the productivity of the sites and enhance ecosystem resilience and sustainability. The distribution of western larch and ponderosa pine, which are at-risk species, would be increased within the landscape through natural regeneration or planting. Dead,

12 The cutting of trees that are dead, dying, or deteriorating (e.g., because they are overmature or materially damaged by fire, wind, insects, fungi, or other injurious agents) before they lose their commercial value as sawtimber (Forest Plan VII-35).

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment dying and diseased trees would be removed, and live healthy trees retained to facilitate seedling establishment and ensure long-term stand productivity. Where present, mistletoe infection would be reduced, as most infected trees would be removed or killed to ensure healthy seedling establishment. Reforestation of fire, drought, and disease resistant-species like ponderosa pine and western larch would provide increased resistance and resilience to potential future drought and wildfire that may be associated with a changing climate in the long-term (Joyce et al., 2008). This activity would meet the purpose and need of the project to re-establish forested conditions and/or facilitate recovery to meet management objectives outlined in the Forest Plan. Alternative C Alternative C would salvage and regenerate (Salvage and Reforestation) approximately 2,039 acres with desired species composition, stocking, stand health to ensure forest productivity and growth as appropriate for each habitat type. The effects would be the same as described for Alternative B on those acres treated by Alternative C. This alternative would also meet the purpose and need of the project to re- establish forested conditions and/or facilitate recovery to meet management objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, but to a lesser degree than Alternative B. Cumulative Effects Alternative A Alternative A would not actively regenerate sites within five years to ensure long-term growth and productivity, there would be no cumulative effects from past, present or future actions. Alternatives B and C When considered with past, present or future actions there would be no known, measurable cumulative effect on forest productivity and growth with either Alternative B or Alternative C. 3.1.3. Forest Product Value Recovered

Issues/Concerns Raised in Public Comment Concerns about limited scale and scope of harvest: add areas with lower volume and add specific areas throughout project area.

As discussed in Section 1.4, initial project design used a coarse filter analysis was to identify where fire salvage would be economically feasible with few environmental effects. To recover the economic value of the forest products in a timely manner after a fire, one must understand how wood deteriorates over time after a fire. Wood deterioration affects the quality of the wood products recovered from dead and dying trees. While many factors affect the rate of timber deterioration, tree species is the most important factor and bark thickness is the most important species characteristic (Lowell et al. 2010). Table 14 summarizes the information regarding how quickly timber from the various tree species loses merchantable volume after a fire. The wood of thin-barked species generally dries faster and more extensively in the first year than thick-barked species, resulting in more checking, cracking and breakage. Approximately 70 percent of the volume of timber proposed for removal is from species having thick bark, while 30 percent is from species with thicker bark. Table 14 was adapted from the Idaho Panhandle NF and their work with salvage projects in 2015 and summarizes the information regarding how quickly timber from the various tree species loses merchantable volume after a fire. Only those species that are present in the project area are displayed. The tree species, site conditions, weather, etc. of the fire areas in Idaho are similar enough to the project area that tree deterioration inferences can be made between the two areas.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 14. Predicted volume defect by species for the first and second year following the Rice Ridge Fire

Tree Species Percent Additional Volume Defect References and Assumptions Year 1 Year 2 Western larch “About two‐thirds of western larch develops cracks in the first year after tree death, although only a small percentage of the volume is affected at this point” 5% 40% (Lowell et al. 2010). It is assumed that same amount of volume defect would occur in the upper boles, where bark is thinner. Also, it assumed that there would be some checking in the smaller‐diameter western larch. Ponderosa pine It is assumed that all of the checking‐related volume loss described in Lowell et al. would occur during the 16% 33% warm/dry summer months. In addition to cracking, Lowell et al. reports blue stain impacting 25 to 50 percent of the volume the first year. Douglas‐fir “Cracks develop in about one‐third of trees but are shallow, not affecting much volume” (Lowell et al. 2010). It is assumed that same amount of volume 5% 20% defect would occur in the upper boles, where bark is thinner. Also, it assumed that there would be some checking in the smaller diameter Douglas‐fir. Lodgepole pine “Cracks are common, likely to affect at least half the trees,” but the volume loss is minimal” (Lowell et al. 2010). It is assumed that same amount of volume defect would occur in the upper boles, where bark is 5% 10% thinner. Also, it assumed that there would be some checking in the smaller diameter lodgepole pine. In addition to cracking, Lowell et al. reports blue stain impacting one‐third to two‐thirds of the volume the first year. Engelmann spruce Lowell et al. (2010) reported that spruce had an estimated 40 percent of the volume impacted by 20% 40% checking by year two. Although no data was available for the first year, it is known that the species is highly susceptible to cracking (Lowell et al. 2010). Subalpine fir It is assumed that all of the checking related volume 40% 60% loss described in Lowell et al. (2010) would occur during the warm/dry summer months.

Predicted value loss shown in Table 15 is a function of deterioration that occurs (e.g., weather checks, decay, breakage) to decrease the amount of wood product that can be manufactured from a tree. In addition to volume loss, timber can lose value due to the types of products or grade of products that can be manufactured from a log or tree. For example, the blue staining that commonly occurs in pine species (e.g., lodgepole and ponderosa pine) soon after they die causes a significant reduction in value, but not necessarily a reduction in volume (Lowell et al. 2010). In the Northern Region, average estimated appraisal adjustment by species is shown in Table 15. Table 15. Average value reduction by species for fire-killed trees (USDA FS, 2017)

Percent Reduction of Species Western Wood Products Association Lumber Price Ponderosa Pine 10% Lodgepole Pine 18% Douglas-fir/Larch 10%

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Percent Reduction of Species Western Wood Products Association Lumber Price White Firs 18% Bull Pine (PP < 14 inches diameter) 18% Spruce 18%

Fire-killed trees have a higher rate of breakage when trees are felled, so an additional 3 to 10 percent defect allowance over normal green volume breakage is appropriate. Fire-damaged timber sales require an unusual appraisal allowance to account for reduced chip value, loss of lumber value based on the WWPA (see Table 15 above), and additional processing cost for sorting charred and non-charred logs and stockpiling the residue that has no value. Additional information on the economic value of the timber is available in the Economic Report and Emergency Situation Determination request. Both are available in the Project File. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A – No Action Alternative A would not conduct salvage operations or recover forest product value from NFS lands affected by the Rice Ridge Fire. The timber and associated economic value would be lost over time. This alternative would not achieve the purpose and need to recover the economic value of forest products in a timely manner to contribute to employment and income in local communities. Alternative B Alternative B would salvage approximately 5,57613 acres of suitable timber land and yield approximately 48.3 million board feet (MMBF) of timber. This alternative would best meet the purpose and need of the project to recover the economic value of forest products in a timely manner to contribute to employment and income in local communities. Alternative C Alternative C would salvage approximately 2,715 acres of suitable timber land and yield approximately 20.4 MMBF of timber. This alternative would meet the purpose and need of the project to recover the economic value of forest products in a timely manner to contribute to employment and income in local communities, but to a much lesser degree than Alternative B. The timber value would be recovered on less than one half of the suitable timber land as Alternative B. Cumulative Effects Alternative A Alternative A would not recover forest wood products, there would be no cumulative effects from past, present or future actions. Alternatives B and C There would be a small cumulative benefit in forest products recovered when either Alternative B or Alternative C is considered with salvage harvest activities on state or private land (see Appendix D) given these activities are similar to the proposal.

13 Alternatives B and C would salvage lands unsuitable for timber production on approximately 28 acres and 19 acres, respectively. Salvage on these lands is appropriate to the meet the objectives of this project.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

3.1.4. Old Growth14 Issues/Concerns Raised in Public Comment Concerns over pre-fire old growth: do not treat pre-fire old growth; retain large trees and forest structure of pre-fire old growth; and, potential or recruitment for old growth. The Lolo Forest Plan provides habitat for viable populations of the diverse wildlife and fish species on the Forest, with special attention given to species dependent on snags, old growth areas, and riparian areas (page II-2). The Plan (1986) defines old growth on page VII-24 and VII-25 as, “Individual trees or stands of trees that in general are past their maximum rate in terms of the physiological processes expressed as height, diameter and volume growth”. The Plan EIS describes the strategy of defining and distributing old growth on the Lolo NF. Page II-61 of the EIS states: “As a strategy for meeting old growth needs, the Forest was segregated into 71 drainages. A minimum of 8 percent old growth was allocated to most of these drainages where wilderness was not available, although this varies to some degree by alternative (Table II-19). This old growth was then distributed by vegetative type within each drainage recognizing the individual needs of various old growth dependent species.” The Plan EIS Table II-19 shows 488,884 acres under the selected Forest Plan Alternative D as, “Land available in wilderness and roadless areas for old growth-dependent species” or approximately 23 percent of the Forest. In addition, Table II-19, shows 43,854 acres under Alternative D for “additional lands allocated to provide vegetative and spatial diversity”; these are Management Area 21 (MA 21) allocations. The Lolo Forest Plan shows 41,303 acres of MA 21 (page III-104). The Lolo Forest Plan EIS states on page IV-37: “In all alternatives, a goal of retaining at least 10 percent of the suitable timber land in old-growth forest at all times was prescribed. The goal was exceeded in all alternatives because other constraints were more limiting, or forested lands not suitable for timber production produce old-growth stands unless…fire, insects, or diseases kill the trees.” On page IV-10 of the Plan EIS, old growth is described in much broader context than Green and others (1992): “A wide variety of nongame wildlife occurs on the Forest and they are dependent upon a wide variety of habitats. Some activities that directly benefit nongame habitat are planned and include retention of specified amounts of slash scattered on the ground, the retention of snags where safety permits, and the assignment of old-age timber stands to old-growth dependent wildlife species.” The Lolo Forest Plan does not discuss potential or recruitment old growth. MA21 (Lolo Forest Plan FEIS pages 3-8) is described as “a variety of forested lands representing all elevations, aspects, habitat groups, and growing site conditions…located throughout the Forest in such a way as to evenly distribute old age stands of timber for wildlife species dependent upon old growth for habitat.” MA 21 is suitable for timber harvest. Harvest is conducted to provide old-growth succession to achieve an optimum arrangement of habitat components to maintain viable populations of old-growth dependent wildlife species (III-104). Within MA 21, the Plan, page III-105 states: “Provide stands at least 30 or 40 acres in size that are decadent, multi-storied, fully stocked, contain

14 The term pre-fire old growth is used here to describe forest stands that met the definition of old growth (as described in Green et. al. 1992, errata 2011) prior to the wildfire, but no longer meet the old growth definition due to post-fire tree mortality.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

snags with dead and downed material greater than 15 tons per acre, and contains 15 trees per acre greater than 20 inches dimeter at breast height. These stands should be well-distributed across the Forest.” Approximately 586 acres are allocated to MA 21 in the project area. This allocation is within the western portion of the project area (north to west of Blind Canyon Creek). The proposal includes proposed harvest of up to 136 acres of MA 21 (Alternative B: Units 066, 160, 165, 275, 280, 285, 405, 410; Alternative C: Units 160, 285). Of this area, Units 275 and 28515 burned at low severity; all the remaining aforementioned units, within MA 21, burned at high severity and do not meet the criteria to classify as old growth. RVAG burn severity within MA 21 is as follows: BA mortality >= 75% = 252 acres; 25% <= BA mortality < 75% = 124 acres; 0% < BA mortality < 25% = 155 acres; and, 0% BA mortality = 55 acres. The Northern Region developed old growth definitions specific to western Montana (Green et al. 1992, errata 2011; Bollenbacher and Hahn 2008). The amount of old growth on the Lolo National Forest is determined by the Northern Region old growth definition and the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) (Bush et al. 2007, Lolo National Forest Transition Monitoring, 2016). Within the project area approximately 1,374 acres were classified as old growth before the Rice Ridge Fire. Approximately 913 acres (67%) surveyed between 2014 and 2017 met the old growth characteristics per Green et al. (1992, errata 2011) before the Rice Ridge Fire. The remaining 461 acres were listed as old growth based on older stand exams housed in the FSVeg database. It is unknown whether these areas met old growth criteria just prior to the Rice Ridge Fire given the age of the data. A Region-wide old growth analysis using FIA data (Czaplewski, 2004) indicated the Lolo NF met the Forest Plan old growth strategy prior to recent wildfires. The estimated percentage of old growth per Green et al (1992, errata 2011) was 8.63 percent (Bush et al, 2007, update Bush, 2017) with a 90 percent confidence interval of 6.88 percent to 10.54 percent. Seeley Lake Ranger District had the highest pre-fire old growth estimate at 12.98% with the Dunham and Upper Clearwater landscapes, where the project is located, estimated at 13.89% and 15.75% respectively (see Table 16). Table 16. Pre-fire Old Growth Estimates

Pre‐fire Old Pre‐fire Old # of Growth Area Pre‐fire Old Growth Growth FIA CI High Old Growth Estimate (acres) CI Low Plots (acres) Estimate (%) (acres) Lolo NF 8.63 184,808 146,402 224,315 343 Seeley Lake Ranger District 12.98 44,581 26,666 67,302 57 Dunham 13.89 13,637 4,148 24,888 18 Landscapes Upper Clearwater 15.75 17,959 7,483 31,704 20 Ecological disturbances are complex processes underlain with inherent uncertainty. Old growth stands and other forest conditions are influenced by landscape-level processes, such as fire, insect outbreaks, and disease. These processes result in a mosaic pattern of forest conditions across the landscape (Arno et al. 1997, Schneider 2001, Hessburg and Agee 2003, Hessburg et al. 2005, Zenner 2005, Noss et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2006, Abella et al. 2007, Binkley et al. 2007). Predicting future old growth levels is challenging given the inherent uncertainty associated with the type and extent of ecosystem disturbance (Abella et al. 2007). Increased drought, temperature stress, and disturbance associated with a changing

15 Units 275 and 285 were field surveyed on May 24, 2018 and the majority of both areas meet old growth criteria post-fire. Salvage would be limited to the severely burned narrow strip along both sides the Road #467 (Project File J3). The remainder of Units 275 and 285 would be dropped in the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Decision Notice.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment climate may affect old growth persistence (Johnson and Franklin 2007). These changing conditions may necessitate landscape patterns to account for possible increases in disturbances. In view of the potential for climate change to affect disturbance probabilities in the future, landscape pattern may become the most important factor management influences (Millar et al. 2007). In the project area, the Center Horse analysis acknowledged the risk to old growth forests from both fire and other disturbance agents that threaten the resiliency and persistence. Dry old growth forest types are at highest risk from wildfire, due to increasingly dense understories and ladder fuels, increases in ground fuels, and in overstory density. These structural characteristics have significantly changed following decades of fire exclusion and a moderate climate between 1930 and 1980 (Morgan et al. 2008). While all forests have been altered to some degree following a century of fire suppression and resource management, some of the greatest changes in vegetation and insect and pathogen response have occurred in low-and mid-elevation Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine forests (Hessburg et al., 1994). The literature emphasizes restoration of dry old growth forests to a more resilient structure (Agee and Skinner 2005, Hessburg et al. 2005, Noss et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2006, Abella et al. 2007, Binkley et al. 2007, Egan 2007, Fiedler et al. 2007a, Johnson and Franklin 2007). Restoring forest composition and structure before wildfires occur may allow fire to play its characteristic role in maintaining ecosystem structure and function (Noss et al. 2006, Johnson and Franklin 2007). Management options for creating or restoring a fire-resilient forest structure within the drier forest types include reducing surface and ladder fuels and canopy bulk density, and maintaining large thick bark trees, as the Center Horse project proposed (Alternative B – Modified) immediately prior to the Rice Ridge Fire (Agee and Skinner 2005). As disclosed in the Center Horse EIS, the loss of old growth due to fire and pathogens would likely be extreme. Recent fires and extreme fire severity (i.e., Rice Ridge Fire) are a testament to the direct effects of fire to old growth in ecosystems that lack resilience, age class, and structural variability. Theoretically, if all fire affected FIA plots no longer meet old growth criteria16 per Green et al. (1992, errata 2011), following the fire, the loss of old growth across the Lolo NF due to fire could be extensive (Bush 2018, Bush and Reyes 2014, Bush and Reyes 2016). Under this assumption, the Seeley Lake Ranger District, and Upper Clearwater and Dunham landscapes combined, would have both lost an estimated 62% old growth forest (see Table 17) (Bush 2018). The Rice Ridge Fire may have led to mortality of nearly all the old growth in the project area. Table 17. Potential Rice Ridge Fire Effects to Old Growth

Potential Potential Fire Potential Fire Potential Fire Fire Effects Effects # of Effects to Old Effects Old Area Old Growth FIA Growth Old Growth Growth CI Low Plots Estimate (%) Estimate (acres) CI High (acres) (acres) Lolo NF 5.84 124,241 85,892 165,848 343 Seeley Lake Ranger District 4.78 16,910 0 44,175 57 Dunham 0.00 0 18 Landscapes Upper Clearwater 10.00 11,972 0 32,833 20

Even if the Rice Ridge Fire did not directly kill pre-fire old growth within the project area, root disease is

16 Post-fire re-measurement of FIA plots within the Rice Ridge Fire area has not occurred. It is possible that old growth characteristics remain post-fire in some areas. Hence, the assumption above may overestimate the loss of old growth attributable to recent wildfires.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment prevalent and DFB risk is extreme. Given pathogen and host interactions, recruitment and long-term retention of old growth may be difficult or impossible to achieve (Hagle et al. 2000). Scorched trees are highly attractive to DFB as they initially attack severely fire-injured trees then attack more lightly scorched trees (Kegley 2011, Furniss, 1965; Ryan and Ammann, 1994). While the interactions of these disturbance agents are complex, site-specific, and vary greatly given the old growth type and pathogen presence, the likelihood that old growth structure will remain post-fire given stress complexes (e.g., fire severity, advanced age, high DFB risk, root disease prevalence, climate warming trends) is very low. To determine post-fire old growth conditions in the project area, all areas that met the old growth definitions per Green et al or the Forest Plan prior to the fire, that would be salvaged, would be carefully evaluated and/or field surveyed to determine their old growth status prior to project implementation. Stands that are old growth post-fire would be retained without treatment. Therefore salvage would only occur in areas that no longer meet the old growth definition (VEG-12). Salvage17 would not occur in stands that meet old growth criteria per Green et al. (1992, errata 2011) or the Forest Plan. Direct and Indirect Effects As noted earlier, prior to the Rice Ridge Fire there were 1,374 acres of forest stands in the project area that met the definition of old growth. Although a complete post-fire inventory of these stands to determine whether or not they still meet the definition of old growth has yet to occur, based on preliminary reconnaissance and diagnosis, it appears that many of them will no longer meet the old growth definition due to high mortality levels (J3-x). The term pre-fire old growth is used here to describe forest stands that met the definition of old growth (as described in Green et. al. 1992, errata 2011) prior to the wildfire, but no longer meet the old growth definition due to post-fire tree mortality. Alternative A – No Action Alternative A would not conduct salvage in pre-fire old growth. However, it is likely that some hazard trees along roads would be cut in pre-fire old growth stands. This effect would be negligible in the project area. Since Alternative A would not conduct salvage in any of the pre-fire old growth stands, all stand structure, including dead and dying, large, old trees would be retained. Alternative B Alternative B proposes treatment across approximately 335 acres of known pre-fire old growth forest as defined by Green and others (1992, errata 2011). The pre-fire old growth areas proposed for treatment lie within Units 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 31, 33, 46, 66, 160, 165, 225, 230 (Project File J3). All of these areas, except Units 66, 160 and 165, were surveyed between 2014 and 2017. A map depicting these pre-fire old growth areas is located within the Project File. This represents approximately 24 percent of the of pre-fire old growth stands in the project area. As described above, all of the areas that met the old growth definition prior to the fire that are included in proposed salvage units, would be carefully evaluated in the field prior to including them in a salvage timber sale contract. This would ensure that only the areas that no longer meet the old growth definition actually have salvage operations conducted in them. Within the pre-fire old growth stands proposed for salvage in this alternative, most of the merchantable dead and dying trees would be cut and removed during the logging activities as would occur in the other units that do not have pre-fire old growth. However, because the pre-fire old growth stands generally contain numerous large, or rotten trees that are not merchantable, more large trees would typically remain in these pre-fire old growth stands than in the units that did not contain pre-fire old growth. In addition, as discussed in more detail in the Project File and VEG-04, some dead stand structure (e.g., snags and down wood) would remain and reflect the pre-fire size classes. This would ensure that unique structural attributes of pre-fire old growth that developed over centuries would be retained; and that these pre-fire

17 Roadside hazard tree removal treatments for public safety may occur.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment old growth stands would retain numerous large snags after harvest is complete (Project File J3). As with the other areas proposed for salvage operations, these pre-fire old growth stands that occur in salvage and reforestation units would be planted to desirable species after the salvage was completed. Where seedling insolation is of concern in regenerating pre-fire old growth stands, trees with large silhouettes would be retained post-harvest to moderate the microclimate (Project File J3). Alternative C Alternative C would harvest approximately 45 acres of pre-fire old growth (Units 33 and 160). The effects would be the same as listed above for Alternative B, but only across 13% of the area that would be treated in Alternative B. The remaining area would have the same effects as those described for Alternative A. Cumulative Effects - Alternative A Alternative A would not affect pre-fire old growth stands, there would be no cumulative effects from past, present or future actions. Cumulative Effects - Alternatives B and C There would be no known cumulative effects from past, present or future actions on pre-fire old growth. Forest Plan Consistency All action alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan Standards applicable to the management of forested vegetation on NFS lands. Alternative A would do nothing or less than Alternative B or Alternative C to achieve the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. 3.1.5 Forest Carbon Cycling and Storage Issue/Concern Raised in Public Comments Salvage operations could reduce on-site carbon storage by removing tree boles from the forest as logs.

There are no applicable legal or regulatory requirements or established thresholds concerning management of forest carbon or greenhouse gas emissions. In most cases, the NF is the most appropriate scale for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions, biogenic carbon, and their effects. Analysis at the smaller scale can result in inaccurate results because the carbon balance of an individual stand fluctuates cyclically over time between carbon emitter and carbon sink, depending on when natural or human disturbances occur to affect its development. Forests are in continual flux, emitting carbon into the atmosphere, removing carbon from the atmosphere, and storing carbon as biomass (sequestration). Over the long term, through one or more cycles of disturbance and regrowth, net carbon storage is often zero because regrowth of trees recovers the carbon lost in the disturbance and decomposition of vegetation killed by the disturbance (Kashian et al. 2006, Ryan et al. 2010, McKinley et al. 2011). Within the National Forest System (NFS), forests are not converted to other land uses, and long-term net carbon storage is thus maintained. U.S. forests are a strong net carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than they emit (Houghton 2003, Heath et al. 2011, EPA 2015). In the most recent National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (EPA 2015), current annual forest (public and private ownership) carbon sequestration was reported at 211.5 teragrams (Tg), offsetting approximately 11.6 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. Carbon stored in harvested wood products (HWP) contributes to the total forest carbon storage. Harvest treatments that generate long-lived wood products, such as lumber and furniture, transfer ecosystem carbon to the HWP carbon pool where carbon remains stored and doesn’t contribute to net greenhouse gas emissions (USDA 2016a). In 2012, HWP

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment carbon stocks represented roughly 2.16 percent of total forest carbon storage associated with NFS lands in the Northern Region (USDA 2015, Figure 2).

Figure 2. Cumulative total carbon stored in HWP manufactured from Northern Region timber using the IPCC/EPA approach. Carbon in HWP includes both products that are still in use and carbon stored at solid waste disposals sites (SWDS), including landfills and dumps (Stockmann et al. 2014).

In the Northern Region, total forest carbon (forest ecosystem and harvested wood products) sequestration is estimated at 5.83 Tg carbon per year for the baseline period of 1990 to 2013 (USDA 2015). This represents roughly three percent of the total carbon sequestered by U.S. forests. Fire, insect, and disease disturbance have the greatest effect on carbon storage on NFS lands of the Northern Region, yet these typically affect < 1% of the total forested area each year (USDA 2016b). Harvest affects an even smaller percentage of NFS land, and does not have a long-term effect on carbon sequestration or storage because the land is not converted from forest to a different land use (Conant et al. 2007, Ryan et al. 2010, McKinley et al. 2011). All Alternatives - Direct and Indirect Effects None of the alternatives would have a measurable impact on carbon stocks in either the short or long term, because the area of treatment is a small fraction relative to regional and global carbon stocks. Because the acres proposed for harvest represent a miniscule area in the context of regional and global carbon stocks, differences in effects between the alternatives are negligible. All alternatives are therefore discussed together. In Alternative A, more carbon would be stored on-site rather than in wood products. In the short term, both Alternatives B and C would remove some carbon currently stored in dead biomass by cutting hazard trees and burned timber. A substantial portion of this carbon would remain stored for a period of time in wood products (Depro et al. 2008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010), reducing some of the carbon emitted through decomposition. In the long term, the forest will regrow and accumulate carbon, thus acting as a carbon sink (Figure 3). In the action alternatives, removing burned trees in the salvage units would provide open and safe areas to reforest with native species, consequently speeding up ecosystem recovery. The proposed reforestation would help ensure forest stands return to a carbon sink as quickly as possible.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Motorized equipment used during implementation of the action alternatives would emit a small quantity of greenhouse gases, but the impact this would have on the atmospheric CO2 concentration is impossible to determine. Timber harvest in any specific forest or stand would only affect the global CO2 pool if harvest does not occur elsewhere in the world to supply the same world demand for timber (Wear and Murray 2004, Gan and McCarl 2007, Murray 2008). If the timber from salvage harvest is used in the marketplace to replace products such as steel or concrete that cause more carbon emission during production, harvest could provide a small net reduction in the atmospheric CO2 concentration (Harmon et al. 2009, Ryan et al. 2010, McKinley et al. 2011). Because the effects of forest management activities are so tiny, the carbon effects of the action alternatives are indistinguishable from the effects of not taking the action. Cumulative Effects The entire Lolo National Forest represents a very small amount of the carbon stored in forests of the coterminous United States (Heath et al. 2011). Given the available data and tools (USDA 2015; USDA 2016a), patterns and trends of carbon dynamics are best determined at larger scales and over long periods of time. Most national forests and forests in the U.S. on non-federal lands provide a carbon sink because of recovery from forest management practices of the early last century (USDA 2015). Harvesting (green trees) on western forest impacts about 0.09 percent per year of the total carbon on national forests. This project would affect a small percentage of the forest carbon stocks and small fractional proportion of the total forest carbon stocks of the United States. The affected NFS land in the project area would remain forests, would not be converted to other land uses, and long-term forest services and benefits would be maintained. As such, there would be no cumulative effects associated with this project. 3.1.6 Botany

Issue/Concern Raised in Public Comment Presence of rare and sensitive plants and the potential effects of the project on them.

This section is focused on sensitive plants because these are species for which population viability is a concern. Threatened and endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act were also considered. There are no endangered plant species in Montana. The two threatened species are water howellia (Howellia aguatilis) and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii). No Spalding’s catchfly or its habitat

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment were observed in the project area. Populations of water howellia are known to inhabit vernal ponds on the Swan Lake Ranger District, north of the project area. Similar vernal ponds exist within the project area and are considered potential habitat but no individual plants or populations have ever been observed. Three sensitive species have been found in the project area. Howell’s gumweed (Grindelia howellii) was observed at several locations throughout the project area mostly along roadsides. Three populations of western pearlflower (Heterocodon rariflorum) were found in the project area; these populations are the most eastward extension of their known range. Above 5,800 feet in elevation, whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is scattered in mixed conifer forest. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative A – No Action This alternative would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on sensitive plant species or their habitat, because no activities would occur. The Rice Ridge wildfire likely impacted sensitive species and habitat depending on burn severity. The burned habitat is susceptible to noxious weed invasion. Noxious weed treatments associated with the CFLRP and BAER would help ensure noxious weeds do not spread into the interior of the forest and establish in sensitive plant habitat. (Note: potential sensitive plant habitat would not be directly treated with herbicide.) Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives B and C Howell’s Gumweed Salvage activities that occur in the winter would have no effect on populations and individual plants of Howell’s gumweed. Activities associated with salvage treatments in the spring, summer, or fall may directly impact populations or individual plants due to ground disturbance, trampling, piling, and tree removal. Populations within the units would be avoided during implementation to prevent trampling, crushing, and piling on known populations; all of which is known to extirpate populations (Shelly 1986, Pavek 1991, Lorain 1991) (RPM BOT-3). Given the species affinity for disturbed sites (early seral), the activities associated with treatments could indirectly benefit larger populations by increasing sunlight to the forest floor and creating new opportunities (habitat) for spread when activities expose soil in areas void of noxious weeds. Most of the Howell’s gumweed populations co-occur with noxious weeds common to the area (mainly spotted knapweed). Spotted knapweed is a strong competitor especially in disturbed sites and may outcompete Howell’s gumweed in most cases. The effects of Alternatives B and C would be the same (impacts under Alternative B and C would be mitigated by avoidance but there is a chance of an unexpected impact to individual plants). In conclusion, for Howell’s gumweed, Alternatives B and C (with all of the sensitive plant RPMs included) “may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population or the species” because of the proposed road reroute. Other portions of the project area with known populations of Howell’s gumweed may result in “no effect” with the possibility of some benefits with the creation of new disturbance near existing populations (possibility for population to grow and expand). Western Pearlflower Two populations of western pearlflower were observed in proposed reforestation units in Dunham Creek. This is a new species for the Seeley Lake RD, and this is noteworthy as they are the only know population eastward of their range extension. Prior to these observations western pearlflower was not known to occur east of Missoula. Therefore, the pearlflower populations in the project area are a high conservation priority, especially the large and relatively weed-free portions of the revegetation locations. In order to eliminate the potential of extirpating these populations known sites would be avoided (RPM BOT-4). Spotted knapweed and yellow toadflax are actively growing along NFS Road #4388, these infestations

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment will be treated prior to salvage activities. In conclusion, for western pearlflower, the proposed project and associated activities with RPM BOT-4 would have no effect on the known populations. Whitebark Pine The Rice Ridge Fire burned the majority of standing whitebark pine in the project area since most whitebark pine trees were growing in mixed conifer stands with overgrown understories. Whitebark pine is perpetuated by wildfires, as openings conducive to seed caching are created and surviving trees are released from competition of nutrients. Previously cached seeds may germinate and start new stands of whitebark pine. Regarding the four threats identified by the USFWS (i.e., blister rust, mountain pine beetle, fire suppression, and climate change) this project is not expected to enhance the threats and lead to a downward trend in viability for whitebark pine. Overall, for whitebark pine the project would result in a determination of “may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population or the species”. Cumulative Effects Alternatives B and C Howell’s Gumweed Overall, cumulative impacts to populations of Howell’s gumweed have the potential to be negative; however, with the Regional conservation strategy objectives designed to protect known populations, impacts to Howell’s gumweed would be determined to have no effect on known populations. There may be populations of Howell’s gumweed that have not been identified that may be affected by management activities beyond the Rice Ridge Salvage project that may “impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or lass of viability for the species” due to the Regional conservation strategy objectives and the Resource Protection Measure that states, “If any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species are located during project layout or implementation, the appropriate specialist (e.g., wildlife or fisheries biologist or botanist) will be notified. Alter management activities, if necessary, so that proper protection measures can be taken. Include timber sale contract provisions that require the protection of threatened, endangered and sensitive in the timber sale contract.” (TES-1) Western pearlflower The effects of past activities on western pearlflower and its habitat in the project area are unknown due to the recent identification of populations within the project area. It is expected that overall the cumulative impacts from proposed, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions would be negligible since the locations of the two populations would be avoided during management activities. RPM TES-1 would apply. Whitebark pine Across the Lolo NF, whitebark pines show a variety of resistance levels from resistant to not resistant. Projects implemented in areas with a whitebark pine component can potentially continue to decrease whitebark pine across the Forest unless individual healthy, cone-producing trees are avoided during implementation of prescribed management actions. Ongoing prescribed burning activities would kill scattered whitebark pine (which are suppressed and unlikely to become cone-producing trees) and possibly several cone-producing trees. While the prescribed burning would create patches of fire-killed trees and bare ground favorable for nutcracker seed caching and whitebark pine seedling establishment, natural regeneration is unlikely based on observations across the Forest (Errecart pers. comm. 2014). Evidence of blister rust in pitching trees and flagging dead tops has been observed in the project area in the past as well as post-fire in standing dead whitebark pine. The Rice Ridge Fire may not have entirely killed or consumed other conifer tree species but those trees that remain are threatened by the potential future attacks of insects and disease (see Forested Vegetation Specialist’s Report). As new whitebark pine seedlings start to germinate, their establishment rate is compromised by an increase of insects and

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment disease infestations. Salvage timber removal would decrease this potential. If it is determined that reforestation efforts (planting) are necessary in areas for whitebark pine establishment seedlings grown from white pine blister rust resistant stock would be used (Lerfallom et. al. 2015). The effects of climate change on whitebark pine are “complex and difficult to predict” (Keane et al. 2012). Warmer and drier summers are expected to increase wildfire acreage and pine beetle outbreaks, the former potentially benefitting whitebark pine by killing competing conifers and creating areas for nutcrackers to cache seeds, and the latter being detrimental if beetles kill more whitebark pine trees. There are several scenarios being discussed for the fate of whitebark pine in terms of competition with other conifer species regarding climate change. One thought is that lower-elevation conifers such as subalpine fire and Douglas-fir could expand upslope in response to warming temperatures, potentially out-competing and displacing whitebark pine (Romme and Turner 1991). Another thought is while whitebark pine can shift to higher elevations, its displacement may not be detrimental; but where whitebark pine is already restricted to the highest ridges and summits (as in the project area) it could not shift upslope and might decline (Bartlein et al. 1997; Schrag et al. 2007). Recent modeling has resulted in yet another thought, that large, stand-replacement fires create large competition-free burned areas (Loehman et al. 2011). The specific effects of climate change on whitebark pine in the project area, if any, are likely to be subtle and interwoven with several other environmental changes that have already been discussed, such as forest successional trends and mountain pine beetle mortality. Regeneration of whitebark pine is slow and there is a likelihood that western larch would out-compete whitebark pine before seeds can naturally be brought in to the project area and germinate. The ability to aid in reforestation of whitebark pine through supplemental planting would be limited by accessibility (difficult) and funding. Forest Plan Consistency Alternatives B and C would be consistent with the Lolo Forest Plan because, as described above, sensitive plants would be protected to maintain population viability (Forest Plan standard 27, p. II-14). 3.1.7 Weeds Issue/Concern Raised in Public Comment Concerns were raised regarding the impacts of existing and possible new noxious weed infestations from the proposed management activities.

Weed management for the Project Area is guided by the principles and priorities established in Amendment 11 to the Lolo NF Plan and the Integrated Weed Management FEIS of 2007. Amendment 11 states, “All management activities will incorporate noxious weed prevention measures. Noxious weed control projects will be focused where they may have the greatest effect on preventing weed spread or damage to natural resources, and the greatest benefit to people who are actively trying to control weeds on land adjacent to the National Forest.” The Weed EIS provides Forest-wide standards, monitoring expectations, and guidelines for weed prevention and for weed control projects. Known and mapped noxious weed infestation acreage is approximately 4,466 acres across the project area, mostly along haul routes. Species include thistles, spotted knapweed, yellow toadflax, common mullein, houndstongue, meadow hawkweed, oxeye daisy, tall buttercup, St. Johnswort, common tansy, leafy spurge, sulfur cinquefoil, and cheatgrass. Infestations are mostly limited to roadsides, trails, trailheads, and open areas along roads. Noxious weed spread is challenging to predict because there are so many ways noxious weed seed can be transported into an area. Seed and vegetative parts can be carried by wind, water, wildlife, and human vectors (vehicles, bicycles, shoes, etc.). Areas that did not burn or burned at a low severity are potential sources of noxious weeds since the potential rate of survival of existing established populations is higher.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

There are approximately 2,740 acres of known noxious weed infestation within the no burn and low severity burned areas. These acres are considered viable and capable of producing seed within the next growing season. They are adjacent to moderate and high severity burn areas where existing, native vegetation has been reduced or removed by the Rice Ridge Fire; leaving 1,670 acres susceptible to noxious weed invasion. Dozer lines, hand lines, drop points, and log landings also create areas conducive to noxious weed spread. In most cases, these sites tie in with a system road where noxious weeds are present. Roadsides, drop points, and log landings were treated with herbicides in the fall of 2017 immediately after the containment of the fire. Alternative A – No Action Direct Effects There are no direct effects of choosing the no action alternative. Indirect Effects Indirect effects would include the establishment and spread of noxious weeds from existing vectors (roads, trails, wildlife, wind, and dispersed/unauthorized recreational activities) within the project area. Canopy cover would decrease as needles and trees fall. Live trees would be at risk to mortality from insects and disease. Trees would begin to decline and canopy cover would decrease even further. This would happen gradually, and if left untreated trees would begin to fall creating microclimates and retaining some shade. Ground-disturbance would mostly be from falling trees and exposed root wads. Reduced canopy cover and increased disturbance would create conditions conducive to noxious weed spread and establishment. If No Actions are taken, noxious weed treatments would continue at the current level. Treatments are not that extensive in the project area compared to the level of infestations. Treatments would occur as funding became available. Overall, the No Action Alternative would have negligible to minor, long-term impacts in terms of noxious weed expansion and establishment. Generally, impacts from noxious weed invasions would be considered negative due to the loss of native or desired vegetation for ecosystem resiliency. No Action would be more beneficial than the action alternatives for noxious weed spread and establishment but would be less beneficial for treatment of existing infestations due to funding and personnel limitations. Cumulative Effects Increased public use in the area over the next several years for mushroom picking, firewood gathering, and hunting could introduce new weeds. Approximately 183 miles of roads (877 acres) in the project area were identified to be treated for weeds as part of the BAER work which began in 2017. Treatments would reduce the existing weed populations along these roads. Reducing the weed populations along these roads would lower the risk of weed spread into susceptible habitats along the roads and into the interior of the forest. Canopy cover would be reduced in most areas as dead trees fall and imminently dead trees lose their needles and eventually fall. In areas that experienced severe fire intensity, mineral soil would be exposed. Both conditions are conducive to noxious weed invasion on their own, and together increased invasion and expanding infestations would be inevitable (Thomas et al. 1999, Scheller and Madenoff 2002, Abella and Covington 2004, Wienk et al. 2004, Gray 2005, Lindgren et al. 2006, and Dodson and Fiedler 2006, IN:. Sutherland & Nelson 2010). Impacts due to wildfire would be moderated, both short-term immediately after the fire and long-term if left untreated. Generally, impacts from noxious weed invasions are considered negative due to the loss of native or desired vegetation for ecosystem resiliency and interfere with natural succession processes post-fire. The Forest Service would continue to identify noxious weed treatment needs on NFS lands in the project

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment area and treat infestations according to the Lolo Integrated Weed Management EIS (USDA Forest Service 2007). The threat of new invaders from neighboring lands is considered minor, as the Forest is always looking for new invaders with the intent of eradicating them from the NFS lands. Alternatives B and C Direct Effects Given the presence of noxious weeds in the project area (both species richness and abundance) the risk of spread of existing noxious weed infestations and establishment of new weed infestations would increase in all units under the action alternatives (Lockwood et al. 2005, Allendorf and Lundquist 2003). Both alternatives propose an increase in ground-disturbance. Ground-disturbance levels vary between alternative (e.g., amount of timber harvest proposed, temporary road building in Alternative B vs none in Alternative C, etc.); however, the resulting direct impact would remain elevated due to the simple occurrence of soil and vegetative changes and increased human activity (Nelson et al. 2008, Aukema and Carey 2008). Additionally, research has shown increases in nutrient availability and decreases in competition often promote invasion of some noxious weeds due to their ability to rapidly uptake nutrients and their efficiency utilizing neighboring areas (Besaw et al 2011, Sutherland and Nelson 2010, Funk and Vitousek 2007). The Rice Ridge Fire removed most of the competing vegetation (grasses, shrubs, forbs, and trees). Additional nutrients are available for the noxious weeds to utilize due to the wildfire. The removal of dead and dying trees as part of Alternatives B and C would not result in additional nutrients being available compared to the existing post-fire conditions. Ground disturbance would be the most impactful for noxious weed establishment and spread. Increased management and ground-disturbance levels could result in moderate impacts to noxious weed establishment and expansion. RPMs to prevent, treat, and monitor noxious weeds would decrease this impact to minor (NW-1). Though noxious weed treatments would decrease the potential for increased spread and establishment, which is beneficial, the general impacts from disturbance and increased management would be negative due to the potential loss of native or desired vegetation for ecosystem resiliency in areas that were not able to be treated. Salvage Operations Canopy cover would further be reduced by varying treatment objective, units, and alternative (EA Chapter 2). The majority of the project area is dry habitat types (ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir). The Rice Ridge Wildfire turned most of the project area to a mixed severity burn that left patches of standing dead trees, patches of live, dead, and dying trees, and patches of live trees. Areas with high to moderate burn severity are vulnerable to noxious weed colonization when the forest canopy or soil is disturbed. With most of the canopy removed, the lack of shade would be favorable for noxious weed establishment (Goodwin et al. 2002). Seeds would be transported by wind or wildlife as well as management activities. Given the presence of noxious weeds, new infestations and expansion of existing infestations is expected (Gillette et al. 2014). Canada thistle, cheatgrass, and spotted knapweed are very shade-intolerant and prefer drier sites; however, all have been observed under trees and on moister sites. Musk thistle and yellow toadflax are relatively shade-intolerant. Leafy spurge and St. Johnswort are moderately tolerant of shade and moisture but will grow well in sunny and dry sites. Common tansy and houndstongue are considered shade-tolerant. Though timber harvest activities would open the canopy and further disturb the soil, noxious weed invasion (mainly spotted knapweed) risk would be minimized through Resource Protection Measures (NW-1) and are expected to be minor in occurrence, short-term, and beneficial. Reforestation Efforts Reforestation efforts would eventually increase the forest canopy, providing shade and increasing competition which would reduce conditions suitable for noxious weed establishment and spread. Naturally occurring regeneration would have the same potential for reducing weed spread. Establishment

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment of noxious weeds may inhibit natural regeneration if noxious weed infestation became an established monoculture. Resource protection measure NW-1 would decrease the chance of this occurring. Hazard Tree Removal Roadside hazard tree removal has the greatest potential for weed establishment and spread along the Dunham Creek (FSR 4388) and Swamp Creek (FSR 4379) Roads. There are approximately 62.2 acres of noxious weeds (spotted knapweed, thistles, oxeye daisy, yellow toadflax, and common mullein) along the roadsides of Dunham Creek (8.6 miles). There are approximately, 29.6 acres of noxious weeds (spotted knapweed and common tansy) along the roadsides of Swamp Creek (4.3 miles). Hazard tree mitigation would create an additional 150-foot area along the roadside that would be conducive to noxious weed spread and introduction from harvesting techniques, whether it is commercial or firewood gathering. Boom sprayers on trucks and utility task vehicles can spray between 30 and 60 feet alongside the road. That would leave 90 to 120 feet of untreatable area (from a truck or UTV) that would be conducive to noxious weed spread and establishment. Hose reels on trucks or UTV would be able to treat the area between 90 to 120 feet; however, the terrain and site conditions (downed woody debris) would make application of herbicide difficult and not very effective due to the herbicide not making contact with the noxious weeds. Alternatively, the downed woody debris may provide enough shade and retain moisture to the extent that the 150-foot area would not be conducive to noxious weed spread. However, given the potential of additional disturbance from firewood cutters and the heavy use along these roads this is unlikely due to the possibility of additional noxious weed seed introduction and the existing seed bank germinating upon disturbance. Resource Protection Measure NW-1 would provide some mitigation to the establishment of noxious weeds reducing the impact to less than “major”. Therefore, hazard mitigation efforts would have a moderate, long-term, negative impact on native plant populations through the expansion and possible establishment of noxious weeds within the 150-foot roadside treatment. Indirect Effects Indirect impacts include the possibility of increased vectors through the road decommissioning and road reroutes (Alternative B only). These are linear disturbances that would facilitate noxious weed spread and establishment (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, Birdsall et al. 2012). Activities associated with project implementation might also increase the potential for noxious weed spread and eventual establishment. Staging areas, vehicles, soil brought from off site, hand tools, incidental disturbances, and other unexpected sources of noxious weed seed spread and propagation may also occur during implementation. However, Resource Protection Measures and BMPs should reduce these impacts. Wildlife is another vector for noxious weed spread and establishment. The project area experiences a great deal of wildlife activity from ungulates, birds, bears, and a wide-variety of other mammals. The project area has some limiting landscape features but for the most part it is widely accessible to wildlife. Most units have evidence of heavy use from migration trails to simple ocular observances. Salvage activities would not occur in the majority of the project area. Travel and transport of seeds by smaller wildlife species (birds, rodents, etc.) may increase as these species tend to recolonize burned areas and take advantage of post-fire conditions (Smucker et. al 2005, Banks et. al. 2011). This would be a negative, indirect consequence of the project (in terms of new noxious weed infestations) that would last beyond the implementation period. Even though the potential to increase noxious weed populations is expected; the overall extent of noxious weed infestations in the project area would potentially be reduced due to the associated noxious weed treatments. Noxious weed treatments are currently occurring (on the Seeley Lake RD) at a greater rate than the past due to increased restoration efforts associated with the CFLRP and BAER treatments. Treatments include herbicide, biological controls, mechanical treatments (hand-pulling and mowing), and educational materials. With the implementation of this project, all of these noxious weed management techniques would increase. Noxious weed treatments would increase plant community diversity by

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment decreasing competition from noxious weeds (Rice 2013). Noxious weed treatments would facilitate desired site conditions of the understory by preempting noxious weed establishment and allowing desirable vegetation to take hold since site regeneration is dependent on the composition of the species that result afterward (Radosevich 2007, Nelson et al. 2008). Effective treatment for cheatgrass is still being explored. Cheatgrass infestations would be monitored until a solution for control becomes available. Existing cheatgrass infestations are expected to expand as part of this project. Overall impacts from Alternatives B and C in relation to noxious weed spread and establishment would be moderate, both short and long-term, and negative. However, the implementation of this project would rely on Resource Protection Measures designed to decrease noxious weed spread and treat known infestations. This would decrease the impact from moderate to “minor” and limit the extent of the impact to the implementation period (short-term). Compared to the No Action Alternative, both action alternatives would require prevention measures and treatment of noxious weed infestation which would be more beneficial to the area for controlling, suppressing, and eradicating noxious weeds. Overall, salvage activities would reduce the amount of existing overstory vegetation and increase the potential for noxious weeds to spread into uninfested areas or expand existing infestation levels. Treatments that involve both harvest and temporary road construction would lead to higher invasion potential. RPMs and noxious weed treatments associated with the CFLRP and BAER projects would help minimize both short and long-term impacts from activities but noxious weeds would be expected to spread. Cumulative Effects Past noxious weed spread within the project area was facilitated by trails and roads (e.g., use, construction, and maintenance) and natural vectors (e.g., wind, water, and wildlife). The Forest Service would continue to identify weed treatment needs in the project area and treat infestations by implementing the Lolo NF Integrated Weed Management FEIS/ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007). Cumulatively noxious weed spread and establishment would degrade the native vegetative community, reduce water quality through soil erosion, and reduce wildlife habitat over time. However, with noxious weed treatments in Alternatives B and C including the Resource Protection Measures, noxious weed spread would be expected to be reduced (with the exception of cheatgrass). Overall, the project would have a direct benefit to reducing the infestation levels of noxious weeds in the project area. This would result in a minor to moderate decrease to noxious weed infestations within the project area. Alternative C The difference between Alternatives C and B is that in Alternative C no temporary road construction is included and the acres of harvest is reduced. Alternative C would be more beneficial than Alternative B but less beneficial than Alternative A due to the remaining proposed activities. Alternative C would potentially increase noxious weeds over a smaller area than Alternative B but the associated noxious weed treatments would exceed efforts of Alternative A. However, there would still be increased land management activities that would disturb soil and increase sunlight to the forest floor which would result in minor to moderate impacts, which would be negative over the short-term and beneficial (with implementation of Resource Protection Measure for noxious weeds) over the long-term. Cumulative Effects Without the temporary road construction and associated savage harvest units, the cumulative effects of the project would be lessened when combined with the reduction of activities proposed. Recreation, private firewood collection and noxious weed treatments on adjacent private lands would have the same effects for all alternatives.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Implementation of this project would be consistent with Forest Plan direction with the inclusion of Resource Protection Measures. 3.2 Soils

Issue/Concern Raised in Public Comment Salvage and associated temporary road construction could adversely affect soils.

Forest Service Soils Manual (FSM 2550; November 2010) and Region 1 Soil Quality Standards provide guidelines and methods to show compliance with the (NFMA. The objectives of the Region 1 Soil Quality Standards (R1 SQS) include managing NFS lands “without permanent impairment of land productivity and to maintain or improve soil quality”, similar to the NFMA. Region 1 Soil Quality Standards are based on the use of six physical and one biological attribute to assess current soil quality and project effects. These attributes include compaction, rutting, displacement, severely-burned soils, surface erosion, soil mass movement, and organic matter. Basic elements addressed in the analysis of the soil resource are: (1) soil productivity (including soil loss, porosity; and organic matter), and (2) soil hydrologic function. The soil productivity direction identifies a value of 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance as a guideline for maintenance or loss of soil productivity and to show compliance with the NFMA. Fire effects overwhelmingly contributed to the existing condition of the soil in the project area. Soil burn severity was mapped following the Rice Ridge Fire using Burned Area Reflectance Classification (BARC) (Soil File 1). Soil burn severity mapping was completed as part of the BAER, and mapping results were field-validated (USDA 2017, Rice Ridge BAER Report). Soil burn severity describes the fire-caused damage to the soil and is a measure of the effects of fire on soil conditions. Burn severity classes are identified as unburned/very low, low, moderate, or high. For the Rice Ridge Fire. BARC mapping showed that approximately 18 percent of the acres remained unburned or displayed very low burn severity, 27 percent displayed low soil burn severity, 52 percent moderate severity, and 7% displayed high soil burn severity. Distribution of soil burn severity was similar in both alternatives (Table 18). Table 18. Burn severity within proposed units for the Rice Ridge Salvage Project

Percent of Total Percent of Total Severity Class Unit Acres, Alt B Unit Acres, Alt C Units Alt B Units Alt C Unburned/Very 990 17% 563 21% Low Low 1520 26% 653 24% Moderate 2908 51% 486.4 50% High 384 6% 140 5%

On sites that are considered low or very low burn severity, the duff layer is partially consumed by the fire and very little heating of the soil surface layer has occurred. Low burn severities would not likely affect the soil hydrologic properties or soil stability. Many unburned roots and seeds in the surface soil will aid in vegetating the burned areas. Natural re-vegetation on these sites will occur quickly. Typically, unburned trees and shrubs are present and provide cover that reduces soil erosion.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

The moderate burn severity sites have slightly altered surface soil structure, reduced numbers of fine roots, and less seed viability in the soil surface. Natural revegetation on these sites can be slower than low burn severity areas. In most places the duff is reduced to a layer of charred litter. Water repellent (hydrophobic) soil conditions may occur under moderate burn severity sites, but will be discontinuous and short-lived. Sites with moderate burn severity displayed some increased soil erosion during field surveys. These sites are susceptible to physical disturbance caused by equipment due to loss of protective ground cover. High burn severity sites have modified surface soil properties. The surface soil structure has broken down, and a short-lived hydrophobic layer may be present. Field reconnaissance during BAER displayed a discontinuous hydrophobic layer up to 4 inches deep. This layer has the potential to reduce infiltration in the short-term, but should break down with freeze thaw cycles (USDA 2017, Rice Ridge BAER Soils Report). Lack of canopy, altered soil conditions, and a lack of organic litter or duff increase the risk of rain-impact erosion at the soil surface, reduced infiltration, and increased erosion and runoff. Field surveyed sites with high burn severity displayed some rill and sheet erosion at the time of survey. Erosion in these units is expected to increase with spring runoff and high intensity rains due to reduced vegetation cover. There are few viable roots or seeds in the upper several inches of the soil, and protective ground cover and organic material layers have been removed from fire effects. Natural revegetation on these sites is slow and they are highly susceptible to erosion and physical soil disturbance, making them especially sensitive to ground-based harvest (Klock 1975, McIver et al. 2006, Wagenbrenner 2015). For the Rice Ridge Salvage project, a RPM requiring winter season harvest has been applied to proposed, ground-based harvest units where high burn severity is greater than 20%. Units that have large proportions of moderate and high severity burn would have a slower recovery than units with low severity fire. These slow recovery rates are primarily attributed to loss of forest floor and increased erosion rates (Wondzell et al. 2003). Modeling to predict erosion and sediment delivery values was completed as part of the BAER evaluation and included the use of the Forest Service Erosion Risk Management tool (ERMit, Robichaud et al. 2007). Potential soil erosion averaged 1.95 tons/acre (0.34- 5.39 ton/acre) for the first two years following the fire, with a maximum of 7.07 tons/acre on high severity slopes with greater than 40% slope (USDA 2017, Rice Ridge BAER Soil Report). By way of comparison, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) the average annual erosion on Montana cropland was 6.4 tons/acre when it was last quantified. Fire alters many soil properties including consumption of organic matter content and coarse woody debris (CWD), which in turn alters nutrient-related processes. Organic matter and CWD are important elements in retaining soil productivity and long-term site health (Maranon-Jimenez and Castro 2013, USDA 2006, Graham et al. 1994). The recovery of organic matter and CWD following fire is key to restoring ecosystem productivity and reductions of organic matter could lead to long-term DSD (Beschta et al. 2004). Erosion decreases productivity due to a net loss of topsoil. This is especially important in the Rice Ridge Salvage area on steeper slopes where moderate and high severity fire has consumed the protective forest floor layer leaving the soil vulnerable to erosion (Neary et al. 2005). On the Lolo NF, high severity burn areas typically displayed shallow hydrophobic layers ranging from 1 to 4 centimeters depth (USDA 2017: BAER Soils Report). Hydrophobicity is not severe and is expected to break down quickly (prior to harvest activities) with rain events and freeze thaw cycles. Although this hydrophobic layer has the potential to reduce infiltration, loss of forest floor will have a much greater contribution to increased erosion at these sites. Keeping debris on site can decrease soil loss by up to 95 percent (McIver and Starr 2000). Generally, increased erosion due to wildfire occurs during the year following the fire, but as vegetation recolonizes sites, erosion stabilizes (Neary et al. 2005). Field surveys showed a wide range of forest floor conditions (Table 18). CWD ranged from 0 to 29 tons per acre across the surveyed units and displayed trends within units based on similar aspect (Soil File 2, Statistical Analysis). Bare soil within units ranged from 0% to 100%, with an average of 27% and was generally found where soil burn severity was high. Depth of forest floor (litter and duff) ranged from 0 to

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

3 cm across all surveyed units. CWD estimates were determined to be below recommended levels in Units 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 27, 39, 42, 44, 46, 47, 54, 59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 225, 335, 340, 455, and 460 based on field survey and statistical analysis (USDA 2006, Soil File 2: Statistical Analysis). In all units, non- merchantable timber and breakage of limbs and boles from harvested trees would be left on site to increase down wood levels. Coarse wood levels would increase in units as dead trees begin to fall. Units with a high percentage of bare soil and shallow forest floor showed increased rates of sheet and rill erosion. In units with slopes below 25%, erosion was localized with many small areas of erosion and deposition that were not affecting soil function. These ecosystems tend to be fairly resistant to fire effects (Hutto et al. 2016). The redistribution of soil material after fire is a natural geomorphic process and one of the principal drivers of hillslope development in mountainous environments (Wondzell & King 2003). Over time natural recovery of vegetation and soil processes will occur in these sites. As vegetation re-inhabits sites, it is expected that nutrient cycling will accelerate, litter layers increase, and soil productivity will trend towards pre-fire levels. Alternative A – No Action In Alternative A, no adverse impacts to soils would occur because no additional ground-disturbing activities would be implemented. The existing conditions resulting from the Rice Ridge Fire would persist. Alternative A would not alter the current erosion and landslide potential within the area. The existing soil disturbances associated with both fire impacts and past vegetation management, such as compacted skid trails and non-system road prisms, would still be present and trend towards recovery over time. Impacts from the Rice Ridge Fire, including loss of soil organic matter, post-fire top soil displacement, and rill or sheet erosion will continue to occur until vegetation is reestablished in the project area. Post-fire research has found that forest floor recovery with no management activities can reach pre-fire conditions within 5 to 10 years, with tree establishment taking longer (Knapp and Ritchie 2016). CWD would be retained at the same level and organic matter would be unchanged from its post-fire state. It is anticipated that over the short-term (<10 years) and long-term (>10 years) temporal scales, CWD and organic matter inputs to the forest floor would increase in the No Action alternative as additional trees fall and needle cast occurs (Brown et al. 2003, Roccaforte et al. 2012, Chambers and Mast 2005). With no additional project activities, there would be no cumulative impacts associated with additional ground disturbances; the existing condition for the soils resource would be unchanged, with anticipated short-and long- term recovery of soil productivity. Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Field surveys and analysis determined that Alternatives B and C would maintain soil productivity and meet Region 1 soil quality standards and Forest Plan standards and therefore would not have a significant impact to soils. The direct and indirect effects for both alternatives would be similar. Because there would be more acres salvaged in Alternative C, the effects would be greater in areal extent. Best management practices, standard operating procedures, and project-specific resource protection measures (described in Chapter 2) are included in the action alternatives and would be applied to reduce disturbance and limit the effects of management activities on soil resources. Resource protection measures that maintain coarse woody debris are specifically discussed below. Harvest activities may result in soil disturbance but this disturbance is not irreversible, based on local forest soil monitoring studies and peer reviewed research (Lolo National Forest Soil Monitoring Reports 2006-2015). Soil disturbance that is localized in nature would dissipate within 20-30 years. With rehabilitation, large landings, primary skid trails, and temporary roads would re-establish a functional forest floor and biologic, chemical, and physical soil processes within 40 years.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Coarse Woody Debris Retention and Recruitment CWD and other organic matter retention and recruitment is an important tool for maintaining soil productivity following harvest activities. Existing CWD levels were below levels recommended in the Lolo NF Coarse Woody Material Guideline (2006) in Units 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 27, 39, 42, 44, 46, 47, 54, 59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 225, 335, 340, 455, and 460. Organic matter, including the forest floor (litter and duff) and CWD, moderates soil temperatures, improves soil water availability, stores nutrients, and supports microbes and biodiversity that is essential for maintaining ecosystem function (Page-Dumroese et al. 2010). Design features are included in the project to retain all non-merchantable material in units to the extent practical, and to leave breakage from harvested trees in units with low CWD. Therefore, CWD levels would increase in all units following harvest due to breakage and logging slash, but in the long- term (>10 years) CWD would be lower on these sites than unsalvaged sites (Monsanto et al. 2008). A RPM that requires planting in units would increase forest floor and other organic matter inputs with time. As tree seedlings establish, they provide soil cover and increase soil moisture. As roots decay and needles drop, organic matter and soil nutrients increase improving soil productivity. A complete list of soil RPMs and associated units are available in Chapter 2 Section 2.1.1. Soil Productivity Primary effects to soil productivity from Alternatives B and C would be soil disturbance from cutting and transporting logs. Disturbance would be considered “detrimental” where compaction, topsoil displacement, rutting, and surface erosion occurs. DSD is primarily expected to result from ground-based harvest activities; effects would be less in skyline or excaline units where logs are suspended. Compaction from ground-based harvest can lead to decreased water infiltration rates, resulting in increased overland flow and associated erosion. It is likely that initially, effects from compaction and displacement would be minimal when compared to erosion caused by fire effects that removed surface and canopy vegetation (Megahan et al. 2004). The effects of compaction, however, can persist long-term (Duncan 2002) while erosion resulting from fire effects should stabilize 1 to 3 years following the fire. Of primary concern would be effects to soil productivity from site-specific compaction, topsoil displacement, rutting, and erosion, which have the potential to decrease soil nutrient cycling, water infiltration, and gas exchange. This in turn would negatively affect native vegetation and sub-surface biological activity including soil fungi and soil organisms (Cambi et al. 2015). Harvest operations remove biomass and site organic matter and thus affect nutrient cycling. Generally, nutrient losses are proportional to the volume of biomass removed from a site. Nutrients are lost during harvesting by removing the stored nutrients in trees, and additional nutrients are lost if the litter layer and woody debris are removed. Whole-tree harvesting removes a larger amount of the nutrients from the site compared to conventional sawlog or thinning operations which leave the nutrient-rich foliage in place. The exact amount of nutrients lost from a particular site would vary with forest types and particular site conditions (Grier et al. 1989). Indirect effects of soil nutrient loss include reduced growth and yield and increased susceptibility to pathogens, such as root disease. Any project effects would not be adverse to soil productivity because nutrient replenishment, forest floor, and humus stores would remain on the site (Busse et al. 2009). Soil RPMs would leave CWD on-site, and sites where organic matter was lost due to high burn severity would be replenished with time. Following wildfires, ectomycorrhizal fungi (fungal hyphae that do not penetrate a vascular root system) are more likely to be negatively impacted with a slower recovery that arbuscular mycorrhizae (hyphae do penetrate vascular root systems), which recover quickly with roots. Because ectomycorrhizal fungi mineralize nutrients while arbuscular fungi do not, it is anticipated that in the first several years following wildfire, nutrient cycling is temporarily slowed (Treseder et al. 2004). Studies have shown that regardless of disturbance type (compaction or subsoiling), there was no significant negative impact on soil microbial recovery or mycorrhizae composition (Jennings et al. 2012). In all alternatives, microorganisms would continue to populate the soil with no long-term (>10 year) loss of biologic and nutrient cycling function,

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment contributing towards site productivity through nutrient cycling and reforming soil aggregates. In all proposed treatment units, localized areas with detrimental levels of soil compaction, displacement, and other physical disturbances would reduce the ability of soils to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide thus affecting the ability of soil organisms and fungi to survive in these areas. Favorable habitat for soil organisms would be maintained outside of designated skid trails and landings, as limited soil disturbance is expected outside of these designated areas. Under Alternatives B and C, no change in soil resiliency or recovery potential is expected. Powers (2002) concludes soil productivity should be preserved if the loss of biomass, organic matter, soil porosity and topsoil is limited. Outside of landings and skid trails, large areas (greater than 100 square feet) with detrimental levels of soil disturbance are not expected because of project design features, standard soil operating procedures, and Timber Sale Contract provisions. RPMs including harvest season and CWD retention would protect crucial soil processes. Reforestation activities would improve and rehabilitate soil condition by allowing for the establishment of new tree seedlings which would increase soil cover, nutrient cycling, and organic matter inputs; ultimately decreasing soil recovery time (Certini et al. 2005). Reuse of existing disturbance areas (skid trails and landings) to the extent possible would be important in order to meet the R1 SQS following treatments. Harvesting within treatment units and within the roadside danger tree removal areas would to maintain a functional forest floor on at least 85 percent of any activity unit and maintain soil productivity which would comply with R1 SQS, as well as other pertinent laws and regulations. Harvest activities are designed to comply with Region 1 soil standards which limit DSD to 15 percent areal extent for each activity unit (USDA 1999). DSD by harvest unit is displayed in the Soil’s Specialist’s Report, Appendix B and Soil File 5. Alternative B would result in an estimated 243 acres of total DSD within proposed units (4% of total unit area). Alternative C would result in an estimated 202 acres of total DSD (7% of total unit area). Soil productivity would be maintained since project-related soil disturbance would dissipate with time and DSD would remain below thresholds where long-term impairment may occur. Ground-based Skidding Units Alternatives B and C would include approximately 3,182 acres of tractor harvest units (1,754 in summer and 1,429 in winter) and 1,928 acres (1,250 in summer and 678 in winter), respectively. These units are in areas with unburned, low, and moderate soil severity burn. Soil disturbance is typically associated with landings and wheel tracks within the main skid trails where soil compaction and displacement can occur. In tractor units, equipment is restricted to slopes less than 35 percent. Detrimental soil disturbance from summer tractor harvest on areas with low to moderate burn severity are estimated at 10 percent of an activity area. Past monitoring on the Lolo and Idaho Panhandle National Forests has shown detrimental soil disturbance levels from tractor harvesting to range from 6-14 percent, including post-harvest fuel treatments (grapple piling, prescribed fire). Because post-harvest treatments are not included in Alternatives 2 and 3, the estimated detrimental soil disturbance would be 10 percent (Rone 2011, Lolo NF Soil Monitoring Report 2015). Detrimental soil impacts from winter ground-based harvest units are estimated at 4 percent of an activity area. Logging over snow and frozen soil is a highly effective method for reducing physical soil displacement and protecting the forest floor (Flatten 2003, McIver and Starr 2000). Estimated DSD values for winter season harvest are derived from past monitoring on the Flathead NF and Lolo NF (Flathead Monitoring Reports, Lolo NF Monitoring Report, 2015, Soil File 3). Refer to the Soil Specialist’s Report Appendix for detailed soil effects by treatment unit. Skyline and Excaline Units Alternatives B and C, would include approximately 2,421 and 806 acres, respectively, of skyline and excaline harvest units.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

With skyline and excaline harvesting, minimum soil disturbance would occur with hand-felling and hand- processing of logs on the slope. Soil disturbance occurs when moving trees to and within the corridor. These corridors are narrower than skid trails with an average spacing of about 75 feet. Skyline logging soil disturbance may be greatest at the landing where logs are no longer suspended and corridors converge. Standard operating procedures, which include constructing waterbars in skyline corridors where needed and covering bare soil with slash, would minimize erosion. Detrimental soil impacts from skyline and excaline harvest are estimated at 4 percent of an activity area. Disturbance from skyline harvest ranges from 0-7 percent with an average of 1-3 percent (Rone 2011, McIver and Starr 2000, Lolo NF Soil Monitoring Report 2015). The higher end value was chosen to reflect the potential for additional disturbance due to fire effects. Disturbance from the excaline trails are included as an additional temporary road disturbance for unit-specific DSD calculations (Soil File 5). Log landings Detrimental effects from landing construction could include soil compaction, litter loss, loss of CWD, increased potential for erosion, nutrient loss, loss of soil hydrologic and biologic function, and possible weed incursions. Additions to unit-specific DSD from landings are included in acres expected from project activities for ground-based units. Log landings associated with ground-based harvest units are expected to be 0.25 to 0.5 acres is size. Erosion control measures would be used if needed to minimize erosion and sediment transport from landing sites during maintenance and construction. All landings would be rehabilitated following harvest activities. Rehabilitation measures would include scarification and seeding. Placement of woody debris to prevent erosion would be applied as necessary to prevent erosion. A complete list of RPMs associated with landings can be found in Chapter 2 and Soil Specialist’s Report Soil File 6. Temporary Roads Temporary road construction causes soil compaction, displacement, and reduced soil hydrologic and biologic function. Increased erosion is expected from road construction, and areas where temporary roads drain onto slopes with high burn severity. Temporary roads are considered 100% detrimental and have reduced soil productivity for >40 years until vegetation, soil organic matter, and the forest floor is restored. Miles and acres of new temporary road is used as an effects indicator. Approximately 31 miles (58.2 acres) of temporary road are proposed under Alternative B and no temporary road is proposed under Alternative C. Temporary road construction is expected to disturb an average area 16 feet in width. On steep slopes erosion and soil disturbance resulting from temporary roads is expected to increase when compared to more gentle slopes. For Alternative B approximately 13 miles (25.2 acres) of temporary roads would be new construction and 18 miles (34.9 acres) would be located on an existing prism. Temporary roads would be rehabilitated following completion of proposed project activities using the appropriate combination of the following specifications:  Remove any installed culverts or temporary bridges  Recontour the entire template to natural ground contour (on newly constructed temporary roads)  Where recontouring is unnecessary, scarify with excavator teeth to a depth equal sufficient to ameliorate the presence of detrimental soil compaction (usually between 2 and 12 inches)  Seed with the native plant mix as specified in the contract  Place woody material on the template to reduce potential erosion Recontouring and decompaction would not ameliorate long-term impacts to soil productivity immediately, but would improve soil conditions compared to those of an existing or abandoned road. The establishment of vegetation and associated additions of organic matter would encourage recovery over time. Recontouring and decompaction would provide a suitable seed bed for native forest vegetation while increasing soil hydraulic conductivity, organic matter, total carbon, and total nitrogen (Lloyd et al.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

2013). These conditions are likely to accelerate the recovery of soil productivity. Hydrological recovery is expected within the first 10 years with soil infiltration rates lower than natural forest rates for the first 10 years (Luce 1997). For the long-term, infiltration rates improve over time as freeze/thaw cycles and plant roots improve soil porosity. Soil biological function restores as forest floor and native plant communities return to the restored temporary road prism. Soil Stability Soil erosion potential and sediment delivery potential can be increased following wildfire because of the loss of soil cover and increased hydrophobicity (Certini et al. 2005; Beschta et al. 2004). Soils in the Rice Ridge project area displayed shallow, discontinuous hydrophobicity, therefore erosion occurring within units is primarily attributed to loss of soil cover (USDA 2017, Rice Ridge BAER Report). Ground-based harvest activities are expected to increase soil compaction on skid trails and landings, which may also contribute to temporary increases in erosion. Harvest activities are not proposed on areas with high soil erosion hazard. Ground-based units with high soil burn severity have elevated soil erosion potential due to lack of surface vegetation and canopy cover. Ground-based harvest units that were found to have increased soil sensitivity due to fire effects would be limited to winter season operations to protect soils from erosion, compaction, and displacement. Units planned for summer ground-based harvest have less than 20% high soil burn severity. Because potential for surface erosion increases substantially on steep slopes, all ground-based harvest units would be limited to slopes of 35% or less. Detrimental erosion and sediment delivery is not expected on areas with moderate to low erosion hazard ratings and low to moderate burn severities because soil design features would allow for increases in organic matter cover on the soil surface following treatment. Reforestation activities would occur in most harvest units (Soil File 5). Reforestation has been shown to decrease erosion potential following salvage harvesting (Slesak et al. 2015). Soils in map unit 26UA and 41QA are considered high risk for mass failure and account for less than 1% of the proposed unit area. Portions of Units 1, 12, 13, 64, and 65 are located in these map units. Portions of map unit 26UA located in Units 1, 12, and 13 are likely a mapping error because this landtype includes very steep slopes (55-100%) and slopes greater than 35% were not found during field review. During field review, Units 1, 12, 13 and 14 displayed signs of instability including slumping and pistol-butted trees. Mass failure is unlikely in Units 12 and 13 because slopes are relatively flat and a RPM requiring winter logging conditions would be applied to further prevent potential stability issues due to ground- based operations. Units 1, 64, and 65 are not appropriate for winter logging requirements and would be field-reviewed prior to the decision in order to address potential stability issues and would be dropped from the project if risk of mass failure is found. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects For activities to be considered cumulative, their effects need to overlap in both time and space with those of the proposed actions. For the soil resource, the area for consideration is the unit because effects on soils are site specific. Past activities are considered as the current condition of the soil resource and related disturbance is captured during field review or spatial analysis (refer to the Affected Environment section above). In summary, cumulative effects to soils would be minimal and very site specific. No additional effects to soils within project activity units are expected to occur beyond those analyzed and disclosed in this report. Past or future activities that do not have an effect on the soils resource, or do not overlap with proposed units are not included in this analysis. The following activities may overlap in time and space with the proposed actions and the minimal effects are discussed below. Mechanical Treatments and Prescribed Fire Treatments Commercial and precommercial thinning and post-harvest activities (past, ongoing, or foreseeable) would not overlap in time and space with project activities except where past disturbance has occurred. Post- harvest activities (piling, prescribed burning) are not included as part of the proposed actions. Existing

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment soil conditions are discussed in detail in the Soil Disturbance section above. Evidence of past harvest was found in several units during field survey and was included in existing condition reports. Outputs from the FACTS database and remote sensing imagery were used to assess the presence of past harvest in non- field surveyed units. Disturbance from post-harvest activities including prescribed fire and pile burning was not noted in any of the activity units, or was overwhelmed by effects from the Rice Ridge Fire. Approximately 6,260 acres of prescribed fire has occurred in the project area since the 1950s, however disturbance from these activities is no longer visible within proposed units. There are no other harvest or post-harvest activities planned within the current proposed units; therefore, no further cumulative effects from harvest or prescribed fire would occur in the foreseeable future. Two small salvage projects are planned on State lands near the project area. Harvest on adjacent ownership will not overlap with proposed project units and therefore will not have a cumulative effect on the soils resource. Wildfire and Fire Suppression Wildfire has been recorded in the project area since the early 1900s and has been an influential natural disturbance process on the Seeley Lake Ranger District. Within the project area boundary, fires have occurred on about 40,488 acres with the majority occurring after 2010. Effects to the soils resource from wildfire are the result of fire effects and effects from fire suppression activities. For the project, fire effects and some suppression actions from the Rice Ridge Fire have become part of the existing condition of the soil and a detailed summary of these effects is found in the Existing Soil Disturbances section above. Effects from fire suppression causes short-and long-term soil disturbance to the soils resource. On small wildfires, disturbance from fire suppression activities is usually limited to hand tools; most hand fire line construction has only minor impacts to the soil resource. On larger fires, machine line is often constructed during fire suppression and generally causes long-term soil disturbance. Closed roads may be reopened for access, and new dozer line and shaded fuelbreaks may be constructed as fire line. As part of fire repair work, the areas of disturbance are rehabilitated following fire containment and help diminish soil disturbance. Cumulative effects could occur where fire suppression activities overlap in time and space with the proposed actions and DSD levels may increase. Disturbance from past wildfire and suppression activities was not visible in the project area or was overwhelmed by the effects from the Rice Ridge Fire. Effects from the Rice Ridge Fire are accounted for in the existing condition. While effects from wildfire and suppression activities are likely to occur in the project area in the future, cumulative effects to the soils resource are not quantified due to the unpredictable nature of wildfires. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) BAER work is ongoing in the project area and will be completed prior to project implementation. Completed BAER work includes culvert removal, culvert upsizing, and road stabilitzation. Planned BAER work includes culvert removal, culvert upsizing, road and trail stabilization, and weed spraying. Completed and planned BAER work will not occur within proposed activity units. Soil disturbance will likely occur in the short-term at culvert removal and installation sites and some trail and road stabilization sites, however improved hydrological function resulting from all BAER work will benefit the soil resource in the long term. Road and Trail Maintenance and Decommissioning There are approximately 248 miles of NFS road both existing NFSR and previously decommissioned) and 37 miles of non-motorized trails within the project area. Road and trail maintenance would have no cumulative effect on soil resources since roads and road right-of-ways are a dedicated land use and considered part of the Forest infrastructure. In addition to system roads, there are approximately 300 miles of undetermined roads within the project area. Undetermined roads are not part of the forest travel management system and may be considered soil disturbance depending on current condition of the prism.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Where these undetermined roads overlap with project units, soil disturbance has been included in the existing condition analysis. No future road construction is known, however culvert upgrades and road decommissioning of system and non-system roads will likely continue into the foreseeable future. Culvert removal, installation, and road decommissioning would likely cause short-term soil disturbance, but would benefit the soil resource in the long term through improved hydrologic function and decreased erosion. A detailed analysis of roads and related issues is included in the Hydrology and Fisheries Specialists’ Reports. Recreation Disturbance from recreation has been occurring in isolated areas throughout the project area and would likely continue. Current recreation use is heavy in the project area and has the potential to affect the soils resource, but is limited to dispersed campsites, a non-motorized trail system, a snowmobile trail system, outfitter and guide camps, and open roads for driving and sight-seeing. Assessing soil disturbance from dispersed campsites, trail use, and outfitter guide camps becomes part of the Forest program of work, and cumulative disturbance is considered on an individual project basis or through special use permits. Driving has little effect on the soils resource if vehicles remain on the open road system. RPMs are included in the Rice Ridge project that gate temporary roads while in use and place entrance barriers on temporary roads and heavily-used skid trails following project completion to deter off-road driving. A RPM that requires placement of slash on heavily-used skid trails and landings would also deter motorized use. Other recreational activities including non-guided hunting and hiking are generally carried out on foot and have no additional effects on soils. See the Recreation Specialist’s Report for further discussion. Noxious Weed Treatments Areas of disturbed soil provide an optimal location for weed establishment and subsequent invasion (DiTomaso 2000). Weeds establish quickly and can affect the soils resource through increased erosion, depleted soil moisture, and altered nutrient levels (DiTomaso 2000). Weed monitoring and treatment is planned in the project area as part of BAER treatments and will occur prior to project implementation. Additional weed monitoring and treatment would be applied as needed following project implementation. Weed treatment will be a benefit to the soils resource because it will protect native vegetation. Refer to the Noxious Weed Specialist’s Report for more information. Harvesting of Other Forest Products Some forest products, including firewood, mushrooms, and Christmas trees can be harvested for individual or commercial use on NFS lands. These activities have occurred in the project area in the past and are expected to continue in the future. Collection of firewood and mushrooms is expected to increase over the next few years in response to the Rice Ridge Fire. Soil disturbance that can result from commercial mushroom harvest is generally limited to campsites. These areas will not overlap with proposed project activities and soil disturbance from campsites outside of designated campground areas will be rehabilitated after use. Gathering of miscellaneous forest products (Christmas trees, firewood, etc.) will have minimal effect on the soils resource and cumulative effects to the soil resource are not expected. Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The project is consistent with the Lolo NF Forest Plan, NFMA, and soil policy. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and standards for soil resources set forth in the Lolo Forest Plan because project design criteria and RMPs have been included to protect soil resources and limit the disturbance footprint; landscapes with sensitive soils have been identified and protected. In addition, large wood levels have been considered following guidance provided in the Lolo NF Coarse Wood Guide (2006) and Graham et al. (1994). The Forest Soil Scientists have been involved in project planning and

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment would be involved with the project through implementation by coordinating with other interdisciplinary team members including silviculture, timber, and engineering to ensure the maintenance and enhancement of soil resources. Harvest activities may result in soil disturbance but this disturbance is not irreversible, based on local Forest soil monitoring studies and peer-reviewed research. Soil disturbance that is localized in nature is expected to dissipate within 10-20 years. With rehabilitation, large landings, primary skid trails, and temporary roads would be expected to re-establish a functional forest floor and biologic, chemical, and physical soil processes within 40 years. The NFMA requires that all lands be managed to ensure maintenance of long-term soil productivity, hydrologic function, and ecosystem health. All activities proposed are consistent with this direction; proposed activities would not result in irreversible damage to the soil resource. Direction found in the 2500 Watershed and Air Management Manual has been applied. Forest Service Manual 2500-99-1 establishes guidelines that limit DSD to no more than 15% of an activity area. All units would meet R1 SQS following project implementation; this assessment is based on a consistency review completed for each unit that included harvest methods, post-harvest activities, landings, unit access, and remediation (Appendix B and Soil File 5). A detailed discussion regarding compliance with guiding policy for the soil resource is located in Soil File 4.

3.3 Hydrology Issue/Concern Raised in Public Comment Salvage harvest and associated temporary road construction could increase sediment delivery to streams and adversely affect fish and water quality.

The Rice Ridge project area is located within the Blackfoot Sub-basin; primarily within Monture, Cottonwood, and Clearwater Watersheds. This area includes seven 6th field HUC sub-watersheds: Upper Monture, Lower Monture, Dunham, Shanley, and Cottonwood, Trail, and Morrell; and, four 7th field HUC drainages (Seeley, Rice/Auggie, Findell/Sawyer, and Camp) (See Appendix D Figure 1). Effects to the hydrologic resource are determined by evaluating the following: stream channel condition; water quality; road influences (density, encroachment on streams, sediment delivery, and stream crossings); and, water yield (as determined through Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) modelling). Stream Channel Conditions Stream channel conditions in the project area are summarized in Table 19 below using select measurements from PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) stream surveys that were conducted from 2006-2016. Table 19. Summary of selected measures from PIBO stream surveys for the Rice Ridge Salvage area (Feet) <2mm <2mm <6mm Percent Percent Gradient D50(mm) Sinuosity Sinuosity Frequency Frequency Large Wood Wood Large Width:Depth Width:Depth Surface Fines Surface Fines Stream Bankfull Width Black Canyon 20 34 342 11.5 13.4 1.15 31 7.19 Blind 1 1 4 304 16.1 10.8 1.24 77 3.38 Blind 2 9 25 799 18.3 12.7 1.63 22 1.76 Blind 2 6 10 597 16.3 14.4 1.21 29 2.80

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment (Feet) <2mm <2mm <6mm Percent Percent Gradient D50(mm) Sinuosity Sinuosity Frequency Frequency Large Wood Wood Large Width:Depth Width:Depth Surface Fines Surface Fines Stream Bankfull Width Blind 3 6 13 490 21.9 16.0 1.09 33 2.16 Blind 4 8 13 1129 20.4 15.0 1.38 19 1.89 Cottonwood 0 0 76 12.4 11.5 1.57 35 1.95 Cottonwood 1 16 22 354 23.5 13.0 1.20 53 2.69 Cottonwood 2 8 13 521 12.6 10.2 1.38 42 2.03 Cottonwood 3 7 15 359 15.0 13.7 1.41 20 1.14 Cottonwood 4 1 1 912 35.3 30.0 1.19 65 2.22 Cottonwood 7 62 71 785 11.4 12.2 1.29 4 1.05 Cottonwood 8 0 0 15 13.5 18.6 1.16 31 1.19 Cottonwood 9 4 12 485 9.4 7.2 1.65 16 1.47 Cottonwood 10 4 15 344 5.2 5.2 1.18 18 3.74 Dunham 5 8 364 37.3 29.7 1.13 38 0.84 Dunham 9 12 524 44.4 31.1 1.12 48 0.90 Little Shanley 14 17 255 6.2 6.0 1.04 15 6.01 Morrell 22 32 767 36.1 16.0 1.23 42 1.25 Morrell 1 2 311 28.4 19.0 1.22 101 1.58 Morrell 1 2 5 464 33.8 20.1 1.11 44 1.09 Morrell 2 1 8 1188 26.9 23.7 1.18 32 1.00 Morrell 3 0 7 416 32.3 14.3 1.19 68 1.22 Morrell 5 1 5 910 28.6 19.3 1.36 32 1.05 Morrell 6 2 8 596 28.4 15.5 1.00 52 1.20 Morrell 7 2 6 816 38.0 24.1 1.33 37 0.92 Morrell 8 5 24 334 23.6 13.2 1.00 65 1.12 Morrell 10 1 12 631 28.8 25.1 1.20 27 0.64 N.F. Cottonwood 1* 1 2 671 21.3 13.3 1.14 64 4.37 N.F. Cottonwood 2 5 6 747 22.7 11.0 1.21 43 3.18 N.F. Cottonwood 3 0 3 812 24.2 20.6 1.19 50 5.64 Seeley 12 31 185 11.5 12.3 1.50 22 1.89 Seeley 35 35 171 7.1 9.3 1.26 7 2.39 Shanley 0 0 125 12.8 15.5 1.08 61 3.42 Trail 1 0 0 148 26.7 20.1 1.06 51 0.90 Unnamed Trib 3 15 350 7.3 9.1 1.13 30 11.17 * Reference reaches determined from PIBO data Percent fines less than 2mm and 6mm refers to the fine material that is found in pool tail crests during stream surveys. Generally speaking, the higher the percentage of surface fines, the more likely there is some type of input of fines into the stream system which can negatively impact fish habitat. For a reference, MDEQ has a target of ≤82 percent surface fines (<6mm) for Type II streams in pool tail crests (Montana DEQ, 2008), which all of these reaches meet. They also have a target of ≤20 percent surface fines <2mm for riffles in Type I streams, which many meet (although the PIBO presented values are for tail crests). Of concern is all of the reaches which are above 10% surface fines <2mm. These target values are assigned based upon Rosgen Stream type (Montana DEQ, 2008). These reaches are all located on public land and near roads, which have contributed to the elevated surface fine sediment. Large wood frequency is number of category 1 wood pieces per kilometer. A category 1 wood piece is within bankfull and measures ≥ 1 meter long and ≥ 0.1 meters in diameter. This measure was highly

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment variable but generally speaking, the more wood in the stream, the more likely it will be able to sort sediment moving through the system and attenuate floods. Generally speaking, streams in the project area are not lacking large wood, as can be seen in the table above. Stream sinuosity is a measure of the stream length divided by the valley distance so that the closer the sinuosity is to 1, the straighter the channel is. Sinuosity is dependent on stream type and can vary widely naturally and from human-caused influenced such as straightening. The Width:Depth ratio is the ratio of the bankfull width to the bankfull depth and depicts how wide and shallow or narrow and deep as stream is. D50 is the diameter of the median streambed particle. Although the PIBO data presented above is a snapshot in time, it can be assumed that reaches with higher width:depth ratios, lower sinuosity, and higher gradients may be showing signs of instability and decreased stream functions such as floodplain connectivity for flood attenuation. The data above also does not reflect the post-fire environment. In general, the stream reaches above that have the lower gradients and finer materials in them would be the most susceptible to instability and excessive streambank erosion from post fire increases in stream flows (Grant and others, 2008). Water Quality There are two streams in the project area listed as impaired for water quality on the Montana State 303d list: Cottonwood Creek and Monture Creek. Cottonwood Creek has a TMDL (total maximum daily load) in place for sedimentation, and is not supporting for aquatic life and coldwater fisheries. A TMDL is a pollutant budget identifying the maximum amount of a particular pollutant that a water body can assimilate without causing applicable water quality standards to be exceeded. Sedimentation in Cottonwood Creek comes from natural and human-caused sources, including historical channel/riparian impacts (road building and timber harvest), current road use, grazing, and flow alterations on private property (Montana DEQ 2008). Monture Creek is listed as not supporting for aquatic life. Sedimentation in Monture Creek comes from natural and human-caused sources, including historical channel/riparian impacts (road building and timber harvest), current road use, and grazing and flow alterations on private property (Montana DEQ 2008). Road Influence Road Density The majority of the watersheds have road densities in the High or Extremely High categories. Cottonwood and Trail Creeks have the highest road density of the 6th HUC watersheds. All of the 7th HUC watersheds have extremely high road densities and the highest of the project area. The watersheds all have NFS road ownership of 77 percent or more. The exception is the Lower Monture watershed, which has extensive road networks on private land. Past road decommissioning efforts have reduced road densities, especially in the Dunham and Shanley Creek drainages. Road Encroachment Within the project area, there 212 miles of road within 300 feet of streams. The Cottonwood watershed has the most road miles adjacent to streams in the project area. The Upper Monture drainage has the fewest road miles adjacent to streams. This suggests that the Cottonwood watershed is the most affected by road encroachment. The TMDL status of Cottonwood Creek further supports this. The amount of roads with a closure status is important as closed roads tend to deliver less sediment to stream channels. The roads that are closed October 15 mitigate most of the effects of high traffic sedimentation because they are only open during the driest parts of the year. Trail and Cottonwood Creek watersheds have the most roads close to streams with a closure. Road Sediment Delivery Existing modelled sedimentation rates are shown in the “Existing Condition” column of Table 22 and Table 23. The GRAIP-Lite model was used to model sedimentation.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

As shown in the tables, the Cottonwood watershed receives the most sediment from roads (26.6 tons). The Trail Creek watershed (14.9 tons) also receives relatively high sediment delivery loads. This is expected as these watersheds have the most road miles and roads near streams. Upper Monture Creek receives less than one ton per year, which is to be expected because the watershed has the least amount of roads. Stream Crossings Surveys in the Cottonwood and Shanley 6th code HUC watersheds found that 29 of the 116 culverts were at an elevated risk of plugging and failing, and that 8,951 cubic yards of fill volume was at risk in those watersheds. In addition, 42% of the surveyed sites were configured to divert water down the road if they plugged (Cissel and et al. 2013). Surveys throughout the Center Horse portion of the project area found at least five plugged or partially plugged culverts and three failed stream crossings where metal or log culverts had eroded the road prism. There are several severely eroding stream crossings on jammer roads, some of which would be addressed with Alternative B and are discussed in the effects analysis. An additional 62 culverts that were found to be undersized during the Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) assessment in the fall of 2017. Of these 62 culverts, 8 of them were removed during the fall of 2017 with BAER work. These crossings were all restored. All of the removed culverts were in the Trail Creek watershed, on Swamp Creek and Mountain Creek. The culverts from BAER are both fish bearing and non-bearing. Water Yield (Equivalent Clearcut Acreage) In-channel observations immediately after the fire did not find a high amount of stream instability as would be expected from the high levels of canopy removal. However, it is unlikely that signs of stream instability would be present before spring runoff. Slope instability was found throughout the project area. It should be noted that although the ECA values are relatively low (see Specialist’s Report), the likelihood of increase stream flow and water yield immediately after the Rice Ridge Fire is high (Wine et. al 2018). This is because the wildfire produces a more impactful disturbance to watershed hydrology than timber harvest because of the removal of the forest understory and in some areas the soil and root mats. Effects from the Fire The project area was heavily influenced by the Rice Ridge Fire of 2017. Post-fire environments are always dynamic for the first 3-5 years and the project area is no exception. Stream surveys before the fire found few areas with instability and areas with instability were primarily associated with the road system. It is anticipated that there will be widespread stream instability associated with the post-fire runoff events for the next 3-5 years. These are naturally occurring pulses that will allow the stream channels to adjust and stabilize over time. Although there are anticipated increases in stream sedimentation and temperatures, State water quality standards are mainly being met because these increases are considered naturally occurring events. Suppression activities affecting the hydrologic resource included fuelbreak creation, dozer line stream crossings, and fire retardant misapplications. Detailed information about these activities can be found in the Hydrology and Fisheries Specialists’ Reports. In terms of direct impacts from fire suppression activities, the most impacted watersheds are Trail, Morrel, and Seeley Creeks. The impacts in these watersheds from suppression was taken into account when designing the project. Alternative A – No Action Under the No Action alternative, no salvage harvest would occur to accomplish project goals. The No Action alternative partially fulfills regulatory and Forest Plan direction because some conditions are within standards, while others, primarily roads and road structures need improvements. This alternative would maintain the existing condition. The post-fire conditions would continue with

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment widespread accelerated erosion and stream sedimentation. Research has shown that by the fourth year following a wildfire, fire associated erosion is negligible (Elliot and Robichaud, 2001). Large woody debris would gradually accumulate in streams as fire-killed trees fall from blowdown and stream undercutting (Minshall et al. 1998). This has benefits for stream energy dissipation, sediment retention, and fish habitat. A short-term pulse of nutrients will also occur into stream channels as a result of the fire (Minshall et al. 1998). Nutrient mobilization in upland soils would peak post-fire and decrease to background levels within 2 years as revegetation occurs and nutrients become locked-up in plant biomass (Choromanska and Deluca 2002). With the No Action alternative, there will still be widespread BAER work done that is primarily intended to stormproof the road system for anticipated increases in stream and hillslope runoff. Table 2 (Section 1.2) shows a summary of all the BAER work that will be done. This work will help improve watershed conditions in some cases and reduce the potential of negative watershed impacts in others. In addition to this, there will be two large AOP upgrades on the 477 road, one on Swamp Creek, the other on an unnamed Cottonwood tributary and an AOP upgrade on 36019 road. An additional section of the 477 road will also be re-routed away from Cottonwood Creek. In the No Action alternative, many of the road issues are addressed with BAER, post-fire disaster, and CFLRP funded projects. However, the additional aquatic and watershed offsets in Alternative B would not be done which show long-term improvements. Alternatives B and C – Direct and Indirect Effects Stream Channel Conditions Although no direct stream restoration or stabilization is proposed with this project, the aquatic and watershed offsets proposed in Alternative B would address some sections of stream channel and improve the conditions. Also in Alternative B, the proposed road decommissioning in Dunham Creek would reduce stream instability in Dunham Creek in the long term. The road reroute and decommissioning on Morrel Creek would directly improve stream channel conditions. The Spring Creek reroute would also immediately improve conditions on Spring Creek. The other decommissioning in the headwaters of the North Fork Cottonwood and Black Canyon (both tributaries to Cottonwood Creek) would remove several crossings and help the conditions of their respective stream channels. Alternative C would not result in any of these improvements. Water Quality Addressing the Middle Blackfoot Nevada Creek TMDL plan (MDEQ, 2008) is a primary MDEQ regulatory requirement. Cottonwood Creek and Monture Creek are the TMDL-listed streams in the project area. Actions in the Cottonwood Creek 6th HUC watershed include log haul and harvest activities with Alternative C. Alternative B includes temporary road construction and aquatic and watershed offsets. These offsets would move the watershed towards meeting the TMDL requirements. Project activities proposed in Upper Monture Creek 6th HUC include some haul routes, mostly on county roads and a small amount of harvest activity in the headwaters. BMPs are anticipated to offset any negative effects in Monture Creek. Road Influence Road Density Current road density and road density following implementation of Alternative B is shown in Table 20. Road density would decrease in Dunham, Morrell, and Cottonwood watersheds in Alternative B. There would be no change to road density in Alternative C.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 20. NFS Road densities before and after Alternative B

Current Alternative B Road Miles Total Decommission After Watershed Miles Density Miles (net) Decommission Density Camp Creek 83 7.6 83 7.6 Dunham Creek 48.4 1.5 2.9 45.5 1.4 Findell/Sawyer 74.5 8.9 74.5 8.9 Lower Monture Creek 17.2 0.8 17.2 0.8 Morrell Creek 107.4 4.2 1.4 106 4.1 Rice/Auggie 52.9 9.4 52.9 9.4 Seeley Creek 42.5 8.2 42.5 8.2 Shanley Creek 48.3 3.5 48.3 3.5 Cottonwood Creek 169.4 2.8 21 148.4 2.5 Trail Creek 154.1 5.2 154.1 5.2 Upper Monture Creek 8.0 0.1 8.0 0.1 Total 805.7 2.9 25.3 780.4 2.8

Direct Effects As mentioned previously, road density is used to characterize watershed health. The negative watershed and stream impacts of roads are well-documented (USDA Forest Service, 1996). Even outside of stream proximity, roads alter hillslope hydrology and can alter hydrologic responses of a watershed (Wemple and Jones 2003). Therefore, reducing road density decreases sedimentation and restores many of the hillslope hydrology and watershed hydraulics that were previously altered. The GRAIP-Lite sediment modelling results in Table 20 reflect changes in road density and road decommissioning. All of the roads proposed for decommissioning would have a level 5 full recontour treatment. Even though road decommissioning has been shown to have an initial pulse of sediment into stream systems it can be eliminated after one season (Hickenbottom 2001; Madej 2001; Switalski et al. 2004). Indirect Effects Indirect effects of road decommissioning are that future roads that may be constructed in the watersheds will be built to the current BMP standards, reducing long-term sedimentation potential. Road Encroachment Table 21 below shows road mileage within 300 feet of stream channels before and after implementation of Alternative B. There is a total of 7.4 miles proposed to be decommissioned with the largest reduction in the Cottonwood watershed. Most of the road to be decommissioned in Morrell Creek is highly impactful. Although the road decommissioning is intended to primarily offset the impacts from the proposed salvage logging and associated hauling, there would be long-term benefits to the stream systems by removing these road segments. There would be no change with Alternative C and therefore no long-term benefits realized. Table 21. Road mileage within 300 feet of stream channels for the existing conditions Alternative B

Road Miles within 300 Feet of Stream Channels Proposed After Watershed Current Decommissioning Implementation Camp Creek 19.0 19.0 Dunham Creek 9.0 0.2 8.8 Findell/Sawyer 16.9 16.9

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Road Miles within 300 Feet of Stream Channels Proposed After Watershed Current Decommissioning Implementation Lower Monture Creek 12.8 12.8 Morrell Creek 10.9 1.9 9.1 Rice/Auggie 12.5 12.5 Seeley Creek 8.9 8.9 Shanley Creek 13.0 13.0 Cottonwood Creek 62.1 5.3 56.8 Trail Creek 45.3 45.3 Upper Monture Creek 1.1 1.1 Total 211.7 7.4 204.3

Direct Effects The primary implication for this reduction in roads in close proximity to stream channels is reduction of fine sediment delivery. As discussed above, research has shown that fine sediment delivery into stream channels primarily takes place from roads when they are within 300 feet of the stream channel (Belt et al. 1992). This is also the zone where roads have potential to provide shade and large woody debris recruitment to stream channels once they are decommissioned. All of the roads proposed for decommissioning would be fully obliterated or re-contoured, removing them from the landscape. The reduction in road sedimentation in these drainages would have positive effects. These actions would meet TMDL requirements for the Cottonwood watershed. Road decommissioning near streams has been shown to have an initial pulse of sediment into stream systems that can be eliminated after one season. Hickenbottom (2001) found this to be the case on the Lolo NF under ideal conditions with seeding, transplanting, and fertilizations. Several other researchers have found similar results with short-term sediment pulses and long-term chronic sediment decreases (Madej 2001; Switalski et al. 2004). Indirect Effects Long-term indirect effects of roads being removed from stream proximity are that there would be increased large woody debris recruitment and shading of stream channels. Also, roads that were constructed previously did not meet contemporary BMP standards. Although future road construction within stream proximity is not precluded, any future construction will meet current BMP standards, reducing stream sedimentation potential. Road Sediment Delivery Table 22 and Table 23 below contain GRAIP-Lite modeled sediment production and delivery from all project roads including current conditions, during implementation, and post-implementation for Alternatives B and C. Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) or BMPs would be utilized to reduce stream sedimentation. These BMPs would include placement of straw bales, wattles, silt fences, or slash filter windrows at stream crossing locations and relief culvert or drainage dip outlets within 300 feet of streams. A research review by Seyedbagheri (1996) showed that these techniques can reduce sediment from entering streams by 32% on the low end for straw mulch up to 99% on the high end for slash filter windrows. A more recent research review by Edwards and others (2016) found that silt fences can retain between 16-95% of sediment on roads. They also found that other barriers such as straw bales, fiber logs, wattles, and rock check dams can retain between 20 and 95 percent of road sediment (Edwards et al., 2016). A more comprehensive summary of BMP effectiveness is included in the Hydrology Specialist’s Report and the Project File. For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that BMP measures reduce sediment delivery by 65%.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

For Alternative B, there would be an anticipated increase in sediment produced and delivered during project implementation. The increase in delivered sediment is modeled to be 6 tons/year across the project area. Therefore, without taking into account BMP reductions (65%), the delivered sediment would be 266 tons/year, over three times the current conditions. These 6 tons per year are spread out across three 6th HUC watersheds and one 7th HUC. Relative to the overall sediment delivered in the post fire environment, this is very little (8% increase). Table 22. Alternative B modelled sediment production and delivery pre-, during- and post-implementation in tons/year

During Existing Condition Implementation Post Implementation Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Watershed Produced Delivered Produced Delivered Produced Delivered Camp 100 7 100 7 100 7 Cottonwood Creek 305 27 337 28 277 25 Dunham Creek 59 4 75 6 58 4 Findell/Sawyer 62 5 69 5 62 5 Lower Monture Creek 30 2 33 2 30 2 Morrell Creek 80 5 107 5 75 4 Rice/Auggie 21 1 21 2 21 1 Seeley 28 2 28 2 28 2 Shanley Creek 68 4 95 6 67 4 Trail Creek 179 15 182 15 179 15 Upper Monture Creek 6 1 10 1 6 1 Total 938 74 1,057 80 904 70

For Alternative C, there would be a reduction in sediment delivered during project implementation due to BMP effectiveness. There would be no closed and temporary roads used in this alternative, which produce most of the sediment in Alternative B. However, Alternative C would not result in a decrease in sediment delivery or production after implementation because it does not include aquatic and watershed offsets. Table 23. Alternative C modelled sediment production and delivery pre-, during- and post-implementation in tons/year

During Existing Condition Implementation Post Implementation Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Watershed Produced Delivered Produced Delivered Produced Delivered Camp 100 7 100 7 100 7 Cottonwood Creek 305 27 302 26 305 27 Dunham Creek 59 4 60 4 59 4 Findell/Sawyer 62 5 63 5 62 5 Lower Monture Creek 30 2 30 2 30 2 Morrell Creek 80 5 97 5 80 5 Rice/Auggie 21 1 21 1 21 1 Seeley 28 2 27 1 28 2 Shanley Creek 68 4 75 5 68 4 Trail Creek 179 15 178 14 179 15 Upper Monture Creek 6 1 6 1 6 1 Total 938 74 959 71 938 74

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Direct Effects Increased haul on riparian roads and roads with stream crossings would increase sedimentation into streams during project implementation, as shown with GRAIP-Lite modeling above. However, RPMs and BMPs would be applied to minimize delivery. This would cause localized increases in turbidity for short durations but not permanently. There would be no permanent degradation of water quality from these activities. Cottonwood Creek and Monture Creek are listed for sedimentation by MDEQ (2008). The primary source of sediment is past riparian harvests, grazing, and roads. There would be minor increases in sediment delivery for Cottonwood Creek during implementation of Alternative B. However, the aquatic and watershed offsets in Alternative B would have a long-term reduction in sedimentation. The disturbance from the temporary road construction in Alternative B would create an initial pulse of sediment into the stream systems. This would be a one-time pulse during the construction period. As with other road activities, erosion control measures would be in place to mitigate stream sedimentation. Roads would also be constructed during the dry season to reduce erosion. Sediment modeling results can be misleading because they imply that all activities would take place at once. Short-term sediment deliveries would not result in detrimental stream conditions because: (a) actions would not simultaneously occur; (b) impacts would not occur in a single year but would be dispersed over multiple runoff cycles; (c) work and total predicted sediment quantities are further distributed across multiple watersheds; (d) only one portion of a project is active at one time-only a few sections of road would be hauled upon; (e) the most risky period for hauling is in the spring during breakup, which occurs at slightly different time periods due to elevation and aspect so only sections of road are at-risk from breakup conditions at any one time; and, (f) the risk of haul-related sedimentation occurring for more than a few days is very small because the timber sale administrator and/or aquatics specialists would visit the project area several times each week, especially when conditions were questionable, and would stop the hauling if conditions were unfavorable. Indirect Effects Following project implementation, BMPs that were applied to mitigate haul (primarily additional drainage) will stay in place. This would create shorter flow lengths for water running along roadbeds and hence result in less overall sediment generated into streams after project implementation. Long-term maintenance would be required for these BMPs to maintain their effectiveness. The strategically placed slash filter windrows would also help decrease stream sedimentation for a 3-5 years after the project is implemented. Water Yield (ECA) The action alternatives (B and C) propose to salvage dead trees, which would not increase ECA because dead trees no longer uptake and store water. Therefore, there would be no effects from tree removal on ECA values or the potential to affect the timing or magnitude of peak or annual stream flows from Alternatives B or C. Direct and Indirect Effects Although it is unlikely that removing dead and dying trees would affect runoff, the associated soil compaction from skid trails and new road construction would create less soil water holding capacity and lead to increased overland flow and runoff (Wemple and Jones, 2003). However, in the context of the anticipated widespread increases in runoff from the fire effects, it is unlikely that the proposed temporary road construction or skidding activities would result in additional measurable water yield increases (Grant et al, 2008). Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions are summarized in Appendix D. Following is more detail on those most relevant to the hydrologic resource.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Previous Activities Due to the importance of this project area from an aquatic and watershed perspective, several small restoration projects have been implemented on project streams. In 2014, the Cottonwood Creek Restoration Project reconnected approximately 3,500 feet of previously abandoned stream channel in a section of stream that was previously straightened from road building and riparian harvests. This addressed a section of stream channel that was downcutting and experiencing significant bank erosion, a source of stream sedimentation. This section was a priority in the Cottonwood TMDL. The restoration eliminated a major sediment source and stabilized the Cottonwood Creek stream channel. Fish culverts have been upgraded in the past few years on four road-stream crossings: the Cottonwood Creek – 9976 road crossing; the Spring Creek – 9976 road crossing; the McCabe Creek – 5401 road crossing; and the Little Shanley – 477 road crossing. Additionally two fish crossing barriers on the Shanley Creek – 46146 and 477 road crossings have been removed. Although the primarily objective in upgrading and removing these culverts was to improve fish habitat connectivity, these culverts were all undersized and negatively affecting stream hydraulics and creating local channel scour and erosion. Road BMPs and improvements have been completed on the Dunham Creek FS Road #36509. These BMPs included road graveling, creating more drainage, installing sediment retention devices, road narrowing, and minor road realignments. This road is located in close proximity to Dunham Creek and was previously a direct sediment source to the stream. Although not completely eliminated, sedimentation has been reduced with these BMPs. Additional road BMPs and improvements have recently been completed on the 477 road and in the Little Shanley drainage. Improvements were made to the Lodgepole Trailhead which is at the end of FS Road #4388. This trailhead was previously in the RHCA of Lodgepole Creek. The trailhead improvements moved the trailhead away from the RHCA, revegetated the area, and performed erosion control. This improvement will help improve the RHCA of Lodgepole Creek in the long term. Foreseeable Future Activities Foreseeable activities for the Rice Ridge Salvage area are BAER implementation, road BMPs and road upgrades. These BMPs are intended to reduce sedimentation from roads in close proximity to stream channels. BAER actions that are of particular concern for water quality are those that make the road system more resilient to the anticipated increases in runoff after the fire. These actions will decrease the likelihood of additional sediment entering the stream channels (see Table 2). Five undersized culverts were ranked by priority in the Center Horse analysis. One of these will be addressed with BAER actions. In addition to this, there are 3 large AOP crossings that will be replaced with BAER and other funding. Two of these are in Trail Creek watershed and the third is in Cottonwood Creek. The Cottonwood Creek AOP also includes a road reroute that will decommission an additional ¼ mile of road that is directly adjacent to Cottonwood Creek. A summary of the total amount of culverts that will be addressed with BAER work is given in Table 2. Another foreseeable action is implementation of the recommendations of the Transportation Analysis Plan (TAP) for the Center Horse portion of the project area. The Center Horse TAP would include extensive road decommissioning in the Cottonwood, Shanley, and Dunham drainages. Forest Plan Consistency Alternatives B and C meet Forest Plan, INFISH, and other regulatory requirements. Both alternatives include BMPs to assure water quality is maintained at a level that is adequate for the protection and use of NFS lands and that meets or exceeds Federal and State standards (Forest Plan standard 15, page II-12). Human-caused increases in water yields would be limited so that channel damage would not occur as a result of land management activities (Forest Plan standard #19, page II-12).

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

3.4 Fisheries Issue/Concern Raised in Public Comment Salvage harvest and associated temporary road construction could increase sediment delivery to streams and adversely affect fish and water quality.

As discussed in Section 3.3, the project area is located within the Blackfoot Sub-basin; primarily within Monture, Cottonwood, and Clearwater Watersheds and includes 11 analysis HUCS (see Appendix D Figure 1) in which bull trout (federally-listed as threatened), westslope cutthroat trout, and western pearlshell mussel (both Region 1 sensitive species) can be found. The Fisheries Specialist’s Report includes a detailed discussion of the existing conditions of these watersheds. Resources relevant to fisheries that could be affected by the project are summarized below. The habitat parameters (i.e., “Habitat Indicators”) that could potentially be affected by the project were taken from “A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determination of Effects for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale” (USDI FWS 1998). These indicators are also used for westslope cutthroat trout and western pearlshell habitat because they associate with similar aquatic habitats as bull trout. All of the indicators are summarized in Table 24 by analysis HUC. The existing condition of and environmental consequences on sediment, physical barriers (e.g., stream crossings that restrict fish passage), and road density and location (e.g., encroachment) of the alternatives are discussed in Section 3.3 above. Table 24. Sub-watershed Baseline Conditions

Blackfoot River - Bull Trout Core Area

Cottonwood Watershed Monture Watershed Diagnostic/Pathways: FA/FAR/FUR** FA/FAR/FUR** Indicators Upper Cottonwood Shanley Dunham Lower Monture Monture Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size FUR FAR Growth & Survival FAR FAR Life History Diversity & Isolation7 FUR FAR Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 FAR FAR Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* FA FA FA FA FA Sediment2,3,6,8* FUR FUR FUR FA FUR Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* FAR FAR FUR FA FA Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* FAR FAR FA FA FAR Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* FUR FUR FUR FAR FUR Large Woody Debris4,6 FAR FAR FAR FA FAR Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 FUR FAR FAR FA FAR Large Pools4,5 FUR FAR FAR FA FAR Off-Channel Habitat4 FUR FAR FAR FA FAR Refugia2,5,9 FAR FAR FAR FA FAR Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* FUR FUR FAR FAR FUR Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* FUR FUR FAR FAR FUR Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* FUR FUR FUR FAR FUR

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Blackfoot River - Bull Trout Core Area

Cottonwood Watershed Monture Watershed Diagnostic/Pathways: FA/FAR/FUR** FA/FAR/FUR** Indicators Upper Cottonwood Shanley Dunham Lower Monture Monture Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* FUR FUR FAR FA FUR Drainage network Increase1,7,8* FUR FUR FAR FA FUR Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 FUR FUR FUR FAR FUR Disturbance History4,7,8,9 FAR FAR FAR FUR FA Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 FAR FAR FAR FA FAR Disturbance Regime4,7,8 FAR FAR FAR FAR FUR Integration of Habitat Determination FUR FUR FUR FA FUR Integration of Species Determination FUR FAR

Species & Habitat Condition Integration FUR FUR FUR FAR FUR

Clearwater River - Bull Trout Core Area

Clearwater Watershed FA/FAR/FUR** Diagnostic/Pathways: Rice/ Findell/ Indicators Seeley (7th Trail Morrell Auggie (7th Sawyer (7th Camp (7th HUC) HUC) HUC) HUC) Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size FUR Growth & Survival FUR Life History Diversity & Isolation7 FAR Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 FAR Seeley Lake-Clearwater (6th Water Quality: Inez-Clearwater (6th HUC) HUC) Same as Same as Temperature2,3,5,8* FAR FA FAR FAR Seeley Findell/Sawyer Sediment2,3,6,8* FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* FA FA FAR “ FAR “ Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* FAR FAR FAR “ FAR “ Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Large Woody Debris4,6 FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Large Pools4,5 FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Off-Channel Habitat4 FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Refugia2,5,9 FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Clearwater River - Bull Trout Core Area

Clearwater Watershed FA/FAR/FUR** Diagnostic/Pathways: Rice/ Findell/ Indicators Seeley (7th Trail Morrell Auggie (7th Sawyer (7th Camp (7th HUC) HUC) HUC) HUC) Drainage network Increase1,7,8* FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Disturbance History4,7,8,9 FUR FUR FUR “ FUR ‘ Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 FUR FUR FUR ‘ FUR “ Disturbance Regime4,7,8 FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Integration of Habitat Determination FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ Integration of Species Determination FAR

Species & Habitat Condition Integration FUR FUR FUR “ FUR “ * Indicators used for Western Pearlshell Mussel analysis ** FAUR = Functioning at Unacceptable Risk, FAR = Functioning at Risk, FA = Functioning Appropriately Primary Constituent Elements within the Designated Bull Trout Critical Habitat 1 Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. 2 Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. 3 An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. 4 Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. 5 Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15˚C (36 to 59˚F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on: bull trout life history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence. 6 Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g., less than 12%) of fine substrate less than 0.85mm (0.03 in.) in diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are characteristic of these conditions. 7 A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges, or if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph. 8 Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. 9 Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass; inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive (e.g., brown trout)) species present.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

10 Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. 11 Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. 12 An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. 13 Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. 14 Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15˚C (36 to 59˚F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on: bull trout life history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence. Status of Inland Native Fish Strategy, Riparian Management Objectives The Lolo Forest Plan was amended on August 30, 1995 by the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA Forest Service 1995). This interim strategy was designed to provide additional protection for existing populations of native trout, outside the range of anadromous fish, on 22 NFs in the Pacific Northwest, Northern, and Intermountain Regions. INFISH established Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) and Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA). RMOs are six defined habitat parameters that describe good fish habitat: Pool Frequency, Water Temperature, Large Woody Debris, Bank Stability, Lower Bank Angle (undercut), and Width/Depth Ratio. Pool Frequency - Streams that drain the project area are primarily headwater streams and are relatively small, with bankfull widths less than ten feet. The exception to this are the lower portions of Cottonwood, Dunham Creek, Morrell, and Monture Creek which originate above the project area and are larger as they exit the project area (20 - 30 ft.). This distinction is important as some of the INFISH RMOs are distinguished by the channel’s width; such as Pool Frequency. For the average size channel in the project area (≤10 ft.), interim RMOs are 96 pools per mile (60 pools/km) of stream and 56 to 47 pools/km for streams widths from 20 to 25 feet. Data within Table 25 illustrates the variability of these stream characteristics; McCabe pool frequency changes from 31 to 53 to 93 pools/km within 15 years. However, looking across the data set it appears most sampling sites are slightly below the INFISH RMO standard or exceeding it. These numbers are expected to improve due to post-fire conditions, as burned trees start to recruit to the stream channel and create pools. Water Temperature – INFISH RMOs states, “No measureable increase in maximum water temperature” and maximum water temperature below 15° C within adult holding habitat and 8.9° C within spawning and rearing habitat. Estimated stream temperatures in this project area meet the INFISH requirement. This is substantiated by the fact the many stream segment are intermittent and dry during the summer months. The significance of this is that when these streams surface again, they are extremely cold and often provide key spawning habitats (i.e., Dunham, Monture, and Morrell Creeks). Large Wood Debris (forested systems) – INFISH RMOs state > 20 pieces per mile, > 12 inch diameter, > 35-foot length. Comparing this to the data in Table 25 is a little challenging as these data are based on effective large wood that creates formative features in the stream channel, such as pool habitat. These smaller streams do not require the size of wood described by INFISH to create habitat. Data in Table 25 suggests that this RMO is easily met as many of the numbers are well in to the hundreds. In addition, large wood recruitment will be increase as fire-killed trees begin to fall into stream channels. Bank Stability (non–forested systems) - INFISH RMOs state 80 percent stable bank for non-forested

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment systems. Streams in the project area flow through a forested environment. Lower Bank Angle (non-forested systems) – INFISH RMOs state >75 percent of the banks should have an undercut bank, for non-forested systems. Streams within the project are pre-dominantly within a forested environment. Width/Depth Ratio – INFISH RMOs are a mean wetted width/depth ratio of less than 10. Reference and managed stream segments within this project area don’t meet this RMO criteria. The stream segments that do are small spring creek systems that are very stable. The glaciated geology of these streams create a very mobile and active channel within the valley bottom. Lolo NF reference data suggests for streams in this glaciated geology wetted width/depth ratio should average around 24 - 28 (Riggers et al 1998), which appear to be more in alignment with the sample sites in Table 25. Table 25. PIBO Data for the Rice Ridge Project Area

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Stream Yr Wetted Wetted Undercut Undercut Pools/Km Pools/Km Pct Stable Pct Stable Total Index Streambank Streambank Percent Pools Percent Pools R = Reference R = Reference M = Managed Managed M = Pool Depth (M) (M) Pool Depth Pct Fines <6mm <6mm Pct Fines Pct Streambank Bank Width (M) Bank Pct Fines < 2mm Pct Fines # Large Wood/Km # Large Width/Depth Ratio Width/Depth Cottonwood 3 2013 M 57 5 0.31 85 60 24 7 15 98 21 359 Spring 2 2013 M 47 2 0.23 135 36 13 31 40 98 48 241 Shanley 2013 M 4 0.00 0 0 100 18 125 Cottonwood 4 2013 M 90 11 0.40 50 43 41 1 1 100 48 912 Trib of Spring 3 2014 M 40 1 0.11 135 27 10 3 12 98 52 140 Cottonwood 7 2014 M 24 3 0.25 148 59 27 62 71 100 33 785 Cottonwood 8 2014 M 4 0.00 0 0 96 16 15 Cottonwood 9 2014 M 71 3 0.22 148 62 17 4 12 100 52 485 Cottonwood 10 2014 M 50 2 0.13 184 40 13 4 15 100 65 344 Alternative A – No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Numerous activities within the last 25 years have resulted in important changes for fisheries within these three watersheds (see Fisheries Specialist’s Report for a detailed discussion). More recent past actions are related to the 2017 Rice Ridge Fire. The fire resulted in roughly three main associated aquatic impacts: fire effects, suppression effects (physical and chemical), and post-fire emergency repair effects. Fire effects are related to high intensity and severe burns within the watershed and riparian areas. These areas exhibit effects to physical and chemical components of aquatic habitat, in addition to direct effects to aquatic species. Physical effects are related to potential increased flow due to a decrease in the vegetated component of the watershed, potential increased width/depth ratios due to increased flow, long- term (> 5 years) temperature increase due to a loss of canopy cover, likely increase of large wood input of fire-created snags along the affected riparian areas, likely increase in the number and quality of pools due to increased large wood, and increase in fine sediment level. The Rice Ridge Fire burned approximately 632 acres (2.6%) of the RHCA at high intensity that would influence riparian characteristics, such as stream shading, large wood, and sediment filtering capabilities. Aside from temperature, the negative impacts are believed to be short-term (< 5 years) and have long-term (> 5 years) benefit to the aquatic environment. Fish mortality is also likely to occur in high fire intensity and severity riparian areas. The mortality can be derived most immediately from the sudden rise in water temperature. The water temperature change can happen fast enough that fish can’t acclimate and this results in mortality. Ash flow during post-fire storms can be intense enough to cause mortality as the water chemistry and oxygen levels suddenly change. This has yet to happen in project area streams and will depend on snow and precipitation event intensity and durations. Post-fire (2017) fish sampling in Seeley, Blind Canyon, and Trail Creeks indicates that portions of those stream channels experienced fish mortality. These sample areas correspond to stream reaches that experienced high burn intensity and severity. Chemical effects are related to changes in nutrient levels. Phosphorus and Nitrogen levels are expected to rise with the release from ash and burned organic material within the watersheds. These short-term (< 5 year) nutrient changes are a double edge sword and can create beneficial effects to primarily production within these relatively sterile glacial streams but can also be additive to the downstream lakes and their nutrient levels. Salmon Lake is the first in line of the lake systems that will receive these nutrient levels and already has a history of blue green algae blooms. Increased nutrients from fire runoff may work with other nutrient inputs (natural and unnatural) and be additive to the length, duration, and intensity of future blue green algae blooms in Salmon Lake. Fire suppression impacts are related to increases in stream temperature, sedimentation, and chemical

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment contamination. Stream temperature impacts are minimally affected as the impact to stream cover is slightly altered through vegetation clearing within riparian areas. This is usually the result from fuel breaks being constructed within the RHCA in the form of dozer lines, hand lines, or sheltered fuel breaks. Sheltered fuel breaks are usually the larger footprint on the ground as they average between 60 and 100 feet in width but can have an area that ranges miles long. Fuel break clearing usually retains some amount of overstory to meet the intent of a sheltered fuel break and will remove most of the understory that is functioning a “ladder” fuel. For the Rice Ridge Fire, suppression crews constructed approximately 64 miles of sheltered fuel breaks and crossed approximately 53 different stream segments. Stream temperatures are expected to be minimally impacted due to the small percentage of overall stream shade affected; approximately 1 mile compared to the several hundred miles of stream. Also the canopy at these crossing is totally removed. This minor impact is expected to last 5 to 10 years and recover as shrubs and trees reestablish shading. Sediment impacts are often associated with these ground-disturbing activities as well, in addition to increased road use, and opening of grown-in roads. The Rice Ridge Fire used approximately 138 miles of road during suppression efforts and approximately 49 miles of dozer or excavator line. The combination of suppression line resulted in approximately 30 additional stream crossings. The stream crossing resulted in a spectrum of impacts. Some channels were small enough that equipment could span the channel and have very little impacts to the streambed or bank. Some crossings were mitigated with log culverts which protected the stream bottom and banks. Other crossings resulted in stream banks being “scarped out” and required extensive restoration work that replaced vegetation and restored the channels’ width. Resource Advisors assigned to the fire ensured restoration of these sites was completed effectively. These crossings resulted in pulses of sediment being introduced during their creation, each time a vehicle crossed them, and during their restoration (2-3 months). The combination of increased use of grown-in, closed, and open roads, and mechanized and non-mechanized stream crossings, resulted in a sediment pulse that is expected to last about one year. The Lolo NF has initiated formal consultation with the U.S. FWS in regards to the potential taking of bull trout with these suppression actions (USDA 2018). Chemical contamination from fire suppression activities was the result of retardant misapplications. Within the Rice Ridge Fire and subsequent project area, 10 retardant misapplications occurred on surface waters (Fisheries Specialist’s Report Appendix A, Map 4). Eight of these were from airtankers and two were from water tenders spaying retardant on the road and over streams (Dry Cottonwood and Black Canyon). Of the eight aerial misapplications one was on the non-fishbearing Florence Lake. The remaining seven were in Seeley, Trail (2), Blind Canyon, Swamp, and Mountain Creek (2). Not all of these sites could be visited in a timely manner at the time of retardant application due to fire conditions. Upon notifying the fish biologist of the hits, a field visit was conduct as soon as practical. The intention of these visits was to meet the Terms and Conditions of the 2011 Biological Opinion for Aerial Retardant use (USDA 2011) and measure select water quality parameters. Water temperature, pH, and ammonia were recorded immediately downstream of the misapplications site. These data suggested a short-term impact from the misapplications as none of the water quality parameters were inconsistent with reference conditions (above the drop site - this is due to the time that passed between the application and the subsequent monitoring (a minimum of 48 hours)). Thus, indicating a short-term, yet intense effect, of the misapplications. However, two fish kills were reported by Resource Advisors; one in Seeley Creek (approximately 0.5 miles long) and on one in lower Trail Creek (> 0.25 miles long). An additional hit in upper Trail Creek was calculated (based on stream flow and estimated load applied) by the Fish Biologist to be a fish kill but not confirmed in the field. The confirmed fish kills where verified by a joint field crew between the Lolo NF and MTFWP. Electrofishing equipment was used to shock and sample fish above the retardant hit and within the retardant hits. This crew determined that fish mortality occurred within the hit stream segment and also upstream of the hit, within high intensity riparian burns. The Blind Canyon hit was determined not to have killed fish and fish numbers appeared to be consistent with MTFWP monitoring data from other years (see Project File). Also the upstream Blind Canyon site didn’t appear to have any mortality because the area experienced a low to moderate burn severity. Prior to

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment leaving each site eDNA was collected to further determine occupancy by bull trout. Results from that test confirmed bull trout do not occupy Seeley, Swamp, or Mountain Creeks and are only present in Trail and Blind Canyon (see Project File). No bull trout were seen within the fish kill sites but not all fish were identifiable. The Lolo NF is currently working on a new Biological Assessment (draft USDA 2018) to submit formal consultation with the U.S. FWS as it has exceeded the take that was allowed in its 2011 Biological Opinion for bull trout and Aerial Retardant (USDA 2011) Ongoing actions include road and trail maintenance (Morrell Falls, Pyramid Pass, and Lodgepole Trailhead,), weed spraying, campground and facility maintenance, ranching, agriculture, recreational fishing, grazing, diversion removal (Shanley Creek, BBCTU), and hydrology and fish population monitoring (Lolo NF and MTFWP). The Lolo NF is also planning to install road BMP measures on the main Cottonwood Lakes Road, Little Shanley Creek Road, and Morrell Lookout Road. These projects were partially implemented in 2017 but were not completed due to the Rice Ridge Fire. BAER efforts will also be underway in the upcoming year (see Table 2). These activities have been submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for formal consultation in regards to their impacts to bull trout. This biological assessment covers the updating of the bull trout baseline (used for this assessment) from the effects of the fire, fire suppression actions (most of this occurred last year with some limited road suppression rehab to occur this year), BAER (some occurred last fall and most will occur this year), and log haul (associated with log decks from the construction of sheltered fuel breaks) (USDA 2018). Foreseeable actions consist of continued road and trail maintenance; weed spraying, campground and facility maintenance, recreational fishing, grazing, agriculture, hydrology and fish population monitoring, road BMP assessments and upgrades. In addition, road management actions, including road storage and decommissioning are expected to occur as part of the Center Horse Transportation Analysis Process (TAP), which was scoped to the public as part of that FEIS and was in the process of being consulted on with the USFWS prior to the Rice Ridge Fire. The current foreseeable action is to continue work on the TAP and issue a decision in the near future. Some of the actions in the TAP add existing roads to the NFS (approx. 20 mi.), construct road segments (2.1 mi) to facilitate relocating the existing roads away from stream channels (3.3 mi), decommissioning roads (142 mi. non-system road and 2.1 mi. system road), and storing roads (24.4 mi). All of these actions would be within the Cottonwood and Monture watersheds. These actions would create short-term impacts related to sediment but provide long-term recovery to the resiliency of these watersheds. The detailed effects to these actions can be found in the Center Horse FEIS (USDA FS 2017). These activities will be formally consulted on in regards to their short-term impact (<5 years) and long-term (> 5 years) benefits in regards to bull trout. The No Action alternative would not salvage dead and dying trees and would not create any connected actions, thus it would have No Effect on the aquatic environment. However, considering the current and foreseeable actions there would be cumulative effects upon aquatic resources. These effects are related to sediment spikes from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable culvert upgrades (BAER actions) that could impact spawning sites and habitats in close proximity to the crossing locations (see Alternative B effects for a more detailed effects discussion). Long-term benefits are associated with an increase in accessible fish habitat upstream of these structures. This benefits the genetic integrity of local populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout and provides for better cool/cold water access in the long-term. See Table 26 and Table 27 for the effects on each of the habitat and species parameters. Actions within the Center Horse TAP are considered foreseeable actions and would result in a substantial amount of road decommissioning, road relocation, and road upgrades within the Cottonwood and Monture Watersheds. No transportation plan exists in the Morrell Watershed thus the existing road network will likely remain the same in the near future. Because these ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions have positive benefits, the No Action alternative meets aquatic related Forest Plan Standards and other legal requirements and best benefits the fisheries resource.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 26. Checklist for Documenting Bull Trout Effects of Alternative A on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators and Bull Trout Critical Habitat at the Project Scale1

Blackfoot River - Bull Trout Core Area Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators Cottonwood Watershed Monture Watershed M/D/R M/D/R Cottonwood Shanley Dunham Upper Monture Lower Monture Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M Growth & Survival M M M M M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 M M M M M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 M M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* M M M M M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* M M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* M M M M M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 M M M M M Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* M M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 M M M M M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 M M M M M Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M Species & Habitat Condition Integration M M M M M 1See Table 24. Sub-watershed Baseline Conditions for explanation of abbreviations and footnotes. Continued on following page.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Clearwater River - Bull Trout Core Area Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators Clearwater Watershed M/D/R1 Trail Morrell Seeley Rice/Auggie Findell/Sawyer Camp Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M M Growth & Survival M M M M M M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 M M M M M M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 M M M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* M M M M M M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* M M M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* M M M M M M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 M M M M M M Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* M M M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 M M M M M M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 M M M M M M Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M M

Species & Habitat Condition Integration M M M M M M

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 27. Checklist for Documenting Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Western Pearlshell Mussel Effects of Alternative A on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators at the Project Scale1

Blackfoot River – Sub Basin Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators Cottonwood Watershed Monture Watershed M/D/R M/D/R Cottonwood Shanley Dunham Upper Monture Lower Monture Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M Growth & Survival M M M M M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 M M M M M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 M M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* M M M M M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* M M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* M M M M M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 M M M M M Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* M M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 M M M M M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 M M M M M Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M Integration of Habitat Determination M M M M M Integration of Species Determination M M M M M Species & Habitat Condition Integration M M M M M 1 See Table 17. Sub-watershed Baseline Conditions for explanation of abbreviations and footnotes. Continued on following page.

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Clearwater Watershed Diagnostic/Pathways: M/D/R Indicators Trail Morrell Seeley Rice/Auggie Findell/Sawyer Camp Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M M Growth & Survival M M M M M M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 M M M M M M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 M M M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* M M M M M M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* M M M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* M M M M M M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 M M M M M M Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* M M M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 M M M M M M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 M M M M M M Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M M Integration of Habitat Determination M M M M M M Integration of Species Determination M M M M M M

Species & Habitat Condition Integration M M M M M M

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Alternative B Direct and Indirect Water Quality Water Temperature, Sediment, and Chemical Contamination/nutrients are the indicators for water quality. In Alternative B, water Temperature is expected to see minor long-term benefits within the North Fork Cottonwood. This is associated with the relocation of the road that parallels approximately 300 ft. of stream. The relocation would move the existing road away from the stream and remove the riprap fill. This would allow for recovery and development of a healthy riparian area that would provide for stream shade along the stream. There would be no effect on temperature of salvage of dead and dying trees. The implementation of RHCAs would maintain the existing stream shade (i.e., angular canopy density (Bestch et al. 1987)) near harvest units, thus, protecting water temperatures. Effects to the sediment indicator are addressed in Section 3.3 above with additional information in the Hydrology and Fisheries Specialists’ Reports. The final water quality indicator is Chemical Contamination. This is usually a risk associated with fuel reduction and timber projects that use herbicides to mitigate weed spread. Spraying would be limited to roadside treatment prior to substantial ground disturbance and post disturbance. As specified in NW-1, spraying would not be conducted near streams and wetlands. Due to BMP implementation on roads, the distribution across 11 analysis HUCs, and the use of the RHCAs there is a low risk of chemical contamination. In addition, the use of a low toxicity herbicide such as, Milestone, following label precautions, would reduce any reason for concern to fish (Lolo Weed EIS). Habitat Access Two fish-barrier culverts would be removed as part of the proposed aquatic offsets. These two culvert activities, when completed, would make minor improvements to the Bull Trout Baseline Indicator for Physical Barriers and major improvements to westslope cutthroat trout. This is because to these culverts are located on 1st and 2nd-order stream channels which are habitat for westslope cutthroat. Culverts on the larger order streams in the project area have been upgraded in the last ten years. These two culvert removals are associated with a road reroute that would remove the road from the RHCA and eliminate the need for these crossings. This would result in opening fish access to approximately 2.2 miles of Spring Creek and re-connect and provide access to cold water in Spring Creek to the mainstream of Cottonwood Creek. This would also allow aquatic species to move in and out of Spring Creek during warmer months or even allow for addition spawning sites in colder water. This would improve genetic exchange and reduce or eliminate genetic isolation. Habitat Elements Habitat elements consist of the following six indicators: Substrate Embeddedness, Large Woody Debris, Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, Off-channel Habitat, and Refugia. Substrate Embeddedness is a very similar criteria to the Sediment indicator, therefore, see the above sediment discussions. Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, and Off-channel Habitat are largely based on Large Woody Debris and streambank conditions. Large Woody Debris would not be impacted because no salvage would occur in RHCAs are part of the harvest layout and design, therefore associated indicators, such as Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, and Off-channel Habitat would be protected. As culverts would be upgraded and removed the ability for large wood to move through the sites would be improved and would likely result in some benefit to Pool Frequency and Quality. Minor benefits to these indicator would result from eliminating approximately 1.4 miles of road from the RHCA (>300 ft.) and moving 0.6 miles of road to the outer edge of the RHCA (> 150 ft.). Meredith et al. 2014, found that stream segments with road within 30 meters (approximately 100 ft.) had fewer pieces of total wood. This beneficial result would be realized in the longer term as it would take many years for trees to become effectively recruited from these sites. However, the immediate result would be that log jams would no longer be removed that

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment could cause flow diversions into the road fill. Channel Condition and Dynamics Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, and Floodplain Connectivity are three indicators that make up the Channel Condition and Dynamics parameter. Floodplain Connectivity is not expected to be impacted because no harvest would occur within RHCAs and new stream crossings would accommodate stream bankfull width and Q100 discharge flow. Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio is primarily influenced by streambank conditions. As there would be no direct disturbance to streambanks or a substantial increase in Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) from these actions that would diminish bank quality, there would be no impact to Channel Conditions and Dynamics in any of the 6th field HUCs. Site-specific benefits would be realized as culverts were removed and roads rerouted. Aquatic offsets actions in Alternative B would restore the width and depth of the stream and reestablish connectivity to the floodplain. One of the proposed reroutes would remove road fill from approximately 300 ft. of the North Fork Cottonwood Creek and rehabilitate the streambank with natural vegetation. Flow/Hydrology The Flow/Hydrology parameters are made up of two indicators: Change in Peak/Base Flows and Drainage Network Increase. Changes in Peak/Base Flows are not expected to be affected. This is due to the relatively small amount of acres proposed for harvesting within each sub-watershed and not substantially altering the ECA (see Hydrology Specialist’s Report). Typically road building or road decommissioning can impact the Drainage Network indicator. With this project there would be a short- term increase in road density because approximately 31 miles of temporary roads would be constructed; however, there would be a long-term reduction in roads following obliteration of the temporary roads and decommissioning of approximately 27 miles of existing road. In addition the drainage upgrades (BMPs) on approximately 112 miles (approximately 12 are complete) of road would lessen the hydrologic connectivity to the streams, thus, reducing road impacts to stream hydrology and sediment supply. Watershed Conditions Watershed Condition is made up of the following parameters: Road Density and Location, Disturbance History, Riparian Conservation Areas, and Disturbance Regimes. This group of parameters would be improved by the obliteration of approximately 27 miles of road because it would decrease the overall road density. In addition, the two road reroutes would move existing road segments away from stream channels (see Table 20 and Table 21). There would be no impact to Riparian Conservation Area because harvest and yarding activities would not occur in these areas. The long-term resiliency of Morrell, Monture and Cottonwood Watersheds would be slightly improved as a result of the aquatic offsets (road decommissioning, road relocation, and culvert removals). Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions Alternative B would result in short-term negative and long-term beneficial impacts to the Species indicators for five of the six 6th field HUCs. Short-term impacts (1-3 years) are primarily related to increased traffic from log haul, new temporary road construction, and instream activities (stream crossing removal) associated with road relocation, construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning. Slight long-term (5+ years) benefits would be realized because of increased fish passage, sediment reduction from road surfaces from decommissioning, and moving roads farther away from stream channels. In the short-term these activities would have some detrimental impacts to the aquatic environment, predominantly in the form of increased sedimentation. This would likely negatively impact aquatic life stages that are dependent upon streambeds with minimal sediment. These impacts would not be evenly distributed across the project and are primarily concentrated in Dunham, Shanley, Cottonwood, and Rice/Auggie Analysis HUCS, as seen in Table 22. As mentioned earlier its difficult to quantify the effects based on magnitude (as intensity of impacts are likely within the range of variation) but duration is also an important component with effects. This project would keep these impacts to three years or less and thereby affect 1-3 age classes and not affect a full generation. Table 28 and Table 29 summarize the

100

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment potential impacts to bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and western pearlshell mussels. Cumulative Effects See the cumulative effects section under the No Action alternative for a discussion of the effects of the Rice Ridge Fire and the impacts of the suppression activities and present and foreseeable actions. In addition to the discussions referred to above, the implementation of Alternative B would create short- term effects and minor long-term benefits. These effects would be additive to the cumulative effects intensity and within the duration timeframe. The addition of intensity from this project, in a qualitative sense, is small in comparison to the effects of the fire, suppression, BAER work. The duration of project effects is expected to be within the duration of the fire effects as well. The bulk of the fire effects are expected to last less than 5 years, starting in 2017 and lasting until 2022 with fire suppression rehabilitation and BAER actions finishing in 2018. Salvage effects would start in 2018 and last until 2021. It should be noted that while Alternative B (as well as Alternative C) include treatments in the wildland- urban interface in misapplication watersheds (see EA Section 1.4.1) in response to public comments (see EA Section 1.6), the cumulative effects of these actions would be mitigated by applying RPM WQ-15 which requires winter operating conditions for harvesting and log hauling. The need for and effects of these treatments on hazardous fuels are discussed in the Forested Vegetation Specialist’s Report. Long-term benefits are associated with increased access of fish habitat in Spring Creek. This would benefit the genetic integrity of these local populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout and would provide for better cool/cold water access in the long-term. Other long-term benefits would result from moving road segments away from stream channels. Actions of the Center Horse TAP are considered foreseeable actions and would result in a substantial amount of road decommissioning, road relocation, and road upgrades within the Cottonwood and Monture Watersheds. These actions would result in short-term effects associated with culvert removals and long-term benefits associated with road decommissioning and road segment relocations. The Center Horse actions would take 10 years to implement once a decision is signed. No transportation plan exists in the Morrell Watershed thus the existing road network will likely remain the same in the near future. Because Alternative B would have short-term negative effects and long-term minor but positive benefits, it meets aquatic-related Forest Plan Standards and other legal requirements. This action would produce 138 tons/year and would deliver 49 tons/year more sediment to streams, during the life of the project, than Alternative C would.

101

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 28. Checklist for Documenting Bull Trout Effects of Alternative B on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators and Bull Trout Critical Habitat at the Project Scale1

Blackfoot River - Bull Trout Core Area Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators Cottonwood Watershed Monture Watershed M/D/R M/D/R Cottonwood Shanley Dunham Upper Monture Lower Monture Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M Growth & Survival D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 R M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* D/R D/M D/M D/M D/M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* R M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* D/R D/M D/M D/M D/M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 R M M M M Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* R M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 D/R D/M D/M D/M M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 R M M M M Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M

Species & Habitat Condition Integration D/R D/M D/M D/M D/M 1 See Table 24. Sub-watershed Baseline Conditions for explanation of abbreviations and footnotes. Continued on following page.

102

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Clearwater River - Bull Trout Core Area Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators Clearwater Watershed M/D/R Trail Morrell Seeley Rice/Auggie Findell/Sawyer Camp Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M M Growth & Survival D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 M M M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* M M M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* D/R D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 R M M M M R Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* M M M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 D/M D/R D/M D/M D/M D/M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 R M M M M R Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M M D/R D/R D/M D/M D/M D/M Species & Habitat Condition Integration

103

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 29. Checklist for Documenting Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Western Pearlshell Mussel Effects of Alternative B on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators at the Project Scale1

Blackfoot River – Sub Basin Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators Cottonwood Watershed Monture Watershed M/D/R M/D/R Cottonwood Shanley Dunham Upper Monture Lower Monture Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M Growth & Survival D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 R M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* D/R D/M D/M D/M D/M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* R M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* D/R D/M D/M D/M D/M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 R M M M M Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* R M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 D/R D/M D/M D/M M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 R M M M M Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Species & Habitat Condition Integration 1 See Table 24. Sub-watershed Baseline Conditions for explanation of abbreviations and footnotes. Continued on following page.

104

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Clearwater Watershed Diagnostic/Pathways: M/D/R Indicators Trail Morrell Seeley Rice/Auggie Findell/Sawyer Camp Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M M Growth & Survival D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 M M M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* M M M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* D/R D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 R M M M M R Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* M M M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 D/M D/R D/M D/M D/M D/M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 R M M M M R Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Species & Habitat Condition Integration

Alternative C Direct and Indirect Effects Water Quality In Alternative C, water temperature is expected to remain the same. RHCAs would maintain existing stream shade (i.e., angular canopy density (Bestcha et al. 1987)) near harvest units, thus, protecting water temperatures. Effects to the sediment indicator are addressed in Section 3.3 above with additional information in the Hydrology and Fisheries Specialists’ Reports. As discussed under Alternative B, Chemical Contamination is usually an associated risk with fuel reduction and timber projects that use herbicides to mitigate weed spread. Spraying would be limited to roadside treatment prior to substantial ground disturbance and post disturbance. No spraying would occur in RHCAs (NW-1). Due to BMP implementation of roads, the distribution across six sub-watersheds and

105

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment the use of the RHCAs there is a low risk of chemical contamination. In addition, the use of a low toxicity herbicide such as, Milestone, and following label precautions, further reduces any reason for concern to fish (Lolo Weed EIS). Habitat Access Under this alternative no culvert fish barriers would be removed or replaced, thus the existing condition would remain unchanged. Habitat Elements Large Woody Debris would not be impacted because RHCAs would be protected in harvest layout and design, therefore associated indicators, such as Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools, and Off-channel Habitat would be protected. Refugia quality would be improved due to nearly 1.5 miles of fish habitat being restored. This would allow for free longitudinal movement of aquatic organisms to find water temperatures that they desire. Channel Condition and Dynamics Floodplain Connectivity is not expected to be impacted because no new stream or floodplain crossings are being proposed. Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio is primarily influenced by streambank conditions. As there would be no direct disturbance to streambanks or a substantial increase in ECAs that would diminish bank quality, there would be no impact to Channel Conditions and Dynamics in any of the six 6th field HUCs. Flow/Hydrology Changes in Peak/Base Flows are not expected to be affected. This is due to the relatively small amount of acres being harvested within each sub-watershed and not substantially altering the ECA (see Hydrology Specialist’s Report). Watershed Conditions Watershed Condition is made up of the following parameters: Road Density and Location, Disturbance History, Riparian Conservation Areas, and Disturbance Regimes. Road Density and Locations would not change and the existing conditions would remain. There would be no impact to Disturbance History, Riparian Conservation Area, and Disturbance Regime as harvest and yarding activities are buffered with RHCAs. The long-term resiliency of Monture and Cottonwood watershed would be maintained in its current condition. Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions This alternative would result in short-term negative impacts and slight long-term beneficial impacts to the Species indicators for five of the six 6th field HUCs. As with Alternative B, short-term impacts (1-3 years) would be related to increased traffic from log haul. Installation of road BMPs prior to haul would ensure minimal impacts from sediment production and delivery to the aquatic system. BMP effectiveness on open or seasonally open roads are anticipated to last approximately 3-5 years beyond the life of the sale. This reduction of effectiveness is based on past observations of limited road maintenance funding being available to adequately maintain roads. Table 30 and Table 31 summarize the potential impacts to bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and western pearlshell mussels. Cumulative Effects See the cumulative effects section under the No Action alternative for a discussion of the effects of the Rice Ridge Fire and the impacts of the suppression activities and present and foreseeable actions. In addition to the discussions above, the implementation of Alternative C would create short-term effects and minor long-term benefits, As discussed under Alternative B, these effects would be additive to the intensity of the project and within the duration timeframe. The addition of intensity from this project, in a qualitative sense, is small in comparison to the effects of the fire, suppression, BAER work. The duration

106

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment of effects is expected to be within the duration of the fire effects as well. The bulk of the fire effects are expected to last less than 5 years, starting in 2017 and lasting until 2022 with fire suppression rehabilitation and BAER actions finishing in 2018. Salvage effects would start in 2018 and last until 2021. It should be noted that while Alternative C (as well as Alternative B) would include some treatments in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) in misapplication watersheds (see EA Section 1.4.1) in response to public comments (see EA Section 1.6), the cumulative effects of these actions would be mitigated by applying RPM WQ-15 which requires winter operating conditions for harvesting and log hauling. The need for and effects of the WUI treatments are discussed in the Forested Vegetation Specialist’s Report. Long-term benefits would occur with increased access of fish habitat in Spring Creek. This would benefit the genetic integrity of these local populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout and would provide for better cool/cold water access in the long-term. Other long-term benefits would result from moving road segments away from stream channels. Other actions of the Center Horse TAP are considered foreseeable actions and would result in a substantial amount of road decommissioning, road relocation, and road upgrades within the Cottonwood and Monture Watersheds. These actions would result in short-term adverse effects associated with culvert removals and long-term benefits associated with road decommissioning and road segment relocations. The Center Horse actions would take 10 years to implement once a decision is signed. No transportation plan exists in the Morrell Watershed thus the existing road network will likely remain the same in the near future. Because Alternative C would have short-term negative effects and long-term minor but positive benefits, it meets aquatic-related Forest Plan Standards and other legal requirements. This action produces 138 tons/year and delivers 49 tons/year less sediment to streams, during the life of the project, than Alternative B.

107

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 30. Checklist for Documenting Bull Trout Effects of Alternative C on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators and Bull Trout Critical Habitat at the Project Scale1

Blackfoot River - Bull Trout Core Area Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators Cottonwood Watershed Monture Watershed M/D/R M/D/R Cottonwood Shanley Dunham Upper Monture Lower Monture Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M Growth & Survival D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 R M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* M M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 M M M M M Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* m M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 D/M D/M D/M D/M M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 m M M M M Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Species & Habitat Condition Integration 1 See Sub-watershed Baseline Conditions for explanation of abbreviations and footnotes. Continued on following page.

108

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Clearwater River - Bull Trout Core Area Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators Clearwater Watershed M/D/R Trail Morrell Seeley Rice/Auggie Findell/Sawyer Camp Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M M Growth & Survival D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 M M M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* M M M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 M M M M M M Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* M M M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 m M M M M M Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Species & Habitat Condition Integration

109

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 31. Checklist for Documenting Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Western Pearlshell Mussel Effects of Alternative C on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators at the Project Scale1

Blackfoot River - Bull Trout Core Area Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators Cottonwood Watershed Monture Watershed M/D/R M/D/R Cottonwood Shanley Dunham Upper Monture Lower Monture Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M Growth & Survival D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 M M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* M M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 M M M M M Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* M M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 D/M D/M D/M D/M M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 M M M M M Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Species & Habitat Condition Integration 1 See Sub-watershed Baseline Conditions for explanation of abbreviations and footnotes. Continued on following page.

110

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Clearwater River - Bull Trout Core Area Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators Clearwater Watershed M/D/R Trail Morrell Seeley Rice/Auggie Findell/Sawyer Camp Characteristics Subpopulation: Subpopulation Size M M M M M M Growth & Survival D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Life History Diversity & Isolation7 D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Persistence and Genetic Integrity7,9 M M M M M M Water Quality: Temperature2,3,5,8* M M M M M M Sediment2,3,6,8* D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Chemical Contam. / Nutrients1,2,3,8* M M M M M M Habitat Access: Physical Barriers1,2,3,9* M M M M M M Habitat Elements: Substrate Embeddedness1,3,6* D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Large Woody Debris4,6 M M M M M M Pool Frequency & Quality3,4,6 M M M M M M Large Pools4,5 M M M M M M Off-Channel Habitat4 M M M M M M Refugia2,5,9 M M M M M R Channel Condition & Dynamics: Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio2,4,5* M M M M M M Streambank Condition1,4,5,6* M M M M M M Floodplain Connectivity1,3,4,5,7,8* M M M M M M Flow & Hydrology: Change in Peak/Base Flows1,2,5,7,8* M M M M M M Drainage network Increase1,7,8* M M M M M M Watershed Conditions: Road Density & Location1,5,7 D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Disturbance History 4,7,8,9 M M M M M M Riparian Conservation Area1,3,4,5,7 M M M M M M Disturbance Regime4,7,8 M M M M M M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M D/M Species & Habitat Condition Integration

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternatives B and C would have short-term negative effects and long-term minor but positive benefits, and with timely implementation of RPMs, both alternatives meet aquatic-related Forest Plan Standards and other legal requirements.

Preliminary Biological Assessment and Evaluation Determinations, For Both Action Alternatives The preliminary Biological Assessment and Evaluation determinations for Alternatives B and C for bull trout char and bull trout critical habitat is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. For westslope

111

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment cutthroat trout and western pearl mussel the determination is May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will Not Likely Contribute to A Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss Of Viability to The Population Or Species. 3.5 Wildlife

Issues/Concerns Raised in Public Comment  Effects of salvage logging on woodpeckers and subsequent cavity-dwelling species Addressed in black-backed and pileated woodpecker analyses  Effects to viability for a variety of wildlife species in the post-fire, post-salvage environment. Addressed under each species’ analysis  Corridors, connectivity, and fragmentation of habitat Addressed in specific species analyses, as connectivity needs vary by species  Lynx habitat amounts, effects of project on habitat, and connectivity of habitat Addressed in lynx analysis  Effects to winter or summer range and hiding cover for big game Addressed in elk analysis  Effects of roads and clearings on grizzly bears Addressed in grizzly bear analysis  Effects on fisher and fisher habitat Addressed in fisher analysis  Effects to old growth and old growth recruitment Addressed in species specific analyses and old growth analysis

The Lolo National Forest provides habitat for many different species of wildlife, several of which occur within the project area. The presence or absence of these species depends on the amount, distribution, and quality of each animal’s preferred habitat. In addition, some of these species are affected by hunting or trapping, which is regulated by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. This analysis focuses on species listed as federally threatened or endangered on the Lolo NF (USDI FWS 2017) and Forest Service sensitive species (USDA FS 2013). Table 32 below provides a list of those species, their status, a determination of project effects by alternative, and whether detailed analysis was conducted for the species. If a species or their habitat does not occur within the project area, no further analysis was conducted. Management Indicator Species (MIS)18 including elk, northern goshawk, and pileated woodpecker are also addressed to determine project compliance with Lolo Forest Plan standards and management area direction (USDA FS 1986). Detailed information about the biological needs, existing conditions, and effects of the proposed alternatives and associated actions and compatibility with applicable policies, direction, guidance, and best science is included in the Wildlife Specialist’s Report.

18 Management Indicator Species are species identified in the Lolo Forest Plan that are used to monitor the effects of planned management activities on viable populations of wildlife or fish including those that are socially or economically important (Lolo Forest Plan, page VII-15).

112

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 32. Summary of effects of each alternative considered for the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project on wildlife, including Threatened, Proposed, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species that may exist on the Lolo National Forest. MIIH= May Impact Individuals or Habitat but is unlikely to lead towards loss of viability.

Field Reviews Field examinations to determine the suitability of habitats in the project area were conducted by Lolo NF wildlife biologists and technicians in October 2017 thru the winter and early spring of 2018. Habitat information within this report informed by spatial datasets, including Region 1 Vegetation Mapping (VMap) data, the Combined Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) + Soil Burn Severity (SBS) burn severity data, and High-resolution Aerial Photographs of the Rice Ridge Fire area. Habitat models developed by the Lolo NF depict the location of habitat for various species, including lynx, goshawks, flammulated owls, and others. Detailed information regarding each of these datasets can be found in the species-specific analyses and in the Project File. The Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project area overlaps much of the project area that was assessed in the Center Horse EIS. As such, the Forest has extensive pre-fire data on habitat conditions, species-specific inventory and surveys, and other data that have been useful for this post-fire assessment. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP) provided information on known locations and use areas for wolves, grizzly bears, and game species from aerial surveys as well as from hunting and trapping data.

113

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Snags/Downed Wood Snags are dead, standing trees that are used by a variety of wildlife species including almost all woodpeckers, many owls, kestrels, songbirds, and mammals such as flying squirrels and marten. Snag densities vary widely across forest types, with (or without) fire, and with past management. Maintaining adequate snag habitat assists in maintaining habitat for several wildlife species such as bluebirds, kestrels, bats, marten, flying squirrels and more (Bull, Parks and Torgersen 1997). Post-fire stands of burned trees are important habitat for species using snags including 15 species of birds that were identified more commonly in burned forest than any other cover type (Hutto 1995). This includes the black-backed woodpecker which relies almost exclusively on early post-fire habitats (Hutto 1995). As dead trees fall and become coarse wood on the forest floor, they continue to be used by many wildlife species including pileated woodpeckers, small mammals, marten, weasels, and more. Samson (2006a,b) concludes that species that use snags and coarse wood (e.g. pileated woodpeckers, marten, goshawk (which forage on other birds and small mammals), black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl and fisher have sufficient habitat on the Lolo NF and Northern Region to maintain viable populations. One of the objectives of the Forest Plan is to provide habitat for viable populations of diverse wildlife species on the Forest (page II-2). Special attention is given to species dependent on snags (page II-2). The Lolo Forest Plan defines a snag as “[a] standing dead tree usually greater than 5 feet in height and 6 inches in diameter at breast height” (page VII-38). The Forest Plan identifies woodpeckers (primary excavators) as well as tree swallows, nuthatches (cavity users) as representative species of snag users. The Forest Plan does not identify any MIS for snag users. However, snag densities, are used as an indicator of population trends for two old growth MIS including the northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker. Until monitoring technology becomes available for the goshawk and pileated wood pecker, population trends will be monitored using habitat parameters including old-growth acres and condition, and snag densities (Standard 27, page II-14). In recent years, these species have been monitored more directly and their populations are stable indicating that the habitats they represent are also represented suitably on the landscape (see the discussion on northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker, below). To achieve Forest Plan objectives, “sufficient snags and dead material are required to be provided to maintain 80 percent of the population of snag-using species normally found in an unmanaged Forest in the portion of the Forest more than 200 feet from all system roads” (Standard 25, page II-14). The Forest Plan provides guidance on how to meet the requirements of Standard 25 when conducting timber management practices. For example, Appendix N of the Forest Plan provides procedures to implement the Forest snag standard (#25) by recommending snag and replacement tree retention, focused on harvest of live (unburned) timber stands of various habitat groups. In 1996/1997, additional guidelines were developed to ensure adequate protection of snags and dead down wood. These guidelines revised the numbers of snags/replacement trees to slightly higher levels and included guidance on implementation in burned forests with proposed salvage harvest. Snags were redefined as greater than 10 inches dbh and greater than 15 feet tall. In 1996, direction provided by then Forest Supervisor Charles Wildes revised the snag retention guidelines in Forest Plan Appendix N. He stated that the guidelines for snag retention would be applied on most forest acres, but that Forest Plan standard 25 provides flexibility to exclude snags in some areas (in-service memo dated April 5, 1996). Snag densities are monitored at the Forest scale with the Forest Inventory Assessment (FIA) (Lolo Forest Plan Monitoring Transition, 2016). Furthermore, the 2000 Northern Regional Snag Protocol provides additional guidance on snag and down wood retention with a small amount of guidance relating to application of these principles in burned forests with proposed salvage harvest. Specific to post-fire salvage, the 2000 Northern Regional Snag Protocol states, “In western Montana conifer forests, ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir are especially important foraging substrates for birds (Hutto 1995). Bird species differ in the microhabitats they occupy within a burn (Hutto 1995, Saab and Dudley 1998a), and salvage methods that ‘homogenize’

114

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment the stand structure will not supply the needed range of microsites (Hutto 1995). One possible solution is to take trees from one part of the burn and leave another part untouched (Hutto 1995).” As of pre-fire season in 2017, the Forest-wide FIA estimates for snags across the Lolo NF in 2017 are shown in Table 33 below (additional details in Project File). Snag densities across the Lolo NF exceed snag retention guideline. Wilderness/Inventoried Roadless Areas provide a reference condition from which to compare snag densities on the lands that are more likely to be suitable for timber harvest. The table shows that existing snag densities inside and outside wilderness far exceed Forest Plan Standards. Table 33. Average snag densities across the Lolo National Forest in 2017 (pre-fire), based on FIA data

After the Rice Ridge Fire, snag densities across the project area are much higher than before the fire. Much of the project area existed as densely stocked stands of mature trees before the fire, and many of these areas burned at high severity, leaving upwards of 100+ snags per acre in the 10”+ category. Alternative A - Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative A would have no direct or indirect effects on snags or down wood because no management activity would occur. Along roads open to public motorized use, snags would likely be cut for firewood by the public. Firewood permits allow cutting within 200 feet of open roads. The remaining snags on NFS land within the post-fire landscape would be influenced by the natural processes of decay, wind, insects, and more fire.

115

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 34. Snags by size class, pre-fire density (indexed by canopy cover), and burn severity. Areas with the highest densities of med-large trees (≥10” dbh pre-fire) that burned at either low or high severities are highlighted in gray

Snag Class: Burn AMOUNT REMAINING POST‐ Severity, Size class, AMOUNT TO BE HARVESTED HARVEST Pre‐fire Canopy Cover Existing Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt A Alt B Alt C low severity, pole, 10‐ 39% 470 0 19 9 470 452 461 low severity, pole, 40‐ 100% 1,590 0 99 54 1,590 1,491 1,535 low severity, med‐ large, 10‐39% 1,000 0 83 66 1,000 917 934 low severity, med‐ large, 40‐100% 15,350 0 1,767 968 15,350 13,583 14,382 mod‐high severity, pole, 10‐39% 784 0 46 26 784 738 759 mod‐high severity, pole, 40‐100% 1,227 0 125 22 1,227 1,102 1,205 mod‐high severity, med‐large, 10‐39% 2,179 0 231 146 2,179 1,949 2,033 mod‐high severity, med‐large, 40‐100% 14,901 0 3,171 1,401 14,901 11,730 13,500

NonForest 713 0 48 35 713 665 678

sapling <5" dbh 659 0 11 7 659 648 653

Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives B and C would result in the harvesting of merchantable-sized snags across 5,604 and 2,734 acres, respectively, of burned forest in the project area. Although non-merchantable trees would remain in the units which could provide some minimal foraging opportunities, and some larger burned trees would be left in select units (roughly 1,382 and 403 acres, respectively, would retain some burned trees for purposes of providing insolation to promote regeneration), the overall result of salvage would be the removal of the large snags that can be important resources for numerous species in the short-term, but also the reduction of the number of large, fire-hardened snags that would remain within harvested areas for decades to come. Units proposed for “Salvage” (1,240 and 695, acres respectively) would still retain some large live trees that would be snag replacements in the future. Units proposed for “Salvage with Reforestation” (4,364 and 2,039 acres, respectively) would generally have no remaining large live trees. As the forest regenerates, it will take roughly a century or more before there are large (15”+ dbh) snags available in the harvested areas. Therefore, there would be localized lack of structural diversity within harvested areas, which would reduce potential habitat for a host of wildlife species. At the scale of the project area, most of the fire-created snags would remaining standing post-harvest, and would provide thousands of acres of habitat for a variety of wildlife species (Table 34). Within the project area, 33,226 and 36,096 acres, respectively would be un-touched by commercial harvest (not counting incidental hazard trees along open roads). Although salvage would target areas with dense larger trees, 100,883 and 103,753 acres, respectively, of the Lolo NF land within the fire perimeter would

116

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment be left to natural processes and remain unaffected by salvage activities. Therefore, snags would be super- abundant on the landscape, providing sufficient habitat for snag-associated species. Alternatives B and C are consistent with recommendations in the scientific literature to retain large areas of snags to provide habitat for species associated with post-fire environments (Hutto 1995; Saab and Dudley 1998, (Russell et al. 2006), as most of the project area would not be salvage logged. These alternatives would have direct negative effects on snag-related species at the scale of treatment units, but would provide ample habitat to ensure viability of snag-dependent species across the project area and on the Lolo NF. Existing coarse wood would be retained within salvage units, unless it is commercially viable. Smaller dead trees (less than 8 inches in diameter) that would be left within units would provide for soil productivity and wildlife habitat (RPM SOIL-7). Although future coarse woody debris levels would be lower in treated areas compared to untreated areas, at the landscape scale, abundant coarse wood would be available to provide hiding cover, denning, and feeding areas for ground dwelling wildlife in untreated areas. Cumulative Effects Within the project area, salvage operations that would reduce snags would be in addition to other snag- reducing activities, including natural events (windblow) and human activities such as firewood cutting. Cumulatively, all existing snags would be retained on more than 80% of the entire 38,830-acre project area, and on more than 96% of the 160,000-acre Rice Ridge Fire area across all ownerships, providing abundant habitat for snag-related species. Future coarse wood would also be abundant within untreated areas. Other project-related activities (e.g., planting, road maintenance) would have no cumulative effects on snags. Over the last decade only about two percent of the almost 2 million acres that burned in wildfire across the Northern Region have been salvaged. In that same time period, only about 1.4 percent of the nearly 200,000 acres that burned across the Lolo NF have been salvaged. Additionally, Forest Plan Appendix N and the Lolo Snag Guidelines have helped to ensure the retention of snags within green tree sale areas over the past 30 years. Monitoring of snag densities has shown that the snag retention methods, along with the natural-caused creation of snags across the Forest, has been more than sufficient to meet the Forest Plan objectives. Forest Plan Consistency Alternative A would retain the most habitat for snag using wildlife species, as it would not harvest any snags from the project area. This alternative would clearly meet Forest Plan Standards and align with best science on managing forests for wildlife in the post-fire environment. Alternatives B and C would both have negative effects to wildlife species that use snags, with Alternative B having over twice the amount of acres affected as Alternative C. However, both alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan standard 25. The retention of snags on the majority of the fire area on NFS land would provide abundant habitat to contribute to the maintenance of 80 percent of the population of snag-using species normally found in an unmanaged Forest in the portion of the Forest more than 200 feet from all system roads. 3.5.1 Threatened and Proposed Species In accordance with Section 7(c) of ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the following listed threatened wildlife species may be present on the Lolo NF: Canada lynx and grizzly bear. In February 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed wolverine as a proposed threatened species (Federal Register 78:7864-7890, February 4, 2013).

117

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Canada lynx The complete Canada lynx section of the Wildlife Specialist’s Report addresses current lynx policy and science, population status, and recent monitoring within and adjacent to the fire area and gives an overview of methodology related to the assessment of habitat that is a driver in effects analysis. Impacts from the 2017 fires and associated suppression, repair and recovery activities as well as updated environmental baselines are addressed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the Terrestrial Biological Assessment for this project. This document can be found in the Project File. The following section summarizes this information. The USFWS listed Canada lynx as a threatened species in March 2000 and identified the main threat to lynx as “the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx and snowshoe hare habitat in National Forest Land and Resource Plans and BLM Land Use Plans”. In response, the Forest Service proposed management direction to conserve and promote the recovery of Canada lynx. This initial effort was called the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS; (Ruediger et al. 2000)) and was revised in 2013 (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013). The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (also known as the Lynx Amendment and hereafter as the NRLMD) provides updated Standards and Guidelines from the original LCAS (USDA 2007b). The LCAS outlines the process and associated rationale for analyzing project effects to Canada lynx productivity, mortality risk factors, movement, and dispersal through the delineation of lynx analysis units (LAUs). LAUs continue to be the analysis units under the NRLMD. Because the Lolo NF is considered occupied lynx habitat, all Standards and Guidelines in the NRLMD apply to treatment units located within the mapped LAUs for this project. In March 2007 the Forest Service issued the NRLMD Record of Decision (ROD; (USDA 2007a). The management direction provided in this decision was based upon the best science available on Canada lynx in North America. This ROD amended Forest Plans in the Northern Rockies and established management direction to conserve and promote recovery of the Canada lynx by reducing or eliminating adverse effects from land management activities on NFS lands. The Lolo NF Plan was amended (Amendment #30) to include the NRLMD in March 2007. In March 2007, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) addressing the effects of the NRLMD on the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Canada lynx in the contiguous United States in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2007). The BiOp considered the effects of implementing the Standards and Guidelines of the NRLMD, the LCAS, the lynx recovery plan, and other information. Based on the above discussion, and particularly the conclusions regarding the NRLMD in the USFWS BiOps, the NRLMD’s Standards and Guidelines were used as the primary means to assess the effects of the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project on lynx. Effects to lynx critical habitat were also addressed by considering the Primary Constituent Elements (PCE) and 4 sub-elements and by following recent guidance found in the BA and associated BiOp on the NRLMD relationship to lynx critical habitat. The project would not apply the NRLMD “WUI exemption” in either of the action alternatives. Table 41 and Table 42 summarize the Objectives, Standards and Guidelines of the NRLMD that apply to the effects of the project. Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines that apply to other activities such as grazing are not be addressed in detail because the project does not proposed activities such as grazing. Table 43 summarizes how the project complies with the Critical Habitat PCE and its four components. In addition to the NRLMD lynx policy and direction the Northern Region of the Forest Service created a guiding document entitled Project Development and Design Criteria for FY18 Salvage Projects (U.S. Forest Service 2017b) to ensure consistency across post-fire salvage projects in the Region (see EA Section 1.4.1).

118

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

The process for evaluating lynx habitat and project level effects within the proposed treatment areas is thoroughly discussed in the Wildlife Specialist’s Report. The report discusses the Lolo NF’s lynx habitat mapping, subsequent updates, data sources, and field verification. The project area contains portions of Rice, Morrell, Monture (approximately 241 acres) and Cottonwood Dunham LAUs (see Table 35) with all proposed vegetation treatment occurring in the Rice, Morrell, and Cottonwood Dunham LAUs. These three LAUs are, therefore, the primary focus of the effects analysis. Approximately 85% of the project area is within an LAU and lynx critical habitat. The remaining 15% is outside of LAU boundaries. Approximately 23% of proposed treatments occur outside of LAU boundaries; the rest (77%) are within LAUs and designated lynx critical habitat. The lynx critical habitat boundary follows lower elevation LAU boundaries but does not have an upper elevational limit whereas the LAU boundaries do not go above 7,000 feet. As such, most critical habitat is within LAU boundaries and areas above 7,000 feet are within critical habitat but NOT within an LAU. No salvage units are proposed at upper elevations, therefore proposed salvage units within an LAU are also within lynx critical habitat. The project is not within a mapped linkage area. However the project area is important for lynx and maintaining habitat connectivity is an important consideration. Table 35. Canada lynx population and habitat status within the analysis area

Total Vegetation Potential Canada Project Area Lynx Treatment Lynx Analysis Total LAU Lynx Lynx Acres within Critical Proposed within Unit (LAU) Acres Habitat Activity LAU Boundary Habitat LAU under Acres Alternative B

Cottonwood Known to Yes –17,245 33,981 27,146 Yes Yes – 2,154 acres Dunham Occur acres

Known to Yes – 10,878 Yes – 1,211 acres Morrell 23,353 19,890 Yes Occur acres Known to No Monture 27,624 20,933 Yes – 241 acres Yes Occur Known to Yes – 4,757 Yes – 965 acres Rice 23,714 20,786 Yes Occur acres 4,330 Totals 108,672 88,755 33,120 acres

Current conditions within the three LAUs with proposed management actions are summarized in Table 37 and are discussed in Section 3 of the Terrestrial Wildlife BA at the scale of the Rice Ridge Fire. Table 36 illustrates pre-fire and post-fire conditions within the respective LAUs. While potential lynx habitat is based on habitat type alone, lynx habitat classes reflect both habitat types (potential vegetation) and age class/size class structural stages that have resulted from forest succession and past disturbances such as timber management and fire (Lolo NF and Northern Region Geospatial Group 2018). As indicated in Table 36, prior to the Rice Ridge Fire, all three of the LAUs had high percentages of mature multi-storied forest (MMS), moderate percentages of other forest structures and relatively low percentages of Stand Initiation (SI) and Early Stand Initiation (ESI) conditions. Clearly, and as stated in Section 3 of the BA, the impacts of the Rice Ridge Fire to these three LAUs, and many of the adjacent LAUs, were extensive and converted large areas of potential lynx habitat to an ESI condition. As such, this single fire event “erased” much of pre-existing structural stage pattern on the landscape. Due to these

119

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment extensive changes, existing conditions for lynx habitat within the three LAUs associated with the project are not all within desired condition as described in the NRLMD Standards Vegs S1 and Veg S2 (Table 42 and Table 42). Table 36. Summary of estimated fire effects on forest structural stages, in acres, within 3 LAUs with proposed Rice Ridge Fire salvage activities. Data is based on geospatial mapping software. LAUs highlighted in red experienced very high levels of conversion to ESI from wildfire.

Land Pre/ LAU Name SI3 ESI4 MM5 Other6 Ownership1 Post2

USFS 597 (2) 2620 (10) 19692 (74) 3571 (13) Pre Non‐USFS 7 (1) 87 (11) 449 (68) 122 (18) Cottonwood USFS 429 (2) 14973 (57) 9230 (35) 1849 (7) Post Dunham Non‐USFS 7 (1) 332 (50) 247 (37) 78 (11) USFS ‐168 (<‐1) 12353 (47) ‐10462 (‐39) ‐1722 (‐6) Diff Non‐USFS 0 (0) 245 (39) ‐202 (‐31) ‐44 (‐7) USFS 153 (1) 791 (4) 13778 (71) 4604 (24) Pre Non‐USFS 0 (0) 39 (7) 431 (76) 94 (17) USFS 138 (1) 8106 (42) 7982 (41) 3100 (16) Morrell Post Non‐USFS 0 (0) 39 (7) 431 (76) 94 (17) USFS ‐15 (<‐1) 7315 (38) ‐5796 (‐30) ‐1504 (‐8) Diff Non‐USFS 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) USFS 105 (1) 1001 (5) 11981 (63) 5773 (30) Pre Non‐USFS 295(15) 18 (1) 931(48) 682 (35) USFS 105 (1) 2547 (14) 10570 (56) 5639 (30) Rice Post Non‐USFS 295 (15) 18 (1) 931 (48) 682 (35) USFS 0 (0) 3253 (9) ‐1411 (‐15) ‐134 (<‐1) Diff Non‐USFS 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 Non-USFS land ownership includes Private, State, and Tribal jurisdictions 2 Pre = Pre-Fire Structural stage condition by Lynx Analysis Unit; Post = Post-Fire Structural Stage condition by Lynx Analysis Unit, Diff = Difference between Pre-fire Structural stages condition by Lynx Analysis Unit. (#) = % Change from Pre to Post Fire conditions 3 Stand Initiation structural stage that currently provides winter snowshoe hare habitat (i.e. winter forage). (#)= % of Total Lynx Habitat 4 Early stand initiation structural stage where the trees have not grown tall enough to protrude above the snow in the winter, therefore, only provides summer forage only, Unsuitable habitat, counts towards the 30% in VEG S1. (#)= % of Total Lynx Habitat 5 Multistory structural stage with many age classes and vegetation layers that provide year-round snowshoe hare habitat via dense horizontal cover. (#)= % of Total Lynx Habitat 6 Other –Closed canopy lacking dense horizontal cover; does not provide snowshoe hare habitat due to lack of dense horizontal cover; e.g. Stem Exclusion Structural Stage. (#)= % of Total Lynx Habitat

120

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 37. Post-fire updated baselines of structural stages, in acres, taking into account additive suppression effects, within the LAUs proposed Rice Ridge Fire salvage activities. Data is based on geospatial mapping software. See footnotes for explanation of color coding.

Total Land Post/Sup/ LAU LAU Name Lynx SI3 ESI4 MM5 Other6 Ownership1 Updated2 Total Habitat USFS 429 (2) 14973 (57) 9230 (35) 1849 (7) Post Non‐USFS 7 (1) 332 (50) 247 (37) 78 (11) USFS 0 17 ‐15.9 ‐1.1 Cottonwood Sup Non‐USFS 0 0.2 ‐0.2 0 Dunham USFS 33213 26481 429 (2) 14990 (57) 9214 (35) 1848 (7) Updated Non‐USFS 768 665 7 (1) 332 (50) 247 (37) 78 (11) Combined Total 33981 27146 436 (2) 15322 (56) 9461 (35) 1926 (7) USFS 138 (1) 8106 (42) 7982 (41) 3100 (16) Post Non‐USFS 0 (0) 39 (7) 431 (76) 94 (17) USFS 0 34.4 ‐29.4 ‐5 Sup Morrell Non‐USFS 0 0 0.3 0 USFS 22784 19326 138 (1) 8140 (42) 7982 (41) 3095 (16) Updated Non‐USFS 569 564 0 (0) 39 (7) 431 (76) 94 (17) Combined Total 23353 19890 138 (<1) 8179 (41) 8413 (42) 3189 (16) USFS 105 (1) 2547 (14) 10570 (56) 5639 (30) Post Non‐USFS 295 (15) 18 (1) 931 (48) 682 (35) USFS ‐0.1 334.1 ‐263.6 ‐70.8 Sup Rice Non‐USFS 0 11.3 ‐10.7 ‐0.6 USFS 21120 18861 105 (1) 2558 (14) 10559 (56) 5568 (30) Updated Non‐USFS 2594 1925 295 (15) 29 (2) 920 (48) 681 (35) Combined Total 23714 20786 400 (2) 2587 (12) 11479 (55) 6249 (30)

2Post/Sup/Updated – Post refers to post fire condition. Sup Updated refers to post fire conditions updated with suppression activities included. See Table 36 footnotes for additional descriptions Alternative A - Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The no action alternative would not have measurable direct, indirect or cumulative impacts on lynx. When compared to the action alternatives, taking no action would result in:  Areas with higher amounts of downed woody material and snags.  Slower recovery of forested conditions (anticipated) due to not replanting at the same scale as under action alternatives.  Less human activity on the landscape in the next 5 years (in the form of logging, road construction and decommissioning and tree planting crews).  Fewer openings created by salvage actions that could result in increases in motorized over-the-snow use and non-motorized recreational access. Alternative B - Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed vegetation management actions would avoid current lynx foraging habitat. As such, evaluating the action and no action alternatives in terms of lynx habitat does not show dramatic differences in a context that is meaningful to lynx conservation. The NRLMD provides Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines (OSGs) which comprise the contextual

121

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment framework for a thorough direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis for lynx. In addition, the critical habitat Primary Constituent Element (PCE) and components add further direction for effects to lynx critical habitat. The Proposed Action was designed to meet the three elements of the purpose and need of the project (see EA Chapter 1) to the fullest extent while staying within the regulatory framework of the NRLMD, critical habitat rule and the aforementioned R1 Fire Salvage Design Criteria. No aspect of the project focuses on improving lynx habitat. However, the planting activities should expedite regeneration of burned forests in some areas which would benefit lynx. The Rice Ridge Fire resulted in an adverse baseline for lynx due to large areas of potential lynx habitat being converted to ESI. Project level effects are analyzed in the context of these baseline conditions. It should be noted that lynx are unlikely to be using the units proposed for salvage due to the impacts of the fire (ESI) or the poor foraging habitat quality due to forest structure (stem exclusion or non-lynx). Consequently, measurable effects to individual lynx are unlikely to occur from project activities. Resource protection measures (RPMs – see EA Section 2.1.1) were developed in accordance with the NRLMD and R1 Design Criteria to eliminate impacts to lynx foraging habitat and lynx and snowshoe hare habitat connectivity. These RPMs apply primarily to stands that were not converted to ESI by fire. Post-Fire Salvage Implementation of Alternative B would involve mechanical and non-mechanical fire salvage and hazard tree reduction (a combination of several treatment types - see EA Chapter 1 and Forested Vegetation Specialist’s Report for detailed descriptions) in portions of four LAUs and associated critical habitat. The proposed salvage actions and associated LAU summaries are depicted in Table 38 and Table 39. Additional activities within and outside of LAUs include temporary road construction (access to treatment units), road decommissioning and relocation associated with aquatic offsets, hazard tree removal along roads open to the public and reforestation activities. Table 38. Summary of salvage harvest activities within and outside of LAUs within the Rice Ridge Project area. Numbers in parentheses are percentages of the total LAU impacted

LAU Acres in Acres of Tractor Acres of Skyline Total Acres of LAU Name Total LAU Acres Project Area Treatment Treatment Treatment Cottonwood Dunham 33,981 17,245 589 (2) 1,565 (5) 2,154 (6) Monture 27,652 241 0 0 0 Morrell 23,353 10,878 803 (3) 408 (2) 1,211 (5) Rice 23,714 4,757 869 (4) 96 (<1) 965 (4) Total Acres 108,700 33,120 2,261 (2) 2,069 (2) 4,330 (4) OUTSIDE LAUs 5,706 917 345 1,262 Grand Totals 3,179 2,414 5,592

Within the respective LAUs proposed for salvage harvest in Alternative B, approximately 3,380 acres (60% total acres proposed for salvage) are in ESI condition (Table 39 below). An additional 355 acres (6% of total) are in potential lynx habitat that burned at lower severity and was not converted to ESI. These 355 acres are in a stem exclusion structural stage and do not provide lynx foraging habitat. All of these 355 acres would be treated with non-regeneration prescriptions. As such they would remain in a stem exclusion structural stage post treatment and not be converted to ESI. This approach is in compliance with the NRLMD and with R1 Design Criteria.

122

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

The remaining 595 salvage acres (11%) are dry forest types and as such do not provide current or potential lynx habitat. In the context of the lynx critical habitat designation, these dry forest types are defined as matrix (from Critical Habitat Designation in Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 36, pp. 8615-8702). Approximately 1,262 acres of salvage would be located outside of LAUs and associated lynx critical habitat. The proposed treatments equate to a maximum of 6% (3,735 suitable acres treated out of 67,822 acres) of suitable lynx habitat within the three LAUs. At the scale of the four LAUs that intersect the project area, 4% of the acreage would be salvaged (4330 ac/108,700 ac *100). As illustrated by the tabular data, none of these 3,735 total acres are currently providing lynx foraging habitat (winter forage or mature multi- storied forests). Table 39. Acres of salvage harvest within LAUs and critical habitat under Alternative B. Structural stages and lynx habitat were validated by the process described above. Acres are approximate because several units are a combination of more than one of the structural/habitat classes.

Structural Stage or Acres Treated LAU Non‐lynx Habitat (Approx.) Cottonwood ESI 1,350 Dunham Cottonwood Stem Exclusion 275 Dunham Cottonwood Non‐lynx 530 Dunham Total 2,155 Morrell ESI 1,110 Morrell Stem Exclusion 35 Morrell Non‐lynx 65 Total 1,210 Rice ESI 920 Rice Stem Exclusion 45 Rice Non‐lynx 0 Total 965 All LAU ESI 3,380 All LAU Stem Exclusion 355 All LAU Non‐lynx (Matrix) 595 Total LAU Acres 4,330 Total Lynx Habitat (Boreal Forest) 3,735

To minimize salvage harvest related direct impacts to lynx and hare habitat and associated connectivity, Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) WL-L1 and WL-L2 were created as per the R1 Design Criteria referenced above. These RPMs focus treatment on structural stages that do not provide lynx foraging habitat and require on-the-ground buffering and exclusion of small patches of dense forest that may be located within any proposed treatment areas. By this process, direct effects to lynx and hare foraging habitat from salvage harvest are reduced to discountable. As illustrated in Table 39, the majority of treatments in lynx habitat in the stem exclusion structural stage occur in the Cottonwood Dunham LAU and are interspersed with dry forest types characterized as matrix. Because they are drier habitat types there are no historic lynx detections in these areas.

123

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

In summary, salvage proposed under this alternative occurs either: outside of LAUs, within dry forest types (matrix habitat) within LAUs, within LAUs where forested stands of potential lynx habitat are in the stem exclusion structural stage not rendered ESI by the fire, and within LAUs where forested stands of potential lynx habitat were converted to ESI by the Rice Ridge Fire. None of these situations currently provide lynx foraging habitat. Following project implementation, salvaged areas would be more open and would not recruit as much large downed woody debris as they would if left untreated. Because snowshoe hare/lynx habitat quality in the stands proposed for treatment is low (or non-habitat) under current conditions, the direct effects of the salvage on lynx habitat would be minimal to non-existent. Further, because the existing habitat quality is poor in areas proposed for salvage and is expected to be poor for approximately twenty years, lynx would not be disturbed or displaced by salvage and associated activities. Up to 121 acres would be affected by temporary roads needed to access salvage units but none of these roads would impact MMS lynx habitat that has not been converted to ESI by the Rice Ridge Fire. As such, temporary roads would not adversely affect lynx foraging and, due to the small scale, would only have minimal to non-existent impacts to lynx travel and connectivity. Hazard tree removal is not quantifiable in terms of lynx habitat but, as stated above, it is associated with roads and does not allow for equipment use off roads. Therefore, impacts to lynx and lynx critical habitat would be minimal to non-existent. The potential indirect effects to lynx and lynx habitat from increased over-the-snow use and associated compaction and direct displacement from disturbance could occur over fifteen to twenty years post project. When compared to the no action alternative, there would be some measurable difference in regard to effects to lynx. However, the scale at which this impact could occur is small in regard to the four LAUs that intersect the project area. Timber haul would occur on existing roads associated with salvage. These existing forest roads are not believed impede lynx movement (LCAS 2013) and this is supported by long-term research on lynx within this area. Connectivity is at a desirable level and would continue to be during the project, and would improve slightly following implementation. Alternative B - Cumulative Effects Because direct and indirect effects of the project on lynx are strongly related to vegetation management, cumulative effects are also vegetation related. Further, since all proposed vegetation management under each alternative occurs within the Cottonwood Dunham, Morrell, and Rice LAUs, cumulative effects summary focuses are primarily related to natural and man-caused vegetative changes within these LAUs. The temporal scale at which future cumulative effects are considered is approximately twenty years. The Rice LAU, which is where lynx are still known to be present, would be within Standards All S1 and Veg S1 and S2 prior to, during, and after the project. The Cottonwood Dunham and Morrel LAUs were both severely impacted by the fire and are not within the 30% ESI Standards due to the fire. No additional ESI would be created under Alternative B in any of these three LAUs. The foreseeable actions (federal or non-federal) within the cumulative effects boundary have been disclosed and are summarized in detail in EA Appendix D. The effects of these actions would be inconsequential to lynx and lynx habitat because they would not change lynx habitat structural conditions. Under Alternative B, salvage would affect a maximum of 6% (3,735 potential habitat acres treated out of 67,822 acres) of potential lynx habitat within the three LAUs. When all salvage harvest and associated road work is considered, there would be 4,330 acres of salvage and an additional 121 acres of road work occurring across the 81,893 acres encompassed by the three LAUs. This equates to less than 6% of the LAUs being impacted. This metric is relevant in assessing impacts to lynx connectivity as it considers both lynx habitat and matrix within the LAUs. Foreseeable federal and non-federal actions are not

124

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment anticipated to add to this 6% in any measurable way. High quality lynx foraging habitat across the three LAUs is variable post-fire with mature multi-storied (55%) and stand initiation (2%) being more prevalent in the Rice LAU and lower in the Cottonwood Dunham (37%) and Morrel (42%) LAUs. None of these structural metrics in impacted LAUs change when considering activities proposed under Alternative B and cumulative foreseeable federal and non- federal actions. As the burned areas regenerate, lynx habitat conditions should improve in the next 15 to 20 years. Human activity would increase for a period of about 8 years. Some of this work would be accessed through construction of approximately 31 miles of temporary roads closed to the public. Upon project completion, all temporary roads associated with the project would be decommissioned or placed into long-term storage with no public access. Aquatic offsets would result in additional road closures, relocations, and decommissioning. Thus, there would be a short-term increase in project-related human activity and associated road densities followed by a long-term increase in wildlife security associated with road decommissioning. Over-the-snow motorized activity would also likely increase somewhat over the next 15 to 20 years in areas proposed for salvage harvest. Areas rendered more open by some fire suppression activities and the wildfire itself could also contribute to these increases during this period of time. While these activities could have some impacts to lynx, it has been observed and documented that lynx are persisting and continuing to use areas within and adjacent to the 2007 Jocko Lakes fire where post-fire over-the-snow access increased. The Montana Legacy, Blackfoot Community, and Clearwater Blackfoot Projects have resulted in the acquisition of large blocks of land formerly owned by Plum Creek Timber Company in and adjacent to the project area. These lands are now largely under NFS or Nature Conservancy (TNC) ownership. As such, they will be managed differently than they were in the past with long-term benefits to lynx and other wildlife species. Alternative C - Direct and Indirect Effects Portions of the lynx analysis for this alternative have already been addressed in tables and narrative associated with the Alternative B analysis. Overall, the primary difference between the two alternatives is that temporary roads would not be constructed under Alternative C and for this reason, fewer acres would be salvaged. All acres proposed for salvage treatment under Alternative C are a subset of those proposed in Alternative B. Table 40 summarizes the relevant effects and allows for comparison with the proposed action. Table 40. Summary of salvage harvest activities within and outside of LAUs within the Rice Ridge Project area. Numbers in parentheses are percentages of the total LAU impacted.

LAU Acres in Acres of Tractor Acres of Skyline Total Acres of LAU Name Total LAU Acres Project Area Treatment Treatment Treatment Cottonwood Dunham 33,981 17,245 359 (1) 450 (1) 856 (3) Monture 27,652 241 0 0 0 Morrell 23,353 10,878 560 (2) 96 (<1) 656 (3) Rice 23,714 4,757 698 (3) 72 (<1) 770 (3) Total Acres 108,700 33,120 2,261 (2) 617 (1) 2,282 (2) OUTSIDE LAUs 5,706 309 140 449 Grand Totals 1,925 757 2,730

125

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Salvage treatments in Alternative C would be about one-half the acres proposed under Alternative B. Accordingly, direct and indirect impacts to lynx and lynx habitat for Alternative C would be about 50% of those for Alternative C. Because no temporary roads would be constructed there would be a reduction in 121 acres impacted by temporary road construction and decommissioning across the three LAUs. Snow compacting activities related to salvage and associated haul would be reduced across the LAUs by about 50% as well. Anticipated over-the-snow motorized use due to an increase in openings would be about 50% less than under Alternative B. Hazard tree removal and replanting outside of treatment units would remain essentially the same under either alternative. Table 39 and Table 42 summarize the NRLMD OSGs and compare the differences between the two action alternatives in the context of the NRLMD. Alternative C – Cumulative Effects Refer to the cumulative effects discussion for Alternative B above. As stated, Alternative C is essentially a subset of treatments proposed under Alternative B. The cumulative effects for Alternative C would be less than those for Alternative B in that there would be:  Less vegetative treatment in both matrix and lynx habitat (boreal forest)  No regeneration treatments and no creation of temporarily unsuitable lynx habitat  Less human disturbance related to project activities  Less snow compacting activity  No temporary road construction Overall both the spatial and temporal extent of cumulative effects under Alternative C would be less than under Alternative B. NRLMD Vegetation Management Standards Compliance Table 41. NRLMD Objectives: Conservation measures applicable to all programs and activities with emphasis on Cottonwood Dunham, Morrell and Rice LAUs

Post‐Treatment Compliance Post‐Treatment Compliance Objectives Pre‐Treatment Compliance Alternative B Alternative C ALL O1 – Maintain or Large areas of forested Salvage units would be more Effects would be less than restore lynx habitat habitat were impacted by open than under existing under Alternative B as fewer connectivity in and the Rice Ridge Fire across conditions, especially in units acres would be salvaged. between LAUs and in the analysis area. Impacts considered ESI. Temporary Approximately 2,282 total linkage areas. were greatest within the roads would increase for a acres within LAUs would be Morrell and Cottonwood maximum of six years with salvaged. This equates to 2% Dunham LAUs (refer to most temp roads only being on of the four LAUs intersected by Tables above). Open road the landscape for three years the project area. densities are not currently maximum. Total road densities No temporary roads would be high and many existing would be reduced by aquatic constructed. roads are closed year‐ offsets. Open road densities Alternative addresses and round. See Transportation would remain the same. complies with this Objective Report and grizzly bear Approximately 4,330 acres portion of this report for within LAUs would be details. salvaged. An additional 121 acres would be impacted by temporary roads. The arrangement of units and amount of non‐salvaged areas would maintain adequate habitat connectivity for lynx.

126

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Post‐Treatment Compliance Post‐Treatment Compliance Objectives Pre‐Treatment Compliance Alternative B Alternative C Note: The project is not within a mapped linkage area but is adjacent to Highway 83 which is an identified linkage area. Alternative addresses and complies with this Objective VEG O1 – Manage Fire has recently had The project is designed to Fewer acres would be treated vegetation to mimic or substantial impacts on this minimize any impacts to lynx and as such, more acres would approximate natural landscape and rendered foraging habitat above what be on a trajectory of natural succession and many areas ESI. As these the 2017 fire did. The post‐fire recovery. As with disturbance processes areas regenerate lynx replanting component of the Alternative B, areas of current while maintaining habitat across this project could lynx foraging habitat would not habitat components landscape should improve benefit/accelerate the mosaic be treated. necessary for the substantially. pattern on the landscape over Alternative addresses and conservation of lynx. time. complies with this Objective Alternative addresses and complies with this Objective VEG O2 – Provide a Fire has created a large Proposed treatments focus Fewer acres would be treated mosaic of habitat amount of ESI habitat salvage activities within by salvage activities and as conditions through across the project area. All potential lynx habitat on such, more area would be left time that supports LAUs within the project stands which have been to recover naturally from the dense horizontal cover area with the exception of converted to an ESI structural wildfire impacts. Planting and high densities of the Rice LAU are well above stage by the Rice Ridge Fire or would occur on fewer acres snowshoe hares. the 30% ESI threshold. on stem exclusion stands. than under Alternative B. As Provide winter Mature, mesic, multi‐storied with Alternative B, areas of snowshoe hare habitat stands would be avoided to current lynx foraging habitat in both the stand retain high‐quality lynx would not be treated. initiation structural foraging habitat. Alternative addresses and stage and in mature, Alternative addresses and complies with this Objective multi‐story conifer complies with this Objective vegetation. VEG O3 – Conduct fire In 2017 the Rice Ridge Fire No prescribed burning or fire No prescribed burning or fire use activities to restore created approximately use is planned under the use is planned under the ecological processes 37,550 acres of ESI habitat project. project. and maintain or on the Seeley Lake District. Objective is not directly Objective is not directly improve lynx habitat. As these acres regenerate relevant to this project. relevant to this project. conditions for snowshoe hare and lynx are anticipated to improve across this area. VEG O4 – Focus In 2017 the Rice Ridge Fire Proposed salvage activities The project objectives are the vegetation created approximately focus on stands converted to same as under Alternative B. management in areas 37,550 acres of ESI habitat ESI by the Rice Ridge Fire. Fewer acres would be treated that have potential to on the Seeley Lake District. Some salvage would impact with salvage due to no improve winter As these acres regenerate areas with lower severity burns construction of temporary snowshoe hare habitat conditions for snowshoe in dry Douglas‐fir and roads. As with Alternative B, but presently have hare and lynx are lodgepole pine dominated areas of current lynx foraging poorly developed anticipated to improve stands which have limited habitat would not be treated. understories that lack across this area. understory complexity. Alternative addresses and dense horizontal cover. Replanting would expedite complies with this Objective regeneration in some severely burned areas. Mature, mesic, multi‐storied stands were intentionally avoided to retain

127

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Post‐Treatment Compliance Post‐Treatment Compliance Objectives Pre‐Treatment Compliance Alternative B Alternative C existing high quality lynx foraging habitat. Alternative addresses and complies with this Objective HU O1 – Maintain the Historic snow compacting Project does not encourage Project does not encourage lynx’s natural activities are primarily increased winter motorized increased winter motorized competitive advantage associated with roads use or other snow compacting use or other snow compacting over other predators in which serve as groomed activities. activities. deep snow by snowmobile routes. No Up to 31 miles of temporary No temporary roads would be discouraging the existing snowmobile play roads open to administrative constructed. expansion of snow areas occur within the use would be constructed and Total road densities would compacting activities in project area. then decommissioned or decrease. Open road densities lynx habitat. stored post project. Not all of would remain the same. these roads occur within LAUs. As stated, use could increase Total road densities would due to the more open nature decrease post project. Open of the landscape from wildfire road densities would remain and salvage activities. This the same. anticipated use would be less As stated, use could increase under Alternative C. due to the more open nature Alternative addresses and of the landscape from wildfire complies with this Objective and salvage activities. Alternative addresses and complies with this Objective HU O5 – Manage No such human activities Proposed actions under this Proposed actions under this human activities, such currently occur within the project would not increase project would not increase as exploring and project area. human activities associated human activities associated developing minerals with mineral exploration or with mineral exploration or and oil and gas, placing development, utility corridors, development, utility corridors, utility corridors and or permitted special uses. or permitted special uses. permitting special uses This Objective is not This Objective is not to reduce impacts on applicable to this project. applicable to this project. lynx and lynx habitat. HU O6 – Reduce Lolo NF is involved is these Lolo NF will continue to be Lolo NF will continue to be adverse highway effects interagency and involved in interagency and involved in interagency on lynx by working collaborative relationships. collaborative relationships. relationships. cooperatively with This project would reduce road Alternative addresses and other agencies to densities and contribute to complies with this Objective provide for lynx wildlife security in the long movement and habitat term. connectivity and to Alternative addresses and reduce the potential of complies with this Objective lynx mortality. LINK O1 – In areas of The Lolo NF is currently The Lolo NF will continue to be The Lolo NF will continue to be intermingled land involved in these types of involved in such activities. involved in such activities. ownership, work with activities and land Alternative addresses and Alternative addresses and landowners to pursue acquisitions. complies with this Objective complies with this Objective conservation easements, habitat conservation plans, land exchanges or other solutions to reduce the potential of adverse impacts on lynx and lynx habitat.

128

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 42. NRLMD Standards and Guidelines: Conservation measures to address risk factors affecting lynx productivity with emphasis on Cottonwood Dunham, Morrell and Rice LAUs

Pre‐Treatment Post‐Treatment Compliance Post‐Treatment Compliance Standards Compliance Proposed Action Alternative C All Management Activities All S1 – New or Large areas of forested Project wide, regeneration Effects would be less than expanded permanent habitat are present salvage units (4,364 ac total) under Alternative B as no developments and throughout analysis area would have minimal forested temporary roads would be vegetation although, many of these cover. Salvage units (1,240 ac constructed and fewer acres management projects areas burned in the Rice total) would have some would be salvaged. must maintain habitat Ridge Fire resulting in remaining forested cover but Approximately 2,282 total connectivity in an LAU substantial reductions in would be more open than they acres within three LAUs (3%) and/or linkage area. forested cover. Total are currently. would receive salvage road densities are fairly Approximately 4,450 total acres treatment – about 2,000 high, but most roads are (includes temp road acres) acres less than under closed year‐round. As a within LAUs would be affected Alternative B. result, open road by salvage activities. This No aquatic offset related densities are low. equates to 5% of the 3 LAUs decommissioning would Permanent developments with proposed salvage and 4% of occur as under Alternative B. are limited to trailheads the four LAUs which intersect Alternative complies with and a lookout. the project area. this Standard. Temporary roads would increase during project by approximately 31 miles (administrative use only). Open road densities would remain the same. Post‐project road densities would be slightly less due to aquatic offset decommissioning. Alternative complies with this Standard. Vegetation Management − VEG VEG S1 – Unless a Currently, 56% of the As previously discussed, no Fewer acres would be broad‐scale assessment Cottonwood Dunham and additional ESI conditions would salvaged than under has been completed 41% of the Morrell LAUs be created under this Alternative B. As with that substantiates are in an ESI condition. alternative. Lynx habitat Alternative B, no additional different levels of stand Rice LAU is at 12% ESI. structural stages would remain ESI conditions would be initiation structural 31,675 acres of ESI habitat the same as they were pre‐ created and lynx habitat stages, limit was created (fire plus salvage. structural stages would disturbance in each suppression in 2017) across Alternative complies with this remain the same as they were structural stage as 4 LAUs which intersect the Standard. pre‐salvage. follows: If more than project area. All of these Alternative complies with 30% of the lynx habitat LAUs except Rice are well this Standard. in an LAU is currently in above the 30% threshold a stand initiation for ESI. The current structural stage that situation is considered does not yet provide adverse to lynx due to the winter snowshoe hare large amount of fire‐ habitat, no additional created ESI. habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects. VEG S2 – Timber 31,675 acres of ESI habitat As previously discussed, no Fewer acres would be management projects was created (fire plus additional ESI conditions would salvaged than under shall not regenerate suppression in 2017) in be created under this Alternative B. As with

129

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Pre‐Treatment Post‐Treatment Compliance Post‐Treatment Compliance Standards Compliance Proposed Action Alternative C more than 15% of lynx across 4 LAUs which alternative. Lynx habitat Alternative B, no additional habitat on NFS lands intersect the project area. structural stages would remain ESI conditions would be within a LAU within a All of these LAUs except the same as they were pre‐ created and lynx habitat 10‐year period. Rice are well above the salvage. structural stages would 30% threshold for ESI. The Alternative complies with this remain the same as they were current situation is Standard. pre‐salvage. considered adverse to lynx Alternative complies with due to the large amount of this Standard. fire created ESI. VEG S5 – Applies to No precommercial thinning There is no precommercial There is no precommercial precommercial thinning has occurred on NFS land thinning planned in suitable thinning planned in suitable projects and states: within the Cottonwood lynx habitat within any LAUs lynx habitat within any LAUs Precommercial thinning Dunham, Lake, Morrell or under this alternative. SI under this alternative. SI projects that reduce Monture LAUs in the past structural stage would not be structural stage would not be snowshoe hare habitat 10 years. Current Stand impacted. impacted. may occur from the Initiation (SI) conditions are As such this standard is not As such this standard is not stand initiation listed for LAUs within applicable. applicable. structural stage until project area in Table 9 in the stands no longer the BA and in Table 35 provide winter above. All of these LAUs snowshoe hare habitat have less than 3 % SI only: currently. 1. Within 200 feet of admin sites, dwellings, or outbuildings; or 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. Based on new information that is peer review and accepted by the regional‐level of the Forest Service that meets certain criteria outlined in the amendment. VEG S6 – Applies all Current mature multi‐ Stands selected for treatment Stands selected for treatment vegetation storied (MMS) conditions are not mesic, multi‐storied are not mesic, multi‐storied managements except are listed for LAUs within forests providing lynx foraging forests providing lynx for fuels treatment project area in Table 9 in habitat. These types of stands foraging habitat. These types projects within the the BA and were avoided and any areas of of stands were avoided and wildland‐urban lynx foraging habitat within any areas of lynx foraging interface and states: proposed units greater than 1 habitat within proposed units Vegetation Table 37 above (3 LAUs). acre were buffered and greater than 1 acres were management projects All of these LAUs except excluded (RPM WL‐L2). buffered and excluded (RPM that reduce snowshoe Monture have greater than Proposed salvage stands are: WL‐L2). Proposed salvage hare habitat in multi‐ 35% of total potential ESI stands, fire‐impacted stem stands are: ESI stands, fire‐ story mature or late habitat as mapped MMS. exclusion types within lynx impacted stem exclusion successional forests habitat, and fire‐impacted dry types within lynx habitat, and may occur only: Douglas‐fir dominated stands fire‐impacted dry Douglas‐fir 1. Within 200 feet of with sparse understories that dominated stands with sparse admin sites, dwellings, are not potential lynx habitat. understories that are not or outbuildings; or potential lynx habitat.

130

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Pre‐Treatment Post‐Treatment Compliance Post‐Treatment Compliance Standards Compliance Proposed Action Alternative C 2. For research studies Alternative complies with this Alternative complies with or genetic tree tests Standard. this Standard. evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For incidental removal during salvage harvest. Guidelines VEG G1 – Vegetation 31,675 acres of ESI habitat Stands selected for treatment There are approximately 400 management projects was created (fire plus are not considered mesic, acres less vegetation should be planned to suppression in 2017) across multi‐storied forests providing treatment proposed in recruit a high density of 4 LAUs which intersect the quality snowshoe hare habitat. potential lynx habitat under conifers, hardwoods, project area. All of these MMS types of stands were this alternative than under and shrubs where such LAUs except Rice are well avoided. Salvage focused on Alternative B. As with habitat is scarce or not above the 30% threshold Douglas‐fir and lodgepole Alternative B, stands selected available. Priority for for ESI. The current dominated stands with sparse for treatment are not treatment should be situation is considered understories or stands considered mesic, multi‐ given to stem exclusion, adverse to lynx due to the converted to ESI by wildfire. storied forests providing closed canopy large amount of fire‐ Alternative addresses and quality snowshoe hare structural stage stands created ESI. These ESI complies with this Guideline. habitat. MMS types of stands to enhance habitat stands should .become were avoided. Salvage conditions for lynx or desirable and functional focused on Douglas‐fir and their prey (e.g., mesic lynx habitat in an SI lodgepole dominated stands monotypic lodgepole condition in approximately with sparse understories or stands). 15 to 20 years. stands converted to ESI by wildfire. Alternative addresses and complies with this Guideline. VEG G4 – Prescribed No such firebreaks exist No permanent firebreaks No permanent firebreaks fire activities should not within the project area. would be constructed and no would be constructed and no create permanent prescribed fire is planned. prescribed fire is planned. travel routes that Alternative addresses and Alternative addresses and facilitate snow complies with this Guideline. complies with this Guideline. compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be avoided. VEG G11 – Denning Denning habitat is currently Existing denning habitat is not There is less salvage habitat should be well‐distributed across the limiting within the 3 LAUs with treatment proposed under distributed in each LAU Cottonwood Dunham, proposed salvage. Areas this alternative than under in the form of pockets Morrell, and Rice LAUs as > proposed for salvage would Alternative B. within the 3 of large amounts of 35% of all these LAUs are in result in reductions in trees LAUs with proposed salvage. large woody debris, a mature forest condition. available for future denning Areas proposed for salvage either down logs or Denning habitat is less habitat. Proposed treatments would result in reductions in root wads or large piles abundant within the do not impact high quality lynx trees available for future of wind thrown trees Monture LAU due to recent habitat but rather focus on dry denning habitat. Proposed (jackstrawed piles). If fire events however, blow forest types and severely treatments do not impact denning habitat down post‐fire will create burned areas. Large areas of high quality lynx habitat but appears to be lacking in large areas of ample post‐fire downfall should rather focus on dry forest the LAU, then projects denning habitat in all of increase denning habitat types and severely burned should be designed to these LAUs. across the project area in the areas. Large areas of post‐fire retain some coarse next few years. downfall should increase woody debris, piles or Alternative addresses and denning habitat across the residual trees to complies with this Guideline.

131

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Pre‐Treatment Post‐Treatment Compliance Post‐Treatment Compliance Standards Compliance Proposed Action Alternative C provide denning habitat project area in the next few in the future. years. Alternative addresses and complies with this Guideline.

Critical Habitat Effects Summary There would be a maximum of 4,451 acres of lynx critical habitat affected by Alternative B. This does not account for any incidental and non-quantifiable impacts occurring from roadside hazard tree removal. At the scale of the three LAUs with proposed salvage, treatments would impact total 5% of the critical habitat. The proposed treatments would impact 4% of critical lynx habitat at the scale of the four LAUs associated with the project analysis area. Salvage in Alternative B would occur on a maximum or 3,735 acres of boreal forest within designated critical habitat. Approximately 595 acres of matrix habitat would be affected (Table 39 above). This equates to roughly 6% of the boreal forest and an additional 4% of the matrix within the three LAUs being impacted. Fourteen percent of the proposed salvage treatments under Alternative B would occur in matrix with the remaining 86% occurring within boreal forest that is either in the ESI or stem exclusion structural stage and as such, not in areas providing current lynx foraging habitat. As per Table 4 on page 13 of the NRLMD/Critical Habitat BiOp (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017) there are currently 368,145 acres of lynx critical habitat on the Lolo NF. About 269,843 acres are considered boreal forest and 98,302 are matrix habitat. Based on these figures Alternative B would impact 1.2% of lynx critical habitat on the Lolo NF with 1.4% of boreal forest and 0.6 % of matrix effected respectively. The Northern Rockies Lynx Critical Habitat Unit is 10,474 square miles or 6,703,360 acres. The proposed treatments under Alternative B in boreal forest and matrix within critical habitat total 0.06 % of the Northern Rockies Critical Habitat Unit. See additional discussion related to lynx critical habitat and a comparison of alternatives below under the Alternative C analysis. Table 43. The components of the PCE for lynx critical habitat as they pertain to the Rice Ridge Salvage action alternatives

PCE: Boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing Effect – Both Action Alternatives successional forest stages and containing:

1a. Presence of snowshoe The areas proposed for salvage treatment, (both action alternatives) are hares and their preferred not high quality snowshoe hare habitat. They are mostly in an early stand habitat conditions, which initiation structural condition due to impacts from the 2017 Rice Ridge include dense understories of Fire. Non-ESI stands proposed for treatment are in the stem exclusion young trees, shrubs, or structural stage or are non-lynx habitat dominated by dry forest types overhanging boughs that (matrix). Understories are generally open and do not contain dense protrude above the snow, and conditions with thousands of stems per acre. These stands are not the mature multistoried stands typical mature multi-storied alpine fir/spruce types or dense regenerating stands with very high stem densities that provide high quality snowshoe

132

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

PCE: Boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing Effect – Both Action Alternatives successional forest stages and containing:

with conifer boughs touching hare habitat as described in the literature and found on the Seeley Lake the snow surface. Ranger District.

1b. Winter snow conditions The project area covers a variety of aspects and ranges in elevation from that are generally deep and roughly 4,000 – 6,000 feet. Nearly all of the proposed treatment units fluffy for extended periods of occur within lynx critical habitat and as such, in areas where snow time. conditions are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time. 1,429 acres are specified for winter harvest under Alternative B (678 acres for Alt. C) and additional winter harvest could occur. As such both alternatives could impact this PCE component primarily through winter harvest activities within treatment units.

1c. Sites for denning that As discussed in Table 42 above under VEG G11, there would be have abundant coarse woody reductions in areas of future denning habitat recruitment due to salvage debris, such as downed trees proposed under the action alternatives. These reductions would be and root wads. greater in ESI stands proposed as regeneration salvage. Only approximately 5% of LAUs would be salvage harvested under Alternative B and less would be salvaged under Alternative C. Due to the small scale in the context of the LAUs, because existing conditions provide ample denning habitat and because post fire blow down will increase denning habitat at a large scale, the impacts of the alternative on this PCE are discountable.

1d. Matrix habitat (e.g., As indicated in Table 42 above, 595 acres of matrix habitat would be hardwood forest, dry forest, impacted under Alternative B. Fewer acres would be impacted under non-forest, or other habitat Alternative C. Under Alternative B, approximately 4% of the matrix types that do not support within the three LAUs would be impacted by salvage harvest activities. snowshoe hares) that occurs Due to the small scale of matrix that would be treated there would be no between patches of boreal measureable effect to lynx movement between patches of boreal forest forest in close juxtaposition under either alternative. (at the scale of a lynx home range) such that lynx are likely to travel through such habitat while accessing patches of boreal forest within a home range.

In summary and with respect to key elements of the 2017 BiOp listed above, when looked at solely in the context of the project, the impacts from Alternative B on the lynx critical habitat PCE would be minimal and discountable (Table 43). In consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, Alternatives B and C for the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project would both add to an already degraded environmental baseline for lynx. When considering all of these impacts together, the project would Likely Adversely Affect lynx critical habitat.

133

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Forest Plan Consistency In consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, Alternatives B and C for the project would be “likely to adversely affect” (LAA) lynx and lynx critical habitat. This determination is based on the adverse baseline conditions for lynx created by the Rice Ridge Fire in 2017. The rationale for this decision is included in Chapter 3 of the Terrestrial Wildlife BA as are tables and discussion pertaining to the impacts to all LAUs impacted by the Rice Ridge Fire. The adverse effect of post-fire salvage to lynx and lynx critical habitat would be minimal and would be not likely to adversely affect lynx and lynx critical habitat if the baseline was not considered. Neither action alternatives would affect existing lynx foraging habitat (winter forage or mature multi- storied). These actions would have minimal effects on lynx habitat as described above and would not limit connectivity within or between the three LAUs in the project area or to adjacent LAUs outside the project. Over time, the degraded conditions created by the fire will improve and within a period of twenty years all of the ESI conditions should be providing quality hare and lynx habitat. During project implementation and for a period of ten years after implementation, over-the-snow access and resultant compaction could increase within the project area due to increased openings. This anticipated impact is likely to be the most substantive of all effects associated with the project. As per the discussion above from the 2017 NRLMD/Critical Habitat BiOp, this impact and other impacts not directly associated with PCE 1a are not considered to result in adverse impacts to lynx. Both action alternatives are consistent with the 2007 Lynx Amendment, the Forest Plan and lynx critical habitat direction and the R1 Design Criteria mentioned previously (Table 44). A biological assessment (BA) has been prepared for selected action and will be submitted to FWS requesting a biological opinion on these determinations and the resultant documentation will be available in the Project File. Table 44. Summary of post project lynx habitat conditions within LAUs in the project analysis area under Alternative B. Changes under Alternative C would be about 50% less.

Temporarily Multistory Stand Initiation Total Unsuitable Lynx (forage) Stem exclusion or LAU (winter forage) Lynx Habitat Acres other non‐forage LAU Name Total Acres (%) Habitat (%) Acres (%) Acres Acres Acres (%)

ESI

20,141 pre‐Rice 2,707 pre‐Rice 604 pre‐Rice Ridge Fire 3,693 pre‐Rice Ridge Fire Ridge Fire Ridge Fire 9,461 post‐fire 15,322 post‐fire 27,146 436 post‐fire and and 1,926 post‐fire and suppression Cottonwood suppression suppression and suppression 33,981 Dunham (80% of 15,322 post‐ LAU) 436 post‐salvage 9,461 post‐ 1,926 post‐salvage salvage Alt B. Alt B. (2) salvage Alt B. Alt B. (7) (56) (35) 0 acres change 0 acres change 0 acres change 0 acres change

134

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

ESI

14,209 pre‐Rice 830 pre‐Rice 153 pre‐Rice Ridge Fire 4,698 pre‐Rice Ridge Fire Ridge Fire Ridge Fire 8,413 post‐fire 8179 post‐fire 19,890 138 post‐fire and and 3,189 post‐fire and suppression suppression suppression and suppression Morrell 23,353 (85% of 8179 post‐ LAU) 138 post‐salvage 8,413 post‐ 3,189 post‐salvage salvage Alt B. Alt B. (<1) salvage Alt B. Alt B. (16) (41) (42) 0 acres change 0 acres change 0 acres change 0 acres change

12,912 pre‐Rice 1019 pre‐Rice 400 pre‐Rice Ridge Fire 6455 pre‐Rice Ridge Fire Ridge Fire Ridge Fire 11,479 post‐fire 2587 post‐fire 20,786 400 post‐fire and and 6,249 post‐fire and suppression suppression suppression and suppression Rice 23714 (88% of 2587 post‐ LAU) 400 post‐salvage 11,479 post‐ 6,249 post‐salvage salvage Alt B. Alt B. (2) salvage Alt. B Alt. B (30) (12) (55) 0 acres change 0 acres change 0 acres change 0 acres change

Grizzly Bear The project area is planned within or adjacent to the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Grizzly Bear Recovery Area, and has been classified as "Management Situation 1 (MS1) and MS2" (Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines, (IGBC 1986). Management direction for MS1 includes minimizing human-grizzly conflict, favoring the grizzly's interest when there are conflicts between grizzlies and other land uses, and making land uses compatible with the interests of grizzlies and their habitat (IGBC 1986, p. 3). Direction for MS2 requires that grizzly bear populations be considered and managed for, but not to the extent of exclusion of other uses (IGBC 1986, p. 6). The general management direction in the 1986 Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) guidelines was refined into more quantitative guidelines for the Lolo NF through consultation with the USFWS (Lolo NF Grizzly Bear Management Strategy, hereafter referred to as the "Lolo Guidelines, 1993" (Lolo National Forest 1993). These guidelines address opening size, habitat enhancement, scheduling of activities (disturbance caused by major and minor project activity), displacement areas, and limits to roaded access. In 1994, the IGBC adopted a new approach to regulating access based on the "moving window" analysis method of describing road density (IGBC 1994). Numerical guidelines derived from moving windows were developed for the NCDE. These guidelines (hereafter "1995 Interim Guidelines"; NCDE Access Task Group 1995) supersede the access portion of the earlier Lolo NF Guidelines. This change was accomplished by a statement of incidental take statement (ITS) (USFWS 1996) amending the USFWS's Biological Opinion on the Lolo NF Plan.

135

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

The 1995 Interim Guidelines are based on descriptions of areas occupied by adult female bears studied in the South Fork of the Flathead River. Like the South Fork study, the guidelines employ site-specific ("precise") road density (Mace and Waller 1996, Manley and Mace 1992). Three parameters are measured for these guidelines:  "Total" road density (TMRD) includes gated roads and motorized trails but omits roads that are brushed in or otherwise impassible. The guideline for total roads is to have less than 19% of the subunit with a road density over 2 miles per section.  "Open" road density (OMRD) includes roads with: (a) unregulated traffic for over 14 days, or (b) more than 1 trip per day in each season. The guideline for open roads is to have less than 19% of the subunit with a road density over 1 mile per section.  "Core" is defined as 2,500-acre blocks at least 0.3 miles from a road (referred to in this report as "security core" to distinguish it from "core" in the sense of the portion of a home range where an animal spends most of its time). The guideline for security core is 68% of the each subunit. Under the 1995 IGBC guidelines, core was based on the total roads map. In the 1998 revision of the definitions in the IGBC Taskforce Report, this guideline became based on the open roads map. Further, in 1998 the NCDE Access Task Group determined that Seasonally Secure Areas (SSAs) would be more beneficial than a static core area (taken from “Rationale and Choices Made in the Review and Development of an Access Direction Proposal for the NCDE Grizzly Bear Ecosystem” (IGBC 1998). In summary, it was decided that core areas usually “overprotected” summer and fall habitat and “underprotected “ spring habitat due to the fact that spring habitats are at lower elevations and subsequently, more highly roaded. The concept of SSAs attempts to afford protection to spring areas through seasonal road closures. The 1998 guidelines were never formally adopted, however the concept of seasonally secure areas remains a consideration in grizzly bear management. The activities of grizzly bears and their vulnerability to various pressures change throughout the year. The year is divided into four seasons by dates that are correlated with these changes as follows: spring - April 1 to June 30; summer - July 1 to September 15; fall - September 16 to November 30; and winter (denning) - December 1 to March 31 (Mace et al. 1999). Note: dates on the east side of the continental divide are slightly different. The IGBC Guidelines date back to the mid-1980s and are currently being replaced by newer science- based policy, management area boundaries and associated terminology in the Draft NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (USFWS 2013). As of April, 2018, the Conservation Strategy document is in draft format. Pending Forest Plan amendments, based largely on this Conservation Strategy, have been consulted on and a Record of Decision is expected to be signed in August 2018. An agreement to conduct current analyses on grizzly bears in accordance with this Conservation Strategy exists between the U.S. Forest Service and USFWS. For this reason, the NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (GBCS) is referred to and incorporated into the analysis of grizzly bears as current science for this project. Two components of the GBCS are used in this analysis. The recovery area is referred to as the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) and the area immediately outside of the recovery area on the Seeley Lake Ranger District is referred to as Zone 1. Definitions, corresponding guidance and associated scientific rationale associated with these areas can be found in the aforementioned 2013 Draft Conservation Strategy document. The project area falls partially within the NCDE grizzly bear recovery area and the rest of the project is within Zone 1 (Table 45 and Table 51). As such, habitat factors pertaining to grizzly bears are an important component of the project.

136

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 45. Grizzly bear population information for the Rice Ridge Salvage project area

Grizzly Habitat Acres within Project on Seeley Lake Visual Den Area RD Sub-unit Sightings Sites Mortality All acres within Not Increasing None 1 grizzly killed on Hwy 200 in 25,965 acres NFS Boundary applicable. trend known 2004 outside of This area recovery area is referred 3 grizzlies killed on Blackfoot to as Zone Clearwater Game Range in 1 in the 2002 GBCS 1 grizzly killed on Two Creek Ranch in 2003

Female and cubs removed in 2010 NCDE Morrell Increasing Yes None Known 9,266 acres Recovery Area Dunham trend NCDE Monture Increasing Yes 1 male grizzly killed by 591 acres Recovery Area trend hunter near road in 2008 NCDE Swan Increasing None None Known 3,004 acres Recovery Area trend known

Features of the existing environment that are relevant to grizzlies based on the 1993 Lolo NF Guidelines and the GBCS include motorized access, cover, habitat suitability, livestock grazing and food and garbage attractants. As indicated by the current best available science (Draft Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy for the NCDE; (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2013), motorized access, livestock grazing, and attractants are the primary areas of concern based on their relationship to grizzly bear mortality. The Rice Ridge Fire and associated suppression, repair, and BAER activities impacted the environmental baseline for grizzly bears across the 160,000-acre fire perimeter. The adjusted post-fire baseline is an adverse effect to grizzly bears because of the spatial extent (scale) and magnitude of impacts (intensity) from natural and human-caused disturbance. These impacts include temporary loss of cover and habitat at the scale of the fire (Table 50) and disturbance and displacement caused by increased miles of open road (Table 48) as well as past and ongoing activities associated with suppression, repair and BAER work. Table 46 and Table 47 below summarize the fire, suppression and BAER-related changes in habitat, cover and road density within the PCA portion of the Rice Ridge Fire and include the three grizzly bear subunits which intersect the project area. During the fire, OMRD, TMRD and Core did not exceed the 19-19-68 requirements for any of the subunits except the Swan. This subunit has special considerations which are discussed in further detail below.

137

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 46. Summary of fire effects to bear management analysis areas (BMAA), in acres (and percent of total) within the Rice Ridge Fire, based on geo-mapping software

BMAA Total BMAA Total CORE: Fire Land Burned CORE: Ecosystem Subunit BMAA High Tree CORE: High Tree Name Ownership1 Burned Acres Mortality* BMAA Mortality* acres (%) USFS 38373 20174 (53) 23910 (62) 32653 16445 (50) 19586 (60) Monture Non-USFS - - - - - USFS 32753 19335 (59) 29598 (90) 26902 15664 (58) 24586 (91) Mor-Dun Non-USFS - - - - - Northern Rice North USFS 83501 1381 (2) 2214 (3) 75600 1093 (1) 1714 (2) Continental Ridge Scapegoat Non-USFS - - - - - Divide South USFS 51088 9944 (19) 12960 (25) 46077 9747 (21) 12721 (28) Scapegoat Non-USFS - - - - - USFS 29401 5996 (20) 11076 (38) 17219 3465 (20) 6060 (35) Swan Non-USFS - - - - - * High mortality was derived from geospatial mapping exercise where all pixels classed as “high mortality” in either RAVG or SBS layers counted within estimated acreages. Number in parentheses are percentages.

Table 47. Summary of pre-fire, during, and post-fire baseline of open motorized access (OMRD), total motorized access (TMRD) and security core habitat within subunits on Lolo NF portion of Rice Ridge Fire, based on moving windows analysis. Numbers represent percentages.

Distinct Pre/ PCA Security Fire Population OMRD TMRD Core BMU Subunit Segment1 During/ Post Pre 1 1 99 Monture NCDE During 1 1 99 Post 1 1 99 Pre 18 14 73 Mor-Dun NCDE During 19 14 73 Monture Post 18 14 73 Landers Pre 0 0 94 Rice Fork North NCDE During 0 0 94 Ridge Scapegoat Post 0 0 94 Pre 13 17 73 South NCDE During 14 17 73 Scapegoat Post 13 17 73 Upper South Pre 32 16 55 Fork Swan NCDE During 33 17 55 Flathead Post 32 16 55 NCDE is the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. Analysis uses current NCDE ruleset.

Motorized Access The project is located almost entirely on NFS lands (99%) in an area with limited year-round open road access, both within the PCA and Zone 1. However, there are several seasonally-closed roads and numerous roads with year-round closures that receive occasional administrative use. The project area has about 504 miles of road including: 168 miles of National Forest System roads (NFSR), 318 miles of

138

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment undetermined roads, 18 miles of private roads (in-holdings), and 63 miles of previously decommissioned or converted from roads to trails. About 0.2 miles of NFSR are open year-long (no restrictions), about 77 are closed year-long, and 91 miles are seasonally restricted. A comprehensive description of the existing transportation system within the project area as well as the proposed system under the two action alternatives can be found in the Transportation Planning Specialist’s Report. The current access management rules for grizzly bears requires motorized access to be evaluated within the NCDE recovery area at the scale of a female grizzly bear home range. Discreet polygons called subunits (or sometimes bear management analysis areas - BMAAs) serve as these analyses area boundaries. The project occurs within three grizzly bear subunits: Morrell-Dunham, Monture, and Swan (Table 26 and Table 32). The grizzly bear subunits within the project area are covered under what is commonly referred to as the “19-19-68” rule set – described above under the IGBC Access discussion. Table 48 shows that the Monture and Morrell Dunham subunits comply with the standards for open and total road densities and for security core. However, the Swan subunit does not comply with the OMRD and Core standards. This subunit presents a special case due largely to its long and skinny shape. There is a long history of the Lolo NF attempting to bring this subunit into compliance. Following a project called Clearwater Roads, the non-compliant situation of this subunit was consulted on in 2010. The USFWS issued a BiOp in 2010 (revised 2011) which includes rationale for why OMRD of 19% and Core of 68% is not attainable (USFWS 2011). This BiOp includes a final access management strategy with associated terms and conditions and an incidental take statement (ITS). The strategy is to: maintain spring OMRD at 22% (which has been accomplished through a seasonal road closure); keep summer and fall OMRD below 31%; and, keep TMRD below 17% and Core above 55%. Temporary roads cannot increase by more than four miles at any given time and temporary roads can only retain on the landscape for up to three years. Table 48. Existing road densities and security core within the three subunits in the project area. Note: The Draft Conservation Strategy uses a slightly different rule set. Those numbers are in parentheses for the respective subunits.

Subunit Name Open Rd Density Total Rd Density CORE Monture 1% (1) 1% (1) 99% (99) Morrell Dunham 18% (18) 14% (14) 73%(77) Swan 32% (32) 16% (16) 55% (55)

A biological opinion and incidental take statement (ITS) was received in June of 2012 for an updated environmental baseline for the portion of the Lolo NF outside of the NCDE recovery zone (USFWS 2012). As stated in the ITS, “This revised incidental take statement applies to the effects on grizzly bears from; motorized access management on the Forest outside the grizzly bear recovery zone, food and attractant storage and livestock grazing on the Forest under the continued implementation of the Forest Plan. It is administratively amended to the Service’s 2004 biological opinion on the Forest Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004) but does not affect the Service’s 1996 incidental take statement pertaining to access management on Forest lands within the NCDE recovery zone (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). The ITS also puts forth terms and conditions and conservation recommendations for grizzly bear management on the Lolo NF (Project File). For areas outside the PCA (recovery area), the GBCS creates additional “zones” with respective management objectives. Where this project is not in the PCA, it occurs in Zone 1. Roads within Zone 1 were impacted by the Rice Ridge Fire and associated suppression, repair, and BAER activities. Table 49 below illustrates linear road mile status pre, during, and post-Rice Ridge Fire. The post-fire conditions represent the adjusted baseline for Zone 1 within the buffered fire perimeter. As shown, there was a

139

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment temporary increase of approximately 79 miles within the buffered portion of Zone 1 that intersects the fire perimeter. Table 49. Miles of road by category in Zone 1 using 3-mile buffer of Rice Ridge Fire perimeter

Road Status Pre-Fire During Fire Net Temporary Post-Fire Change Open Yearlong or 251 miles 330 miles +79 miles 251 miles Seasonal Closed Yearlong 654 miles 617 miles -37 miles 654 miles Historical 154 miles 112 miles -42 miles 154 miles

Habitat Grizzly bear habitat across the project area is variable. The Rice Ridge Fire had large scale impacts on grizzly habitat (see Table 46 and Table 50). Approximately 63 percent of the three subunits were impacted by varying intensities of fire. A subset (45,505 acres) burned at moderate to high severity. Based on these estimates, roughly 44 percent of the three subunits incurred moderate to high severity impacts to foraging habitat and cover from the Rice Ridge Fire. Similarly, as illustrated in Table 50 , about 51 percent of the Zone 1 portion of the fire perimeter within the project area was impacted by high severity fire. Not all areas within the fire perimeter burned – some unburned areas exist and other areas burned at very low severity resulting in a mosaic of post-fire habitat conditions for grizzly bears. Equating acres of fire to acres of degraded habitat overestimates the impacts of the fire. In addition, because grizzly bears are generalists and omnivorous, many burned areas will provide food resources for the species in a short time period. Cover Cover, especially along open roads, is important for grizzly bear security. Large blocks of cover provide security for bears using areas for feeding, breeding, resting, and other activities. The Lolo NF guidelines (1993) call for at least 75 percent of a bear management analysis area (BMAA) to be cover, based on lands that are typically tree-covered in an undisturbed state. Currently, forested cover values are lower across the three grizzly bear subunits within the project area (based on severity analysis – Table 46) than they were pre-fire. Cover values (based on burn severity) outside the PCA and within the project area boundary are lower than they were prior to the Rice Ridge Fire. It is relevant here that burned forests do provide cover and the criteria for cover described above is focused primarily on consideration of openings, as would be created by commercial timber harvest. As within the PCA, cover was impacted in Zone 1 by the Rice Ridge Fire. And similar to the situation within the PCA, the fire burned at variable intensities across a landscape that was homogeneous in regard to forest type and associated canopy cover pre-fire. Table 50 illustrates the Zone 1 pre-fire cover conditions within the project area and the impacts of the varying fire intensities across these cover classes. As shown in the table, there were nearly equal amounts of low and high intensity fire and a much smaller percentage of moderate intensity fire. Proposed salvage would occur in high intensity fire areas in Zone 1 and as such roughly half of the project area within Zone 1 would be untreated and remain in low severity fire conditions.

140

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 50. Pre-fire vegetation cover classes and associated Rice Ridge Fire intensities. Percentages of total are in parentheses

Fire Intensity Acres VMap TREECANOPY Low Moderate High HERB 36 8 55 SHRUB 10 2 20 10-24.9% 129 67 368 25-39.9% 913 246 1,910 40-59.9% 7,066 1,000 8,294 >=60% 2,905 261 2,445 WATER 1916 SPVEG 44 15 75 TREE-DECID 1110 TRANSITIONAL FOREST 18 7 23 Total 11,141 1,608 13,206 Security core within the PCA (68% required under the aforementioned 19-19-68 rule set) is a more contemporary measure of grizzly bear security than cover. As indicated by the security core values in Table 46, Table 47, and Table 48, there are large unroaded areas within all of these subunits which provide security areas for grizzly bears and other wildlife species. Consideration should be given to these core areas, regardless of the burn severity, when cover conditions are evaluated. Disturbance/Displacement The 1993 Lolo NF grizzly bear guidelines state that major activities like timber sales will occur for no more than three consecutive years out of ten years in a given BMAA (subunit hereafter). The Draft GBCS contains different guidance, in part because road density standards and associated security core areas within each subunit mitigate the issues of disturbance and displacement. The project is within three subunits, however, the majority of activity would occur in the Morrell-Dunham and Swan subunits. Each of these three subunits has large blocks of security core which provide refuge for grizzly bears and other wildlife at the scale of the individual subunit. These security core areas are intended to mitigate the effects of subunit scale disturbances, thus diminishing the need for timing restrictions (as directed by the dated Lolo NF Guidelines) within subunits that provide ample security core. While there have been recent fire-related human activities that likely created some displacement, security core areas received little to no impacts, aside from aircraft overflights associated with fire suppression. Linkage The project area is not located in a linkage zone. In addition, the area is not been considered to be an important linkage area in the GBCS. This is not to say that habitat connectivity is not a consideration within this project area. Several of the larger streams provide high quality foraging habitat and these streams and associated riparian areas provide secure connectivity in a general north/south orientation within and to the south of the project area. These riparian areas were impacted by the Rice Ridge Fire in some areas but remain functional as travel corridors for grizzly bears and other wildlife. The Seeley Lake Ranger District and broader Lolo NF has dedicated substantial effort to maintain and enhance grizzly bear habitat and habitat connectivity.

141

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Sanitation The project area is covered by a food storage order that applies Forest within and outside of the recovery area (Lolo NF Special Order No. F11-005-Lolo-Forest). All project activities would require adherence to this order to ensure all food and garbage would be stored in a bear safe manner (see Resource Protection Measure WL-G-1 in the EA). Livestock Grazing There are no active grazing allotments within the project area (see EA Appendix D). The project does not propose any changes to grazing. No further discussion on livestock grazing will be included in this analysis. Alternative A – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Because this alternative would not change existing vegetative conditions or existing road densities within the project area, it would have “No Effect” on grizzly bears. Because this alternative would have no direct or indirect effect to grizzly bears, it would have no cumulative effects. When compared to the action alternatives, taking no action would have fewer impacts to grizzly bears in several ways. There would be no human-caused disturbance associated with timber harvest, temporary road construction/deconstruction, and timber haul. There would be no further reduction in cover from salvage units or hazard tree removal. There would be no increase in existing road densities from the construction of temporary roads to access salvage units. Alternative B - Direct and Indirect Effects The Rice Ridge Salvage project occurs largely outside of the PCA. Salvage would occur primarily in areas that were burned at high to moderate intensities. As such, grizzly bear habitat and cover values in these areas have been reduced by fire. Table 51 provides a summary of the proposed salvage activities for Alternative B and where they occur. As shown in the table, proposed activities would impact approximately one and a half percent of the three subunits. Seventy-four percent of the proposed salvage under Alternative B would occur within Zone 1. Twenty-eight percent (1,428 ac./5,592 ac. = 28%) of the salvage proposed under Alternative B is mandated for winter harvest, which occurs during the grizzly bear denning period. This approach further mitigates direct effects of disturbance and displacement on grizzly bears. Table 51. Alternative B proposed salvage activities within the PCA and Zone 1. PCA denotes Primary Recovery Area and subunits are analysis areas within the PCA.

Acres of Acres of Acres of Acres of Tractor Salvage Salvage Total Acres of Skyline Total Subunit Subunit Acres Treatment Rx Regen Treatment Treatment BMU‐Subunit Acres in Project Area Rx

Monture 38,373 591 49 0 49

Mor‐Dun 32,753 9,266 170 412 581

Swan 29,401 3,004 539 294 833

Outside Subunit 25,965 2,421 1,708 1,176 2,964 4,129

Total PCA 100,527 12,862 758 705 62 1,402 1,463

142

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Motorized Access Motorized access activities outside of the PCA would occur within Zone 1. These activities include temporary road construction and road maintenance and would not impart effects of existing permanent roads or road use beyond those already covered in the 2012 BiOp and ITS. In summary, the ITS stipulates that the Lolo NF: construct no more than seven miles of new permanent road outside the recovery area; address attractant storage; restrict sheep grazing; and, report livestock depredation by grizzly bears on existing cattle grazing allotments. While the Lolo NF has the latitude to build additional roads outside the recovery area, the general trend is to reduce roads across the Forest. The project would construct temporary roads outside the recovery area (approximately 20 miles) under Alternative B. All temporary roads would only be used for project- related access, would be closed yearlong to the public with gates or other barriers, and would be decommissioned (all new and some existing) or stored (some existing) upon project completion (RPM WL-G-2) Approximately 1.6 miles of new permanent roads would be constructed (about 0.7 miles in Zone 1) for relocation of roads along Morrell and Spring Creeks. However, equivalent miles of roads near these streams would be decommissioned. There would be a 1-percent decrease in OMRD within the Swan subunit in Alternative B. BMP work would be conducted on approximately 115 miles of roads under Alternative B. Limited road maintenance work and harvesting would be conducted during the spring season (April 1–June 30) to ensure that soils and fisheries are not impacted. The majority of road work would occur in the drier periods of summer and fall. All of the activities described above could result in direct impacts to grizzly bears in the form of disturbance and displacement. These effects could occur during construction and deconstruction periods as well as during the time the roads are used for harvest, haul and associated activities. The anticipated duration of these impacts would be a maximum of five years. As stated, most activities would occur outside of the spring season (4/1 – 6/30). Primary Conservation Area (PCA) Most salvage would occur outside the PCA and, as such, so would the road-associated activity. Under Alternative B, approximately 10.9 miles of temporary road would be constructed or improved in the PCA (7.7 existing templates, 3.2. new construction). The Final Access Management Strategy allows for a maximum of 4 miles of temporary road to occur concurrently within the Swan subunit. Under Alternative B, 2.41 miles of temporary road would be constructed in this subunit, 1.69 miles of new construction and 0.72 miles on existing road templates. The majority of temporary road constructed in the PCA would be in the Morrell Dunham subunit (7.75 miles). Table 52 depicts changes to OMRD, TMRD and Core from road-related activities. The Monture subunit would remain well within the ruleset parameters during the project. The Morrell Dunham subunit would exceed the OMRD parameter (up to 22%) during the project and stay within the TMRD and Core parameters. Post-project this subunit returns to pre-project conditions and to full compliance with 19-19- 68. The Swan subunit does not meet the 19-19-68 in the existing condition (rationale given above) and during the project under Alternative B, OMRD would increase to 34%. TMRD would increase but stay within the 19% threshold and Core would not change. Post-project, the Swan subunit would drop to 31% OMRD and 15% TMRD with Core remaining unchanged. In the Conservation Strategy process (plan amendment), none of the DURING PROJECT percentages violate the 5-3-2 Standard. OPEN route density only increased a max of 4% for Alt. B in Mor-Dun which is less than the 5%. TOTAL route density only increased a max of 3% for Alt. B in Mor-Dun which is exactly the 3%. CORE only decreased a max of 2% for Alt. B in Mor-Dun which is less than the 2%.

143

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 52. Comprehensive results of moving windows analysis for the 3 grizzly bear subunits within the Rice Ridge Salvage project analysis area. Numbers in parentheses are based on GBCS rule set.

Morrell Dunham Subunit Characteristics Open Road Density Total Road Density Security Core Area IGBC Desired Condition < or = 19% < or = 19% > or = 68% Existing Situation 18% (18) 14% (14) 73% (77) During Project -Alt B 22% (22) 17% (17) 72% (75) During Project -Alt C 19% (19) 14% (14) 72% (76) Post Project – Alt B 18% (18) 14% (14) 73% (77) Post Project – Alt C 18% (18) 14% (14) 73% (77) Monture Subunit Characteristics Open Road Density Total Road Density Security Core Area IGBC Desired Condition < or = 19% < or = 19% > or = 68% Existing Situation 1% (1) 1% (1) 99% (99) During Project -Alt B 2% (2) 1% (1) 98% (98) During Project -Alt C 1% (1) 1% (1) 99% (99) Post Project – Alt B 1% (1) 1% (1) 99% (99) Post Project – Alt C 1% (1) 1% (1) 99% (99( Swan Subunit Characteristics Open Road Density Total Road Density Security Core Area IGBC Desired Condition < or = 19% < or = 19% > Or = 68% Existing Situation 32% (32) 16% (16) 55% (55) During Project -Alt B 34% (34) 18% (18) 55% (55) During Project -Alt C 33% (33) 16% (16) 55% (55) Post Project – Alt B 31% (31) 15% (15) 55% (55) Post Project – Alt C 32% (32) 16% (16) 55% (55) Highlighted area shows improvement from existing condition. All of the activities described above, could impart direct impacts to grizzly bears in the form of disturbance and displacement only in the small portions of the PCA where the activities would occur. These effects could occur during construction and deconstruction periods as well as during the time the roads are used for harvest, haul, and associated activities. The anticipated duration of these impacts is a maximum of three years. Effects from potential human-caused mortality are minimized in that none of these roads would be open to the public at any time during the project and these roads would all be closed with effective barriers upon project completion. Cover Under Alternative B the project would reduce cover where salvage would occur. Hazard tree removal could reduce cover along roads. Approximately 1,463 acres of salvage would occur within the PCA and 4,129 acres are proposed for Zone 1. Roadside hazard tree removal would occur both within the PCA and Zone 1 along 25 miles of road open to the public. Salvage harvest would remove only dead and dying trees. There would be a decrease in bole density in all of the salvage harvest areas. Salvage regeneration would occur in areas where high fire intensity killed most or all trees and as such, after treatment these units would be very open with few trees of commercial size remaining. Salvage would also occur in areas that burned at lower intensities and as such, there would be trees that are not considered imminently dead remaining. Table 51 includes summary numbers for these prescriptions for this alternative. Hazard tree removal would occur along roads and would not involve the use of mechanical equipment off roads. As such, the anticipated effects to cover from these activities are minor.

144

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

The proposed treatments are arranged across the landscape in a manner that provides large blocks of undisturbed forest. In addition, riparian buffers, natural topographic features, and retention of patches of unburned pockets within units address aspects of grizzly bear security related to cover at the smaller scale of treatment units. Table 51 depicts the treatments proposed under both action alternatives and the activities that would occur with these treatments. As previously stated, security core is currently high across the Monture Dunham and Morrell subunits and open and total road densities are low and meet the IGBC access management (19-19-68) requirements. In the Swan subunit, existing security core is at 55% currently and would not change during the project under Alternative B. Further, the majority of vegetation activities would occur behind gated closures on temporary roads which would be decommissioned upon project completion. For these reasons, the short- term impacts to grizzly bears associated with reductions in cover would not be major effects beyond those caused by the fire and associated activities. Planting proposed in the action alternatives could accelerate vegetative recovery and mitigate losses of cover from fire and associated salvage. Disturbance As with cover, project-related disturbance to grizzly bears within the PCA would largely be mitigated by low road densities and the high percentage of security core across the three subunits. There are numerous activities proposed under this alternative that could disturb or displace grizzly bears. The duration of these activities could be up to five years with the majority of impacts associated with salvage harvest, road work, and timber haul lasting an anticipated maximum of three years. The spatial scale of the activities would be limited within the PCA and as stated only 1.5 percent of the three subunits would be affected under Alternative B. Further, not all areas would receive treatment concurrently but rather, activities would be localized and limited due to environmental constraints such as weather and associated access. Anticipated disturbance within the Zone 1 portion of the project would be higher because the majority of the salvage harvest and associated activities. The timing of activities would vary and disturbance would be mitigated by:  Existing conditions which provide large blocks of grizzly bear security core  Existing low open and total road densities within the PCA  The use of temporary roads for access, all of which would be closed to public use and decommissioned post-project  Recent acquisitions of PCTC lands within and adjacent to the project area which reduce the impact of past industrial forest management and create restoration opportunities (e.g., road decommissioning)  Adequate displacement areas exist in the adjacent Bob Marshall and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas as well as on adjacent private lands (Two Creek Ranch) and the Blackfoot Clearwater Game Range – both areas with limited human access Alternative B would not affect grizzly bear denning habitat. The areas proposed for treatment are at relatively low elevations (average approximately 5,000 feet) and are on low to moderate slopes. Based on various studies on grizzly bear den site selection in Montana (Mace and Waller 1996), (Servheen 1983), (Aune and Kasworm 1989), it is unlikely that grizzlies would select low elevation areas for denning, so the possibility of disturbing or displacing a denning grizzly bear is very low. Sanitation and Other Bear-Human Conflicts People working in the woods provide situations where grizzly bears (and black bears) could be attracted to food and garbage and become food conditioned. RPM WL-G1 addresses this issue with food and garbage storage requirements. Further, the entire Forest is now under an attractant storage order designed to minimize human/bear conflicts.

145

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Alternative C - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative C is a modified version of Alternative B and does not include any temporary road construction. Given that road construction and related access management has been identified as a principle component of effect to grizzly bears, this alternative is much more benign to grizzly bears in that it does not increase temporary road densities. While some salvage, hazard tree removal and replanting activities would occur both within and outside of the grizzly bear recovery area, these activities would be of a shorter duration than those proposed under Alternative B, would be less spatially extensive, and would result in reduced openings and human-related disturbances. Due to these factors, an extensive analysis will not be provided for this alternative but rather it will be compared to Alternative B using Table 53 below to present an overview of effects, duration of effects, and a basis for comparison (see Table 52). Table 53. Summary of proposed actions and associated activities along with anticipated durations by alternative

Alternative B Alternative C Temporal Scale Temporal Scale Activity Equipment Alt B Alt C Salvage prescription Likely feller-buncher, 1,240 acres 695 acres 3 years following Up to 3 years rubber-tired skidder and contract award following contract skyline award

Salvage Regen Likely feller-buncher, 4,364 acres 2,039 acres 3 years following Up to 3 years prescription rubber-tired skidder and contract award following contract skyline award

Hand or aerial ignition post-harvest Reforestation Hand Planting Crews 16,526 15,232 6 to 10 years 6 to 10 years Road decommissioning Primarily excavators 27.5 Miles 0 Miles 5 years 5 years for Aquatic Offsets considering some considering some roads will not be roads will not be decommissioned decommissioned until all other until all other work is complete work is complete Road construction; long Dozers and graders 1.6 Miles 0 Miles 2 years NA term (for reroutes) Road construction and Dozers and graders 13 Miles 0 miles 3 years NA deconstruction short- term specified and temporary road Reopening of existing Dozer, grader, excavator 18 miles 0 Miles 3 years** NA road; only for administrative use and decommissioned/stored post-project Best Management Dozer, grader, excavator 115 Miles 94 Miles 3 years 3 years Practice work related to haul routes Note: Acres are approximations * Temporal scale is reported in the context of all activities combined for each treatment type. The duration of unit-specific activities under each temporal scale block would be much shorter than the full time extent reported. Anticipated implementation horizon for entire project is 5 years post-contract award. This does not include planting and possibly some pile burning but these are considered minor activities.

146

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

** Roads 17509 and 17534 would remain open for a maximum of 5 years to allow for reforestation access. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects Various events including fires, harvest, and road construction have affected grizzly bear habitat conditions in the three subunits in the recovery area and Zone 1. Much of the past timber harvest within the area occurred in the 1980s or earlier. Subsequently, the effects of past timber harvesting on grizzly bears and their habitat have diminished as the forest has grown back and roads associated with many old harvest units have grown in and become impassable. Furthermore, impacts of some roads have lessened because public motor vehicle use has been restricted. The Rice Ridge Fire of 2017 had large-scale impacts, both from the fire and, to a lesser degree, from the suppression and repair activities. General conclusions reached from an evaluation of previously discussed environmental baseline conditions for grizzlies within the cumulative effects analysis area can be summarized as follows:  The cumulative effects analysis area for grizzly bears for the Rice Ridge Salvage project includes large, contiguous blocks of NFS lands within the grizzly bear recovery area and currently provide high levels of security core and corresponding limited public access due to restrictions on open and total roads.  Areas outside the recovery area falling within Zone 1 (NCDE Grizzly Conservation Strategy) have higher road densities than those within the recovery area, yet these areas comply with standards and guidelines proposed under the Draft NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation strategy.  While vegetation management and natural disturbance (e.g., fire) has occurred across portions of the analysis area in the past, vegetation management is not detrimental to grizzly bears and in many cases, openings created by timber harvest and fire provide high quality bear habitat. Roads have historically resulted in primary impacts to bears. Currently, the impacts from many of these roads have been mitigated through closures and decommissioning.  The Rice Ridge Fire and associated activities had both short-term and long-term impacts to grizzly bears. Many of the short-term impacts, such as disturbance and displacement have already returned to pre-fire conditions. Longer-term impacts to habitat and cover still exist on the landscape. Foreseeable Actions As indicated in Appendix D, there are only a few federal foreseeable actions within the project area – ongoing road maintenance, trail and trailhead maintenance, road decommissioning/storage (Center Horse Transportation Analysis Process (TAP)), and weed treatment. These foreseeable actions, when considered with direct and indirect effects from this project, would have minimal cumulative impact to grizzly bears within the PCA or Zone 1. The primary impacts would occur from implementation of the Center Horse TAP. Non-federal actions that could occur are associated with Montana Department of Natural Resources lands within and adjacent to the project area. None of these actions would occur within the PCA. These proposed activities are of small scale and duration and would have minor impacts to grizzly bears, primarily in the form of temporary disturbance, with Zone 1. The primary direct and indirect effects to grizzly bears from the Rice Ridge Salvage project are summarized in Table 53 by alternative. This table illustrates that there could be direct and indirect effects to grizzly bears primarily from: post-fire timber salvage, hazard tree removal, road construction and decommissioning activities, and incidental activities associated with this work such as: reforestation work, pile burning and contract inspection.

147

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

As stated above, the timber salvage activities occur where fire has already reduced cover and foraging habitat for grizzly bears. For this reason, the additive direct effects to grizzly bear foraging habitat are considered minimal. The direct effects to cover (removal of dead and dying trees) are more relevant and are additive to the impacts caused by the fire and associated activities. The effects of the project from human activity/disturbance (e.g., mechanical harvest, road construction and deconstruction) are not discountable factors and are relevant aspects of the cumulative effects analysis. In summary, the grizzly bear cumulative effects to grizzly bears have been largely mitigated by road access standards which limit public use across large portions of the project area. Past land acquisitions have also resulted in a different trajectory for forested lands within and adjacent to the project area. The risks of subdivision or large-scale industrial forest management no longer exist at a scale meaningful to grizzly bears in this area. Forest Plan Consistency The determination for this project is “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” under either action alternative. This determination is largely based on the existing adverse environmental baseline for grizzly bears discussed above and in detail in the Terrestrial BA for the project. The project would cause effects additive to those caused by the fires and associated activities and these are disclosed in the sections above. The short-term disturbance and displacement of grizzly bears under Alternative B would be greater in both temporal and spatial extent. In summary, direct effects would occur under both alternatives in the form of reduction in cover, disturbance, and displacement. Effects to denning habitat, linkage and connectivity, and food habituation would be discountable to non-existent. A portion of the project is not within the NCDE Grizzly Bear Recovery area and is not within MS1 habitat. A programmatic BA is in place that covers the effects of existing roads, grazing, and sanitation/attractants on grizzly bears. These aspects of the project are in compliance with the BiOp and associated Terms and Conditions for this BA (USFWS 2012). All proposed treatment areas outside of the recovery area are in Zone 1 of the Draft Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy. The treatments located within Zone 1 would be in compliance with the Standards and Guidelines included in that draft document and the associated Forest Plan Amendments (USDA Forest Service 2017a, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). Forest Plan Standards (Applicable to Grizzly Bear) There are 830 acres of proposed salvage harvest within MA 20 under Alternative B and 410 acres under Alternative C. MA20 Standards do not preclude timber harvest or salvage. The goals of this MA are to: 1. Optimize habitat conditions and minimize mortality factors consistent with the national goal to recover the grizzly bear to non-threatened status. 2. Optimize timber growing potential within constraints of the grizzly recovery goal. Standards for this MA are found on pages III -94 through III-99 of the Lolo Forest Plan (1986). Standard #16 under timber practices states, “Dead and downed trees may be salvaged as constrained by habitat needs of cavity nesting species.” Both action alternatives meet Forest Plan Standards and the project is in compliance with the Forest Plan. As stated previously, the Lolo NF Forest Plan is in the process of being amended with specific management direction for grizzly bears In the NCDE. This project has been designed with the proposed amendment and associated standards and objectives in mind and as such, would comply with the amendment. Wolverine (Proposed) Currently, wolverine is proposed for listing under ESA. The USFS must conference with USFWS

148

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment regarding a Proposed species, if a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. If a biological assessment indicates that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and the Director concurs, then a conference is not required (CFR 402.12(k)). In 2014, Region One of the Forest Service prepared a Programmatic Biological Assessment regarding the effects of routine NFS projects on wolverine (USDA Forest Service 2014). The USFS assessed the effects of multiple routine activities and made a No Jeopardy determination. The USFWS concurred with that determination (Bush 2016, Bush and Conard 2014). Therefore, as long as this project fits within the actions described in the Programmatic BA, there should be no need to conference with USFWS regarding wolverine. The wolverine is also identified as a Sensitive species by the Forest Service in Region One. Wolverine surveys in the Southwest Crown of the Continent study area, a 1.5-million acre study area that encompasses the project area, suggest an increasing trend in abundance and distribution of wolverines in the past 5 years (Southwestern Crown Carnivore Monitoring Team 2018). Wolverine detections occurred in the project area before the fire, both in Rice Ridge area (western portion of project area) and in the Morrell Mountain to Dunham Creek area (eastern portion of the project area). Results in 2018 were similar, with wolverine detections at multiple locations throughout the project area. Wolverine tracks were consistently detected along the Cottonwood Lake Road from Swamp Creek to Shanley Creek, as well as in Blind Canyon, Swamp Creek, Little Shanley, Black Canyon, Shanley Creek, Cave Creek, Dunham Creek and Lodgepole Creek. A pair of wolverines was caught on camera at the bait station in Blind Canyon. Two different wolverines visited the Little Shanley bait station a few days apart. Wolverine tracks were also detected on Rice Ridge, in upper Morrell Creek, and in Seeley Creek. In short, wolverines were detected all throughout the project area in the winter after the fire. As wolverines are not dependent on vegetation type or structure, canopy cover, or other such metrics, the Rice Ridge Fire did not likely result in major impacts to habitat suitability for wolverines. The fire likely affected the distribution of prey species in the project area, which will cause wolverines to have to alter their habits and potentially their territories to adjust to the new distribution of prey and carrion. Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects The no action alternative would not result in alteration of wolverine denning habitat, would not affect dispersal or habitat connectivity, and would not change human accessibility. There would be no direct or indirect effects on wolverine; therefore, no cumulative effects to the existing environment would occur. Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives B and C would not impact any wolverine denning habitat. Most of the areas with persistent spring snow occur to the north and east of the project area, in higher elevations than the project area. Across the past 6 years of wolverine surveys in the project area, evidence of wolverine dens has not been detected at the lower elevations encompassed by the project area. Denning would not be impacted by the project because it occurs in cirque basins at the tops of the drainages. However, as indicated from field surveys, wolverine use occurs throughout the project area, at least in winter, and any of the harvest or haul activities could have the potential to temporarily disturb wolverines and cause them to avoid areas where activity is occurring. Removal of burned trees from harvest units would remove natural barriers making them more conducive to dispersed recreation in terms of “play areas” for snowmobiles for the next few decades. Because wolverines occupy such large home ranges (roughly the size of the project area), and harvest would only be occurring in roughly 15% of the project area, there would be ample undisturbed habitat. Removal of burned trees is not expected to cause increased warming that would in any way affect persistent spring snowpack. In fact, most areas with persistent spring snow occur at or above tree line, in the Inventoried Roadless and Wilderness areas to the north and east of the project area, where elevation affects temperatures and snowmelt more so than shading from vegetation.

149

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

No new permanent road construction would occur (other than a small amount for the re-routes in Alternative B), nor any paved or multi-lane roads that could hinder dispersal. Nor would any residential or other human developments occur under Alternatives B or C. Thus dispersal and connectivity for wolverines would remain high throughout the project area. Accessibility for winter recreation or trapping (which would all be incidental trapping for the foreseeable future, since no change to trapping regulations has been proposed by MTFWP), would not increase because no new permanent roads would be constructed. The temporary roads that would be constructed under Alternative B (only) would not constitute a major nor a permanent change in access in the project area, nor would any of the new temporary roads lead into areas of potential denning habitat. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects The direct and indirect effects of the action alternatives are primarily related to disturbance to wolverine territories, and thus the cumulative effects discussion will focus on these aspects. Because past monitoring data have shown that there have been multiple wolverines within the project area at the same time (including at least two, if not four or more individuals in winter of 2018), the project area is a reasonable geographic area at which to conduct a cumulative effects analysis. The Rice Ridge Fire affected conditions within the cumulative effects analysis area, but the fire occurred at a time of year when wolverines were not in the den, and even young of the year were likely very mobile. Given that individuals are still present in the project area, it is reasonable to assume that most or all individuals survived the fire (genetic results are forthcoming that will indicate whether individuals detected in 2018 were the same ones detected in prior years). Past disturbance to wolverine denning habitat in the project area, and areas to the north and east that are in Inventoried Roadless Areas and Wilderness areas, has been minimal. Fire suppression-related disturbances were likely minimal to wolverines, as most of the activities were along the fire’s southern perimeter, in the lower elevations where wolverine activity would be unlikely in summer. Recent log deck hauling and BAER work also would have minimal disturbance to wolverines, as these activities are primarily associated with roads. Prior to the fire, disturbances to the project area that could have had the most impacts to wolverine would have included winter recreation (along groomed snowmobile trails and other roads or off-road in the project area), and backcountry skiing, mostly around the Morrell Mountain area. Despite ongoing dispersed recreation and other activities, wolverines have persisted in the area, and monitoring data suggests their abundance in the project area and in the Southwest Crown landscape is increasing. Past trapping of wolverines in the project area likely affected 1-2 individuals per year, at most. Trapping is not expected to resume in the project area in the near future. Therefore, the project area will continue to be a relatively secure, usable landscape for wolverines. Prey abundance and distribution shifts that will occur over the next several decades as the area recovers from the fire will likely influence wolverines’ patterns of use of the area, as will any climatic changes that influence persistent spring snowpack. The documented use of the analysis area by multiple individual wolverines both before and after the fire, and the potential increasing trend in abundance of wolverines in the project area, indicates that past forest management and recreation activities in the project area have likely had minimal effects to wolverines. The proposed project would not substantially affect areas of potential denning habitat, nor would there be a substantial increase in dispersed winter recreation or accessibility in the area, and no other reasonably foreseeable activities would affect wolverines in the project area. Forest Plan Consistency The project would not jeopardize wolverines, and viability of the species would continue on the Lolo NF and within the Northern Region. All alternatives comply with Forest Plan standard #27 and ensure the viability of sensitive species.

150

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

3.5.2 Sensitive Species Black-backed Woodpeckers The amount of burned acres in Region 1 has not dropped below the minimum viable population threshold of 30,000 acres identified by Samson (2006b) in the last 33 years (see 2018 FIRE-BIRD Model paper in Project File). The amount of burned forest in any given 5-year time period on NFS land in the Northern Region has not dropped below 300,000 acres since the year 2000 (ibid). However, not all acres of burned forest are equal in terms of habitat suitability for black-backed woodpeckers, so these numbers over- represent the amount of high quality nesting habitat that is available. The FIRE-BIRD Habitat Suitability model, displays that across the Northern Region in 2017, over 30 large fires created a total of 632,009 acres of suitable habitat for black-backed woodpeckers, of which 192,662 is considered high quality habitat (see Table 1 in FIRE-BIRD paper). The Rice Ridge Fire alone created 55,616, 49,195, and 55,367 acres of high, moderate, and low quality black-backed woodpecker habitat, respectively. These acres are sufficient to support about 332 black-backed woodpecker nesting territories (ibid). This is more than twice what is needed for population viability at the Regional scale (Samson 2006b). Surveys for black-backed woodpeckers have not been conducted in the Rice Ridge Fire area. However, black-backed woodpeckers were incidentally observed foraging in modeled high quality habitat in Feb of 2018. And because the FIRE-BIRD model is a robust model built upon empirical data from multiple fires across multiple western states, it is realistic to rely upon the model for evaluating available habitat. Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would not result in the removal of suitable nesting or foraging habitat for black-backed woodpeckers, and thus the existing amount of habitat in the project area would persist. The species would have abundant high quality habitat throughout the fire area, and would be able to colonize all areas. Cavities that the black-backed woodpeckers excavate for nesting would be available for other cavity nesting species into the future as natural succession of the forests progressed, adding to the biodiversity of the project area in the short-term and in the long-term (Swanson et al. 2011a, Swanson et al. 2011b, Hutto 2008). Unharvested areas of high-suitability habitat, particularly along open roads and close to the town of Seeley Lake, would provide opportunities for bird-viewing and fire-related education, particularly in the next 5 years while black-backed woodpeckers are most active in the area. This alternative would help to ensure that the Region is well over the threshold for maintaining the viability of black-backed woodpeckers. Under this alternative there would be No Impact to the species, a positive ecological benefit for wildlife diversity, and Forest Plan Standards would be met. Because there would be no direct or indirect effects to the species, there would be no cumulative effects.

151

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 54. Habitat for black-backed woodpeckers in the Rice Ridge Fire area, including existing amounts proposed for treatment under each alternative, and amounts post-treatment

Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives B and C would result in 5,604 and 2,734 acres, respectively, of salvage in forest that burned in 2017. Units that are harvested during the nesting season could result in direct or indirect mortality to black-backed woodpecker adults or chicks that are occupying a nest when the tree is cut, or that are relying upon food availability of a stand within their home range. Harvesting of units could begin in fall of 2018, with some units required to be harvested in the winter months (1,429 and 678 acres, respectively, required for winter logging). Therefore, not all units to be treated would pose a risk to black-backed woodpeckers, but some direct mortality could potentially occur in units harvested in the nesting season (roughly late April thru late June). Table 54 shows the amount of salvage that would occur in each habitat suitability category; most of the salvage would occur in areas of high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat—areas where pre-fire conditions provided higher densities of larger trees, which are now large snags. Although non- merchantable trees would remain in the units, and burned trees would be left in some units (roughly 25% of units would retain some burned trees for purposes of providing insolation to promote regeneration), the overall result of salvage in the units would be to render the habitat unsuitable, or at the lowest suitability for black-backed woodpeckers. This would equate to roughly 15-16 potential nest areas being affected. Habitat that would remain available for black-backed woodpeckers in the Rice Ridge Fire area is displayed in Table 54, and equates to over 154,000 and 157,000 acres, respectively, 52,057 and 53,988 of which would be highly suitable. This estimate does not include the additional incidental trees that could be affected by roadside hazard tree removal along 25 to 28 miles of road, which would occur mostly in moderate to high suitability classes. Suitability for black-backed woodpeckers in the remaining habitat post-salvage could be reduced in areas near the salvage units (i.e., within 100 m or so). Studies in Idaho found negative effects of salvage logging on nest density and nest survival for several woodpecker species (Saab, Russell and Dudley 2007), as these species favor and may require nest sites surrounded by relatively high snag densities for foraging (Dudley, Saab and Hollenbeck 2012). In particular, nest survival for black-backed woodpeckers in the Inland Northwest and Rocky Mountains can decrease with increasing proximity to unburned edge, possibly reflecting nest predator refugia provided by unburned forest (Saab et al. 2011). Thus, Latif et al. (2017) recommend habitat reserves for this species include a 100-m buffer to insulate core habitat from any adjacent unburned forest. Because of the large size of the Rice Ridge Fire, and because much of the area is in Inventoried Roadless or Wilderness Areas, the majority of remaining habitat that is in the moderate to high suitability classes would be well insulated, and would provide excellent habitat conditions for black-backed woodpeckers for the next 4-6 years.

152

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects The direct and indirect effects of the project are associated with the removal of burned snags and roadside hazard tree removal, so those are the effects that will be considered cumulatively. Many of the lands within the cumulative effects analysis area have been harvested or burned in the past. The FIRE-BIRD model accounts for forest conditions changed by past activities. And therefore, the quality of habitat available for this species. While there is no doubt that past activities, including salvage logging, have affected individuals and habitat, black-backed woodpeckers continue to persist on the Lolo NF and in Region 1. The fires of 2017 created a huge increase in habitat. Fire has and will continue to be a major force in shaping forests in the Region in the future, and will continue to create habitat for this species. Given their extensive dispersal capabilities (Pierson et al. 2013), connectivity for black-backed woodpeckers should remain high across the Lolo NF and the Northern Rocky Mountains. Cumulative effects to black-backed woodpeckers were assessed at the scale of the entire Rice Ridge Fire, buffered by 90 km. The cumulative effects area therefore encompasses all or part of the following wildfires that burned in 2017: Alice Creek, Dolly Varden, Goat Creek, Liberty, Little Hogback, Lolo Peak, Monanhan, Park-Arrastra Creek, Rice Ridge, Scalp, and Slide Rock. A 90-km radius was selected because it represents the lower interval of the maximum distance at which genetic structure in black- backed woodpecker populations are correlated (Pierson 2009). Within this 364,659-acre analysis area, there are currently 107,429 acres of high suitability nesting habitat, and 87,946 acres of moderate suitability habitat, enough for approximately 603 nests. This habitat is expected to remain suitable for black-backed woodpeckers for the next 4-6 years. In addition to the fires of 2017, another 16 fires have occurred within the cumulative effects analysis area within the past 5 years, totaling over 44,000 acres. Although habitat suitability indices were not calculated for these fires, it is safe to assume to that at least some of these areas contained high suitability habitat for black-backed woodpeckers, particularly in the Elbow Complex, a wilderness fire, and the Lolo Creek Complex. The only fire within the cumulative effects analysis area where salvage harvest occurred was on Lolo Creek Complex on private lands. No salvage was conducted on NFS lands, leaving some excellent black-backed woodpecker habitat in that fire area, as well as in the Elbow Complex. These areas would now be sources for black-backed woodpeckers to colonize the Rice Ridge Fire, with potentially more coming in from farther distances. Of the fires in the cumulative effects analysis area, Rice Ridge and Liberty are proposed salvage projects that would cumulatively harvest no more than 5,854 acres. Salvage logging is also expected to occur on some private and State lands that burned in 2017 within the cumulative effects analysis area. To err on the side of over-estimating the effects of salvage, a scenario was assessed in which all non-NFS lands within the cumulative effects area that burned in 2017 would be salvage logged, and thus no black-backed woodpecker habitat would remain on those lands. The scenario also included the proposed salvage for USFS lands on Liberty and Rice Ridge, assuming the largest alternative is selected for each (e.g., Alternative B for Rice Ridge). Under this extreme scenario, at most 53,271 acres of burned forest would be removed from public and private lands in the cumulative effects analysis area. The resulting amount left would be at least 311,388 acres of burned forest in the cumulative effects analysis area, including 93,697 acres of high suitability black-backed woodpecker habitat (2018 FIRE-BIRD model paper from RO in Project File). The amount of high suitability habitat alone that would be remaining in the cumulative effects analysis area post-salvage is roughly three times the amount of habitat that is necessary for maintaining a viable population of black-backed woodpeckers, according to the Samson (2006a) estimates. Or, in terms of the threshold number of individuals for a minimum viable population (95 to 164 breeding pairs), there could be 2-3 times as many pairs in the cumulative effects analysis area. At the Regional scale, combined salvage activities in 2017 would remove some black-backed woodpecker habitat, but would retain ample amounts to ensure viability for this species, given that the main limitations to the species are the amount

153

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment of suitable habitat and the connectivity of suitable habitat. Forest Plan Consistency Alternative A would have No Impact. The action alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat. Given the combined effects of past, proposed, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions, none of the alternatives would affect viability for the species, as ample suitable habitat would be maintained to ensure viability of the species. All alternatives comply with Forest Plan standard #27 to ensure the viability of this sensitive species. Boreal Toad Boreal toad is a subspecies of the western toad (Bufo boreas) which was historically widely-distributed across the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains (Maxell 2000). These toads are now considered uncommon, yet widely-distributed (Werner et al., 2004). In Montana, the boreal toad occurs in mountainous terrain on both sides of the Continental Divide. In 2000, a systematic inventory of standing water bodies in 40 randomly chosen HUCs in the Region found toads to be widespread, but rare (Ibid.). Although no surveys for toads have been conducted in the project area, a search of the Montana Natural Heritage database showed one record of a toad observation in the project area, near the Monture Guard Station. Toad surveys were conducted on the west side of the Seeley Lake Ranger District in the early 2000s, resulting in multiple toad observations and identification of breeding ponds, particularly in the Boles Creek/Boles Meadows area and in wetlands in the rolling hills between Fawn Creek and Marshall Creek (~6-7 km from Rice Ridge). Thus it is unknown whether toad use occurred in wetlands or upland habitats in the project area before the Rice Ridge Fire, or whether use will occur post-fire, but it is plausible, given the dispersal capabilities of toads. Habitat suitability for toads is higher in the post-fire environment, as research has shown improved upland habitat conditions, particularly in high severity burn areas (Hossack and Corn 2007; Guscio et al. 2008; Hossack et al. 2009). Given the increased habitat suitability, and the known breeding sites within a reasonable dispersal distance, it is quite possible that adult toads will colonize the area to use the upland habitats, and to breed in the nearby wetlands. Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A would not involve any harvest within the project area. Thus there would be no effects to water quality from logging-related sediment, nor would there be disturbance to any wetland or upland habitats that toads might inhabit. The project area may or may not be colonized by toads seeking ideal post-fire conditions, but if it was, the toads would be able to take advantage of improved habitat conditions that resulted from the fire. Thus Alternative A would meet Forest Plan Standards, and would be neutral or beneficial for western toads. Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives B and C would include harvest in twelve and seven units, respectively, (all tractor-based) that are adjacent to known wetlands. Most of these are on Rice Ridge, and some (two for Alternative B and one for Alternative C) are between Seeley and Morrel Creeks. Direct effects to larval toads is unlikely, since INFISH buffers will require a 100-150’ no-harvest buffer around all wetlands (see Water Quality analysis and Resource Protection Measures). Indirect effects could occur from sediment flowing into wetlands, and would be most impactful if the effects occurred during the months of May thru August. Under Alternatives B and C, twenty-six and fifteen units, respectively, would be harvested within 400 m of wetlands that could provide potential toad breeding sites. This is roughly 1,277 and 539 acres, respectively, of upland habitat for toads that is well within the range of where adult toads would be likely to inhabit after breeding in the wetlands. Direct effects to adult toads could occur in all units, but would be more likely to occur in the 24 units (15 for Alternative C) that are tractor-based, where off-road machinery would be used throughout the unit and potentially crush adult toads. Indirect effects would result from the removal of burned trees, and thus the removal of existing or potential future coarse woody

154

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment debris that could provide retreat sites for toads. The majority of these units are in the Rice Ridge area, around Florence Lake (a non-fish-bearing “lake” that is more of a pond/wetland) and other wetlands in the area, as well as a few units along Morrell Creek and Seeley Creek, and a few units near Little Shanley Creek (Figure 10). Nearly all of the units that are within 400 m of wetlands are in areas that burned at moderate to high severity, and thus are the types of habitat toads would more likely be using in the post- fire environment. The same effects as those described above could also occur anywhere else within the project area, in the 5,604 acres total (2,734 for Alternative C) to be harvested. However, the likelihood of harvest affecting adult toads becomes less as the distance from wetlands increases, as the concentration of adult toads will become more dispersed as they travel up to 2 km or more from wetlands. Hauling logs along roads that intersect multiple wetlands, particularly along the Cottonwood Lakes Road (FS 477) between Shanley and Black Canyon Creeks, could also have potential direct mortality to toads that are moving between breeding sites and into upland habitat if they are crushed on roads. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to boreal toads were considered within the project area, which is large enough to include at least 31 potential breeding sites, as well as thousands of acres of upland habitat. Past activities that have occurred in the project area that could have affected breeding sites and/or upland habitat for western toads include timber harvest and associated activities, although these activities have not occurred in the past decade, and occurred minimally in several decades before that. Road building has also been minimal in recent decades, but efforts have been underway to decommission unneeded roads. No livestock grazing has occurred, nor have fish been stocked in any of the wetlands. Chemical use on Federal lands in the analysis area has generally been restricted to roadside spraying of noxious weeds, and wetland/riparian areas are typically avoided. Thus, the most substantial past activity to affect boreal toads in the analysis area is the Rice Ridge Fire, which altered habitat in the area, providing thousands of acres of burned forest which will provide thermal benefits to boreal toads, and may increase breeding in wetlands in the project area (Guscio et al. 2008; Hossack and Corn 2008). Reasonably foreseeable activities in the analysis area that could affect toads include the routine use of herbicides to combat noxious weed infestations, mostly associated with roads, as well as additional weed spraying that would occur with BAER work. Additional BAER work that would stabilize hydrological functions in the project area would be a benefit to wetlands. Overall the analysis area has been, and will continue to be, a place conducive to boreal toads. Direct and indirect effects of either of the action alternatives would have the greatest effect on toads and their upland habitats of any of the reasonably foreseeable actions. Toads could still utilize the analysis area, although less of it, under either action alternative. Forest Plan Consistency Alternative A would have no negative effects to boreal toads, and would allow them to take advantage of the improved habitat conditions that the Rice Ridge Fire created, without the threats to breeding or upland sites. Alternatives B and C “May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH)”, with the effects being roughly half as much upland habitat affected under Alternative C as in Alternative B. Alternative C would retain over 700 acres more highly suitable habitat (burned forest within 400 m of a wetland) than Alternative B. Of the 31 known potential breeding sites in the project area, 14 and 17 of the sites would not have harvest within 400 m of the wetland, respectively, and thus provide undisturbed breeding sites. Also under either alternative, tens of thousands of acres of high severity burn areas would be unharvested, and potentially provide upland habitat for toads, although not all sites would be as suitable, given the greater distances to breeding sites and water sources.

155

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects during implementation of either action alternative may have negative impacts to individuals or habitat, but is not likely to lead to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the species. Population level impacts are not expected due to the protection of breeding habitat within the analysis area, breeding habitat protection on a broader scale, and the wide distribution of this species in the western U.S. (Werner et al, 2004). Fisher The Species Status Assessment (SSA) conducted by the USFWS (2017) distribution model estimates about 30,000 km2 of modelled habitat for fisher in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM). To date, population size of NRM fisher has not been estimated. Therefore the SSA relies on describing the amount and distribution of modelled habitat patches at two scales to make inferences about the NRM fisher. The smaller scale habitat patch is 100 km2; the approximate size of a male fisher home range and area needed to sustain individual fishers. The larger scale habitat patch is 2500 km2; a minimum critical area (MCA) needed to sustain 50 breeding fisher and avoid the effects of inbreeding depression. The SSA concludes that “modelled habitat patches that are expected to sustain fisher are currently present throughout the NRM and are expected to persist in all three fisher spatial units by 2090. Habitat patches are widespread in distribution…and redundant among the three fisher spatial units.” The SSA divided the NRM into 3 fisher spatial units. The project area falls within the Northeast Unit. This unit has the least amount of fisher habitat naturally occurring, and most of that habitat is outside of the project area. In the Northeast Unit, fisher habitat is currently more disconnected than in other units, and less capable of supporting multiple individuals. Within the project area, habitat for fishers is sparse. Before the Rice Ridge Fire, the Olson et al. (2014) model predicted roughly 11,661 acres of potential fisher habitat. The fire burned about 60% of that at high severity, leaving just 4,848 acres of modeled habitat in the project area. The Ecosite data corroborates the Olson et al. (2014) model, showing very little of the project area in a warm, moist habitat type. Based on the amount of mature forest with high canopy cover that existed pre-fire, abiotic factors are the primary influence on the amount of fisher habitat rather than effects from past management activities. Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A would not involve any harvest of mature forest, nor would large snags be harvested in the project area. The minimal amounts of habitat for fishers in the project area would continue to persist. Abundant large fire-hardened snags would remain standing on all acres, providing future large snags. Cavities excavated by woodpeckers, or large coarse woody debris, could be used by fishers as rest sites or as den sites ., These features could provide important habitat elements for fishers in the future, provided the fruition of climate change models predicting increases in habitat quality for fishers at the larger landscape scale. Because there would be no direct or indirect effects to fishers, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative A would meet Forest Plan Standards for Sensitive Species. Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives B and C would harvest dead and imminently dead trees across 5,604 and 2,734 acres, respectively, of mature forest in the project area. Less than a few hundred acres of this falls in areas identified in the Olson et al. (2014) model as being fisher habitat that did not burn at high severity. The salvage harvest itself would not change live canopy amounts beyond what the fire and associated effects have already changed. Large fire-hardened trees would be removed from harvested areas decreasing the amount of resting or denning sites for fishers. In some units, where needed for solar insolation, large snags would be left standing, but for the most part, the harvest units would have substantially less snags and large coarse woody debris available as the forest regenerates than areas that are not harvested. Thus if climate-based

156

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment fisher habitat models are correct, and the project area becomes more conducive to fisher habitat in the future, the harvested acres would be less suitable for denning and resting by fishers. Other unharvested areas in the project area would retain large fire-killed trees, where present, and provide those habitat elements. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects Because the project area is large enough to support at least 1-1.5 male fisher home ranges (and thus 1-3 female home ranges), and because all direct and indirect effects to fishers would occur within this area, it is an adequate size for addressing cumulative effects. Because the moist, mesic habitat types are not abundant in the analysis area, it is unlikely that habitat was historically ever abundant enough to support a persistent fisher population or even persistent individuals in the area. As such, past vegetation management activities such as timber harvest may have had minimal effects to fishers or their habitat, in terms of changes to the structural composition of the forest stands. The abundance of mature, closed-canopy forest in the analysis area at the time of the fire indicates that past harvest was not a limiting factor in the structural suitability of the area. The Rice Ridge Fire had the largest effect on structural condition of forest stands within the analysis area, reducing canopy cover throughout, and rendering much of the area unsuitable for decades to come. The fire created hundreds of thousands of fire-killed snags that could provide important habitat elements for fishers once the area regenerates. Climate-based predictive models show a potential increase in habitat in the Northeast region of the NRM area over the next several decades (Olson et al. 2014; USFWS 2017). If that is the case, then the amount and distribution of habitat in the analysis area could increase to some extent, although it is unlikely that within the next several decades the analysis area will be suitable to support a resident fisher. There have been no records of fishers being trapped in the analysis area since records have been collected by MTFWP (starting in the late 1970s/early 1980s). This again indicates that the area is not highly suitable for fishers. It also indicates that trapper access and fur harvest has not been a substantial factor for fishers in the analysis area in the past. There are no indications that the harvest quota will be raised above zero in the near future for fishers in the “Continental Divide Management Unit” (MT Fish Wildlife and Parks 2017). Forest Plan Consistency Fisher presence in the area is unlikely to occur during the course of the project, based on historically minimal detections and habitat conditions which were sparse before the fire, and further degraded by the Rice Ridge Fire. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that either of the action alternatives would have any direct effect on fishers, and indirect effects would be minimal, mostly related to future availability of important habitat elements such as snags and large coarse woody debris. Because much of the area would not receive salvage harvest and would retain snags and woody debris on tens of thousands of acres in the project area, the project alternatives “May Impact Individuals or Habitat.” Because habitat was recently determined to be abundant and adequately distributed to support a viable population of fishers in the Northern Rocky Mountains (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017), and this project will not affect many if any fishers, this project would meet Forest Plan Standards related to viability for the species. Flammulated Owl Samson (2006a, 2006b) estimated flammulated owl habitat in each NF in the Region using habitat variables reported in local scientific literature to build habitat relationships models. The models were used to query the FIA database, resulting in statistically reliable habitat estimates by Forest wherein changes can be effectively monitored over time. Conservative estimates show flammulated owl habitat on the Lolo NF is 3 times the amount needed to maintain a minimum viable population Region-wide

157

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

(Samson 2006a). Flammulated owls are well-distributed across suitable areas on the Lolo NF. In 2005 and again in 2008, a random sample of flammulated owl presence during the breeding season was conducted across a number of Forests in the Northern Region (Cilimburg 2005). Owls were detected at 45% of transects surveyed on the Lolo NF (Avian Science Center 2008). The Lolo NF has surveyed for flammulated owls across the Forest, since 2005 flammulated owls have been detected in 13 of the 20 areas surveyed (Brewer et al. 2014 (Brewer et al. 2014)). These observations have helped to validate Samson’s assumptions (2006a, b) that flammulated owl habitat exists at suitable amounts across the Forest and Region to support a viable population of the species. Potential habitat for flammulated owls exists in small amounts in the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project area. Because of aspect, elevation, and other abiotic factors, ecosites that can support flammulated owls (i.e., warm-dry and hot-dry sites) are limited, and thus the potential for flammulated owl habitat to exist in the project area is primarily limited by the potential vegetation types. Structural stage within suitable Ecosites or habitat types also influences Before the fire, there were an estimated 5,152 acres of existing flammulated owl habitat in the project area, based on habitat mapping described above that considers vegetation type and size. About half of that, 2,506 acres, burned at Mod/High severity, and therefore no longer provides enough canopy cover or understory vegetation to support flammulated owls. While snags may be abundant in these areas, it is unlikely that enough roosting habitat or cover now exists. The remaining 2,646 acres that burned at Low severity has likely experienced an improvement in habitat quality, as the low severity fire will have opened the understory, promoted growth of new grasses and shrubs, and created fire-killed snags. Flammulated owls were surveyed for and detected in the project area in multiple years pre-fire (2006, 2011-2013, see field data in Project File). Wildlife technicians from the Lolo NF surveyed a total of 165 points, and detected flammulated owls 27 times. All detections occurred in areas where habitat mapping indicated there would be suitable habitat. Detections of flammulated owls were concentrated in three areas:  Between Black Canyon and Dry Cottonwood Creeks  On the slopes east of Dunham Creek  In the Little Red Hills area (between Monture and McCabe Creeks, just outside the project area) Although the Rice Ridge Fire started in mid-July, it did not burn into these areas until early September. Flammulated owls that may have nested and reproduced in the project area in summer of 2017 would have fledged and been ready to migrate around the time that the fire burned into the areas listed above. Therefore it is quite likely that these birds will return in summer 2018, as flammulated owls exhibit high site fidelity. If they return, they will find suitable habitat remaining in the Black Canyon/Dry Cottonwood area, as that area burned at mixed severities. The Little Red Hills area was outside the fire perimeter, and thus habitat will still be existing there. The Dunham Creek area where flammulated owls previously nested, burned at very high severities, with 100% tree mortality. Those owls may be seeking new areas to occupy this summer. Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would not harvest vegetation in the project area, therefore no salvage activities would occur to potentially disturb nesting flammulated owls. As such, the existing amount of habitat would remain in the project area, although imminent mortality of several stands would continue to decrease the amount of habitat that is available. Large fire-killed snags across all acres of the project area would remain standing and provide potential nesting opportunities in the warmer, drier forest types for decades to come, and they would be important resources as the forest regenerates. Alternative A would have no impact to the species, and therefore cumulative effects.

158

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives B and C would salvage 516 and 241 acres, respectively, of existing flammulated owl habitat. In these areas, harvest prescriptions would remove most if not all dead trees (some larger snags would be left in Salvage + Reforestation units where needed for solar insolation). In areas where fire severity and secondary effects were to kill enough trees so that <25% canopy is remaining (i.e., the stand is now reinitiated, or in regeneration), it was the effects of the fire, not effects of the salvage, that rendered the unit unsuitable for flammulated owls (223 and 113 acres; Table 55). Removal of large, fire-killed snags would have a long-term negative effect on flammulated owl habitat, as those elements would not be present in the future as those stands re-grow and could otherwise provide habitat. Where large (15”+) fire-hardened snags are left to provide solar insolation (see Resource Protection Measure Veg-3), those areas would be beneficial to flammulated owls in the future. In units that are not regeneration, meaning enough live trees survived the fire and associated effects and still provide 25% canopy or more, the removal of snags from the unit would effectively remove any nest sites from the area (293 and 128 acres; Table 55). Thus it would be the results of the salvage, not the results of the fire, which renders the unit unsuitable for flammulated owls. In these non-regeneration units, it is unlikely that any of the fire-hardened snags would remain post-harvest, since they would not be needed to provide solar insolation. Under Alternatives B and C, the majority of existing flammulated owl habitat would not be affected by fire salvage activities (2,131 and 2,406 acres; Table 55). These are areas where fire severity was minimal, and there was not enough volume to pursue salvage, or where slopes or other factors made logging infeasible. These areas would be undisturbed, would likely have an increase in fire-hardened snags for nest trees, and would generally have improved conditions for flammulated owls unless secondary mortality (from bark beetles, etc.) affects enough of the stand to render it unsuitable. In the two units where flammulated owls have been detected in pre-fire surveys (Units 210 and 215), a Resource Protection Measure is in place to prohibit harvest from occurring during the nesting season, so that flammulated owl nests, if any exist in the post-fire environment, would not be disturbed. It is possible that flammulated owls could occupy other units, unknowingly, and if harvest were to occur during nesting or fledgling seasons, disturbance or direct mortality to the owls could occur. Table 55. Planned activities in mapped flammulated owl habitat in the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project area. Habitat mapping is based on pre-fire stand conditions plus SAVG burn severity data

Alt B Alt C Salvage 293 128 Salvage + Reforestation 223 113 No Harvest 2,131 2,406 Total 2,647 2,647

Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are assessed at the scale of the project area, which is large enough to encompass at least two clusters of flammulated owls. This is an appropriate scale to assess effects to multiple individuals and multiple clusters of individuals that comprise the overall population of flammulated owls existing on the Lolo NF. The Rice Ridge Fire removed about 2,506 acres of flammulated owl habitat from the project area due to the intensity of the fire (high severity) which rendered it now unsuitable. That event had the biggest impact on flammulated owl habitat of any of the past activities that have affected habitat for the species in the project area. Past harvest also had some effect, although a high amount of warm/dry sites had

159

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment structural conditions conducive to flammulated owls pre-fire. The past history of fire suppression in the project area and across the Lolo NF also has affected flammulated owl habitat. Fire suppression has resulted in conversion of many pine forests to shade- tolerant fir forests and high tree densities in smaller diameter classes (Samson 2006a; Linkhart 2001). Future foreseeable activities that could affect flammulated owls, in addition to the direct and indirect effects addressed above, would include the 50 acres of fire salvage that the MT Department of Natural Resources and Conservation will be conducting in the Black Canyon area. The fire burned at mixed severities throughout that area, and some of it could still be providing habitat for flammulated owls. Firewood cutting and roadside hazard tree removal could also remove snags suitable for nesting. Although some negative effects would occur to individuals and habitat under either action alternative, the majority of the existing flammulated owl habitat in the project area would be un-touched by salvage activities or any other future foreseeable activities, and thus would continue to provide habitat for the species at the project scale. Forest Plan Consistency Alternative A would not result in any direct or indirect effects to the species, and thus would allow flammulated owls to take advantage of all areas where habitat was improved due to the fire. The effects under either action alternative could have negative direct and indirect effects on individual flammulated owls or their habitat by removing nest trees during the nesting season (direct effect) or by altering habitat and rendering it unsuitable for future use. Alternative B would affect 516 acres, whereas C would affect 241 acres of flammulated owl habitat. At the Region-wide and Ecological Province scales, habitat for the flammulated owl is abundant and widespread in the Northern Region. Conservative estimates show flammulated owl habitat on the Lolo NF is 3 times the amount needed to maintain a minimum viable population Region-wide (Samson 2006a). Flammulated owls are regularly detected across the Forest (Avian Science Center 2005 and 2008; Lolo NF 2001-2013 Monitoring Report in Project File). Any short-term disturbance or displacement to flammulated owls or their habitat in the project area is not expected to affect species’ viability at the Forest or Regional scale (Samson 2006a), due to the abundance of suitable habitat at those scales. Because viability would be maintained for the species under any of the alternatives, and because habitat at the scale of the Forest would continue to be well-distributed, all alternatives meet the Forest Plan and Forest Service Manual direction for Sensitive species. Gray Wolf Wolf tracks were detected in the project area on multiple occasions in the winter of 2018, particularly along the Cottonwood Lakes Road, where wolves have historically traveled in winter. A pack of at least 5 individuals was regularly using the area. Wolf use of the analysis area has occurred for many years. With its proximity to the Blackfoot- Clearwater Wildlife Management Area, which provides winter range habitat for numerous elk herds and for deer, the project area is attractive for wolves due to the availability of prey, as well as numerous areas that are undisturbed by humans. Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would not affect the prey base or key wolf habitat. Recreational use of the area and hunting and trapping in the area would continue to occur, and provide opportunities for wolf/human interaction, including direct mortality to wolves. These effects would be monitored by MTFWP in accordance with their Wolf Management Plan, which is designed to ensure the viability of wolves in Montana. Because there would be no direct or indirect effects to wolves, wolf habitat, or their prey, the determination is that there would be No Impact on wolves.

160

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Public motorized access would not change under this project, because all temporary roads and existing undetermined roads that are used for the project would have closure devices to prevent motorized public access. Administrators and contractors would not be allowed to carry firearms when working, and thus would not be a threat to wolves. The project would not increase the potential for wolf/human interactions in the project area. Habitat in the project area is expected to vastly improve for elk and other big game species over the next decade or more. The 5,604 and 2,734 acres, respectively, of harvest proposed in Alternatives B and C would increase sight distance and ease of travel for wolves in the treatment units, making those areas potentially easier to hunt, although big game species may avoid using those areas (Hebblewhite et al. 2009). Temporary roads would also allow wolves better access along 13 more miles of road (0 miles in Alternative C) than what currently exist. Reconstruction of “undetermined” roads could clear vegetation and allow improved access on those roads as well for the period of the sale activities. Alternatives B and C would not affect any known wolf denning or rendezvous sites, and a Resource Protection Measure is in place to work with FS and MTFWP wolf biologists to determine an appropriate mitigation if any such sites are discovered. If any such sites do exist in or near any of the treatment areas or haul routes that are not discovered, wolves could be disturbed or displaced by harvest and haul activities. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects Wolves are extremely resilient creatures, able to quickly adapt to changing environments. As such, the Rice Ridge Fire likely affected their habitat and the availability and distribution of resources, but not to the extent that their use of the area will be precluded. Past vegetation and transportation management activities have had little to no effect on wolves in the project area. The protections the species benefitted from under the ESA allowed them to recover fully in Montana, and to now thrive in an environment where they are integral players in the ecosystem, while also being managed thru hunting and trapping. As such, wolves are an example of a conservation success story. The project effects to wolves in the area would be unsubstantial, and no reasonably foreseeable activities are planned that would substantially affect prey abundance, increase the chances for wolf/human interactions and mortality, wolf/livestock depredations, or disturb important habitat features such as denning or rendezvous sites. All reasonably foreseeable actions (summarized in EA Appendix D) are considered to have neutral effects to wolves. Hunting and trapping-related mortality will continue to occur, and will be monitored by MTFWP to be within regulated goals and objectives. As such, wolves are expected to continue to thrive in the project area into the future. Forest Plan Consistency Implementation of the proposed activities under either action alternative “May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH)” but would not lead to a loss of viability for wolves at the scale of the Forest, State, or Region. Other Sensitive Species The remainder of the Sensitive Species that are listed for the Lolo NF would not be affected by the project activities. This rationale is based on the combination of lack of habitat for the species and lack of the presence of these species in the project area. See Table 56 for more details.

161

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 56. Summary of habitat needs and species information for other Sensitive Species that were not considered further for the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project

3.5.3 Management Indicator Species The Lolo NF Plan identifies three “Management Indicator Species” that represents values for the Forest’s overall management (Forest Plan Standards #25 and 27, Lolo NF Plan, p. II-14 and Final EIS, pp. III-28 through III-29). These species include:  northern goshawk (mature and old growth forest indicators)  pileated woodpecker (mature and old growth forests)  elk (commonly hunted, and indicate habitat effectiveness and security)

162

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Northern Goshawk Based on broad-scale habitat and inventory and monitoring assessments conducted in the Region, breeding goshawks and associated habitats appear widely-distributed and relatively abundant on NFS land, including the Lolo NF (Samson 2006a, 2006b; Canfield 2006, Kowalski 2006, Lolo NF 2013 Wildlife Monitoring Report). Surveys for goshawks on the Lolo NF have shown them to be distributed across the Forest, in a variety of habitat types, and in several cases, nesting has continued to be successful after commercial and/or non-commercial treatments in a known territory (Lolo NF Wildlife Monitoring Report 2013 in Project File). No goshawk surveys have been conducted in the project area since the fire. However, extensive surveys were conducted in much of the project area for nearly a decade prior to the fire, as detailed in the Center Horse EIS. A total of 1,257 points were surveyed, with the majority of the surveys being conducted in 2011 and 2012. Goshawks were detected at 6 points, and two nests were found, one in the Monture Creek area, just outside of the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project area, and one nest was detected in the Little Shanley Creek area. This nest was last known to be active in 2013, but not in years since. Extensive nest searches were not conducted in the area after 2013 to determine if the goshawk pair changed nest sites (a very common occurrence, with pairs often building a new nest every year or two within a few hundred meters of the previous nest location). Therefore it is unknown whether the pair was still active in the area at the time of the Rice Ridge Fire, or if there is still activity in this area or others in the project area. Spatially, the amount of existing closed foraging and nesting habitats are clumped in distribution across the project area. Nesting and closed foraging habitat are more available in and around the Rice Ridge area on the westernmost part of the project area, and also in the center of the project area near Little Shanley, Black Canyon, and Shanley Creeks. These areas are also adjacent to some unburned areas that could contribute to part of a goshawk’s territory. Therefore, despite the degraded post-fire baseline habitat, there still could be habitat for at least a few (perhaps 2-4) goshawk pairs. Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would not result in removal of suitable nesting or foraging habitat for goshawks. The existing amount of habitat would remain in the project area, although the amount of Closed Forage and Nesting habitats would likely decrease over the next few years due to some delayed fire mortality and increased insects and disease mortality. Large snags across all acres of the project area would remain standing, or eventually fall and become large coarse wood, and provide habitat for prey species for decades to come (Reynolds et al. 1992). Maintaining these structures, limiting any further disturbance to the forest, and maintaining existing large trees on the landscape, even if they are imminently dead or diseased, would help to maintain existing habitat for goshawks. There would be no disturbance to nest locations. Alternative A would have no impact to the species. Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Disturbance to known nests and nest areas The Forest is not planning to conduct extensive surveys for goshawks in proposed units or adjacent areas that could still be providing nesting habitat in the project area due to a combination of safety concerns and timelines. Timber crews will be traversing many of the units in the summer, and could incidentally find a nest. However, it is possible that that a nest could exist in treatment units or nearby and not be discovered. If a nest were to occur in a harvest unit or if harvest units overlapped the post-fledgling area (PFA = roughly 420-acre area surrounding the nest), the disturbance associated with harvest could negatively affect nesting success for the goshawk pair. The nest in the Little Shanley area that was last known to be active in 2013 was located in what is now Unit 260. Unit 260 burned at low severity, and may still be able to provide suitable nesting habitat, particularly due to the abundance of large larch trees that survived the low severity burn. Salvage harvest

163

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment of the dead and imminently dead trees could disturb goshawks if they are nesting in the area, leading to nest abandonment or other actions that would affect nesting success. A Resource Protection Measure has been developed to require a 40-acre no harvest buffer around a nest, if found, and a 420-acre area where harvest activities would not be allowed to proceed during the nesting and fledgling season, if a nest is found in Unit 260 or anywhere else in the project area. Amount of goshawk habitat affected by treatments Alternatives B and C would harvest dead and imminently dead trees from forest stands that burned in 2017, most of which (1,697 and 953 acres, respectively) would occur in areas that are now considered “Open Forage” areas for goshawks due to the moderate to high intensity fire in those areas (Table 57). Removing dead trees in these areas would cause some reductions in existing and potential foraging opportunities for goshawks, due to the removal of snags and coarse wood that would provide habitat for prey species, including small mammals and songbirds. Given the over-abundance of open foraging habitats available across the landscape, however, these effects would not likely be substantial for goshawks. Table 57. Goshawk nesting habitat that would be harvested under either action alternative. Note that these assessments are based on conditions immediately post-fire, and do not account for delayed mortality of fire- affected trees, and thus overestimate of the amount of nesting habitat that is available.

Salvage with Salvage Reforestation Total (acres) (acres) (acres) Alt B 802 896 1,697 Alt C 478 475 953 Harvest in areas that burned at lower severities, however, could present more of a negative effect to goshawks, than harvest in high-severity burn units especially in stands where enough live large trees still remain to provide relatively dense canopy cover. Alternatives B and C would harvest 1,697 and 953 acres, respectively, of existing nesting habitat. As mentioned earlier, the delayed mortality of some trees, particularly large Douglas-fir trees in units in the central part of the project area, would reduce canopy cover and live tree density in some of these areas, regardless of whether harvest is conducted or not. Thus the 1,697 or 953 acres is a known overestimate of available nesting habitat that will likely retain at least 40% canopy cover within the next few years. However, studies on the Ashley National Forest saw goshawks continuing to nest in stands that experienced up to 80% reductions in canopy due to mountain pine beetle mortality, giving some indication that nesting could still occur in some of these fire-affected stands that are experiencing delayed mortality. Harvest of dead and imminently dead trees could thus reduce potential nest trees, open up stand conditions, and reduce snags that would provide habitat for prey species within nesting habitat. Foraging habitat within the project area would be affected by harvest as shown in Table 58. About 16,396 acres in the project area burned at low severity and are structurally providing “Closed Forage” habitat for goshawks. Imminent mortality of trees in some of these areas will no doubt lower that number over the next few years, and reduce the amount of acres that are still “closed,” meaning canopy cover ≥40%. Of those areas that are still providing “Closed Forage,” which is the most desirable and most needed foraging type for goshawks, the areas that would receive “Salvage” treatment (B - 854 and C – 504 acres of Closed Forage) would still retain enough live trees post-harvest to be considered an intact, non-regeneration stand. In other words, the effects of the harvest would be to remove a portion of the trees in the unit, but there would be enough live trees left that the unit would provide Forested Forage conditions. It is unlikely that canopy cover would remain at or above 40%, but it could be in the 25-39% range. Removal of the snags would reduce potential habitat elements for woodpeckers, songbirds, and small mammals that can be prey for goshawks.

164

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

“Salvage, Reforestation” treatment would occur across 932 acres (493 for Alternative C) of habitat that is currently considered “Closed Forage.” These areas may still be providing dense canopied stands, but are expected to experience delayed mortality due to the effects of fire, insects, and disease on fire-weakened trees. Harvest in these areas would retain few if any trees, as few to no healthy live trees are expected to exist. The treatment would thus turn these areas into “Open Forage” conditions. The majority of these units are in the center of the project area, between Little Shanley and Shanley Creeks. Table 58. Amount of modeled goshawk foraging habitat, by structural type, that would receive harvest under either of the action alternatives. Pink shading represents foraging areas that would be converted to Open Forage post-harvest, and orange shading represents areas that would be converted to Forested Forage post- harvest.

Amount and distribution of nesting and foraging habitat post-implementation Following salvage, nesting habitat would remain clumped in distribution, although there would be less of it and it would be more fragmented, particularly in the central portion of the project area between Little Shanley and Shanley Creeks. While nesting habitat would be much less than before the fire, and slightly less than before salvage harvest, there would still be enough nesting habitat to support several goshawk pairs. Because of the clumped distribution of habitat, the area could continue to support a pair of goshawks on Rice Ridge (western part of project area), and another in the central part of the project area near Little Shanley, and perhaps maybe one other pair, depending on how home ranges lined up. Open foraging habitat would be ample and well-distributed post-harvest, particularly in the thousands of acres that are not harvested, where snags and coarse woody debris will abound and support an increase in small mammal populations that is often seen post-fire (Converse, Block and White 2006). Reynolds et al. (1992) recommends 10% Open Forage conditions for goshawk home ranges. Under Alternative B, the amount of Open Forage would be 56% (54% for Alternative C) of the project area. This is higher than what is recommended, and would be only influenced slightly by the harvest; most of the open forage was created by the fire. Closed Forage conditions are currently, and would continue to be, well below the recommended 60%. Under Alternative B, post-harvest Closed Forage would comprise only 38% (40% for Alternative C)of the project area. Again, this distribution would be clumped, based on the existing condition, which was heavily affected by fire severity. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are assessed at the scale of the project area, which is large enough to encompass territories for roughly 7-8 pairs of goshawks (considering a territory size of 5,000 acres, as summarized in Brewer et al. 2009). This is an adequate scale to assess effects to multiple individuals that comprise the population of goshawks existing on the Lolo NF. Past harvest activities in the project area (summarized in Appendix D), particularly those that targeted large trees and snags, affected the existing amount of habitat available for goshawks. These past harvests were accounted for in the estimates of existing habitat, captured in the VMap dataset which provides information on areas with suitable pre-fire tree sizes and canopy cover. The amount of salvage or other

165

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment logging in the analysis area has been minimal over the past several decades, leading to a situation in which, pre-fire, large trees in stands with dense canopy cover were abundant (Table 4). The Rice Ridge Fire was by far the biggest change to goshawk habitat that the project area has seen in many decades, converting thousands of acres from nesting or closed foraging conditions into open areas, and drastically decreasing the overall suitability of the area for the species in terms of nesting habitat. However, the increase in habitat diversity that the fire created could be positive for goshawks, as it created more open areas that provide abundant small mammals and birds that thrive in open or edge habitats. The portions of the project area that are adjacent to unburned mature forest—west of Rice Ridge and south of the Cottonwood Lakes Road—are still providing some areas of optimal goshawk nesting habitat that, in juxtaposition to the burned forest, could be providing ideal home ranges for goshawks. Areas in the interior, particularly in places like Dunham Creek and Morrell Creek where the majority of the forest burned at high severity, are less likely to be used by goshawks for many years. No future foreseeable activities are expected that would measurably affect vegetative habitat for goshawks. Mushroom harvesting could result in an increase in the number of people traversing the woods during the nesting season, which could temporarily disturb nesting pairs, but likely not to the point of causing nest abandonment, since the use will be transitory. No other activities are foreseeable that would increase disturbance around any potential nest sites in the project area. Thus the proposed salvage harvest is the main future activity that could influence the species. Although negative effects would occur to individuals and habitat under either action alternative, the project would not substantially decrease habitat for the species. The biggest effects came from the Rice Ridge Fire. Salvage would further decrease the likelihood of pairs successfully nesting or inhabiting the project area. Nesting and closed foraging habitats—those that are or are headed towards old growth stand conditions—would continue to be a limiting factor for the species in the project area for decades to come as a result of the fire, and would limit the number of pairs that could realistically inhabit the area. Forest Plan Consistency Based on broad-scale habitat and inventory and monitoring assessments conducted in the Region, breeding goshawks and associated habitats appear widely-distributed and relatively abundant on NFS lands, including the Lolo NF (Samson 2006a, 2006b; (Kowalski 2006); Lolo NF 2013 Wildlife Monitoring Report). The 2005 Regional goshawk survey effort documented 40 goshawk detections across a small subset of survey cells in the Region (Kowalski 2006); extrapolating the number of detections to the unsurveyed cells results in an estimate of more than enough goshawk pair to support a viable population (Samson 2006a). The Lolo NF has been and will continue to monitor old growth habitat at the Forest scale. Goshawk monitoring has indicated the species is well distributed across the Forest and occurs in old growth and non-old growth mature forest. No data, to date, indicates a need to reassess management objectives, as the species continues to be relatively common and widespread across the Forest (Brewer et al. 2014; Lolo NF 2008 Old Growth Monitoring Report in Project File). Pileated Woodpecker The pileated woodpecker, considered widespread and common in Montana (MNHP 2018) functions as an indicator of mature forest habitats in the Lolo NF Plan (1986). As such, the health of its population acts as an indicator of the condition of habitats for other wildlife species that use large snags and mature forests. Population monitoring data collected for breeding birds along random transects from 2009-2015 showed a stable to upward trend in pileated woodpecker observations on the Lolo NF (see Project File for Intermountain Bird Observatory data). While the Lolo NF has conducted very few intentional pileated woodpecker surveys, we have recorded incidental pileated woodpecker observations while conducting goshawk surveys or other wildlife surveys, and have noted pileated woodpeckers in almost all project

166

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment areas (Brewer et al. 2014), indicating pileated woodpeckers are relatively common and well distributed across the Lolo NF. From 2006-2014 wildlife biologists and technicians conducted surveys in part of the project area, associated with the Center Horse project, and observed multiple pileated woodpeckers across multiple years (see summary in the Center Horse FEIS, and multiple annual wildlife reports in Project File). Post- fire observations of pileated woodpecker foraging activity have been observed incidentally by biologists and timber staff, indicating that individuals are still present in the area and utilizing food sources. Samson (2006) conducted an analysis of pileated woodpecker habitat across the Northern Region of the Forest Service, and concluded that there is ample habitat to sustain a viable population of pileated woodpeckers. Estimates of habitat determined from FIA data show that on the Lolo NF, 98,463 acres of habitat is available for nesting and 157,981 acres for winter foraging (considered a critical time of year for the woodpecker; ibid.). Available habitat on the Lolo NF alone is twice that needed to maintain a minimum viable population of the species in the entire Region (Samson 2006b). At the scale of the project area, the amount of pileated woodpecker foraging habitat is now very high, due to the numerous large burned trees that are now hosts to wood-boring insects. Foraging should not be a limiting factor for this species for many years in the fire area. Nesting habitat, however, was reduced by the fire, as many areas that provided nesting habitat before the fire burned at high severity. A total of 2,547 acres that provided pre-fire nesting habitat burned at high severity and are now primarily foraging habitat, as they lack the large live trees that make up mature or old growth forests that pileated woodpeckers are most known to use for nesting. Table 10 shows the amount of pileated woodpecker habitat that currently exists in the project area. The remaining nesting habitat is distributed across the project area. The estimate of nesting habitat that burned at high severity that was rendered unsuitable for nesting is conservative. Pileated woodpeckers may choose to use some large snags for nesting within high severity burn areas. A study by Bull et al. (2007) showed that high tree mortality and subsequent loss of canopy closure in stands of grand fir and Douglas-fir from insect outbreaks did not appear to be detrimental to pileated woodpeckers provided that dead trees and logs were abundant and that stands were not harvested. Within the project area, many stands were known to be old growth, per the Green et al. (1992) criteria, before the Rice Ridge Fire occurred (see Center Horse FEIS). These areas most certainly provided habitat for pileated woodpeckers, although pileated woodpeckers have been documented in other stands that did not meet the definition of old growth. See the Forested Vegetation Specialists’ Report for further information about old growth in the project area, and effects to old growth from project activities.

167

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table 59. Estimates of existing (post-fire) pileated woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat in the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project area, as well as the amount of habitat that would remain post-harvest under each alternative.

Foraging— Foraging— Nesting—

High Severity Low Severity Low Severity Existing 18,663 16,319 2,422 AMOUNT TO BE SALVAGED Alt A 0 0 0 Alt B 3,376 1,553 226 Alt C 1,503 866 144 AMOUNT REMAINING POST‐HARVEST Alt A 18,663 16,319 2,422 Alt B 15,287 14,766 2,196 Alt C 17,160 15,453 2,278

Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would not remove suitable nesting or foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers. As shown in Table 59, the existing amount of habitat would remain in the project area. Large snags across all acres of the project area would remain standing, or eventually fall and become large coarse wood, and provide foraging and nesting opportunities for decades to come, and be important resources as the forest regenerates. Therefore, under this alternative there would be No Impact to the species, and cumulative effects will not be discussed. Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives B and C would result in 5,604 and 2,734 acres, respectively, of salvage in forest that burned in 2017, most of which could provide foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Table 59 shows the amount of salvage that would occur in each habitat category; most of the salvage would occur in areas of high severity foraging habitat—areas where pre-fire conditions were higher densities of larger trees, which are now high density areas of large snags. Nesting habitat would also be affected by the removal of large snags and/or imminently dead trees that exist within stands that burned at low severity. The types of trees targeted for salvage are similar to those suitable for nesting by pileated woodpeckers, and thus a loss of nesting opportunities would result. Salvage within the low severity areas with large trees (1,553 acres, per Table 59) would be most likely to affect nesting pileated woodpeckers. The majority of these units are in the center of the project area, between Little Shanley and Shanley Creeks. Removal of incidental hazard trees along roads would also minimally degrade foraging and nesting opportunities, except in areas where those trees are left in place in riparian areas, in which case they would still provide foraging opportunities. Effects of any temporary road building that is outside of treatment units and would necessitate the removal of large live trees or snags would further reduce incidental amounts of habitat. Although non-merchantable trees would remain in the units which could provide minimal foraging opportunities, and some larger burned trees would be left in select units (roughly 25% of units would retain some burned trees for purposes of providing insolation to promote regeneration), the overall result of salvage would be to reduce foraging and nesting opportunities for pileated woodpeckers and also to reduce the number of large, fire-hardened snags that could remain for decades to come.

168

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Harvesting that occurs during the nesting season for pileated woodpeckers could result in direct mortality to adults and/or eggs/chicks that are in the nest. Given the loss of habitat and potential for direct mortality, Alternatives B and C would reduce habitat and disturb individuals at the localized, unit-by-unit scale. However, thousands of acres of high quality foraging habitat would remain un-touched, as shown by the amount of foraging habitat that would remain post-salvage (Table 59). These remaining unharvested areas have an average tree size that is ≥10” dbh, which means abundant foraging opportunities for pileated woodpeckers for many years into the future. Nesting opportunities would also abound post-salvage, as many areas that have large fire-killed snags and/or remaining live green trees (many of which may be diseased or susceptible to attack from insects), would remain unharvested. These areas (acreages shown in last rows of Table 59) would continue to provide habitat for the species for decades to come. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are assessed at the scale of the project area, which is large enough to encompass territories for roughly 75-100 pairs of pileated woodpeckers (considering a territory size of 400-500, as summarized in Samson 2006a). This is an adequate scale to assess effects to multiple individuals that comprise the population of pileated woodpeckers existing on the Lolo NF. Past harvest activities, particularly those that targeted large trees and snags, have affected the existing amount of habitat available for pileated woodpeckers. These past harvests were accounted for in the estimates of existing habitat, captured in the VMap dataset which provides current information on areas with suitable tree sizes. The amount of salvage or other logging in the analysis area has been minimal over the past several decades, leading to a situation in which, pre-fire, large trees were abundant, and in many areas insects and disease were degrading tree health, but increasing the foraging and nesting opportunities for pileated woodpeckers (see Center Horse FEIS). Other activities that could affect pileated woodpeckers could include firewood cutting, which would not equate to substantial acres of area devoid of foraging or nesting trees. Salvage of 50 acres would also occur on MT DNRC lands at the base of Black Canyon just outside of the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area, but that is the only other salvage logging proposed for the entire Rice Ridge Fire. Although some negative effects would occur to individuals and habitat under either action alternative, there would be tens of thousands of acres of foraging habitat at the project scale. Thus foraging should not be a limiting factor for the species. Nesting habitat that burned at a low severity would remain suitable in the project area, and would be well distributed. It is reasonable to expect that multiple breeding pairs of pileated woodpeckers would be able to occupy the project area post-harvest. Elk Most of the indicators discussed below—habitat quality, effectiveness, and vulnerability-- will also apply to other big game species in the project area, including whitetail deer, mule deer, and moose. Thus we consider this analysis to adequately address public comments received during scoping related to all ungulates (e.g., deer, elk, and moose). The Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project area includes much of the annual elk range of the Blackfoot- Clearwater elk population. The Blackfoot-Clearwater elk population has been at or below the desired management objectives over the past 5 years. Recent observed changes in distribution indicate a reduction of elk use of public lands and a subsequent increase in use of private agricultural lands. The causes for this shift in elk distribution are unknown, but may be a result of multiple factors including improved agricultural crop production, lack of widespread hunting access on private lands, and a reduction of forage quality on public lands (Millspaugh et al. draft research proposal, 2017, in Project File), and behavioral adaptation in response to increased predation by reintroduced wolves (White et al. 2012).

169

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

The Rice Ridge Fire affected roughly 70% of the Blackfoot-Clearwater elk herd’s summer range (Figure 6). Just to the south of the fire area is the Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (BCWMA), which is managed by MTFWP. The BCWMA is a hub in winter months for elk herds, including the primary winter range for the Blackfoot-Clearwater elk herd. Little to no winter range for elk or other big game exists north of the Cottonwood Lakes Road, which is the southern boundary of the Rice Ridge Fire and the project area. The Forest Plan does not identify delineated winter range management areas in the project area. MTFWP maps identify a sliver of winter range for elk and mule deer along the Cottonwood Lakes road in between Little Shanley and Dunham Creeks. Field surveys have been conducted extensively in the project area for multiple winters, and rarely are ungulate tracks observed in the project area during winter. Deep snows are a limiting factor for big game animals in the project area in winter. The entire project area falls within the mapped summer range for elk, however elk tend to spend most of the summer at the higher elevations, and over into the Bob Marshall Wilderness. The lower elevations of the project area are thus a “transitional zone” between summer habitats and BCWMA winter range. Forage Quality The effects of mixed-severity fire on forage throughout the project area has led to improved conditions for elk and other big game species. Areas that burned at low severity will experience a quicker response in forage quality, as top-killed shrubs re-sprout as early as spring of 2018. Grasses and forbs will also benefit from reductions in understory vegetation and light gaps in the canopy, as well as a flush of nutrients. Areas that burned at higher severity may take longer to become dense with post-fire vegetation. Multiple studies in similar forest types have shown sometimes 100-fold increase in biomass of herbaceous plants (grasses and forbs) within 3-5 years post-fire (Hebblewhite et al. 2009, (Sachro, Strong and Gates 2005). As such, Sachro et al. (2005) estimated a 73% increase in carrying capacity for elk in subalpine fir/Englemann spruce/lodgepole pine forests in a burned area in the Canadian Rockies that is similar to the Rice Ridge project area, with the effects of the fire lasting at least a decade. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that forage quality for elk in summer will continue to improve in quality over the next several years. Security While much of the project area has roads open during the summer season, several of those roads close on October 15 each year to offer big game species additional security during hunting season. Seasonal closures for Little Shanley, Black Cottonwood, and Shanley Creek roads allow for increased security in the transitional period between summer foraging habitat at higher elevations and the BCWMA. Within the project area, there are 9,899 acres that provide year-round security for big game, and 16,685 acres that provide seasonal security in fall (from October 15 thru the end of hunting season). This equates to 25% and 43% of the project area, respectively. Because everything within the herd’s range to the north and east of the project area is either wilderness or an Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), security across the herd’s range is well over the 30% suggested by Hillis et al. (1991). Cover The Rice Ridge Fire greatly reduced hiding cover throughout the project area. Roughly 44% of the project area is now cover—this is in the areas that burned at low severity that had fairly dense stand conditions pre-fire. Although some of the trees are dead or imminently dead in these areas, the existing tree boles, branches, and in some cases shrubs and saplings that did not burn, all contribute to cover for elk. About 42% of the project area was hiding cover before the fire, but it burned at a high enough intensity to reduce its ability to meet the definition for hiding cover provided by Lyon and Christensen (1992). However, many of these areas do still provide some ability to visually obstruct an elk from view, due to the high abundance of standing dead trees.

170

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

The remaining 15% or so of the project area does not provide hiding cover. Some of these areas were more open pre-fire (e.g., older harvest units, rocky areas, etc.), and thus did not provide hiding cover before the fire, nor do they now. Hiding cover was also reduced along several of the open roads in the project area as part of fire suppression activities, such as the construction of shaded fuel breaks along the Cottonwood Lakes Road (FS 477), parts of the Rice Ridge Road (FS 720), and a few others. Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on elk because no management activities (logging, road building, etc.) would occur. The post-fire flush of highly nutritious grasses, forbs, and shrubs will provide high quality forage over the next several years. Security would remain high throughout the project area, and no harvest-related disturbance would occur to potentially deter elk from using any of the burned areas. Cover would not be affected by management activities, but would likely be affected by eventual windfall that would reduce vertical structure in some stands. This would be counteracted to some extent by the regeneration of shrubs and saplings that could provide visual obstruction. Overall the area would be expected to see an increase in habitat quality for elk and big game over the next several years. Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Forage Quality Alternatives B and C would harvest dead and imminently dead trees from 5,604 and 2,734 acres, respectively, across the project area. There is some evidence that post-fire logging can have either a neutral or a slight positive effect on forage biomass from forbs and graminoids, perhaps due to higher soil temperatures, greater access to sunlight, or reduced competition from regenerating conifer seeds (Hebblewhite et al. 2009, (Donato et al. 2006a, Donato et al. 2006b). Therefore, the post-fire logging could benefit big game forage quality. However, some shrubs which provide browse for big game may be hindered by salvage logging in the short-term, particularly in ground-based (“tractor”) units (Knapp and Ritchie 2016). Risk to forage quality from the potential for noxious weeds (Birdsall et al. 2012) to invade an area in which soil has been disturbed (ground-based harvest and temporary road building) would be mitigated by resource protection measures. Therefore, the harvest would result in a neutral to positive benefit in the short term (3-5 years) to the quality of forage and the overall biomass of forage available for big game on the 5,604 acres (2,734 acres in Alternative C) that are harvested. And a neutral effect is expected to occur in the longer term (15+ years post-harvest) (Peterson and Dodson 2016; Knapp and Ritchie 2016). Hebblewhite et al. (2009) showed that although forage biomass was higher in salvage logged burned areas, elk, deer, and moose avoided post-fire logged stands due to higher wolf predation risk there. The 13 miles of new temporary roads in the project area under Alternative B (only) could present an increased risk of mortality for elk and other big game species, due to increased access for wolves, human hunters, and other predators, and/or cause them to not be able to utilize areas that are salvage logged, despite the potentially improved forage in these areas. Security Alternatives B and C would not involve any changes to legal motorized access within the project area, and thus there would be no changes to security in the project area. All temporary roads that are constructed or existing roads that are reconstructed for use in this project (Alternative B only) would be closed to public motorized access. Contractors and administrators working in the project area would have motorized access to these additional 31 miles of road, as well as to many miles of road that are closed to public access (e.g., gated roads), for the duration of the project. These workers are not allowed to carry firearms or to hunt while on the job. Therefore, while administrative use of the area could cause

171

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment additional disturbance to elk, it should not result in any additional mortality risks. Cover Tree densities would be decreased across treatment units within the project area, reducing the amount of material that is available to provide visual obstruction for elk and other big game species. Areas where this would be most pronounced are in the units that burned at lower severity. Some of these areas are expected to experience enough fire-related mortality that they are considered “regeneration” stands, meaning that too few trees are expected to survive beyond 3 years post-fire to be considered an intact live stand. These areas may still provide good visual obstruction due to the density of existing tree boles, but the trees will not be alive. Units in which the harvest type proposed is “Salvage Reforestation” would remove most of the existing visual obstruction, leaving a very open stand condition that offers little to no visual obstruction. Areas that are proposed for “Salvage” as opposed to “Salvage Reforestation” have enough existing live trees that can be left, so the stand is not considered to be in a regeneration stage. In these areas, basal area of live trees could be roughly 40-50 BA, with canopy cover in the 24-39% range, on average. These areas will provide better visual obstruction post-harvest than the “Salvage Reforestation” units, but would still experience a decrease in visual obstruction and not likely provide “cover” per the Hillis et al. (1991) definition. Table 60. Proposed acres of harvest under each alternative, comparing areas that provided cover for big game pre-fire (i.e., dense stands of larger trees) that burned at low vs. high severity, per SAVG data (categories in bold). Harvest type (Salvage Reforestation vs. Salvage) indicates whether post-fire visual obstruction would be very low or moderate, respectively.

Alt A Alt B Alt C Pre‐fire area of cover, Low Severity Fire Salvage Reforestation 0 1001 523 Salvage 0 856 497 Pre‐fire area of cover, High Severity Fire Salvage Reforestation 0 2998 1293 Salvage 0 289 124 Pre‐fire NOT cover Salvage Reforestation 0 346 213 Salvage 0 83 67

Units that would be harvested along roads that are open to motorized use by the public may be least likely to be used by elk in the future, due to the increased exposure the animals would experience. Removing hazard trees along open roads in the project area may also further decrease cover for elk and other big game species. If we assume a worst-case scenario (i.e., that all 5,604 or 2,734 harvested acres would provide no cover post-harvest, this would result in post-harvest cover within the project area being reduced to 11,336 or 14,206 acres (29% or 37% of project area). As stated previously, there are no Forest Plan standards related to cover for this project area, nor are there scientifically supported recommendations for the amount of cover that is ideal for elk management (Canfield et al. 2013). Qualitatively, cover would be reduced under the action alternatives, the effects would be most pronounced along open roads and where tree densities are currently providing visual obstruction. Although conducting harvest in the proposed acres would decrease suitability of those areas, the project as a whole would not substantially affect elk or

172

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment other big game species’ use of the project area, given the predicted increases in forage, the high amount of security habitat, and the unharvested areas that would still provide cover or at least some visual obstruction. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects The Rice Ridge Fire had the most substantial effect on elk habitat, affecting both cover and forage. No other salvage or other vegetation management activities are proposed within the project area for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects discussed above are the only foreseeable actions that could affect forage or cover. Under either action alternative, elk would benefit from the effects of the fire, with minor decreases in habitat suitability due to salvage harvest. Past actions that have affected access management in the project area have led to the existing condition where much of the project area provides security for elk and other big game species, particularly in the fall during the general rifle season. No reasonably foreseeable actions would change security, nor would the project affect security. Commercial and non-commercial mushroom harvest in Spring 2018 will create an increase in human disturbance in the project area during a season when human use is not usually very high. In addition, hunters may be attracted to the more open sight distances and easier access off- trail in the fall. Both mushroom and big game hunting could result in more use along motorized routes, as well as more non-motorized use of the project area, which would add to disturbance to big game species that are adjusting to the changed conditions in the project area. The project area would continue to provide reasonable public access, while providing protection for elk and transition between high elevation/wilderness summer range and the low elevation winter range on the BCWMA. Cover is most compromised in the Morrell Creek and Dunham Creek areas, where fire severity was high across large areas. Open roads in these areas will provide hunter access and elk in these areas may be most vulnerable to human and other predators that will benefit from long sight distances from roads in these areas. Forest Plan Consistency Forest Plan standards 21, 22, and 23 will be met because a RPM would protect elk wallows that are discovered, in that the project area does not contain winter range for elk or other big game species, and in that the Elk and Logging study was used to guide management of the project area in the past and with this project, along with more recent science and best practices.

3.6 Transportation System/Public Safety Issue/Concern Raised in Public Comment Concerns about the perceived need to minimize the road system to reduce resource effects of the transportation system in the post-fire environment. The project rea includes about 168 miles of National Forest System roads (NFSR). Of the system roads under Forest Service jurisdiction, about 91 miles (54 percent) are open yearlong or seasonally to the public. Approximately 318 miles of undetermined roads also exist on NFS land. Undetermined roads include roads constructed in the past that were never accounted for or determined to be necessary/unnecessary for the transportation system through a travel analysis process. They typically include low standard roads constructed for past mining and logging. In the project area, undetermined roads have remained on the landscape in a benign condition, revegetated and inaccessible for motorized vehicle use. The BAER assessment determined there is a very high risk to travelers along routes (roads and trails) within and downslope from hillslopes burned at a moderate to high severity due to an increased threat of falling trees/snags, rocks, excessive erosion, flooding, and other debris. National Forest System Road (NFSR)

173

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment routes having the greatest concerns were those roads that intersect areas of moderate and high severity and are open to the public at least seasonally. All reasonable efforts have been taken to reduce roadside hazards in the project area. Temporary travel prohibitions were put in place during the fire (within and near the fire perimeter). Burning snags and hazardous trees were cut and felled to ensure for firefighter safety. After the fire, roadside hazard trees including older, dead, decomposed, or structurally unsound trees were felled, and debris was removed from roads to ensure for public and employee safety. Employees continued to monitor the area, removing fallen trees and other debris from roads throughout the fall and into early winter until heavy snows prevented vehicle access. Prior to the onset of fall rains and snow, BAER activities were initiated to reduce flood risks and other hazards. BAER activities will continue in summer 2018. Post-fire, signs were posted warning of potential hazards. Restrictions put in place during the fire were lifted in the autumn in response to public concern for potential loss of recreation opportunity, employment and subsistence from the area. Retaining road closures over the entire area until all hazards are removed is not practical, nor desired. Roadside hazards still exist and danger trees will continue to fall over time because of increased defect, mortality, weathering agents, heavy snow, and other environmental factors. Therefore, this project includes roadside hazard tree abatement. 36 CFR 212 Subpart A requires each national forest to identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. The minimum system is the road system determined to be needed to meet resource and other management objectives in the Forest Plan (36 CFR 212.5(b)). The Lolo National Forest completed its identification of the minimum road system (Project File). The fire did not change the primary Forest Plan objectives for the project area, which are to provide for healthy stands of timber and optimize timber growing potential. Approximately 33 percent of the system roads within the project area are open to public motorized use. In addition to providing access to meet Forest Plan objectives over the long-term, these roads are used by the public for numerous activities, including recreation, firewood collection, and hunting. During development of the Center Horse Landscape Restoration Project, which partially overlaps the Rice Ridge project area, a Transportation Analysis Process (TAP) was conducted to determine if the existing transportation system adequately represents the minimum road system at the project scale. While the Record of Decision for the Center Horse Final EIS was not signed, a decision to implement the TAP is anticipated in the future. This project includes four components of the Center Horse TAP as aquatic offsets and would therefore make management decisions that modify the road system or change travel management authorizations displayed on the motor vehicle use map1519. Ongoing BAER work on the transportation system has and will continue to address the risk of road drainage failure due to anticipated increased water flow and movement of sediment and debris from the fire (see Section 3.3 for more detail). Project road maintenance would focus on the remaining work required to maintain roads needed for project activities with best management practices (BMPs). Between BAER work and road maintenance for the project, approximately 115 and 94 miles, respectively, of NFS roads would be treated in Alternatives B and C. These treatments would reduce resource effects of the existing road system particularly during the first years following the fire when the landscape is most vulnerable to storm events. Approximately 18 miles of undetermined roads would be used for temporary access for salvage. A detailed travel analysis to determine whether to add them to the system or decommission them was deferred because they were found to be stable and due to the time-sensitive nature of fire salvage.

19 Motor vehicle use map (MVUM) shows the NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS land designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51. It also identifies the vehicle classes allowed on each route and in each area and any seasonal restrictions that apply.

174

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Following temporary use for salvage, they would be returned to a stable condition (water-barred as needed, seeded, and closed to motorized use) until a decision is made concerning their long-term disposition. Alternative A - Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects In the absence of hazard tree removal along roads in the project area, fire-killed and weakened trees would remain until they fall on their own. Dead trees will likely fall at varying rates depending on several factors including size, species, and weather events. Even though some imminent danger trees could be dealt with, it would be difficult to stay pro-active with this activity as more and more trees become hazards over time. Due to the unpredictable nature of when hazard trees fall, leaving a high number of them along roads would create unsafe road travel conditions for years into the future. Alternative A would not meet the project purpose and need to reduce hazards threatening public health and safety. Alternatives B and C - Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Both alternatives would meet the project purpose and need to reduce hazards threatening public health and safety. Outside of salvage units, hazard trees along roads open to the public and/or used for log haul would be felled and left on the ground. Commercial removal of these hazard trees could occur if there is a market for the material. Felling of hazard trees would be prioritized by road based on the degree of public use. The 25 and 28 miles of roadside hazard tree mitigation proposed in Alternatives B and C, respectively, are in addition to the tree removal that would occur along roadsides within the treatment units. Once fully completed, both action alternatives would effectively reduce roadside hazards along a substantial portion of the NFS roads within the project area providing a safer transportation system for both public and administrative use. Forest Plan Consistency Both action alternatives are consistent with the Lolo Forest Plan. A project-specific analysis was conducted to ensure roads needed for salvage would meet the design standards to provide for safety and meet user and resource needs (Forest-wide Standard 48, page II-17). System roads within the project area would be managed to provide for resource protection, wildlife needs, commodity removal, and a wide range of recreation opportunities (Forest-wide Standard 52, page II-18).

3.7 Heritage

There are no previously recorded cultural resources within proposed harvest units. Generally, due to the glacial history of the project area, the probability for cultural resources in the uplands above Seeley Lake is medium to low. Additionally, timber harvest in the 1950s and1960s obliterated the majority of cultural resources on the landscape. Previous surveys for cultural resources in the area have verified both these factors. Pedestrian surveys in the field season of 2018 will provide further information regarding the presence of cultural resources within the Rice Ridge Fire Salvage project area. Alternative A – No Action Alternative A would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on cultural resources because no ground-disturbing activities would occur. Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Salvage and associated temporary road building has the potential to affect cultural resources. Previously unrecorded cultural resources may exist in proposed project units or underneath the surface where

175

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment temporary road construction is planned. RPMs included in Section 2.1.1. (CULT-1) would protect known (although they lie outside of proposed units) and potentially newly discovered sites. RPM CULT-2 would protect surface and subsurface cultural resources by requiring that ground-based harvest occur over dry or frozen ground therefore preventing rutting or soil displacement. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Increased exposure to cultural resources during project implementation can result in subsequent site vandalism or looting. Educating the public about the history of the area and the importance of leaving cultural items where they lie can inform future generations. In the event of new cultural resources identified within the project area, the results of the archaeological fieldwork could benefit the Seeley Lake community’s rich history. Forest Plan Consistency Section 106 of the NHPA dictates that cultural resources will be considered during undertakings such as the Rice Ridge project. Furthermore, the Forest Service Manual 2360 provides the framework for the tasks necessary to protect them. This includes field inventory, recording of cultural resources, evaluation to the NRHP based on significance, and protection during project implementation. The project would comply with these guiding documents during all aspects of the undertaking. Any newly recorded cultural resources within the project would be properly recorded and evaluated to the NRHP; and avoided during project implementation. 3.8 Recreation

A variety of recreation activities occur within the project area, including hiking, bicycling, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, dispersed camping, OHV riding, snowmobiling, x-country skiing, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, dog sledding, berry picking, firewood gathering and driving for pleasure. These recreational activities occur year-round with active use in all seasons. Seasonally-closed roads in the project area are highly valued for non-motorized recreation, particularly for hunting in the fall and snowmobiling in the winter. In addition, several Recreation Event Special Use Permits are issued in the project area annually. Recreation activities are highly dependent upon the network of NFS roads and trails within the project area. All of the NFS roads within the project area have seasonal or year-long motor vehicle restrictions. During the winter, there is a network of designated snowmobile trails coincident with segments of the road system within the project area. There are five primary special-use permittees for outfitting and guiding within the project area. Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects The No Action alternative would have no direct effects of this alternative on the recreation resource. This alternative does not include any temporary road or trail closures, so it would not impact recreation activities, nor displace use. The expectations and experience of recreationists would not be modified by timber salvage, haul, or other project activities. Recreationists visiting the area would experience a similar environment as provided by the current, predominantly, Roaded Natural ROS setting. Because no temporary roads or skid trails would be constructed, there would no potential increase for illegal off-road motorized use outside of the winter season. Dispersed recreation access would not be impacted by decommissioning of roads. Indirect effects of not conducting salvage treatments in the project area would result in an increase of downed trees on NFS roads and trails. This in turn would affect NFS road and trail maintenance and access for recreation use. In addition, the area would pose an increased hazard to recreationists in the future due to an abundance of snags and no hazard tree removal.

176

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Alternative B - Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts to Recreation Activities - Effects of Temporary Road/Trail Closures Under this alternative, temporary road and trail closures needed to safely implement project activities, would likely delay, halt, and/or displace recreation access and opportunities in the project area. Because year-round salvage would occur, all recreational activities would be affected. Although temporary road and trail closures would be disruptive to recreational use and access, these impacts would be short-term. Roadside hazard tree removal proposed under this alternative would provide a long-term benefit to recreation access in the project area by removing dead trees that could block access and pose an increased hazard to recreationists in the future. Timber Salvage, Haul, and Other Project Activities - Effects to User Expectations and Experience To implement timber salvage, as well as roadside hazard tree removal, use of heavy equipment and log hauling would occur on several miles of NFS roads. Heavy equipment and log trucks are loud and encountering them is disruptive to recreationists and their experience. There would be an increased number of people working off road in the forest, however, the frequency of user contacts shouldn’t substantially change as salvage activities would be dispersed across the project area. It is possible that as recreationists avoid or are restricted from active work areas, use could be shifted to, or concentrated in other areas. This would likely increase chances of social encounters between recreationists short-term. While project activities are occurring, slash, burn piles, landing decks, and skid trails would temporarily affect the natural appearance of the environment. However, RPMs for Scenery and appropriate rehabilitation post-project would mitigate these effects. In addition, re-establishing natural forested conditions through regeneration and/or tree planning would help to maintain the forested appearance of the area in the long-term. Overall, any effects to user expectations and experience would be short in duration. Temporary Roads and Skid Trails – Illegal Off-Road Motorized Use This alternative includes 31 miles of temporary road construction. Motorized recreational use in the project area is currently restricted to seasonally-open NFS roads. However, recreationists often seek opportunities for off-road motorized use. Due to the Rice Ridge Fire, areas adjacent to open roads are now highly visible and more easily accessible for off-road motorized use. Construction/use of temporary roads and skid trails in units adjacent to open roads would likely provide easy access for illegal off-road motorized use during project implementation and post-project. Use of closure mechanisms on temporary roads (gates or other barriers) during project implementation (Resource Protection Measure WL-G-2) would mitigate off-road motorized use via these newly constructed or reconstructed routes. Use of existing skid trails and landings (Resource Protection Measure SOIL-2) would reduce the number of newly constructed skid trails and opportunities for off-road motorized use. In addition, use of landings at the bottom of skid trails adjacent to open roads could serve as a deterrent for this type of use. Obliterating new temporary roads and blocking reconstructed routes on existing prisms post-project (Resource Protection Measure REC-5) would effectively reduce or eliminate the chance of off-road motorized use through these routes. Landing rehabilitation (Resource Protection Measure SOIL-11) next to open roads would also make it more difficult to access and skid trails post-project for off-road motorized use.

177

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Dispersed Recreation Access - Effects of Decommissioning Roads Under this alternative 27.5 miles of road would be decommissioned and 0.7 miles of road would be stored to offset potential project effects on aquatic resources. Decommissioning roads in the project area would reduce total miles of access. However, many of the roads to be decommissioned are non-system jammer type roads that are stacked on the landscape running parallel to each other and often just yards apart. Many are overgrown with trees and shrubs and cannot be hiked on easily. Therefore, the road decommissioning proposed has only a minor long-term effect. Additionally, as determined by the District Recreation Staff at the time of implementation, paths (non-maintained, non-system trails) may be left on high-use routes that fall on system roads to be decommissioned (Resource Protection Measure REC-6). This would allow for continued non-motorized dispersed recreation use by the public and special use permittees in the future. There are no effects associated with recreational access for car, truck, OHV and motorcycle recreationists since this alternative does not decommission roads currently open for vehicular travel under the existing Lolo National Forest Travel Management Plan. In general, roads currently used would continue to be available for driving motorized vehicles (see Transportation Specialist Report). There would be no decommissioning of snowmobile trails. Alternative B - Cumulative Effects The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions will have cumulative effects on the recreation resource, particularly due to repeated temporary road and trail closures and decommissioning of roads. Within a 10-year timeframe from 2015 to 2025, there has been, and would continue to be repeated temporary road and trail (including snowmobile trails) closures in the project area and close proximity due to recurring road maintenance, stream crossing replacements, timber harvest (both FS and DNRC), wildland fire and suppression activities, suppression rehabilitation and Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) work on both roads and trails, pre-salvage road work, and timber salvage. Every time there is a need for a temporary road and/or trail closure to safely implement management activities, recreation access and opportunities are delayed, halted, and/or displaced. While temporary in nature and individually minor, there is a greater impact to the recreation resource when experienced cumulatively. Under Alternative B, 27.5 miles of road would be decommissioned and 0.7 miles of road would be stored. Implementation of the Center Horse Transportation Analysis is a reasonably foreseeable action that includes over 100 miles of road decommissioning. When combined, the proposed road decommissioning constitutes a cumulative effect on dispersed recreation access. However, as mentioned above, due to the nature of the roads proposed for decommissioning (overgrown, non-system jammer type roads), there is only a minor long-term effect that can be off-set by leaving paths (non-maintained, non-system trails) on high-use routes that fall on system roads to be decommissioned. Alternative C - Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts to Recreation Activities - Effects of Temporary Road/Trail Closures Effects on recreational activities due to temporary road and trail closures under Alternative C would be similar to but slightly less than the effects of Alternative B described above. There would also be slightly fewer effects to snowmobile trail use in Alternative C than Alternative B. All effects of temporary road and trail closures on recreational activities under Alternative C would be mitigated using the same methods as described in Alternative B. Timber Salvage, Haul, and Other Project Activities - Effects to User Expectations and Experience Effects to recreational user expectations and experience due to timber salvage, haul, and other project activities would be the same as described in Alternative B, but to a lesser degree as fewer acres would be

178

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment treated (2,734) and no temporary roads would be used. Decreased timber salvage would result in less overall activity and time spent in the project area by workers. This would decrease the duration of time that user expectations and experience would be altered. Temporary Roads and Skid Trails – Illegal Off-Road Motorized Use Alternative C does not include any temporary road construction, so there would be no effect of temporary roads on illegal off-road motorized use. The effect of skid trails would be the same as in Alternative B (although there would be fewer as fewer acres are proposed for harvest) and the same Resource Protection Measures would be used to mitigate this effect. Dispersed Recreation Access - Effects of Decommissioning Roads Alternative C does not include any road decommissioning to offset effects on aquatic resources. Therefore there would be no effect to dispersed recreation access due to road decommissioning. Alternative C - Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects under Alternative C would be the same as Alternative B in regards to the cumulative effect of temporary road and trail closures on the recreation resource. There would be no cumulative effect related to road decommissioning for the aquatic offsets as Alternative C does not include these activities. Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternatives B and C comply with the Lolo NF Plan, as well as other relevant laws, policies and plans related to the recreation resource.

3.9 Economics

Three measures are appropriate for the economic analysis: project feasibility which addresses only the timber harvest component of the project; financial efficiency, which addresses present net value (PNV) or the net monetary costs and benefits of the project; and economic impacts, which are the effects of the project on local jobs and labor income. Project feasibility is used to determine if the timber harvest portion of a project is feasible, that is, will it sell, given current market conditions. The determination of feasibility relies on a residual value analysis (price of the timber = revenues – costs) that uses local delivered log prices and stump-to-mill costs to determine if a project is feasible. The appraised stumpage rate from this analysis is compared to the base rate (in this case, the base rate is the minimum stumpage rate, which is the lowest rate for which the Forest Service may sell timber). The project is considered feasible if the appraised stumpage rate exceeds the base rate. Financial efficiency provides information relevant to the future financial position of the government as the project is implemented. Financial efficiency considers anticipated Forest Service costs and revenues. PNV combines benefits and costs that occur at different times and discounts them into an amount that is equivalent to all economic activity in a single year. A positive PNV indicates that the alternative is financially efficient. Financial efficiency analysis is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis that incorporates monetary expressions of all known market and non-market benefits and costs. Many of the values associated with natural resource management are best handled apart from, but in conjunction with, a more limited financial efficiency framework. These non-market benefits and costs associated with the project are discussed throughout the various resource sections of this EA.

179

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Economic impacts are used to evaluate potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the economy. They are measured by estimating the direct jobs and labor income generated by 1) the processing of the timber volume from the project and 2) Forest Service expenditures for contracted other activities. Direct employment and labor income benefit employees and their families and, therefore, directly affect the local economy. Additional indirect and induced multiplier effects (ripple effects) are generated by the direct activities. Indirect effects are felt by producers of materials used by directly affected industries. Induced effects occur when employees of directly and indirectly affected industries spend the wages they receive. Together, direct and multiplier effects comprise the total economic impacts to the local economy. Economic impacts are estimated using input-output analysis, which is a means of examining relationships within an economy, both between businesses and between businesses and final consumers. It captures all monetary market transactions for consumption in a given time period. The resulting mathematical representation allows one to examine the effect of a change in one or several economic activities on an entire economy, all else constant. The model used for this analysis is the 2015 IMPLAN data in conjunction with response coefficients that relate timber harvest quantity to direct jobs and income (Sorenson et al. 2016). IMPLAN translates changes in final demand for goods and services into resulting changes in economic effects, such as labor income and employment of the affected area’s economy. Data used to estimate the direct effects from the timber harvesting and processing were provided by the University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) (Sorenson et al. 2016). This national dataset is broken into multi-state regions and is considered more accurate than that which is available from IMPLAN. The Northern Rockies BBER Region (Montana and Idaho) is used for this analysis. The BBER data represents the results of mill censuses that correlate production, employment, and labor income. The economic impact area for this analysis consists of Missoula and Powell County. Potential limitations of these estimates are the time lag in IMPLAN and the uncertainty of where the timber would ultimately be processed. The analysis assumes the harvested timber volume would be processed in the Missoula and Powell County impact area for the project. However, if some of the timber were processed outside the region, then a portion of the jobs and income would be lost by this regional economy. Table 61. Project Feasibility and Financial Efficiency Summary (2017$)

Category Measure Alt. B Alt. C No Action

Timber Harvest Acres Harvested 5,604 2,734 0 Information Volume Harvested (CCF) 87,626 40,820 0 Base Rates ($/CCF) $3.00 $3.00 0 Appraised Stumpage Rate $18.37 $23.60 0 ($/CCF) Predicted High Bid ($/CCF) $24.02 $29.25 0 Total Revenue (Thousands of $) $2,105 $1,194 0 Timber Harvest & PNV (Thousands of $) $393 $362 0 Required Design Criteria Timber Harvest & All Other Planned Non- PNV (Thousands of $) -$4,686 -$3,947 0 timber Activities

Table 62 displays the other resource activities not associated with the commercial harvest, and thus not included in the appraisal. These activities would occur as funding becomes available. These activities associated with this project are planting, regeneration exams, hazard tree felling and removal, and aquatic

180

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment offsets which include road decommissioning, road storage, and road construction for re-routes. The cost for activities listed below are based on recent experienced cost and professional estimates. Other Resource Activity costs are included in the PNV calculation for Timber Harvest And other Resource Activity, but they are not included in the PNV calculation for Timber Harvest and Required Design Criteria (Table 61). Table 62. Other Resource Activity Costs

Alt. B Alt. C No Action Planned Activities Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost Road Decommissioning - nonhaul routes $275,000 $0 $0 Road Re-Route $167,000 $0 $0 Regeneration Planting $4,544,650 $4,188,800 $0 Regeneration Exams $330,520 $304,640 $0 Regeneration Animal Damage Control $198,320 $182,800 $0 Regeneration Animal Damage Control Maint. $148,740 $137,100 $0 Hazard Tree Felling and Removal $99,000 $111,980 $0 Total Costs $5,763,230 $4,925,320 $0

Table 63. Economic Impacts (Employment and Labor Income), Total and Annual (2017$)

Alternatives Alt. B Alt. C No Action Non-timber Activities

Part and Full Time Jobs Contributed Total Annual Total Annual Total Direct 114 16 103 15 0 Indirect and Induced 23 3 19 3 0 Total 137 20 122 17 0

Labor Income Contributed (Thousands of 2017$) Direct $2,862 $409 $2,418 $345 $0 Indirect and Induced $785 $112 $645 $92 $0 Total $3,647 $521 $3,063 $438 $0 Timber Harvest

Part and Full Time Jobs Contributed Total Annual Total Annual Total Direct 228 76 106 35 0 Indirect and Induced 315 105 147 49 0 Total 543 181 253 84 0

Labor Income Contributed (Thousands of 2017$) Direct $10,697 $3,566 $4,983 $1,661 $0 Indirect and Induced $9,625 $3,208 $4,484 $1,495 $0 Total $20,321 $6,774 $9,467 $3,156 $0 All Activities Part and Full Time Jobs Contributed Total Annual Total Annual Total

181

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Direct 342 92 209 50 0 Indirect and Induced 339 108 166 52 0 Total 680 201 375 102 0

Labor Income Contributed (Thousands of 2017$) Direct $13,559 $3,974 $7,401 $2,006 $0 Indirect and Induced $10,410 $3,320 $5,129 $1,587 $0 Total $23,969 $7,295 $12,529 $3,593 $0

Alternative A – No Action – Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The No Action alternative would not harvest timber, implement BMPs on haul routes, or take other actions and, therefore, incurs no financial costs. It would also produce no revenue and have no effects on jobs or income. The public would not incur costs, nor realize benefits of timber harvest in this area. However, a NEPA planning cost for this alternative will have already been incurred, representing a sunk cost. The No Action alternative has the potential to continue the decline of timber-related employment in the rural communities of the economic impact area. Continued decline in timber harvest from NFS lands could potentially impact wood product employment and associated indirect and induced employment. Cumulative loss in timber-related jobs could affect the remaining infrastructure and capacity of the local rural communities, and could disrupt the dependent local goods and service industries. Alternatives B and C Both alternatives would meet the project purpose and need to recover the economic value of forest product to contribute to employment and income in local communities. Project Feasibility The appraised stumpage rate from the feasibility analysis was compared to base rates. In this case the minimum rate of $3.00 per hundred cubic feet (CCF) was used. The appraised stumpage rate and base (minimum) rates for each alternative are displayed in Table 1. For Alternatives B and C, the appraised stumpage rates are higher than the base rate, indicating that Alternatives B and C are feasible (likely to sell). Financial Efficiency The financial efficiency analysis is specific to the timber harvest and restorative activities associated with the alternatives (as directed in Forest Service Manual 2400-Timber Management and guidance found in Forest Service Handbook 2409.18). Costs for sale preparation, sale administration, regeneration, and restorative activities are included. All unit costs, quantities, and timing of activities were developed by the specialists on the project’s interdisciplinary team. If exact costs were not known, the maximum of the cost range was used to produce the most conservative PNV result. If actual costs are lower, all else equal, PNV would be higher than the estimates in Table 61 . The expected revenue for each alternative is the corresponding predicted high bid from the sale feasibility analysis, multiplied by the quantity of timber to be harvested. The predicted high bid is used for the expected revenue (rather than the appraised stumpage rate) since the predicted high bid is the best estimate of the high bid resulting from the timber sale auction. Because not all costs of the project are related to the timber sales, two PNVs were calculated. One PNV indicates the financial efficiency of each alternative, including all costs and revenues associated with the timber harvest and required design criteria. A second PNV includes all costs for each alternative with the required design criteria and for the timber harvest and all other resource activities. The costs of other

182

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment resource activities used in the PNV calculations can be found in Table 62, with the exception of sale preparation costs of $10.00 per CCF and sale administration costs of $8.50 per CCF. However, the cost of sale preparation and sale administration are considered in PNV for all alternatives. Table 61 also indicates that both action alternatives are financially inefficient (negative PNV) for timber sale with designed criteria and other resource activity. Alternative C has a higher PNV (-$3,947 thousand) than Alternative B (-$4,686 thousand). This indicates that Alternative B is the least financially efficient alternative. However Alternative B would produce over 2 times as much sawtimber volume as Alternative C which in-turn produces more employment and labor income. The other resource activities that influence this calculation are summarized in Table 2. The No Action alternative has no costs or revenues associated with it. When evaluating trade-offs, the use of efficiency measures is one tool used by the decision maker in making the decision. Many things cannot be quantified, such as safety, effects on wildlife and the restoration of watersheds and vegetation. The decision maker takes many factors into account in making the decision. Economic Impact Effects Table 63 displays the direct, indirect and induced, and total estimates for employment (part and full-time) and labor income that may be attributed to each alternative. Since the expenditures occur over time, the estimated impacts of jobs and labor income would be spread out over the life of the project. It is important to note that these may not be new jobs or income, but rather jobs and income that are supported by this project. These impacts are shown both in total (over the life of the project) and on an annual basis. It is anticipated that the timber harvest would occur over a two-year period, with the other resource activities spread out over seven years. This means that the impact of timber harvest to jobs and labor income would occur over a shorter time period than those associated with other resource activities. This can be attributed to the short time period in which fire salvage trees are economically viable for sawtimber use due to rapid deterioration. However, implementation could take longer than anticipated due to unforeseen circumstances. Alternative B would generate more jobs and labor income than Alternative C for timber harvest. Alternative B also would generate more jobs and labor income for the non-timber activities. Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects Management of the Lolo NF Forest has an impact on the economies of local counties. However, there are many additional factors that influence and affect the local economies, including changes to industry technologies, management of adjacent NFs and private lands, economic growth, and international trade. These alternatives would provide a variety of opportunities for contracts that may contribute to the local economy and have the potential to attract new business and residents and retain existing businesses and residents. In addition, there are other foreseeable future projects on NFS lands within Missoula and Powell Counties and counties closest to the project area that are in various stages of planning that potentially may add to the Forest’s annual timber offerings during the time of implementation of the project. These ongoing and foreseeable projects are expected to add cumulatively to the employment and income of the economic impact area within the life of the Rice Ridge project. Forest Plan Consistency Consistent with the Forest Plan, an economic analysis has been completed that includes the probable marketability (i.e., economic feasibility) of the commercial timber harvest portion of the project (Forest- wide Standard 11, page II-11).

183

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

3.10 Scenery The Rice Ridge Fire burned at different severities through the project area, so in some areas the scenic composition is very open, in other areas it is mixed and in some areas live canopy and green tree pattern and texture is intact. Overall though, the fire created a more open landscape with available visual access where previously dense vegetation screened visibility. Scenic evidence of fire can be seen from all observer points/travelways as brown/black tree canopies, black exposed soil, standing dead trees and stumps as well as and down trees. Most salvage would occur along one of the travelways, so foreground views within the project area dominate the scenery resource assessment. Morrell Falls Trail and Morrell Falls itself are an exception to this, as harvest would be seen in the middleground distance only from these two locations. In the foreground, individual trees, branches and soil/geologic variations are discernable and compose the textural scenery assessment. Larger landscape patterns are not discernable at this distance. Rather edge effects are discernable where there is a strong difference in density of vegetation or markings on trees denote an edge. In the middleground, distance individual trees begin to become indiscernible and instead the dominant scenic composition is defined by patterns, textures and colors of vegetation. Here edge effects are discernable where the composition of vegetation changes from open to closed or the species composition/age creates a color or shadowed change. Some standing dead trees are visible along ridgelines or other topographic changes where trees are silhouetted against the sky in both middleground and background views. Alternative A The changed environment in the project area resulting from the Rice Ridge Fire creates a scenic resource which currently does not demonstrate human management activity induced deviations, so the project area currently meets assigned Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs). However, the entire project area does not meet its desired scenic character condition in the short-term. There is a lack of diversity exhibited in the vegetation composition, pattern, structure and texture due to the homogeneity caused by the burn severity in some portions of the project area. Therefore the No Action alternative would continue to meet VQOs but would not move the project area towards the desired scenic character in the short-term. Alternatives B and C – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Both Alternatives B and C would move the project area towards the desired scenic character in the short- term by creating a more diverse composition, pattern, structure and texture of vegetation through the variety of prescriptions applied as well as planting in some units. Alternative B differs from Alternative C by treating more acres since access (through temporary road construction/reconstruction) to some acres is reduced or eliminated in Alternative C. The additional acres salvaged in Alternative B v. Alternative C are not expected to have an effect to the scenery resource due to the existing appearance of the area. More units require RPMs however in Alternative B than in Alternative C. Cumulative effects to the scenery resource, stem from vegetation management activities, road construction, gravel pit use, prescribed burning, and wildfires within the project area. These activities have occurred and are likely to continue into the future on both NFS lands and adjacent non-NFS lands. These activities do have overlap with Alternative B in both the spatial and temporal bounds for the scenery resource. In general the effects would cumulatively create a mosaicked and diverse visual landscape in which a diversity of age classes, species types and canopy density are present and would meet the Forest Plan direction. Forest Plan Consistency Overall, all units in all alternatives would meet their VQOs/Scenic Integrity Objectives and the differences to the scenic resource lie in the number of units requiring RPMs and the time until the project area would meet its desired scenic character.

184

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Appendix A - References

Abella, S.R., and W.W. Covington. 2004. Monitoring an Arizona ponderosa pine restoration: Sampling efficiency and multivariate analysis of understory vegetation. Restor. Ecol. 12:359 –367. Abella, S.R., W.W. Covington, P.Z. Fulé, L.B. Lentile, A.J. Sánchez Meador, and P. Morgan. 2007. Past, present, and future old growth in frequent-fire conifer forests of the western United States. Ecology and Society 12:16[online]. Agee and Huff, 1987 J.K. Agee, M.H. Huff. Fuel succession in a western hemlock/Douglas-fir forest Can. J. For. Res., 17 (1987), pp. 697-704 Agee, J.K. and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211:83-96. Agee, J. K. 2000. Disturbance ecology of North American boreal forests and associated northern mixed/subalpine forests. In Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-30www, eds. L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey & J. R. Squires. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ager, A.A. and Clifton, C. 2005. Software for Calculating Vegetation Disturbance and Recovery by Using the Equivalent Clearcut Area Model. General Technical Report PNW- GTR-637, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Ager, A.A., N.M. Vaillant, M.A. Finney, H.K. Preisler. 2012. Analyzing wildfire exposure and source– sink relationships on a fire prone forest landscape For. Ecol. Manage., 267 (2012), pp. 271-283 Alexander, Robert R.; Shepperd, Wayne D. 1990. Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm, Engelmann spruce. In: In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. cords, Silvics of North America, Volume 1, Conifers. Agric. Handbk. 654. Washington, DC: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 413-424.Allen et al. 2009 Allen, C. D.; Macalady, Alison K.; Chenchouni, Haroun; Bachelet, Dominique; McDowell, Nate; Vennetier, Michel; Kitzberger, Thomas; Rigling, Andreas; Breshears, David D.; Hogg, E. H (Ted); Gonzalez, Patrick; Fensham, Rod; Zhang, Zhen; Castro, Jorge; Demidova, Natalia; Lim, Jong Hwan; Allard, Gillian; Running, Steven W.; Semerci, Akkin; Cobb, Neil. 2010. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4), 660-684. Allendorf, F. and L. Ludguist. 2003. Introduction: population biology, evolution, and control of invasive species. Conservation Biology, Vol. 17, No. 1 February 2003. Pages 24- 30. Alt, D. and Hyndman, D.W. 2000. Roadside Geology of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, MT. Amman, G.D., M.D. McGregor, and R.E. Dolph, Jr. 1997. Mountain pine beetle. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 2. USDA Forest Service. http://www.barkbeetles.org/mountain/fidl2.htm Aney, W. C. and B. R. McClelland. 1990. Old-growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the northern Rocky Mountains. ed. N. M. Warren, 10-36. Archer, Eric K.; Scully, Rebecca A.; Henderson, Richard; Roper, Brett B., Heitke, Jeremiah D. and Boisjolie, Brett. 2014. Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas:

185

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment sampling protocol for stream channel attributes. Unpublished paper on file at: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp. Arno, Stephen F. 2010. “The Seeley Lake Larch: Living link to the Indian and Frontier History.” Forest History Today, Spring/Fall: 13-19. Arno, S.F., H. Smith, and M. Krebs. 1997. Old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stand structures: Influences of pre-1900 fire exclusion. Res. Pap. INT-RP-495. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 20 p Aubry, K. B., K. S. McKelvey & J. P. Copeland (2007) Distribution and broadscale habitat relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 2147-2158. Aukema, J.E. and A.B. Carey. 2008. Effects of variable-density thinning on understory diversity and heterogeneity in young Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Research Paper, PNW-RP-575 April 2008 Aune, K. E. & W. Kasworm. 1989. Dens and denning. In, . In Final Report: East Front Grizzly Studies, 73-80. Helena, MT. Aussenac, Gilbert. 2000. Interactions between forest stands and microclimate: Ecophysiological aspects and consequences for silviculture. Annals of Forest Science, Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences, 57 (3), pp.287-301. Baker, W. and D. Ehle. 2003. Uncertainty in Fire History and Restoration of Ponderosa Pine Forests in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Banks, S.C., M. Dujardin, L. McBurney, D. Blair, M. Barker, D.B. Lindenmayer. 2011. Starting points for small mammal population recovery after wildfire: recolonization or residual populations? Oikos 120: 26-37. (doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18765.x) Bartelt, P. E., C. R. Peterson & R. W. Klaver. 2004. Sexual differences in the post-breeding movements and habitats selected by western toads (Bufo boreas) in southeastern Idaho. Hereptologica, 60, 455-467. Bartlein, P.J., C. Whitlock, S.L. Shafer. 1997. Future climate in the Yellowstone National Park region and its potential impact on vegetation. Conservation Biology 11:782-792. Belt G.H., J. O'Laughlin and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, Report No.8, Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Belt G.H.; O' Laughlin, J.; Merrill, T. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Report No.8; Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group; Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Benson, A. 2009. Effects of Barriers on Migratory Bull Trout and Application of a Conceptual Framework to Evaluate Tradeoffs Associated with Dam Removal in the Clearwater River Drainage, Montana. Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Wildlife Biology, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. http://etd.lib.umt.edu/theses/available/etd-06042009-182902/ Bentz, B.J., Regniere, J., Fettig, C.J., Hansen, E.M., Hayes, J.L., Hicke, J.A., Kelsey, R.G., Negron, J.F., Seybold, S.J., 2010. Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60, 602–613.

186

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Berg, R. 1995. Clearwater Lakes Fishery Assessment, November update-Northern Pike vs. Bull Trout. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Region 2-Missoula, MT. Berg, R. 1998. Clearwater River Drainage Fishery Study. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Region 2-Missoula, Mt. Besaw, Levi M., Giles C. Thelen, Steve Sutherland, Kerry Metlen, and Ragan M. Callaway. 2011. Disturbance, resource pulses and invasion: short-term shifts in competitive effects, not growth responses, favour exotic annuals. Journal of Applied Ecology 2011, 48, 998–1006 (doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01988.x) Beschta et al., 2004, R.L. Beschta, J.J. Rhodes, J.B. Kauffman, et al. 2004. Post-fire management on forested public lands of the western United States, Conserv. Biol., 18, pp. 957-967 Beschta, Robert L., Oregon State University; Dr. Christopher A. Frissell, Oregon State University and University of Montana; Dr. Robert Gresswell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Dr. Richard Hauer, University of Montana; Dr. James R. Karr, University of Washington; Dr. G. Wayne Minshall, Idaho State University; Dr. David A. Perry, Oregon State University; Jonathan J. Rhodes, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 1995. WILDFIRE AND SALVAGE LOGGING. Recommendations for Ecologically Sound Post- Fire Salvage Management and Other Post-Fire Treatments on Federal Lands in the West. 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. In Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Edited by: Salo, E.O. and T.W. Cundy. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. Contribution No 57. http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/awa/ripthreatbib/beschta_etal_streamtempaquahab.pdf Beschta, R.L., Rhodes, J.J., Kauffman, J.B., Greswell, R.E., Minshall, G.W., Karr, J.R., Perry, D.A., Hauer, F.R., Frissell, C.A. 2004. Post-fire management on forested public lands of the western United States. Conserv. Biol. 18, 957–967. Binkley, D., Sisk, T., Chambers, C., Springer, J., Block, W., 2007. The role of old-growth forests in frequent-fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12, 18. Birdsall, J. L., W. McCaughey & J. B. Runyon (2012) Roads impact the distribution of noxious weeds more than restoration treatments in a lodgepole pine forest in Montana, U.S.A. Restoration Ecology, 20, 517-523. Birdsall, J.L., W. McCaughey, and J.B. Runyon. 2012. Roads impact the distribution of noxious weeds more than restoration treatment in a lodgepole pine forest in Montana, USA. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 517-523 Black, J. D. 1979. A History of the Seeley Lake Area. Unpublished manuscript located at Lolo National Forest Heritage Program, Missoula. Black, Thomas A. and Luce, Charles H. 2013. Measuring water and sediment discharge from a road plot with a settling basin and tipping bucket. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-287. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 38 p. Blackfoot Challenge and Trout Unlimited. 2009. Blackfoot Subbasin Plan. A report prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Portland, OR. Bollenbacher, B, Bush, R. and R. Lundberg. 2009. Estimates of snag densities for western Montana forests in the Northern Region. Region 1 Vegetation, Classification, Inventory, and Analysis Report #09-05, v1.3. 2009. Bonar, R. L. 2001. Pileated woodpecker habitat ecology in the Alberta foothills. 75.

187

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Bonn, J., B. Dixon, E. Kennedy and D. Pengeroth. 2007. Black-backed woodpecker northern region overview: Key findings and project considerations. eds. S. Kowalski, A. Dohmen & K. Swisher, 31. Missoula, MT. Bonner School Bicentennial Committee. 1976. “A Grass Roots Tribute: The Story of Bonner, Montana”. Gateway Printing, Missoula, Montana. Bradley, L., J. Gude, N. Lance, K. Laudon, A. Messner, A. Nelson, G. Pauley, M. Ross, T. Smucker, J. Steuber & J. Vore. 2015. Montana gray wolf conservation and management: 2014 annual report. 60. Helena, MT. Brewer, Kenneth C., Berglund, Doug, Barber, James A., and Bus, Renate, 2004 Northern Region Vegetation Mapping Project: Summary Report and Spatial Datasets. USDA Forest Service Northern Region Brewer, L. T., R. Bush, J. E. Canfield and A. R. Dohmen. 2009. Northern goshawk northern region overview key findings and project considerations. 54. Missoula, MT. Brewer, L., C. Lewis, S. Tomson, D. Wrobleski and S. Reel. 2014. Lolo National Forest plan wildlife monitoring report, 2001 through 2013. 43. Missoula, MT. Brooks, M. and M. Lusk. 2008. Fire Management and Invasive Plants: a Handbook. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington Virginia, 27 pp. Browman, Audra. N.D. Seeley-Swan Valley. Unpublished work, University of Montana, Special Collections, Missoula. Brown, J.K., Reinhardt, E.D., Kramer, K.A. 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-105. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 16p Brown, K., K. McGuire, W. Aust, W.Hession, and A. Dolloff. 2015. The Effect of Increasing gravel cover on Forest Roads for Reduced Sediment Delivery to Stream Crossings. Hydrological Process, 29, 1129-1140. Bull, E. L. 2006. Sexual differences in the ecology and habitat selection of western toads (Bufo boreas) in northeastern Oregon. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 1, 27-38. Bull, E. L., C. G. Parks and T. R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin. 55. Burford, Jr. D. 2005. An Assessment of Culverts of Fish Passage Barriers in a Montana Drainage Using a Multi-Tiered Approach. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Fish and Wildlife Management MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY. Bozeman, Montana. April 2005. http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2005/burford/BurfordD0505.pdf Burroughs, E. and J. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. GTR. INT-264. 24pp. Bush, J. L. 2016. Letter relating to File: M19 Forest Service Region 1 06e11000-2016-I- 0350 Wolverine Programmatic, NLJ. ed. L. M. Marten. Helena, MT: U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Montana Field Office. Bush, J. L. and B. Conard. 2014. Letter re: File: M19 Forest Service Region 1, 06E11000- 2014-I-0291 wolverine programmatic – NLJ. Bush, R., Berglund, D., Leach, A., Lundberg, R., Zack, A. 2007. Estimates of Old Growth for the Northern Region and National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Region One.

188

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis Report 07-06 v1.2 Bush, R., Lundberg, R., Leach, A. and B. Bollebbacher. 2003. Detailed estimates of old growth and large-snags on the Lolo National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. Bush, Renate, B. Reyes. 2016. R1 Summary Database Reports and Utilities. Region 1 Vegetation, Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis Report #16-2. http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/forest/inv/r1_tools/R1_SDB_Rep_Util.pdf Bush, Renate. 2018. Assessment of Snags and Old Growth for the Lolo National Forest. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis Report #18-3. Buskirk, S. W., L. F. Ruggiero & C. J. Krebs. 2000. Habitat fragmentation and interspecific competition: Implications for lynx conservation. In Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-30www, eds. L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey & J. R. Squires, 83-100. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Busse, M.D., P.H. Cochran, W.E. Hopkins, W.H. Johnson, G.M. Riegel, G.O. Fiddler, A. W. Ratcliff, and C.J. Shestak. 2009. Developing resilient ponderosa pine forests with mechanical thinning and prescribed fire in central Oregon’s pumice region. Can. J. For. Res. 39:1171-1185. Cambi, M., G. Certini, F. Neri and E. Marchi. 2015. The impact of heavy traffic on forest soils: a review. Forest Ecology and Management 338: 124-138. Canfield, J. E., L. J. Lyon & J. M. Hillis. 1986. The influence of viewing angle on elk hiding cover in young timber stands. Canfield, J., D. Pengeroth, E. Tomasik, J. Dibenedetto, Northern Region Geospatial Group, S. Taylor, C. Everett, S. Christiansen, P. Gardner, M. Slacks, R. Strathy, D. Thornburgh & L. Conway. 2013. Custer, Gallatin, Helena, and Lewis and Clark National Forests. Framework for project-level effects analysis on elk. 22. Casselli, J., B. Rigger, A. Rosquist. 2000. Seigel Creek Culvert Removal, Water Monitoring Report. USDA Forest Service, Lolo National Forest. Casselli, J.; Riggers, B.; Rosquist, A. 1999. Siegel Creek Culvert Removal Water Monitoring Report. Lolo National Forest, Missoula, MT. Caywood, Janene. 1989. Cultural Resource Survey of Four Projects Along Montana Highway 83 Condon – Clearwater Junction. Historical Research Associates under contract to Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana. Center for Biological Diversity et al. 2011. Petition to List a Distinct Population Segment of the Boreal Toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas) as Endangered or Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act. Certini, G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia 143:1-10. Chambers, Carol L., and Joy N. Mast. 2005. Ponderosa Pine Snag Dynamics and Cavity Excavation Following Wildfire in Northern Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management 216, no. 1–3 (September 2005): 227–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.033. Chambers, M. E., P. J. Fornwalt, S. L. Malone, and M. A. Battaglia. 2016. Patterns of conifer regeneration following high severity wildfire in ponderosa pine– dominated forests of the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management 378:57–67.

189

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Chattels, J. C. 1988. The Impact of Logging on Fish Habitat in Belt Geology Streams. Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Studies, University of Montana. Cheng, E., K. Hodges and L. Mills. 2015. Impacts of fire on snowshoe hares in Glacier National Park. Fire Ecology, 11, 119-136. Churchill, D.J., A.J. Larson, M.C. Dahlgreen, J.F. Franklin, P.F. Hessburg, J.A. Lutz, 2013. Restoring forest resilience: From reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring. For. Ecol. Manage., 291 (2013), pp. 442–457 Chmura, D.J., Anderson, P.D., Howe, G.T., Harrington, C.A., Halofsky, J.E., Peterson,D.L., Shaw, D.C., 2011. Forest responses to climate change in the northwestern Cissel, R., T. Black, N. Nelson. and C. Luce. 2013. Center Horse and Morrell/Trail GRAIP Roads Assessment, Preliminary Report. Clearwater River Watershed, Lolo National Forest, Montana. Cissel, R.; Black T.; Nelson, N.; Luce, C. 2013. Rice Ridge Salvage and Morell/Trail GRAIP Roads Assessment Preliminary Report. Rocky Mountain Research Station report. 54 p. Clough, L. T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in west-central Montana. In Wildlife Biology, School of Forestry, 87. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Report no. 196, 65 p. Conant, R. T., K. Paustian, F. García-Oliva, H. H. Janzen, V. J. Jaramillo, D. E. Johnson, and S. N. Kulshreshtha. 2007. Agricultural and grazing lands.in A. W. King, L. Dilling, G. P. Zimmerman, D. M. Fairman, R. A. Houghton, G. Marland, A. Z. Rose, and T. J. Wilbanks, editors. CCSP, 2007. The first State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American carbon budget and implications for the global carbon cycle. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC. Conner, R. N., O. K. Miller, Jr and C. S. Adkisson. 1976. Woodpecker dependence on trees infected by fungal heart rots. The Wilson Bulletin, 88, 575-581. Converse, S. J., W. M. Block and G. C. White. 2006. Small mammal population and habitat responses to forest thinning and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management, 228, 263- 273. Copeland, J. P., K. S. Mckelvey, K. B. Aubry, A. Landra, J. Persson, R. M. Inman, J. Krebs, E. Lofroth, H. Golden, J. R. Squires, A. Magoun, M. K. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C. L. Copeland, R. E. Yates, I. Kojola and R. May. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Canadian Journal of Zoology, 88, 233-246. Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure, changes since Euro- American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92: 39-47. Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fulé, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. Wagner. 1997. Restoring Ecosystem Health in Ponderosa Pine Forests of the Southwest.Journal of Forestry 95: 23-29. Czaplewski, Raymond. 2004. Application of Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Data to Estimate the

190

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Amount of Old Growth Forest and Snag Density in the Northern Region of the National Forest System. USDA Forest Service, Research and Development Deputy Area; Rocky Mountain Research Station; Natural Resource Assessment, Ecology, and Management Science Research Work Unit RMRS-4852; 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg A., Fort Collins CO 80526 Dahms, 1949, Dahms, W.G. 1949. How Long Do Ponderosa Pine Snags Stand? Research Note PNW- RN-57. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 3p. Davis, R. S., S. Hood, and B. J. Bentz. 2012. Fire-injured ponderosa pine provide a pulsed resource for bark beetles. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42:2022–2036. DeBano et al., 1998, L.F. DeBano, D.G. Neary, P.F. Folliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems John Wiley & Sons, New York, 333p. Dellasala, Dominick A., James R. Karr, Tania Schoennagel, Dave Perry, Reed F. Noss, David Lindenmayer, Robert Beschta, Richard L. Hutto, Mark E. Swanson, Jon Evans. 2006. Post-Fire Logging Debate Ignores Many Issues. www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 314 6 OCTOBER 2006 Dellasala, Dominick A. and Chad Hanson. 2015. The Ecological Importance of Mixed- severity Fires: Nature’s Phoenix. Published by Elsevier Inc. DeNitto, G., McConnell, T., Cramer, B., Gibson, K., Lockman, B., Stipe, L., Sturdevant, N., Taylor, J. 2000. Survivability and Deterioration of Fire-Injured Trees in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Report 2000-13, USDA, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Northern Region. 27 pages Depro, B. M., B. C. Murray, R. J. Alig, and A. Shanks. 2008. Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation: Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. Forest Ecology and Management 255:1122-1134. DiTomaso, J.M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts and management. Weed Science 28(2): 255-265. Dixon, R. D. and V. A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). In The Birds of North America, No. 509, eds. A. Poole & F. Gill, 33. Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North America, Inc. Dodds, K.J, S.L. Garman, and D.W. Ross. 2006. Risk rating systems for the Douglas-fir beetle in the interior Western United States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 21: 173- 177. Dodson, E.K. and C.E. Fiedler. 2006. Impacts of restoration treatments on alien plant invasions in Pinus ponderosa forests, Montana, USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:887– 897. Donato, D. C., J. B. Fontaine, J. L. Campbell, W. D. Robinson, J. B. Kauffman and B. E. Law. 2006a. Post-wildfire Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk. Science Express. Donato, D. C., J. B. Fontaine, J. L. Campbell, W. D. Robinson, J. B. Kauffman and B. E. Law. 2006b. Supporting Online Material for "Post-wildfire Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk". Science Express. Donato, D. C., J.B. Fontaine, J.L. Campbell, W.D. Robinson, J.B. Kauffman, B.E. Law. 2006. Post- wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk, Science, 311 (2006), p. 352 Dudley, J. G., V. A. Saab and J. P. Hollenbeck. 2012. Foraging-Habitat Selection Of Black- Backed Woodpeckers In Forest Burns Of Southwestern Idaho. Condor, 114, 348-357.

191

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Duncan, S. 2002. Pos-tfire Logging: Is it beneficial to a forest? Science Findings. 47: 2-5. Dunn, C. J. and J.D. Bailey. 2012. Temporal dynamics and decay of coarse wood in early seral habitats of dry-mixed conifer forests in Oregon’s Eastern Cascades, For. Ecol. Manage., 276 (2012), pp. 71-81 Economic Profile System (EPS). 2018. Headwaters Economics. https://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system/about/ Egan, D. 2007. Conserving and restoring old growth in frequent-fire forests: cycles of disruption and recovery. Ecology and Society 12:23[online]. Egan, Joel & Steed, Brytten & Hood, Sharon & Bush, Renate & Gregory, Jed. (2018). Assessment of Suitable Douglas-fir Beetle Habitat across the Northern Region: Special Emphasis on 2017 Wildfire Incidents. 10.13140/RG.2.2.16952.03848. Egan, J.M.; Jacobi, W.R.; Negron, J.F.; Smith, S.L.; Cluck, D.R. Forest thinning and subsequent bark beetle-caused mortality in Northeastern California. 2010. For. Ecol. Manag., 260, 1832–1842. Egan, J.M., Kegley, S., Blackford, D., Jorgenson, C.L, tech. eds. Effectiveness of direct and indirect mountain pine beetle control treatments as implemented by the USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health and Protection, Report 14-03. Elliot, W. J., Hall, D., and Scheele, D. 1999. Forest Service interfaces for the water erosion prediction project computer model. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Elliot, W.J.; Robichaud, P.R. 2001. Comparing Erosion Risks from Forest Operations to Wildfires. In: Peter Schiess and Finn Krogstad, editors, Proceedings of the International Mountain Logging and 11th Pacific Northwest Skyline Symposium: 2001 – A Forest Engineering Odyssey. Seattle, WA: College of Forest Resources, University of Washington and International Union of Forest Research Organizations. 78-89. December 10-12, 2001. EPA. 2015. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2013. Washington, DC. Errecart, John. 2014. Personal communication with John Errecart, Lolo NF Forest Silviculturist, and Karen Stockmann, EZ Botanist on observations of natural regeneration of whitebark pine across the forest in large wildland fire settings. October 2014. Everett, R, J. Lehmkuhl, R. Schellhaas, P. Ohlson, D. Keenum, H. Riesterer, D. Spurbec. 1999. Snag dynamics in a chronosequence of 26 wildfires on the east slope of the Cascade Range in Washington State, USA, Int. J. Wildland Fire, 9 (1999), pp. 223-234 Fettig, C.J.; Gibson, K.E.; Munson, A.S.; Negron, J.F. Cultural practices for prevention and mitigation of mountain pine beetle infestations. 2014. For. Sci. Fettig, C., Klepzig, K., Billings, R., Munson, A., Nebeker, T., Negrón, J. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 238: 24–53. Fettig, C., Gibson, K., Munson, S., Negrón, J. 2014a. Cultural practices for prevention and control of mountain pine beetle infestations. Forest Science 60, http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.13–032. Fettig, C., Gibson, K., Munson, S., Negrón, J. 2014b. A comment on “Management for mountain pine beetle outbreak suppression: does relevant science support current policy?”.

192

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Forests 5: 822–826. Fiedler, C.E. 2000a. Restoration treatments promote growth and reduce mortality in old- growth ponderosa pine (Montana). Ecological Restoration 18:117-118. Fiedler, C.E. 2000b. Silvicultural treatments. In: Smith, Helen Y., ed. 2000. The Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project: What we have learned—symposium proceedings; 1999 May 18-20; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-17. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fiedler, C.E. 2002. Natural process-based management of fire-adapted western forests. Published in Small Diameter Timber: Resource Management, Manufacturing, and Markets proceedings from conference held February 25-27, 2002 in Spokane, Washington. Fiedler, C.E., P. Friederici, M. Petruncio, C. Denton, and W.D. Hacker. 2007a. Managing for old growth in frequent-fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12:20[online]. Fiedler, C.E., P. Friederici, and M. Petruncio. 2007b. Monitoring old growth in frequent- fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12:22[online]. Finney, M.A., Seli, R.C., McHugh, C.W., Ager, A.A., Bahro, B., Agee, J.K., 2007. Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16, 712–727. Fischer, W. C. and A. F. Bradley. 1987. Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-223. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 95 p. Flatten. 2003. Winter Logging Effects. Monitoring Report 12-12-2003. Flint, Patricia Brown. 1977. Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Bearmouth Area. Unpublished Masters’ thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. Flint, Patricia Brown. 1982. The Northern Rocky Mountain Region: Environment and Culture History. Dissertation on file, University of Oregon, Eugene. Foltz, R.B. 1996. Traffic and no traffic on an aggregate surfaced road: sediment production differences. Presented at the FAO Seminar on Environmentally Sound Forest Roads, June 1996, Sinaia, Romania. 13 pp. Foltz, R.B.; Yanosek, K.A.; Brown, T.M. 2008. Sediment Concentration and Turbidity Changes During Culvert Removals. Journal of Environmental Management 87: 329−340. Foster, David R. and David A. Orwig. 2006. Preemptive and Salvage Harvesting of New England. Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 4, 959–970. Forests: When Doing Nothing Is a Viable Alternative Fowler, James & Sieg, Carolyn & Mcmillin, Joel & Allen, Kurt & F. Negrón, Jose & Wadleigh, Linda & A. Anhold, John & Gibson, Ken. 2010. Development of post-fire crown damage mortality thresholds in ponderosa pine. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 19. 10.1071/WF08193. Fraley J.J. and B. B. Shepard. 1989. Life History, Ecology, and Population Status of Migratory Bull Trout in the Flathead Lake River System, Montana. Northwest Science. 63:(4): 133-143. https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/1698/v63%20p133%20F raley%20and%20Shepard.PDF?sequence=1 Fredrickson, B.P., C.J. Williams, S.P. Hardegree, M.A. Welts, J.J. Stone, and P.E. Clark.

193

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

2011. Fire, plant invasions, and erosion events on western rangelands. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 64(5): 439-449. Froehlich, H.A., R.W. Robbins, D.W.R. Miles, and J.K. Lyons. 1983. Monitoring Recovery of Compacted Skidtrails in Central Idaho. Full report. Also reported in Froehlich, H.A., D.W. R. Miles, and R.W. Robbins. 1985. Soil bulk density recovery on compacted skid trails in central Idaho. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49: 1015-1017. Funk, J.L. and P.M. Vitousek. 2008. Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low- resource systems. Nature. Vol 446. 26 April 2007 (doi:10.1038/nature05719) Furniss M.M., Livingston, R.L., McGregor, M.D., 1981. Development of a stand susceptibility classification for Douglas-fir beetle. In: Hedden, R.L., Barras, S.J., Coster, J.E. Tech. Coords.., Hazard-Rating Systems in Forest Insect Pest Management: Symposium Proceedings. USDA Forest Service Washington Office General Technical Report WO-27, pp. 15–128. Furniss, M.M., 1965. Susceptibility of fire-injured Douglas-fir to bark beetle attack in southern Idaho. J. For. 63, 8–11. Furniss, M.D., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road Construction and Maintenance. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:297-323. Gan, J., and B. A. McCarl. 2007. Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation. Ecological Economics 64:423-432. Garrison-Johnson, M.T. J.A. Moore, S.P. Cook, and G.J. Niehoff. 2003. Douglas-fir beetle infestations are associated with certain rock and stand types in the inland northwestern United State. Environ. Entomol. 32: 1354-1363. Gelbard, J.L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology, Vol. 17, Issue 2, pages 420-432 April 2003 (DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01408.x) General Land Office. 2018. Bureau of Land Management, State of Montana, General Land Office Maps. Online review of records at http://glo.mt.gov. Gibson, Ken. 2003. Trip Report (TR-03-18) Douglas-fir Beetle in the Middle East Fork EAWS. USDA Forest Service. Northern Region Forest Health and Protection, Missoula, MT. Giese, C. L. A. & F. J. Cuthbert. 2003. Influence of surrounding vegetation on woodpecker nest tree selection in oak forests of the Upper Midwest, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 179, 523-534. Gillette, N.E., D.L. Wood, S.J. Hines, J.B. Runyon, and J.F. Negron. 2014. The once and future forest: Consequences of mountain pine beetle treatment decisions. Forest Science, 60(3):527-538. Gobster, P. H. 1994. The aesthetic experience of sustainable forest ecosystems. In W. W. Covington, & L. F. Debano, Sustainble ecological systems: implementing an ecological approach to land managment; (pp. 246-255). 1993 July 12-15; Flagstaff, AZ: Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-247, Fort Collins, CO; USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Goetz F.A. 1997. Habitat Use of Juvenile Bull Trout in Cascade Mountain Streams of Oregon and Washington. Pages 339-351 IN: Mackay W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, editors. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta),

194

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment c/o Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary. Goodwin, K., R. Sheley, and J. Clark. 2002. Integrated weed management after wildfires. Department of Land Resources and Environmental Studies. Montana State University, Extension, Bozeman, MT. Graham, R. T., R. L. Rodriguez, K. M. Paulin, R. L. Player, A. P. Heap and R. Williams. 1999. The northern goshawk in Utah: Habitat assessment and management recommendations. 48. Ogden, UT. Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgenson, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP- 477. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13p. Graham, Russell T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T. B. (tech. eds.) 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p. Grant, G.E.; Lewis, S.L.; Swanson, F.J.; [and others]. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Gray, A.N.; Spies, T.A. 1997. Microsite controls on tree seedling establishment in conifer forest canopy gaps. Ecology. 78: 2458-2473. Gray, A.N. 2005. Eight nonnative plants in western Oregon forests: Associations with environment and management. Environ. Monit. Asses. 100:109 –127. Grayson, L.M, Robert A. Progar, Sharon M. Hood. 2017. Predicting post-fire tree mortality for 14 conifers in the Pacific Northwest, USA: Model evaluation, development, and thresholds, Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 399, 2017, Pages 213-226. Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack and B. Naumann. 1992. Old-growth forest types of the northern region (errata corrected 02/05,12/07,10/08/,12/11). 63. Missoula, MT. Grier, C.C., K.M. Lee, N.M. Nadkarni, G.O. Klock, and P.J. Edgerton. 1989. Productivity of forest of the United States and its relation to soil and site factors and management practices: A review. PNW-GTR-222. United Stated Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. Griswold, Gillett and Dave Larom. 1954. The Hellgate Survey: A Preliminary Archaeology Reconnaissance of the Hellgate Canyon Area, Montana. Anthropology and Sociology Papers, Montana State University, Missoula Montana. University of Montana, Missoula. Guscio, C. G. 2007. Responses of western toads (Bufo boreas) to changes in terrestial habitat resulting from wildfire. In Wildlife Biology, 23. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. Guscio, C. G., B. R. Hossack, L. A. Eby & P. S. Corn. 2008. Post-breeding habitat use by adult boreal toads (Bufo boreas) after wildfire in Glacier National Park, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 3, 55-62. Guyton, K. Z., D. Loomis, Y. Grosse, F. El Ghissassi, L. Benbrahim-Tallaa, N. Guha, C. Scoccianti, H. Mattock, and K. Straif. 2015. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Oncology.Vol. 16, May 2015. pp. 490-491. Habeck, J. R., and R. W. Mutch. 1973. Fire-dependent forests in the Northern Rocky

195

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Mountains. Quaternary Research 3:408-424. Hadfield, James and Roy Magelssen. 2006. Wood changes in fire-killed tree species in eastern Washington. USDA Forest Service Wenatchee Service Center, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, Wenatchee, WA. 49 p. Hagle, S. 2006. Armillaria root disease; ecology and management. IN: Insect and Disease Management Guide. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Forest Health Protection, Missoula, MT. Hagle, S.K.and G.M. Filip. 2010. Schweinitzii root and butt rot of western conifers. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 177. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 8 p. Hagle, S.K. 2008 Management Guide for Armillaria Root Disease. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, Forest Health Protection. 23 pp. Hagle, S.K. and Goheen, D.J. 1988. Root disease response to stand culture. In: Proceedings of the future forests of the Intermountain West: a stand culture symposium. USDA Forest Service, GTR INT- 243. pgs. 303-309. Hall, S. A., I.C. Burke, and N.T. Hobbs. 2006. Litter and dead wood dynamics in ponderosa pine forests along a 160-year chronosequence, Ecol. Appl., 16 (6) (2006), pp. 2344-2355 Han, S., H. Han, D. S. Page-Dumroese, L. R. Johnson. 2006. Soil compaction associated with cut-to-length and whole-tree harvesting of a coniferous forest. Can. J. For. Res. 39: 976- 989. Hanna, R. 2002. Best management Practices Effectiveness Monitoring Report, Lolo National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Lolo National Forest. 121pp. Harmon, M. E., A. Moreno, and J. B. Domingo. 2009. Effects of partial harvest on the carbon stores in Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests: A simulation study. Ecosystems 12:777-791. Harvey, B. J., D. C. Donato, and M. G. Turner. 2016. High and dry: post-fire tree seedling establishment in subalpine forests decreases with post-fire drought and large stand-replacing burn patches. Global Ecology and Biogeography 25:655–669. Heath, L. S., J. E. Smith, C. W. Woodall, D. L. Azuma, and K. L. Waddell. 2011. Carbon stocks on forestland of the United States, with emphasis on USDA Forest Service ownership. Ecosphere 2. Hebblewhite, M., R. H. Munro & E. H. Merrill. 2009. Trophic consequences of postfire logging in a wolf-ungulate system. Forest Ecology and Management, 257, 1053-1062. Henderson, Richard C., Eric K.Archer, Boyd A Bouwes, Marc S. Coles-Ritchie, and Jeffrey L. Kershner. 2005. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO): Effectiveness Monitoring Program seven-year status report 1998 through 2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-162. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p. Helgerson, O.T .. 1990. Heat damage in tree seedlings and its preve ntion. New For. 3, 333- 358. Hendrickson, Shane. 2013. Personal Communication Hessburg P.F. and J.K. Agee. 2003. An environmental narrative of Inland Northwest United States forests, 1800–2000. Forest Ecology and Management 178:23–59. Hessburg, P.F., Agee, J.K., Franklin, J.F., 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland Northwest USA: contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modem eras.

196

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Forest Ecology and Management 211, 117–139. Hessburg, P.F., Mitchell, R.G., Filip, G.M. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in Eastern Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-327. Hickenbottom, J.A.S. 2001. A comparative analysis of surface erosion and water runoff from existing and recontoured Forest Service roads: O’Brien Creek Watershed, Lolo National Forest, Montana, USA. Master’s Thesis Abstract. Hillis, J. M., M. J. Thompson, J. E. Canfield, L. J. Lyon, C. L. Marcum, P. M. Dolan & D. W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining elk security: The Hillis paradigm. In Proceedings of a symposium on elk vulnerability, eds. A. G. Christensen, L. J. Lyon & T. N. Lonner, 38-43. Bozeman, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Hodges, K. E. 2000. Ecology of snowshoe hares in southern boreal and montane forests. In Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States, eds. L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey & J. R. Squires, 163-206. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Hoff, Ray J. 1992. How to recognize blister rust infection on whitebark pine. Research Note INT-406. USDA Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 8 p. Holbrook, J. D., J. R. Squires, L. E. Olson, N. J. DeCesare & R. L. Lawrence. 2017. Understanding and predicting habitat for wildlife conservation: the case of Canada lynx at the range periphery. Ecosphere, 8. Hood, S.M., Bentz, B., Gibson, K., Ryan, K.C., DeNitto, G., 2007. Assessing post-fire Douglas-fir mortality and Douglas-fir beetle attacks in the northern Rocky Mountains. In. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, p. 31. Hood, Sharon M. 2010. Mitigating old tree mortality in long-unburned, fire-dependent forests: a synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-238. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 71 p. Hossack, B. R. & P. S. Corn. 2007. Responses of pond-breeding amphibians to wildfire: short-term patterns in occupancy and colonization. Ecological Applications, 17, 1403-10. Hossack, B. R., L. A. Eby, C. G. Guscio & P. S. Corn. 2009. Thermal characteristics of amphibian microhabitats in a fire-disturbed landscape. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 1414-1421. Houghton, R. A. 2003. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850-2000. Tellus Series B-Chemical and Physical Meteorology 55:378-390. Hoving, C. L., D. J. Harrison, W. B. Krohn, W. J. Jakubas & M. A. McCollough. 2004. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) habitat and forest succession in northern Maine, USA. Wildlife Biology, 10, 285-294. Hungerford, Roger D.; Babbitt, Ronald E. 1987. Overstory removal and residue treatments affect soil surface, air, and soil temperature: implications for seedling survival. Res. Pap. INT-RP-377. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 19 p. Hutto, R. L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology, 9, 1041-1058.

197

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Hutto, R. L. 1998. Using landbirds as an indicator species group. In Avian conservation: Research and management, eds. J. M. Marzluff & R. Sallabanks, 75-92. Covelo, CA: Island Press. Hutto, R.L., R.E. Keane, R.L. Sherriff, C.T. Rota, L.A. Eby, and V.A. Saab. 2016. Toward a more ecologically informed view of severe forest fires. Ecosphere 7(2): 1-13. Hyde, J. C, A.M.S. Smith, R.D. Ottmar, E.C. Alvarado, P. Morgan. 2011. The combustion of sound and rotten coarse woody debris: a review, Int. J. Wildland Fire, 20 (2011), pp. 163-174 IGBC, I. G. B. C. 1994. IGBC Taskforce Report: Grizzly Bear Motorized Access Management. 10. IGBC. 1986. Interagency grizzly bear guidelines. 108. IGBC. 1998. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee taskforce report (revised from 1994). In Grizzly bear/motorized access management, 9. Innes, R. 2011. Cervus elaphus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 128. Missoula, MT. Ivan, J. S. & T. M. Shenk. 2016. Winter diet and hunting success of Canada lynx in Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management, 80, 1049-1058. Ivan, J. S., G. C. White & T. M. Shenk. 2014. Density and Demography of Snowshoe Hares in Central Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78, 580-594. Jackober, M.J. 2002. Sheep Creek Culvert Replacement Sediment Monitoring, Bitterroot National Forest. 4pp. Jacobson, Hazel. 1977. Profile of Early Ovando 1978-1900. Platen Press, Deer Lodge, Montana Jakober M.J. 1995. Autumn and Winter Movement and Habitat use of Resident Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. Jakober, M.J. 2002. Sheep Creek Culvert Replacement Sediment Monitoring. Bitterroot National Forest. Jennings, Tara N., Jane E. Smith, Kermit Cromack, Elizabeth W. Sulzman, Donaraye McKay, Bruce A. Caldwell, and Sarah I. Beldin. 2012. Impact of Postfire Logging on Soil Bacterial and Fungal Communities and Soil Biogeochemistry in a Mixed-Conifer Forest in Central Oregon. Plant and Soil 350, no. 1–2 (January 2012): 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0925-5. Johnson et al., 2013, M.C. Johnson, J.E. Halofsky, D.L. Peterson. 2013. Effects of salvage logging and pile-and-burn on fuel loading, potential fire behavior, fuel consumption and emissions, Int. J. Wildland Fire, 22 (2013), pp. 757-769 Johnson, N.K., and J.F. Franklin. 2007. Forest restoration and hazardous fuel reduction efforts in the forests of Oregon and Washington. Testimony, Hearing of subcommittee on public lands and forests of the Senate committee on energy and natural resources.

Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.C. Moser, R.P. Neilson, K.

198

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

O’Halloran, and D.L. Peterson, 2008: National Forests. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3-1 to 3-127. Available online at: http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap4-4/sap4-4-final-report-Ch3-Forests.pdfKarr, J.A., J.J. Rhodes, G.W. Minshall, F.R. Hauer, R.L. Beschta, C.A. Frissell, and D.A. Perry. 2004. The effects of post-fire salvage logging on aquatic ecosystems in the American West. BioScience 54:1029-1033. Karr, James R., Jonathan J. Rhodes, G. Wayne Minshall, F. Richard Hauer, Robert L. Beschta, Christopher A. Frissell, and David A. Perry. 2004. The Effects of Postfire Salvage Logging on Aquatic Ecosystems in the American West. November 2004 / Vol. 54 No. 11 • BioScience. Kashian, D. M., W. H. Romme, D. B. Tinker, M. G. Turner, and R. M. G. 2006. Carbon storage on landscapes with stand-replacing fires. BioScience 56:598-606. Keane, R.E. and S.F. Arno. 1993. Rapid Decline of Whitebark Pine in Western Montana: Evidence from 20-Year Remeasurements. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 8(2): 44-47. Keane, R.E., D.F. Tomback, C.A. Aubry, A.D. Bower, E.M. Campbell, C.L. Cripps, M.B. Jenkins, M.F. Mahalovich, M. Manning, S.T. McKinney, M.P. Murray, D.L. Perkins, D.P. Reinhart, C. Ryan, A.W. Schoettle, and C.M. Smith. 2012. A Range-Wide Restoration Strategy for Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-279. USDA Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 108 pp. Keane, R.E., D.F. Tomback, M.P. Murray, and C.M. Smith. 2011. The future of high- elevation, five-needle white pines in Western North America: Proceedings of the High Five Symposium. 28-30 June 2010; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-63. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 376 p. Online at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p063.html. Keen, F.P. 1929. How soon do yellow pine snags fall? J. For., 27 (1929), pp. 735-737 Kegley, S. 2011. Management guide for Douglas-fir beetle. 10 p. In Forest inscet and disease management guide for the northern and central Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Northern and Intermountain Regions. State and Private Forestry. FHP, Boise and Missoula. Kemp, Kerry B., Higuera, Philip E., Morgan, Penelope. 2015. Fire legacies impact conifer regeneration across environmental gradients in the U.S. northern Rockies. Landscape Ecology (2016) 31:619-636 Kendall, K.C. and R.E. Keane. 2001. Whitebark Pine Decline: Infection, Mortality, and Population Trends. Pages 221-242, Chapter 11 in Tomback, D.F., S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane (eds.). Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 440 pp. Keyser, T.L., F.W. Smith, W.D. Shepperd. 2009. Short-term impact of post-fire salvage logging on regeneration, hazardous fuel accumulation, and understory development in ponderosa pine forests of the Black Hills, SD, USA, Int. J. Wildland Fire, 18 (2009), pp. 451-458 Kirk, D. A. & B. J. Naylor. 1996. Habitat requirements of the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) with special reference to Ontario., 49.

199

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Klock, G.O. 1975. Impact of five postfire salvage logging systems on soils and vegetation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. March-April: 78-81. Knapp, E. E. & M. W. Ritchie. 2016. Response of understory vegetation to salvage logging following a high-severity wildfire. Ecosphere, 7. Knapp, Eric E., and Martin W. Ritchie. 2016. Response of Understory Vegetation to Salvage Logging Following a High-Severity Wildfire.” Ecosphere 7, no. 11 (November 2016): e01550. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1550. Kolbe, J. A. & J. R. Squires. 2007. Circadian activity patterns of Canada lynx in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 1607-1611. Kosterman, M. K. 2014. Correlates of Canada lynx reproductive success in northwestern Montana. In Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, Wildlife Biology, 69. Missoula, Montana: University of Montana. Kowalski, S. 2006. Frequency of northern goshawk presence in the northern region 2005 survey. 1-14. Missoula, MT. Kozlowski, T. T. 2002. Physiological ecology of natural regeneration of harvested and disturbed forest stands: implications for forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 158: 195-221. Krueger, K, P. Chapman, M. Hallock, T. Quinn. 2007. Some Effects of Suction Dredge Placer Mining on the Short-term Survival of Freshwater Mussels in Washington. Kukulok, Stephanie E. and S. Ellen Macdonald. 2007. Impacts of postfire salvage logging on understory plant communities of the boreal mixedwood forest 2 and 34 years after disturbance. Can. J. For. 37: 2637-2651. Kulakowski, D. and T.T. Veblen. 2007. Effect of prior disturbances on the extent and severity of wildfire in Colorado subalpine forests, Ecology, 88 (2007), pp. 759-769 Larson, E.R., S.L. Van De Gevel, and H.D. Grissino-Mayer. 2009. Variability in Fire Regimes of High-Elevation Whitebark Pine Communities, Western Montana, USA. Ecoscience 16: 282-298. Latif, Q. S., V. A. Saab, J. G. Dudley & J. P. 2013. Ensemble modeling to predict habitat suitability for a large-scale disturbance specialist. Ecology and Evolution, 3, 4348-4364. Lewis, D.; Huggard, D. 2010. A Model to Quantify the Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle on Equivalent Clearcut Area. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin 13(2): Spring. Lindenmayer, D.B. and R.F. Noss. 2006. Salvage Logging, Ecosystem Processes, and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 4, 949–958. Lindgren, P.M.F., D.B. Ransome, D.S. Sullivan, and T.P. Sullivan. 2006. Plant community attributes 12 to 14 years following precommercial thinning in a young lodgepole pine forest. Can. J. For. Res. 36:48–61. Linkhart, B. D. 2001. Life history characteristics and habitat quality of flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus) in Colorado. In Environmental, Population, and Organismic Biology, 222. University of Colorado. Lloyd, R.A., K.A. Lohse, and TPA Ferre´. 2013. Influence of road reclamation techniques on forest ecosystem recovery. Front Ecol. Environ. 11(2): 75-81. Lockman, B and Steed, B. 2011. Trip Report (MFO-TR-11-30) Pest evaluation of the Center Horse project area, Seeley Lake RD, Lolo National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Northern

200

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Region Forest Health and Protection, Missoula, MT. Locwood, J.L., P. Cassey, and T. Blackburn. 2005. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 20 No. 5, May 2005. Loehman, R. A., J. A. Clark, and R. E. Keane. 2011. Modeling effects of climate change and fire management on western white pine in the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Forests 2011, 2, 832-860 Lofroth, E. C., C. M. Raley, J. M. Higley, R. L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger, J. C. Lewis, P. J. Happe, L. L. Finley, R. H. Naney, L. J. Hale, A. L. Krause, S. A. Livingston, A. M. Myers & R. N. Brown. 2010. Conservation of fishers (Martes pennanti) in south-central British Columbia, western Washington, western Oregon, and California. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Lorain, Christine C. 1991. Species management guide for Grindelia howellii (Howell’s gumweed) on the St. Joe National Forest. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 22p. Lowell, E. C.; Rapp, Valerie A.; Haynes, Richard W.; Cray, Caitlin. 2010. Effects of fire, insect, and pathogen damage on wood quality of dead and dying western conifers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-816. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 73 p. Lowell, E.C.; Willits, S.A.; Krahmer, R.L. 1992. Deterioration of fire-killed and fire- damaged timber in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR- 292. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p. Luce, C. and T. Black. 2001. Effects of Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest Road Sediment Production. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Luce, C.H. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest roads. Restoration Ecology 5 (3):265-270. Luce, C.H. and B. C. Wemple. 2001. Introduction to Special Issues on Hydrologic and Geomorphic Effects of Forest Roads. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 111−113. Lustgraaf, Will. 1972. A Reconnaissance Interpretation of Surficial Geology in the Seeley Lake Area. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. R1-157OG. Missoula, Montana. 16p. Lyon, J. L. & Christensen. 1992. A partial glossary of elk management terms. 6. Lyon, L. J., T. N. Lonner, J. P. Weigand, C. L. Marcum, W. D. Edge, J. D. Jones, D. W. McCleerey & L. L. Hicks. 1985. Coordinating elk and timber management: Final report of the Montana cooperative elk-logging study 1970-1985. 53. Bozeman, MT. MacDonald, L. and D. Coe. 2005. Sediment Production and Delivery from Unpaved Forest Roads in the Sierra Nevada, California. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 7, 08831. MacDonald, L.H. and J.D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water: A state-of-the-art review for Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, CSU, Fort Collins, CO. pp21-29. At http://welcome.warnercnr.colostate.edu/~leemac/publications.htm. Mace, R. D. & J. S. Waller. 1996. Grizzly bear distribution and human conflicts in Jewel Basin Hiking Area, Swan Mountains, Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24, 461-467. Mace, R. D., J. S. Waller, T. L. Manley, K. Ake & W. T. Wittinger. 1999. Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in western Montana. Conservation Biology, 13, 367-377. Madej, M.A. 2001. Erosion and Sediment Delivery Following Removal of Forest Roads.

201

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26, 175-190. Mahalovich, M. F. and V. D. Hipkins. 2011. Molecular Genetic Variation in Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) in the Inland West. IN: Keane, R.E., D.F. Tomback, M.P. Murray, and C. M. Simth (eds). 2011. The future of high-elevation, five-needle white pines in Western North America: Proceedings of the High Five Symposium. 28-30 June 2010; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-3. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 376 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p063.html Malouf, Carling. 1952. Economy and Land Use by the Indians of Western Montana U.S.A. Missoula, Montana. Malouf, Carling. 1967. ”Historic Tribes and Archaeology” In Archaeology in Montana, January-March Vol. 8 No. 1. Manley, T. L. & R. D. Mace. 1992. Grizzly bear habitat use and disturbance studies: South Fork of the Flathead River progress report for 1991. 41. Kalispell, MT. Maranon-Jimenez, S., and J. Castro. 2013. Effect of decomposing post-fire coarse woody debris on soil fertility and nutrient availability in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Biogeochemistry 112: 519-535. Marten, L. M. 2016. Letter from regional forester (Northern Region) to Michael Garrity, Alliance for the Wild Rockies. Maxell, B. A. 2000. Management of Montana's amphibians: A review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species. In Report to USFS Region 1, Order Number 43-0343-0-0224, 161. Missoula, MT. MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1995. Blackfoot River Drainage, Bull Trout Status Report. Report prepared for the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, Montana. McCallum, D. A. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: Flammulated owls. In Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment, eds. G. D. Hayward & J. Verner, 14-46. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. McClelland, B. R. & P. T. McClelland. 1999. Pileated woodpecker nest and roost trees in Montana: links with old-growth and forest "health". Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27, 846-857. McIntyre, J. D., and B. E. Rieman. 1995. Westslope Cutthroat Trout. In Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout. M. K. Young (Tech. Ed.) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report, RM-GTR-256. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr256.html McIver, J.D. and R. Ottmar. 2007. Fuel mass and stand structure after post-fire logging of a severely burned ponderosa pine forest in northeastern Oregon, For. Ecol. Manage., 238 (2007), pp. 268-279 McIver, J.D. and L. Starr. 2001. Environmental effects of postfire logging: literature review and annotated bibliography. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-486. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 80p. McIver, J.D. and R. McNeil. 2006. Soil disturbance and hill sediment transport after logging a severely burned site in Northeastern Oregon. West. J. Appl. For. 21 (3): 123-133. McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, J. K. Agee, S. W. Buskirk, L. F. Ruggiero & G. M. Koehler. 2000. Lynx conservation in an ecosystem management context. In Ecology and conservation

202

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment of lynx in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-30www, eds. L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey & J. R. Squires, 419- 442. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. McKinley, D. C., M. G. Ryan, R. A. Birdsey, C. P. Giardina, M. E. Harmon, L. S. Heath, R. A. Houghton, R. B. Jackson, J. F. Morrison, B. C. Murray, D. E. Pataki, and K. E. Skog. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecological Applications 21:1902-1924. McLeod, C. Milo (with contributions by Timothy Light and Mary Horstman Williams). 2003. Site Identification Strategy Prepared for Bitterroot, Flathead, and Lolo National Forests: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. On file Lolo National Forest Heritage Program, Missoula. McLeod, C. Milo and Douglas Melton. 1986. The Prehistory of the Lolo and Bitterroot National Forests: An Overview. USDA Forest Service. On file Lolo National Forest Heritage Program, Missoula. Meehan, W. R., and T. C. Bjornn. 1991. Salmonid Distribution and Life Histories. In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:47-82. Megahan, W. F. 1972. Sedimentation in relation to logging activities in the mountains of central Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Agric. Res. Serv. Rep. ARS-S-40. 285 pp. Megahan, W.F., and J.G. King. 2004. Erosion, sedimentation, and cumulative effects in the northern Rocky Mountains. Pg. 201-222 in G.G. Ice and J.D. Stednick, eds. A century of forest and wildland watershed lessons. Soc. of Am. For., Bethesda, MD. 21 p. Mehl, C., J. Haufler, S. Yeats & B. Rieman. 2012. Southwestern Crown of the Continent Landscape Assessment. Ecosystem Management Research Institute, U.S. Forest Service. Mellen, T. K., E. C. Meslow & R. W. Mannan. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in Western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management, 56, 96- 103. Milburn, A., B. Bollenbacher, M. Manning & R. Bush. 2015. Region 1 existing and potential vegetation groupings used for broad-level analysis and monitoring. In Report 15-4 v1.0, 174. Missoula, MT. Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17:2145–2151. Miller, J. D. and Thode, A. 2007. Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a relative version of the delta Normalized Burn Ratio (RdNBR). Remote Sensing of Environment. 109. 66-80. 10.1016/j.rse.2006.12.006. Miller, R.E., J.D. McIver, S.W. Howes, and W.B. Gaeuman. 2010. Assessment of Soil Disturbance in Forests of the Interior Columbia River Basin: A Critique. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-811, Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 140p Miller, Rebecca. 2014. Influence of Log Truck Traffic and Road Hydrology on sediment Yield in Western Oregon. Masters of Science in Water Resources Engineering. Oregon State University. Minshall, G. Wayne. 2003. Responses of stream benthic macroinvertebrates to fire. Forest Ecology and Management 178 (2003) 155–161.

203

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Monsanto, P.G. and J.K. Agee. 2008. Long-term post-wildfire dynamics of coarse woody debris after salvage logging and implications for soil heating in dry forests of the eastern Cascades, Washington, For. Ecol. Manage., 255 (2008), pp. 3952-3961 Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Middle Blackfoot-Nevada Creek Total Maximum Daily Loads and Water Quality Improvement Plan. Montana Fish and Wildlife and Parks. 2004. Montana statewide elk managaement plan. 404. Helena, MT. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2005. An Integrated Stream Restoration and Native Fish Conservation Strategy for the Blackfoot River Basin. Prepared by Ron Pierce, Ryen Aasheim and Craig Podner. A Report to the Stakeholders of the Blackfoot River Fisheries Restoration Initiative. 153 pp. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2008. The Big Blackfoot River Fisheries and Restoration Investigations for 2006 and 2007. Prepared by Ron Pierce, Craig Podner, Michael Davidson, Ladd Knotek, and John Thabes. 483 pp. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2011. Big Blackfoot River Fisheries Investigations 2008 through 2010. Prepared by Ron Pierce and Craig Podner. 256 pp. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2013. Fisheries Investigation in the Big Blackfoot River Basin, 2011-2012. Prepared by Ron Pierce and Craig Podner. 136 pp. Montana Rivers Information System. 1989. Montana State Library. Helena, Montana. http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/mFish/ Montana Streamside Management Zones Law. 1991. http://dnrc.mt.gov/forestry/Assistance/Practices/Documents/SMZ.pdf Morgan, Todd A.; Hayes, Steven W.; Chelsea McIver. 2017. Forest Products Market and Supply Challenges Continue. Forest Products Outlook, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. http://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/forest/outlook/forestproducts2017.pdf Morgan, Todd A., Hayes, Steven W., Sorenson, Colin B., and Keegan III, Charles E. 2015. Montana’s forest Products Industry Still Looking for the “Real” Homebuilding Recovery. Forest Products Outlook, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. http://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/forest/outlook/forestproducts2015.pdf Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2017. Montana Hunting and Trapping Regulations: Furbearers & Trapping 2017. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2003. Final EIS gray wolf conservation and management plan. Helena, MT. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Western Toad — Anaxyrus boreas. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2018. Black- backed Woodpecker — Picoides arcticus. Montana Field Guide. Murray, B. C. 2008. Leakage from an avoided deforestation compensation policy: Concepts, empirical evidence, and corrective policy options. NI WP 08-02. Mussulman, Joseph. 2000. Discovering Lewis and Clark. July 5, Seaman’s Creek. Electronic Document, http://www.lewis-clark.org/article/2284?ArticleID=2284. accessed on December 11, 2012. Lewis and Clark Fort Mandan Foundation, Washburn, North Dakota National Forest Genetic Laboratory (NFGEL). 2017. Howell’s Gumweed (Grindelia

204

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment howellii) Geneti Diversity and Conservation, Lab Report. USDA – Forest Service. Placerville, CA. 19p. Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, eds. 2005 (revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p. Negron, J.F. 1998. Probability of infestation and extent of mortality associated with the Douglas-fir beetle in the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management, 107: 71- 85. Negron, J.F., W.C. Schaupp, K.E. Gibson, J.Anhold, D.Hansen, R. Their, and P. Mocettini. 1999. Estimating extent of mortality associated with the Douglas-fir beetle in the central and northern Rockies. Western Journal Applied Forestry, 14: 121-127 Negron, J.F., Anhold, J.A., and A.S. Munson. 2001. Within-stand distribution of tree mortality caused by the Douglas-fir beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environ. Entomol. 30: 215-224. Negron, J.F. and J.B. Popp. 2004. Probability of ponderosa pine infestation by mountain pine beetle in the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management 191: 17-27. Negrón, J., Allen, K., Cook, B., Withrow, J. 2008. Susceptibility of ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa (Dougl. Ex Laws.), to mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, attack in uneven–aged stands in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 254: 327–334. Nedeau, Ethan J., Smith, Allan K., Stone, Jen, and Sarina Jepsen. 2009. Freshwater Mussels of the Pacific Northwest, SECOND EDITION. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Portland, Oregon. 60pp. www.xerces.org/western-freshwater-mussels Nelson, C.R., C.B. Halpern, and J.K. Agee. 2008. Thinning and burning in result in low- level invasion by nonnative plants but neutral effects on natives. Ecological Applications, 18(3), April 2008, pp. 762-770. Ecological Society of America. Norris, L. A., H. W. Lorz, and S. V. Gregory. 1983. Influence of Forest and Rangeland Management on Anadromous Fish Habitat in Western North America. 9. Forest Chemical. W.R. Meehan, Technical Editor. USDA Forest Service Technical Report PNW-149. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr149.pdf Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Access Task Group. 1995. Interm motorized access management direction Northern Continental Divide recovery zone. eds. T. Puchlerz & C. Servheen, 7. Noss, Reed. 2006. Managing Fire-prone forests in the Western United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. November, 2006. Noss, R., J.F. Franklin, W. Baker, T. Schoennagel, and P.B. Moyle. 2006. Ecological science relevant to management policies for fire-prone forests of the western United States. Society for Conservation Biology Scientific Panel on Fire in Western U.S. Forests, Society for Conservation Biology, North American Section, Arlington, VA. Oliver, C. D. & B. C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Olson, L. E., J. D. Sauder, N. M. Albrecht, R. S. Vinkey, S. A. Cushman & M. K. Schwartz. 2014. Modeling the effects of dispersal and patch size on predicted fisher (Pekania [Martes] pennanti) distribution in the U.S. Rocky Mountains. Biological Conservation, 169, 89-98.

205

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Page-Dumroese, D. S., M. Jurgensen, and T. Terry. 2010. Maintaining soil productivity during forest or biomass-to-energy thinning harvests in the western United States. West. J. Appl. For. 25 (1). Page-Dumroese, D., A. Abbot, T. Rice. 2009. National Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Volume 1 and 2: Rapid Assessment, Supplementary methods, statistics, data storage. USDA Forest Service. 95p. Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, A. Abbot, T. Rice, J, Tirocke, S. Farley, and S. DeHart. 2006a. Monitoring Changes in Soil Quality from Post-fire Logging in the Inland Northwest. Forest Service Proceedings. RMRS-P-41. Moscow, ID: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 605-613. Passovoy, M.D. and P.Z. Fulé. 2006. Snag and woody debris dynamics following severe wildfires in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests, For. Ecol. Manage., 223 (2006), pp. 237-246 Pavek, Diane S. 1991. Update to the report on the conservation status of Grindelia howellii, a candidate threatened species. Montana Natural Heritage Program. 66 p. Peterson David L., James K. Agee, Gregory H. Aplet, Dennis P. Dykstra, Russell T. Graham, John F. Lehmkuhl, David S. Pilliod, Donald F. Potts, Robert F. Powers, and John D. Stuart. 2009. Effects of Timber Harvest Following Wildfire in Western North America. United States. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-776. Peterson, D. and H. Neville. 2011. Response of Cutthroat Trout to Culvert Barrier Remediation in East Fork Lolo Creek, Montana: Data Summary and Interim Report for 2008-2010. Submitted to: Kim Clarkin, USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Peterson, David W., Erich K. Dodson, Richy J. Harrod. 2015. Post-fire logging reduces surface woody fuels up to four decades following wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management; 338: 84 DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.11.016 Peterson, David W. and Erich Kyle Dodson. 2016. Post-fire logging produces minimal persistent impacts on understory vegetation in northeastern Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 370 (2016) 56–64. Pfankuch, D. 1973. Vegetation manipulation guidelines for the Lolo National Forest; a revision and updating of the October 1967 procedures. USDA Forest Service. Lolo National Forest. April, 1973. 69 p. Pierson, J. C., F. W. Allendorf, P. Drapeau & M. K. Schwartz. 2013. Breed locally, disperse globally: Fine-scale genetic structure despite landscape-scale panmixia in a fire-specialist. PLoS ONE, 8(6): e67248, 8. Pfister, Robert D., Bernard L. Kovalchik, Stephen F. Arno, Richard C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-34, 174 p. Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Ponder et al. 2012. Effects of organic matter removal, soil compaction and vegetation control on 10th year biomass and foliar nutrition: LTSP continent-wide comparisons. Forest Ecology and Management 278: 35-54. Powell, R. A. & W. J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. In The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States, eds. L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon & W. J. Zielinski, 38-73. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

206

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Powers, R.F. 1990. Are we maintaining the productivity of forest lands? Establishing guidelines through a network of long-term studies. Paper presented at Symposium of Management and Productivity of Western Montane Forest Soils, Boise ID, April 10-12, 1990. 13p. Powers, R.P., D. A. Scott, F.G. Sanchez, R.A. Voldseth, Page-Dumroese, D.S., J.D. Elioff, and D.M. Stone. 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and Management 220:31-50. Radosevich, S.R., J.S. Holt, and C.M. Ghersa. 2007. Ecology of Weeds and Invasive Plants. Relationship to Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Third Edition of Weed Ecology/ Radosevich, Holt, Ghersa 1997. Book. ISBN 978-0-471-76779-4 Raley, C. M., E. C. Lofroth, R. L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger & J. M. Higley. 2012. Habitat ecology of fishers in western North America. In Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: A new synthesis, eds. K. B. Aubry, W. Zielinski, M. G. Raphael, G. Proulx & S. W. Buskirk, 231-254. Cornell University Press. Randall, C., Steed, B., and Bush, R. 2011. Revised R1 Forest Insect Hazard Rating System User Guide for use with Inventory Data Stored in FSVeg and/or Analyzed with the Forest Vegetation Simulator. FHP Report R1-11-06. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, Forest Health Protection. 27p. Ranglack, D., B. Garrott, J. Rotella, K. Proffitt, J. Gude & J. Canfield. 2014. Evaluating elk summer resource selection and applications to summer range habitat management. Reeves, D. D. Page-Dumroese and M. Coleman. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance associated with timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-89 Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 12 p. Reeves, Gordon H., Jack E. Williams, Kelly M. Burnett, and Kirsten Gallo. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 2, 319–329. Reichel, J. D. 1995. Preliminary amphibian and reptile survey of the Lewis and Clark National Forest: 1994. 92. Helena, MT. Reid, L. and Thomas Dunne. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water Resource Research, Vol. 20. No. 11. Pg. 1753-1761. Reilly, Matthew, Hessburg, Paul, Spies, Thomas. 2015. Brief: Ecological Effects of Post-fire Salvage Logging in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University Ryan and Ammann, 1994) Rennie, Patrick and Michael Warren. 2000. Cultural Resources Inventory of the Plum Creek/Game Range Land Exchange in Missoula and Powell Counties, Montana. Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham & M. H. Reiser. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. In General Technical Report RM- 217. Fort Collins, CO. Ribe, R. G. 2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attributes on landscape perceptions. Environment and Behavior, 34(6): 757- 780. Rice, P. 2013. Winter range weed treatment and monitoring 2002-2012, Lolo National Forest. Unpublished but on file at the Lolo NF.

207

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Rieman, B. B., D. Lee, J. McIntyre, K. Overton, and R. Thurow. 1993. Consideration of Extinction Risks for Salmonids. Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin, No. 14, December. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Boise, Idaho. 14pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/lee/lee4.pdf Rieman, B. E., and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull Trout. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report INT-302. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr302.pdf Riggers, B.W.; Rosquist, A.; Kramer, R.; Bills, M. 1998. An Analysis of Fish Habitat and Population Conditions in Developed and Undeveloped Watersheds on the Lolo National Forest. Unpublished Forest Service Report. Ritchie, M.W., E.E. Knapp, and C.N. Skinner. 2013. Snag longevity and surface fuel accumulation following post-fire logging in a ponderosa pine dominated forest, For. Ecol. Manage., 287 (2013), pp. 113-122 Robichaud, Pete, William Elliot, Frederick Pierson, David Hall, Corey Moffet, and Louise E. Ashmun. 2007. Erosion Risk Management Tool User Manual (Version 2006.01.18). Rocky Mountain Research Station, no. GTR-188 (2007). Roccaforte, John P., Peter Z. Fulé, W. Walker Chancellor, and Daniel C. Laughlin. 2012. Woody Debris and Tree Regeneration Dynamics Following Severe Wildfires in Arizona Ponderosa Pine Forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42, no. 3 (March 2012): 593– 604. https://doi.org/10.1139/x2012-010 Roccaforte, J. P., P. Z. Fulé, W. W. Chancellor, and D. C. Laughlin. 2012. Woody debris and tree regeneration dynamics following severe wildfires in Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42:593–604. Rollins, Matthew G.; Frame, Christine K., tech. eds. 2006. The LANDFIRE Prototype Project: nationally consistent and locally relevant geospatial data for wildland fire management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-175. Fort Collins: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 416 p. Romme, W. H. and M. G. Turner. 1991. Implications of global climate change for biogeographic patterns in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 5:373- 386. Rone, G. 2011. Summary of soil monitoring on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest-1980s to 2012. 10p. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. Ross, D.W., K.E. Gibson, and G.E. Datermain. 2006. Using MCH to protect trees and stands from Douglas-fir beetle infestation. FHTET-2001-09. Morgantown, WV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. 11 p. (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/pdfs/MCH_online.pdf) Rudinsky, J.A., C. Sartwell, Jr., T.M. Graves & M.E. Morgan. 1974. Granular formulation of methylcyclohexenone: An anti-aggregative pheromone of the Douglas-fir and spruce bark beetles. Z. Angew. Entomol. 75:254-263. Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger & A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 118. Missoula, MT. Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey &

208

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

J. R. Squires. 1999. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. 485. Ft. Collins, CO. Russell, R. E., V. A. Saab, J. G. Dudley & J. J. Rotella. 2006. Snag longevity in relation to wildfire and postfire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management, 232, 179-187. Ryan, Kevin C.; Peterson, David L.; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D. 1988. Modeling long-term fire- caused mortality of Douglas fir. Forest Science. 34(1): 190-199. Ryan, M. G., M. E. Harmon, R. A. Birdsey, C. P. Giardina, L. S. Heath, R. A. Houghton, R. B. Jackson, D. C. McKinley, J. F. Morrison, B. C. Murray, D. E. Pataki, and K. E. Skog. 2010. A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for U.S. forests. Issues in Ecology 13:1-16. Ryan, R. L. 2005. Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on aesthetics and fuel management. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station. Saab, V. A. & J. G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. 17. Ogden, UT. Saab, V. A., R. E. Russell & J. G. Dudley. 2007. Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging and time since wildfire. The Condor, 109, 97-108. Saab, V. A., R. E. Russell, J. Rotella & J. G. Dudley. 2011. Modeling nest survival of cavity-nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging. Journal of Wildlife Management, 75, 794-804. Sachro, L. L., W. L. Strong & C. C. Gates. 2005. Prescribed burning effects on summer elk forage availability in the subalpine zone, Banff National Park, Canada. Journal of Environmental Management, 77, 183-93. Samson, F. B. 2006a. A conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. 151. Missoula, MT. Samson, F. B. 2006b. Habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten, and fisher. Sassman, J., R. Pienta, M. Jacobs, J. Cioffi. 1984. Pesticide Background Statements. Forest Service, USDA Handbook No. 633: D-80. Sauder, J. D. & J. L. Rachlow. 2014. Both forest composition and configuration influence landscape-scale habitat selection by fishers (Pekania pennanti) in mixed coniferous forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management, 314, 75-84. Scheller, R. M. and D. J. Mladenoff. 2002. Understory species patterns and diversity in old growth and managed northern hardwood forests. Ecol. Appl. 12:1329 –1343. Schinasi, Leah and Maria E. Leon. 2014. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014 (11) 4449-4527. Schrag, A. M., A. G. Bunn, and L. J. Graumlich. 2007. Influence of bioclimatic variables on tree-line conifer distribution in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: implications for species of conservation concern. Journal of Biogeography Vol 35, Issue 4:698-710.

209

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Schwartz, M. K., N. J. DeCesare, B. S. Jimenez, J. P. Copeland & W. E. Melquist. 2013. Stand- and landscape-scale selection of large trees by fishers in the Rocky Mountains of Montana and Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management, 305, 103-111. Seidensticker, M. T., D. W. Holt & M. D. Larson. 2013. Breeding status of flammulated owls in Montana. Northwestern Naturalist, 94, 171-179. Servheen, C. 1983. Grizzly bear food-habits, movements, and habitat selection in the Mission Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management, 47, 1026-1035. Sessions, P., Bettinger, R. Buckman, M. Newton, J. Hamann. 2004. Hastening the return of complex forests following fire: the consequences of delay, J. For., 102 (3) (2004), pp. 38-45 Seyedbagheri, K. 1996. Idaho Forestry Best Management Practices: Compilation of Research on Their Effectiveness. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. INT-GTR-329. Schmidt, O. 2006. Wood and Tree Fungi: Biology, Damage, Protection, and Use. Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. 334 pp. Schmidt, W.C., and J.E. Lotan. 1980. Phenology of common forest flora of the northern Rockies--1928 to 1937. Research Paper INT-259. Ogden, UT, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Schneider, R. 2001. Old-growth forests in Alberta: ecology and management. Alberta Centre for Boreal Studies. Schmitz, Richard F.; and Gibson, Kenneth E. 1996. Douglas-fir Beetle. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 5 (revised). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p. (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fid/wo-fidls/) Shackelford, C. E. & R. N. Conner. 1997. Woodpecker abundance and habitat use in three forest types in eastern Texas. Wilson Bulletin, 109, 614-629. Shaw III CG, Kile GA, 1991. Armillaria Root Disease. Washington, DC, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Agricultural Handbook 691. Shelly, J. Stephen. 1986. Report on the conservation status of Grindelia howellii, a candidate threatened species. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 144 p. Shelly, J.S. 2015. Personal communication with Steve Shelly, Regional Botanist, and Karen Stockmann, East Zone of the LNF Botanist, on the habit of water howellia in Seeley Swan Region. May 2015. Shephard, B., K. Pratt, and P. Graham. 1984. Life histories of westslope cutthroat and bull trout in the upper Flathead River Basin, Montana. Kalispell, MT, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Sheridan, G., P. Noske, R. Whipp, and N. Wijesinghe. 2006. The Effect of Truck Traffic and Road Water Content on Sediment Delivery from Unpaved Forest Roads. Hydrological Processes, 20, 1683-1699. Shiplett, B., and L. F. Neuenschwander. 1994. Fire ecology of the cedar-hemlock zone in Idaho. Pg. 41-52 in Interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: Ecology and management Symposium proceedings, Mar. 2-4, 1993, Spokane, Washington, ed. D.B. Baumgartner, J.E. Lotan, and J.R. Tonn. Pullman: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Service. Shore, T.L., L. Safranyik, and W.G. Riel. 1999. Evaluation of factors affecting tree and stand

210

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment susceptibility to the Douglas-fir beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). The Canadian Entomologist 131: 831-839 Six, D., Biber, E., Long E. 2014. Management for mountain pine beetle outbreak suppression: Does relevant science support current policy? Forests 5: 103–133.Steele, R., Williams, R.E., Weatherby, J.C., Rienhardt, E.D., Hoffman, J.T., and R.W. Their. 1996. Stand hazard rating for central Idaho forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-332. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Slesak, R.A., S.H. Schoenholtz, and D. Evans. 2015. Hillslope erosion two and three years after wildfire, skyline salvage logging, and site preparation in southern Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 342: 1-7. Smith, Thompson. 2010. “aay u sqelixw A history of bull trout and the Salish and Pend d’Oreille people”, In Explore the River: Bull Trout, Tribal People, and the Jocko River. Produced by Natural Resource Department of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT. Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto, and B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance of fires severity and time since fire. Ecological Applications 15(5), 2005, pp. 1535-1549 Sorenson, C.B., Keegan, C.E., Morgan, T.A., McIver, C.P., Niccolucci, M.J. 2016. Employment and Wage Impacts of Timber Harvesting and Processing in the United States. J. For. 114(4):474–482. Spies, T.A., Giesen, T.W., Swanson, F.J., Franklin, J.F., Lach, D., Johnson, K.N., 2010. Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic perspectives. Landscape Ecology 25, 1185–1199. Spies, T.A., M.A. Hemstrom, A. Youngblood, and S. Hummel. 2006. Conserving old- growth forest diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation Biology 20:351-362. Squires, J. R., J. P. Copeland, M. K. Schwartz & L. F. Ruggiero. 2007. Sources and patterns of wolverine mortality in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 2213-2220. Squires, J. R., L. F. Ruggiero, J. A. Kolbe & N. J. DeCesare. 2006. Lynx ecology in the intermountain west. 51. Missoula, MT. Squires, J. R., N. J. Decesare, J. A. Kolbe & L. F. Ruggiero. 2008. Hierarchical den selection of Canada lynx in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72, 1497- 1506. Squires, J. R., N. J. Decesare, J. A. Kolbe & L. F. Ruggiero. 2010. Seasonal resource selection of Canada lynx in managed forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 74, 1648-1660. Stagliano, David, M. and Bryce A. Maxell. 2010. Aquatic Invertebrate Species of Concern: Updated Distributions, Vital Watersheds and Predicted Sites within USFS Northern Region Lands. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 30pp. plus appendices. http://mtnhp.org/reports/2008RegionSOCAqInvert.pdf Stagliano, David, M. 2010. Freshwater Mussels in Montana: Comprehensive Results from 3 years of SWG Funded Surveys. Prepared for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 42pp. plus appendices. http://mtnhp.org/reports/Montana_mussels_June2010.pdf

211

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Stockmann, K., N. Anderson, J. Young, K. Skog, S. Healey, D. Loeffler, E. Butler, J. G. Jones, and J. Morrison. 2014. Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from the United States Forest Service northern region, 1906-2010.in F. S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, editor. Stone, Katharine R. 2013. Accipiter gentilis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/acge/all.html [ 2018, May 7]. Streebin, Leale E., Steven M. Allen, Don E. Guffey, Howard S. Peavy. 1972. Water Quality Survey of the Lolo National Forest. School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science. The University of Oklahoma. Norman, Oklahoma. 126 p. Sugden, B., R. Ethridge, G. Mathieus, P. Heffernan, G. Frank, and G. Sanders. 2012. Montana’s Forestry Best management Practices Program: 20 Years of Continuous Improvement. Journal Forestry 110(6):328-336. 9pp Sugden, B.D. and S.W. Woods. 2007. Sediment Production from Forest Roads in Western Montana. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(1): 193−206. Sutherland, Steve and Cara R. Nelson. 2010. Nonnative Plant Response to Silvicultural Treatments: A Model Based on Disturbance, Propagule Pressure, and Competitive Abilities. West. J. Appl. For. 25(1) 2010. Swanson, M. E., J. F. Franklin, R. L. Beschta, C. M. Crisafulli, D. A. DellaSala, R. L. Hutto, D. B. Lindenmayer & F. J. Swanson. 2011a. Early-successional forest ecosystems: far from "forgotten" reply. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9, 320-320. Swanson, M. E., J. F. Franklin, R. L. Beschta, C. M. Crisafulli, D. A. DellaSala, R. L. Hutto, D. B. Lindenmayer & F. J. Swanson. 2011b. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early- successional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9, 117- 125. Swezy, D.M.; Agee, J.K. 1991. Prescribed-fire effects on fine-root and tree mortality in old- growth ponderosa pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 21(5):626-634.Schmitz and Gibson 1996 SWCC Carnivore Monitoring Team. 2018. Forest Carnivore Monitoring in the Southwestern Crown of the Continent: Switalski, T.A.; Bissonette, J.A.; DeLuca, T.H.; Luce, C.H. and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefit and Impacts of Road Removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(1): 21-28. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, INC. 2011. USFS human health and ecological risk assessment for glyphosate. SERA 8125 Solomon Seal, Manlius, New York. 13104. 336p. Teit, James and Franz Boas. 1930. The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateaus, Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, XLV. The Benton Record. 1877. “Article on the killing of George Monture”. 26 October. Fort Benton, Montana. Thomas, S.C., C.B. Halpern, D.A. Falk, D.A. Liguori, and K.A. Austin. 1999. Plant diversity in managed forests: Understory responses to thinning and fertilization. Ecol. Appl. 9:864–879. Tomback, D.F. and P. Achuff. 2010. Blister rust and western forest biodiversity: ecology,

212

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment values and outlook for white pines. For. Path. 40 (2010) 186-225 Tomback, D.F., Anderies, A.J., Carsey, K.S., Powell, M.L., Mellmann-Brown, S. 2001. Delayed seed germination in whitebark pine and regeneration patterns following the Yellowstone fires. Ecology: 82 (9):2587-2600. Treseder, K.K., M.C. Mack and A. Cross. 2004. Relationships among fires, fungi, and soil dynamics in Alaskan Boreal Forests. 14 (6): 1826-1838. Turney-High, Harry. 1937. The Flathead Indians of Montana, Menasha, Wisconsin: Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, 48. Turney-High, Harry. 1941. Ethnography of the Kutenai, Menasha, Wisconsin: Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, 56. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2017. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, Washington, D.C., as reported in Headwaters Economics’ Economic Profile System (headwaterseconomics.org/eps). U.S. Department of Commerce. 2017. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, Washington, D.C., as reported in Headwaters Economics’ Economic Profile System (headwaterseconomics.org/eps). U.S. Department of Labor. 2018. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Washington, D.C., as reported in Headwaters Economics’ Economic Profile System (headwaterseconomics.org/eps). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990 – 2008. EPA 430-R-10-006, Washington, DC. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program. 2016. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PADUS) version 1.4, as reported in Headwaters Economics’ Economic Profile System (headwaterseconomics.org/eps). U.S. White House (2001) Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Federal Register, 66, 3853-3856. US EPA. 2016. Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs September 12, 2016 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Biological Opinion on the Effects of Incorporating Habitat Management Direction for the NCDE Grizzly Bear Population into the Helena, Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo National Forest Plans on Grizzly Bears. 188. Kalispell, MT. USDA & USDI. 1998. Section 7 Coordination--Conference for Bull Trout. USDA & USDI Publication USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Canada lynx conservation agreement. 12. USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Conservation Strategy for Bull Trout on USFS lands in Western Montana. 619pp. USDA Forest Service, Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit. PACFISH and INFISH Biological Opinion Monitoring. http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp/ USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 2008. Assessment of Aquatic Organism Passage at Road/Stream Crossings for the Northern Region of the USDA Forest Service. Prepared by: Hendrickson, Shane, Kate Walker, Shelia Jacobson, and Fred Bower.

213

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package, GRAIP. https://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/ USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Regional Database and Modeled Stream Temperature, NorWest Stream Temp. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NorWeST.html USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Water Erosion Prediction Project. Forestry Sciences Laboratory. Moscow, Idaho. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/ USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Watershed Baseline Condition for the Blackfoot Section 7 Watershed. Helena and Lolo National Forests. Helena, and Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 1973. Agriculture Handbook 434. National forest landscape management: vol. 1. Washington D.C.: U.S.D.A. USDA Forest Service. 1974. Agriculture Handbook 462. National forest landscape management: vol. 2. Washington D.C.: U.S.D.A. USDA Forest Service. 1976. Agriculture Handbook 483. National forest landscape management: vol. 2, chp. 4, Roads. Washington D.C.: U.S.D.A. USDA Forest Service. 1976. Visual Character Types and Variety Class Description; R1 80- 11. Northern Region: U.S.D.A. USDA Forest Service. 1980. Agriculture Handbook 559. National forest landscape management: vol. 2, chp. 5, Timber. Washington D.C.: U.S.D.A. USDA Forest Service. 1983. The Northern Regional Guide. USDA Forest Service Northern Region USDA Forest Service. 1985. Agriculture Handbook 608. National forest landscape management: vol. 2 chp. 6, Fire. Washington D.C.: U.S.D.A. USDA Forest Service. 1986(b). 1986 ROS Book. 274 pp. USDA Forest Service. 1986. The Lolo National Forest Plan. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 1988. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. FSH 2509.22 R1/R4 5/88. USDA Forest Service. 1989. Lolo National Forest Land Systems Inventory. Sasich, J. and K. Lamotte-Hagen, edts. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 1990. Forest Service Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air Management. Chapter 2530 – Water Resource Management. USDA Forest Service. 1991. Lolo National Forest Plan (1986), Amendment 11. Lolo National Forest, Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 1993. Lolo National Forest Grizzly Bear Management Strategy. 3. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy, Environmental Assessment. Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. Attachment A—Inland Native Fish Strategy Selected Interim Direction. 15 p. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook Number 701. Washington D.C.: U.S.D.A.

214

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Programmatic Agreement Regarding Cultural Resources Management on National Forests in the State of Montana. On File at the Lolo National Forest Heritage Program Office. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/fish/9506- infish.pdf USDA Forest Service. 1996. Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Quigley, T.M.; Haynes, R.W.; Graham, R.T.; technical editors. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station. USDA Forest Service. 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Volume II. GTR PNW- GTR-405, pages 337-1055. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw_gtr405/ USDA Forest Service. 1998. Northern Region Overview. USDA Forest Service Northern Region USDA Forest Service. 1999. Region 1 Soil Quality Standards. 2554.03-R1 Suppl. 2500-99- 1. 6p. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. Technology and Development Program, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Chapter 2380-Landscape Management. FSM 2300-Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, WO Amendment 2300-2003-1. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Section 2380.5-Definitions. Forest Service Manual 2380- Landscape Management; Forest Service Manual 2300-Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource Management. Washington D.C.: U.S.D.A. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Middle East Fork Environmental Impact Statement. Bitterroot National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Appendix J. Recommended SMS Refinements. In U. S. Service, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook Number 701. Washington D.C.: U.S.D.A. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest Service Manual 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Lolo NF Down Woody Material Guide. Internal In-service Report. Lolo National Forest. Missoula, MT. 61p. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Lolo National Forest Forestwide Integrated Weed Management EIS. Lolo National Forest, Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Northern Rockies lynx management direction final environmental impact statement. 587. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Northern Rockies lynx management direction final environmental impact statement. 162. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2007c. Northern Rockies lynx management direction record of decision. 71. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service Manual 2360 Heritage Program Management.

215

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

On File at the Lolo National Forest Heritage Program Office. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Horizontal Cover-- Interim Guidance for Assessing Multi- storied Stands Within Lynx Habitat. eds. T. Bertram & J. Claar, Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2008. LNF Forest Plan Soil Monitoring and Evaluation Report for 2006/2007. Rosquist, A., author. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2009. LNF Forest Plan Soil Monitoring and Evaluation Report for 2009. Carlson, T., author. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2010. FSM 2550 – Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 Soil Management. USDA Forest Service. 2010. The Forest Service Roadmap for responding to Climate Change. USDA Forest Service Northern Region. USDA Forest Service. 2011. Sensitive species list: Region 1, February 2011. USDA Forest Service. 2012. VMap data dictionary; version 12. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report 12-30. USDA Forest Service Northern Region USDA Forest Service. 2012. LNF Forest Plan Soil Monitoring and Evaluation Report for 2010/2011. Carlson, T., author. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Forest Plan Monitoring Program Transition, Summary of how the Lolo and Bitterroot National Forests have modified their Forest Plan’s monitoring programs to transition to the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.12) and address public comments concerning this transition. August 2016. USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. 177 p. USDA Forest Service. 2013. NCDE grizzly bear conservation strategy-draft. 158. USDA Forest Service. 2014. LNF Forest Plan Soil Monitoring and Evaluation Report for 2012/2013. Carlson, T. and A. Hadlow. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2014. Programmatic Biological Assessment For North American Wolverine. ed. J. McGowan. USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Habitat Condition for Sites in the Blackfoot and Swan Subbasins. Prepared by Archer, E. Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit, Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Habitat Condition in the Lolo National Forest. Prepared by Archer, E. Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit, Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. 2015. Baseline estimates of carbon stocks in forests and harvested wood products for National Forest System units: Northern Region. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 2015. Forest Service Handbook 1909.09 – Land Management Planning Handbook, Chapter 70 – Wilderness. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 2015. Programmatic Agreement Regarding Cultural Resources Management in the State of Montana by the USDA Forest Service. On file at the Lolo National Forest Heritage Program Office. USDA Forest Service. 2016. LNF Forest Plan Soil Monitoring and Evaluation Report for 2014/2015. Hadlow, A. Missoula, MT.

216

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2016a. Assessment of the influence of disturbance, management activities, and environmental factors on carbon stocks: Northern Region. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 2016a. Forest Service Handbook 2309.18 – Trails Management Handbook. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Forest carbon. Pages 8-1 to 8-12 in R. Guldin, L. Langner, R. Arnold, and D. Lederle, editors. Future of America's forests and rangelands: Update to the Forest Service 2010 Resources Plannning Act. Research and Development, Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Forest Plan Monitoring Transition; Lolo National Forest, Bitterroot National Forest. 116 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2017. Rice Ridge Burned-Area Report. FS-2500-8. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2017a. Biological Assessment for Canada lynx Designated Critical Habitat, Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction., eds. L. Conway & G. Hanvey. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2017a. Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species for Forest Plan Amendments incorporating habitat management direction for the NCDE grizzly bear population into the Helena, Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo National Forest Plans., 174. USDA Forest Service. 2017b. Analyzing Post-Fire Habitat Conditions for Canada Lynx. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2017b. Project Development and Design Criteria for FY18 Fire Salvage Projects, ed. L. Marten. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2017. Guidelines for the Preparation of Fire Salvage Timber Sales. USDA Forest Service Northern Region. USDA Forest Service. 2017. Post-fire Assessment of Tree Status. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report 17-17 v2.0 USDA Forest Service. 2017. Bitterroot and Lolo Forests Region 1 existing vegetation database (VMAP) revision of 2016. USDA Forest Service Northern Region. USDA Forest Service. 2018. Lolo National Forest, W. B. & G. s. Northern Region Geospatial Group. Process and Rationale for Lolo National Forest Lynx Potential Habitat Map-- Final., 27. Missoula, MT. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1995. Mapping and Digitizing watershed and Sub-watershed Hydrologic Unit Boundaries. National Instruction No. 070-304. Natural Resources Inventory Division, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, D.C. USDA. 2007a. Northern Rockies lynx management direction record of decision, national forests in Montana, and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. 71. Missoula, MT. USDA. 2007b. Northern Rockies lynx management direction: Final environmental impact statement (vols. 1 and 2). Missoula, MT. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. 119. Denver, CO. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. 181. Missoula, MT. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. A framework to assist in making endangered species

217

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the bull trout subpopulation watershed scale. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/PartBappendixG.pdf USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery outline: Contiguous United States distinct population segment of Canada lynx. 21. Helena, MT. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Biological opinion on the Northern Rockies lynx management decision. Helena, MT. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. 50 CFR part 17, endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx; Final rule. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 25, 2009 / Rules and regulations/Pages 8615 - 8702 [FR DOC # E9- 3512]. 8615-8702. Washington, DC: USDI Fish Wildlife Service. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised biological opinion on the effects of the final access management strategy for the Swan grizzly bear subunit on grizzly bears, Lolo National Forest. 43. Helena, MT. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Review of updated baseline for the 2004 biological assessment for grizzly bears within the Lolo National Forest outside the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem recovery zone. 13. Helena, MT. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem grizzly bear conservation strategy draft. 148. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Draft conservation strategy for the northern continental divide ecosystem grizzly bear. Federal Register, 78, 26064. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for the distinct population segment of the North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States. Federal Register, 78, 7864-7890. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for the distinct population segment of the North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States; establishment of a nonessential experimental population of the North American wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Federal Register, 79, 47522-47545. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Final environmental assessment: Revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx. 66. Denver, CO. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Species Status Assessment Report for the Northern Rocky Mountains Fisher. 83. Denver, CO. USDI Fish Wildlife Service. 2011. 12-Month finding on a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat. IN: Federal Register 76(138): 42631- 42654 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-19/html/2011-17943.htm USDI Fish Wildlife Service. 2014. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) internet site. Accessed on June 3, 2014. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=MT USDI Fish Wildlife Service. 2017. Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction on Designated Critical Habitat for Canada Lynx.

218

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Helena, MT. USDI Fish Wildlife Service. 2018. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Consultation Code: 06E11000-2018-SLI-0279, Event Code: 06E11000-2018-E-00383, Project Name: Rice Ridge Fire Salvage. 6. Helena, MT. Vernon, Suzanne (editor), Mildred Chaffin, Rod Kvamme, and Herb Townsend. 1990. Cabin Fever: A Centennial Collection of Stories About the Seeley Lake Area. Vernon Printing and Publishing, Seeley Lake, Montana. Vernon, Suzanne (editor), Mildred Chaffin, Rod Kvamme, and Herb Townsend. 2011. Montana: Voices of the Swan. Upper Swan Historical Society, Condon. Wagenbrenner, J.W., MacDonald, L.H., Coats, R.N., Robichaud, P.R., Brown, R.E. 2015. Effects of post-fire salvage logging on ground cover, soils and sediment production in the interior western USA. Forest Ecol. Manage. 335: 179–193. Water Quality Study of the Clearwater River and Selected Tributaries. School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science. The University of Oklahoma. Norman, Oklahoma. 154 p. Watson, V.J., P.M. Rice, and E.C. Monnig. 1989. Environmental fate of picloram used for roadside weed control. Journal of Environmental Quality 18: 198-205. Wear, D. N., and B. C. Murray. 2004. Federal timber restrictions, interregional spillovers, and the impact on US softwood markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Wemple, B.C.; Jones, J.A. 2003. Runoff Production on Forest Roads in a Steep, Mountain Catchment. Water Resources Research 39(8). Werner, J. K., B. A. Maxell, P. Hendricks & D. L. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula Montana: Mountain Press Publishing Company. Wienk, C.L., C.H. Sieg, and G.R. McPherson. 2004. Evaluating the role of cutting treatments, fire, and soil seed banks in an experimental framework in ponderosa pine forests of the Black Hills, South Dakota. For. Ecol. Manag. 192:375–393. Wildlife Management Institute. 2016. Court overturns wolverine listing decision; implications for future ESA decisions. Wildlife Management Institute [news bulletin], 70. Wondzell, S.M., J.G. King. 2003. Postfire erosional processes in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions. Forest Ecology and Management, 178 (1): 75-87. Woodward, D.F. 1976. Toxicity of the herbicides dinoseb and picloram to cutthroat (Salmo clarki) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33: 1671-1676. Wright, V. 1996. Multi-scale analysis of flammulated owl habitat use: owl distribution, habitat management, and conservation. In Biological Sciences, 91. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. Zenner, E.K. 2005. Development of tree size distributions in Douglas-fir forests under differing disturbance regimes. Ecological Applications 15:701–714. Ziesak, R. 2012. Montana Forestry Best management Practices Monitoring, 2012 Forestry BMP Field Review Report. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division.

219

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L. 2008. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 355 p.

220

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Appendix B – Maps

221

429

409 17 15 13 16 14 18 R A N G E Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Alternative B Seeley Lake Ranger District 19 Lolo National Forest Morrell INSET LOCATOR 21 Morrell 20 91B 22 4362 23 Falls 24 90A 17485 094 095 1 090 «¬83 Crescent 089 088 MORRELL SeeleyMountain2 Morrell Lake FALLS 8617Lake .! 2626 3 4 17530 1 19 087

MORRELL

085 30 29 28 27 098 26 25 30 MATT 8270 T T 18N R 15 W T T 18N R 14 W 2166 099 98A 2521 4343 FALLS 8276 2523 29

Cr 084 34 415 125 130 100 NRT 120

Findell CO 32 33 390 CO 32 082 35 MORRELL 429 36 31 083 4364 Cr 082 FALLS

451 Florence 081 720 355 Lake Murphy T 18 N R 15 W T 18 N R 14 W 080 370 T 17 N R 15 W 2 380 355 T 17 N R 14 W 079 685 385 395 PYRAMID 078 4381 4359 345 365 175 PASS 4 3 340 5 6 5406 1 416 5 17531 075 17532 16874 17525

16881 360 R i d g e Creek 340 388 075 170 335 Creek 16872

165 16332 071 073 420 Trail 17548 17460 Benedict 9 16875 160 16651-A

11 7 16651 16653 17496 Sawyer 10 12 16654 8 Creek 16884 4369

8 17607

Rice R i c e 17472 30 4358

T T 17N R 15 W 17471 T 17 N R 14 W 17 16 15 190 14 13 17482 Creek 18

325 17 17473 4353

17468

17481 Canyon

17475

17470 185

4378

17469 SEELEY 17501 LAKE 180 467 SEELEY 20 21 22 23 17474 24 19 20

17480 270

Creek 4361 4360 17502 LAKE Creek 17505 Seeley 285

17690 17467-1 410

17480-A 405 280 495 066

17671 17672 17476 275 17467 27 29 28 26 Blind 25 30 29 17477 GAME 375 Auggie SEELEY Seeley LAKE 17478

17513

32 33 34 36 17514 32 SEELEY 35 31 4379 Camp PRESERVE CREEK 17694 477 Paxson RIVER Alt B Harvest Units POINT Temp Road- Reconstruct Existing Prism Other Jurisdiction TRAILHEAD Ownership Salvage Lolo National Forest Store Existing System Road Roads - Other WILDLIFE VIEWING AREAMorrell Salvage & Reforestation Private Decommissioned NFSR Project Boundary TRAIL - NATL REC / SCENIC / HISTORIC O Alt B - Project Roads State of Montana Map Page Decommission CAMPGROUND - DEVELOPED (FS) TRAIL - NON-MOTORIZED USE National Forest System Road (NFSR) 1 of 4 Converted to Trail Previously OFFICE - RANGER DISTRICT (FS) Township Range Miles Construct NFS Road for Reroute Decommissioned Previously POINT OF INTEREST Sections 0 5 10 Temp- New Construction Non-System (NFSR) SKIING - CROSS COUNTRY WILDERNESS MORRELL FALLS 36 Pyramid Rice Ridge Fire Salvage 8309 Creek 31 32 2533 Peak Alternative B Seeley Lake Ranger District 33 Pyramid Lolo National Forest Creek Lake T 18 N R 14 W INSET LOCATOR 1 T 17 N R 14 W

4381 «¬83 1 PYRAMID Seeley 2 345 PASS Lake .! 6 5406 5 4 416 278 3 17531 17532 4 416 2 4163 Devine 388 335 Creek

T T 17N R 15 W T T 17N R 14 W Devine Ross 284 7 8024 Peak 2446 12 420 Trail

16651-A 16651 16653 8 16654 9

10 4353 11 12 4359 17506 Creek

30 278

4378-A 18 Creek 17 16 15 14 13 325

190 467 4378 Canyon

17501 401 17505

19 20 21 24 22 23 270 Swamp Creek 17502

495 375 495 Morrell 066 Mountain 17671 17462 8161

17462-A Blind 36019 2487 30 29 28 17672 27 26 25

4379

17513

17514 MORRELL MTN 17511 LOOKOUT 35 LOOKOUT 7796

31 32 2376 33 34 36 064

Creek NORTH Creek 065 T 17 N R 14 W 063 490 T 16 N R 14 W 062 061 4365 Mountain 477 060 1 6 059 5 4 3 2 Fork 1

Cottonwood Lakes

T T 16N R 15 W T T 16N R 14 W 11 057 053 17507 485

North 12 7 8 9 10 Cottonwood 054 Creek 12 Drew 050 050

Alt B Harvest Units Temp- New Construction Other Jurisdiction TRAIL - NON-MOTORIZED USE Bureau of Land Management Salvage Temp Road- Reconstruct Existing Prism Roads - Other Township Range Private Map Page Salvage & Reforestation O Converted to Trail Previously Project Boundary Sections State of Montana 2 of 4 Alt B - Project Roads Miles Decommissioned Previously POINT OF INTEREST Ownership National Forest System Road (NFSR) 0 5 10 Lolo National Forest Non-System (NFSR) TRAILHEAD Dunham

Lodgepole

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 401 Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Creek Alternative B Seeley Lake Ranger District Lolo National Forest 24 19 20 INSET LOCATOR 23 21 22 Spruce

23 «¬83 1 400 Seeley 2 Lake .! 3 4 Morrell 3 Nome Mountain Nome Point

25 30 7715 26 29 28 2352 27 374 26

T T 17N R 14 W

T T 17N R 13 W Creek MORRELL MTN LOOKOUT

4365

36 31 32 33 064 34 35 35 400 065 T 17 N R 14 W Cottonwood 4TH T 17 N R 13 W Dunham T 16 N R 14 W T 16 N R 13 W

401

3 2 1 Dunham 5 Shanley Fork 4 3 6 Point 6692 2040 Cottonwood Lakes

17507 047 057

485 053 046 054 North 041 040 Cottonwood 7 8 11 12 9 10 050 4384 42A 10 039

Creek 050 Creek 435 042 245

602 Creek 240 16376 17596 033 4385 Dry 044 17595 035 036 Shanley 16 15 14 Canyon 13 44A 16341 17 225 425 460 034 18 17645 230 15 Little 31A 032 17508 440 026 17567 31B Spring 265

260 16538 031 455 255 023 024 Cr 21 430 16377 477 46942 17503 027 022 Black 445 465 Cottonwood 028 17665 220 22 23 24 19 20 029 021 Lost 22 215 210 J60273

T T 16 N R 14 W T T 16 N R 13 W 46942 17664 9976 470 030 020 J60272

27 26 25 27 30 29 28 Cottonwood Kozy Park Korner Woodworth Cr Creek

35 34 36 31 32 33 34

Alt B Harvest Units Construct NFS Road for Reroute Decommissioned Previously Township Range Salvage Temp- New Construction Non-System (NFSR) Sections Shanley Salvage & Reforestation Map Page Temp Road- Reconstruct Existing Prism Other Jurisdiction Ownership O Alt B - Project Roads Lolo National Forest 3 of 4 Temp Road- Reconstruct Existing Prism and Decommission Roads - Other National Forest System Road (NFSR) Miles Private Decommissioned NFSR Project Boundary 0 5 10 Add to Official Road System State of Montana Decommission TRAIL - NON-MOTORIZED USE Cabin Hayden

Creek LODGEPOLE Rice Ridge Fire Salvage 16 13 18 14 Alternative17 B 16 15 CREEK Lodgepole Seeley Lake Ranger District Lolo National Forest

INSET LOCATOR

«¬83 1 Seeley 2 Lake .! 22 23 24 3 4 Spruce 19 20 21 21 4 Creek

T T 17N R 13 W Nome T 17N R 12 W Nome 001 Point 246 7715 27 Wedge 2352 26 25 28 374 30 29 28

002 Creek

4397

004 005

36 34 35 33 006 31 32 33 400 007 4388 Creek 17697 008 009 Yellowjacket T 17 N R 13 W Dunham Creek T 17 N R 12 W T 17 N R 12 W STANDARD T 16 N R 13 W T 16 N R 13 W T 16 N R 12 W 401 Shanley Dunham Bill Creek 4 3 2 011 Point 1 17565 6 5

5402 4 6692 Monture 2040 Dunham

012

013 246

16 10 7 8 9 4382 12 16376 11 9

Creek 435 405 DUNHAM CREEK

Falls 4386

602

Dry 019 16

T T 16N R 13 W

T T 16N R 12 W 15 460 14 Cave 13 18 Falls 17 026 17567 014 480 015 27 16538 Creek 16 455 21 023 024 17512 027 022 017 Cottonwood 17665 465 028 475 MONTURE 029 021 CABIN MONTURE Lost 22 200 23 24 19 17660 20

J60273

323 Spread 17656

17664 205 16006 MONTURE 030 020 470 J60272 CREEK

5405 21

17666 Creek

Creek

28 27 26 25 30 29

89 477

Cr 28 Creek Alt B Harvest Units Temp- New Construction Non-System (NFSR) POINT OF INTEREST Sections Salvage Temp Road- Reconstruct Existing Prism Roads - Other RENTAL CABIN Ownership O Map Page Salvage & Reforestation Lolo National Forest Decommissioned NFSR Project Boundary TRAILHEAD 4 of 4 Alt B - Project Roads Private Miles Converted to Trail Previously CAMPGROUND - DEVELOPED (FS) TRAIL - NON-MOTORIZED USE National Forest System Road (NFSR) 0 5 10 State of Montana Decommissioned Previously FACILITY - OTHER SERVICE (FS) Township Range 429

409 17 15 13 16 14 18 R A N G E Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Alternative C Seeley Lake Ranger District 19 Lolo National Forest Morrell INSET LOCATOR 21 Morrell 20 91B 22 4362 23 Falls 24 90A 089 090 «¬83 Crescent1 MORRELL Seeley 2 17485 088 Mountain Morrell Lake FALLS 8617Lake .! 2626 3 4

17530 1 19 087

MORRELL 2166 30 29 085 28 27 098 26 25 30 MATT 8270 T T 18N R 15 W T T 18N R 14 W

4343 099 98A 2521 FALLS 8276 2523 29

Cr 084 34 415 125 120 NRT

Findell CO 32 33 083 CO MORRELL 32 082 35 36 31 429 4364 Cr 082 FALLS

451 Florence 355 720 081 Lake Murphy T 18 N R 15 W T 18 N R 14 W 080 T 17 N R 15 W 355 T 17 N R 14 W 395 078 4381 PYRAMID 4359 2 345 PASS 4 3 175 340 5 6 5406

365 1 17531 416 5 075 17532 16874 16881 17525 360 R i d g e 685 Creek 340 388 075 335 Creek 16872

16332 170 071 Trail 073 420

16654 17460 Benedict 9 160 16651 16875 11 7 17496 Sawyer 10 12 16653 Creek 8 16884 4369

8 17607

4353

R i c e Rice 4358 17472 30

T T 17N R 15 W T T 17 N R 14 W

17 16 15 17468 17471 14 13 17482 Creek 18 190 325 17 17473

17470 Canyon 17475 17481 185

4378 17469 SEELEY 17501 LAKE 180 SEELEY 20 21 22 23 24 467 17474 19 20

17502 17480 270 Creek 4360

LAKE Creek 17505 4361 285 495 Seeley

17467-1

17690 17467 375 17480-A 17476 27

29 28 17672 26 17671 Blind 25 30 29 GAME 17477 Auggie SEELEY Seeley 17483

LAKE 17478

17513

32 33 34 36 17514 32 SEELEY 35 31 Camp PRESERVE 4379 CREEK 17694 477 Paxson RIVER Alt C - Harvest Units POINT Decommissioned Previously POINT OF INTEREST Township Range Salvage Other Jurisdiction SKIING - CROSS COUNTRY Morrell Sections Salvage & Reforestation Ownership O Roads - Other TRAILHEAD Map Page Alt C - Project Roads Lolo National Forest Project Boundary WILDLIFE VIEWING AREA Miles 1 of 4 National Forest System Road (NFSR) Private CAMPGROUND - DEVELOPED (FS) TRAIL - NATL REC / SCENIC / HISTORIC 0 5 10 Non-System (NFSR) State of Montana OFFICE - RANGER DISTRICT (FS) TRAIL - NON-MOTORIZED USE Converted to Trail Previously WILDERNESS MORRELL FALLS 36 Pyramid Rice Ridge Fire Salvage 8309 Creek 31 32 2533 Peak Alternative C Seeley Lake Ranger District 33 Pyramid Lolo National Forest Creek Lake T 18 N R 14 W INSET LOCATOR 1 T 17 N R 14 W

«¬83 1 PYRAMID Seeley 2 345 PASS Lake .! 6 5406 5 4381 3 4 17531 416 278 17532 4 416 2 4163 Devine 388 Creek

T T 17N R 15 W T T 17N R 14 W 335 Devine Ross 284 7 8024 Peak 2446 12 Trail 420

16654

16651 8 16653 9

10 4353 11

4359 12

17506 Creek

30 278

4378-A 18 Creek 17 16 15 14 13 325

190 467 4378 Canyon

17501 401

19 20 21 24 22 23 270 17502 Swamp Creek

17505

Morrell 17671 Mountain

17462 8161 Blind 2487 30 29 36019 28 27 17672 17462-A 26 25

17683

4379

17513 17514 MORRELL MTN 17511 LOOKOUT 35 LOOKOUT 7796

31 32 2376 33 34 36 064

Creek NORTH Creek T 17 N R 14 W

T 16 N R 14 W 063 062 Mountain 477

1 6 059 5 4 4365 2 3 Fork 1

Cottonwood Lakes

T T 16N R 15 W T T 16N R 14 W 057

053

North 12 7 8 9 10 Cottonwood 054 Creek 11 17507 12 Drew 050 050

050 050 Alt C - Harvest Units Converted to Trail Previously POINT OF INTEREST Ownership Salvage Lolo National Forest Decommissioned Previously TRAILHEAD O Salvage & Reforestation Bureau of Land Management Map Page Other Jurisdiction TRAIL - NON-MOTORIZED USE Miles 2 of 4 Alt C - Project Roads Private Roads - Other Township Range 0 5 10 National Forest System Road (NFSR) State of Montana Project Boundary Sections Non-System (NFSR) Dunham

Lodgepole

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 401 Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Creek Alternative C Seeley Lake Ranger District Lolo National Forest 24 19 20 INSET LOCATOR 23 21 22 Spruce

23 «¬83 1 400 Seeley 2 Lake .! 3 4 Morrell 3 Nome Mountain Nome Point

25 30 7715 26 29 28 2352 27 374 26

T T 17N R 14 W

T T 17N R 13 W Creek MORRELL MTN LOOKOUT 4365

36 31 32 33 064 34 35 35 400

T 17 N R 14 W Cottonwood 4TH T 17 N R 13 W Dunham T 16 N R 14 W T 16 N R 13 W

401

3 2 1 Dunham 5 Shanley Fork 4 3 6 Point 6692 2040 Cottonwood Lakes 4384 057

053

North 42A 054 Cottonwood 7 8 11 17507 12 9 10 050 050 10 039 16376

17539-2 Creek

Creek 050 042

602

Creek 17567 17596 033 4385 Dry 17595 036 Shanley 16

15 14 Canyon 13 16341 44A 425 17 460 17645 15 18 Little 31A 31B 16538 Spring 265 17508 032 026 260 255 455 023 024 Cr 430 477 17503 022 Black Cottonwood 16377 465 21 028 22 23 24 19 20 029 021 Lost 22 215 210 J60273

T T 16 N R 14 W T T 16 N R 13 W

17664 9976 030 J60272

27 26 25 27 30 29 28 Cottonwood Kozy Park Korner Woodworth Cr Creek

35 34 36 31 32 33 34

Alt C - Harvest Units Non-System (NFSR) Project Boundary Ownership Salvage Lolo National Forest Decommissioned Previously TRAIL - NON-MOTORIZED USE O Shanley Map Page Salvage & Reforestation Private 3 of 4 Other Jurisdiction Township Range Miles 0 5 10 Alt C - Project Roads State of Montana Roads - Other Sections National Forest System Road (NFSR) Cabin Hayden

Creek LODGEPOLE Rice Ridge Fire Salvage 16 13 18 14 Alternative17 C 16 15 CREEK Lodgepole Seeley Lake Ranger District Lolo National Forest

INSET LOCATOR

«¬83 1 Seeley 2 Lake .! 22 23 24 3 4 Spruce 19 20 21 21 4 Creek

T T 17N R 13 W

T T 17N R 12 W Nome Nome Point 246 7715 27 Wedge 2352 26 25 28 374 30 29 28

Creek 4397

34 35 36 33 31 32 33 400 Creek Yellowjacket T 17 N R 13 W Dunham Creek T 17 N R 12 W T 17 N R 12 W STANDARD T 16 N R 13 W T 16 N R 13 W T 16 N R 12 W 401 Shanley Dunham Bill Creek 4 16005 3 2 011 Point 1 17565 6 5

5402 4 6692 Monture 2040 Dunham

012

246 013

16 10 7 8 9 4382 12

11 9 16376

Creek 405 DUNHAM CREEK

4388 Falls

602

17567 Dry

4386

16 15 14 Cave 18 Falls 13 019 026 17

T T 16N R 13 W 460 16538 T 16N R 12 W

27 Creek 16 21 455 023 024 17512 022 Cottonwood 017 465 028 MONTURE 021 CABIN MONTURE 029 Lost 22 23 24 19 17660 20 J60273 Spread

323 17656

17664 MONTURE 030 16006 J60272 CREEK

5405 21

Creek

17666

Creek

28 27 26 25 30 29

477 89

Cr 28 Creek Alt C - Harvest Units Converted to Trail Previously POINT OF INTEREST Ownership Salvage Lolo National Forest Decommissioned Previously RENTAL CABIN O Salvage & Reforestation Private Map Page Roads - Other TRAILHEAD Alt C - Project Roads State of Montana Miles 4 of 4 Project Boundary TRAIL - NON-MOTORIZED USE National Forest System Road (NFSR) 0 5 10 CAMPGROUND - DEVELOPED (FS) Township Range Non-System (NFSR) FACILITY - OTHER SERVICE (FS) Sections

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Appendix C – Unit Details

Detailed information about the silvicultural systems is included in the Project File (Section J3) Alternative B Unit Details Unit Acres Logging Sysytem1, 2 Salvage and Reforestation 001 7 T 002 29 SL/T 004 94 SL 005 56 T 006 14 SL 007 9 T 009 5 SL 011 24 T 012 11 T 013 15 T 014 35 SL 015 71 T 017 25 T 019 83 SL 023 23 SL 026 60 T/SL 027 74 SL/TLM/T 031B 7 SL 039 26 SL 040 17 SL 041 32 SL/T 042 100 SL/T 044 46 T/SL 044A 6 T 046 116 SL 050 102 SL/T 053 60 T/SL 057 21 T 059 28 SL 060 24 SL/T 061 30 SL/T/TLM 062 10 SL 063 32 SL 064 16 SL 065 47 SL 066 179 T 071 17 T 073 31 T 075 22 T 078 31 T 079 36 T

222

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Unit Acres Logging Sysytem1, 2 080 11 T 081 74 T/SL 083 54 T 084 198 T 085 48 T 087 67 T 088 5 SL 089 44 T 090 12 T 090A 5 T 091B 4 SL 094 27 T 095 9 SL 098A 4 T 098 27 T/SL 099 42 T 100 132 SL 120 7 T 125 39 T 130 4 T 160 50 T 165 53 T 170 29 T 175 46 T 180 30 T 190 89 T 200 92 T 210 72 SL/T 215 31 T 220 33 SL/T 245 25 SL/T/LM 255 22 T 270 47 T 325 24 T 335 108 T 340 46 T 345 33 T 355 26 T 365 34 SL/T 370 43 T 375 227 T 380 128 SL 385 92 T 390 89 T 395 45 SL 280 49 T

223

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Unit Acres Logging Sysytem1, 2 405 12 T 410 30 T 420 59 T 425 15 T 435 27 SL 460 30 SL/T 465 11 SL 470 12 SL 475 73 T 480 39 SL/T 485 5 T 490 4 SL/T Total 4364 Salvage 020 24 SL 021 20 T 022 12 T 028 36 T/SL 029 8 T 185 22 T 205 73 SL/T 225 31 SL 230 36 T 240 23 SL 260 47 T 265 8 T 008 25 SL 024 38 SL 030 61 SL/TLM/T 031 54 SL 31A 21 SL/T 032 35 SL 033 29 SL/T 034 25 SL/T 035 29 SL/TLM/T 036 8 SL 42A 101 SL 047 15 SL 054 91 SL/TLM/T 082 11 SL 275 32 T 285 35 T 360 43 SL/T 415 37 SL 430 16 T 440 17 SL

224

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Unit Acres Logging Sysytem1, 2 445 37 SL 455 39 SL/T 495 101 T Total 1240 Grand Total 5,604 1 Some units would require multiple yarding systems; they are listed in order of prevalence with in the units: SL = Skyline; T = Tractor 2 Tracked Line Machine (TLM) –a tracked excavator that has been adapted for logging practices to include winches and cables and a longer boom with pulleys that serve as a skyline tower; such as an excaliner. Excaline machines may be walked (propelled by their own power) to remote locations to reduce the need for road construction. Yarding capabilities (length of reach) of an excaline machine are typically less than that of a skyline machine.

Alternative C Units Details Unit Acres Logging System Salvage 021 20 T 022 12 T 024 38 SL 028 36 T/SL 029 8 T 030 36 T 031A 21 SL/T 032 17 SL 033 29 SL/T 036 8 SL 042 61 SL/T 042A 101 SL 063 4 SL 082 11 SL 185 22 T 260 47 T 265 8 T 285 32 T 360 43 SL/T 430 16 T 415 37 SL 455 37 SL/T 495 51 T Total 695 Salvage and Reforestation 011 24 T 012 11 T 013 15 T 017 25 T 019 83 SL

225

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Unit Acres Logging System 023 23 SL 026 50 T/SL 031B 7 SL 039 26 SL 044A 6 T 050 49 T/SL 053 60 T/SL 054 48 SL/TLM/T 057 21 T 059 21 SL 062 10 SL 064 16 SL 071 17 T 073 31 T 075 22 T 078 31 T 080 11 T 081 74 T/SL 083 52 T 084 198 T 085 48 T 087 67 T 088 5 SL 089 44 T 090 12 T 90A 5 T 091B 4 SL 098 27 T/SL 98A 4 T 099 42 T 120 7 T 125 39 T 130 4 T 160 50 T 170 29 T 175 46 T 180 30 T 190 89 T 210 72 SL 215 31 T 255 22 T 270 47 T 325 24 T 335 71 T 340 46 T 345 33 T

226

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Unit Acres Logging System 355 26 T 365 10 SL 375 26 T 395 45 SL 420 59 T 425 15 T 460 18 SL 465 11 SL Total 2039 Grand Total 2,734

227

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Appendix D – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities listed in this appendix are activities and natural events known to have already occurred, are currently occurring, or are likely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Project and may contribute cumulative effects. Cumulative effects result from incremental effects of actions, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. The environmental analysis required under NEPA is forward-looking, in that it focuses on the potential impacts of the proposed action20. The past and present activities and natural events have contributed to creating the existing condition, as described in the affected environment sections of this environmental analysis. These activities, as well as reasonably foreseeable activities, may produce environmental effects on resources relevant to the proposal. Because the proposal’s direct and indirect effects vary in time and space depending on the resource or issue being considered, a specific cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe is defined for each resource in the individual specialists’ reports. Information is presented here in different scales, which includes the project area and the seven 6th code hydrological unit codes (HUCs) and four 7th code HUCs that encompass or are adjacent to proposed units (Figure 1), and for some information the Seeley Lake Ranger District and the Lolo National Forest for a broader context. For most resources the cumulative effects analysis area is smaller than the 38,830 acres. The listed events that are not specifically analyzed or mentioned in the resource effects analyses were considered to have no potential effect on the individual resource. The projects and activities listed as reasonably foreseeable future activities were gleaned from the Forest’s quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) and from interviewing Forest program managers. Other than implementation of the Center Horse Transportation Analysis Process Report (see Project File), which partially lies within the Rice Ridge Fore Salvage project area, road maintenance and BMP work and prescribed burning, there are no clearly defined future projects that are currently known in the analysis area. These tables, though comprehensive, may have some unintended omissions due to lack of records or knowledge. The listing is intended to demonstrate that relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities are identified and are considered in the analysis of cumulative effects.

20 Council on Environmental Quality, Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, June 24, 2005 Memorandum.

228

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table D-1. Cumulative Effects Summary

Actions on All Present Past Reasonably Foreseeable Ownerships (2018) Wildland fires were historically a major disturbance factor throughout history on It is reasonable to assume wildland Wildland Fire the Seeley Lake Ranger District. Within the Will continue. fire may occur in the area in the project area boundary, fires occurred on future. about 40,488 acres with the majority occurring in decade 2010 (see Table D-8). Beginning with the Fire Control Policy of 1935, the Forest Service procedure has been to suppress forest fires as quickly as Suppression of wildland fires, as Suppression of wildland fires, as Wildland Fire Suppression possible. Suppression efforts on the Rice appropriate will continue. Wildland fire may appropriate will continue. Wildland Ridge Fire in 2017 were extensive and are be managed for multiple objectives on fire use may expand, where resource described in detail in the Hydrology portions of the Seeley Lake Ranger District. objectives can be met, in the future. Specialist’s Report (see Effects from the Fire). Post-fire evaluation determined that BAER actions were needed to address immediate threats to public safety, values at risk, and resource damage. In addition to BAER work, rehabilitation work is being accomplished through fire suppression funds and CFLRP funding. The following actions were identified: road Burned Area Emergency drainage maintenance (culvert Work included in the list to the left is Work included in the list to the left is Rehabilitation (BAER) maintenance, construction of sediment ongoing ongoing and reasonably foreseeable. basins, construction of road way sediment barriers, ditch reconstruction, construction of surface drainage, linear road drainage maintenance, culvert installation/ upsizing), trail drainage maintenance, culvert removals,, large stream culverts (AOPS), and weed treatments. Some of this work has been completed. Fire suppression for the Rice Ridge Fire Retardant Misapplication included 10 instances of retardant None None misapplication. Ongoing until complete. There are Fire Suppression Shaded Fire suppression for the Rice Ridge Fire approximately 300 more loads to be Ongoing until complete Fuel Break Log Haul included creating shaded fuel breaks resulting in 135 loads of logs which were hauled.

229

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Actions on All Present Past Reasonably Foreseeable Ownerships (2018) removed by hauled from the project area. Hunting has been a popular use of National Forest System land and other Hunting and trapping will continue. A ownerships. Some predator populations Hunting, Trapping, Hunting and trapping will continue. A limited amount of coyote and beaver such as wolves and coyotes were reduced Predator and Beaver limited amount of coyote and beaver population control may take place in in numbers from the project area in the Control population control may be occurring. the future, particularly on and near early part of the last century. Trapping of private property. beavers and destruction of their dams occurred has occurred on all ownerships. Fishing regulation changes to protect native species from intentional angling Fish and Wildlife Mgmt. within tributaries and the mainstem Blackfoot. Nonnative fish are numbers are Will continue Will continue (Fish) regulated to maintain and potentially expand populations to meet social objectives. Firewood gathering has occurred in the Will continue. Higher than historic area. Other products gathered in small energy costs may increase the Firewood and Other quantities include post and poles, berries, public’s desire to obtain firewood but Miscellaneous Forest and Christmas trees. Streamside buffers Gathering will continue. air quality concerns may also reduce Product Gathering were implemented in 1997 to meet INFISH reliance on this source of fuel in the direction; however, limited illegal harvest future. persists within RHCA. There are about 37 miles of non-motorized trails in the analysis area which includes: 0.5 miles of Monture Trail #27, 3.4 miles of Center Ridge Trail #246, 3.3 miles of Center Ridge A Trail #247, 5.8 miles of Morrell Creek (South) Trail #30.1, 1.9 miles of Nome Point Trail #374, 1.4 miles of Trail Construction/Use Chaffin Trail #388, 7.5 miles of Dunham Point Trail #405, 3.8 miles of Lodgepole Use will continue. Use will continue. Creek Trail #13, 1.9 miles of Art Jukkala (Shanley Ridge) Trail #401, 1.4 miles of Pyramid Pass Trail #416, 5.4 miles of Rice Ridge Trail #429 and 1.3 miles of Florence Lake Trail #451. Snowmobile use is the most popular winter recreation activity with some cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and dog sledding

230

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Actions on All Present Past Reasonably Foreseeable Ownerships (2018) occurring. There are 50 miles of snowmobile routes. Morrell Falls, Dunham Creek, and Pyramid Pass. Morrell Falls and Pyramid Pass receive high use, Dunham Creek is low Trailhead use. Trailheads vary in size ranging from Continue maintenance. Continue maintenance Construction/Maintenance single car parking (Dunham Creek) to sites with SSTs and horse trailer parking (Pyramid Pass). Driving, sightseeing, and wildlife viewing Driving on open Forest and private roads occurs in Use will continue. Use will continue. the area. Recurring road maintenance occurs primarily on roads open to the public seasonally or year round. Road maintenance primarily involves vegetation Ongoing work includes: clearing, and road surface and drainage Road maintenance and BMP construction maintenance, sign and gate maintenance, on Morrell Lookout Road 4365. and bridge decking repair. Ongoing Burned Area Emergency During the Rice Ridge fire, the majority of Recurring road maintenance similar Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation work throughout the project open roads and a substantial portion of to past road maintenance will BMPs area includes road storm proofing and closed yearlong roads were cleared and continue to occur. stabilization, culvert removal and culvert used for fire suppression. upsizing, and post-fire response. Several recent road maintenance projects

have installed BMPs on roads in the project area including roads Monture 89, Cottonwood Lakes 477, Morrell Creek 4353, Dunham 4388, McCabe 5401, and Kozy Corner 9976. Since 2007, within the analysis HUCs and on fish bearing streams, nine structures have been upgraded and nine have been Road-Stream Crossing removed due to erosion concerns thus Replacements/Removals allowing for increased aquatic organism (fish bearing) passage at 18 sites and increase connectivity on 28 miles of stream.

Road Construction Within the analysis area approximately 560 Approximately 31 miles of temporary road The Center Horse Transportation miles of road have been built on National (both new construction and using existing Analysis includes approximately 1.9

231

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Actions on All Present Past Reasonably Foreseeable Ownerships (2018) Forest lands, including lands acquired from templates) is anticipated to be needed to miles of road relocation. former Plum Creek Timber and the State of access vegetation treatments in this Montana. The majority of roads built on project. Approximately 1.6 miles of federal lands were completed between National Forest System road will be 1950 and 1990. The roads range from relocated as part of this project. open maintained roads to unauthorized road prisms that are no longer drivable. Will continue. Also, Center Horse Within the past 17 years in the analysis Transportation Analysis Process Road Storage and area, about 60 miles of system roads have Will continue. Report (see PF Item xx), which Decommissioning been decommissioned. partially lies within the Rice Ridge Fore Salvage project area. Gravel pits exist at Little Shanley (Rd. Pit development and restoration are Gravel Pits 36277), Morrell Creek (Rd. 36506), and Use will continue. anticipated. Monture (Rd. 17660). Approximately 17,800 acres of timber have been harvested on National Forest System land in the analysis area since the 1940s. An acre of land may have had multiple harvest entries, so a straight percentage of Timber Harvest (NFS) the area that has been treated is not None None accurate. The majority of the treatments in the analysis area were accomplished during the 1960s and 1970s. Table D-2 details the acres of timber harvest for the analysis area. Two salvage projects on nearby DNRC Two projects of nearby DNRC lands Timber Harvest (Other) lands (Air Rice, Black Canyon) (see None known (Rodeo Salvage, Kozy Corner Project File) Harvest) (see Project File) Many small private land owners have Fuel reduction work taken measures to reduce fuels on their Will likely continue. Will likely continue. own land. A recent review of available past and current minerals activity within the Mining boundary of the project documents None None determined that there are no active mining claims in the analysis area. Prescribed Fire 6,261 acres. See Table D-3. Will continue. None known

232

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Actions on All Present Past Reasonably Foreseeable Ownerships (2018) Young stand thinning 2,724 acres. See Table D-6 and Figure None known None known About 6,222 acres have been planted in 250 acres in Dunham Creek will be planted Reforestation Will continue analysis area since the 1950s. in Spring 2018. While weed treatments have occurred in the analysis area for many decades, they Noxious weed control as outlined in the have been most closely tracked and 2007 Integrated Weed Management on the entered into corporate databases since Lolo National Forest Environmental Impact Noxious Weed Control about 2006. Records show about 3,966 Statement and Decision will continue to be Weed control is likely to continue. acres of weed treatment have occurred. implemented in the project area. Ground- Aerial re-treatment in the Horseshoe West based treatment is ongoing throughout area (west of and adjacent to the analysis much of the project area. area) occurred in 2014. Power lines to residence exist with a small Powerlines Use will continue. Use will continue. substation located on private lands. Montana Legacy Project – Phase II (3,686 Land acres), DNRC Land Exchange (153 acres), None known. None known. Exchange/Acquisition and Blackfoot Clearwater Project (1,336 acres). Dunham Creek Stream Restoration, ~7,000 ft. of channel reconstruction, bank stabilization, riparian planting. Numerous efforts by downstream landowners and partners, McCabe, Dick, Hoyt, Dunham, Monture, Shanley, Spring, None Stream Restoration and Cottonwood Creeks. None

Hand plant conifers in small area along Shanley Creek above the Cottonwood Lakes Road (2013). Cottonwood Stream Restoration, ~3,000 ft. of channel reconstruction, bank stabilization, riparian planting. Many constructed in the past to facilitate Irrigation Diversions irrigation on private lands. One diversion Use will continue. Use will continue. exists on NFS (Dunham Ditch). Dunham Ditch was screened to prevent fish loss and inlet reconstructed to promote Irrigation Diversion Mtc Use will continue. Use will continue. stream stability. Downstream landowners and partners

233

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Actions on All Present Past Reasonably Foreseeable Ownerships (2018) have screened, removed, diversions and ditches in Dunham, Shanley, and Cottonwood Creeks Developed Campsites None Maintenance of campsites to reduce impacts of sites by limiting access to Dispersed Campsites Numerous throughout project area Use will continue. streams, and limiting size of disturbed areas. 4 sites: 1 on Chaffin, 1 on Dunham, 2 on Morrell Mountain Road. Outfitter and Guide Camps Base camp for three outfitters was moved Use will continue. Use will continue. off of banks of Monture Creek and relocated to Monture Trailhead, which is outside the project area. Limited potential due to landowner Limited development of residence on Rural Development None known. conservation easements, TNC land private lands relative to other watersheds. acquisitions Incidental personal use mushroom Incidental personal use mushroom harvest Incidental personal use mushroom harvest harvest will continue. Commercial Mushroom Harvest is allowed. is allowed. permits will be issued for a portion of the fire area in Spring 2018.

234

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Project Area Information

Tables D-2 through D-8 show information for within the 38,830-acre Rice Ridge Project area. All acres are approximate. One acre of land may have had multiple activities, including more than one harvest entry; therefore a straight percentage of the area that has had activities (vs. no activity) cannot be made with these figures.

Table D-2. Past Timber Harvest Activity Acres on NFS Land Within the Project Area By Decade and Timber Sale Name (see Figure D-2. Past Timber Harvest) 1940 700 UNKNOWN 700 Liberation Cut 150 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 46 Seed‐tree Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 275 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 24 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 18 Shelterwood Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 146 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 42 1950 2,389 SEELEY CREEK 97 Liberation Cut 60 Single‐tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 37 UNKNOWN 2,292 Liberation Cut 182 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 338 Seed‐tree Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 51 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 1,023 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 220 Single‐tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 99 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 379 1960 6,377 DOUGHNUT RIDGE 106 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 48 Single‐tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 58 SPAULDING 32 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 32 UNKNOWN 6,238 Commercial Thin 159 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 4 Liberation Cut 908 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 25 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 171 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 188 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 1,699 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 495 Shelterwood Removal Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 177 Single‐tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 160 235

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 2,253 1970 4,105 CAMP CR. BLOWDOWN 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 1 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1 CAVE CREEK 34 Commercial Thin 7 Liberation Cut 1 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 26 COTTONWOOD SALVAGE 21 Liberation Cut 21 FINDELL 159 Liberation Cut 34 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 62 Single‐tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 63 FLORENCE LAKE 117 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 117 LOWER DUNHAM 2 343 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 321 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 22 MORRELL 57 112 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 112 MORRELL CREEK 313 Liberation Cut 200 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 112 RICE CR SEED TREE 38 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 38 SAWYER CREEK 10 Liberation Cut 10 SEELEY CREEK 2 244 Liberation Cut 244 SHANLEY SADDLE 313 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 85 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 228 UNKNOWN 2,399 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 127 Liberation Cut 528 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 539 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 172 Shelterwood Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 92 Single‐tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 524 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 418 1980 2,323 BLIND CANYON LARCH 296 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 296 BLINDCANYON BLOWDOWN 23 236

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 23 CAVE CREEK 18 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 18 DUNHAM FIRE 25 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 25 DUNHAM SALVAGE 13 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 13 FLORENCE LK SALVAGE 75 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 66 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 9 JJ BLOWDOWN 1 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 1 LITTLE SHANLEY 258 Liberation Cut 3 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 8 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 84 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 62 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 100 LOWER DUNHAM 303 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 303 MONTURE CENTER 78 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 63 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 15 PACKER 223 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 223 PACKER POST & POLE 21 Commercial Thin 21 RICE AUGGIE 131 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 101 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 27 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 3 RICE SEED TREE 193 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 112 Shelterwood Removal Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 81 RICHMOND 11 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 11 SEELEY TRAIL 289 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 79 Liberation Cut 89 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 28 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 93 SHANLEY BLOWDOWN 4 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 4 SWAMP CREEK LARCH 17 Liberation Cut 14 Seed‐tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 3 237

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment UNKNOWN 343 Liberation Cut 30 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 313 1990 1,884 CAVE HELIO 1,205 Commercial Thin 209 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 117 Improvement Cut 262 Liberation Cut 345 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 12 Shelterwood Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 261 CENTERRIDGE BLOWDOWN 61 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 61 DRY CANYON 244 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 63 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 181 MONTURE CLEANUP 1 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 1 MONTURE PASTURE 38 Harvest Without Restocking 38 MORRELL SALVAGE 184 Commercial Thin 105 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 79 RICE SALVAGE 0 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 0 RICHMOND 79 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 47 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 32 SAWYER 74 Liberation Cut 56 Seed‐tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 18 SAWYER BLOWDOWN 0 Two‐aged Seed‐tree Seed and Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) 0 2000 23 MONTURE FUELS 23 Improvement Cut 23 Grand Total 17,800

238

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment

Table D-3. Past Prescribed Burning* Acres on NFS land in Project Area Decade Acres 1950 914 1960 2,040 1970 1,607 1980 241 1990 807 2000 75 2010 577 Total 6,261

* Activities include broadcast burning (covers a majority of the unit) and underburning (low intensity, majority of unit).

Table D-4. Past Planting Acres on NFS Land in the Project Area. Decade Acres 1950s 1,078 1960s 1,578 1970s 1,142 1980s 1,971 1990s 374 2000s 77 2010 2 Grand Total 6,222

Table D-5. Past Mechanical Site Prep for Planting or Natural Regeneration Acres on NFS Land in the Project Area. Decade Acres 1950s 854 1960s 3,038 1970s 4,265 1980s 1,467 1990s 1,817 2000s 44 2010 5 Grand Total 11,490

Table D-6. Past Young Stand Thinning Acres on NFS Land in the Project Area (see Figure ). Decade Acres 1960s 60 1970s 805 1980s 1,532 1990s 319 2010 8 Grand Total 2,724

239

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Table D-7. Past Noxious Weed Treatment Acres on NFS Land in the Project Area. Decade Acres 2000s 1,653 2010s 2,313 Grand Total 3,966

Table D-8. Acres of Wildfire on all Lands Within the Project Area by Decade. Decade Acres 1910 737 1920 127 1940 74 1960 296 1980 378 2000 6 2010 38,870 Total 40,488

240

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Figure D-1. Project Area with HUCs and ownership

241

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Figure D-2. Past Timber Harvest

242

Rice Ridge Fire Salvage Environmental Assessment Figure D-3. Past Precommercial Thinning

243