porcupine pasture project -...

Porcupine Pasture Project

Environmental Assessment

Caribou-Targhee National Forest

Ashton/Island Park Ranger District

Fremont County, Idaho

EEO Statement

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

Background

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was developed under the authority of the Healthy Forest

Restoration Act (HFRA), P.L.108-148. It documents the analysis and discloses the site-specific effects of

the proposed Porcupine Pasture Project.

On November 5, 1907 the United States Department of Interior Office of Lands approved and

transferred the Porcupine Guard Station land to the United States Department of Agriculture and

became an administrative site for the Henrys Lake National Forest, Idaho. The administrative site is 160

acres and served as the headquarters for the Porcupine district ranger. It had a 60 acre fenced pasture

around the station which was predominately aspen. It is one of the oldest ranger sites on the Targhee

National Forest. In 1932-33 an additional 4 bedroom dwelling and a 2 room office was constructed of

native lodgepole pine, a barn and equipment shed was built that had a capacity for 4 horses, also a food

shed was constructed. In 1935 a metallic telephone line was installed linking Porcupine Guard Station to

the town of Ashton, ID and the Bechler Ranger Station in Yellowstone National Park. In 1940, the house

at the administrative site was wired with electricity and electric lights.

National Fire Plan (NFP)

During the last ten years, wildfires have increased in size and intensity within the United States. In 2000,

in response to a request by then President Clinton, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior

developed an interagency approach to respond to severe wildland fires, reduce their impacts on rural

communities, and assure sufficient firefighting capacity in the future (USDA Forest Service 2000).

This report outlined a strategy to reduce wildland fire threats and restore forest ecosystem health in the

interior West. In 2001, the U.S. Congress funded the National Fire Plan to reduce hazardous fuel and

restore forests and rangeland. In response, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, along with

Western Governors and other interested parties, developed a 10-year strategy and implementation plan

for protecting communities and the environment. This plan, coupled with the Federal Wildland Fire

Management Policy (2001), forms a framework for Federal agencies, States, Tribes, local governments,

and communities to reduce the threat of fire, improve the condition of the land, restore forest and

rangeland health, and reduce risk to communities.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA)

Sixteen months after Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) was launched, Congress passed the Healthy Forests

Restoration Act to reduce delays and remove statutory barriers for projects that reduce hazardous fuel

and improve forest health and vigor. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) contains

a variety of provisions to expedite hazardous-fuel reduction and forest-restoration projects on specific

types of Federal land that are at risk of wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. The act helps rural

communities, States, Tribes, and landowners restore healthy forest and rangeland conditions on State,

Tribal, and private lands. Criteria for projects to be authorized under this act include condition class,

wildland urban interface, proximity to communities at risk (Federal Register, January 4, 2001, Vol. 66,

No. 3, p. 751-777), and collaboration. The Porcupine Pasture Project is located within an identified

wildland-urban interface and meets the criteria for an authorized project under HFRA (Caribou-Targhee

WUI Map, 2007) and is identified for treatment in the Fremont County CWPP (County Wildfire

Protection Plan 2004).

Collaboration

The Idaho Statewide Implementation Strategy for the National Fire Plan (NFP) was developed as a

framework to guide completion of collaborative, community-based plans to address wildland fire issues.

Each county would bring together all groups and agencies responsible for wildland fire suppression to

develop a community-based wildland fire mitigation plan.

The Fremont County Wildland Fire Hazard Mitigation Plan was completed in September 2004 by a

planning team consisting of representatives of County, State, and Federal Governmental agencies. The

purpose of the plan “is to promote public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities,

infrastructure, private property, and the environment from wildfires.” This plan includes a number of

possible fire mitigation activities that could be implemented by local agencies or homeowners. The Plan

identifies hazard vulnerability and risk, prioritizes hazards and develops mitigation goals and strategies

for implementation. The Fremont County Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan represents local and regional

levels of collaboration.

The Porcupine Pasture Project is located in the Fall River area and is identified in the Fremont County

Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan. The project has been developed to respond to the objectives of reducing

wildfire fuels and risk in Fremont County and to implement the Wildfire Mitigation Strategy of the

Fremont County Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan.

Introduction

The Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest proposes to reduce the

intensity and severity of a future wildfire by reducing hazardous fuels adjacent to Potpourri Estates

subdivision east of Ashton, ID. The total treated area will be approximately 85 acres of National Forest

System lands. The analysis area contains approximately 210 acres.

The project area has been broken into 3 treatment units (refer to Map 1).

The project area is located within the Island Park Subsection of the Revised Targhee Forest Plan, within

Management Prescriptions 5.3.5, 5.2.2, and 8.1.

Implementation of this project in the urban interface would reduce tree and shrub fuel and decrease

surface and ladder fuels. (RMRS-GTR-120, April 2004). This would reduce future wildfire intensity which

will increase the success of future fire suppression and increase firefighter and public safety.

The proposed project would increase the age class distribution and amount of aspen within the WUI.

Aspen is a fairly fire resistance plant community.

Map 1: Project area map

Project Area

The Porcupine Pasture project area is located in Fremont County, Idaho, 12 miles east of Ashton, Idaho;

T9N R44E Section 23, north of forest road 582 (Cave Falls road). The analysis area is located at the

Porcupine Guard Station on the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest and

is approximately 210 acres. There is evidence the current vegetation originated from a wildfire

approximately 100 years ago resulting in primarily aspen succeeding into mixed conifer, the

predominant vegetation today.

Purpose and Need for Action

Purpose

The purpose of this project is to create a defensible fuel break around the Porcupine guard station

administrative site. There is a need to reduce the fuels in this area. The proposed treatment would

modify fire behavior in the event of wildfire, thereby increasing firefighter response time, effectiveness,

and safety of suppression resources. The pasture at the administrative site is adjacent to Potpourri

Estates and is considered Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The current fuels condition poses a potential

threat to neighboring Potpourri Estates and Forest Service structures in the event of a wildfire.

Decades of fire exclusion and a number of other factors have increased forest fuel loadings over the last

100 years. Where these increased fuel conditions are found in proximity to Porcupine Guard Station

they create a hazard to public safety and personal property from wildfire. The project area occurs

within the “Wildland Urban Interface” area as defined and displayed in the Caribou Targhee’s Wildland

Urban Interface Map (2007).

This project’s purpose will implement the National Fire Plan, specifically goal #2 “Reduce Hazardous

Fuels” (A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment,

August 2001). The project is also designed to meet and implement purpose # 1 of the Healthy Forests

Restoration Act of 2003, “(1) to reduce fire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and other at

risk Federal land through a collaborative process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing hazardous

fuel reduction projects.” These two companion purposes have been combined into a project specific

purpose as follows:

1. Reduce wildfire hazard surrounding Porcupine Guard Station Administrative Site by:

• Reducing tree crown density, increasing canopy base heights, and increasing crown spacing to

reduce the risk of crown fires.

• Remove ladder fuels that provide vertical and horizontal fuel continuity, thereby reducing crown

fire risk.

• Reduce surface fuel load to lower surface fire intensity.

• Reduce overall horizontal and vertical fuelbed continuity to reduce the large fire risk to the

adjacent values, while increasing the likelihood of firefighter success and safety.

2. Create defensible space surrounding all structures within the Porcupine Administration Site

consistent with firewise principles.

3. Decrease risk associated with the Forest Service’s Managed Fire program.

Existing Condition (Need)

The existing condition consists of primarily lodgepole pine of all sizes and aspen. Tree spacing and

ladder fuels vary throughout but currently provide vertical continuity for fire from the forest floor to the

crowns of mature conifers due to the current surface fuel loading of approximately 12 tons/acre. With

this combination, fire modeling indicates potential fire behavior exceeding conditions conductive to

direct attack without the use of equipment. Fire modeling under the current fuel loading predicts flame

lengths to exceed four feet. Flame lengths of four feet or less are conditions where ground firefighting

resources are most effective at safely suppressing wildfires. This condition provides a potential threat to

the neighboring subdivision and forest service structures in the event of a wildfire.

Desired Condition

The desired condition for the Porcupine Pasture project area is open stand conditions and reduced

surface fuels that will reduce the crown fire hazard affecting the WUI surrounding Potpourri Estates and

Porcupine Guard Station. The desired condition would be conifers with no ladder fuels, surface fuel

loading of down woody material at five to seven tons/acre and healthy aspen of all age classes. With

this desired condition, fire modeling indicates potential fire behavior within conditions conductive to

direct attack without the use of equipment. This condition greatly reduces the potential threat to the

neighboring subdivision and forest service structures in the event of a wildfire. The desired condition

would result in species composition that favored fire tolerant trees such as mature aspen. Additionally,

benefits of aspen regeneration include but not limited to: fire resistant cover type, forage for animals,

habitat for wildlife, visual quality and ecosystem diversity. The project area would have a reduction in

canopy bulk density and a reduction in ladder and surface fuels.

Relationship to the Revised Targhee Forest Plan (RFP)

The Forest Service has two types of decisions: programmatic (e.g., the Forest Plan and project level

which implements the Forest Plan. Porcupine Pasture EA is a project analysis. Its scope is confined to

addressing the significant issues and possible environmental consequences of the project. It does not

attempt to address decisions made at a programmatic level.

The Revised Targhee Forest Plan (1997) embodies the provisions of the National Forest Management

Act, its implementing regulations and other guiding documents. The Forest Plan sets forth in detail the

direction for managing the land and resources for the Targhee National Forest.

Chapter III of the Forest Plan describes management prescriptions as a set of management practices to a

specific area of land to attain multiple-use and other goals and objectives. The purpose of management

prescriptions is to provide a basis for consistently displaying management direction on Forest Service

administered lands. These prescriptions in the Forest Plan provide a general sense of the management

direction or treatment of the land.

The project area is located in three Management Prescriptions 5.2.2, 5.3.5., and 8.1.

The project is located within the “Island Park sub-section of the Targhee Revised Forest Plan (TRFP)”

with the following Management Prescriptions:

5.2.2 Visual Quality Maintenance “This prescription emphasizes maintaining the existing visual quality

within major travel corridors with high quality natural vistas, while allowing livestock production, limited

timber harvest, and other compatible commodity outputs.” (TRFP III-145)

5.3.5 Grizzly Bear Habitat “This management prescription emphasizes a high degree of security and

resource conditions which contribute toward the conservation and recovery of the grizzly bear, and

benefits to other wildlife. Habitats will be managed to meet the goals of grizzly bear recovery. Other

uses may be allowed when compatible with these goals.” (TRFP III-146)

8.1 Concentrated Development Areas This management prescription emphasizes a high degree of

security and resource conditions which contribute toward the conservation and recovery of the grizzly

bear, and benefits to other wildlife. “This prescription applies to all existing concentrated developments

including … administrative sites (including guard stations …).” “Other sites are collections of buildings

and storage structures from which the administration of the National Forest is carried out. Some closed

gates and restrictions on travel may be present in order to protect equipment and developments.”

(TRFP III-157)

Public Involvement

The project was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on July 1, 2011. The project was announced

with a public notice in the Idaho Falls Post Register on November 29, 2011. The Forest Service sent out

copies of the scoping letter to interested individuals and organizations on the District NEPA mailing list

on June 28, 2011. The Forest Service received two letters and two e-mails containing comments on the

proposal. A public meeting was held at the Ashton Ranger District Office on October 2, 2012 at 600 PM

to provide project area information, present the proposed action, and discuss local concerns about the

Porcupine Pasture project. The meeting was announced in the Rexburg Standard Journal on September

29, 2012 and an invitation to attend was sent to interested individuals and organizations on the District

NEPA mailing list on September 24, 2012. The meeting was attended by six persons, implementation

was revised as a result of four public comments. All documents are in the project folder, which can be

accessed at the Island Park Ranger District Office, 3726 Highway 20 in Island Park, Idaho.

Decision to Be Made

The Responsible Official for this proposal is the District Ranger of the Ashton/Island Park Ranger District.

The Responsible Official will make the following decision and document it in a Decision Notice following

the completion of the environmental analysis and the Pre-Decisional Appeal Process (36 CFR 218).

Decisions to be made for this project are:

• Should the Forest Service manage vegetation and forest fuels on approximately 85 acres of

National Forest System Land to protect Potpourri Estates and forest service structures from

the risks associated with wildland fire, or should the Forest Service choose the “No Action”

alternative?

If so:

• Where within the project areas should these activities occur?

• What type of treatments should be used on Forest Service managed lands?

• What design features, mitigation measures, and monitoring should be applied to the project?

This proposal is authorized by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and subject to objection under 36 CFR

218. Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted written comments

specific to the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project either during scoping or other

public involvement opportunities on the EA.

Identification of Issues

The scoping and public comment process allows the public and other agencies to raise any concerns

relative to the Proposed Action. Identification of issues includes review of comments, input from Forest

Service resource specialists and review of the Forest Plan. Comments received during scoping and public

comment opportunities were evaluated against the following criteria to determine whether the concern

was a major factor in the analysis and alternative formulation process.

• Was the concern relevant to and within the scope of the decision being made and did it pertain

directly to the proposed action?

• Has the concern been addressed in a previous site-specific analysis, such as in a previous

Environmental Impact Statement or though legislative action?

• Could the concern be resolved through mitigations?

• Could the issue be resolved through project design?

The Interdisciplinary Team (ID team) determined that comments were best addressed by disclosing the

effects of implementing the proposed action and analyzing the no-action alternative or by developing

design features for the proposed action. No issues were raised that necessitated developing additional

alternatives to the proposed action. The project file contains more information on the comments

received during collaboration and scoping.

Legal Requirements and other Specifically Required Disclosures

The project was developed to meet the laws, regulations, and requirements relating to federal natural

resource management. The Interdisciplinary Team found the action to be consistent with all pertinent

law, regulations, and coordination requirements.

Project Record Availability

Additional documentation may be found in the project record located at the Island Park Ranger Station

in Island Park, Idaho. Some of these documents are referenced throughout this EA by record name.

These records are available for public review pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

Chapter 2

Alternatives

Alternative 1: No Action

This alternative would not treat vegetation within the area surrounding Porcupine Guard Station or the

area adjacent to Potpourri Subdivision.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The Ashton/Island Park District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (NF) is proposing to treat

vegetation on 85 acres within the Porcupine administrative site. The remaining 125 acres of the project

area would remain untreated due to the current condition of the fuels and forage. Surveys will be

conducted for evidence of Goshawk prior to and during implementation.

• Implementation of timber harvest will only occur October-February as specified in the 1997

Targhee Revised Forest Plan (TRFP III-21) Goshawk Post Fledging Area.

• An average of six snags per acre would remain for wildlife habitat within all treatment units.

To treat fuels, we are proposing a combination of mechanical treatment and burning hand piles on

approximately 85 acres.

• Mechanical treatments would include mastication and chainsaw use. Mastication is

mechanically mulching of surface fuels with a rubber track tractor. Implementation of

mastication will only occur between July 1-August 31 with a period of up to 3 years to minimize

the impact on grizzly bears.

The proposed fuels treatments would be east of the Potpourri Subdivision and north of Forest Road

#582. It will consist of three treatment areas with the following site specific components. (See Map 1

for location of individual treatment areas).

Treatment area #1 is 37 acres and we are proposing the removal of all conifer trees within a distance of

2 ½ times the tree height of mature aspen. We are proposing a commercial timber harvest with whole

tree removal to a designated landing to remove conifers greater than seven inch DBH (Diameter at

Breast Height). Fuels (conifers less than seven inches DBH) will be cut with chainsaws. Woody residue

resulting from the fuels treatment will be masticated in areas with slopes less than 40 percent or will be

hand piled and burned in areas of 40 percent and greater slope. Woody residue greater than three inch

diameter will be reduced to approximately five to seven tons per acre on all slopes and leaving at least

two pieces per acre over 12 inches in diameter, as specified in the 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan

(TRFP III-7, TRFP III-152).

Unit 1, photograph #1

Treatment area #2 is 13 acres and we are proposing the removal of beetle infested trees to open up the

timber stand and remove fuels to increase forage. Slash remaining from the removal of the beetle

infested trees will be reduced by hand piling, and mastication. This will not be a commercial timber

harvest. Woody residue greater than three inch diameter will be reduced to approximately five tons per

acre on all slopes leaving at least two pieces per acre over 12 inches in diameter as specified in the 1997

TRFP. Woody residue resulting from the fuels treatment will be masticated in areas with slopes less

than 40 percent or will be hand piled and burned in areas of 40 percent and greater slope.

Unit 2 photograph 2

Treatment area #3 is 35 acres and we are proposing to cut trees with chainsaws to reduce crown fuels

and ladder fuels around the Forest Service owned structures. Crown spacing will be reduced to 10 to 30

foot spacing. Ladder fuels would be reduced by removing all conifer trees less than seven inch DBH.

Slash remaining from the removal of the conifers would be hand piled and burned or masticated. This

will not be a commercial timber harvest. Woody residue resulting from the fuels treatment will be

masticated in areas with slopes less than 40 percent or will be hand piled and burned in areas of 40

percent and greater slope. Woody residue greater than three inch diameter will be reduced to

approximately five tons per acre on all slopes and leaving at least two pieces per acre over 12 inches in

diameter as specified in the 1997 TRFP.

Unit 3, photograph 3

Unit 3, photograph 4

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures for the proposed

action

Design features and mitigation measures have been formulated to mitigate or reduce adverse impacts

and achieve desired outcomes.

• The Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ) is identified as: Porcupine creek 150 feet, each side;

intermittent streams, 75 feet each side.

• No mechanical mastication, heavy equipment use, or commercial harvest in AIZ.

• No landings will be constructed within the AIZ.

• Cut only conifers less than seven inch DBH.

• Pile and burning should be minimized.

• Conifer trees greater than seven inch will not be cut.

• Maintain at least 80 percent of the natural ground cover within AIZ.

• No skid trails will be constructed.

• Maintain fine organic matter over at least 50 percent of the area.

• Commercial timber harvest will occur October 1 to February 28.

• Livestock will not have access to Porcupine creek as a water source.

• Mastication activities will only occur July 1 to August 31, when soil conditions are dry.

• Use of previously disturbed areas for timber sale landing(s):

• The large clearing on the Guard Station access road known as the saw dust pile.

• The parking area at the intersection of the Guard Station access road and the Cave Falls

road.

• Due to the natural low strength of the soils, postpone off-road tractor/masticator use if the soil

is wet or thaws (winter logging will occur October to February), and use is causing soil disturbance

consistent with Soil Disturbance Class 3 (defined in the Soil Disturbance Field Guide (USDA FS, 2009)).

Soil-disturbance class 3, wheel tracks are evident, forest-floor layers are missing, signs of surface-soil

removal are evident, and soil compaction is increased (over 12 inches in depth).

• Existing roads and parking lots would be used for skid trails and landings wherever possible, but

where temporary roads and landings are needed, they would be obliterated after use, including ripping

to alleviate root-limiting compaction, returning fill to approximate original contour, constructing

drainage structures to control erosion, and scattering large woody debris to make the road or landing

unappealing to motorized users.

• If any additional cultural resources are encountered during the course of the project, the Forest

Archaeologist will be notified immediately and all ground disturbing activities will cease in that area until

the Forest Archaeologist takes appropriate action in consultation with the State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO).

• Do not cross the small drainage with any vehicles – that area from just west of the second and

third cattle guards to access the north facing slope of the area.

• Mechanical mastication will only occur July 1 through August 31 for up to a three year period

due to potential berry crops and grizzly bear activity.

• Monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the project design and Best Management

Practices.

• To reduce potential illegal cross country motorized use developing in the project area, avoid

creating openings or potential pathways that are visible from the Cave Falls Road. Some mitigation of

these potential effects is realized by the gate closure on the road and the pasture fence.

• Provide signing in the plowed parking area when activities occur during the winter months.

• Existing invasive species shall be treated prior to treatments, mitigated for during treatments

(cleaning vehicles prior to entering project area) and monitored for effectiveness after treatments

(District Range Management Specialist will conduct visual inspection of the disturbed sites for at least

two growing seasons).

• Do not to create a strong cut line along the fence line running east and west – where there are

some small aspen stands (the short distances seen from the Cave Falls Road at that point).

• Select the best access route to the area by the mastication machine or other vehicles necessary

to access the stand so scaring does not occur.

• Mastication will not occur during September and October to prevent disturbance to grizzly bears

foraging on berries during hyperphagia in the Falls River Ridge area.

• Smoke emissions will be approved by the Idaho/Montana Airshed Group prior to ignitions of

slash piles.

• If any five-needle pines are found within the project area they are treated as “leave trees” and

efforts made to avoid damaging the trees.

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

And

Environmental Consequences

Fire and Fuels Management

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Values at risk

Vales at risk are the Potpourri subdivisions, Timberline Golf Course, numerous private homes, and U.S.

Forest Service administrative buildings located at Porcupine Guard Station.

Current Fuel Conditions:

Current fuel loading for the three project areas are determined through stand exams, walk through

surveys and photo series (Fisher, 1981).

Table 1: Current Fuel Loading (Stand Exam) for the Porcupine Pasture Project:

Litter (1 Hour) Fuel Loading (t/ac) 0.60

Duff (Ground) Fuel Loading (t/ac) 5.7

0-1” (1, 10 Hour) Fuel Loading

(t/ac)

0.54

1-3” (100 Hour) Fuel Loading (t/ac) 1.45

3-6” (1000 Hour) Fuel Loading

(t/ac)

1.51

6-12”(1000, 1000+ Hour) Fuel

Loading (t/ac)

1.67

Crown Base Height (ft) 3

Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3) 0.22

Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread

Model by Scott (2005) was used to determine the existing fuel model of TU2 or Moderate Load, Humid

Climate Timber- Shrub. The primary carrier of fire in TU2 is moderate forest litter with shrub

components.

Targhee RFP Guideline for Fire & Fuels in MPC 5.1(c) states that “Wildfires will normally be suppressed

using control strategies during the fire season. Pre- and post season strategies may include

containment, confinement, or control” (RFP III-136).

For analysis purposes natural fuels will be reduced or otherwise treated so the potential fireline

intensities will not exceed 100 BTU per second per foot on 97 percent of the days during the regular fire

season.

Table 2: 97th percentile weather conditions used for analysis of fire behavior:

97th percentile Weather/Fuel Conditions, May 30-Oct 30;

Island Park RAWS Stations 1967-2007

Dry Bulb Temperature (F0) 77

Relative Humidity (%) 22

Wind Speed (mph) 8

1-Hour Fuel Moisture (%) 5




Herbaceous Fuel Moisture (%) 92

Woody Fuel Moisture (%) 104


Direct and Indirect Effects:

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The no action alternative will not reduce the fuel loading in the WUI. In the event of a wildfire, fire

modeling under the current fuel loading predicts flame lengths to exceed the limits at which direct

attack with ground resources are safe and effective (Fig. 1).

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

The action alternative would modify fire behavior by altering the current fuel conditions. The planned

management activities will have an effect on fire behavior within the project area. “The most effective

strategy for reducing crown fire occurrence and severity is to (1) reduce surface fuels, (2) increase height

to live crown,(3) reduce canopy bulk density, and (4) reduce continuity of the forest canopy.” (Graham

et al 2004) Managed stand densities will be roughly 250+ trees per acre with surface fuel loads of .75-

3.75 tons per acre in the 0 to 3” size class (NFES 1395, PSW-56, GTR-INT-97). With stand densities and

surface fuel loadings significantly lower and more compact the project area following treatments will

have a modified fire behavior and can be maintained with minimal future mechanical treatments. This

modified fire behavior results in higher suppression success and the safety of firefighters.

The NEXUS 2.0 (Scott, 2004) fire behavior model was used to model surface and crown fire behavior

using current fuels condition and post treatment stand conditions (modeled in FVS).

Figure 1 displays NEXUS modeling of expected flame lengths pre & post treatment.

Figure 1: Direct & Indirect Effects

Flame lengths in surface fuels remain below four foot (length at which direct attack with ground

resources is safe & effective) until eight mph wind speeds in the no-action alternative & never exceed

four foot in the action alternatives. Flame lengths in the canopy fuels exceed four foot with a two mph

wind speed in the no-action alternative and exceed 11’ (flame lengths at which any method of attack

will not be successful) at eight mph. Flame lengths in the canopy fuels of the action alternatives remain

below four foot until wind speeds reach 22 mph.

Figure 2: Crowning Index or the free air wind-speed at which a wildfire would be expected to move from

a surface fire to an active crown fire.

Under current conditions the fire would be expected to move from the surface to the crowns at a wind-

speed of 16.4 mph. Under the action alternative wildfire would not be expected to move into the

crowns.

The treatment is designed to target subalpine fir, smaller diameter lodgepole and Douglas-fir to increase

canopy spacing and reduce crown bulk density. This treatment will affect fire behavior by decreasing

upper fuel-bed continuity which will reduce fire’s ability to move through the upper canopy layer. These

treatments effectively reduce the risk of stand replacement crown fire.

Table 3: Fire Behavior Effects Summary

Fire Behavior

predictions @ 97th

percentile conditions

Alt 1 (No Action) Proposed Action

Flame Lengths –

Surface Fuels(ft)

19 0.6

Rate of Spread –

Surface Fuels(ch/hr)

23.76 0.54

Fire line Intensity(FLI)

BTU/ft/sec

1195 2

Crowning Index 16.4 0

Canopy Bulk Density

(CBD)kg/m3

0.22 0

Canopy Base

Height(CBH)ft

3 6

Cumulative Effects

Livestock grazing will continue into the future and may affect fire severity by decreasing the amount of

fine fuels (grasses and forbs) in the project area. The continuing grazing will decrease fine surface fuels

which will decrease surface fire behavior. With the decrease in surface fire behavior there is less likely

the chance of a crown fire. With the decrease in crowning fire there is less likely the chance of spotting

on to the private property adjacent to Forest Service property.

Fire spread and the severity of fire behavior on private property and subdivisions is dependent on

treatments within those areas. While the Forest Service has no control over work done on private

property fire behavior will decrease on those lands that are treated. Homeowners in Potpourri

subdivision reduced hazardous fuels summer 2012. Lands that are not treated can expect an increase in

fire behavior once fire has moved on to those untreated lands.

Selective non-commercial thinning of trees will need to be completed on a 15-35 year rotation to ensure

that desired future generations of forested vegetation are maintained while maintaining low fire hazard

conditions.

Project Record: This Environmental Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the Fire and Fuels

Management Specialist Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report contains the detailed

data, methodologies, analysis, references, and other technical documentation used in the assessment.

Forested Vegetation


The proposed treatment area consists primarily of mature lodgepole pine and aspen. Stand Exam plots

in the proposed units to be treated and 3 other stands in the analysis area were completed in the spring

and summer of 2011. Table 4 below summarizes the stand information and stand exam plot data for

the proposed treatment areas (Table 5).

Table 4: Porcupine Pasture - Stand Information

Unit Elevation Slope Aspect Existing Veg

1 5700 5-15 West Lodgepole pine/Aspen

2 5640 15 Southeast/Northwest/North Aspen/Lodgepole

3 5680 5-15 Northwest to North Lodgepole pine/Aspen

Table 5: Porcupine Pasture – Stand Exam Plot Data

Unit

No.

Compartment Stand Acres Species Avg

Age

Age

Ht

Avg

dbh

TPA

merchantable

dbh

TPA less than

merchantable

dbh

1 244 48 12 Live LP 73 63 10.1 163 107

Live AS --- 55 13.1 65 323

Dead

LP

--- 68 12.0 2 ---

244 49 27 Live LP 64 56 10.8 135 67

Dead LP --- 53 9.9 15 ---

2 244 46 12 Live LP 45 49 10.1 18 ---

Live AS 94 63 11.6 79 766

Dead

AS

--- 61 12.5 12 ---

3 244 48 12 Live LP 73 63 10.1 163 107

Live AS --- 55 13.1 65 323

Dead

LP

--- 68 12.0 2 ---

244 49 22 Live LP 64 56 10.8 135 67

Dead LP --- 53 9.9 15 ---

Currently there is minimal mountain pine bark beetle activity in the proposed area. There are a few

pockets of heavy to moderate lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe located in Unit 1. There is light to

moderate mistletoe present in Units 2 and 3. There is a small percentage of gall rust in the seedling and

sapling sized lodgepole pine trees throughout the project area.



Alternative 1 (No Action) -

With the No Action alternative aspen would continue to be overtopped. Without disturbance, aspen

regeneration will not keep pace with succession and aspen will continue to decline. Species diversity

and fire resistant cover type would decrease within the project area.

Cumulative Effects

There is the potential to lose the aspen component within this area without some disturbance. Quaking

aspen is shade intolerant and cannot reproduce beneath its own canopy.

The remaining mature lodgepole pine would continue to be susceptible to mountain pine beetle attacks

as they increase in age and diameter since mountain pine beetle activity is in close proximity to the

project area. With the potential for increased mountain pine beetle activity trees would die and

eventually fall to the ground with an increase to the large down woody component (surface fuels).

Dwarf mistletoe would continue to increase in the younger trees, reducing the height and diameter

growth, producing lower cone yields, smaller seeds and reduced wood quality and increased tree

mortality.

Gall rust would continue to be present and potentially increase within the stands. There is a risk to some

loss due to tree breakage with high winds and heavy snow loads.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) –

With the proposed action aspen would be favored and the removal of conifers within the aspen patches

will allow for aspen regeneration. An increase in available sunlight and heat to the forest floor will

provide some hormonal stimulation and will produce aspen suckering (Shepperd 2001). Quaking aspen

stands often act as a natural fuel break during wildfires and fires sometimes bypass quaking aspen

stands surrounded by conifers (Rothwell, 1991). The aspen stand in Unit 1 has the potential to move

into late seral. The aspen stand in Unit 2 will remain as a late seral stand until the older aspen dies.

With the removal of the mature lodgepole pine there should be less susceptibility to mountain pine

attacks to the remaining lodgepole pine. From the 2011 Insect and Disease Detention Survey Map the

largest mountain pine beetle population is located approximately five miles east of the project area with

approximately 5-14 trees showing mortality. After treatments remaining stands will be more diverse

with the encouragement of aspen. Stands that are more diverse with tree species, ages, and size classes

may be less susceptible to widespread levels of mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality (Gibson, et

al 2009).

Removing lodgepole pine with dwarf mistletoe will reduce the spread of this disease. In a comparative

study of the effects of dwarf mistletoe on lodgepole height growth in northern Idaho and eastern

Washington, Weir (1916) found a net reduction of 27 percent in the height growth of dwarf mistletoe-

infected stands, Hawksworth and Johnson, (1989) also reported that dwarf mistletoe parasitism had a

significant effect on height growth of infected lodgepole pine but a statistically insignificant effect on

stem diameter growth reduction. Others agree that lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe infections result in

the least amount of diameter growth reduction of any conifer host–dwarf mistletoe-parasite

combination (Hoffman and Taylor, 2008). With some removal of dwarf mistletoe the spread to younger

seedlings and sapling will be reduced, creating a healthier stand overall.

Some of the trees infected with western gall rust would be removed; this would decrease infections

which can cause stem malformations and predispose the tree to breakage in high winds or under heavy

snow loads.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects to the proposed action depend on the direct and indirect effects as well as other

activities. Cumulative effects will be based on the project area.

Manipulating vegetation will produce improved conditions for stand resiliency to disturbance; reduction

in risk to stands from mountain pine beetle; retention and enhancement of aspen species for the long-

term. Late seral aspen will continue to increase. Live and dead fuel accumulations will be reduced.

Probability of severe fire or mixed severity fire in the stands is reduced.

There will be no firewood cutting available. With the increase of aspen there will be an increase of fall

colors which can be seen form the Cave Falls Road.

Adverse cumulative effects are not expected as a result of the implementation of the proposed project.

Late Seral/Old Growth


A team was identified on March 28, 2006 to develop a process and procedure to analyze late seral and

old growth blocks across the Targhee National Forest. The team developed the process paper on April

27, 2006 titled "Process to Identify Late Seral and Old Growth Blocks by Principal Watershed across the

Targhee National Forest.” In this process it was recognized that forest managers on the Targhee

National Forest would use only the best available information which included past stand exam, satellite

imagery, aerial photos, past NEPA analysis and on the ground knowledge and experience, and other

sources of information, looking at each principal watershed (DRAFT Summary of Process and Results of

Late Seral and Old Growth Block Identification). A letter of clarification was issued by the Forest

Supervisor identifying the procedure or process to identify replacement forest acres in principal

watersheds that did not meet the 20 percent guideline. The process used the best available information

the Targhee National Forest currently had (DRAFT Summary of Process and Results of Late Seral and Old

Growth Block Identification).

The project area is located within Watershed 016I (Fall River). This watershed presently does not meet

the guideline of 20% late seral/old growth as defined in the Targhee Revised Forest Plan (TRFP-III-12).

The Forest identified approximately 3,000 acres in 300-acre blocks as late seral/old growth replacement

acres within Watershed 016I to meet the 20% (DRAFT-Results of the Process to Identify Late Serial and

Old Growth Blocks by Principal Watershed across the Targhee National Forest).



Alternative 1 (No Action) –

With the No Action alternative aspen would continue to be overtopped. Without disturbance, aspen

regeneration will not keep pace with succession and aspen will continue to decline. Species diversity

and fire resistant cover type would decrease within the project area.


From the stand exam data, Unit 2 meets the definition of late seral aspen as defined in the 1997 Revised

Forest Plan for the Targhee National Forest. The proposed treatment in Unit 2 would only remove dead

lodgepole pine. No aspen would be cut. This stand will remain a late seral stand until the older aspen

die. No other treatment areas meet the definition of late seral or old growth.

Figure 3: Old Growth/Late Seral Blocks in Watershed 16I

Cumulative Effects

There would be no changes to old growth or late seral stands within the proposed project area.

Project Record: This Environmental Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the Forested

Vegetation Specialist Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report contains the detailed


Botanical Resources


The species being evaluated for the project area are Ute ladies’-tresses, whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis)

and all other sensitive plant species listed for the Targhee NF portion of the Caribou-Targhee NF.




The No Action alternative will have no direct or indirect effects.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) -

Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) is found at Chester Wetlands near St. Anthony within

riparian/wetland habitat. Past surveys have found no populations on the Ashton/Island Park District

(Varga and Lehman 1999, 2000). Range-wide, Ute ladies’-tresses is found below the coniferous forest

zone and 7’000 feet. Project is not considered to be within known or suspect area for Ute ladies’-

tresses and project is all within upland habitat. No Effect.

Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis)- The project is well outside the known and expected habitat for

whitebark pine stands. The project will not directly impact whitebark pine trees, nor indirectly or

cumulatively contribute to their declining populations. If any 5-needle pines are found within the

project area they are treated as “leave trees” and efforts made to avoid damaging the trees. The

determination for this project is No Impact (No Effect if listed under the Endangered Species Act).

Table 6: Region 4 Sensitive Plant Summary and Effects Analysis

Species Suitable Habitat

Known and

Suspected Occurrence(s)

For Targhee NF

Occurrence in

Project Area Effect

Pink agoseris

(Agoseris

lackschewitzii)

Restricted to perennially

wet montane meadows on

a variety of substrates in

which the soil is saturated

throughout the growing

season. Elevation is mid-

montane to subalpine.

(WYNDD 2000)

Known to occur in Centennial

Mountains and Henry's Lake

Mountains.

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

No Impact

(NI)

Sweet-flowered

rock jasmine

(Androsace

chamaejasme var.

carinata)

Rock crevices and

mountain slopes of

limestone and dolomite >

8,500 ft. elevation.

(Mancuso & Heidel 2008)

Suspected to occur in all

districts, however only tracked

as rare in Wyoming.

Documented to occur on Teton

Basin District at one location

within the Teton Range.

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

NI

Meadow milkvetch

(Astragalus

diversifolius)

Mesic. Mostly alkaline,

generally hummocky

meadows in sagebrush

valleys. Elevation 4,400

ft. - 6-300 ft. (IDFG

2002a)

East-central Idaho and N.

Utah. Historical collection

from Green River Basin in W.

Wy. Only known Targhee NF

population is at Birch Creek

Fen, Dubois District.

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

NI

Species Suitable Habitat

Known and

Suspected Occurrence(s)

For Targhee NF

Occurrence in

Project Area Effect

Payson's milkvetch

(Astragalus

paysonii)

Primarily disturbed areas

such as recovering burns,

clear cuts, road cuts, and

blow downs. It is usually

found on sandy soils with

low cover of forbs and

grasses. Elevation 5800

ft. – 9600 ft. (Mancuso &

Heidel 2008)

Known to occur on the portion

of the Palisades RD that is

managed by the Brider-Teton

NF in the Snake River Canyon.

On occurrence (know believed

to be exterpated) exists along

Palisades Reservoir at the

decomissioned Hoffman

Campground. Soils of the

project area are silt loams (soil

report for this project).

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

NI

Dainty moonwort

(Botrychium

crenulatum)

Damp meadows, boggy

areas, and marshes –

known site on the

Targhee is in a moist and

mossy shallow

depression in Picea

engelmannii forest at

6880 feet. (Fertig et al

2008)

Not known to occur on the

Targhee NF, until it was found

in 2008 on the Teton Basin RD

at one location with no

identifiable direct threats

(Heidel & Kesonie 2008).

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

NI

Centennial

rabbitbrush

(Chrysothamnus

parryi ssp.

montanus)

Beaverhead Red

Conglomerate talus

slopes & soils. (Mancuso

& Moseley 1990)

Endemic to the Beaverhead

Red Conglomerates. Dubois

District.

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

NI

Welsh rockcress

draba

(Draba globosa (D.

densifolia var.

apiculata))

Moist, gravelly alpine

meadows & talus slopes,

often on limestone

derived soils. Elevation

10,400 - 12,000 ft.

(WYNDD 2000)

No confirmed Targhee

populations in Idaho.

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

NI

Payson's

bladderpod

(Lesquerella

paysonii)

Sparsely vegetated

ridgelines, less so on

slopes in openings in

sagebrush and forested

stands. Carbonate parent

material with gravelly,

skeletal soils. Elevation

6,000 to 9,950 ft., most

populations above 8,000

ft. (Moseley 1996)

Known for Snake River

Range, Palisades District and

Teton Range, Teton Basin

District.

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

NI

Marsh's Bluegrass

(Poa abbreviata

ssp. marshii)

High alpine rocky slopes,

ridgelines. Elevation for

known populations in

Idaho is 10,000 to 11,700

ft.

Only known location on the

Targhee is northeast ridge of

Diamond Peak at 11,700 ft.

elevation. Dubois District.

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

NI

Salmon twin

bladderpod

(Physaria

didymocarpa var.

lyrata)

Regional endemic plant.

Habitat is gravel, alluvial

fans, steep banks and

open scree (Elev. 4,200 –

7800 ft).

Recent plant surveys have

extended its known range

within the Salmon River

drainage south to the

Beaverhead Mountains on the

Targhee NF(Birch Creek

watershed) .

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

NI

Alkali primrose

(Primula alcalina)

Unique wetlands with

relatively stable spring-

fed hydrology and

strongly alkaline

chemistry. (IDFG

2002b)

Known to occur at Birch Creek

Fen, Dubois District. Not

suspected to occur elsewhere

on the Targhee.

No suitable habitat

or known

occurrences in

project area.

NI

Project Record: This Environmental Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the Botanical

Specialist Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report contains the detailed data,

methodologies, analysis, references, and other technical documentation used in the assessment.

Fisheries and Hydrologic Resources


The hydrology analysis areas for this project are Targhee Principal Watershed (TPW) 016I – Fall River,

Idaho and the Rock Creek Subwatershed. These analysis areas were chosen to ensure consistency with a

Revised Forest Plan (RFP) guideline for hydrological disturbance. The Rock Creek subwatershed is the

sixth-level hydrologic unit code (HUC) clipped to National Forest System (NFS) lands. Table 7 and Figure

4 summarize the TPW, subwatershed, and proposed treatment area.

Table 7: Targhee principal watershed, sixth-level HUC, subwatershed, and the proposed treatment

acreages.

Targhee Principal Watershed Area (acres) Proposed Treatment Area (acres)

TPW 016I – Fall River 16,800 85

Subwatershed

Total HUC

Area (acres)

HUC Area On NFS

Lands (acres)

Proposed Treatment

Area (acres)

170402020503 – Rock Creek 28,390 20,733 85

Figure 4: Targhee Principal watershed, Sixth-Level HUC, project area, and treatment areas.

Impaired Waters, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and BMPs: The IDEQ (2011) has

identified the Porcupine Creek Assessment Unit (ID17040202SK007_02) as supporting the beneficial

uses of coldwater aquatic life, salmonid spawning, and secondary contact recreation. There are no

impaired waters (i.e. 303(d) listed) or TMDLs within the project area (IDEQ 2011, 2010a, & 2010b). BMPs

designed to protect water quality are included in the project design.

Hydrologic Disturbance: A guideline of the RFP is that “Not more than 30% of any of the principal

watersheds and their subwatersheds should be in a hydrologically disturbed condition at any one time”

(RFP Guideline, pg. III-10).

Table 8 provides conservative estimates of the current hydrologic disturbance (HD) across the analysis

areas. Hydrologic disturbance was estimated for two subwatersheds: 1) that portion of the Rock Creek

HUC on NFS lands and 2) just that portion of the Rock Creek HUC located within TPW 016I. See

Appendix A for the hydrologic disturbance analysis.

Table 8: Estimate of the current hydrologic disturbance (HD) in the TPW and subwatersheds.

Targhee Principal Watershed Area (acres) HD Area

(acres) Current HD (%)

TPW 016I – Fall River 16,800 3,290 20%

Subwatersheds

HUC Area On NFS

Lands (acres)

HD Area

(acres) Current HD (%)

170402020503 – Rock Creek HUC on NFS Lands = 20,451 5,487 27%

170402020503 – Rock Creek HUC within TPW 016I = 7,232 1,642 23%



Alternative 1 (No Action) – This alternative would not result in direct change to existing

watershed, stream channel, and riparian conditions. With the exception of possible wildfire or future

projects at some point, no considerable changes to watershed condition are expected.

Water Quality: Water quality in Porcupine Creek would remain high. It may slightly improve as

disturbances from past land management activities recover and through continued improvements in

ongoing management activities (i.e. road, trail, recreation, and livestock management improvements).

Hydrologic Disturbance: This alternative would not result in additional hydrologic disturbance from that

shown in Table 8 (existing conditions). The amount of hydrologic disturbance in the analysis area would

continue to decrease overtime as previously disturbed areas recover.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – This action would result in up to 85 acres of disturbance.

Knowledge of the effects of mastication operations on riparian and watershed conditions are limited

(Dwire & Rhoades 2010). However, monitoring throughout the Intermountain Region demonstrates very

little impact to soil bulk densities (Fishlake NF 2005, Jaros 2003, & Tepler 2005). Therefore, an adaptive

management approach with the project and BMP implementation should minimize direct and indirect

impacts to riparian resources.

Water Quality: Long-term water quality would be maintained through implementation of BMPs. There

may be short term minor impacts to water quality, but this would likely be minimized through the

recommended BMPs.

Stream bank alteration by horses along Porcupine Creek would be reduced by eliminating the creek as a

water source. This would reduce sediment delivery from stream bank erosion directly to the creek.

Long-term improvements in water quality and stream bank stability are expected. Falling conifers across

the tributary AIZ along the Guard Station access road would also likely reduce stream bank alteration by

horses. Riparian vegetation conditions are likely to improve as a result.

Hydrologic Disturbance: This action would create relatively minor amounts of hydrologic disturbance

within the analysis areas (Table 9). As with the existing condition, hydrologic disturbance was estimated

for two subwatersheds: 1) that portion of the Rock Creek HUC on NFS lands and 2) just that portion of

the Rock Creek HUC located within TPW 016I.

Table 9: Hydrologic disturbance created by the proposed action.

Targhee Principal Watersheds Area (acres) Project Generated

HD (acres)

Project Generated

HD (%)

TPW 016I – Fall River 16,800 85 0.5%

Subwatersheds

HUC Area On NFS

Lands (acres)

Project Generated

HD (acres)

Project Generated

HD (%)

170402020503 – Rock Creek HUC on NFS Lands = 20,451 85 0.4%

170402020503 – Rock Creek HUC within TPW 016I = 7,232 85 1%

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action): Long-term water quality would remain high and past hydrologically

disturbed areas would continue to recover.

Water Quality: Water quality in Porcupine Creek is expected to remain high. The beneficial uses would

continue to be supported by the water quality.

Hydrologic Disturbance: TPW 016I and the Rock Creek subwatersheds would continue to recover from

past hydrologic disturbances. Table 8 lists the current hydrologic disturbance to be: 20% disturbed for

TPW 016I-Fall River; 27% disturbed for that portion of the Rock Creek HUC on NFS lands; and 23% for

the portion of the Rock Creek HUC within TPW 016I.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Long-term water quality would remain high. No detrimental

watershed disturbance is expected as a result of the proposed action because it is consistent with the

RFP. Implementation of the BMPs would protect water bodies from pollutants (e.g. sediment).

Water Quality: Long-term water quality would be maintained through implementation of BMPs. The

beneficial uses of Porcupine Creek would continue to be supported by the water quality.

Hydrologic Disturbance: The proposed treatments would create hydrologically disturbed areas. The

impact is expected to be minor and short-lived however because the units would be left fully stocked

with mature trees. Aspen regeneration is also expected in much of the treated areas. The timing and/or

duration of flows are not expected to be a concern because of the relatively small area proposed for

treatment within the larger watershed (USDA FS 2002).

Table 10: Cumulative hydrologic disturbance by principal watershed and subwatershed.

Targhee Principal Watersheds Current

HD (%)

Project Generated

HD (%)

Cumulative

HD (%)

TPW 016I – Fall River 20% 0.5% 21%

Subwatersheds

Current

HD (%)

Project Generated

HD (%)

Cumulative

HD (%)

170402020503 – Rock Creek 27% 0.4% 28%

170402020503 – Rock Creek 23% 1% 24%

Conclusions

RFP Consistency: The proposed action complies with the applicable hydrology-related direction and

standards and guidelines from the RFP.

Compliance: The project is consistent with the pertinent laws, regulations, and directives discussed

above (e.g. CWA, Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 (Floodplain Management and Protection of

Wetlands, respectively), and the Idaho Water Quality Standards).

The treatment area does not contain floodplains or wetlands and the appropriate management

direction is in place to maintain and manage those resources to function at or move toward desired

conditions. The potential effect of the action alternative on these resource conditions is minimized

through implementation of BMPs. No significant effects are expected related to hydrology are

anticipated.

Project Record: This Environmental Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the Fisheries and

Hydrologic Specialist Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report contains the detailed


Soils Resource


The project area is located in the Island Park Subsection. The soil parent material is primarily volcanic

material covered by wind-blown silt, and has been acted upon by fluvial processes. The Targhee

Ecological Unit Inventory (EUI) contains soils information for this area. Ecological units, with their

associated interpretations for management, are identified in a custom soil survey report downloaded

from the USDA Web Soil Survey (Soil Survey Staff, 2012). The dominant map unit is 4029 Greys-

Turnerville silt loams 4-12% slopes. A portion of the project area is mapped 4138 Turnerville silt loam 1-

4% slopes, but the 4029 map unit fits the site better, so management interpretations for map unit 4029

will be used for the project area. Site-specific soils information collected for this project supports the

general accuracy of the EUI. No unstable landforms were identified.


Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) –No fuels reduction will occur under this alternative; therefore, there

will be no direct effects to soils. The existing vegetation would continue to stabilize and provide soil

cover in the project area. Negligible amounts of detrimental disturbance exist in the analysis area, and

CWD meet Forest Plan guidelines. This alternative complies with Forest Plan direction.

Cumulative Effects

For the No Action alternative, there will be no direct or indirect effects to soil or water from fuel

reduction activities. In this alternative, fuel loads would continue to accumulate and pose a wildfire risk.

Although unlikely in any given year, if a wildfire burned the project area, the potential for soil erosion

would likely be greater than the potential erosion anticipated from the proposed fuel reduction

treatment (FUME model results, 2012). This is likely also true in the long-term (100-200 years). Since no

new access roads are needed, despite the increased frequency of entry to maintain the fuel breaks, the

long-term effects to the soil resources will be less than if a wildfire were to occur during the same period

of time (Robichaud et al, 2010, p. 94).

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) -Multiple studies have shown that maintenance of adequate soil

porosity and soil organic matter content is important for continued site productivity and ecological

function (Page-Dumroese et al, 2010). Proposed fuel reduction activities that may affect these soil

properties include skidding logs, slash piling/burning, construction of landings and temporary roads,

road obliteration, and mastication. These activities have the potential to result in temporary reduction

in fine organic litter on the soil surface (1-2 years), and minor amounts of rutting, compaction, soil

displacement, and erosion within repeatedly trafficked areas of the analysis area (Page-Dumroese et al,

2010; Robichaud et al, 2010).

In the short term, erosion would potentially increase from building and using temporary roads, skid

trails and landings. Roads are typically the dominant source of erosion and sediment from managed

forests. Erosion created by road construction or reconstruction is greatest during the first year

(Robichaud et al, 2010). Much of the erosion from roads can be controlled by proper road design,

including considering road-stream connectivity, proper drainage, and maintenance (Robichaud et al,

2010). Obliteration of the temporary roads will likely cause a short-term spike in sediment production,

followed by a rapid reduction in erosion and sedimentation (Robichaud et al, 2010). The project design

features would reduce the potential for erosion from the roads (Seyedbagheri, 1996).

Commercial timber harvest activities are anticipated to result in minor amounts of detrimental soil

conditions, which can negatively affect soil quality. Negligible amounts of detrimental disturbance are

expected from hand treatments (Robichaud et al, 2010), and minor amounts of soil scorch are expected

from the burning of hand piles (just the footprint of the pile). Mastication activities have the potential to

result in minor amounts of compaction, soil displacement, and erosion. Detrimental soil conditions may

be found in the skid trails, log landings, burn piles, and temporary roads.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed fuel-reduction treatments have been shown to be effective at reducing negative effects to

soil resources from a possible wildfire (Graham et al, 2010, p. 44). Although unlikely in any given year, if

a wildfire burned the project area, the potential for soil erosion would likely be greater than the

potential erosion anticipated from the proposed fuel reduction treatment (FuME model results, 2012).

This is likely also true in the long-term (100-200 years). Since no new access roads are needed, despite

the increased frequency of entry to maintain the fuel breaks, the long-term effects to the soil resources

will be less than if a wildfire were to occur during the same period of time (Robichaud et al, 2010, p. 94).

Negligible amounts of detrimental soil disturbance currently exist in the project units. The effects of the

proposed alternative added to the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the

analysis area would result in less than 15% of the area in a condition that meets the definition of

detrimental disturbance in R4 FSM 2550, and a slight, short-term (1-2 year) increase in erosion and

runoff. Site productivity would be maintained.

No irreversible commitments of resources are expected. Irretrievable resource commitments include

temporary loss of productivity on detrimentally disturbed areas of landings, skid trails, and temporary

roads.

Project Record: This Environmental Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the Soils Specialist

Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report contains the detailed data, methodologies,

analysis, references, and other technical documentation used in the assessment.

Scenery Management


The characteristic landscape of the area is one of gentle sloping topography with narrow drainages.

Slopes are generally vegetated with trees – except for the south-facing slopes which are mostly grass

and patches of sagebrush and other small shrubs – giving way to aspen on the ridge in Treatment Area

2. One small intermittent stream divides Treatment Areas 2 and 3 while Porcupine Creek is the north

and eastern boundaries of the project area. There are no unique or unusual landforms, rock formations,

water features, or vegetation patterns in the project area. The mix of deciduous trees and shrubs does

provide some variety of color throughout the project area – especially during the fall season - but it is

not anything unusual, unique, or outstanding from adjacent landscapes along the main road and riparian

areas beyond the project area.

The visual variety or scenic attractiveness classifications of the project area is generally Class B – Typical

– stands with a mix of coniferous and deciduous vegetation. The other variety class is Class C –

Indistinctive - areas of mostly coniferous (primarily lodgepole pine) stands. There are no Variety Class A

– Distinctive – landscapes in the project area. The landscape is one of ordinary or common scenic

quality. There are missing attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony,

uniqueness, pattern, and balance. Some intrusions exist such as gravel roads, steel posts and wire

fences, cattle guards, post and pole fences, and a mix of man-made structures.

Scenic Integrity – This indicates the degree of intactness and wholeness of the landscape character. The

project area has a Moderate or slightly altered appearance (Partial Retention). Deviations from the

characteristic landscape exists in the form of the entrance road, cleared area for gravel stockpiling,

burning slash, etc., wire fences around the perimeter, pole fences at the guard station, and a variety of

building styles at the guard station – to include TV satellite dish, propane tanks, picnic tables, volleyball

net, fire circle, etc. and large gravel parking lot. The Visual Quality Objectives Map (Map 3 in the 1997

RFP) shows the project area with two objectives – Partial Retention and Modification.

Landscape Visibility – This is an indication of where the project area can be viewed from. The area from

which the project can be seen is limited to the Cave Falls Road and two to three private homes in the

subdivision near the west boundary of the project area.

Concern Level – The degree of concern of those using the Cave Falls road is moderate as the road is not

a primary (high use) travel route – only a secondary road of low to medium use levels. Those individuals

viewing the project area from their private homes would have a higher concern level for what they see,

but individuals in most of those homes see very little of the project area since they are located in the

draws looking up to the western ridge of the project area boundary. Very little of the areas can be seen

except from one home that is located further to the north and closer to the ridge top (looking east into

the project area near Treatment Area 2). Those traveling the Cave Falls Road are concerned about what

they see, but their concern level for scenery is generally only moderate to low due to the type of

recreation they are involved in and the low scenic variety of the landscape.

Distance Zone – The viewing distance from which the project area can be seen is in the Immediate

Foreground (0-300’) for a short distance along the Cave Falls Road. The seen area (at the entrance to

the project area) is only visible for a very brief period as the viewer quickly passes by proposed

Treatment Area 1. The other Foreground (300’-1/2 mile) viewing area is along the west boundary of the

project area – as seen from the private residences. However here, very little is visible as the homes sit in

the inferior position below the ridge line and can see very little of Treatment Areas 1 and 2. One home

sitting further up the ridge would be able to see more of Treatment Area 2 in particular, but only for a

short distance. It is doubtful they would be able to see much of the northern portion of Treatment Area

3. Given the type of stand treatments proposed, the trees in Treatment Area 2 would screen much of

what might be visible of Treatment Area 3. Even then, the harvest or treatment methods should look

fairly natural and provide a bit more variety in the landscape than currently exists.

The road into the guard station and the guard station area itself are not “public” roads or facilities.

Therefore users (government employees) of this road and facility are not so much concerned with the

visual aspects of the area as the “general public users” would be.



Alternative 1 (No Action) -This alternative will have no effect on visual resources because no

disturbance would occur. Conditions would remain as stated above in current condition.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) -For Treatment Area 1 along the Cave Falls Road, care should be

taken not to create a strong cut line along the fence line running east and west – where there are some

small aspen stands (the short distances seen from the Cave Falls Road at that point). Feathering the

trees from the fence line out into the stands will help maintain a more open park like appearance. This

same practice may be necessary along portions of the west boundary fence line that is visible from the

single family residences. The proposed treatment for treatment area 2 and 3 should for the most part

not be very noticeable as it is only partially visible from one or two single family residences on the west

boundary of the project area.

Cumulative Effects

The appearance after treatment should be more visually pleasing than what exits before treatment.

Cleaning up some of the foreground debris (as seen from access Road 242) can give it a more open park-

like appearance along with thinning some of the stands by removing some trees. Care should be taken

in selecting the best access route to the area by the mastication machine or other vehicles necessary to

access the stand. Do not cross the small drainage with any vehicles – that area from just west of the

second and third cattle guards to access the north facing slope of the area. Overall, there should be

more variety in stand appearance after treatment. In summary, the desired Scenic Integrity

Objective/Visual Quality Objectives of High/Retention and Moderate/Partial Retention would be met

after treatment of these three areas has been completed.

Project Record: This Environmental Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the Scenery

Management Specialist Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report contains the detailed


Wildlife Resources


For the purpose of this EA, a number of wildlife species were selected for detailed analysis including the

existing condition of wildlife habitat, as well as the effects of the proposed action on the habitat. These

species include all listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), all sensitive species designated

by the Regional forester in the Intermountain Region, and priority migratory bird species or Birds of

Conservation Concern (BCC) designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (2008). Species with no

evidence of suitable habitat (occupy able, breeding, travel, nesting, denning) were not analyzed in

detail. Table 11 provides a list of these species that may be affected by project activities.




This alternative would not result in direct change to existing wildlife or habitat conditions. With the

exception of possible wildfire or future projects at some point, no considerable changes to wildlife or

habitat are expected (Table 11).


Table 11: ESA Listed, Sensitive Species, MIS, Migratory BCC That may be Affected by Project Activities,

Species Call and Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the Preferred Action Alternatives on Species

with Issues.

Wildlife

Species

/

Species

Status T = Threatened

(ESA)

C = Candidate

(ESA)

S = Forest

Service sensitive

species

MIS =

Management

Indicator

Species

Suitable Habitat in or

Adjacent to the Project

Area

Species Call

NE = No Effect

NLAA = May

Affect, Not Likely

to Adversely

Affect

LAA = May

Affect, Likely to

Adversely Affect

BE = Beneficial

Effect

NI = No Impact

MIIH = 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

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Canada lynx

/

T

The project area is within lynx

travel habitat. The lynx diet is

96% snowshoe hare in both

summer and winter (Squires,

2006). There is no evidence that

NLAA Project activities have the potential to

disturb dispersing sub-adult lynx

during winter or adults participating

in summer exploratory movements.

Project activities will alter 0.03% of

lynx occupy the Ashton-Island

Park District.

the travel habitat on the Ashton-

Island Park Ranger District. However,

project activities do not involve

development, highways, or large

openings; which would decrease

habitat connectivity. Thus, lynx

movement would not be impeded.

For the cumulative effects analysis,

the analysis area includes the travel

habitat (approximately 260,000 acres)

of the Ashton-Island Park District.

Projects that will occur in the future

in district travel habitat include Black

Canyon TSI (pre-commercial

thinning) (7760 acres), Island Park

Horse Pasture prescribed burn (40

acres), North Island Park WUI

thinning/timber harvest (819 acres),

10-year maintenance of the Green

Canyon fuel break (100 acres), and

Porcupine thinning/timber

harvest/aspen regeneration (85 acres).

These projects total 8804 acres or

3.3% of district travel habitat. All of

these projects will remove vegetation,

but will still allow for movement by

lynx. Highway and road construction

and re-construction are the primary

inhibitors of lynx movement in

linkage habitat, but there are no

present or reasonably foreseeable

projects in the AIP travel habitat that

involve these activities.

Columbia

spotted frog

/

S, MIS

Spotted frogs are considered

common on the District and

would be expected in most

perennial streams or lentic

aquatic systems. The project area

contains Porcupine Creek, a

perennial stream, and 2

intermittent riparian corridors.

The former may provide summer

foraging or over-winter habitat

and a link to marshy breeding

habitat upstream. The latter may

be movement corridors for

spotted frogs.

MIIH

spotted frogs could be exposed to

mastication, sawing, hand piling, and

burning activities during the

migration period of August to

September.

sawing activities in the riparian zones

in August and September could

directly impact spotted frogs.

Sawing, hand piling, and burning

have the potential to alter habitat

within the 2 intermittent riparian

zones. However, soil and hydrologic

best management practices, addition

of downed woody debris to riparian

zones, and aspen regeneration will

limit impacts and enhance riparian

habitat.


the analysis area is the Falls River

Watershed.

Future projects in the cumulative

effects analysis area may be

vegetative management projects, but

hydrologic best management

practices and forest plan riparian

protections will limit effects to

spotted frogs during project activities.

Further, forest-wide amphibian

surveys have occurred every decade

since 1992. The results of the last 2

decade surveys (1992 and 2002) were

compared to assess if amphibian

species were declining on the Targhee

National Forest and there was no

indication that amphibian species,

including spotted frogs, were

declining (Jochimsen, 2003).

Grizzly bear

/

T,S,MIS

The project area is less than 500

meters from a road, so is not in

secure habitat. Radio-tracking

data indicates grizzly bear use of

nearby areas: The Falls River

Ridge area is adjacent to the

south edge of the project area.

This area receives concentrated

bear use during fall years with

good berry crops (B. Aber,

IDFG/CTNF Carnivore Biologist,

pers. comm.).

NLAA Project activities will alter habitat on

0.04% of the Bechler-Teton BMU in

the project area. However, none of the

project area is secure habitat (greater

than 500 meters from a road), nor

does it contain the 4 key foods

(winter-killed ungulates, army

cutworm moth aggregation sites,

spawning cutthroat trout, and/or

whitebark pine cones).

Project activities, including sawing

and mastication have the potential to

disturb grizzly bears. However,

mastication will not occur during

September and October to prevent

disturbance to grizzly bears foraging

on berries during hyperphagia in the

Falls River Ridge area. Thus,

disturbance effects should be

minimal.


the analysis area is the Bechler-Teton

BMU on the Ashton-Island Park

District.

No other vegetation management

projects are planned for the Bechler-

Teton BMU at this time. The GYE

grizzly bear is fully-recovered and

meeting/exceeding recovery plan

requirements. Further, the GYE

population is increasing at the rate of

3 to 4% per year (ICST, 2007), which

predicates a population doubling

every 25 years. The 2003 GYE

Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy

addresses all factors that contribute to

grizzly bear declines and maintains a

recovered population. This strategy

directs all relevant activities of the

Targhee National Forest.

Yellow-billed

Cuckoo

/

C

There is no habitat for Yellow-

billed Cuckoo on the Ashton-

Island Park district.

NE

Greater Sage

Grouse

/

C

There is no habitat for Sage

Grouse in the project area.

NE

Wolverine

/

C

This project is not within denning

habitat.

NE

Boreal Toad

/

S

There is no indication that toads

would be present in the project

area.

NI

American

Three-toed

Woodpecker

/

S

A survey for Three-toed

Woodpeckers does not

demonstrate presence of this

species in the project area

NI

Bald Eagle

/

S

There are no site specific

concerns for this project related

to Bald Eagle habitat.

NI

Boreal Owl

/

S

The project area does not appear

to have suitable habitat for Boreal

Owls.

NI

Columbian

Sharp-tailed

Grouse

/

S

The project area does not contain

suitable habitat for sharp-tailed

grouse.

NI

Common

Loon

/

S

There is no common loon habitat

in the project area.

NI

Flammulated

Owl

/

S

There are no known active or

historic Flammulated Owl nest

territories in the project area.

NI If Flammulated Owls are present in

the project area, they would be

expected to nest in mature aspen.

Project activities are designed to

promote aspen retention and

regeneration. So, current potential

nest trees will be retained and aspen

regeneration may provide future nest

trees and nesting habitat for this

species in the long-term.

Great Gray

Owl

/

S

There are no known active or

historic Great Gray Owl nest

territories in the project area.

NI

Harlequin

Duck

/

S

There is no suitable habitat on the

Ashton-Island Park District.

NI

Northern

Goshawk

/

S

It is estimated that 50% of the

Targhee National Forest has been

surveyed for goshawks. There are

17 historic or active goshawk

territories that have been

identified on the Ashton-Island

Park District. The project area is

within the historic Porcupine

goshawk territory (D3-08). The

Nest Area (NA) and Post-

fledging Family Area (PFA) of

the historic goshawk territory,

D3-08, overlaps with Unit 1. In

addition, the PFA of this nest also

overlaps with the southern

portion of Unit 3.

Survey results suggest that the

Porcupine goshawk territory may

be occupied, but the nest tree is

not within the project area or a

700-meter buffer around it.

NI There is no evidence that the current

NA overlaps with the project area, so

the management season restriction

standard does not apply.

The current size-class distribution is

0% non-stocked/seedling, 0% sapling,

15% pole, and 85% mature/old-

growth. Project activities will remove

17 acres of mature lodgepole pine,

resulting in 2% non-stocked/seedling

(aspen), 0% sapling, 15% pole, and

83% mature/old-growth. No old-

growth stands will be removed by

project activities.

Project activities will create openings.

However, after the lodgepole pine is

removed, the aspen is expected to

regenerate. Aspen suckers can grow 1

to 2 meters in the first 2 years and be

3 to 5 meters high in 5 years

(Shepperd, 2006).

The snag retention guidelines for all

Units are 6 snags per acre or 60%

biological potential.

A GIS analysis was conducted to

determine if at least 60% of the

forested acres of the analysis area

contain an average of 21 logs per

acre. The Revised Forest Plan

provides direction to assume that all

un-managed stands meet the dead and

down requirement. All late-seral

stands are considered un-managed.

The analysis area is assumed to be the

historic Porcupine goshawk territory.

GIS analysis revealed that at least

65% of the Porcupine goshawk

territory contains late-seral forest

stands.

No new road systems will be

constructed with this project.

Peregrine

Falcon

/

S

No peregrine falcon eyries are

within 2 miles of the project area.

NI

Trumpeter

Swan

/

S

There is no suitable swan habitat

in or adjacent to the project area.

The project area is not within or

adjacent to Trumpeter Swan

nesting habitat.

NI

Bighorn

Sheep

/

S

There is no suitable bighorn

sheep habitat in the project area.

NI

Fisher

/

S

There is no fisher habitat in the

project area.

There have been no reliable

fisher sightings on the Ashton-

Island Park Ranger District.

There is no late-seral or old-

growth habitat within the project

area.

NI

Gray Wolf

/

S

The project area may overlap

with the Bitch Creek pack

territory.

The most recent annual report

from the Idaho Department of

Fish and Game (IDFG)

documents 746 wolves, 40

breeding pairs, and a minimum of

177 pups in Idaho (IDFG&NPT,

2012). Consequently, there are

greater than 6 packs present and

females and pups can be

removed.

NI

Pygmy

Rabbit

/

S

There is no pygmy rabbit habitat

in the project area.

NI

Spotted Bat

/

S

Suitable spotted bat roosting

habitat is not present in the

project area.

NI Project activities will have no impact

on spotted bat roosting habitat.

Townsend’s

big-eared bat

/

S

There are no known Townsend’s

bat cave, mine, abandoned

building, lava tube, or bridge

roosting sites in the project area,

but there may be tree-roosting

sites in the project area.

NI Project activities will remove trees

within the project area, but

Townsend’s bat use of tree roost sites

is not expected. Roosts in rock

crevice habitat will not be disturbed

or destroyed. The protection of

maternal and hibernal roosts of

Townsend’s bats is paramount to the

conservation of this species and

project activities will have no impact

on these sites.

Project Record: This Environmental Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the Wildlife Biological

Assessment Specialists Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report contains the detailed


Cultural Resources

A cultural resource survey has been conducted for this project and three cultural values have been

identified, they are outside the impact zones and the project plans will avoid them. The proposed

alternative has been determined to have NO ADVERSE EFFECT on any known cultural resources.

Project Record: This Environmental Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the Cultural

Resources Analysis in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report contains the detailed data,

methodologies, analysis, references, and other technical documentation used in the assessment.

Recreation Resources


There are no developed recreation sites (trailheads and developed campgrounds) within the project

area. A plowed parking area at the forest boundary on the Cave Falls Road serves as an undeveloped

trailhead for the Fall River Ridge Cross Country Ski Trail and as parking area for snowmobilers. This

parking area receives moderate use during the winter season.

There are dispersed camping areas located along Porcupine Creek approximately ½ mile east of the

project area. Some use of the project area occurs during the fall big game hunting season.

The Cave Falls Road is located along the southern boundary of the project area. It provides access to the

area including access to Cave Falls Campground as well as Bechler Ranger Station in the southwest

corner of Yellowstone National Park. The Cave Falls Road is also part of the groomed snowmobile trail

system in the area. In recent years there has been an increase in use of the road by OHV’s.

There are no trails within the project area. The Fall River Ridge Cross Country Ski Trail is located just

south of the project area and is accessed from the Cave Falls Road. The Cave Falls Snowmobile Trail is

located along the south end of the project area. These trails are groomed during the winter season

beginning approximately December 15 and ending around March 20 each year.

There is an overhead powerline that runs through the project area. There is a buried phone line that

runs parallel to the access road into Porcupine Guard Station.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) setting for the project area is primitive to semi primitive

motorized as prescribed in the Revised Targhee Forest Plan.

The area is closed to cross country motorized use during the summer months.



Alternative 1 (No Action) – This alternative will have no effect on recreation resources because no


Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – The potential exists to increase illegal motorized use in the

area because of the increase in openings created by the project.

The Fall River Ridge Cross Country Ski Trail is located just south of the project area and is accessed from

the Cave Falls Road. The Cave Falls Snowmobile Trail is located along the south end of the project area.

Conflict could occur at the plowed parking area when project operations occur during the winter season.

Cumulative Effects

To reduce potential illegal cross country motorized use developing in the project area, avoid creating

openings or potential pathways that are visible from the Cave Falls Road. Some mitigation of these

potential effects is realized by the gate closure on the road and the pasture fence.

Providing signing in the plowed parking area for the Cave Falls snowmobile trail and the Fall River ridge

cross country ski trail if activities occur during the winter months would avoid conflicts.

If the mitigations actions are followed, the proposed action for this project is expected to have minimal

effects to the Recreation and Special Use resources in the area.

Project Record: Project Record: This Environmental Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the

Recreation Resources Analysis in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report contains the detailed


Range Resources


Invasive species are present within the project area. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Houndstongue

(Cynoglossum officinale), and Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula), are of concern within the project area.

Leafy Spurge is the number one invasive species of concern within the project area. Existing invasive

species shall be treated prior to project implementation, mitigated for during project implementation

and monitored for effectiveness after project implementation. District records indicate that there have

been several treatments of invasive species in and surrounding the project area. There have also been

documented releases of the bio-control agent for Leafy Spurge (Apthona nigriscutus) Black dot leafy

spurge flea beetle but can take three to five years to see a decline in the population of Leafy Spurge

after a Biological Release. Bio-releases don’t seem to work as well on scattered populations as they do

in more dense infestations. There have been no sightings of the flea beetle within the project area in

the last eight years. Current treatments of invasive species are done with herbicides. The total

infestation of all noxious weeds totaled approximately six acres. That represents just over a three

percent total infestation. In 2011 the total acres sprayed was barely two acres (less than one percent

infestation). The infestations are held to the road systems, south facing slopes, and where the District

stock trail and loaf.



Alternative 1 (No Action) – This alternative will have no effect on range resources because no


Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) –The proposed action could potentially create new areas for

invasive species to become established. The creation of small openings and piling and burning would be

of concern. The risk of spread is assumed to be minimal. There is evidence that District stock (through

trails and “dusting/loafing” areas) may increase the spread of invasive species.

Cumulative Effects

The risk of invasive species increasing during the project is expected to be negligible. Any invasive

species is of concern because they can produce significant changes to vegetation, composition,

structure, and ecosystem function by outcompeting native vegetation. The District will use its

Integrated Pest Management Strategy, Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) to continue the

treatment of invasive species. EDRR has been successful in reducing the spread of invasive species.

Cleaning vehicles prior to entering the project area would reduce the risk of spread. Visual inspections

of the disturbed sites will be conducted for at least two growing seasons following the project (EDRR).

Project Record: This Environmental Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the Range Specialist

Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This report contains the detailed data, methodologies,

analysis, references, and other technical documentation used in the assessment.

Travel Considerations

The Porcupine Project may infrequently slow traffic on the Cave Falls Road, and any delays will be of

short duration due to equipment removal of forest products. The proposed action alternative should

not significantly affect forest user travel.

Chapter 4

Consultation and Coordination

Public Involvement

Scoping

The Porcupine Pasture project has been listed on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Schedule of

Proposed Actions since July 1, 2011. The scoping letter and notice of comment was released and a legal

notice was published in the Idaho Falls Post Register on November 29, 2011. A total of 4 responses

were received. Implementation was revised as a result of public comments. The comments and our

responses are contained within the project record, which is available for review at the Island Park

District Office.

Public Meeting

A public meeting was held at the Ashton Ranger District Office on October 2, 2012 at 600 PM to provide

project area information, present the proposed action, and discuss concerns about the Porcupine

Pasture project. The meeting was announced in the Rexburg Standard Journal on September 29, 2012

and an invitation to attend was sent to interested individuals and organizations on the District NEPA

mailing list on September 24, 2012. The meeting was attended by six persons, implementation was

revised as a result of 4 public comments.

List of Organizations, Agencies, and Persons Consulted

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State and local agencies, tribes, and non-

Forest-Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

Tribal Authorities:

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Elected Officials:

Office of Congressman Michael Simpson

Office of Senator Michael Crapo

Office of Senator James E. Risch

State and Local Agencies and Officials:

Office of Fremont County Commissioners, ID

Office of Fremont County Planning and Zoning, ID

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Idaho Department of Lands

Organizations, Private Citizens, and Businesses:

Letters were mailed to 20 additional individuals, organizations, and businesses.

Literature cited

References:

Adams, M.J., et. al. 2009. Short-term effect of cattle exclosures on Columbia spotted frog (Rana

luteiventris) populations and habitat in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Herpetology, 434:132-138.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1670/08-016R2.1

Bull, E.L. and M. Hayes. 2000. Livestock effects on reproduction of the Columbia Spotted Frog. Journal of

Range Management. 53: 291-294.

Caribou-Targhee National Forest Fire Management Plan, Appx J – 2009 Fire Mitigation & Education Plan

Clark, R. and C.R. Peterson. 1994. Yearly variation in amphibian sampling on the Targhee National

Forest. Idaho State Univeristy and The Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello, ID. 152p.

District Rangeland Management Files. Ashton-Island Park Ranger Station, Ashton, Idaho.

District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Caribou-Targhee NF. Idaho Falls, ID.

Dwire, K.A. & C.C. Rhoades. 2010. Chapter 10, Potential Effects of Fuel Management Activities on

Riparian Areas. In: Elliot, William J.; Miller, Ina Sue; Audin, Lisa. Eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects

of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1670/08-016R2.1

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 299 p.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr231.html

Elliot, W.J., I.S. Miller, & L. Audin, Eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the

western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 299 p.


Fahrig, L. and T. Rytwinski. 2009. Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and

synthesis. Ecology and Society 14:21-41. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art21.

Federal Register, July 19th, 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on

a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2010-0047; MO 92210-0-0008.

Fertig, Walt, Joy Handley and Bonnie Heidel. 2008. State Species Abstract-Wyoming Natural Diversity

Database: Botrychium crenulatum (Crenulate moonwort). Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

(WyNDD). University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY. 2009 (accessed): Plant Species Abstracts online at:

http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/

Fertig, Walter, Rick Black & Paige Wolken. 2005. Range-wide Status Review of Ute ladies’-tresses

(Spiranthes diluvialis). Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Central Utah Water

Conservancy District. Salt Lake City, UT.

Fischer, W.C. 1981. Photo guide for appraising downed woody fuels in Montana forests: interior

ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine-larch-Douglas-fir, larch-Douglas-fir, and interior Douglas-fir cover types.

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-97. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. Also published by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group as PMS

820/NFES 2293

Fishlake NF. 2005. Mechanical Vegetative Treatments, Soil Monitoring, Dixie Harrow and Brush Hog.

Fishlake NF

Forest Health Protection 2011 Insect and Disease Detection Survey CD, Director, State, and Private

Forestry.

Forman, R.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics, 29:207-231+C.

http://pracownia.org.pl/pliki/roads_and_their_major_ecological_effects.pdf

Fryer, Janet L. 2002. Pinus albicaulis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2011, September 6].



http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art21

http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/

http://pracownia.org.pl/pliki/roads_and_their_major_ecological_effects.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

Graham, Russell T. et al, Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and

Severity, RMRS-GTR-120, April 2004

Graham, Russell T.; Harvey, Alan E.; Jurgensen, Martin F.; Jain, Theresa B.; Tonn, Jonalea R.; Page-

Dumroese, Deborah S. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res.

Pap. INT-RP-477. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, lntermountain Research

Station. 12 p..

Graham, Russell T.; Jain, Theresa B.; Loseke, Mark. 2009. Fuel treatments, fire suppression, and their

interaction with wildfire and its impacts: the Warm Lake experience during the Cascade Complex of

wildfires in central Idaho, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-229. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 36 p..

Graham, Russell T.; Jain, Theresa B.; Matthews, Susan. 2010. Fuel management in forests of the Inland

West. In: Elliot, William J.; Miller, Ina Sue; Audin, Lisa, eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel

management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 19-68..

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Whitebark Pine Subcommittee. 2011. Whitebark Pine

Strategy for the Greater Yellowstone Area. Unpublished report. 41p.

http://www.fedgycc.org/documents/WBPStrategyFINAL5.31.11.pdf. Accessed 7/27/2011.

Grier, C.C.; Lee, K.M.; Nadkarni, N.M. [and others]. 1989. Productivity of forests of the United States and

its relation to soil and site factors and management practices: a review.. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-222.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Heidel, Bonnie and Dave Kesonie. 2008. Teton Canyon Botanical Survey, Caribou-Targhee National

Forest. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WyNDD). University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY.

Hoffman, J.T., Taylor J.E., 2008. Thinning Demonstration of Dwarf Mistletoe-infected Lodgepole Pine

Stands in Eastern Idaho: 1983 to 2003 Permanent Plot Results.

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2012. Rules of the Department of Environmental

Quality, IDAPA 58.01.02, Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements. Website

accessed on 5/1/2012: http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/0102.pdf

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.

Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/cwcs/

Idaho Department of Lands (IDL). 2012. IDAPA 20.02.01, “Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices

Act.” http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/20/index.html

Idaho Department of Lands. 2010. Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act.

http://www.fedgycc.org/documents/WBPStrategyFINAL5.31.11.pdf

http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/0102.pdf

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/cwcs/

http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/20/index.html

IDEQ. 2009. Idaho 2008 Interagency Forest Practices Water Quality Audit, Rule Compliance and Stream

Crossing Assessment. November 2009. http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/829539-forest-practices-

audit-2008.pdf

IDEQ. 2010a. Upper and Lower Henry’s Fork Total Maximum Daily Loads: Addendum to the Upper

Henry’s Fork Subbasin Assessment and TMDLs, Final. June 2010.

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water/data_reports/surface_water/tmdls/snake_river_henrys_fork/henrys_

fork_snake_river.cfm#review

IDEQ. 2010b. Upper and Lower Henry’s Fork TMDL Five-Year Review, Upper and Lower Henry’s Fork Five

Year Review. Department of Environmental Quality. April 2010. http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-

quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/henry's-fork-upper-and-lower-subbasin.aspx

IDEQ. 2011. Idaho’s 2010 Integrated Report, Final. State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality.

Boise, Idaho. August 2011. http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/monitoring-

assessment/integrated-report.aspx#2010-IR

IDFG-Natural Heritage Program. 2002a. Species Account: Astragalus diversifolius. Idaho Department of

Fish and Game. Guide to Rare Plants of the Pocatello and Idaho Falls Field Offices, Bureau of Land

Management. Boise, ID.

IDFG-Natural Heritage Program. 2002b. Species Account: Primula alcalina. Idaho Department of Fish and

Game. Guide to Rare Plants of the Pocatello and Idaho Falls Field Offices, Bureau of Land Management.

Boise, ID.

Interagency Conservation Strategy Team (ICST). 2007. Final conservation strategy for the grizzly bear in

the Greater Yellowstone Area, 88p. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-

prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/Final_Conservation_Strategy.pdf

Jaros, R. 2003. Initial Evaluation of Mechanical Pinyon-Juniper Removal Utilizing a Franklin Brush Hog.

Dixie National Forest.

Jochimsen, D., C. R. Peterson, and R. Clark. 2003. Changes in amphibian occurrence and distribution

between 1992-1993 and 2002 on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Idaho State Univeristy and The

Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello, ID. 104p.

Mancuso, Michael & Bonnie Heidel. 2008. Wyoming Plant Species of Concern on Caribou-Targhee

National Forest: 2007 Survey Results. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WyNDD). University of

Wyoming. Laramie, WY.

Mancuso, Michael & Robert E. Moseley. 1990. Field Investigation of Chrysothamnus parryi ssp.

Montanus. A Region 4 Sensitive Species on the Targhee National Forest. Idaho Department of Fish and

Game. Boise, ID.

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/829539-forest-practices-audit-2008.pdf

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/829539-forest-practices-audit-2008.pdf

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water/data_reports/surface_water/tmdls/snake_river_henrys_fork/henrys_fork_snake_river.cfm#review

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water/data_reports/surface_water/tmdls/snake_river_henrys_fork/henrys_fork_snake_river.cfm#review

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/henry's-fork-upper-and-lower-subbasin.aspx

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/henry's-fork-upper-and-lower-subbasin.aspx

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/monitoring-assessment/integrated-report.aspx#2010-IR

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/monitoring-assessment/integrated-report.aspx#2010-IR

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/Final_Conservation_Strategy.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/Final_Conservation_Strategy.pdf

Moseley, Robert K. 1996. Report on the Conservation Status of Lesquerella Paysonii in Idaho. Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center. Boise, Id.

MOU Implementing the Nonpoint Source Water Quality Program in the State of Idaho. 2008. FS#08-

11046000-015.

Naiman, R.J., C.A. Johnston, and J.C. Kelley. 1988. Alteration of North American streams by beaver.

BioScience. 38: 753-762.

Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. 2005. 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. 250p.

Page-Dumroese, Deborah S.; Jurgensen, Martin F.; Curran, Michael P.; DeHart, Sharon M. 2010.

Cumulative effects of fuel treatments on soil productivity. In: Elliot, William J.; Miller, Ina Sue; Audin,

Lisa, eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. p. 164-174..

Patla, D.A. and D. Keinath. 2005. Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris formerly R. pretiosa): a

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 88p.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiaspottedfrog.pdf

Pilliod, D.S., et.al. 2010. Non-native salmonids affect amphibian occupancy at multiple spatial scales.

Diversity and Distributions, 16:959-974. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-

4642.2010.00699.x/full

Porcupine Stand Exam, 2012

Revised Targhee Forest Plan, 1997. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Idaho Falls, ID., Pages not

numbered sequentially.

Robichaud, Pete R.; MacDonald, Lee H.; Foltz, Randy B. 2010. Fuel Management and Erosion. In: Elliot,

William J.; Miller, Ina Sue; Audin, Lisa, eds. Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the

Western US. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station p. 79-100..

Rothwell, R.L.; Woodard, P.M.; Samran, S. 1991. The effect of soil water on aspen liter moisture content.

In: Andrews, Patricia L.; Potts, Donald F., eds. Proceedings, 11th conference on fire and forest

metrology; 1991 April 16-19; Missoula, MT Bethesda, MD; Society of American Foresters; 117-123.

Ruediger, B., et. al. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI

Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest

Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 p.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/carnivore/Lynx/lcas.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiaspottedfrog.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00699.x/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00699.x/full

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/carnivore/Lynx/lcas.pdf

Schnepf, Chris; Graham, Russell T.; Kegley, Sandy; Jain, Theresa B. 2009. Managing organic debris for

forest health: Reconciling fire hazard, bark beetles, wildlife, and forest nutrition needs. Moscow, ID:

University of Idaho, Pacific Northwest Extension. 60 p..

Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson, and K. West. 2011. 2010 grizzly bear habitat monitoring report. in C.C.

Schwartz, M.A. Haroldson, and K. West (editors). Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report

of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2010. US Geological Survey, Bozeman, MT, USA.

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/IGBST/2010report_10_13_2011.pdf

Scott, Joe H. and Burgan, Robert E., Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use

with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Mode, RMRS-GTR-153 June 2005

Scott, Joe H. and Reinhardt, Elizabeth D., Estimating Canopy Fuels in Conifer Forests, Fire Management

Today p. 45-50, Volume 62 No. 4 Fall 2002

Seyedbagheri, Kathleen A. 1996. Idaho forestry best management practices: compilation of research on

their effectiveness. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-339. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 89 p..

Shepperd, Wayne D. 2001. Manipulations to regenerate aspen ecosystems. USDA Forest Service

Proceedings, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-P-18, May 2001. Pages 355-366

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil

Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Targhee National Forest, Idaho and Wyoming]. Available

online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed [3/30/2012]. Reports generated from this data

include a Map Unit Description Report and an Off-Road/Off-Trail Hazard Interpretation Report.

Soils field notes. 2012

Squires, J. R. and R. Oakleaf. 2005. Movements of a male Canada lynx crossing the Greater Yellowstone

Area, including highways. Northwest Science 79:196-201.

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/LynxmovementacrossGYA_Squires/LynxmovementacrossGYA_S

quires.pdf

Squires, J.R., L.F. Ruggiero, J.A. Kolbe, N.J. DeCesare. 2006. Lynx ecology in the intermountain West.

USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 51p.

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/Lynx_Research_Program_Summary7_19_06_Final/Lynx_Resear

ch_Program_Summary7_19_06_Final.pdf

Swanston, D.N. 1974. Slope stability problems associated with timber harvesting in mountainous regions

of the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-21. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p..

Targhee National Forest (TNF). 1997. Process Paper D - Wildlife Analysis for the Targhee Forest Plan

Revision. Targhee National Forest, St. Anthony, ID. 309p + attachments.

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/IGBST/2010report_10_13_2011.pdf

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/LynxmovementacrossGYA_Squires/LynxmovementacrossGYA_Squires.pdf

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/LynxmovementacrossGYA_Squires/LynxmovementacrossGYA_Squires.pdf

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/Lynx_Research_Program_Summary7_19_06_Final/Lynx_Research_Program_Summary7_19_06_Final.pdf

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/Lynx_Research_Program_Summary7_19_06_Final/Lynx_Research_Program_Summary7_19_06_Final.pdf

Tepler. R. 2005. Detrimental Soil Disturbance Monitoring of the Gyro Trac Mulching Machine, West Side

Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Caribou-Targhee NF. Idaho Falls, ID.

Tepler. R. 2005. Detrimental Soil Disturbance Monitoring of the Gyro Trac Mulching Machine, West Side

Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Caribou-Targhee NF. Idaho Falls, ID.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Targhee National Forest Ecological Unit

Inventory. June 1997, p. 121 & 298-301.

Unpublished 2007 Targhee Soils Monitoring Report. 2007. Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

Unpublished 2008 Targhee Soils Monitoring Report. 2008. Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

Unpublished Alpine Fuels Monitoring. 2005. Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

Unpublished Willow Timber Sale Soil Monitoring. 2004. Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Canada lynx recovery outline. Montana Field Office, Helena,

MT. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/lynx/final%20lynx%20RecoveryOutline9-

05.pdf

USDA Forest Service (USDA). 2006. Caribou-Targhee National Forest forest plan monitoring and

evaluation report, 1997-2004. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Idaho Falls, ID. 262p.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT

8MwRydLA1cj72DTUE8TAwjQL8h2VAQAMtzFUw!!/?ss=110415&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=STEL

PRDB5116379&navid=130100000000000&pnavid=130000000000000&position=SubFeature*&ttype=de

tailfull&pname=Caribou-Targhee National Forest- Planning

USDA Forest Service 2006. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, DRAFT Summary of Process and Results of

Late Seral and Old Growth Block Identification.

USDA Forest Service 2006. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, DRAFT Results of the Process to Identify

Late Seral and Old Growth Blocks by Principal Watershed across the Targhee National Forest.

USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region. July 27, 2011. Update to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive

Species List. Ogden, ID.

USDA Forest Service, 1993. Characteristics of Old-Growth Forest in the Intermountain Region.

USDA Forest Service, 2003. Hagle, S., Gibson, K., Tunnock, S., Field Guide to Disease and Insect Pests of

Northern and Central Rocky Mountain Conifers.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 - SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION

PRACTICES HANDBOOK R-1/R-4 AMENDMENT NO. 1

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/lynx/final%20lynx%20RecoveryOutline9-05.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/lynx/final%20lynx%20RecoveryOutline9-05.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Practices

Handbook. R-1/R-4 Amendment No. 1. http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-

bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.22!r4_ALL

USDA Forest Service. 1997. 1997 Revised Forest Plan, Targhee National Forest. Intermountain Region,

Ogden, Utah. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Idaho Falls, Idaho. http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/caribou-

targhee/projects/targheeplan.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Revised Forest Plan. Targhee National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Targhee National Forest Ecological Unit Inventory. USDA Forest Service in

cooperation with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and University of Idaho, College of

Agriculture.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Water yield Enhancement. 2520 Letter to Forest Supervisors and RO Staff

Directors, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood CO. July 12, 2002.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Willow Creek Timber Sale Soils Monitoring Report. USDA Forest Service

Intermountain Region, Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Targhee Monitoring Report: 1997-2004. USDA Forest Service Intermountain

Region, Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement – Northern Rockies Lynx

Management Direction. National Forests in Montana, and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. Missoula,

MT. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/documents.htm

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding Implementing the Nonpoint Source Water

Quality Program in the State of Idaho. FS#: 08-11046000-015.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Volume I and II. Gen Tech

Report WO-82a and WO-82b.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Forest Service Manual 2550 – Soil Management.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Intermountain Region Soil Criteria and Management Interpretations Rating

Guide. Intermountain Region, 324 25th St., Ogden, Utah 84401.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Handbook 2509.18 – Soil Management Handbook Chpt 2 –

Soil Quality Monitoring.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Manual 2550- Intermountain Region Field Issuance – Soil

Management.

USDA. 2007. USDA Letter dated March 2, 2007. re: Clarification of Meaning and Intent in “Characteristics

of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region”. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Forest Supervisor

2 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.22!r4_ALL

http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.22!r4_ALL

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/caribou-targhee/projects/targheeplan.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/caribou-targhee/projects/targheeplan.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/documents.htm

USDA. 2009. Gibson, K. Kegley, S. and Bentz, B., Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 2, Mountain Pine

Beetle.

USDA. 2011. Map, December 13, 2011. Forest Health and Protection. 2011 Insect and Disease Detection

Survey Map.

WEPP FuME input interface v. 2009.09.17 (for review only) by David Hall & Elena Velasquez Model

developed by Bill Elliot & Pete Robichaud, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Moscow, ID. Project-specific model run completed in 2012.

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WyNDD). 2000. Plant Species Abstracts. Data compilation for

USDA Forest Service Region 4, completed May 2, 2000. Purchase Order 43-84M8-0-0051. Unpublished

report. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

List of Document Preparers, Professional Title, and Contribution

Ali Abusaidi Ben Krupski

Archaeologist Forestry Technician

Cultural Resource Analysis Team Leader

Bart Andreasen James R. Cox

Landscape Architect Fuels AFMO

Visual Quality Analysis Fuels Analysis

Bill Davis Sabrina Derusseau

Supervisory Recreation Specialist Wildlife Biologist

No Significant Impact Letter Wildlife Analysis

Brad Higginson Rose Lehman

Hydrologist Botanist

Hydrologic Analysis Botanical Threatened and Endangered Species Analysis

Kara Green Lee Mabey

Soils Scientist Fisheries Biologist

Soils Analysis No Significant Impact Letter

Kyle Moore Becky Nedrow

Supervisory Range Specialist Forester

Range Analysis Forested Vegetation Analysis

porcupine pasture project -...

Documents