lick creek vegetation management project decision notice...

Bear Tornado Recovery Project Decision Notice (DN)

And Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

USDA Forest Service Council Ranger District Payette National Forest Adams County, Idaho

BACKGROUND

On June 4, 2006 an F-2 category tornado touched down near the community of Bear, Idaho affecting approximately 5268 acres of private (933 acres) and National Forest System (4335 acres) lands (NFS). The purpose of the Bear Tornado Recovery Project is to respond to the changed forest and fuel conditions resulting from the June 4th tornado on NFS lands around the community of Bear, Idaho, and the adjacent Bear and Lick Creek drainages. The large amount of wind thrown and broken trees have created a need to reduce levels of hazardous fuels, and respond to public and internal concerns of risk of fire and increased bark beetle activity on private and NFS lands.

DECISION

I have reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) and project file for the Bear Tornado Recovery Project, including the wildlife, fish, and rare plant biological assessments and/or evaluations; specialist reports; and Forest Plan Consistency tables (activity tables). I have also considered the public comments received on the project and discussed the project’s anticipated effects with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and Forest Staff. Based on this review and discussions, I have decided to implement Alternative B (the Proposed

Action) hereafter called the Selected Alternative.

This alternative is fully described in Chapter 2, and comparatively displayed against the other analyzed alternatives in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2of the EA. Figure 1 below displays a map of the Selected Alternative.

This decision approves activities on a total of 1,835 acres within a 4,155 acre project area. The decision approves commercial harvest treatments to remove down and damaged trees on approximately 1,564 acres, reforestation activities on an estimated 1,409 acres, handpiling of fuels on an estimated 114 acres adjacent to private lands, excavator piling of fuels on up to 565 acres (dependent on post harvest levels of detrimental soil disturbance), and the use of prescribed fire on up to 1,685 acres to reduce hazardous fuels and prepare sites for planting or natural conifer regeneration.

Specifically this decision will implement:

• Commercial harvest on an estimated 1,564 acres utilizing a combination of harvest methods – 565 acres tractor, 198 acres tractor/off-road jammer, 503 acres helicopter and 298 acres of skyline harvest.

• Use of prescribed fire on up to 1,685 acres to reduce hazardous levels of fuels and prepare sites for planting or

DN-1

natural regeneration. This acreage includes an estimated 237 acres of roadless area where prescribed fire will reduce hazardous fuel levels resulting from the tornado and promote natural regeneration of conifers, shrubs and grasses.

• Handpiling on an estimated 114 acres including an estimated 34 acres of an intermittent stream riparian conservation area (RCA) adjacent to private lands.

• Excavator piling of up to 565 acres of tractor harvested area to reduce fuel levels and facilitate subsequent replanting. Use of excavator piling will only be allowed if post harvest levels of detrimental soil disturbance are 10% or less. If these conditions are not met, sites will be treated with prescribed fire.

In addition, the following road management actions will be implemented to respond to concerns over road impacts on water quality and fisheries habitat and commercial harvest needs:

• Construct an estimated 0.9 miles of temporary road to facilitate use of skyline or cable harvest sytems, and accommodate safe landing locations along the Landore Road. These temporary roads will be reclaimed upon completion of proposed activities.

• Gravel three stream crossings on Mickey Creek and a tributary to Mickey Creek before logging operations commence to assist in reducing sediment resulting from the increased road use during harvest.

• Gravel approximately 13 other stream crossings of tributaries to Bear Creek to further assist in reducing sediment

inputs on roads that are being maintained as part of the long term transportation system

• Use and then decommission a total of 7.6 miles of existing closed/”grown in” roads including 6.3 miles of unclassified road and 1.3 miles of classified road. These roads will be cleared and used during harvest activities and then reclaimed by ripping/grubbing to the depth of compaction, re-contouring to natural slope profile and scattering slash to provide a minimum of 50% ground cover.

My decision also includes:

• Implementation of the monitoring items summarized in Chapter 2 of the EA (pp. 2-36 to 37) and Table 2 of this DN, and project design features and mitigation measures listed in Table 2-4 in the EA (pp. 2-23 to 35)., and Table 1 of this DN.

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

In making this decision I have balanced the short- and long-term effects of undertaking the agency’s proposed action versus not undertaking the action. This was particularly relevant to my decisions concerning wildlife habitat and the need to minimize risks to public health, safety and property to the nearby community of Bear. The community of Bear is identified as an “at risk” community in the Adams County All Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004).

I selected Alternative B because it best meets the purpose and need (objectives) for the project as discussed on pages 1-2 to 1-3 of the EA and best responds to key issues. In particular, the Selected Alternative:

DN-2

• Reduces hazardous fuel levels on an estimated 1,835 acres (1,564 acres of commercial harvest and fuels treatment, 34 acres of riparian handpiling, 237 acres of roadless area burning) by converting fuels from fire prone slash blowdown fuel types to less volatile timber litter fuel types. This acreage includes treatment of the tornado affected area adjacent to the community of Bear, Idaho and outlying private property and residences.

• Reduces fuel loads from 23-156 tons per acre to 9-27 tons per acre resulting in a change in expected fire behavior from flame lengths of 9-19 feet with rapid rates of spread and limited suppression opportunties, to flame lengths of 1-3 feet with slow rates of spread and conditions that allow for safe and effective suppression tactics.

• Responds to Bear community resident concerns of wildland fire and bark beetle risk to private lands through treatment of hazardous fuels in both the upland and RCA areas adjacent to private lands, and through managing snags and coarse woody debris at the lower end of the Forest Plan standards on an estimated 249 acres of activity areas adjacent to private lands.

• Reduces the risk of bark beetles by reducing the amount of suitable Douglas-fir bark beetle habitat on 1,564 acres treated with commercial harvest, and through the creation and subsequent removal of Douglas-fir trap trees across and adjacent to the tornado-affected area.

• Facilitates recovery of desired forest conditions through active reforestation (planting and interplanting) on 1,409 acres, and

application of prescribed fire on 237 acres of roadless area to facilitate natural regeneration. Prescribed burning in the roadless area is consistent with roadless area policy described in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B.

• Maintains and improves water quality and fisheries habitat in the Bear Creek subwatershed through road actions (decommissioning, road surface improvements, culvert replacement) that reduce overall road densities by 0.2 miles per square mile, reduces the amount of road within 200 feet of stream channels by 1.1 miles, reduces short to long term levels of predicted percent over natural sediment, eliminates 7 road stream crossings and re-establishes fish passage on Wesley Creek.

• Protects long-term soil productivity through application of specific soil project design features (EA pp. 2-9 to10) and retention of coarse woody debris at levels within and above Forest Plan standards (EA pp. 2-10 to 11)

• Maintains existing open travel routes and associated recreational opportunities.

• Maintains important wildlife habitat components (snags, live trees, down logs) at or above levels prescribed in the Forest Plan

I have considered public comments, including one objection that expressed concerns that Forest Plan standards were inadequate to ensure species viability, particularly for sensitive and Management Indicator Species (MIS) species that use large trees, snags, and downed wood as part of their source

DN-3

habitat. I am comfortable that the project is designed to maintain sufficient quantities of these components (where they occur) in the short and long term to meet species needs, as discussed below.

In addition, as instructed by Objection Reviewing Officer Mary Wagner in her responsive letter dated October 6, 2006, I have incorporated available bird study information and Forest Plan requirements regarding MIS in the rationale for my decision:

This project is designed to maintain remaining large trees by focusing on the removal of downed trees on the 1,564 acres proposed for harvest. The only live trees that will be removed are tornado damaged Douglas-fir trees 18 inches or larger, or trees that present a safety hazard to the public or forest workers (EA page 2-12). A damaged tree is defined as one with a broken top, or damaged bole (split, cracked) resulting from the tornado. This aspect of the project is in response to the entomologist recommendation that removing as much of the down and damaged Douglas-fir as timely as possible is the best method to ensure against a Douglas-fir beetle (DFB) outbreak (Entomologist Report, project file).

To balance concerns about insect outbreaks with wildlife needs, the project includes a design feature to retain a minimum of 9 trees per acres as snags or snag replacements where Douglas-fir is the predominate species to ensure that the removal of damaged Douglas-fir does not lead to a lack of future potential snags (EA page 2-12).

Some additional loss of live trees will occur from prescribed fire and possible use of Douglas fir trap trees to assist in reducing beetle populations depending

upon Forest Entomologist monitoring of Douglas-fir beetle (DFB) populations (Entomologist Report, project file). An estimated 10-20% of the trees within burn areas may die, but many of these trees will be small and all will be left on site to provide additional snags and coarse woody debris (EA, p. 3-32). The use of trap trees will occur only in areas where monitoring shows a large build-up of Douglas-fir beetle activity. In these limited areas, up to 10 trees may be felled at each site (about one every ¼ to ½ mile) (EA, p. 2-9). I believe this potential loss of additional live trees is acceptable given the potential for greater loss of large trees that would likely result from fire and bark beetle mortality should I not take this action (EA, p. 1-7).

In addition, wildlife needs are being addressed through the retention of snags and coarse woody debris (CWD) in excess of Forest Plan standards in all areas except the estimated 249 acres of activity areas immediately adjacent to the community of Bear and surrounding private property and residences (Units 4, 4R, 5, 5R, 6, 6R, 7, 8, 13 and 17). On these units, snags and CWD would be retained at the low end of the Forest Plan Standards. The lower levels of snag and CWD retention are in response to local landowner concerns about wildfire and bark beetle risk to their properties resulting from the adjacent tornado damaged forest stands on NFS lands. I believe it is a necessary trade-off in this portion of the project area in order to minimize the unacceptable short-term risk of fire and insect infestations (EA, pp. 2-14 to 16) to public health, safety and property, and the community of Bear.

The remaining 87% of the proposed treatment areas would retain snags and CWD at levels in excess of Forest Plan

DN-4

desired ranges and beyond what would have occurred if I approved removal of snags and CWD to levels allowed by the Forest Plan standard. In addition, new snags will continue to be created through natural processes in nearby unharvested areas (such as riparian conservation areas) or where the effects of the tornado were low (EA, p. 3-30).

I also believe that wildlife related project design features (EA pp. 2-23 to 24) will adequately reduce any potential impacts to wildlife due to human disturbance (e.g., timber harvest).

Available bird study information was recently identified in the Forest-wide Monitoring Report (released September 30, 2006). The monitoring report shows that studies of flammulated owl, great gray owl, and northern goshawk were implemented in fiscal year 2005. In compliance with Forest Plan direction for MIS, population trend monitoring was begun for white-headed woodpeckers in 2003 and for pileated woodpecker in 2004. As a result of these efforts, new locations for MIS and sensitive species were documented and mapped in the PNF FAUNA database.

With the assistance of the Forest and District wildlife biologist, I reviewed the species occurrence maps in FAUNA and the findings of a report completed in 2005 in cooperation with Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) titled Occurrence of the Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) on the Payette National Forest. FAUNA occurrence data indicates that all four bird species are distributed across the PNF. The flammulated owl study compared surveys for the birds conducted in 1991 with surveys conducted in 2005. Detections increased in the Bear Creek region (the nearest

survey sites to the project area). This information, combined with the analysis in the EA, support the decision I have made.

My decision is also supported by conclusions reached in the biological evaluations for sensitive wildlife species and biological assessments for listed wildlife species. The Biological Evaluation for this project determined that the project may impact individuals, but is unlikely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for flammulated owls, boreal owls, great gray owls, white-headed woodpeckers, northern three-toed woodpeckers, and northern goshawks. The Biological Assessment for this project determined that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle, Canada lynx, and northern Idaho ground squirrel, and is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf. The wildlife analysis in the EA determined that the Selected Alternative would improve habitat for MIS species; the pileated woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker (EA, p. 3-90). In summary, I believe this project is designed to maintain sufficient wildlife habitat to address the needs of wildlife species in and adjacent to the project area.

A detailed description of the Selected Alternative (Alternative B) can be found in Chapter 2 of the EA (pp. 2-5 to 9) with a Comparison of the Alternatives by Activity, Purpose and Need, and Key Issues, shown in Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. Figure 2-2 in the EA, and Figure 1 of this DN displays a map of the Selected Alternative.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Other alternatives were also considered including Alternative A - No Action; and alternatives that analyzed commercial

DN-5

harvest in the roadless area and additional harvest in riparian conservation areas.

I did not select Alternative A (No action) because it failed to achieve the project area Purpose and Need, and does not address important issues or Forest Plan goals and objectives (Chapter 1 of the EA). Specifically, Alternative A would not reduce hazardous fuel levels or the associated risk of increased bark beetles resulting from the tornado damage. The risk of wildfire to the community of Bear, Idaho, outlying private land and residences, and important ecosystem resources would remain. Achievement of desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan would be slowed, and in some instances foregone without action. Given the risk to life, property and important ecosystem resources, along with the inconsistency of Alternative A with Forest Plan direction and desired conditions, selection of the no action alternative was not considered viable.

An alternative that included an estimated 237 acres of helicopter harvest and prescribed burning within the Bear Creek portion of the Upper Rapid River Roadless area was evaluated. Further analysis by the IDT revealed that treatment in the roadless area was not critical for reduction of hazardous fuels, or risk to private lands, given the small acreage of moderate to high blow down severity (total of 116 acres), and its location outside of the Wildland Urban Interface, down wind and up canyon, from the community of Bear. Risk of Douglas-fir bark beetles (DFB) was also evaluated, and given the mixed species composition with increased proportion of subalpine fir in the roadless area, the risk of elevated DFB activity was considered low and any impacts would likely be

limited to adjacent stands. In addition, a review of the Forest Plan desired conditions for MPC 4.1c lands indicate that while restoration activities are allowed, providing dispersed recreation in an unroaded landscape setting is the primary objective for the area (Forest Plan page III-86). Forest Plan direction for this area is to allow other resource uses “to the extent that they do not compromise the area’s ROS settings” and “the area’s environment appears predominately natural, with slight evidence of the sights and sounds of people” (Forest Plan page II-86). Implementing an alternative that included roadless area harvest activities to recover downed and damaged trees was not considered fully consistent with achieving these desired conditions and therefore, not pursued.

An additional alternative proposed harvest activities across an estimated 288 acres of tornado affected RCA’s. Further field review and mapping of blow down severity in the RCA’s indicated that of the 436 acres of affected RCA’s in the Bear Creek watershed, 208 acres were rated as moderate to high severity occurring as scattered, discontinuous patches of blow down across the project area. Given the scattered nature of the RCA blow down areas, they were not considered to represent a hazardous fuels risk, except when located adjacent to private lands. Other concerns considered with the RCA alternative included risk of elevated spruce bark beetles due to the presence of blown down spruce in riparian areas. Subsequent field review by forest entomologists did not find spruce bark beetles and the final insect report for the tornado area concluded that the likelihood of a spruce bark beetle outbreak is unlikely (Jorgensen, 2006).

DN-6

DN-7

Given the lack of threat to private lands and low risk of increased spruce bark beetles, I did not consider this RCA alternative.

MITIGATION AND MONITORING

My decision also includes the design features and mitigation measures specific to this project to avoid adverse effects on soils, streams, fish, wildlife, cultural sites, recreational facilities, and for limiting the spread of noxious weeds. In addition, this decision includes monitoring of design features and mitigation measures to evaluate implementation and their effectiveness on wildlife, snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) guidelines, and soil and water protection design features. Descriptions of all project design features and mitigation measures are provided on pages 2-9 to 2-12 and Table 2.4 of the EA, and Table 1 of this DN. A summary of monitoring plans is included on pages 2-36 to 37 of the EA and Table 2 of this DN.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement began with an informational meeting held in the town of Bear, Idaho on June 7, 2006 to discuss the tornado event. On June 13, 20, and 27, 2006 cooperative agency briefings occurred to coordinate tornado recovery efforts between Adams County personnel, Bear residents and the Forest Service.

A public collaboration meeting was held on July 6, 2006 to share information on the tornado damage assessment, discuss preliminary recovery proposal ideas and gather information on public issues and concerns. An invitation letter to this meeting was sent to 208 individuals, organizations and agencies and a comment request form was provided at

the meeting. This process generated 4 written comment letters.

A scoping letter and legal notice describing the preliminary recovery proposal was sent to 61 individuals, organizations and agencies for a 14-day comment period. The legal notice was published in the Idaho Statesman and Adams County Record on July 13, 2006. This process generated 11 written comments that were used to refine the tornado recovery proposal. Disposition of all comments is included in the project record.

An additional public collaboration meeting was held in Bear, Idaho on August 2, 2006 to discuss the proposed action with interested members of the public. An invitation letter to this meeting was sent to 37 interested individuals and organizations, and a public invitation to the meeting was also published in the Adams County Record on July 27, 2006.

TRIBAL CONSULTATION

On June 23, 2006 information on the tornado and recovery efforts was presented to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Council, and on July 26, 2006 to the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes at the Wings and Roots Meeting. Additional information on the proposal including information on water quality, Northern Idaho Ground squirrel and fish passage opportunities was sent to Shoshone Paiute Natural Resource representative, Tim Dykstra on August 1, 2006. In addition, Council District Ranger, Mary Farnsworth consulted with Nez Perce Tribal liaison David Scholes on tornado recovery efforts. No tribal concerns were identified through these efforts.

Figure 1. Map of Selected Alternative Alternative B – Proposed Action (West):

DN-8

Figure 1. Map of Selected Alternative Alternative B – Proposed Action (East):

DN-9

Table 1 – Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Objective Effectiveness

and Basis Applicable Forest Plan

Standard/Guideline Enforcement

Wildlife Prohibit logging contractor and employees from using motorized vehicles for purposes other than implementing the timber sale contract in areas closed to public motorized access.

Minimize wildlife effects; ensure loggers do not have an unfair advantage.

Moderate

WIST06, WIGU08, WIGU13 Timber sale contract, Administrator

In Units 4, 4R, 5, 5R, 6, 6R, 7, 8, 13, and 17 located adjacent to private lands, retain 2-4 snags/stobs per acre (where available). In all other units, not adjacent to private lands, where Douglas-fir is the predominate species of snags/stobs, retain a minimum of 9 per acre (where available). In either area, retain species of snags/stobs prioritized as: 1st, ponderosa pine; 2nd, Englemann spruce; and then any species. In either area, retain 20+ inch size class snags/stobs as a priority, and then smaller size classes and retain at levels within or above ranges outlined in Table A-8, Appendix A of the Forest Plan.

Ensure habitat for snag-dependent species.

Moderate

WIST01, WIGU01 Timber sale design and layout, Timber sale contract, Administrator, Wildlife Biologist, RX Burn Plan, FMO

In Units 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 17, adjacent to private lands, retain a minimum of 4-8 tons of CWD per acre, with 65-75% in the 15+ inch size class (where available). In all other units retain an average of 14-18 tons of CWD per acre with 65-75% in the 15+ inch size class (where available). For all areas retain CWD in a variety species as appropriate for the PVG.

Ensure habitat for log-dependent species. Ensure healthy soil and plant growth to support forest recovery.

High: Research and Literature, Administrative studies, Logic.

WIGU01 Timber sale design and layout, Timber sale contract, Administrator, Wildlife Biologist, RX Burn Plan, FMO

During harvest if a new active goshawk nest is found, harvest would be halted until after the nesting season and the unit boundary is modified, as feasible, such that the nest is contained within a 30-acre block of suitable nesting habitat.

Protect northern goshawks and occupied goshawk nest habitat.

High: Research, Literature, Administrative studies, Logic

WIST03, WIST05, WIGU07 Timber sale contract, Administrator,

Wildlife Biologist

DN-10

Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Objective Effectiveness and Basis

Applicable Forest Plan Standard/Guideline

Enforcement

Wildlife Provide two elk sight distances of vegetation (where available), around wallows, licks, travel corridors, openings, and along the roads in the Project Area, as identified during Project implementation.

Reduce potential impacts to elk

Moderate

WIGU13 Timber Sale Layout, Administrator, Wildlife Biologist.

If a gray wolf den is located within the Project Area, all activity shall be halted, while appropriate coordination occurs with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Consultation Conferencing occurs with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Reduce potential impacts to gray wolves

Moderate TEST01, TEST03,TEST06, TEST12

Timber Sale Contract, Administrator, Wildlife Biologist

Retain and protect from mechanical damage standing live trees and snags within the Project Area.

To maintain existing wildlife cover and provide potential lynx denning habitat.

High: Research and Literature, Administrative studies, Logic

WIGU01, Burn Plan, FMO

No pesticides or trapping allowed for rodent control in plantations. Stocking rates that exceed Forest Plan Standards would be utilized to account for seedling loss to rodent damage.

To prevent mortality of NIDGS.

High: Research and Literature, Administrative studies, Logic

TEST05 Timber Sale Contract, Administrator, Wildlife Biologist

Post approved interagency signs at the entrance of Project Area providing public information regarding NIDGS. Shooting of NIDGS is prohibited and misidentification with Columbian ground squirrels is possible.

To prevent mortality of NIDGS.

Low TEST06 Timber Sale Contract, Administrator, Wildlife Biologist

DN-11

Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Objective Effectiveness



Fisheries and Water Resource For units 4R, 5R and 6R: Blow down that was rooted within the RCA would not be removed. Blow down that was rooted outside of RCA, and fell into the RCA would be removed. The portion of RCA rooted blow down that is hindering removal (on top of) of blow down outside of the RCA would be removed. Blow down that was rooted inside the RCA and fell within the RCA, but is on top of blow down that fell into the RCA would be cut or manipulated to facilitate removal of non RCA blow down, but would not be removed. Care would be taken when removing trees from RCAs to limit soil disturbance to levels that would result in negligible sediment delivery to the channel.

Maintain CWD in RCAs, minimize soil disturbance in RCA that could lead to sediment delivery to stream channel.

High: logic

TEST06, SWST01, SWST04, SWST10, TRST08

Timber sale contract, sale administrator, fisheries biologist or hydrologist

To minimize soil disturbance, bucking and piling of slash in RCA units 4R, 5R, and 6R would be completed by handcrews with chainsaws. No mechanized equipment would be allowed within 120 feet of these intermittent streams.

Minimize soil disturbance that could lead to sediment delivery to stream channel.

High: experience, logic

TEST06, SWST01, SWST04 Timber sale design and layout, sale administrator, understory thinning contract, administrator

The boles of LWD that is limbed in units 4R, 5R, and 6R would remain in place, unless removal would not degrade RCA function and is approved by a fisheries biologist or hydrologist.

Maintain LWD in intermittent channel.

High: logic TEST06, SWST01, SWST04, SWST10

Burn plan, fuels specialist, fisheries biologist or hydrologist

DN-12




Fisheries and Water Resource New landings shall be located outside of RCAs unless approved by a fisheries biologist or hydrologist.

Maintain RCA function and minimize potential sediment delivery to stream channels.

High: logic TEST06, SWST01, SWST04, FRGU06

Timber sale design and layout, sale administrator, fisheries biologist or hydrologist

On site fuel storage over 660 gallons must be in a lined containment area capable of holding 125% of the fuel stored. The containment area would be lined with a material sufficiently impervious to contain spilled fuel. A spill contingency plan approved by the Forest Service would be required. The plan would contain, at a minimum, response procedures for handling a spill, the measures to be taken, and a map of designated containment locations. This plan and a spill response kit would be carried in all transport vehicles.

Reduce the potential for spilled fuels to reach and affect aquatic resources. Reduce response time should a spill occur that potentially endangers aquatic resources.

Moderate SWGU11, TEST06 Timber sale contract, spill prevention plan, 40 CFR 112, contract administrator

No fuel storage or refueling in RCA unless there are no other alternatives and it is approved by a fisheries biologist or hydrologist.

Reduce the potential for spilled fuels to reach and affect aquatic resources.

High: logic TEST06, SWST11 Timber sale contract , sale administrator, fisheries biologist or hydrologist

When replacing culvert on Wesley Creek use sediment fences, excelsior blankets, jute matting, or other erosion control measures as needed. Install culvert at low flows and use bypass channel and sediment traps if needed. All work must be completed prior to August 15 to avoid bull trout spawning period.

Minimize sediment delivery to channel.


TEST06, SWST01, SWST04 Project Engineer, timber sale road package/ contract provision, fisheries biologist

DN-13




Fisheries and Water Resource When decommissioning roads within RCA use sediment fences, excelsior blankets, jute matting, and other erosion control measures. Rehabilitate stream crossings when channel is dry or at low flows.

Minimize potential for sediment delivery to stream channels.


TEST06, SWST01, SWST04 Project Engineer, timber sale road package/ contract provision, fisheries biologist or hydrologist

Gravel identified road segments and contributing areas of stream crossings on open and seasonally open roads used for haul routes.

Reduce sediment input into streams.

Moderate TEST06, SWST01, SWST04 Timber sale administrator, contract administrator, engineering rep.

Identify and approve water drafting locations(s) prior to use. Project sale administrator and/or engineer would coordinate with the fish biologist and hydrologist in identifying suitable sites. Screen intake hose with 3/32 inch mesh.

Minimize impacts to stream banks and potential sediment delivery to streams.

Moderate TEST06, TEST32, FRST01 Timber sale contract, contract administrator, fish biologist or hydrologist

Prescribed fire would be allowed to back into RCAs but would not be directly ignited in RCAs, except when burning piles.

Minimize potential for sediment delivery to stream channels.

High: experience TEST06, SWST01, SWST04 Burn Plan, FMO

Air Quality All prescribed burning would be subject to approval from the Montana/Idaho State Airshed group.

Reduce impacts of prescribe burning on air quality buy restricting prescribed burning when smoke dispersal would be optimal.

High: logic, experience

ASST01, ASST02, ASST03 Burn plan, FMO

DN-14




Air Quality Identify sensitive areas for smoke impacts. Avoid smoke immersion into

non-attainment or sensitive areas.


ASGU01, ASGU02 Burn plan, FMO

Soil Locate all new skid trails and landings outside of RCAs (120 ft from intermittent channels and 240 ft from perennial channels).

Limit ground disturbance near channels to reduce the potential for sedimentation.

High: logic, experience, Burroughs and King 1989, Belt et. al. 1992, Megahan and Ketcheson 1996

SWST01, SWST02, SWST03, SWST04, SWGU08

Timber sale design and layout, sale administrator

Utilize all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Soil Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) for harvest and road activities.

Reduce/limit levels of soil disturbance, erosion and potential sedimentation, Meet requirements of State of Idaho Non-point source Pollution Management Plan, Maintain water quality and associated beneficial uses.

High: FSH 2509.22, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement 1999, Idaho DEQ 1997, Heffner 1999, Local Monitoring

SWST01, SWST02, SWST03, SWST04, SWGU08

Timber sale design and layout, sale administrator

DN-15




Soil Decommission unneeded roads to reduce levels of total soil resource commitment. Approximately 7.6 miles of road (unclassified and classified) would be used during harvest. Unclassified roads would be decommissioned under the timber sale contract for the Proposed Action. The 1.3 mile of classified road would be decommissioned using appropriated funds.

Reduce levels of total soil resource commitment (TSRC), reduce sediment, improve soil and hydrologic processes, and fish habitat.

High: logic, experience, local monitoring, Foltz 2003, Switalski et. al. 2004

SWST01, SWST03(b), SWST04,

Timber sale administrator, Timber Sale contract

Hydrologist/Soil Specialist

On slopes up to 45%, limit ground based logging, skidding and harvest equipment operations to designated skidtrails, roads, and landings when the ground is not frozen/snow covered. On tractor units, all skid trails would be designated and pre-approved by the Timber Sale Administrator and logs would be winched to the designated skidtrails. Skidtrails would be spaced at a maximum distance with consideration given to the blowdown configuration, to terrain, and to RCA location (literature shows that a 100 foot skidtrail spacing affects approximately 11% of an area). Random skidding off of designated skidtrails would be allowed only under snow covered or frozen soil conditions.

Reduce potential for detrimental soil disturbance.

High: logic, experience, local monitoring, Froehlich 1981, Garland 1983, Klock 1975

SWST02 Timber Sale Administrator, Timber Sale contract

DN-16




Soil Excavator piling would be utilized on tractor units with slopes of 35% or less, and levels of DD at or below 10% upon completion of harvest activities. Tractor harvest activity areas would be assessed after harvest to evaluate levels of DD and those with 10% or less DD would be available for excavator piling under dry or frozen soil conditions.

Reduce potential for detrimental soil disturbance.

High: Froehlich et al. 1981, Garland 1983, Fact, Experience

SWST02 Soil Scientist, Timber sale design and layout Timber Sale Administrator, Timber Sale contract

On slopes over 45% utilize cable, skyline, or helicopter harvest systems and limit equipment operations to roads (temporary or permanent) and landings.

Reduce soil impacts and levels of DD by utilizing lower impact harvest system.

High: Seyedbagheri,1996, Megahan 1987, Klock 1975 Fact, Experience

SWST02 Timber sale design and layout, Sale administrator

Reclaim disturbed skyline/cable corridors by pulling soil berms back to original configuration and scattering slash (as available) on all areas of soil disturbance to provide for 50% effective cover.

Reduce potential for erosion/rutting in corridors and facilitate revegetation.

High – Logic, Experience, Local monitoring

SWST01, SWST04, SWGU05

Timber Sale Administrator, Timber Sale contract

Reclaim all detrimentally disturbed and totally committed skid trails and landing areas immediately following harvest. Reclamation would include sub-soiling to ameliorate compaction, re-contouring to the natural slope profile (as possible), scattering of organic matter (as available) to provide a minimum of 50% effective ground cover and seeding with native seed to facilitate vegetation recovery.

Restore newly created or existing areas of TSRC and detrimental disturbance (DD).

High: logic, experience, local monitoring


Timber Sale Administrator, Timber Sale contract

Re-use existing well located skid trails and landings and reclaim (as described above) following the completion of harvest activities.

Limit creation of new areas of DD or TSRC and restore existing areas of DD and TSRC.

High: logic, experience, local monitoring

SWST02, SWST03 Timber sale design and layout, sale administrator, Timber sale contract

DN-17

Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Objective Effectiveness and Basis

Applicable Forest Plan Standard/Guideline

Enforcement

Soil Implement prescribed burning operations when soil moistures are greater than 20 percent.

Reduce the potential for severely burned soil.

Moderate SWST02 Fuels AFMO and District FMO

Improve road drainage (installing water bars/dips, cleaning relief culverts etc.) as needed on all roads used for harvest activities.

Reduce road related sediment inputs, Improve road surface conditions.

High: logic, experience, Burroughs and King 1898


Project Engineer, timber sale road package/ contract provision

Retain total amounts of CWD in the tonnages described below. Total tonnage is measured following the completion of all activities (harvest, piling, and burning) and must retain the percentages of the large sized CWD (greater than 15 inch diameter) identified in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, Appendix A, page !-9, Table A-9) – 65 percent for PVG 6 and 75 percent for PVG’s 2 and 5:

• On units adjacent to (some portion of unit within 300 feet of) private land, retain 4-8 tons per acre (low end of desired range for all PVG’s) within 300 feet of private land and increase the tonnage as the distance from private land increases until 25 percent above the upper end of the desired range for PVG’s is attained. (14-18 tons per acre).

• On units not adjacent to (no portion of unit within 300 feet of) private land retain 25 percent above the high end of the desired range for all PVG’s (14-18 tons per acre).

Maintain CWD for long-term site productivity.

High:

Graham et. al. 1991, 1994

SWST04 Timber Sale Contract, Administrator, Burn Plan, FMO

DN-18


and Basis Applicable Forest

Plan Standard/Guideline

Enforcement

Soil Reclaim all fireline following burn activities. Reclamation activities would include, but are not limited to, placing waterbars, as necessary, pulling the material removed for fireline construction (including mineral soil) back onto the fireline, and pulling slash (as available) onto the disturbed surface.

Restore and stabilize detrimentally disturbed soils and reduce the risk of accelerated soil erosion and resulting sedimentation.

High: Experience SWST02 Fuels Specialist, Soil Scientist, Hydrologist.

Forest Vegetation Use the IPS C-provision in stands composed primarily of ponderosa pine, especially if proposed unit is adjacent to ponderosa pine plantation.

Minimize pine engraver beetle populations.

High: research,

studies, experience

TRGU01 Timber sale contract, Administrator

Identify and protect existing plantations during bucking and yarding operations

Limit damage to established trees in plantations

High: Logic, experience

TRGU01 TS Administration, Reforestation technician

Construct electric fences on livestock accessible (generally slopes <35%) reforestation areas

Limit livestock damage to protect newly planted trees

High: Logic, experience

TRGU01 Silviculturist, Reforestation Technician

“Slash Pull Back”(where necessary) from reserve trees in underburn units to minimize fire effects.

Green tree survival post burn. Moderate VEGU02 Timber sale contract, Administrator, Fuel Management Officer

DN-19


and Basis Applicable Forest

Plan Standard/Guideline

Enforcement

Forest Vegetation Fire modeling would be done prior to ignition of prescribed burns.

Determine fuel moisture and weather conditions that would limit severe fire behavior and limit overstory tree mortality to less than 20%.

High: experience, BEHAVE model, FOFEM model

N/A Fire Management Officer, silviculturist, Burn Plan, Fuels Specialist

Use appropriate fire technique in prescribed burn units.

Control flame lengths and prevent fire spread into tree crowns.


N/A Fire Management Officer, Burn Plan

Rangeland Per “The Payette National Forest Noxious Weed and Poisonous Plant Control Program EA and DN”, treat populations of noxious weeds found in the planning area. Control measures may include spraying, biological controls, or other methods as needed.

Control noxious weeds. High: fact, experience

NPST10, NPGU01, NPGU05

Range Specialist

In order to prevent the potential spread of noxious weeds into the project or treatment areas, Forest Service contractors associated with project activities would clean all off-road equipment prior to entry onto the treatment area. This cleaning would remove plants, dirt, and material that may carry noxious weed seeds.

Limit the risk of new infestations of noxious weeds into the area.

High: fact, experience

NPST03, NPST04, NPGU03

Timber sale contract, Administrator

DN-20

Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Objective Effectiveness and

Basis Applicable Forest Plan


Rangeland Any materials such as mulches, straw, etc., used for rehabilitation, reclamation, etc., would be free of noxious weed seeds and comply with the 1995 weed free forage special order against the use of non-certified hay, straw, or mulch. Materials not covered in the special order, which have the potential to contain noxious weed seed, would be inspected and determined to be weed seed free before purchase and use. Certification that these materials are free of noxious weed seed would be done by qualified individuals, such as the Idaho Seed Lab, County Weed Supervisor, or Forest Service noxious weed management specialist.

Limit the risk of new infestations of noxious weeds into the area.


NPST01, NPST02, NPST03, NPST06

Soil Scientist, Range Specialist.

Source sites for gravel and borrow materials would be inspected before materials are used or transported. If noxious weeds are present, they would be treated to prevent seed production before use or transport. The source would not be used if noxious weed species were present that are not currently found at the site unless effective treatment or other mitigation measures identified by the District Ranger are implemented. Written documentation of the inspection by county weed agents, Forest Service noxious weed management specialists, or other individuals who the Forest Service stipulates are qualified would be required before materials are used.

Limit the spread of noxious weeds in the Project Area.


NPST07, NPST08, NPGU02 Range Specialist, Botanist, Engineer, Administrator.

DN-21

DN-22

Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Objective Effectiveness and

Basis Applicable Forest Plan


Recreation and Visual Quality In portions of Units 1, 2, 6, & 53 within immediate foreground (200’) of Cuprum Road (#002), the Landore Road (#105), and The Mickey Creek Trail (#230), salvage harvest and storm damage debris(root wads exempted) that are not piled and burned, or broadcast burned should be lopped to no more than 18” height. Slash piles in these units should generally be located at least 50 feet from the road edge. Utilize broadcast burning adjacent to trail to avoid visual impacts of piles and pile burning.

Meet Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective as indicated in the Payette National Forest Plan, 2003, Visual Resources. Reduce the degree of visual contrast and disturbance from salvage harvest and blowdown. Reduce temporary visual effect of slash piles.

Moderate SCST01, SCGU02, SCGU04 Timber sale contract, Administrator

Hand piles in Unit 6 should be located at least 25 feet from the Landore Road.

Reduce temporary visual effect of slash piles along a visually sensitive travelway.

Moderate SCST01, SCGU02, SCGU04 Timber sale contract, Administrator

Burning of machine and hand piles in the immediate foreground (200’) of Cuprum Road (#002), the Landore Road (#105), and The Mickey Creek Trail (#203), should ensure complete combustion with little remaining evidence of unburned chunks. In the immediate foreground area of these roads and trail, small storm bent trees (whips) and standing trees with broken, snapped boles should be felled.

Reduce the short term visual effects related to incomplete burning. Reduce the contrast and unnatural appearance of incomplete residue disposal. Reduce the visual effect of storm damaged trees in immediate foreground of sensitive travel routes.

Moderate High: Removal or felling of these trees would change the immediate foreground setting.

SCST01, SCGU02, SCGU04 Timber sale contract, Administrator

Table 2. Monitoring Plan Summary Resource Monitoring Item Timing Personnel Fisheries,

Soil, Water, Vegetation,

Fuels

On-the-ground implementation monitoring of proposed harvest and fuels treatments

On-going during on-the-ground harvest and fuels treatment activities

Fish Biologist/technicians, Hydrologists/technicians, Fuels Specialist/technicians, Forester/technicians

Fisheries Effectiveness monitoring of RCA treatment design, fish passage at Wesley Creek culvert, and erosion control mitigations.

At time of project implementation and three years following implementation.

Fisheries Biologist, Hydrologist, and Technicians

Soils Effectiveness monitoring of harvest units that are tractor logged and excavator piled.

Twice for each unit following completion of harvest activities, and piling and burning.

Hydrologic Technician

Soils Effectiveness of road obliteration treatments.

Once. One year or more following completion of road obliteration activities.

Hydrologic Technician

Soils and Water

Implementation and Effectiveness monitoring of Timber BMPs and SWCPs.

Once in 2007 and once in 2008.

Hydrologist and Hydrologic Technicians

Rangeland Noxious weed monitoring.

Immediately after harvest and road work activities, and for the following five years.

Range Technicians

Fuels, Soils, Wildlife

Implementation and Effectiveness of CWD and snag design features to assess levels after harvest and fuels treatments.

During and after project implementation.

Wildlife, fuels and hydrologic technicians

Forest Vegetation

Implementation and effectiveness of reforestation treatments.

Perform inspections during planting and stocking/survival surveys at year 1, 3 and 5 following planting.

Reforestation Technicians

DN-23

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

I have evaluated the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27. I have reviewed and considered the Environmental Assessment and project record for the Bear Tornado Recovery Project (2006), which is incorporated by reference herein. Based on the above, I have determined that the Selected Alternative will not have a significant effect on the human environment. For this reason, no environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared. My rationale for the FONSI follows.

(1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (1)].

The proposed project context (society as a whole, affected region, affected interests, and locality) was reviewed, and the intensity (severity) of the negative impacts as a result of implementing Bear Tornado Recovery Project is minor. The only short term negative impacts for a long-term benefit are the potential for temporary increases in sediment associated with harvest and road actions (including road decommissioning), and short-term effects on wildlife habitat due to harvest activities. Adverse effects of sediment delivery would be minimized through application of soil, fisheries and water project design features and mitigation measures (Table 2.4, page 2-25

to 2-32 of the EA). Impacts to wildlife will be minimized through application of timing restrictions and other wildlife project design features described in Table 2-4 pages 2-23 to 2-24 of the EA.

The project will provide long-term improvements in the health and resiliency of the forest vegetation through:

• Reducing fuel loading and risk of elevated bark beetle activity through commercial removal of tornado damaged trees, whole-tree yarding and implmenting prescribed underburns, handpiling and excavator piling fuel treatments.

• Reforestation of tornado damaged forest stands to facilitate seedling establishment and growth, and improve tree species composition while maintaining coarse woody debris and snags where available at levels within and above desired conditions discussed in Appendix A of the Forest Plan (Chapter 3, Forest Plan Consistency Section 3.7, pages 3-105 to 3-107).

(2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (2)].

Public health will be protected by keeping emissions expected from prescribed burning to a level below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Smoke may be noticeable particularly during the morning hours, but the effects will be short-term and within the Clean Air Act standards (EA page 1-13 to 1-15, Project Record).

DN-24

Impacts of increased road use on forest visitors associated with the period of harvest activities will be managed through appropriate signing warning forest visitors of harvest activities, and where necessary by applying short term area closures for public safety. The tornado-affected area is currently under an area closure to protect public health and safety.

(3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (3)].

A cultural resource inventory and report was completed and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review and response. The SHPO concurred with a “No Adverse Effect” determination (Chapter 1, page 1-16 of the EA). There are no parklands, wild and scenic rivers, prime farmlands, or ecologically critical areas within the project area.

(4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (4)].

The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial is considered low. Common issues of controversy over effects on past Payette NF vegetation management projects include impacts on large tree component and associated wildlife habitat, impacts on soil productivity, and road management actions that change public access or have negative impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat.

Since the projects focus is on the recovery of trees downed and/or damaged by the tornado, it is not expected to have a measurable effect on the large tree component in the watershed. The project is designed to maintain and promote large tree structure and associated wildlife habitat across the area. Proposed planting of tornado-damaged areas will facilitate development of future large tree structural conditions.

Impacts on soil productivity have been analyzed and a variety of project design features and mitigation measures are included to protect and maintain soil productivity (Table 2-4 at pages 2-28 to 2-32, EA pages 2-9 to 2-11). In addition, road decommissioning and skid trail reclamation activities will restore levels of soil productivity by reducing the amount of the project area in a total soil resource commitment condition (EA pages 2-16 and 3-66).

The selected alternative will not change existing road access for the public. All existing roads that are open will remain open, and existing closed roads will remain closed or be decommissioned. Decommissioning and road improvements will result in long-term improvements in water quality and aquatic habitat (EA pages 3-54 to 60 and 3-43 to 3-46).

(5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (5)].

This decision is not expected to have effects that are highly uncertain or involve unknown risks. Activities

DN-25

included in this decision have been implemented numerous times in the Forest on similar terrain and forest conditions. While any action carries some degree of risk, the proposed action was designed and the analysis summarized in the EA was carefully completed to minimize unique and/or unknown risk. The Payette National Forest implementation procedures for timber sales, including sale preparation, administration (standard timber sale contract), and prescribed burn plans will help to ensure that the effects will be similar to those predicted in the EA. The effects on the human environment of implementing the Bear Tornado Recovery Project are not expected to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks (Chapter 3 of the EA).

Project design features and mitigation measures have been developed to ensure adverse effects to the human environment are reduced or eliminated (Chapter 2, Table 2-4 of the EA), and monitoring has been included (EA page 2-36 to 2-37) to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of many of the project design features and mitigation measures.

(6) The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (6)].

The Bear Tornado Recovery Project is a site-specific project that does not set precedence for future actions or present a decision in principle about future considerations. Any proposed future project must be evaluated on its own merits and effects.

The Payette National Forest is currently revising the 1995 Forest Travel Management Plan. The update may change the designated use of some of the trails and roads in the project area. At this time, the Travel Management Plan proposal will eliminate indiscriminant cross country motorized travel and require motorized travel to remain on designated roads and trails. At this time, there are no proposals to change over-snow travel. This foreseeable future action is not a certainty, but is not likely to change the actions in the Selected Alternative to a level of significance requiring an EIS.

(7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (7)].

For an action to contribute to cumulative effects there has to be some kind of additive or interactive effect. The cumulative effects of the alternatives and the past, present, and future actions are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA. The EA discloses there will be no significant cumulative impacts by implementing the Bear Tornado Recovery Project, including foreseeable future actions (Chapter 3- Environmental Effects under each resource section, and Appendix D of the EA).

DN-26

(8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)].

(10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (10).

The project is designed to meet all applicable Federal, State, and local laws (Chapter 3 of the EA, Section 3.7 Other Disclosures, pp. 3-108 to 3-114). A survey of the project area by the Forest

Archaeologist located two non-eligible historic properties in the vicinity of the project. These sites will be protected by avoidance. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred with the Forest Archaeologist’s “no adverse effect” determination (Project Record). If new sites are found during project implementation, they will be protected through mitigation.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

My decision is consistent with all applicable laws and regulations (Chapter 3, Section 3.7 pp. 3-108 to 3-114 of the EA). It also meets Forest Plan direction and applicable standards and guidelines (Chapter 3, Forest Plan Consistency pp. 3-105 to 3-107, Table 2-4, Activity Table in the Project Record). (9) The degree to which the action

may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [40 CFR 1508.27(b) (9)].

APPEAL OPTIONS

The Bear Tornado Recovery Project decision is subject to administrative review pursuant to 36 CFR 218. This decision is not subject to administrative appeals pursuant to 36 CFR 215. The 30-day Objection Period for the Bear Tornado Recovery Project was initiated with a legal notice announcing the availability of the EA in The Idaho Statesman on August 24, 2006. The 30-day Objection Resolution period ended September 25, 2006. One objection was filed and the Regional Office reviewed and affirmed the EA and provided response to the objecting party on October 10, 2006.

No endangered or threatened species or their habitat will be adversely affected by this decision. A Biological Assessment (BA) and Evaluation (BE) have been prepared and a determination made that the activities associated with this project may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect any threatened, endangered or sensitive species. The BA also determined that the action will have no effects on the Canada lynx or bald eagle, and is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf in Idaho. Project compliance with the ESA and consultation requirements have been completed using the counterpart consultation regulations.

DN-27

Copies of the EA and this Decision Notice/FONSI were mailed to those who expressed interest in the document. The EA and this Decision Notice/FONSI have been made available on the internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/payette/publications/.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Under the provisions of the HFRA, and the 36 CFR 218 Objection regulations, the Bear Tornado Recovery Project may be implemented immediately after this Decision Notice/FONSI is signed.

CONTACTS

For additional information concerning the specific activities authorized with this decision, you may contact:

Bill Gamble, Acting NEPA Coordinator Payette National Forest Council Ranger District 500 E. Whitely Street Council, ID, 83612 (208) 253-0147

DN-28

lick creek vegetation management project decision notice...

Documents