summit gulch agriculture vegetation management...

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Intermountain Region Payette National Forest Council Ranger District May 2006

Environmental

Assessment

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the base of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, political beliefs, and marital or family status. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791 (voice) or (800) 855-1234 (TDD). To file a complaint, please write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. 20250; or call (800) 245-6340 (voice) or (800) 855-1234 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity employer.

Please recycle this paper.

1 – Purpose and Need

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1-1

Document Structure ....................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action...................................................................1-2

Background.........................................................................................................................1-2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................................1-4 Purpose and Need...............................................................................................................1-4

Need for the Proposal .................................................................................................1-4 Project Area..................................................................................................................... 1-5

Management Direction.......................................................................................................1-6 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan...................................1-6 Decision to be Made........................................................................................................1-6 Project Record and Specialist Reports ...........................................................................1-6 Purpose and Need Statements and Key Issues .............................................................. 1-7 Issues Not Analyzed in Detail.........................................................................................1-9

Air Quality ...................................................................................................................1-9 Fisheries Habitat ....................................................................................................... 1-10 Equivalent Clearcut Area .......................................................................................... 1-10 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 1-10 Roads and Access Management ................................................................................1-11 Economics/Socio-Economics ....................................................................................1-11 Rangeland Resource ................................................................................................. 1-12 Recreation and Visual Resources ............................................................................. 1-12 Public Safety .............................................................................................................. 1-12 Sensitive Plant Resources ......................................................................................... 1-13


Chapter 1

Introduction

Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts:

Chapter 1 - Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need.

Chapter 2 - Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the public, interdisciplinary team (IDT) specialists, and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section describes the affected environment and the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area in the following order – Vegetation, Fuels, Wildlife, Water, and Soils. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

Chapter 4 – Public Involvement: This section provides a summary of public involvement.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project record located at the Council Ranger District Office in Council, Idaho.

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project 1-1


Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Background

The vegetation in the Summit Gulch project area has experienced a change in disturbance regimes affecting the age class and species composition in many areas. Aggressive fire suppression, past harvest of large diameter seral species of trees (especially ponderosa pine), and livestock grazing were major factors contributing to the change in forest structure. These changes include an increase in the density of smaller seral tree species (mostly ponderosa pine with a lesser amount of Douglas-fir). A few of the stands with north and east aspects are being encroached upon by grand fir. Almost all of the stands have been harvested within the last fifty years, and the large mature and old age trees have been removed. The stands are currently overstocked with small to medium size trees. Dwarf mistletoe is present in many of the stands and infestations vary from light to heavy. Thinning will improve or maintain stand health and promote the development of large tree structure.

This area has missed five consecutive fire cycles; the removal of this important ecological process has allowed an increase in density of smaller ponderosa pine trees and the encroachment of grand fir and has modified sagebrush and grassland communities within the project area (Figure 1-1). Application of prescribed fire is aimed at restoring fire as an ecological process and moving vegetation composition, structure, and age classes towards desired conditions. This includes restoration of sagebrush and grasslands in areas where ponderosa pine and grand fir have encroached on these communities.

Previous timber and fuelwood harvest, road construction, and the exclusion of fire in the project area have modified the vegetative composition and structure, which has resulted in reduced habitat for species associated with open stands of ponderosa pine, and increased habitat for species associated with denser fir stands.

The northern Idaho ground squirrel, a federally listed threatened species, occurs in small isolated populations. White-headed woodpeckers are known to occur in the project area, and flammulated owls are believed to occur in the project area.

1-2 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project


Figure 1-1: Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project Area

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

Council RangerDistrict

New MeadowsRangerDistrict

Lost ValleyReservoir

Project Boundary

Cuprum

Bear

SN

AK

E R

I VE

R BlackLake

TO

CO

UN

CIL -

We

i se

r

Ri v

er

!!71

tu95

CO

UN

CIL-C

UP

RU

M R

OA

D

LIC

K C

RE

EK

RO

AD

Wi l d

h o

r se

Ri v

er

Cr o o k e d R i v e r

We

st

F

or

k

We

i se

r

Ri

ve

r

Bear

[

IDAHO

Payette National Forest

BOISE

SUMMIT GULCH VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT

FIGURE 1- 1

Project Area

0 2 4 6 81

Miles

K



Proposed Action

This project would:

Promote large tree development,

Improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat,

Reduce fuels, and

Manage roads.

More detailed information on the proposed action is provided in Chapter 2, Alternative 2.

Purpose and Need

There are five specific objectives of the proposal. These objectives represent the purpose for this project.

Reduce stand density to promote the growth of ponderosa pine and other large tree structure (greater than 20 inches in diameter).

Reduce stand density to improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat and aid in the recovery of the species.

Reduce understory (seedlings/saplings) densities, and fuel laddering to lower the risk of uncharacteristic or undesirable wildland fires.

Reduce potential impacts to northern Idaho ground squirrel by roads and reduce stream sedimentation by decreasing road related erosion.

Maintain elk habitat security.

Need for the Proposal Wildlife standard WIST01 in the Forest Plan states that management actions will “maintain at least 20 percent of the acres within each forested Potential Vegetation Group (PVG) found in a 5th field Hydrological Unit (HU) watershed in large tree size class”. The 20 percent value is a threshold that represents the minimum percent of a landscape area retained in the large tree size class to provide for the viability of terrestrial wildlife species dependent on large tree forest structures.

Vegetation goal VEGO01 in the Forest Plan states that management actions will “maintain or restore desired plant community components, including species composition, size classes, canopy closures, structure, snags, and coarse woody debris as described in Appendix A”.

Timberland Resources Objective TRGO01 states that the Forest will “Manage forested vegetation to achieve: a) Conditions that are resilient and resistant to uncharacteristic fire, insect, and disease damage, and b) conditions that contribute to desired vegetative conditions, including distribution of tree species, species composition, and canopy cover”.



Timberland Resources objective TRGO02 states that the Forest will “Manage suited timberlands to achieve a) Growth rates and yields that are compatible with other resources, e) vegetative conditions (structure, density, etc) in plantations and surrounding stands that result in reduced hazard for loss from uncharacteristic disturbance events”.

Timberland Resources objective TROB01 states that the Forest will “Annually during the next 10 to 15 years: a) Harvest timber other than by salvage, on an average of approximately 5,500 acres…” and TROB02 states that the Forest will “Make available an estimated 325 million board feet of timber for the decade, which will contribute to Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ).”

The Summit/Calf Pen area has been identified as a metapopulation site for recovery in the northern Idaho ground squirrel Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 2003). This management area has Forest Plan wildlife goals, objectives, and standards, (0240, 0241 and 0248) to improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat in this area. Specifically, wildlife standard 0248 states - “The northern Idaho ground squirrel will receive priority consideration for all management activities that occur within their known occupied habitat. The intent of this standard is not to exclude all other activities within this habitat, but rather to reduce or minimize potential impacts to this species while emphasizing habitat improvement within and adjacent to known sites”. Northern Idaho ground squirrels are currently known to occur at two sites in the project area. However, due to forest succession, these sites have become isolated from each other. The species’ ability to disperse to other suitable habitats in the Bear watershed has also been hindered. This project would improve habitat suitability and provide corridors for the squirrels to disperse throughout the drainage.

The white-headed woodpecker and flammulated owl are Forest sensitive species. The white-headed woodpecker is a sensitive species and also a Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS). This management area has particular Forest Plan objectives and guidelines (0242, 0243 and 0244) to improve white-headed woodpecker and flammulated owl habitat. Both of these species populations have declined throughout their range in the Interior Columbia Basin due to loss of habitat. This project would improve long-term habitat quality for both species, by thinning dense stands to promote development of future large tree forest structure.

The Summit Vegetation Management Project proposes to treat up to 3,000 acres to promote the large tree component and restore desired conditions. These treatments will include commercial harvest on approximately 900 acres to reduce fuels and stand densities, and application of prescribed fire on an estimated 2,061 acres to benefit identified wildlife and change the condition class.

Project Area The project area for the proposed Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project is located in the Bear Creek Watershed approximately 20 air miles north-northwest of Council, Idaho in Adams County. It encompasses approximately 3,580 acres in the Summit, Calf Pen, and Wikiup drainages.

The project area can be reached by taking Forest Road #002 (Council-Cuprum Road) to Forest Road #073 (Calf Pen Road). The project area consists of National Forest System lands located in Townships 19N, Range 3W, in all or portions of sections 28, 29, 32, 33,



and 34, and Township 20N, Range 3W, in all or portions of sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 17, Boise Meridian as displayed on the Payette National Forest Travel Map.

Management Direction

Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan This analysis is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest Plan guides natural resource management activities on lands administered by the Payette National Forest and describes management goals and objectives, resource protection methods, and desired resource conditions. The Forest Plan divides National Forest System (NFS) lands into management areas based on resource needs and opportunities.

The Summit Gulch project is located in Management Area 2 – Snake River, and lands within the project area have been identified as Management Prescription Category (MPC) 6.1 – Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes.

Decision to be Made Based on the analysis disclosed in the EA and public comments, the Responsible Official will make a decision and document it in a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. The Responsible Official can:

Select the Proposed Action Alternative,

Select a different Action Alternative, or

Select the No Action Alternative

As part of the decision, the Responsible Official will decide what project design features, mitigation measures, and monitoring would be required (Chapter 2 and Appendix F).

Project Record and Specialist Reports This EA incorporates by reference the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The project record contains specialist reports and other technical documentation used to support the analyses and conclusions in this EA.

Relying on specialist reports and the project record helps implement the CEQ Regulations’ provision that agencies should reduce NEPA paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4), and that NEPA documents be analytic rather than encyclopedic, kept concise, and no longer than absolutely necessary (40 CFR 1502.2). The objective is to furnish enough site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives and how these impacts can be mitigated, without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere. The project record is located at the Council Ranger District, Council, Idaho.



Purpose and Need Statements and Key Issues Two analysis factors were formulated for this project. The first, Purpose and Need statements, address the proposed action and were developed based on desired conditions and overall resource goals and objectives outlined by the Forest Plan. The second, Key Issues, are defined as points of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects. Key Issues are used to develop alternatives, assess appropriate mitigation measures, analyze environmental effects, and provide a basis for comparison of alternatives. These factors are summarized below and analyzed in Chapter 3. For each factor, one or more measurement indicators are provided to help quantify effects of the alternatives.

Issues not Analyzed in Detail are discussed in this Chapter with a brief discussion of why each was not analyzed in detail. Further documentation is found in the Project Record. These issues are not discussed further in this document.

Vegetation Resource Purpose and Need Statements Promote large tree develpement

Reduce stand density to promote the growth of ponderosa pine and other large tree structure (greater than 20 inches diameter).

Improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat.

Measurements Acres of forest stands treated to promote the large tree component.

Acres of habitat improvement.

Fire Management Purpose and Need Statements Reduce Forest Fuels

Reduce understory (seedlings/saplings) densities, and fuel laddering to lower the risk of uncharacteristic or undesirable wildland fires

Measurements Fire Regime/Condition Class (FRCC): Acres moved towards Historic Fire Regime/Acres moved towards Condition ClassI

Changes to predicted fire behavior (type of fire, flame length and rate of spread.

Wildlife Resource

Purpose and Need Improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat

Reduce stand density to improve northern Idaho ground squirrel (NIDGS) habitat and aid in the recovery of the species.



Measurements Acres of habitat improved

Miles of road decommissioned in northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat

Purpose and Need Manage Roads

Maintain elk habitat security

Measurements Miles of road closed year round

Miles of road decommissioning

Issue The proposed project, to manage vegetation in the Lower Bear 6th field hydrologic unit (Summit and Calf Pen Gulch drainages), has the potential to affect some terrestrial species through habitat modifications.

Indicators Acres of currently suitable habitats and/or habitat components modified for Payette National Forest Management Indicator Species.

Acres of currently suitable habitats and/or habitat components modified for species that are federally listed, proposed, or candidates and Payette National Forest sensitive species.

Water Resource

Purpose and Need Reduce stream sedimentation by decreasing road related erosion

Measurement Miles of road decommissioned within 200 feet of stream channels

Issue Impacts of roads and past harvest disturbance on stream channel conditions

Indicator Amount and type of ground disturbing activities within 200 feet of stream channels

Soil Resource

Issue Effects of proposed actions on soil conditions and long-term site productivity



Indicators Levels of Total Soil Resource Commitment Across the Project Area

Levels of Detrimental Soil Disturbance

Levels of coarse woody debris

Issues Not Analyzed in Detail These non-key issues will not be analyzed in Chapter 3 because they do not constitute a significant issue as defined above. A brief discussion of expected effects summarizes each non-key issue.

Air Quality Prescribed burning in the project area has the potential to affect air quality in Adams County, Valley County, and the local vicinity.

The No Action Alternative carries a risk of large-scale wildfire, while the action alternatives would reduce that risk. Although wildfires are not subject to air quality regulations, they nevertheless have major impacts on air quality. Additionally, those impacts occur at times and under conditions outside of the agencies’ ability to control the impacts, diminishing the ability to mitigate negative impacts. Prescribed burning as proposed in the action alternatives is subject to air quality regulations. Forest Plan management direction would be similar for each alternative, and would minimize smoke impacts by reducing total emissions and managing smoke drift.

All prescribed burning would be subject to approval from the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group. Although action alternatives incorporate prescribed burning for fuels reduction or ecosystem restoration, careful planning (prescription development) and participation in the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group would reduce the impacts of prescribed burning on air quality by restricting prescribed burning to conditions when smoke dispersal would be optimal.

Prescribed fire burn plans, completed for all prescribed burns, address the following management actions with respect to air quality:

Consider other sources of emissions

Identify sensitive areas

Include descriptions of planned measures to reduce smoke impacts as appropriate

Identify the potential risk for smoke intrusions into sensitive areas and

Describe ambient air monitoring plans, when appropriate.

These management actions limit the impacts from prescribed burning.

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (Class I Airshed) is approximately ten miles northwest of the proposed burn sites. There are no non-attainment areas or sensitive areas in close proximity to the proposed burn sites. Particulate emissions are calculated at less than 100 tons/year (FOFEM computer modeling results, in the Project Record Fuels Section).



Because smoke from prescribed burning generally occurs from a single source for short durations, cumulative effects of prescribed burning on Federal, State, and private lands would be minimal. Participation in the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group’s smoke approval program by federal and state prescribed burn managers also minimizes the cumulative effects of smoke.

Action alternatives would comply with air quality regulations, as would the No Action Alternative, so there is no regulatory distinction between the alternatives. Although the action alternatives would allow for greater control over air quality impacts compared to the No Action Alternative, the difference is not great. This consideration eliminates air quality as a key issue for environmental analysis for this proposal.

Fisheries Habitat The effects of the proposed action on fisheries.

The project area contains 0.5 miles of fish bearing streams and 11 miles of non-fish bearing streams. The majority (95%) of the streams in the project area are intermittent gulches. Wikiup Creek, the only fish bearing stream in the project area, is known to contain brook trout and suspected to contain redband trout. Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) were delineated on all known stream channels and wetlands within the project area. Harvest and fuels treatments are not proposed within the RCAs. Due to the implementation of RCA buffers on all stream channels, the limited amount of fish habitat available, the project design features and mitigation measures, it was determined the proposed action will maintain existing fish habitat.

Public scoping of the proposed action did not generate issues related to the fisheries resource.

Equivalent Clearcut Area The effects of the proposed action on equivalent clearcut areas.

One comment on changes in equivalent clearcut areas (ECAs) was received during public scoping. Changes in ECA were not considered a significant issue given the relatively small changes predicted with either action alternative, the lack of reasonably foreseeable actions that would contribute to ECA, and because the resultant cumulative ECA at the subwatershed and watershed scale would be at levels that are unlikely to result in observable changes in water yields (Fowler et. al. 1987, Megahan et. al. 1995) or observable changes in timing/magnitude of peak flows. At the subwatershed scale current ECA levels are approximately 17%, and proposed harvest would increase ECA by 2.3% under Alternative 2 and 0.6% under Alternative 3, while road decommissioning would reduce road contributions to ECA by approximately 0.1% under both alternatives. At the watershed scale, current ECA is estimated as 20% (Bear RAP), and harvest proposed with the Summit project would result in increase of 0.4% and 0.1% for alternatives 2 and 3 respectively (Figure 3.4-1). These small levels of increase would not be expected to result in measurable changes in the timing or magnitude of flows over the existing condition at the subwatershed or watershed scale.

Cultural Resources The effects of the proposed action on cultural properties.



This project will affect 2,061 acres in the Summit Gulch vicinity. Survey in this area has recorded three cultural properties. These three properties are eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. They are all outside of the proposed logging units, but a lithic scatter and historic dump were within the proposed prescribed fire (no mechanical treatment) area. The prescribed burn area has been modified to avoid the site during broadcast burning.

Because all cultural sites within the project area are outside the impact zone, there will be no effect to cultural properties in the area. Refer to Chapter 2, Table 2-4 – Mitigation Measures for additional protection for this area.

Roads and Access Management The effects of the proposed action on road access.

The Summit Project proposes to realign 1.25 miles of the Summit Gulch Road #501858. The realignment consists of converting 0.65 miles of unclassified road to classified and building 0.6 miles of new road. Also 0.25 miles of the East Summit Gulch Road #51859 will be realigned with a section of new road. The realignments are designed to avoid hauling logs through occupied northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat and to locate roads outside of riparian areas.

Two and one half miles of existing classified roads will be decommissioned to reduce impacts to the northern Idaho ground squirrel and riparian areas. All of the roads proposed for decommissioning are currently closed. The net mileage of classified roads will be reduced from 15.6 miles to 14.6 miles while still maintaining access. The relocations and decommissioning were identified in the Bear Roads Analysis (RAP). The Bear RAP was updated in 2004 to meet the direction of the revised Forest Plan.

Portions of the Summit Gulch Loop Road #501860 are planned for decommissioning (1.8 miles) to avoid motorized travel through northern Idaho ground squirrel occupied habitat, and reduce riparian encroachment and potential stream capture. The road will not connect to a classified road upon completion of the project. No haul is planned for the portion of the Summit Loop Road being retained as a classified road with this proposal. A short section (0.3 miles) of new road is planned to connect the road in future entries to Calf Pen Road #50073 in sections 7 and 8.

The road management in the project area will remain unchanged. Roads that are currently open to public use will remain open, and closed roads that are used by the project will be closed upon project completion. Decommissioning will only occur on closed roads and will have little if any effect on public access.

Road work associated with the Summit project includes realigning existing roads, and opening closed roads for project use. Activities include removing brush and trees from road beds, reshaping road beds, installing armored dips, and installation of a portable bridge across Summit Creek.

Economics/Socio-Economics The proposal has potential to influence income and jobs (both locally and regionally).

The Summit Project proposes to harvest about 2.0 million board feet (MMBF) of timber. Harvest of the timber will generate jobs and income to the local economy. Robison and Gneiting (2000), determined each (MMBF) of timber harvest provided 9.2 jobs and



$296,700 in income. The Summit proposal will provide 18.4 job years (18.4 jobs for 1 year) and $593,400 in income. The sale is expected to be positive and produce about $199,000 in receipts of which 25% ($49,800) could be returned to county governments for schools and roads.

Rangeland Resource Vegetation manipulation through timber harvest, prescribed fire, road decommissioning, and construction has the potential to alter the available quantity, quality, and composition of vegetation, and possibly contribute to new infestations of noxious weeds.

All action alternatives are expected to improve vegetation available for livestock over time. Noxious weeds are addressed in Chapter 2, Table 2-4, Mitigation Measures, Rangeland Resource. Grazing management is outside the scope of this project and will continue as currently permitted under the allotment management plan (AMP) and annual operating plan (see Rangeland Resources Specialist’s Report, project record).

Recreation and Visual Resources The proposal may affect recreation use in the Project area.

There are no Forest Service motorized or non-motorized trails in the project area. Limited if any effects on disperse camping would occur from the project. There may be some negative effects towards hunters and cross country skiers and hikers during the logging activities

Uncontrolled motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use is a growing concern in this area.

Concerns associated with motorcycle and ATV use are outside of the scope of this project. This project has a Purpose and Need addressing the reduction of forest fuels and wildlife habitat improvement. The Forest Service has recognized motorcycle and ATV concerns and is currently addressing them while revising the 1995 Payette Travel Management Plan.

The proposal may affect visual quality in the Project area.

The project area is managed within the Modification Visual Quality Objective (VQO) criteria. Under the VQO Modification management (which covers 95% of project area), activities may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape. However, vegetation activities as proposed in this project must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture to blend activities with the surrounding natural landscape. Under Partial Retention management (5% of the project area), activities may be evident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. The Partial Retention management area borders the Council-Cuprum Road (visual sensitive route). Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design to meet both criteria. Mitigation measures can be found in Chapter 2, Table 2-4.

Public Safety The proposal may affect public safety

Log landing use and log hauling will be managed for Forest visitors to drive on National Forest System Roads safely during project activities. As out lined in the mitigation



measures table, management precautions include posting warning signs, identifying CB operating channels used by the logging trucks, and posting mile marker signs to be referenced during CB communications. The project also includes mitigation to prohibit log hauling during high use recreation periods. Mitigation measures can be found in Chapter 2, Table 2-4.

Sensitive Plant Resources Ground-disturbing activities associated with this project could affect habitat and/or population numbers of sensitive plant species.

There are no threatened or endangered plant species on the Payette National Forest. The project area contains potential habitat for two Forest-sensitive plant species that could be affected by the proposed project activities. There are 12 sites of Seven Devils onion (Allium tolmiei var. persimile) within the project area, and potential habitat, but no known sites, of bank monkey-flower (Mimulus clivicola). The small size and short flowering time of the monkey-flower make detection difficult, but this plant frequently shares the same habitat as Seven Devils onion, so may very well be present (see Biological Evaluation (BE) of Sensitive Plants in the project record for further information). These species typically occupy non-forested, mostly barren, south-facing slopes at moderate elevation. Accordingly, the major threats to these species from project activities would be road construction and maintenance, skid trails or temporary roads, landings, and fuel reduction burns. Mitigation measures (Table 2-4) have been incorporated in order to avoid or minimize any impacts to sensitive plant resources from project activities. Post-project monitoring is planned to observe any effects and recovery from project impacts. The Biological Evaluation concludes with a determination that the proposed project activities could impact individual plants and habitat, but would not likely result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for these species.


Alternatives - 2

Chapter 2 -Alternatives

Introduction.....................................................................................................................2-1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...................................................................................2-1 Alternative 1- No Action ..................................................................................................2-1 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .....................................................................................2-1

Forest Vegetation Treatments..................................................................................... 2-2 Road Management ...................................................................................................... 2-3 Fuels Reduction and Habitat Improvement............................................................... 2-4

Alternative 3.................................................................................................................... 2-4 Road Management ...................................................................................................... 2-4

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ....................................................................... 2-5 No Road Package Alternative......................................................................................... 2-5 Mitigation Measures/Project Design Features.............................................................2-12 Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 2-24 Identification of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................. 2-24

2 - Alternatives


Alternatives - 2

Chapter 2

Alternatives

Introduction Chapter 2 describes the alternatives, including No Action, considered for the project and summarizes how the alternatives meet the Purpose and Need and address the issues presented in Chapter 1. This chapter identifies project design features common to all alternatives and lists the management requirements and mitigation measures under any action alternative.

The alternatives express a range of possible actions. The significant issues and Purpose and Need, as described in Chapter 1, determined the range of alternatives. Other guiding factors in determining the alternatives were the Forest Plan management direction, the Bear Roads Analysis, Federal and State laws, and economic and ecological viability. Using this direction and guidance, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) developed a range of reasonable alternatives, including alternatives considered in detail and alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis.

Acres and miles used in this analysis are approximations based on computer calculations. Actual figures may vary slightly from these planning numbers.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Introduction The Proposed Action for this EA is Alternative 2. The action alternatives were developed to move the project area towards the desired condition (DC’s) as stated in the Forest Plan and to address the purpose and need developed for this area.

Alternative 1- No Action This alternative (Figure 2-1) provides a baseline to compare the effects of the action alternatives. It essentially represents the existing condition of the area based on past and existing natural and human related disturbances and processes.

Under this alternative, timber harvest, fuels management, and road decommissioning/watershed improvements described and analyzed in this document would not occur.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 (Figure 2-2) was developed to move the area towards the desired condition as stated in the Forest Plan. This alternative responds to the need to promote large tree structures, while reducing the risk of wildland fires, and improving northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat.


2 - Alternatives

Forest Vegetation Treatments

Low density improvement cutting for northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat improvement An improvement cut is an intermediate silvicultuarl treatment generally deigned to improve composition and quality by removing trees of undesirable species, form, or condition. This treatment will improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat by decreasing the density of forest canopy through harvesting and promoting healthy ground vegetation through the application of prescribed fire. Stands will be thinned to create a widely spaced forest comprised of the dominant, and most healthy ponderosa pine. Approximately 228 acres will be treated in units 5, 9, 17, 21, 23, 26, 30, 36, 37, and 41.

This prescription consists of the following:

Retaining 10 to 25 of the larger ponderosa pine trees (on average – depending on stand condition) per acre where available. Douglas-fir may be substituted as needed.

Retaining all snags that are not a safety hazard (set a goal of at least 2.2 to 5.7 snags with a minimum height of 30’ and/or snag recruitment trees per acre to meet the Forest Plan desired range of snags per acre).

Requiring the limbs and tops of cut trees to be removed where the trees are felled and scattered through the unit to facilitate a more complete and even prescribed burn for northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat improvement.

Pulling fuels away from standing trees to protect them from damage during the burning operation.

Retaining 4 to 14 tons of large coarse woody debris per acre where available.

Precommercial thinning to enhance northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat Precommercial thinning is a silvicultural treatment genearally applied to stands that have not yet reached merchantable size. No commercial product is generated from this treatment. The purpose of this treatment is to improve growth and reduce competion. These precommercial thins will remove small diameter trees to increase spacing between crowns which enhances northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat. Approximately 90 acres will be treated in Units 13 and 22.

In Unit 13 the prescription consists of the following:

Retaining 10 to 25 ponderosa pine trees (on average – depending on stand condition) per acre. Large trees are not present in this stand. The most vigorous trees will be left.

Lopping and scattering the thinned trees to facilitate a more complete and even prescribed burn for northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat improvement.

Pulling fuels away from standing trees to protect them from damage during the burning operation.

Retaining 4 to 14 tons of large coarse woody debris per acre where available.

Cover for elk calving is a secondary objective in Unit 22. In this unit the prescription consists of the following:

Retaining 35 to 100 trees per acre. Large trees are not present in this stand. Favoring ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir for retention. Removing insect infested and diseased trees.


Alternatives - 2

Lopping and scattering the thinned trees to facilitate a more complete and even underburn for northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat improvement in areas where fuel loads are low.

Piling and burning the thinned trees prior to underburning to prevent damage to standing trees in areas where fuel loads are high.

Protecting the elk calving area by maintaining two elk sight distances along the roads bordering this unit.

Retaining 4-14 tons coarse woody debris per acre.

Thinning and improvement cutting to promote large tree structure These treatments will remove the lower vigor trees and the trees with more severe insect and disease damage, and favor the healthiest ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. These cuts, along with the application of prescribed fire, will reduce stand density, improve stand vigor, maintain growth, enhance forest health, and remove fuel ladders.

This prescription is designed to maintain the development of stands that are currently in the medium tree size class, promote larger tree development, and enhance white-headed woodpecker and flammulated owl habitat. Approximately 571 acres will be treated with this prescription in units 1-4, 6-8, 11, 14-16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 31-35.

This prescription consists of the following:

Retaining 20 to 40 trees per acre (on average) which will result in a 25 to 45% canopy closure.

Favoring ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir for retention. Removing insect infested and diseased trees. Retaining all snags that are not a safety hazard (a goal of at least 2.2 to 5.7 snags

with a minimum height of 30’ and/or snag recruitment trees per acre to meet the Forest Plan desired range of snags per acre).

Varying the number of trees and snags retained and the amount of large coarse wood left depending on current stand conditions.

Leaving the largest, healthiest, most vigorous, and fire resistant trees Leaving exceptionally large trees of climax species which are healthy and

vigorous. Leaving low vigor large trees when needed for recruitment of snags and coarse

woody debris. Leaving large cull trees for wildlife. Removing the cut trees with limbs and tops attached to reduce fuels.

Logging Systems 598 acres of tractor 192 acres of tractor/jammer 9 acres of cable

Road Management Decommission a total 0f 5.7 miles of existing closed roads including an estimated

2 miles of existing classified road within northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat and 3.7 miles of classified and unclassified roads within riparian areas.

Place 1.8 miles of the Summit Gulch road (#51858) into a long term closure status (rip and seed) following harvest.


2 - Alternatives

Realign approximately 1.5 miles of classified road to provide access and relocate the road system outside of northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat and away from riparian areas.

Convert approximately 1 mile of existing unclassified road to the classified road system to limit the total amount of new road construction.

Maintain all existing road closures.

Fuels Reduction and Habitat Improvement Prescribed fire will be applied to 2,061 acres to return fire to the landscape as an

ecological process and improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat by reducing the density of conifers, creating connective corridors, and rejuvenating the grass and forb communities. About 1,172 acres of prescribed burning is outside of mechanical treatment areas.

Alternative 3 Like Alternative 2, this alternative would conduct the northern Idaho ground squirrel harvest, but it would not conduct Improvement Cut/Commercial Thin to promote large tree development. Alternative 3 also moves the area toward the desired condition as stated in the Forest Plan. This alternative would treat 318 acres through low density improvement cuts and prescribed fire to improve habitat for the northern Idaho ground squirrel and reduce fuels on 1,490 acres as proposed in Alternative 2.

Commercial thinning and prescribed burning of 571 acres to promote the large tree structure would not be accomplished in this alternative.

Logging Systems 228 acres of tractor

Road Management Decommission a total 0f 4.3 miles of existing closed roads including an estimated

2 miles of existing classified road within northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat and 3.7 miles of classified and unclassified roads within riparian areas.

Place 1.8 miles of the Summit Gulch road (#51858) into a long term closure status (rip and seed) following harvest

Construct 0.6 miles of classified road to provide access and relocate the road system outside of northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat and away from riparian areas.

Convert approximately 1 mile of existing unclassified road to the classified road system to limit the total amount of new road construction.

Maintain all existing road closures.


Alternatives - 2

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

No Road Package Alternative This Alternative reflects the proposed action without any changes to the current road system.

The current road system is concentrated within riparian areas, and disturbing these roads with no further reclamation (obliteration, long-term closure, re-surfacing, improved drainage, etc.) would result in increased road related sediment and negative effects on water quality and fisheries habitat. Additionally, this area is identified as a moderate priority for active restoration according to the Forest Plan watershed aquatic restoration strategy (WARS).

This alternative would require hauling logs to the south through the Summit and Tree Farm northern Idaho ground squirrel sites, which would not be consistent with the purpose and need of enhancing habitat for these ground squirrels.

This alternative would not be consistent with Forest Plan Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines for wildlife, soil, and water.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives by Activity

Activity or Outcome ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3

Number of Treatment Units 0 34 12

Volume of Timber Harvested (MMBF) 0 2.1 .8

Acres Treated By Prescripition

Precommercial Thin for northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat improvement

0 90 90

Improvement Cut/Commercial Thin from below for northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat improvement

0 228 228

Improvement Cut/Commercial Thin to promote large tree development

0 571 0

Total Acres Treated 0 889 318

Fuels Treatment Acres

Prescribed Fire 0 2,061 1,490

Harvest Methods (acres)

Tractor 0 598 228

Tractor/Jammer 0 192 0


2 - Alternatives

Activity or Outcome ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3

Cable 0 9 0

Total 0 799 228

Roads Management (miles)

Decommission 0 5.2 4.3

Construction 0 0.8 0.6

Conversion from unclassified to classified 0 1.0 1.0

Classified roads closed year-round 23 23 23

Table 2-2: Comparison of Alternatives by Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need #1: Reduce stand density to promote the growth of ponderosa pine and other large tree structure (>20 diameter)

Measurements Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Acres of Forest Stands treated to improve the large tree component

0 571 0

Purpose and Need #2: Reduce stand density to improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat and aid in the recovery of the species

Acres of Habitat Improvement 0 318 318

Purpose and Need #3: Reduce the risk of uncharacteristic or undesirable wildland fires

FRCC: Acres moved towards Historic Fire Regime/Acres moved towards Condition Class I

0 2,061 1,490

Changes to predicted fire behavior:

Fire type: Surface fire with tree torching

Surface fire surface fire

Flame Length: Up to 13 feet 1-2 feet 1-2 feet

Rate of Spread: Up to 182 chains/hour`

9 chains/hour 9 chains/hour

Purpose and Need #4a: Reduce potential impacts to northern Idaho ground squirrel by roads

Miles of road decommissioned in northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat

0 2.0 2.0

Purpose and Need #4b: Reduce stream sedimentation by decreasing road related erosion

Measurements Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Miles of road decommissioned within 200 feet of stream channels

0 3.7 3.7


Alternatives - 2

Miles of road constructed/relocated within 200 feet of stream channels

0 0.2 0.2

Purpose and Need #5: Maintain elk habitat security

Miles of road closed year-round 23 23 23

Miles of road decommissioning 0 5.2 4.3

Table 2-3: Comparison of Alternatives by Key Issues

Wildlife Resource: The proposed project, to manage vegetation in the Lower Bear 6th field hydrologic unit (Summit and Calf Pen Gulch drainages), has the potential to either positively or negatively affect some terrestrial species through habitat modifications

Indicators Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Acres of currently suitable habitats and/or habitat components modified for Payette National Forest Management Indicator Species

White-headed woodpecker N/A (+) 889 (+) 318

Pileated woodpecker N/A 0 0

Acres of currently suitable habitats and/or habitat components modified for species that are federally listed, proposed, or candidates and Payette National Forest sensitive species

Northern goshawk N/A 0 0

Flammulated owl N/A (-) 376 (short-term)

(+) 513 (long-term)

(-) 134 (short-term)

(+) 184 (long-term)

Northern Idaho ground squirrel N/A (+) 318 (+) 318

Bald eagle N/A 0 0

Gray wolf N/A 0 0

Water Resource: Impacts of roads and past harvest disturbance on stream channel conditions

Amount and type of ground disturbing activities within 200 feet of stream channels

Miles of Road in project area 10.7 7.2 7.2

*Acres of Treatment

Commercial Thinning 0 23 0

Thinning for northern Idaho ground squirrel 0 30 30

Precommercial Thinning 0 3 3

Broadcast Underburning 0 50 50

Soil Resource: Effects of proposed actions on soil conditions and long-term site productivity


2 - Alternatives

Levels of Total Soil Resource Commitment Across the Project ActivityArea

Remain at 4.1%

3.8% 3.9%

Soil Resource: Effects of proposed actions on soil conditions and long-term site productivity

Levels of Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DD) Remain at existing

levels (>15%)

Project design features limit

creation of new DD and restore areas of existing

DD moving activity areas towards 15%

standard

Project design features limit new

DD and restore areas of existing

DD moving activity areas towards 15%

standard

Levels of coarse woody debris (tons per acre) Currently less than 4-

14, but would

naturally increase

4-14 would be retained/recruited

where available.

4-14 would be retained/recruited

where available.

*No harvest treatment will occur within RCA’s. The acres of treatment within 200 feet of channels refers to treatments adjacent to intermittent RCA’s where the area from 120 to 200 feet away from channels would be treated, but equipment/landings/skid trails would still be required to be at least 200 feet from channels.


Alternatives - 2

Figure 2-1: Alternative 1 – No Action


2 - Alternatives

Figure 2-2: Alternative 2 – Proposed Action


Alternatives - 2

Figure 2-3: Alternative 3


2 - Alternatives

Mitigation Measures/Project Design Features Mitigation measures or project design features are designed to avoid, reduce, eliminate, rectify, or compensate for undesirable effects from proposed activities. Unless noted otherwise in the decision document, the mitigation measures are mandatory if the Responsible Official selects an action alternative for implementation.

The mitigation measures/project design features listed in Table 2-4 are practices the ID Team developed during this project analysis to address site-specific environmental concerns and to meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Each measure includes a description, the objective, applicable Forest Plan Standard/Guideline, the enforcement mechanism and person(s) responsible for enforcement, and an effectiveness rating with the basis for that rating. Refer to Appendix G of this document for a definition of the Applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines referred to in Table 2-4.

The National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1508.20 Mitigation) state the following:

“Mitigation” includes:

Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Mitigation effectiveness is rated as follows for this project:

High The mitigation is highly effective (estimated at greater than 90 percent) at meeting the objective, and one or more of the following types of documentation is available:

Research or literature Administrative studies Experience: professional judgment of an expert Fact: evident by logic or reason.


Alternatives - 2


Moderate The mitigation is moderately effective (estimated at 60 to 90 percent), and its effectiveness is supported either by evidence or logic. Implementation of this mitigation needs to be monitored, and the mitigation may be modified if needed to achieve its objective.

Low The mitigation is somewhat effective (estimated at less than 60%), but its effectiveness is not supported by substantial evidence; or professional judgment indicates limited success in implementation or meeting objectives. Implementation of this mitigation needs to be monitored, and the mitigation may be modified if necessary to achieve its objective.

2 - Alternatives

Table 2-4: Mitigation Measures/Project Design Features

Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Objective Effectiveness and Basis

Applicable Forest Plan Standard/Guideline

Enforcement

Wildlife No harvest or post harvest related activities in Units 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 30, and Unit 37 below road #51857 from May 15 to July 15 if calving is present.

Big game calving/fawning MODERATE WIGU12 Timber sale contract, Administrator, Burn Plan, FMO

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

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

MODERATE: WIST06, WIGU08, WIGU13 Timber sale contract, Administrator

In Units 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 11, 14-16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 31-35, maintain live green trees in various sizes and conditions to provide snag replacement needs over time. These live trees may be retained in clumps as well as randomly dispersed throughout the harvest unit.

Ensure habitat for snag-dependent species.

MODERATE: WIST01, WIGU01 Timber sale design and layout

During timber harvest, retain existing snags with the following stipulations: Timber contract provision would specify to leave standing dead trees. Snags would not be cut without permission of the Sale Administrator unless there is a safety or emergency situation.

Ensure habitat for snag-dependent species.

MODERATE: WIGU01 Timber sale layout, contract, Administrator, Wildlife Biologist

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

Protect northern goshawks and occupied goshawk nest habitat.

HIGH: research, logic

WIST05, WIGU07 Timber sale contract, Administrator, Wildlife Biologist

Provide two elk sight distances of vegetation around wallows, licks, travel corridors, openings, and along the roads bordering Unit 22 as identified during project layout

Reduce potential impacts to elk

MODERATE WIGU13 Timber Sale Layout

If any gray wolf dens have been located within the area, all activity shall be halted while appropriate coordination measures occur with IDFG and USFWS.

Reduce potential impacts to gray wolves

MODERATE TEST03,TEST06, TEST12 Timber Sale Contract, Administrator, Wildlife Biologist


Alternatives - 2



Enforcement

Wildlife 1No harvest or post-harvest related activities in Units 21, 22, and 41 from April 1 to August 15.

Reduce potential impacts to reproduction and dispersal of northern Idaho ground squirrel.

HIGH: experience, logic

TEST03, TEST06, TEST12, TEGU01, TEGU06

Timber sale contract, Administrator, Burn Plan, FMO

2No harvest or post-harvest related activities in the South Half of Unit 23 from April 1 to August 15.




Timber sale contract, Administrator

No mechanical equipment allowed in occupied squirrel colonies (Units 21, 22, , 26, and 41) at any time of the year except over winter conditions as outlined in the timber sale contract (18 inches of firm snow , 4 + inches frozen soil surface or combination of snow/frozen surface that provides for protection of the soil).

Reduce potential impacts to northern Idaho ground squirrel.

HIGH: logic TEST06, TEST12, TEGU01, TEST06


1No log haul in Section 8 of Road #51858 and Section 9 of Road #51857 from April 1 to August 15.





Livestock grazing will be excluded in Units 21, 22, 26 and 41 for at least two years following this habitat improvement project as recommended by the FWS in the Letter of Concurrence for On Going Grazing Permits dated May 2001.

Reduce potential impacts to northern Idaho ground squirrel.

HIGH: logic TEST06, TEST12, TEGU01, TEST06

Rangeland Management Specialist

Protect small (isolated) timber stands located within the prescribed burn area that has no mechanical thinning. Identified by District Wildlife Biologist.

To maintain existing wildlife cover in this part of the project area.

HIGH: logic WIGU01 Burn Plan, FMO

1/ This restriction is for the time of the year that the northern Idaho ground squirrel are above ground. Northern Idaho ground squirrel are known to occur within the unit or road. This restriction shall also apply to post-harvest treatments such and thinning residual vegetation or broadcast burning. A journey-level, FS wildlife biologist shall make a more precise determination of the dates of restriction during the year of activities. 2/ This restriction is for the time of the year that young-of-the-year northern Idaho ground squirrel are known to disperse. northern Idaho ground squirrel are known to occur adjacent to the unit or road. This restriction shall also apply to post-harvest treatments such and thinning residual vegetation or broadcast burning. A journey-level, FS wildlife biologist shall make a more precise determination of the dates of restriction during the year of activities before implementation begins for the year.


2 - Alternatives



Enforcement

Fisheries Dispersed camping associated with the project shall be located outside of RCAs.

Dispersed camping associated with the project shall be located outside of RCAs.




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

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

HIGH: logic, experience

ASST01, ASST02, ASST03 Burn plan, FMO

Identify sensitive areas for smoke impacts Avoid smoke immersion into non-attainment or sensitive areas


ASGU01, ASGU02 Burn plan, FMO

Soil and Water Apply riparian conservation areas of 120 feet and 240 feet on either side of intermittent and perennial streams respectively. Prohibit heavy equipment operation (except on existing or temporary roads) and tree removal within RCA’s.

Maintain shade, sources of large woody debris and protect stream channels and associated floodplains


SWST01, SWST04, SWST10 Timber sale design and layout, sale administrator

Locate all skid trails and landings at least 200 feet from stream channels

Limit ground disturbance near channels to reduce the potential for sedimentation

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

SWST01, SWST02, SWST03, SWST04, SWGU08

Timber sale design and layout, sale administrator


Alternatives - 2


Applicable Forest Plan Enforcement Standard/Guideline

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

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

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

SWST01, SWST02, SWST03, SWST04, SWGU08

Timber sale design and layout, sale administrator

Decommission unneeded roads to reduce levels of total soil resource commitment. Approximately 3.1 miles of unclassified road would be used as temporary roads during harvest and decommissioned under the timber sale contract with Alternative 2 and 2.2 miles with Alternative 3. An additional 2.1 miles would be decommissioned by the FS as soon as funding is available under both Alternative 2 and 3.

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

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

SWST01, SWST03(b), SWST04,

Timber sale administrator, Timber Sale contract Hydrologist/Soil Specialist

On slopes less than 35% limit equipment operations to dry (<20% soil moisture) or frozen/snow covered conditions. All skid trails would be designated with primary skid trails at an average of 300 foot spacing and secondary trails at an average of 100 foot spacing. Closer spacing due to complex terrain would be allowed only with TS administrator approval. Random skidding would only be allowed under snow covered or frozen soil conditions

Reduce potential for detrimental soil disturbance

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

SWST02 Timber Sale Administrator, Timber Sale contract

On slopes between 35-45% limit equipment operations to designated skidtrails located an average of 300 feet apart at all times. All logs would be winched to designated trails.

Reduce potential for detrimental soil disturbance, Limit amount of TSRC.

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

SWST02, SWST03 Timber sale design and layout Timber Sale Administrator, Timber Sale contract

On slopes over 45% utilize cable or skyline harvest systems and limit equipment operations to the existing or temporary roads.

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

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

SWST02 Timber sale design and layout, Sale administrator


2 - Alternatives


Applicable Forest Plan Enforcement Standard/Guideline

Soil and Water Reclaim disturbed skyline/cable corridors by pulling berms and scattering slash to provide for 50% effective cover.

Reduce potential for erosion/rutting in corridors and facilitate revegetation

HIGH – Logic, Experience, Local monitoring

SWST01, SWST04, SWGU05

Timber Sale Administrator, Timber Sale contract

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

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

HIGH: logic, experience, local monitoring


Timber Sale Administrator, Timber Sale contract

Re-use existing well located skid trails and landings and reclaim following completion of harvest activities.

Limit creation of new areas of DD and restore existing areas of DD

HIGH: logic, experience, local monitoring

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

Place slash windrow at base of fill slopes on newly constructed roads to filter sediment from road.

Reduce sediment inputs to Summit Gulch

HIGH: Burroughs and King 1989, logic, experience


Project Engineer, timber sale road package/contract provision

Following harvest place approximately 1.8 miles of the Summit Gulch road (road 51858) into long term closure by ripping road surface, restoring stream crossings and seeding/mulching.

Reduce sediment inputs to Summit Gulch, Improve riparian conditions

HIGH: logic, experience, Burroughs and King 1898


Project Engineer, timber sale road package/contract provision

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

Reduce road related sediment inputs, Improve road surface conditions

HIGH: logic, experience, Burroughs and King 1898


Project Engineer, timber sale road package/ contract provision

4 to 14 tons of coarse woody debris per acre will be retained in the harvest units where it is allowable. 75% should be 15” DBH or greater (where available). Cull/undesirable trees 15 inches larger felled during harvest would be left to increase the amount of larger CWD across treatment activity areas.

Maintain CWD for long-term site productivity

HIGH: Graham et. al. 1991, 1994

SWST04 Timber Sale Contract, Administrator, Burn Plan, FMO


Alternatives - 2



Enforcement

Soil and Water Do not authorize storage of fuels and other toxicants or refueling within RCAs unless there are no other alternatives. Storage of fuels and other toxicants or refueling sites within RCAs shall be approved by the responsible official and have an approved spill containment plan commensurate with the amount of fuel. Transport hazardous materials on the Forest in accordance with 49 CFR 171 in order to reduce the risk of spills of toxic materials and fuels during transport through RCAs.

To protect fish and water quality and/or their habitat.


SWST11, SWGU11 Appendix C of this document has Mitigation Measures for Fuel Haul.

Forest Vegetation Fall timber perpendicular to skid trails to protect crowns and stems of residual trees.

Protect residual timber stand. HIGH: Logic

VEGU01 Timber sale contract, Administrator

Leave tree tops and limbs (less than 6" diameter) in underburn units to ensure fuel for burning, where needed.

Ensure adequate fuel to achieve site preparation objectives.

HIGH: Logic

VEGU03 Timber sale contract, Administrator

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

Minimize pine engraver beetle populations.

HIGH: research, studies, experience

TRGU01 Timber sale contract, Administrator

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

Green tree survival post burn MODERATE: 90% Fire survival rate from past experience

VEGU02 Timber sale contract, Administrator, Fuel Management Officer

In northern Idaho ground squirrel units, limit reserve trees size to >14” DBH for ponderosa pine and western larch, and >17” DBH for Douglas-fir, where feasible.

To increase potential of tree surviving fire intensities.

HIGH: experience

VEGU02, VEGU03 Layout

Snags and snag recruitment trees will be marked for retention with a “W”.

To differentiate them from the other retention trees.

HIGH: logic

VEGU03 Layout, Timber Sale Contract, Administrator


2 - Alternatives



Enforcement

Forest Vegetation Use a backing fire technique in prescribed burn units Control flame lengths and

prevent fire spread into tree crowns


N/A Fire Management Officer, burn plan

Fire modeling will be done prior to ignition of prescribed burns

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

HIGH: experience, BEHAVE model

N/A Fire Management Officer, silviculturist, burn plan

Cultural Resources Stop ground disturbing activities in any areas where sites are discovered during the preparation or implementation of these projects, until the Forest Archaeologist accesses the situation and recommends appropriate action. This includes private land if used to implement federal activities.

Limit risks to heritage resources.

HIGH: fact experience

N/A Forest Archaeologist, Layout Forester, Administrator, Contract

A Forest Cultural Resource Specialist will flag cultural site prior to the prescribed broadcast burn. Specific direction for avoiding site will be provided in the Burn Plan for this project.

Avoid risk to cultural site. HIGH: logic N/A Fuels Specialist, Cultural Resource Specialist

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

Control noxious weeds. HIGH: fact, experience

NPST10, NPGU01, NPGU05 Range Specialist

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

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

HIGH: fact, experience

NPST03, NPST04, NPGU03 Timber sale contract, Administrator


Alternatives - 2



Enforcement

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

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


NPST01, NPST02, NPST03, NPST06

Soil Scientist, Range Specialist.

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

Limit the spread of noxious weeds in the Project Area.


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

Recreation and Visual Quality Treat slash (lop and scatter/pile and burn or underburn) along Council/Cuprum Road and other visually sensitive areas to maintain visually pleasing perspectives and vistas.

Meet visual quality objective HIGH: logic SCGU04 Fire Management Officer, Burn Plans

Stumps should be cut no higher than 6 inches from the ground in Unit 2 and Unit 1 between Council Cuprum Road and FS Roads 471 and 871.

Meet visual quality objective HIGH: Logic SCGU03 Layout Forester (Marking Guide), Administrator, Contract


2 - Alternatives



Enforcement

Recreation and Visual Quality Timber harvest should be textural, with some small, simulated natural openings where openings already occur, or a limited number of small natural-appearing openings that are developed normally over time or more harvest entries.

Meet visual quality objective MODERATE : logic

SCGU05 Layout Forester (Marking Guide), Administrator, Contract

Ridgeline silhouettes should not have unnatural-appearing breaks along them.

Meet visual quality objective MODERATE : logic

SCGU06 Layout Forester (Marking Guide), Administrator, Contract

Where necessary, restrict log hauling during high recreation use times such as the opening day of hunting season.

Provide for public safety MODERATE : logic

N/A Timber sale contract, Administrator

The NW corner of Unit 1 (approximately 2 acres) is designated as semi-primitive/non-motorized. Timber harvest activity will be prohibited in this area.

Protect recreation experience MODERATE: logic

N/A Timber Sale Contract, Administrator

Sensitive Species Avoid any activities that may accelerate erosion or increase sedimentation on any of the sites occupied by sensitive plants.

Protect sensitive plant habitat. MODERATE: BTST01 Timber Sale Contract Administrator

Use directional falling of timber away from sites occupied by sensitive plants.

Protect sensitive plant resources.

MODERATE: BTST01 Timber sale contract, Administrator

Ground-disturbing activities would be stopped in any areas where previously unknown listed or sensitive fish, wildlife, or botanical species are discovered until a Fisheries Biologist, Wildlife Biologist, or Botanist, respectively, reviews the affected area and prescribes appropriate mitigation to ensure protection of the species.

Provide protection to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species

MODERATE: logic

N/A Fish Biologist, Wildlife Biologist, Botanist, Administrator, Burn Plan, FMO


Alternatives - 2




Enforcement

Sensitive Species During project implementation, make every effort to avoid impacting known sites of sensitive plants and habitat. This may include any or all of the following: a) Reroute planned new roads, skid trails, and temporary roads around existing sensitive plant locations. b) Exclude all activities associated with timber harvest from known locations of sensitive plants. c) Establish buffers around existing populations of sensitive plants within or near management units. d) Limit prescribed fire and slash burning to the off-season in the vicinity of known sensitive plant locations. e) Restrict activities related to decommissioning and maintenance of roads within or near sensitive plants to the road prism.

Minimize adverse effects on sensitive plants.

MODERATE: BTST01

FMO, Burn Plans, Soil Scientist, Sale Administrator, Botanist

Prior to project implementation, re-survey known sites and mark out the boundaries in the field of those sites that may be in danger of being impacted by proposed activities.

Protect sensitive plant habitat. MODERATE BTST01 Botanist, Administrator, Burn Plan, FMO

Known populations of sensitive plants will be marked on the ground and on sale administration maps during project implementation.

To minimize project impacts to sensitive plants.


BTST01 Administrator, Burn Plan, FMO

2 - Alternatives

Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and evaluation are used to determine whether the Forest Plan is being implemented correctly and to determine the effectiveness of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, management requirements, and mitigation measures. Implementation monitoring is used to decide whether the project was implemented as planned. Effectiveness monitoring determines whether the project design and mitigation measures were effective in meeting resource protection objectives. Items that would be monitored, if an action alternative is selected, are identified in Best Management Practices in Appendix D, and Monitoring Plans in Appendix F of this EA.

Identification of the Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 has been identified as the preferred alternative for the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project.


Environment and Effects - 3

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Chapter 3.................................................................................................................................................. 1

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects........................................................................ 1 3.1 Forest Vegetation Resource ........................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Fuels Management....................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Wildlife Resource ........................................................................................................................ 26 3.4 Water Resource............................................................................................................................ 51 3.5 Soil Resource ............................................................................................................................... 65 3.6 Other Disclosures......................................................................................................................... 86 Legal and Regulatory Requirements.................................................................................................. 86


3 – Environment and Effects


Environment and Effects - 3

Chapter 3 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Introduction This chapter describes the physical, biological, and human aspects of the environment that may be affected by the alternatives presented in Chapter 2. It also describes the expected effects of the alternatives on those environmental aspects.

Chapter 3 is organized by resources and includes resources that are associated with issues and purpose and need elements in Chapter 1 that are key components of the environment or that must be analyzed due to law, regulation, or policy.

Each resource section includes the following information:

Resource Title Purpose & Need Statements and/or Issues Forest Plan Direction Scope of the Analysis Affected Environment Environmental Effects Forest Plan Consistency Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

Each resource section is based on a specialist’s analysis. These analyses are located within the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management EA project record.

Forest Plan Direction This section describes Forest Plan direction for the resource.

Scope of Analysis This section describes the spatial (geographical) boundaries and timeframes used for analysis of each resource. The spatial scope of analysis may be the project area, watershed, big-game hunting zone, economic zone of influence, or west side of the Forest depending on the affected resource over temporary (less than 3 years), short (3-15 years), or long term (greater than 15 years) time frames.

Affected Environment This section describes existing resource conditions and illustrates the geographic area(s) in which the specific resource may be affected by the proposed management activities. Affected areas vary in size by resource and potential effects.




Environmental Effects The environmental effects section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) regulations recognize three categories of effects:

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by an action, but occur at a later time or different place. Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions (40 CFR 1508.7 and 8).

NEPA regulations also state that the Forest Service must show any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that may result from the alternatives.

Irreversible commitment is a permanent resource loss including the loss of future options. It usually applies to nonrenewable resources, such as minerals, or to factors that are renewable only over very long periods, such as soil productivity.

Irretrievable commitment is the loss of use or production of a natural resource for some period of time. One example is suited timberland being used for a dirt road. Timber growth on the land is irretrievably lost while the land is a road, but the timber resource is not irreversibly lost because the land could grow trees again in the future.

Forest Plan Consistency This section discusses compliance with the Forest Plan. When the affected environment does not meet the desired conditions of the Forest Plan, project activities have the opportunity to move the resource conditions towards desired conditions.

An alternative needs to be consistent with Forest Plan direction to be implementable. Compliance with Forest-wide direction (standards & guidelines) applicable to this project is documented in the Activity Table located in the project record.

Forest Vegetation Resource - 3

3.1 Forest Vegetation Resource

Purpose and Need Statements Promote large tree development

Reduce stand density to promote the growth of ponderosa pine and other large tree structure (greater than 20 inches diameter).

Improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat,

Measurements: Acres of forest stands treated to improve the large tree component

Acres of habitat improvement

Introduction The overall condition of forest stands in the Summit Gulch Project Area has changed as a result of wildfire suppression and timber management practices implemented since the late 1800s. These changes include an increase in the density of smaller trees (mostly ponderosa pine with a lesser amount of Douglas-fir). A few of the stands with north and east aspects are being encroached by grand fir. Almost all of the stands have been harvested within the last fifty years and the large mature and old age trees have been removed. The stands are currently overstocked with small to medium size trees. Dwarf mistletoe is present in the ponderosa pine component of many of the stands and infestations vary from light to heavy. Signs of western pine beetle, pine engraver beetle, and annosus root disease are present. Thinning these stands will improve or maintain stand health and promote the development of large tree structure. The severity of the dwarf mistletoe infections will be used as a guide to determine which trees to cut in the thinning. The beetle and root rot infections are not severe enough to drive management actions other than proper slash disposal.

The proposed activities will alter vegetation structure, composition, and density to achieve the Purpose and Need of this project and move the stands toward desired conditions. Implementation of this project would be through a timber sale. The estimated timber sale volumes for Alternatives 2 and 3 are 2.1 million and 0.8 million board feet respectively.

Forest Plan Direction Forest vegetation is described using habitat types, which use potential climax vegetation as an indicator of environmental conditions. Individual habitat types are named according to the climax tree species present in the stand in conjunction with key understory species. At the level of the Forest Plan, forested habitat types have also been grouped into potential vegetation groups (PVGs) that share similar environmental characteristics, site productivity, and disturbance regimes. (Forest Plan, p. A-17)

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project EA 3-3


Table 3.1-1. Forest Potential Vegetation Groups

Potential Vegetation Groups PVG 1 - Dry Ponderosa Pine/Xeric Douglas-fir

PVG 2 – Warm Dry Douglas-fir/Moist Ponderosa Pine

PVG 3 – Cool Moist Douglas-fir

PVG 4 – Cool Dry Douglas-fir

PVG 5 – Dry Grand Fir

PVG 6 – Cool Moist Grand Fir

PVG 7 – Cool Dry Subalpine fir

PVG 8 – Warm Moist Subalpine fir

PVG 9 – Hydric Subalpine fir

PVG 10 – Persistent Lodgepole Pine

PVG 11 – High Elevation Subalpine fir

See Appendix E for a detailed description of each PVG.

Desired Condition Appendix A of the Forest Plan contains the desired condition tables, mapping criteria, and classification descriptions for vegetation outside of designated wilderness areas. Desired conditions do not represent a static state; they are dynamic because the ecosystems are constantly changing. The desired conditions are not something that every acre of forest at every point in time will possess-there will always be spatial and temporal variability. Achievement of desired conditions well distributed across the planning unit is a long-term goal for forest management. (Forest Plan, p. A-1)

This analysis focuses on forest vegetation. Forest vegetation refers to land that contains at least 10 percent crown cover by forest trees of any size, or land that formerly had tree cover and is presently at an earlier seral stage. Forest vegetation will be described by PVG. The components of forest vegetation analyzed are tree size class, canopy closure, species composition, and snags. Coarse woody debris is briefly discussed here, along with snags. A more detailed discussion of coarse woody debris is included in the Soils Section of Chapter 3.

Tree Size Class Table 3.1-2 displays the range of desired tree size classes. Tree size class is determined by the size of the overstory trees. The average diameter of trees in the uppermost tree layer determines the stand’s tree size class.

Tree size class is based on the following diameter groupings:

Grass/Forb/Shrub/Seedling <4.5 feet tall

Sapling 0.1” – 4.9” DBH

Small trees 5.0” – 11.9” DBH

Medium trees 12” – 19.9” DBH

Large trees >20” DBH



Table 3.1-2. Desired Size Class Percentages of Forested Vegetation by PVG outside MPC 5.2

Tree Size PVGs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 *G/F/S/S 1-12 4-5 9 14-15 3-4 7-8 7-16 15-17 13 16-23 9-15 Saplings 2-12 3-7 9 7-9 3-7 7-9 11-15 11-15 8-15 11-16 14-15 Small 2-18 5-21 18-27 19-22 4-22 11-27 21-22 22-23 17-22 46-48 19-22 Medium 3-29 7-35 23-36 24-36 7-30 18-36 32-36 28-29 25-29 20 22-38 Large 47-91

59-80 23-41 20-34 66-84 28-56 20-21 20-21 31-37 20 20-27

*G/F/S/S = Grass/Forbs/Shrub/Seedling

Canopy Closure Table 3.1–3 displays the desired percent ranges in the large tree size class for canopy closure. Trees that compose a distinct break in height determine the canopy layer, and these trees must have a canopy closure of at least 10 percent. A few individual trees representing a distinctly different tree size are not recognized as defining a distinct canopy layer if the total canopy cover of those trees is less than 10 percent. Canopy cover represents total crown closure of all trees in a stand except for trees in the seedlings size class and is calculated only for the large tree size class stands.

Canopy closure classes are based as follows:

Low = 10-39 percent canopy closure

Moderate = 40-69 percent canopy closure

High = 70 percent or more canopy closure

Table 3.1–3. Desired Percentage Ranges of Canopy Closure in the Large Tree Size Class outside MPC 5.2.

Canopy Closure

PVGs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Low 80-

100

74-94

5-25 0 -14 25-45

0-20 0-14 0 0 0 0-16

Moderate 0-20

6-26

75-95

87-100

55-75

80-100

86-100

51-71 51-71 81-100

84-100

High

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39-49

39-49

0 -19 0

Species Composition Table 3.1-4 displays the desired percentage ranges for species composition. This table represents Forest-wide desired species composition across all size classes, as adapted from the Historic Range of Variability of the Idaho Southern Batholith Ecosystem (Morgan and Parsons, 2001). The desired species composition will achieve the goals of having landscapes dominated by early seral species that are better adapted to site conditions and are usually more resilient to disturbances such as fire.



Table 3.1-4. Desired Percentage Ranges for Species Composition for Forested PVGs.

Species PVGs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Aspen * * 1-11 4-

13 * * 6-11 * * * *

Lodgepole pine

N/A * * 10-20

* 1-5 28-42

25-34

29-37

82-94

18-25

Ponderosa pine

96-99

81-87

26-41

* 80-88

24-41

* N/A N/A N/A N/A

Western larch

N/A N/A N/A N/A 0-1 15-29

* 9-16

* N/A N/A

Whitebark pine

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * 32-47

Douglas-fir 0-2 10-16

47-69

66-81

7-17 15-25

24-34

23-37

* * N/A

Engelmann spruce

N/A N/A N/A N/A * 0-2 3-5 10-17

28-33

* 8-13

Grand fir N/A N/A N/A N/A 0-1 9-23

* N/A N/A N/A N/A

Subalpine fir

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0-3 12-21

11-17

29-33

* 18-29

*Not explicitly modeled during the development of the Historical Ranges of Variability

Snags Table 3.1-5 shows the desired range of snags per acre for PVGs by diameter groups. Snags and coarse woody debris are much finer-scale elements than vegetation components such as size class, canopy closure, and species composition. Both are known to fluctuate spatially and temporally. Snags are often found in clumps, whereas coarse woody debris recruitment over time may form from clumped snags. This table is not meant to establish an even distribution of snags across every acre of forested landscape, but to provide numbers that serve as a guide to approximate an average condition for an activity area. Coarse woody debris is discussed in greater detail in the Soils Section.

Table 3.1-5. Desired Range of Snags per Acre for PVGs

Diameter Group PVGs

10-20” Greater than 20” Total Minimum Height

1 0.4-0.5 0.4 -2.3 0.8 -2.8 15’ 2 1.8 -2.7 0.4 -3.0 2.2 -5.7 30’ 3 1.8 -4.1 0.2 -2.8 2.0 -6.9 30’ 4 1.8 -2.7 0.2 -2.1 2.0 -4.8 30’ 5 1.8-5.5 0.4 -3.5 2.2 -9.0 30’ 6 1.8-5.5 0.2 -3.5 2.0 -9.0 30’ 7 1.8-5.5 0.2 -3.5 2.2 -9.0 30’ 8 1.8 -7.5 0.2 -3.0 2.2 -10.5 30’ 9 1.8 -7.5 0.2 -3.0 2.2 -10.5 30’ 10 1.8 -7.7 N/A 1.8 -7.7 15’ 11 1.4 -2.2 1.4 -2.2 2.8 -4.4 15’

Management actions should result in both short-term and long-term replacement of snags by retaining sufficient numbers of live trees, including those with broken tops, cavities,



lightening scars, dead portions, etc. as future recruitments. Treatments should be designed to provide structural, compositional, and functional elements to long-term sustainability of snags and coarse wood. Some actions, such as prescribed fire, will consume coarse wood. If an action results in the development of large trees, this will contribute to providing the desired levels of large snags and coarse woody debris over time. The intent is to either maintain a desired condition or to trend toward the desired condition.

Scope of the Analysis Forest vegetation components - tree size class, canopy closure, and species composition are analyzed on the 5th field hydrologic unit (HU), Bear Creek Watershed. The Bear Creek Watershed encompasses 57,300 acres. The 5th field HU is deemed an appropriate analysis unit for these components because the mid-scale data and other information are generally available or feasible to generate. The 5th field HU facilitates a good distribution of desired components across the Forest.

Snags and coarse woody debris are analyzed at the activity area level, which better reflects the scale at which to consider these elements and to plan projects to provide for maintaining or improving trends in snag and coarse wood amounts. The activity area for snags and coarse woody debris is the specific site affected, which is the harvest unit or the prescribed burn area (Forest Plan, p. GL-1).

The direct and indirect effects were analyzed for the National Forest System lands in the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project Area. Cumulative effects were analyzed for private and National Forest System lands for the 5th field HU, Bear Creek Watershed.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition Current condition for forest vegetation components tree size class, canopy closure, and species composition is evaluated at the 5th field HU. Current condition of tree size class and canopy closure is derived from Landsat Satellite Imagery processed for the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup (Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests) by the University of Montana. Current condition of species composition is not available through satellite imagery. However, based on professional observations and knowledge of stand dynamics, unmanaged stands in the 5th field HU are being encroached upon by climax species.

Current condition for snags is derived from the Payette National Forest 2001 Inventory Averages for medium and large dead trees by strata and working group, field reconnaissance plots, and professional observations. The activity areas of this project are all located within PVG 2 - Warm Dry Douglas-fir/Moist Ponderosa pine.

Tree Size Class All of the proposed activities in this project are in stands within PVG 2. Table 3.1-6 displays the desired size class percentage versus the current percentages for PVG 2 within the 5th field HU.



Table 3.1-6. Current Size Class Versus Desired Size Class Percentage of Forested Vegetation for PVG 2 for all MPCs within Bear Creek 5th Level HU

Tree Size Class Current Desired G/F/S/S 34 percent 4-5 percent Saplings 1 percent 3-7 percent Small 28 percent 5-21 percent Medium 17 percent 7-35 percent Large 20 percent 59-80 percent

For PVG 2 within the 5th field HU the area in the grass/forb/shrub/seedling (G/F/S/S) class is 30 percent higher than the desired condition. The sapling, small tree, and medium tree size classes are close to or within the desired ranges. The large tree size class is 40 percent below the desired condition.

There are two tree size classes within the proposed harvest units. All of the proposed units are in the medium tree size class, except for units 13 and 22, which are in the small tree size class.

Canopy Closure All of the proposed activities in this project are in stands within PVG 2. Table 3.1-7 displays the desired canopy closure percentage ranges versus the current percentages for PVG 2 stands within the 5th field HU.

Table 3.1-7. Current Canopy Closure Versus Desired Canopy Closure Percentage Ranges of Large Tree Size Class Stands in PVG 2 within all MPCs within Bear Creek 5th Level HU.

Canopy Closure Current Desired Low 91 percent 74-94 percent Medium 9 percent 6-26 percent High 0 percent 0 percent

For PVG 2 stands within the 5th field HU, the current canopy closure categories are within the desired ranges. None of the proposed harvest units are in the large tree size class. Therefore, the proposed treatments will not affect the current canopy closure status for the large tree size class as displayed on the above table.

Species Composition Species composition is moving away from the desired condition in this watershed except in stands that have been treated recently. Most unmanaged stands and stands that have not been treated recently are being encroached upon by shade tolerant climax tree species (grand fir, Engelmann spruce, and Douglas-fir on some sites), while early seral tree species (ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir on some sites) are declining.

At the activity area level this shift towards climax species is less evident. Most of the proposed harvest units are currently dominated by ponderosa pine. However, Douglas-fir and grand-fir are encroaching in the understory of these stands. Treating these stands will prevent the on-set of succession by less desirable climax tree species.

Snags Table 3.1-8 displays the current estimate of snags per acre for the activity areas versus the desired ranges for PVG2. Both diameter classes are slightly below the desired ranges.



Table 3.1-8. Current Estimate of Snags per Acre for the Activity Areas versus the Desired Ranges.

Diameter Group Current Desired 10”-20” 1.3 1.8 – 2.7 Greater than 20” 0.2 0.4 – 3.0 Total 1.5 2.2 – 5.7

Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and indirect effects are evaluated at the 5th field HU level for tree size class, canopy closure, and species composition and at the activity area level for snags and coarse woody debris. The activity areas of this project are located within PVG2, warm, dry Douglas-fir/moist ponderosa pine.

Alternative 1 No Action

Tree Size Class Movement towards desired conditions would be at a slower rate than with the action alternatives. The difference between treating these stands and not treating them is that the ponderosa pine in untreated stands will lose vigor and become more susceptible to insect and disease infections as the stands become more and more crowded. With no treatment, these trees living under more crowded conditions are less likely to live long and develop into large trees. Tree size class percentages would change over time as growth occurs and some tree size classes develop into the next size class throughout the 5th field HU. However, events, such as wildfire, and insect and disease mortality are more likely to occur in stands that are not treated and could cause stands to move into the lower tree size classes.

All stands within the proposed activity areas are in the medium tree size class except units 13 and 22, which are in the small tree size class.

Canopy Closure Over time, large tree size class stands in the watershed with low and moderate canopy closures would become stands with moderate and high canopy closures. This change would come about as densities and crown widths increase. There are no stands within the proposed activity areas that are in the large tree size class.

Species Composition Without treatment, species composition would continue to move away from the desired condition over time. Species composition would continue to move towards shade tolerant climax species, primarily grand fir (and Douglas-fir in the ponderosa pine habitat types). As stand densities increase and less light reaches the forest floor, Douglas-fir and grand fir would continue to increase in abundance and dominate the stands. Seral species would eventually give way to the climax species, leaving behind occasional large remnants of ponderosa pine.



Snags Snags and coarse woody debris would continue to fluctuate across the landscape. Areas with easy access for firewood collection are anticipated to move below desired ranges while areas of limited or no access are expected to be within or exceed desired ranges. It is anticipated that less desirable snags of grand fir would be maintained or increased while Douglas-fir snags would be removed for firewood if they are near existing open roads. Most stands in the activity areas are stocked with a high percentage of ponderosa pine, which is a less desirable fire wood species than Douglas-fir but more desirable than grand fir.

Alternatives 2 & 3

Tree Size Class There are no large tree size class stands within the proposed activity areas. All stands within the proposed activity areas are in the medium tree size class except units 13 and 22, which are in the small tree size class. The stands that are currently in the medium tree size class will remain in the medium tree size class after treatment. Unit 22 will be thinned to 35 to 100 trees per acre and then treated with prescribed fire to enhance northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat while maintaining cover for elk calving. It will remain in the small tree size class. Unit 13 will be thinned to 10 to 25 trees per acre and then burned. These treatments will change this stand to a Grass/Forbs/Shrub/Seedling size class stand to enhance northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat. The trees in medium size class stands that are treated will take advantage of the increased water, nutrients, and sunlight. These thinned stands will maintain growth and vigor longer, be more resistant to insect and disease infections and fire, and will live longer than trees in stands that are not treated. These stands will eventually develop into the large tree size class. Some large grand fir (climax species) trees and other large trees with poor vigor will be cut where stand densities are high and resources are limited. However, large trees will be favored to leave in almost all instances and less than 1 percent of the trees cut will be large trees.

Canopy Closure Over time, large tree size class stands in the watershed with low and moderate canopy closures will become stands with moderate and high canopy closures. This change would come about as densities and crown widths increase. There are no stands within the proposed activity areas that are currently in the large tree size class.

With either of the action alternatives, canopy closure would be reduced in the treated stands. However, over the next 10 to 20 years as the trees take advantage of the newly available resources and crowns expand, canopies will close in again. This would take place in the units being treated to enhance woodpecker and owl habitat. The stands treated to improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat will be periodically treated to prevent canopies from closing again. Canopy closures are currently within the desired ranges in PVG 2, and all proposed treatments are in PVG 2 stands. The canopy closure reduction that will occur with the proposed treatments will not cause canopy closure conditions to move outside of the desired ranges.

Species Composition All treatment prescriptions would maintain desired species composition or move stands toward desired conditions. The treatments will reduce the percentage of grand fir and Douglas-fir while increasing the percentage of ponderosa pine. Treatments would mainly consist of removing trees from the lower canopy and spacing tree crowns in the upper canopy



to favor healthier dominant trees. Most of the proposed harvest units are currently within or close to the desired percentage ranges for species.

Snags Within the activity areas, existing snags and green trees with rot, dead tops, and other damage (wildlife trees) would be retained. The action alternatives would move the current snag and coarse woody debris condition towards the desired condition by leaving existing snags and coarse woody debris, leaving live trees for future snags and coarse woody debris, and limiting access to parts of the project area so firewood gatherers can not get to snags. A slight reduction in snags may occur during project implementation if hazard snags need to be felled. Applying prescribed fire after the mechanical treatments in these stands will cause some tree mortality and add to the number of snags. Coarse woody debris is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, Section 3.5.

The prescribed fire applied in the mechanically treated stands and in the adjacent areas will cause mortality in approximately 10 to 20 percent of the trees within the burn areas. Some trees will be weakened by the fire and will eventually die from insects or disease. Others will be killed by the direct affects of the fire. These fire effects will favor the more vigorous ponderosa pine and will help move the treated stands towards the desired conditions. This prescribed fire will not only favor seral trees, it will create snags that will eventually become coarse woody debris. Care will be taken during the burning operations to maintain as much coarse woody debris on the ground as possible.

Alternatives 2 and 3 will promote large tree development. The thinning treatments included in Alternative 2, and not in Alternative 3, will eventually (over the next 10 to 20 years) result in stands considered large tree size class. The treatments designed to improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat will result in individual trees that attain large size. However, these stands will be periodically treated to keep them open to enhance northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat. This periodic treatment in the northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat units may prevent these stands from developing enough canopy closure to be considered large tree size class stands.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area is the 5th field HU, Bear Creek Watershed totaling 57,299 acres. Cumulative effects combine the effects of the alternatives with conditions in the watershed created by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Actions that may cumulatively affect the vegetative component are the following:

Past Actions Timber harvest has occurred on an estimated 19,569 acres within the 5th field HU during the last 46 years. These harvests have created varying levels of openings in the forest canopy, from plantations on an estimated 4,949 acres (strata 20 and 32), to partial cuts on about 6,657 acres (strata 21) with canopy closure of residual trees of less than 40 percent, to partial cuts on an estimated 7,558 acres (strata 22 and 26) with canopy closures of residual trees greater than 40 percent. Where timber harvest has occurred and the forest canopy was sufficiently opened up, early seral species (ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir) are now growing in even-aged stands. In older plantations, no remnant overstory occurs as it did historically; however, much of the past timber harvest was in partial cuts. More recent plantations do have a remnant overstory retaining some structure features. In some of the partial cuts with



less than 40 percent canopy closure and in most of the partial cuts with greater than 40 percent canopy closure, grand fir is regenerating largely to the exclusion of other species.

The remaining area, 38,135 acres, is either non-forest (20,280 acres), burned area (59 acres), bodies of water (9 acres), or has had no vegetation management using prescribed fire, or timber harvest (17,787 acres).

Recent past actions (last 10 years) within the Bear Creek Watershed 5th field HU include Chips Ahoy, Hot Licks, Long Shot, Lookout Salvage, Mickey Creek, Parkaye, Thorn Creek, Thorny Creek, Squirrel Pen, and Little Squirrel (a northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat improvement project).

Future Actions Future vegetation management projects planned in the Bear Watershed include Upper Bear Timber Sale and Lick Creek Timber Sale. Upper Bear Timber Sale was analyzed under the Upper Bear Timber Sale Final Environmental Impact Statement. A Record of Decision was signed by the Forest supervisor for this project in July 2003. This timber sale has been sold, and road construction operations started in July 2005. The Lick Creek Timber Sale was analyzed under the Lick Creek Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment and was signed by the Forest Supervisor in February 2005. The Lick Creek Timber Sale will be offered for sale in the spring of 2006.

Pre-commercial thinning is planned in this HU, which would move these areas toward desired conditions by reducing densities and favoring seral tree species. The existing plantations in the HU (approximately 4,950 acres of strata 20 and 32) will be thinned at 15 to 20 years of age.

Periodic reentries in the activity areas of this project would be implemented as needed to maintain enhanced northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of the proposed treatments on the vegetation component at the watershed scale would be minimal with either action alternative. Alternative 2 would treat about 889 acres and Alternative 3 would treat about 318 acres. The Bear Creek Watershed encompasses 57,300 acres of which 36,950 acres are forested. Treating 889 acres would affect only 2.4 percent of these timbered acres.

With Alternative 2, sixty percent of the acres treated would have about half of the trees removed. These would generally be the smaller or less vigorous trees. The canopy closure in these stands would be reduced by about one third. These are the stands that are being thinned to enhance whiteheaded woodpecker and flammulated owl habitat. These treatments would have very little effect on the vegetation structure, composition, and density conditions in the watershed. The remaining stands would be treated to improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat. In these stands seventy five percent or more of the trees would be removed. This would result in a canopy closure reduction of up to seventy percent. These treatments would have more of an affect on the vegetation structure, composition, and density conditions in the watershed. However, conditions would remain within Forest Plan guidelines. Alternative 3 would treat just the northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat improvement stands.

All stands within the proposed activity areas are in the medium tree size class except units 13 and 22, which are in the small tree size class. The only immediate change in tree size class with either action alternative will be in Unit 13. This stand will be changed from a small tree size class stand to a Grass/Forb/Shrub/Seedling size class stand. However, trees in the



thinned stands will maintain growth and vigor longer, and will live longer than in the stands that are not treated. The trees in treated stands will take advantage of the increased water, nutrients, and sunlight. This increase of available resources will allow these trees to maintain vigor longer, live longer, and eventually develop into larger trees. At the watershed scale this project’s effects combined with past and expected future treatments in the watershed would contribute to more acres existing in the large tree size class over the long-term.

With either of the action alternatives, canopy closure would be reduced in the treated stands. However, over time as the trees take advantage of the newly available resources and crowns expand, canopies will close in again. This would take place in the units being treated to enhance woodpecker and owl habitat. The stands treated to improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat will be periodically treated to prevent canopies from closing again. The 320 or so acres treated for northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat would have a minimal effect on watershed scale canopy closure conditions.

Species composition will be improved by implementing the Upper Bear and Lick Creek Timber Sales, which will remove shade tolerant trees. Harvest treatments in those projects and this project will allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor. This increased sunlight will enhance the establishment and growth of seral species. This project will have a minimal effect on species composition at the watershed scale. However, where opportunities exist to favor seral species over late successional species, the species composition will be improved.

The snag component will be improved by limiting access to firewood collection and by enhancing growth, which will result in more large snags over time.

The effects of either action alternative combined with past and foreseeable future actions would move the vegetation resource within the Bear Creek Watershed towards the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan.

Forest Plan Consistency Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with Forest Plan direction for vegetation management, as they maintain or restore vegetation to the desired conditions. Under these alternatives, we would be meeting the Forest Plan goal of maintaining or restoring desired plant community components, including species composition, size classes, canopy closures, and snags as described in Appendix A (Forest Plan p. III-30). Tables C.1-2 through C.1-8 display the desired and existing conditions for these plant community components. Stands in the large tree size class are not a part of this proposal and would not be affected by Alternatives 2 or 3. However, this project’s effects combined with past and expected treatments in the watershed will create more large tree size class stands.

Alternative 2 mechanically thins 889 acres within 34 timbered stands to move the vegetation toward desired conditions. Alternative 3 mechanically thins 318 acres within 12 stands.

Alternative 1 is not consistent with Forest Plan direction for vegetation because stands would continue to depart from desired conditions.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of vegetation resources that would result from this project.




Project Record This EA herby incorporates by reference the Vegetation Specialist Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). The Vegetation Specialist Report is located in the Project Record and contains the detailed data, analysis, and technical documentation that the Vegetation Specialist relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA.

Fuels Management - 3

3.2 Fuels Management

Purpose and Need Statement Reduce Forest Fuels

Reduce understory (seedlings/saplings) densities, and fuel laddering to lower the risk of uncharacteristic or undesirable wildland fires

Measurements Fire Regime/Condition class (FRCC): Acres moved towards Historic Fire

Regime/Acres moved towards Condition Class 1 Changes to predicted fire behavior

The vegetation in the project area has experienced a change in disturbance regimes impacting the age class, species composition and fuel loadings in many areas. Many forest stands are overstocked, dominated by shade tolerant/ fire intolerant species, and exhibit multiple canopy layers. These stands are more susceptible to fire. Aggressive fire suppression and past harvest of large diameter seral species (especially ponderosa pine) have been major factors contributing to the change in forest structure, composition, and associated changes in fire regimes.

Forest Plan Direction The 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) sets goals, objectives, standards and management direction for fire management and vegetation. The desired condition on page III-38 of the Forest Plan states that prescribed and wildland fire are used as tools to achieve and maintain vegetative conditions and desired fuel levels. Fire plays a natural role where desirable, but is actively suppressed where necessary to protect life, investments, and valuable resources. Fire operates within historical fire regimes appropriate to the vegetation type and management objectives.

Forest-wide goals and objectives applicable to fire management and vegetation include (Forest Plan pages III-30 to III-31, and III-38 to III- 40):

VEGO02- Maintain or restore vegetative conditions as described in Appendix A to provide for ecological processes, including disturbance regimes, soil-hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, and biotic interactions.

VEGO03- Maintain or restore vegetation conditions as described in Appendix A to reduce frequency, extent, severity, and intensity of uncharacteristic or undesirable disturbances such as fire, insects, and pathogens.

FMGO03- Use fire alone or with other management activities to restore or maintain desirable plant community attributes including fuel levels, as well as ecological processes.

FMGO05- Provide for protection of life, investments, and valuable resources through appropriate vegetation, fuel and wildland fire management.

FMOB01- Reduce firefighter and public injuries and loss of life, and damage to communities from severe, unplanned and unwanted, wildland fires by prioritizing fire fighter, public, and community safety above other concerns in fire management activities.



FMOB02- During project planning, identify appropriate areas where prescribed fire could be used to meet management objectives. These areas may include intermingled land ownership, and areas of concentrated investments, structures and other resource concerns.

FMOB04- Schedule and complete at least 100,000 acres of fuels management through prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in the next decade to achieve desired vegetation attributes and fuel reduction goals. Focus on wildland/urban interface and in Fire Regimes 1, 2, and 3 (non-lethal, mixed 1, mixed 2) in condition classes 2 and 3 (moderate to extreme hazard rating).

Potential Vegetation Groups, Fire Regime and Coarse Woody Debris At the level of the Forest Plan, forested habitat types have been grouped into potential vegetation groups (PVGs) that share similar environmental characteristics, site productivity and disturbance regimes. Table 3.2-1 displays the forested PVG and associated historic fire regime. Within each PVG the Forest Plan has identified a range of coarse woody debris (CWD) quantities to manage towards that provides for the positive effects of CWD and yet avoids excessive fire hazard (Table 3.2-2) (Forest Plan p. A-9). As vegetation moves toward desired conditions in large tree size, canopy closure, and species composition, it also moves toward the desired historical fire regime and desired levels of woody debris.

Table 3.2-1 Historical Fire Regimes for Forested Potential Vegetation Groups

Potential Vegetation Group Historical Fire Regime

1– Dry Ponderosa Pine/ Xeric Douglas Fir

Nonlethal

2- Warm, Dry Douglas Fir/ Moist Ponderosa Pine

Nonlethal

3- Cool, Moist Douglas Fir Mixed 1-Mixed 2 4- Cool, Dry Douglas Fir Mixed 1-Mixed 2 5- Dry Grand Fir Nonlethal-Mixed 1 6- Cool, Moist Grand Fir Mixed 1-Mixed 2 7- Warm, Dry Subalpine Fir Mixed 2 8- Warm, Moist Subalpine Fir Lethal 9- Hydric Subalpine Fir Lethal 10- Persistent Lodgepole Pine Lethal 11- High Elevation Subalpine Fir Mixed 2

Table 3.2-2 Desired Range of Coarse Woody Debris, in Tons per Acres, and Desired percentage in Large Size Classes greater than 15 inches for Potential Vegetation Groups

Potential Vegetation Group

Dry Weight in Decay Classes I & II (tons/acre)

Percent greater than 15 inches

1– Dry Ponderosa Pine/ Xeric Douglas Fir

3 -10 >75 percent

2- Warm, Dry Douglas Fir/ Moist Ponderosa Pine

4 – 14 >75 percent

3- Cool, Moist Douglas Fir 4 – 14 >65 percent 4- Cool, Dry Douglas Fir 4 – 14 >65 percent 5- Dry Grand Fir 4 – 14 >75 percent 6- Cool, Moist Grand Fir 4 – 14 >65 percent



Potential Vegetation Dry Weight in Decay Percent greater than 15 Group Classes I & II (tons/acre) inches

7- Warm, Dry Subalpine Fir 5 – 19 >50 percent 8- Warm, Moist Subalpine Fir 5 – 19 >25 percent 9- Hydric Subalpine Fir 5 – 19 >25 percent 10- Persistent Lodgepole Pine 5 – 19 >25 percent 11- High Elevation Subalpine Fir

4 – 14 >25 percent

Note: The recommended distribution is to try to provide coarse wood in the largest size classes, preferably over 15” in DBH, which provide the most benefit for both wildlife and soil productivity. This table is not meant to provide an even distribution of coarse wood across every acre of the forested landscape, but to provide numbers that serve as a guide to approximate an average condition for an activity area.

Condition Class Condition Class describes the degree of departure from historic fire regimes and pre-European settlement conditions. Condition class is a method to quantify the amount of area that has uncharacteristic or undesirable fire risk. A desired condition from the Forest Plan is to treat fuels to a level that reduces the risk of uncharacteristic or undesirable wildland fires (Forest Plan p. III-38). This equates to movement from a higher condition class (2 or 3) toward a lower condition class (1 or 2), or maintaining those areas in which a desirable Condition Class has already been established. This movement or maintenance could be accomplished by altering the vegetative and fuel conditions using timber harvest, understory thinning and prescribed fire to reduce the stand density, fuel loading, and ladder fuels.

Scope of the Analysis The direct and indirect effects of the alternatives on fire and fuels management will be analyzed for National Forest System lands within the Summit Gulch project area. The cumulative effects of the alternatives in relation to fire and fuels management will be analyzed across all ownerships within the Summit Gulch project area, and adjacent areas.


Fire Regime/Condition Class (FRCC) Fire regime/condition class (FRCC) is an interagency, standardized tool for determining the degree of departure from the reference condition vegetation, fuels and disturbance.

Fire Regime Fire regimes describe historic characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, including factors such as fire frequency, intensity, severity, and patch size. Fire regimes can be classified by two methodologies. In the first one, there are four fire regimes: Non-Lethal, Mixed Severity I, Mixed Severity II, or Lethal (Forest Plan). In the Non-Lethal fire regime, fires tend to burn with lower intensity and severity with the smallest patches of mortality, while fires in the Lethal fire regimes generally burn with the highest intensity and severity with the largest patches of mortality. Mixed Severity I and Mixed Severity II fire regimes exhibit characteristics between non-lethal and lethal fire regimes. Non-Lethal and Mixed Severity I fire regimes generally have the shortest interval between reoccurring fires, and Mixed



Severity II and Lethal fire regimes have the longest intervals (see photos of representative fire regimes in Fuels Specialist’s Report). This interval is commonly referred to as the “mean fire return interval”, and can be defined as the average number of years between two successful wildland fires in a given area (Agee 1993).

A second methodology for classifying fire regimes comes from the Cohesive Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2000a). In this classification there are five fire regime groups: Group I-Low Severity, Group II- Stand Replacement Severity, Group III-Mixed Severity, Group IV- Stand Replacement Severity, and Group V-Stand Replacement Severity. Group I has a fire return interval of 0-35 years and nonlethal fire severity. Group II has a fire return interval of 0-35 years and a lethal fire severity. Fire regime Group III has a fire return interval of 35-100+ years and a mixed fire severity. Group IV has a fire return interval of 35-100+ years and a lethal fire severity. Group V has a fire return interval of greater than 200 years and a lethal fire severity.

Mean fire return intervals measured in the Bear Watershed, approximately 5 miles northeast of the Summit Gulch project area, indicate that surface fires historically reoccurred on south facing stands an average of 4-40 years (Barrett 1994). The same study showed that within the Bear Watershed, most south facing stands had not experienced fire for the past 74-115 years. In fire’s absence, dense understories of tall shrubs, and shade tolerant tree saplings and poles have developed under the old tree canopies on these productive sites.

Results from Barrett’s 1994 study suggest that the majority of the Summit Gulch project area would historically have a Non-Lethal fire regime. For example, observations from the Summit Gulch project area show multiple fire scars on ponderosa pine remnants, indicating similar fire frequencies found in the Bear watershed. Table 3.2-3 shows the fire regimes, mean fire return intervals, and percent of mature tree survival following typical historical wildland fires.

Table 3.2-3 Fire Regime Characteristics of the Summit Gulch Project Area

Fire Regime (USDA Forest Service 2000a)

Fire Regime Groups (USDA Forest Service 2000a)

Mean Fire Return Interval*

Mature Tree Survival**

Non-Lethal Fire Regime Group I 18 years Greater Than 90 percent

Mixed Severity I

Fire Regime Group II 32 years 50-90 percent

Mixed Severity II

Fire Regime Group III 73 Years 10-90 percent

Lethal Fire Regime Group IV 148+ years 0-10 percent Lethal Fire Regime Group V 0-35 years 0 percent*** *Adapted from Barrett (1993) **Calculated in FOFEM (Reinhardt et al. 1997)

Table 3.2-4 shows the historic and current acres within each fire regime for the Summit Gulch project area. Fire regime for the forested stands was based upon the Forest Plan’s classification of PVG. Fire regimes for the non-forested stands were based upon methods described in the guidebook: “Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class, Methods Great Basin Geographic Area (2004). The amount of acreage currently classified in the non-lethal fire regime is considerably lower than what occurred historically. There is now more acreage in the Mixed Severity and Lethal fire regimes.



Table 3.2-4 Historic and Current Fire Regime Categories for the Summit Gulch Vegetation Project Area.


Fire Regime Groups (USDA Forest Service 2000a)

Historic Acres* Current Acres*

Non-Lethal Group I 1941 0 Mixed Severity I Group II 1609 2026 Mixed Severity II Group III 18 18 Lethal Group IV 0 1524 Lethal Group V 0 0 Unknown Unknown 12 12 *These acres include forested, non-forested, private, and National Forest System Lands.

Condition Class Three possible Condition Class classifications exist. Condition Class 1 shows no departure from historic fire regimes, and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Condition Class 2 shows moderate departure from the historic regimes and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by one or more return intervals. Condition Class 3 shows the greatest amount of departure from historical regimes, the risk of losing key ecosystem components is high, and fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by multiple return intervals (USDA Forest Service 2000a).

Within the Summit Vegetation project area, stands in PVG 2 (dry Douglas-fir/moist ponderosa pine) are classified in Condition Class 2. The historical fire regime for PVG 2 would be categorized as non-lethal (fire regime Group I). Non-forested stands classified as mountain grassland with shrubs are also in a Condition Class 2. The historical fire regime for mountain grassland with shrub would be categorized as mixed-severity (fire regime Group II). Fire suppression and other forest management activities have contributed to the number of acres found in the Condition Class 2 (see Fuels Specialist Report and cumulative effects). Stand structure, in terms of species composition, canopy density, size class distribution and vertical layering, has changed as a result. In the majority of PVG 2 stands, shade tolerant, fire intolerant species (i.e. grand fir) have naturally regenerated in great numbers. In other areas regeneration of early seral species, mainly ponderosa pine has occurred through planting. The fire resistant overstory trees (ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir) are no longer found in the same quantities as in unharvested areas.

Predicted Fire Behavior Fire behavior is a set of attributes (rate of spread, flame length, fire type, etc) that describe how a fire will burn under a defined set of parameters like weather, fuel moisture, fuel loading, fuel profile, species composition, crown density, fuel depth and fuel continuity. Forest managers can change fire behavior generally by modifying the physical characteristics of the live and dead fuel on a site. The concern in the Summit Gulch project area is the connectivity of the aerial fuels due to the amount of small diameter tree and shrub species that provide a fuel ladder into the larger more fire tolerant trees. These fuel ladders provide a means for fire to cause significant bole scorch and individual tree torching which in turn causes an increase in large tree mortality.

The current Summit Gulch stand conditions (high crown densities, multiple tree canopy layers, understory species composition towards grand fir and small diameter trees) provide ideal conditions for a severe lethal fire to develop from an unplanned ignition. Table 3.2-5 depicts the potential fire behavior for the Summit Gulch project area, if a fire were to occur in the existing forested stands under severe summer drought conditions with a 12 mile per hour



surface wind speed (40 mile/hour 20 foot windspeed). Predicted flame lengths are greater than four feet (depending on Fuel Model), and rates of spread are relatively fast. In some areas fire could burn as passive or active crown fires, with small groups of trees being entirely involved in fire. The average tree mortality for fuel model 2 is 95 percent, and for fuel models 8 and 9 is 37 percent from Behave Plus. These levels of mortality are uncharacteristic and are in excess of what occurred historically in Non-Lethal and Mixed Severity I fire regimes, and more closely depict mortality levels for the Mixed Severity II and Lethal fire regimes.

Table 3.2-5 Existing Fire Behavior Attributes for the Summit Project Area

Fuel Model 2 PVG 2

Fuel Model 8 PVG 2

Fuel Model 9 PVG 2

Flame Length (feet) 13

1

6

Rate of Spread (chains/ hour)

183

5

37

Potential Fire Type Surface Fire/Individual Tree Torching

Surface Fire Surface Fire

NOTE: Fuel models were based on fuel loadings by PVG located in the project area (see Fuels Specialist Report).


Introduction Two computer models were used to analyze the potential fire behavior of each alternative. These models were BEHAVE and Crown Mass. BEHAVE, a fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system (Andrews 1986), which links models of surface and crown fire behavior, was used to assess potential flame lengths, rates of spread, and potential crown fires at a stand level. Crown Mass (Fire Program Solutions/ Acacia Services 1999-2001) was used to determine canopy bulk density, canopy fuel loading, and canopy base height from the fuel plot data. In addition, Crown Mass, which incorporates algorithms from BEHAVE, and calculation methods from the First Order of Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) (Reinhardt et al. 1997), were used to make additional predictions about mortality. These models do not predict whether a fire would occur, nor would they estimate the probability of a fire ignition. The models are only used to predict fire behavior as if a fire did occur. These models provide an exceptional means to compare alternatives and are the best science available for this analysis.

Fire behavior predictions are based on late summer, severe drought fuel moisture conditions, and a 40-mile per hour 20-foot windspeed (which equates to a 12-mile per hour surface wind speed), unless otherwise noted.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 - No Action



FRCC: Acres moved toward historic fire regime/ Acres moved towards condition class 1 Under this alternative, no acreage would be treated by precommercial thinning, commercial thinning or broadcast burning. No acreage would move toward historic fire regimes. A mixed severity I fire regime (Group II) would continue to be the predominant fire regime in PVG 2 rather than the historic fire regime of non-lethal (Group I). The non-forested areas of mountain grassland with shrub would continue to be in the lethal fire regime (Group IV) rather than the historic fire regime of mixed severity I (Group II).

Condition Class 2 would continue to dominate the Summit Gulch project area. Over time fire hazard would increase to a Condition Class 3 because live fuel would continue to accumulate with increasing tree densities, and the time between a fire disturbance would also increase. The overall risk of uncharacteristic lethal fires would increase.

As previously described, due to current stand densities (crown densities) and multiple canopy layers (ladder fuels) the potential for high levels of tree mortality from individual tree torching and bole char is high under a no-action alternative. High levels of tree mortality resulting from wildfire would be uncharacteristic and in excess of what occurred historically under a non-lethal fire regime.

Predicted Fire Behavior Under Alternative 1, portions of the current surface fuels and ladder fuels within the proposed project area meet all the requirements for tree torching initiation under severe weather conditions (Table 3.2-5) Coarse woody debris amounts are low in the project area (see Fuels Specialist Report), but sufficient ladder fuels exist in the form of young saplings, pole size trees, and brush to carry the fire up into the tops of the overstory vegetation.

Behave Plus modeling showed that under extreme fire danger levels, Alternative 1 could result in a potential fire spread of approximately 182 chains per hour with average flame lengths from up to 13 feet (Table 3.2-5). This type of wildland fire behavior would make direct attack by persons using hand tools and machinery difficult (Rothermel 1983). Under these wildland fire conditions, handline may not be relied upon to successfully hold a wildland fire, and firefighter safety would be a concern. Other suppression tactics (e.g. indirect attack, dozer line etc.) would likely be employed to safeguard firefighters at the price of increased suppression costs and natural resource damage.

Alternatives 2 and 3

FRCC: Acres moved toward historic fire regime/ Acres treated by condition class Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a combination of thinning, and prescribed fire treatments are proposed to treat the vegetation and fuels within the Summit Gulch project area.

The objectives of the precommercial thinning are to reduce tree densities among small tree diameters, improve species composition towards fire resistant species of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, and increase spacing between crowns. Resulting slash may be subsequently mechanically treated to reduce activity fuels, prior to underburning the sites. This treatment would modify the fuel profile and species composition, resulting in a change from Condition Class 2 to Condition Class 1.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 318 acres would be treated for northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat improvement. Under the prescription, stands would be thinned from below to achieve a low density, widely spaced forest comprised of dominant, healthy ponderosa pine. Following the thinning, the stands would be underburned. This treatment would modify the



fuel profile by removing ladder fuels and increasing space between tree crowns. Fire would be returned to the ecosystem, and accumulations of coarse woody debris in the smaller size classes (less than 3 inches) would be reduced. In addition, species composition would be improved by favoring the more fire resistant ponderosa pine. The effect of this treatment would change the fire hazard from Condition Class 2 to Condition Class 1.

Only Alternative 2 would treat 571 acres by commercial thinning and improvement cutting to promote large tree structure. Treatments would remove trees from the lower and upper crown classes to favor the desired fire resistant ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Excess slash would be whole tree yarded to the landing and burned. Cuts would decrease tree densities, open crown canopies, and remove ladder fuels. Following thinning, the stands would be underburned, which would reduce accumulations of coarse woody debris in the smaller size classes (less than 3 inches). Long-term these treatments would accelerate diameter growth and increase tree size from medium to large, which would also increase bark thickness and fire resistance of selected leave trees. These treatments change the potential for uncharacteristic fire to burn because ladder fuels are removed, crown densities are opened, and small diameter fuel loading is reduced. The condition class would change from Condition Class 2 to Condition 1.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 1,172 acres are proposed for prescribed fire without any prior mechanical treatment. Prescribed burning would have an immediate effect of returning fire to the ecosystem, lowering the fuel profile, and reducing fuel loadings. Overall the fire hazard would change from Condition Class 2 to Condition Class 1.

In summary, Alternative 2 would move 2,061 acres into Condition Class 1, while Alternative 3 would move 1,490 acres into Condition Class 1. Table 3.2-6 displays the changes in fire regime by alternative.

Table 3.2-6 Fire Regime Categories for the Summit Gulch Vegetation Project Area by Alternative.


Fire Regime Group

Historic Acres*

Current Acres* (Alternative 1)

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Non-Lethal I 1941 0 1170 624 Mixed Severity I II 1609 2026 1656 2179 Mixed Severity II III 18 18 18 18 Lethal IV 0 1524 724 747 Lethal V 0 0 0 0 Unknown Unknown 12 12 12 12 *These acres include forested, non-forested, private, and National Forest System Lands.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the growth of young seedlings and saplings would be anticipated to increase over time. This could decrease the effectiveness of vegetation treatments by increasing ladder fuels and possibly increasing fuel loading (Agee et al. 1999). To be effective, the treated acreage should be periodically re-entered to control the amount of ingrowth. Re-entry should be consistent with the mean fire return interval for a non-lethal fire regime.

Predicted Fire Behavior All of the treatments previously described under Alternative 2 and 3 would reduce accumulations of coarse woody debris in the smaller sizes classes (less than 3 inches), reduce the densities of small diameter trees and brush, open crown canopies, and fragment the



continuity of the fuel profile (horizontally and vertically). Predicted fire behavior would be expected to be of lower intensity and severity, resulting in more effective fire suppression, less overstory tree mortality, and increased control potential of wildland fires.

As a result of implementing Alternative 2 or 3, BEHAVE modeling predicted the fire type would be a surface fire (Table 3.2-7). Predicted flame lengths and rate of spread would be reduced to 1-2 feet and 9 chains/hour, respectively (Table 3.2-8). Fire intensities, rate of spread, individual tree torching, and spotting potential would all be reduced compared to Alternative 1.

Table 3.2-7 Potential Fire Type by Windspeed During Severe Drought Summer Conditions for Each Alternative

Alternative 20-foot Windspeed (Surface windspeed) (mph) 0(0) 10 (3) 20(6) 30(9) 40(12) 1 Surface Surface Surface Surface/Individual

tree torching Surface/ Individual Tree Torching

2 and 3 Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface

Table 3.2-8 Comparison of Alternatives for Predicted Rate of Spread and Flame Length for Average Fuel Model Characteristics

Alternative Predicted Flame Length Predicted rate of Spread (ch/hr)

1 Up to 13 Feet Up to 182 2 and 3 1-2 9

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, lower fire spread rates and flame lengths would improve firefighter effectiveness. Suppression strategies relying on hand tools would likely be effective, and handline would likely hold any unplanned ignitions. As a result of the proposed fuel treatment, dense stands and surface fuels would be broken up, reducing the potential for fast spreading, high-severity wildland fire to destroy property and natural resources.

Alternative 2 and 3 would open stand conditions and could contribute to increased production of grasses and forbs, higher surface windspeeds, and lower relative humidities, which some research has shown may increase the spread rate of wildfire (Agee et al. 1999). However, due to the lower flame lengths associated with the fuel treatments, overall suppression effectiveness would still increase. At a landscape level, the proposed treatments would fragment the fuel continuity within the project area, providing fuel breaks which would also improve suppression effectiveness.

Cumulative effects Cumulative effects were analyzed for past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The area used to analyze cumulative effects for the fire and fuels analysis consists of all ownerships in the Summit Gulch Vegetation Project Area and adjacent areas.



Past Actions Fire suppression and other management activities have contributed to the number of acres found in Condition Class 2. During the period of 1960 to present, seven natural caused fires occurred in the Summit Gulch Vegetation Project area. Due to active suppression or favorable weather, all seven wildland fires were two acres or less. From 1983 to present there have been four prescribed fires that have occurred in the project area for a total of 361 acres out of the 3580 acres in the project area, or 10 percent of the project area. Since these prescribed fire occurrences did not overlap one another, it counts as one fire cycle. Due to the small amount of acreage burned under either natural or prescribed fire and the lack fire cycles, most of the Summit Gulch area has departed from historic fire regimes. This area would have burned every 4 to 40 years historically and on a much larger scale. It is predicted that natural fires burning under current conditions would burn under a mixed severity to lethal fire regime with uncharacteristic amounts of tree mortality.

Past timber harvesting has also contributed to the amount of acres in Condition Class 2. Approximately 1000 acres within the Summit Gulch project area has been affected by timber harvesting. Much of the past timber harvest consisted of cutting large diameter merchantable trees. This harvest practice removed a considerable portion of larger diameter, more fire resistant trees and created more of an even-aged stand structure that is being overgrown with less fire tolerant tree species, such as grand fir. The mosaic of stands that has been created from past timber harvesting acts as a patchy fuel break, which will have varying degrees of fire behavior depending upon fuel loading, canopy base height, and crown bulk density. Due to the patchiness, it does not afford adequate protection to the project area. Additionally, slash generated from timber harvests that were planned before 1980 was not required to be treated.

Current Actions The timing and intensity of grazing may change the distribution, abundance, and type of fuel available for combustion. Decreases in the distribution and abundance of fine fuels, such as those associated with grazing, generally decrease the risk of fire spread (Anderson 1982). For example, livestock grazing may decrease the short term fire risk in the project area, especially in high-intensity grazed areas or where fuels are naturally sparse and patchy. However, these effects are short lived. In the next growing season, grasses will regenerate, and fuel loadings would be similar or greater than what they were prior to grazing. The proposed action to prescribe burn would keep fire on the landscape as an important ecological function. Conflicts between grazing and prescribed burning which may occur would be minimized by coordination between range specialists, fire personnel, and affected livestock operators. Any adjustments to prescribed burning or grazing can be made at the administrative level.

Current road systems provide access for suppression crews to control the spread and size of fires. These roads also provide effective fire line or burnout initiation areas for suppression activities and prescribe burning activities, depending on their location and approximate fuel loading. The proposed action would decommission some roads within the Summit Gulch project area. Due to high road densities, the amount of road obliteration will not affect ground based suppression effects. In addition, aerial resources such as air tankers, smokejumpers, and helicopters are available locally to help suppress unplanned ignitions.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The Access and Travel Management Plan Revision now underway may identify additional roads within the project area to close or obliterate. This could limit the effectiveness of




ground based suppression resources. This is mitigated by the availability of local aerial resources, such as the two Price Valley Helicopters, the McCall Smokejumper Base, the McCall Air Tanker Base, and the Krassel Helicopter. Roads that are open to the public may contribute to an increase in human-caused ignitions.

Private lands that are adjacent to the project area have similar fuel loading and uncharacteristic and undesirable fire risk as the National Forest System land. Any future fuels reduction treatment on private land would complement the reduced fire risk created from this project.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments Fire is a natural component of ecosystems on the Payette National Forest. The action alternatives propose to alter vegetative compositions so that potential wildland fires burn more under their historic fire regimes, with limited tree mortality and loss of wildlife habitat. Without implementing one of the action alternatives, there is a high potential that a wildfire would burn under a mixed severity to lethal fire regimes, with high amounts of tree mortality due to passive and active crown fire behavior. While the effects of such a fire on vegetation, habitat and soils would not be considered irreversible, the loss of mature trees and northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat would be irretrievable, and it would take decades for these landscape features to develop again.

Forest Plan Consistency Under Alternatives 2 and 3 actions would be meeting the Forest Plan goal of treating fuels to a level that reduces the risk of uncharacteristic or undesirable wildland fires and provides for the protection of life, investments, and valuable resources through appropriate vegetation and fuel management (Forest Plan p. III-38).

Alternatives 2 and 3 also meet the Forest Plan objective of achieving desired vegetation attributes and fuel reduction goals (Forest Plan p. III-39). This is accomplished through fuels management treatments that incorporate both prescribed fire treatments and mechanical methods, and focus on changing condition class.

Project Record This EA hereby incorporates by reference the Fuels Specialist Report (40 CFR 1502.21). The Fuels Specialist Report is located in the Project Record and contains the detailed data, analysis, and technical documentation that the Fuels Specialist relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA.


3.3 Wildlife Resource

Purpose and Need Improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat.

Reduce stand density to improve northern Idaho ground squirrel (NIDGS) habitat and aid in the recovery of the species.

Measurements Acres of habitat improved Miles of road decommissioned in northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat



Measurements Miles of road closed year round Miles of road decommissioning

Issues The proposed project, to manage vegetation in the Lower Bear 6th field hydrologic unit (Summit and Calf Pen Gulch drainages), has the potential to either positively or negatively affect some terrestrial species through habitat modifications.

Indicators Acres of currently suitable habitats or habitat components modified for Payette

National Forest Management Indicator Species. Acres of currently suitable habitats or habitat components modified for species that

are federally listed, proposed, or candidates for listing, and Payette National Forest sensitive species.

Additional Wildlife Analysis Acres of habitats modified for high priority migratory landbirds.

Forest Plan Direction The Forest Plan’s management direction for wildlife resources includes the goal that follows the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to “Provide habitat capable of supporting viable populations of native and desired non-native wildlife species” (WIGO01). Forest-wide goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate and other wildlife concerns can be found on pages III-8 through III-28 of the Forest Plan. Specific management area (MA2, Snake River) goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate and


Wildlife Resource - 3

other wildlife concerns can be found on pages III-110 through III-119 of the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan has identified two MIS; the pileated, and the white-headed woodpecker (Appendix E – Forest Plan).

The Forest Plan’s management direction for threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species (TEPC) includes the goal to “design and implement management actions to provide for ecological conditions, population viability, reproductive needs, and habitat components for TEPC (TEGO04). Other goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for TEPC can be found on pages III-8 through III-15 of the Forest Plan.

The Forest Plan reflects the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA) by specifying that the Forest Service shall consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on all actions that may affect a listed species (TEST01). The Forest Service prepares a biological assessment (BA) to disclose the anticipated effects of the proposed action, and determine if a listed or proposed species would be affected. If a considered species is affected, the BA would be submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service for concurrence on the determinations of effects. For this project, the BA will be completed in a separate document and added to the Wildlife Specialist Report.

A management direction goal for Forest sensitive species is to provide habitat that will keep Region 4 sensitive wildlife species from becoming listed (WIST02). Forest Service sensitive species direction (FSM 2672.4) requires the Forest to prepare a biological evaluation (BE) to disclose the anticipated effects of all alternatives of a proposed project and to determine if any sensitive species are affected. The Regional Forester’s memo dated August 17, 1995 identified streamlining processes for consolidating a BE into the main text of an environmental document and summarizing the conclusions of effects in table form. For this project, a BE summary table will be completed in a separate document and added to the Specialist Report.

Management guidelines (WIGU08, WIGU13 and WIGU14) address Rocky Mountain elk vulnerability to road-related mortality, habitat security and winter thermal cover needs. Appendix E of the Forest Plan provides management strategies to address elk vulnerability to mortality, travel management impacts and security needs.

Discussions between the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service Region 4 wildlife specialists outlined the roles and responsibilities of the respective agencies for addressing migratory birds in environmental documents, as per Executive Order 13186 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Recommendations are that State Bird Conservation Plans, developed by interagency working groups, should be used as a tool to identify relevant migratory bird species and habitats for project analysis. As per the Executive Order, the development of mitigation criteria, if needed, is required to minimize the unintentional take of migratory birds.

Scope of the Analysis The analysis of existing conditions, and direct, indirect and cumulative effects focuses on the current condition of the habitat, and the amount of habitat or habitat components that could be modified for Payette National Forest (PNF) MIS, TEPC, and FSS, Rocky Mountain elk, wild turkeys, and migratory landbirds. The complete analysis, which was used to reach conclusions in this resource report, is contained in the Wildlife Specialist Report.

An analysis is conducted for the two MIS and any federally listed species which may occur in the Analysis Area and Bear Creek watershed. An analysis is also conducted for FSS which are known, or assumed to occur in the Analysis Area and watershed, or where suitable habitat is



present and the species may have a high or moderate probability of occurrence. An analysis was not conducted for FSS, which are not likely to occur, or have a low probability of occurrence, due to a lack of available suitable habitat, or where suitable habitat is limited or isolated (Table 3.3-1). The Rocky Mountain elk is addressed as a Species of Special Interest (SOSI). Considered species are grouped and discussed by Source Habitat Families consistent with the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (Wisdom et al 2000) (Table 3.3-2). The bald eagle was grouped in Family 5 for big game winter range concerns.

High priority landbirds for four primary breeding habitat groups that occur in the Analysis Area are also addressed (Table 3.3-3). Most high priority landbirds are either a MIS or FSS. In addition, the willow flycatcher is a high priority migratory landbird which uses riparian areas as primary breeding habitat. The western meadowlark is a high priority migratory landbird which uses grasslands as primary breeding habitat. The wild turkey is discussed as an additional species of special interest due to a concern from Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG).

Unless otherwise noted, the area analyzed for all considered species for direct and indirect effects is all Payette National Forest land in the Analysis Area. The area generally analyzed for cumulative effects is all land ownerships in the Bear Creek 5th field hydrologic unit. These analysis areas represent relatively large contiguous blocks of land that have sufficiently diverse habitat types and structural stages to maintain populations of representative terrestrial species.

The analysis of effects on MIS, TEPC, and FSS are based on proposed modifications to specific habitats, habitat components (snags, coarse woody debris), increases in human disturbance, or changes in prey availability pertinent to a particular species in the Analysis Area and at the watershed scale. The analysis of effects on elk is based on the proposed modifications to the current condition of elk habitat quality, winter thermal cover, and elk security in the Analysis Area and at an Elk Analysis Unit scale. The analysis of effects on riparian habitat and native grasslands is based on proposed modifications to those habitat types in the Analysis Area and at the watershed scale. Table 3.3-1 displays the probability of occurrence of considered terrestrial species that may be present in the Analysis Area and Bear Creek watershed.


Existing Habitat Conditions Identified suitable habitats for considered species are based on GIS modeling of the Forest vegetation layer (strata). Random samples of various forested stands were field verified for habitat suitability based upon the vegetative needs for the considered species. The large tree component analysis is based on Landsat (Vegetation Resources Section). The snag and coarse woody debris analyses are based on timber/fuels field inventories (Fuels Resources Section).

Family 1 All species in this family depend on late-seral multi, and single-storied lower montane forests as source habitats (Wisdom et al 2000). Species in Family 1 include the white-headed woodpecker, as well as others such as the white-breasted and pygmy nuthatches.

White-Headed Woodpecker



The Forest Plan designated the white-headed woodpecker as an MIS for Potential Vegetation Groups (PVGs) 1, 2, 3, and 5 with sufficient snags, and large trees with low crown density. White-headed woodpeckers occupy open stands of mature/old ponderosa pine, occasionally with a Douglas-fir component (Ligon 1973). In Idaho, nesting white-headed woodpeckers use stands with canopy cover of less than 26 percent. They feed on pine seeds and insects extracted from the bark of trees. White-headed woodpeckers are dependent on large-diameter ponderosa pine as a source of seeds for winter survival. Nest trees range from 15 to 34 inches and average 22 inches. Partially cut stands with moderate to heavy stocking of large pine trees or open forested stands with remnant large pines can provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat (Frederick and Moore 1991). The white-headed woodpecker is a high priority resident landbird that uses dry ponderosa pine stands as primary breeding habitat (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000).

Table 3.3-1. Probability of Occurrence of MIS, TEPC, FSS and SOSI that may occur in the Summit Vegetation Management Project Area or the Bear Creek Watershed

Species Habitat Suitability Occurrence Potential Effects

Rationale

Management Indicator Species Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)

Suitable habitat available

Known to occur

Yes

N/A

Management Indicator Species/Sensitive White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus)


Known to occur

Yes

N/A

Forest Sensitive Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)

Suitable breeding habitat not available

Not likely to occur

No N/A

Fisher (Martes pennanti)


Not likely to occur

No No records, limited, isolated habitat

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Suitable habitat not available

Not likely to occur

No N/A

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)


Not likely to occur

No Outside of known range in Idaho

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles)


Moderate probablilty

Yes Nearest terrritory is four miles south

Northern three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus)


Not likely to occur

No N/A

Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus)


Assumed to occur Yes Records from mid-1990s

Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus)


Not likely to occur

No N/A

Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa)


Low probabilty No No records, limited, isolated habitat

Harlequin duck (Histronicus histronicus)


Not likely to occur

No N/A

Mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus)

Suitalbe habitat not available

Not likely to occur

No Outside of known occupied range

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

Suitable habitat not

Not likely to occur

No Outside of known occupied range.



Species Habitat Suitability Occurrence Potential Rationale Effects

(Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus)

available

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris)


Not likely to occur

No No records, limited, isolated habitat

Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus)

Suitable denning habitat not available

Not likely to occur

No No records, high human disturbance

Experimental/Non-essential Gray wolf (Canis lupus)


Assumed to occur

Yes Recent confirmed presence in watershed

Threatened Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis)


Not likely to occur

No No Lynx Analysis Unit

Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus)


Known to occur Yes Metapopulation area

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)


Low probability Yes Big game winter range

Candidate Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)


Not likely to occur

No Outside of known range.

Species of Special Interest Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervis elaphus)

Suitable cover and foraging habitat available

Known to occur Yes N/A

Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)


Known to occur Yes N/A

Table 3.3-2. Source Habitat Families for Considered Species

Source Habitat Family Species Status Family 1 - Low elevation, old forest White-headed woodpecker MIS Family 2 - Broad elevation, old forest

Pileated woodpecker Northern goshawk Flammulated owl

MIS FSS FSS

Family 5 - Forest and range mosaic Rocky Mountain elk, Bald eagle Gray wolf

NE/E SOSI T

Family 12 - Grassland and open-canopy sagebrush

Northern Idaho ground squirrel T

As stated in Wisdom et al. (2000), source habitat for the white-headed woodpecker has decreased 63 percent from basin wide historic levels, and 79 percent in Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU) 6, in which the Analysis Area is located. Any change in source habitat of at least 20 percent from historical levels is considered significant and a risk to that species long-term viability (Wisdom et al 2000). In addition, estimates that more than 75 percent of the historic old growth ponderosa pine has been lost across the Interior Columbia River Basin



landscape (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). Previous timber management, road construction, fire exclusion, and fuelwood gathering, as well as natural events such as wildland fires, have reduced the quality and quantity of suitable white-headed woodpecker habitat in the Analysis Area and watershed. This reduction of suitable habitat has also contributed to fragmentation, which may limit the ability of the species to freely move throughout the watershed or into an adjacent one.

White-headed woodpeckers are known to occur in the Analysis Area and throughout the watershed. They were documented by Forest Service personnel conducting species specific inventories using Region 4 sensitive species broadcast vocalization protocols during 2002 and 2003. Through a strata modeling analysis it was determined that currently about 19,950 acres of suitable habitat occurs in the watershed. About 1,900 acres of suitable habitat occurs on Payette National Forest land in the Analysis Area (Project Record). However, this habitat is considered to be marginal due to a moderate tree size (about 15 inches) and lack of snags.

Habitat management goals and objectives for this species are presented in the Forest Plan for MIS and FSS. The Payette National Forest began gathering distribution, abundance and trend data in 2003 for the white-headed woodpecker by conducting Forest-wide point count transects. Forest and State (Conservation Data Center) records currently provide distributional information.

The Forest Plan designated the white-headed woodpecker as an MIS for sufficient snags and large trees with low crown density in PVGs 1, 2, 3, and 5. The large tree component for these PVGs in the Bear watershed is currently 21 percent for PVG 1, 19.6 percent for PVG 2, 0 percent for PVG 3, and 26.6 percent for PVG 5. PVGs 1 (dry ponderosa pine) and 2 (moist ponderosa pine) are considered to be the primary vegetation groups that white-headed woodpeckers require for breeding. These two groups are near or just below 20 percent for the watershed.

Snags were estimated by PVGs in the areas of proposed activity in the Analysis Area (Vegetation Resources Section). Not all PVGs are represented in this analysis, or within the Analysis Area. PVG 1 (which represents less than 1 percent of the activity area) was not estimated. However, it was estimated that PVG 2 does not currently fall within the Forest Plan’s desired range for either snag diameter group (10” – 20” or greater than 20”). Through a field review of the Analysis Area and a general knowledge of the Bear Creek watershed, an assumption can be made that all suitable PVGs are currently deficient of snags and are not likely meeting the Forest Plan’s desired range for either snag diameter group.

Family 2 All species in this family use late-seral multi- and single-storied montane forests as source habitats (Wisdom et al 2000). Species include the pileated woodpecker, northern goshawk, and flammulated owl, as well as others such as the great gray and boreal owl, fisher and three-toed woodpecker.

Pileated Woodpecker The Forest Plan designated the pileated woodpecker as an MIS for PVGs 2 through 9 with sufficient large trees, snags and down logs. The pileated woodpecker prefers mature, mixed-conifer forests with large-diameter trees for nesting and decayed, standing or down wood for foraging. Pileated woodpeckers excavate cavities that are used by many other cavity-dependent species incapable of excavating their own nesting or roosting sites, such as flammulated owls.

As stated in Wisdom et al. (2000), source habitat for pileated woodpeckers has decreased by 21 percent from basin wide historical levels, but has increased 100 percent in ERU 6.



Pileated woodpeckers are known to occur in the Analysis Area and throughout the watershed. They were documented by Forest Service personnel conducting species specific inventories during 2002 and 2003. Currently about 13,800 acres of suitable habitat occurs in the watershed.

Habitat management goals and objectives for this species are presented in the Forest Plan for MIS. Distribution, abundance and trend data for the pileated woodpecker is available in Status of the Pileated Woodpecker, A Management Indicator Species, Payette National Forest, May 2003.

The Forest Plan designated the pileated woodpecker as an MIS for sufficient large trees, snags and down logs in PVGs 2 through 9. The large tree component for these PVGs in the Bear watershed is currently 19.6 percent for PVG 2, 0 percent for PVG 3, 70 percent for PVG 4, 26.6 percent for PVG 5, 18.9 percent for PVG 6, 14.6 percent for PVG 7, 0 percent for PVG 8, and 10.8 percent for PVG 9. PVGs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are below 20 percent.

For information on snags for PVG 2 refer to the white-headed woodpecker discussion. In addition, PVG 6 is also estimated to be below the desired ranges for large and medium diameter snags. Snags are an important component of woodpecker habitat. The high open road densities in the analysis area have lead to many snags being lost to firewood cutters.

The availability of coarse woody debris does not fall within the desired range for each PVGs represented within the Analysis Area (Fuels Section). Down wood is an important habitat component for foraging pileated woodpeckers.

Northern Goshawk Northern goshawks use mature forest habitats for foraging and nesting. Preferred nest sites are in mature and old-growth forests with high canopy closure (greater than 60 percent), on gentle or moderate slopes (less than 30 percent), and frequently near water. Goshawks forage primarily for small birds in mature forests with high canopy cover and a relatively open understory. They may also forage for other prey species, such as snowshoe hare and ground squirrels in areas of immature forests or the edges of openings. Post-fledging areas generally have overstory canopies of greater than 50 percent (Reynolds et al. 1992). Breeding goshawks typically use a home range of about 6,000 acres, but goshawk home ranges in the Interior Columbia River Basin may be closer to 7,000 acres (Wisdom, 2000). The northern goshawk is a high priority landbird that uses low-elevation mixed conifer stands as primary breeding habitat (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000).

As stated in Wisdom et al. (2000), source habitat for breeding northern goshawks has decreased by 43 percent from basin wide historical levels and decreased by 29 percent in ERU 6.

Two field seasons of inventories for northern goshawks were conducted in the watershed and Analysis Area during 2002 and 2003 by Forest Service personnel using standardized protocols as specified in a Regional Forester’s memo dated August 2, 1993 (Project Record). Five goshawk breeding territories have been mapped in the Bear watershed (Upper Bear Timber Sale FEIS 2003). There are no mapped territories located in the Analysis Area. The nearest known territory is located about four miles south of the Analysis Area in the Wildhorse watershed. Only 13 acres of suitable nesting habitat occurs on Payette National Forest land in the Analysis Area (Project Record).

The Payette National Forest has adopted management recommendations proposed for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States (Reynolds et al., 1992). Forest Plan standard WIST05 and implementation guide Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk (Draft on 2/6/2004), recommends identification of three components of a goshawk’s home range: nest areas, the post-fledging area (PFA), and the foraging area.



Nest areas are made up of three currently suitable and three historical or replacement nest sites of about 30 acres each, for a total of at least 180 acres. A 420-acre PFA surrounds and links the six nest areas and is considered to be the mapped territory. A home range also consists of a foraging area which may be considered to be a 6th field hydrologic unit. The Analysis Area may provide foraging habitat for nearby goshawks.

Flammulated Owl The flammulated owl is a neotropical migrant that occurs in Idaho from early May to mid-October and winters in Central America (Reynolds and Linkart 1987). Flammulated owls are obligate cavity nesters and are dependent on primary cavity excavators to create suitable nest cavities. Excavated cavities in snags larger than 20 inches are most commonly used for nesting (Bull et al., 1990). Nearly all documented nest sites on the Forest have occurred in mature and old stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir with canopy closures between 35 and 60 percent. The flammulated owl is a high priority migratory landbird that uses dry ponderosa pine as primary breeding habitat (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000).

As stated in Wisdom et al. (2000), source habitat for the flammulated owl has decreased by 56 percent from basin wide historical levels and decreased by 58 percent in ERU 6. Any change in source habitat of at least 20 percent from historical levels is considered significant and a risk to that species long-term viability (Wisdom, 2000). In addition, an estimated 75 percent of the historic old growth ponderosa pine has been lost across the Interior Columbia River Basin landscape (Idaho Partners in Flight, 2000).

Flammulated owls have been documented and were known to occur in the watershed from recorded surveys conducted in the early to mid-1990’s (Project Record). No detections were made during random walk-through surveys during 2002 and 2003 (Project Record). Species specific broadcast vocalizations were not conducted for flammulated owls in the Analysis Area or watershed during 2002 or 2003. Therefore, flammulated owls are believed to occur in the Analysis Area. Currently about 19,950 acres of suitable habitat occurs in the watershed. About 1,900 acres of suitable habitat occurs on Payette National Forest land in the Analysis Area (Project Record). These are the same suitable habitat acres as modeled for the white-headed woodpecker.

Family 5 Species in this family use a broad range of forest, woodlands, and rangelands as source habitats (Wisdom et al 2000). Species include the gray wolf, elk, mule deer, mountain goat, long-eared owl and bighorn sheep. The bald eagle was grouped in Family 5 for big game winter range concerns.

Rocky Mountain Elk Rocky Mountain elk summer and calve throughout the Analysis Area. Winter range is present on about 750 acres in the southern portion of the Analysis Area (Project Record). Currently about 23 miles of road are closed year-round in the Analysis Area. Management strategies to address Rocky Mountain elk vulnerability to mortality, travel management impacts and security needs have been provided in the Forest Plan (Appendix E). Appendix E states: “Where the objective is to have long hunting seasons, and distribute the bull harvest over the entire hunting season and maintain a desired level of mature bulls in the post-hunting season population, guidelines should be developed for retaining or managing for elk security”. Management objective (WIOB12) is to implement area or transportation route closures to address big game vulnerability and public access needs.

The Payette National Forest cooperates with IDFG in providing habitat to maintain elk populations that meet herd objectives. Cooperation consists of maintaining elk populations



by attempting to reduce elk vulnerability through limiting road densities and maintaining or increasing hiding or security cover.

A 2004 Elk Sightability Flight Summary for Unit 22 of the Weiser River Zone (IDFG, 2000) indicated that a total of 2,521 elk were present with 2,194 cows and 327 bulls; 137 were adult bulls. State objectives are for 1,350 to 2,050 total animals, with 1,100 to 1,700 cows and 250 to 350 bulls; 125 to 200 should be adult bulls.

The current total elk population is currently exceeding State management objectives (2,521 vs. 1,350-2,050). Total bulls and adult bulls are within management objectives. Objectives for the bull: cow ratio are for 18-24 bulls: 100 cows and 10-14 adult bulls: 100 cows. Current ratios for the Weiser River Zone are below objectives with 17 bulls: 100 cows and 8 adult bulls: 100 cows.

The 2004 population survey indicated an overall increase in total elk numbers from a previous 2000 survey. This increase was most noticeable in cows (1,480 vs. 2,194). Bulls increased from 224 to 327. Adult bulls also increased from 105 to 137. Changes in hunting unit management in 1997 attempted to compensate for low bull elk numbers in Unit 22 by reducing season lengths and omitting the early spike season (J. Rohlman, Pers. Com.).

Recommendations by Hillis (1991) as suggested in Appendix E is to retaining at least 30 percent of an analysis unit in nonlinear blocks of secure areas, a minimum of at least 250 acres, and at least one half mile from motorized access. The desired condition of the EAU may be to provide about 30 percent of 47,425 acres in secure habitats for elk. This could be accomplished by closing year-round open, or seasonally-open roads to a closed year-round basis.

Appendix E and guideline WIGU13 of the Plan states; “Where needed to meet management objectives, vegetation around wallows, licks, travel corridors, created and natural openings, and forest stringers should be managed to maintain security (i.e. dense vegetation, or security areas). Generally, vegetation around licks and wallows should be two or more site distances. An elk sight distance is defined as the distance at which vegetation hides 90 percent of an elk from view. These important areas are usually located during project layout and marking, and would require a two elk sight distance buffer to be provided (refer to mitigation measures).

Forest Plan guideline WIGU12) provides for protection from project-related disturbance during big game calving and fawning. Big game calving and fawning in the Summit and Calf Pen drainage are usually from mid-May through mid-July. Any proposed vegetation treatments near riparian areas can be considered to be a disturbance to calving and fawning. Timber harvest activities near the two riparian areas (Summit/Calf Pen) would require a timing restriction to comply with this guideline (refer to Table 2-4). This timing restriction will also provide protection for breeding wild turkeys, migratory landbirds, and other terrestrial species.

Forest Plan guideline (WIGU14) provides for considering project related stress and exposure during critical wintering periods on big game. Although approximately 750 acres of designated winter range exists in the southern portion of the project area, it is not a critical area used by elk in the winter and a timing restriction will not apply for this project (Jeff Rohlman, IDFG, personal communication). Big game winter ranges should also retain at least 15 percent thermal cover where this cover presently exists. The forested stands within the identified big game winter range in the Analysis Area do not currently meet the requirements of winter thermal cover. However, the stands may be providing some marginal thermal cover.

Bald Eagle



Bald eagles are typically found in forested communities near a body of water. Nests are usually located in dominant trees within one-half mile of a lake or large river where bald eagles forage for fish and waterfowl. Nests are typically within the topographic line of sight to the water (USDI 1986).

During the fall and winter months, bald eagles frequent rivers and large streams for foraging. They may also concentrate on deer and elk winter ranges, where they feed on carrion, or in pastures where livestock are calving. Winter roosts are in wind-protected valleys that may be many miles from a food source.

There are no known bald eagle nests or suitable waterbodies in the Analysis Area. Bald eagles are currently known to nest along the Snake River, which is about five miles west of the Analysis Area. Another known nest on Payette National Forest land at Lost Valley Reservoir is about 12 miles east of the Analysis Area.

Bald eagles are also known to winter along the Snake River from late-November to early-March. Big game winter range is present within the Analysis Area, which could provide suitable foraging opportunities for wintering bald eagles. However, there are currently no records or indications of bald eagles making use of this opportunity. There are also no records of winter roosting sites in the Analysis Area or Bear watershed.

Gray Wolf Gray wolves range over large areas that may encompass a variety of terrain and vegetative types (USFWS, 1987). Home ranges as large as 500 square miles have been documented (Mech 1970). There is, however, only limited information concerning home range sizes in Idaho. The area of analysis for wolves is the EAU (Bear watershed) as wolf activity is closely tied to elk habitat.

Key habitat components for the gray wolf are a year-round prey base, denning and rendezvous sites with sufficient space and minimal disturbance by humans (USFWS 1987). Primary prey for gray wolves on the Payette National Forest is thought to be deer and elk. Alternate prey could include beavers, marmots, snowshoe hares, and other small mammals. Denning sites are secluded and usually located on knolls, ridges, or other well-drained areas within 400 yards of water with forested cover nearby. Rendezvous sites are resting and gathering areas used by wolves after pups leave the den site until they are mature enough to travel with the adults.

Gray wolves were reintroduced in Idaho under Section 10 of the ESA as an experimental, nonessential population in 1995 and 1996. The Analysis Area is in the experimental, nonessential population area for Idaho. Packs have become established on the Payette National Forest and Boise National Forest (BNF), primarily in the more remote forested areas east of Cascade, Idaho and northeast of McCall, Idaho. The nearest known wolf packs are the Hazard Lake, Bear Valley, Landmark, Wolf Fang, Thunder Mountain, Chamberlain Basin, and Gold Fork packs. The closest is the Hazard Lake pack, which is about 25-30 miles from the Analysis Area.

Gray wolves have recently been confirmed to range as far southwest as the Bear watershed. Radio collared wolves were seasonally located in the Lick Creek drainage during 2002 and 2003. Two wolves were also confirmed by IDFG to be using the adjacent Wildhorse watershed during 2005. It’s not currently known if any packs have become established in either the Bear or Wildhorse watersheds. Suitable prey is available year-round in the Analysis Area and watershed. Based on this review, gray wolves can be assumed to occur in the Analysis Area.



Family 12 Membership in this family was based on their close associations with upland herblands, primarily fescue-bunchgrass and open-canopied communities (Wisdom et al 2000). Species include the northern Idaho ground squirrel, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and others.

Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel The northern Idaho ground squirrel (NIDGS) has the most restricted geographical range of any ground squirrel species (Spermophilus taxa) and one of the smallest home ranges among North American land mammals (Gill and Yensen 1992). This species is currently known from 30 to 35 isolated sites in Adams and Valley counties with a range of about 160 square miles. In 1985, the total population at 18 known sites was about 5,000 individuals (Yensen 1985). In 1997, the population had declined to fewer than 500 individuals distributed in 19 sites (Gavin et al. 1997). Based on population surveys in 2004, the total population may number only about 750-775 individuals (IDFG 2004). As stated in Wisdom et al. (2000), source habitat for the Idaho ground squirrel has decreased by 73 percent from basin wide historical levels.

Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the northern Idaho ground squirrel as a threatened species throughout its range in western Idaho in April, 2000. The species is considered to be threatened primarily as a result of habitat loss and fragmentation caused by fire exclusion and forest encroachment into former meadow habitats. The squirrel is also threatened as a result of competition from the larger Columbian ground squirrel (Spermophilus columbianus), changes in land use (alterations in vegetation, road construction), increased public access (off-road vehicle use, recreational shooting), and naturally occurring events such as winter mortality, predation, and disease (USFWS 2000).

The northern Idaho ground squirrel inhabits shallow, dry, rocky meadows usually associated with deeper, well-drained soils and surrounded by ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir forests at elevations of about 3,000 to 6,000 feet. A GIS-based land-type model has been developed using slope, aspect, soil types and vegetation data to predict potentially suitable habitat as well as potential population or recovery sites. Based on the land type model, a total of about 6,600 acres of suitable habitat occurs in the watershed. About 1,400 acres of suitable habitat occurs on Payette National Forest land in the Analysis Area (Project Record).

Northern Idaho ground squirrels are known to occur in the Analysis Area. Populations at known sites near Summit and Calf Pen Gulch are annually monitored by IDFG. Both populations have recently increased due, in part, to habitat enhancement projects on Payette National Forest lands. The recent projects have expanded the amount of suitable habitat in both areas and rejuvenated the vegetation in the meadow communities. Recent detections of small groups of individuals up to one mile from the core population suggest that dispersal is occurring. Further habitat enhancement in the form of thinning forested stands to reduce stand density along with introducing prescribed fire back into the area is needed to meet objectives of the Recovery Plan.

The Recovery Plan for the Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel was completed and published on July 28, 2003. The ultimate goal of the Recovery Plan is to improve the status of the northern Idaho ground squirrel population so the subspecies can be delisted. The Summit/Calf Pen area was identified as one of 12 primary metapopulation sites to meet the recovery objective (USFWS 2003). Recovery criteria are based upon maintaining an effective population of greater than 500 breeding individuals at a minimum of 10 metapopulation sites. The Recovery Plan’s strategy to restore or maintain habitat by thinning, burning, reseeding, controlling noxious weeds and using livestock grazing as a tool should be followed.



A desired condition is to provide connection between the isolated populations north of the Summit and Tree Farm sites with the larger core populations. A corridor of continuous suitable habitat will provide for increased dispersal and gene flow among the existing population sites. This project would aid in recovery of the northern Idaho ground squirrel.

Migratory Landbird Habitats Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and Executive Order 13186, "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,” requires that environmental analyses of federal actions and plans consider the effects on migratory birds, particularly species of concern. In discussions between the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service Region 4 wildlife specialists, it was recommended that State Bird Conservation Plans developed by interagency working groups be used to help identify relevant migratory bird species and habitats for project analysis. In January, 2000, the Idaho Partners in Flight (PIF) program published the Idaho Bird Conservation Plan (IDBCP), which takes a habitat-based approach to conserving bird populations. The plan identified 14 priority habitats and associated bird species in Idaho. Use of the IDBCP supports the goal of maintaining the long-term sustainability of migratory bird species and their habitats, as specified by Executive Order 13186 and the MBTA.

Two IDBCP high priority habitats occur on Payette National Forest land in the Analysis Area. These include the riparian and dry ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir/grand fir habitat types. Two other IDBCP habitats also occur. These include the low-elevation mixed conifer and grassland habitat types.

Two of 13 high priority species, which use the riparian habitat type as primary breeding habitat, may occur in the Analysis Area. These include the willow and dusky flycatcher. The willow flycatcher will serve to represent this habitat type. Both high priority species (white-headed woodpecker and flammulated owl), which use the dry ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir/grand fir habitat type as primary breeding habitat, may occur in the Analysis Area. The white-headed woodpecker is a Payette National Forest MIS and the flammulated owl is a FSS. Both will serve to represent this habitat type. Four of nine high priority species, which use the low-elevation mixed conifer habitat type as primary breeding habitat, may occur in the Analysis Area. These include the sharp-shinned hawk, northern goshawk, Williamson’s sapsucker and brown creeper. The northern goshawk, a FSS will serve to represent this habitat type. One of four high priority species, which use the grassland habitat type as primary breeding habitat, may occur in the Analysis Area. The western meadowlark will serve to represent this habitat type. Table 3.3-3 displays the Idaho PIF bird habitats that are represented in the Analysis Area.



Table 3.3-3. – Migratory Landbird Habitat Groups and Associated Species

Habitat Group

IDBCP Priority

Species

Using Habitat

Species using as primary

Breeding Habitat

High Priority

Species using as Primary Habitat

Representative

High Priority

Species

Issues

Dry Ponderosa pine

High

31

5

2

white-headed woodpecker* and flammulated owl*

Habitat loss

Riparian

High

114

61

13

willow flycatcher

Habitat loss

Low-elevation mixed conifer

Other

83

34

9

northern goshawk*

Habitat loss

Grasslands

Other

48

16

4

western meadowlark

Habitat loss

* Species is either an MIS or FSS

Willow Flycatcher The willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) nests throughout Idaho. A migratory landbird (neotropical migrant), this species winters from central Mexico to Columbia and breeds from central British Columbia, east to southern Minnesota, Nova Scotia and south to southern California, western Texas, Arizona, and portions of southeastern United States (IDBCP 2000).

Willow flycatchers breed in riparian habitat that has a mid-story of willows or alders and an intact lower layer. Shrub thickets interspersed with small openings are used more often than large continuous stands. They nest near openings or around the edges of more continuous willow patches (IDBCP 2000). Suitable riparian habitat in the Analysis Area occurs within about 50 feet on either side of Summit and Calf Pen Gulch. This totals about 60 acres for the Analysis Area (Project Record).

A loss of thick shrub habitat, especially willows, is detrimental to the willow flycatcher. They are more often found in large continuous patches, so fragmentation is also a threat, although some small openings within the patches are necessary for foraging (IDBCP 2000).

Western Meadowlark The western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) nests throughout Idaho. A migratory landbird (neotropical migrant), this species winters from central Mexico and breeds from central British Columbia and Alberta east to Minnesota. They are also year round residents from Washington State, California to Texas.

Western meadowlarks breed in grasslands, savannas, pastures and cultivated fields. A loss of grass cover, trampling by livestock, and spring burning may be detrimental to breeding meadowlarks. About 1,400 acres of native grasslands occur in the Analysis Area (Project Record).



Species of Special Interest

Wild Turkey The Merriam’s wild turkey has been transplanted in Idaho beginning in 1961. This subspecies is widely distributed throughout the west side of the Payette National Forest. The Rio Grande wild turkey has also been transplanted in Idaho beginning in 1982. This subspecies is present in small numbers in riparian areas adjacent to the Weiser River and probably does not occur on the Forest.

Wild turkeys require good interspersion of different habitat types. Suitable foraging, nesting, brood-rearing, roosting, and a water source located within close proximity to one another are essential to maintain existing populations. Habitat components that are absent or limited in an area will likely limit wild turkey habitat quality.

Nest site characteristics in forested habitats tend to be stands with at least 60 percent canopy cover and slopes greater than 30 percent. Abundant down logs and herbaceous vegetation are essential for nesting cover. Foraging and brood-rearing habitats include natural and created openings, riparian areas, recently burned areas and aspen stands adjacent to forested cover. Large ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees (greater than 20 inches) on ridges or near the upper 1/3 of a slope provide suitable roosting sites. An average of 5-13 roost trees located in multistory clumps of at least ¼ acre, provide the best roosting habitats. A minimum of 2-6 potential roost sites per square mile should be established. A lack of roost sites in otherwise suitable habitats will render the area unsuitable for wild turkeys (Hoffman 1993).

Wild turkeys are occasionally seen in the Analysis Area. However, adjacent private lands to the east provide suitable habitat and feed wild turkeys. The Analysis Area does not provide all suitable habitat components that wild turkeys require. As discussed in the pileated woodpecker section, coarse woody material is minimal. Also, very few ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir trees in the Analysis Area are greater than 20 inches, which may be considered to be suitable roost trees. Only two units (27 and 31), which total about 78 acres, have evidence of use by wild turkeys. These units are considered to be marginally suitable for turkey nesting or roosting.

Environmental Effects This analysis describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives on all considered terrestrial species (MIS, federally listed (threatened, endangered), FSS, SOSI, and high priority migratory landbirds) through the modification of habitats or habitat components.

Past management activities in the Bear watershed include timber stand improvement, pre-commercial and commercial thinning, public firewood gathering, road construction, public recreation, fire suppression, prescribed fire, and livestock grazing. These activities may have resulted in the following types of effects to terrestrial species:

Timber harvests have generally included changes in vegetation composition and structure, which includes reductions of large ponderosa pine and increases in denser stands of small to moderate size shade-tolerant grand fir and Douglas-fir. These treatments have resulted in reductions in habitat for species associated with open stands of large ponderosa pine and increases in populations of species associated with dense fir stands.

Timber stand improvement treatments have modified habitat conditions resulting in temporary reductions of big game hiding cover and displacement of species that



prefer denser vegetative conditions. These treatments have improved conditions for species requiring more open habitats.

Loss of standing dead trees and coarse woody material from previous timber harvests and public fuelwood gathering has negatively affected species associated with standing and down dead trees.

Road construction has negatively affected wildlife through direct habitat loss and displacement, as well as indirectly affecting many species through increased human disturbance.

Increased public recreation has affected many wildlife species due to increased human disturbance.

Fire suppression has resulted in denser forested stands benefiting species associated with these conditions while negatively affecting species associated with more open, fire-dependent conditions.

Prescribed burns have improved and rejuvenated foraging habitats. Livestock grazing has reduced nesting cover and forages.

Purpose and Need Improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat.

Reduce stand density to improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat and aid in the recovery of the species.

Reduce potential impacts to northern Idaho ground squirrel by roads

Measurements Acres of habitat improved Miles of road decommissioned in northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat

Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would not be any change to suitable northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat in the Analysis Area with this alternative. Timber encroachment of suitable northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat would continue. Forage conditions would continue to deteriorate without prescribed fire. There would not be an opportunity to improve suitable habitat in the Summit/Tree Farm metapopulation area to aid in the recovery of the species.

The potential for the greatest reduction of suitable habitat and local population could occur with this alternative. A stand-replacing wildland fire may occur, which could cause direct mortality or indirectly affect soil structure. However, a mixed-severity fire may benefit the species by opening the forest canopy. Road decommissioning and improved road closures could reduce illegal motorized vehicle use in suitable habitats.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Both action alternatives would improve northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat and reduce the risk of a wildland fire in the Analysis Area. Both alternatives enhance suitable habitat in the Analysis Area by 318 acres. Both action alternatives modify denser, timber stands by thinning competing trees and increasing forest openings. Prescribed fire would rejuvenate the grass and forb communities. The opening of dense, timber stands are known to improve



suitable habitat conditions for the northern Idaho ground squirrel (Recovery Plan for the Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel 2003).

Both action alternatives would have short-term disturbance effects from timber harvest activities followed by long-term habitat improvement benefits which aid in the recovery of the species. Livestock grazing will be excluded in Units 21, 22, 26 and 41 for at least the two following years after this habitat improvement project as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Letter of Concurrence for On Going Grazing Permits dated May 2001. This will need to be determined by a wildlife biologist and a range specialist after the re-introduction of fire. Timber harvest activity restrictions are also necessary to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the northern Idaho ground squirrel by mitigating the impacts of disrupting foraging and reproductive behavior, or reducing the likelihood of vehicle related mortality during dispersal. With the identified mitigation measures, proposed Alternatives 2 and 3 may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the northern Idaho ground squirrel.

Small numbers of northern Idaho ground squirrel’s are know to occur within proposed treatment units 21, 22, 26, and 41, as well as adjacent to Forest Service Roads 51858 and 51857 within about one mile of the Calf Pen road. These areas are considered to be currently occupied habitat. Any harvest activities in these units or on the roads, during the time of the year that the northern Idaho ground squirrel are above ground, may disrupt foraging, reproductive activities, or dispersal. Northern Idaho ground squirrels are generally above ground from early-April through mid to late-August. The arbitrary dates of April 1st through August 15th are used as reference. A more precise determination of the actual dates shall be made during the year of harvest activities or fuels treatments (Chapter 2, Table 2-4). Mechanical equipment and the skidding of logs will not be permitted on any areas within the units that are considered to be currently occupied (with the exception of over the snow harvesting, see Chapter 2, Table 2-4). A wildlife biologist will field validate and flag all of these occupied sites and adjacent road segments prior to project implementation and road decommissioning.

The southern half of unit 23 and Road 51858, from 1.0 miles to 1.5 miles are immediately adjacent to currently occupied northern Idaho ground squirrel sites. Young-of-the-year, as well as some adults from the occupied sites may randomly disperse to this unit or along the road once harvest activity has begun. Northern Idaho ground squirrels are known to disperse from occupied sites to nearby disturbances, such as vegetation treatments, or burns. Therefore, an assumption can be made that some individual northern Idaho ground squirrel are likely to move into this unit or disperse along Road 51858 from about late-June, to early-July through mid to late August. July 1st through August 15th are arbitrary dates used as reference. This situation is especially a concern for post-harvest fuels treatments, which may occur the year after all harvest activities are completed. A more precise determination of the actual dates of dispersal shall be made during the year of harvest activities or fuels treatments (Chapter 2, Table 2-4).

Chapter 2, Table 2-4 identifies timing restriction measures to reduce the potential impacts on the northern Idaho ground squirrel. The table also summarizes timing restrictions that reduce impacts to elk calving.

Cumulative Effects The Upper Bear Timber Sale, Lick Creek, and Summit Vegetation Management Project would have a net improvement of 520 acres of suitable northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat in the Bear watershed (Project Record).



The cumulative effects of foreseeable culvert replacement, continued recreation and timber stand improvements (TSI) would have no short-term effects to the species. The cumulative effects of livestock grazing are generally unknown at the time. The Recovery Plan for the northern Idaho ground squirrel list grazing as a potential management tool in habitat maintenance and restoration effects (USFWS 2003).



Measurements Miles of road closed year round Miles of road decommissioning

Rocky Mountain Elk

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would not be any change to elk habitat quality, vulnerability to mortality, travel management impacts or habitat security needs in the Analysis Area with this alternative. The Analysis Area and Bear watershed would remain below a level that provides sufficient elk habitat security.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Both action alternatives maintain current elk habitat quality and vulnerability by maintaining all 23 miles of existing year-round road closures in the Analysis Area. However, a minor improvement to vulnerability would occur with proposed road decommissioning and long term closures of approximately 5.2 miles in alternative 2 and about 4.3 miles in alternative 3. These treatments could make illegal use of motorized vehicles more difficult.

The capability of the Analysis Area to provide sufficient habitat security to maintain elk populations at levels for the State to meet their herd management objectives would be maintained in the short term with either action alternative. Long-term habitat security would somewhat improve with growth of vegetation.

Neither action alternative reduces defined winter thermal cover in the Analysis Area or at the watershed scale. Forested stands in mapped winter range within the Analysis Area do not currently meet the requirements of thermal cover. However, marginally suitable winter thermal cover would be reduced for the short-term and improved for the long-term.

Both action alternatives improve available forage with proposed broadcast burning to rejuvenate the grass and shrub communities.

Many treatment units include project design features which provide timing restrictions for protection measures (Chapter 2, Table 2-4). Some units are designed with restrictions specifically for the northern Idaho ground squirrel. These restrictions will also reduce disturbances during the fawning and calving period of May 15th through July 15th.



Cumulative Effects The Upper Bear Timber Sale, and Lick Creek Vegetation Management Project combined with the Summit Vegetation Management Project will improve elk habitat quality and security for the Bear watershed. Additional security areas may be identified with future projects.

Winter range thermal cover would not be cumulatively affected in the Bear watershed. Forage would be cumulatively improved with proposed broadcast burning.

The cumulative effects of foreseeable culvert replacement, and continued recreation would have no short-term effects to the species. TSI projects may temporarily reduce hiding cover and would likely affect thermal cover. Livestock grazing would continue to be managed within Forest Plan standards.

Issue The proposed project, to manage vegetation in the Lower Bear 6th field hydrologic unit (Summit and Calf Pen Gulch drainages), has the potential to either positively or negatively affect some terrestrial species through habitat modifications.

Indicators Acres of currently suitable habitats or habitat components modified for Payette

National Forest Management Indicator Species. Acres of currently suitable habitats or habitat components modified for species that

are federally listed, proposed, or candidates and Payette National Forest sensitive species.

White-Headed Woodpecker

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no change to suitable white-headed woodpecker habitat in the Analysis Area with this alternative. There would be no impacts to the species. White-headed woodpeckers would continue to remain at risk of maintaining long-term population viability.

Habitat quantity and quality would not be improved from current conditions. Densely stocked forested stands would not be treated to hasten the development of the large tree component that would benefit white-headed woodpeckers. Currently, suitable habitat would decrease over time as forest succession, fire exclusion and increased stand densities provide only marginally suitable habitat.

The potential for the greatest reduction of suitable habitat would occur with this alternative as increases in ladder fuels and stand densities may lead to a stand-replacing wildland fire. However, a mixed-severity fire may benefit the species by opening the forest canopy of denser stands.

Road decommissioning and road closures would not occur under this alternative, which could ultimately reduce fuelwood harvest and lead to an increase in snags in the Analysis Area.

Alternatives 2 and 3 The action alternatives will have a short-term disturbance to currently suitable habitat due to timber harvest activities. This is followed by long-term habitat improvement benefits. The



long-term improvement is through accelerated growth of the remaining timber stand to hasten the time it takes to attain the large tree size class condition. Alternative 2 would improve the long term quality of habitat that is currently suitable for white-headed woodpeckers by 889 acres. Alternative 3 would improve the long term quality of habitat that is currently suitable by 318 acres (Project Record). Neither alternative would reduce habitat that is considered to be currently suitable.

The action alternatives also propose to construct a new road segment to facilitate log haul. Alternative 2 would construct 0.8 miles and Alternative 3 would construct 0.6 miles. Both alternatives propose to place about 1.8 miles in a long term closure to reduce road related sediment. Alternative 2 would decommission about 5.2 miles of classified and unclassified roads, while Alternative 3 would decommission about 4.3 miles. These actions would potentially reduce public fuelwood harvest and increase snags throughout the Analysis Area. This would benefit foraging and nesting opportunities for white-headed woodpeckers. The difference between road related issues for the two alternatives is negligible.

Alternative 2 would provide the greatest long-term habitat quality improvement for white-headed woodpeckers. Both alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing.

Cumulative Effects Past, present, and foreseeable future projects include upper Bear, Lick Creek, and Summit Gulch Vegetation Management projects.

The cumulative effects of long term habitat quality improvement for the white headed woodpecker for all three projects would be 1,467 acres for Alternative 2 and 896 acres for Alternative 3 of the Summit Vegetation Management Project (Project Record).

The cumulative effects of foreseeable livestock grazing, culvert replacement, continued recreation and timber stand improvements (TSI) would not have any short-term effects to the species. However, TSI would benefit the species with long-term improvements in development of large trees.

Pileated Woodpecker

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would not be any change to suitable pileated woodpecker habitat in the Analysis Area with this alternative. There would not be any impacts to the species. Pileated woodpeckers would continue to remain at risk of maintaining long-term population viability.

The potential for the greatest reduction of suitable habitat would occur with this alternative as increases in ladder fuels and stand densities may lead to a stand-replacing wildland fire.

Road decommissioning and road closures would not occur, which could ultimately reduce fuelwood harvest and increase the snag and coarse woody debris levels in the Analysis Area.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Nether action alternative modifies currently suitable pileated woodpecker habitat to an unsuitable condition in the Analysis Area. Both action alternatives treat stands to promote the development of large trees, which would benefit pileated woodpeckers in the long-term. Alternative 2 would promote the development of large trees on more acres than Alternative 3.



Both action alternatives propose to decommission about 5.2 or 4.3 miles of road respectively and place another 1.8 road miles in a long term closure condition to reduce road related sediment. These actions would potentially reduce public fuelwood harvest and increase snag and coarse woody debris levels throughout the Analysis Area. This would improve the foraging and nesting conditions for pileated woodpeckers. The difference between the two alternatives is negligible.

Cumulative Effects The Upper Bear Timber Sale would have a net acre reduction of 645 acres of suitable pileated woodpecker habitat in the Bear watershed (Upper Bear FEIS 2003). The cumulative effects of the Lick Creek and Summit Vegetation Management Projects would be the same for the Upper Bear Timber Sale. The acre reductions at the watershed scale (13,800 acres of suitable habitat) would also be the same as displayed in the Upper Bear FEIS.

The cumulative effects of foreseeable livestock grazing, culvert replacement, continued recreation and TSI would have no short-term effects to the species. TSI would benefit the species with long-term improvements in development of large trees.

Northern Goshawk

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no change to suitable northern goshawk habitat in the Analysis Area with this alternative. There would be no impacts to the species.

Mature forested stands, which provide an essential habitat component for nest structure, post-fledging, and foraging areas, would not be modified. Nesting and foraging habitat quality may diminish over time as disease and insect infestations continue to reduce nesting stand canopy cover. However, existing sparsely stocked, forested areas will continue to develop a denser, multi-storied canopy, which could provide future nesting habitat.

The potential for a stand-replacing wildland fire would also increase with this alternative, as the forest canopy and the understory become denser and fuels accumulate on the forest floor. A stand-replacing wildland fire would reduce the availability of suitable nesting habitat in the Analysis Area and watershed.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Nether action alternative modifies currently suitable goshawk nesting habitat to an unsuitable condition in the Analysis Area. Both action alternatives would have a long-term improvement to future goshawk foraging habitat by promoting the development of large trees. Alternative 2 would promote the development of large trees on more acres than Alternative 3.

Both alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing.

Cumulative Effects The Upper Bear Timber Sale combined with the Lick Creek and Summit Vegetation Management Projects, would not cumulatively modify the five known northern goshawk breeding territories in the Bear watershed. The cumulative effects of all projects would have



a temporary reduction of potentially suitable nesting habitat outside of the mapped territories, and a modification of foraging habitats in the watershed.

Cumulatively, the northern goshawk population in the Bear watershed is expected to remain stable as Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines would be followed. The cumulative effects of foreseeable livestock grazing, culvert replacement, continued recreation and TSI would have no short-term effects to the species. TSI would benefit the species with long-term improvements in development of large trees.

Flammulated Owl

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no change to suitable flammulated owl habitat in the Analysis Area with this alternative. There would be no impacts to the species. Flammulated owls would continue to remain at risk of maintaining long-term population viability.

Habitat quantity and quality would not be improved above current conditions. Densely stocked mature, forested stands would not be treated to improve the large tree habitat component that would benefit flammulated owls. Currently, suitable habitat would decrease over time as forest succession and increased stand densities provide only marginally suitable habitat for flammulated owls.

The potential for the greatest reduction of suitable habitat would occur with this alternative as increases in ladder fuels and stand densities may lead to a stand-replacing wildland fire. However, a mixed-severity fire may benefit the species by opening the forest canopy.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Both action alternatives reduce currently suitable flammulated owl habitat to a short-term unsuitable condition by reducing the crown below 35 percent. Alternative 2 reduces currently suitable habitat by 376 acres. Alternative 3 reduces currently suitable habitat by 134 acres (Project Record). However, both action alternatives treat stands to promote the development of large trees, which would benefit flammulated owls in the long-term. Alternative 2 would promote the development of large trees on more acres than Alternative 3.

Both action alternatives also provide a long-term habitat quality improvement to currently suitable flammulated owl habitat by promoting the development of large trees. Alternative 2 would improve the long term quality of habitat that is currently suitable for flammulated owls by 513 acres. Alternative 3 would improve the long term quality of habitat that is currently suitable by 184 acres (Project Record).

The effects of new road construction, road decommissioning and long-term road closure to flammulated owls would be the same as for the white-headed woodpecker. Refer to the white- headed woodpecker discussion.

The capability of the Payette National Forest supporting a viable flammulated owl population would improve with either Alternatives 2 or Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would provide the greatest long-term habitat quality improvement. However, Alternative 2 would also provide the greatest short-term reduction of currently suitable habitat. Both alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing.



Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of the Upper Bear Timber Sale and the Lick Creek Vegetation Management Project combined with the Summit Vegetation Management Project would have a net acre reduction of 429 acres for Alternative 2 and 237 acres for Alternative 3 (Project Record). The acre reductions at the watershed scale are minor; 2 percent for Alternative 2 and 1 percent for Alternative 3.

The cumulative effects of foreseeable livestock grazing, culvert replacement, continued recreation and TSI would not have any short-term effects to the species. TSI would benefit the species with long-term improvements in development of large trees.

Bald Eagle

Direct and Indirect Effects Action Alternatives Suitable bald eagle foraging habitat on big game winter range would not change with any alternative. These alternatives maintain the current condition of the winter range and would not affect deer or elk numbers. Since there would be no change to potential forage for wintering bald eagles, there would be no effects to the species.

Cumulative Effects There are currently no known foreseeable future vegetation treatments planned within mapped big game winter range on Payette National Forest, or private land that would reduce bald eagle foraging opportunities in the Bear watershed. The cumulative effects would be a continuation of existing conditions for bald eagles to opportunistically forage on elk and deer carrion in mapped winter range.

Gray Wolf

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 This alternative would not modify existing conditions for gray wolves or their prey in the Analysis Area. There would be no change to the current open road density. The additional human disturbance that comes from timber harvest activities would not occur. There would be no effects to the gray wolf.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Both action alternatives maintain the current elk habitat quality and vulnerability to mortality by maintaining all existing year-round road closures in the Analysis Area. A potential increase in available forage with prescribed fire would improve elk habitat quality in the long-term. An improved elk population could provide more prey for gray wolves.

Increases in human disturbance from timber harvest activities can be expected to temporarily displace gray wolf use that may be seasonally present in the Analysis Area. This disturbance (equipment noise and use of temporary or closed roads) can be expected for the life of the activities. A potential improvement in prey availability and a temporary increase in human disturbance are not likely to jeopardize gray wolves in Idaho.



Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects of foreseeable future actions (Upper Bear Timber Sale and Lick Creek Vegetation Management Project) on gray wolves would be the same as for elk. An improved prey base in the Bear watershed may be more desirable for gray wolves.

Migratory Landbird Habitats

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no changes to the four migratory landbird habitat groups that occur in the Analysis Area with this alternative. The dry ponderosa pine/Douglas fir/grand fir, low-elevation mixed conifer, riparian, and grassland groups would not be improved, or reduced from current levels. There would be no impacts to migratory landbird species that use these habitats as their primary breeding habitat.

Fire exclusion has increased the amount and availability of low-elevation mixed conifer habitats in the Analysis Area and watershed. This has benefited species that primarily breed in this habitat group. However, fire exclusion has decreased the dry ponderosa pine/Douglas fir/grand fir habitat group. This has reduced primary breeding habitat for species associated with this habitat group. Alternative 1 would continue these trends. However, if forest succession is allowed to continue, the likelihood of a stand-replacing wildland fire would increase. A stand-replacing wildland fire could modify all four migratory landbird habitat groups.

Alternatives 2 and 3 All action alternatives modify primary breeding habitat for the dry ponderosa pine/Douglas fir/grand fir. Species such as the white-headed woodpecker and flammulated owl may increase. None of the action alternatives modify the riparian or low-elevation mixed conifer groups. Species like the willow flycatcher or northern goshawk will not be impacted. Both action alternatives improve grassland and shrub communities with prescribed fire. Species like the western meadowlark will benefit.

The effects of fire exclusion have cumulatively decreased the amount and availability of dry ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir/grand fir and grassland habitats and the species known to use them. Those species associated with these two habitat groups should benefit in the long-term with increased populations based on habitat availability.

Timing restrictions which have been identified for elk calving, and northern Idaho ground squirrel mitigations, will provide protection from disturbance for migratory landbirds during reproduction periods. Treatment units, which do not have timing restrictions, and operate during the migratory landbird breeding season, may cause a disruption of reproduction.

Cumulative Effects The Upper Bear Timber Sale combined with the Lick Creek and Summit Vegetation Management Projects would have a watershed-wide positive effect on the dry ponderosa pine/Douglas fir/grand fir habitat group and associated species. This habitat group will increase in the watershed. The low-elevation mixed conifer group and associated species would be negatively affected. This habitat group would decrease in the watershed. Grasslands and associated species would be cumulatively improved. Riparian habitats and associated species would not be cumulatively affected.



The cumulative effects of culvert replacement, continued recreation and would have no short-term effects to the species. TSI projects would benefit associated species with long-term improvements in development of large trees. Livestock grazing would continue to be managed within the standards of the Forest Plan.

Wild Turkey

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no changes to wild turkey habitat components in the Analysis Area with this alternative. Habitat within the Analysis Area is limited and considered marginal for wild turkey nesting and roosting. There would be no impacts to the species.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Neither action alternative modifies suitable wild turkey habitat in the Analysis Area. Alternative 2 modifies 78 acres of marginally suitable wild turkey habitat. Alternative 3 would not modify this marginal habitat. Impacts to the wild turkey population in the Bear watershed are negligible.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of the Upper Bear Timber Sale, the Lick Creek and Summit Vegetation Management Projects reduce some wild turkey habitat components while increasing others.

Forest Plan Consistency The Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Forest Plan FEIS, Chapter 3, addressed viability of Management Indicator Species (MIS). For white-headed woodpeckers, an increasing trend in the amount of white-headed woodpecker habitat through time is expected. This increasing trend should increase the likelihood of continued persistence and improve viability for the species (Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3-305). The FEIS suggests that there is currently a sufficient amount of pileated woodpecker habitat distributed across the Payette National Forest to prevent a loss of viability to the population or species, and habitat is expected to improve on the Forest (Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3-317).

Snags and Coarse Woody Debris Most existing snags, in the proposed timber harvest units, will be retained to provide habitat for cavity dependent and associated species. However, some losses would occur due to safety concerns. Measures to mitigate snag losses (Chapter 2, Table 2-4) from timber harvest activities will bring snag levels back to the pre-harvest condition in about five years. With the additional road decommissioning, snag and coarse woody debris levels could meet Forest Plan standards in a decade or two.

To be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines TEST06, TEST12, TEGU01, WIST03, WIGU12, and 0248, timber harvest activities and log haul restrictions would be put into effect. Refer to Chapter 2, Table 2-4 for specifics.

Compliance with Forest-wide direction (standards & guidelines) applicable to this project is documented in the Activity Table located in the project record.




Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of wildlife resources associated with any of the alternatives.

Project Record This EA herby incorporates by reference the Wildlife Specialist’s Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). The Wildlife Specialist’s report is located in the Project Record and contains the detailed data, analysis, and technical documentation that the Wildlife Specialist relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA.

Water Resource - 3

3.4 Water Resource

Issue Impacts of roads and past harvest disturbance on stream channel conditions

Indicator Amount and type of ground disturbing activities within 200 feet of stream channels

An internal issue was raised related to the impacts of roads and past harvest activities on riparian conditions and sediment entering Summit Gulch and its tributaries. The primary water concerns are effects of proposed actions on stream channel conditions and sediment entering from roads. The existing road network is concentrated along stream channels and draw bottoms. Of the 27 miles of roads in the project area, nearly 11 miles are located within 200 feet of an intermittent or perennial stream channel. Research has shown that ground disturbance and roads located within 200 feet of stream channels have the greatest potential for adding sediment.

Forest Plan Direction The Forest Plan identifies forest-wide and management area specific goals, objectives, standards and guidelines aimed at protection and enhancement of the water resources and associated aquatic habitat. Forest-wide direction (standards and guidelines) applicable to the water resource are included in Table 2-4 of Chapter 2.

Scope of the Analysis The geographic scope for assessment of potential effects of proposed activities will include the project activity area, the Summit-Calf Pen Gulch and Wikiup Creek drainages (5,614 acres) and the entire Lower Bear Creek subwatershed (9,063 acres) (See Figure 3.4-2). Analysis of effects at a scale beyond the Summit-Calf Pen Gulch drainage or Lower Bear Creek subwatershed was not considered, as any effects beyond this scale would likely be immeasurable and indistinguishable from existing background levels. Additionally, the specific soil and water project design features associated with this proposal are designed to minimize effects beyond the project, drainage, or subwatershed scale.



Figure 3.4-2: Analysis area for environmental effects to the water resource

Bear

Cr

Steve

s Cr

Deer Cr

Sum

mit

Gu

lch

Lick Cr

Wik

iup

Cr

Thorn Cr

Gladheart Cr

Cal

f Pe

n G

ulch

Lick

Cre

ek

Doe Cr

Wild

hors

e R

iver

Slim

Cre

ek

Bear Cr

Wik

iup

Cr

Ste

ves

Cr

Summit Gulch Water Resource Effects Analysis Areas

´Legend

Project Activity Area

Lower Bear Subwatershed

Summit/Calf Pen/Wikiup Drainages

The temporal scopes (timeframes) for the analysis are the same as utilized by the Forest Plan and defined as temporary being from 0 to 3 years, short term as 3 years to 15 years, and long term as greater than 15 years.


General Hydrologic Characteristics The project area is located in the Lower Bear Creek subwatershed (6th field Hydrologic Unit) within the Bear Creek Watershed. The project area includes 3,580 acres of the 5,615 acre Summit Gulch, Calf Pen Gulch, and Wikiup Creek drainages. The vast majority of the streams within the project area are intermittent channels that flow only during runoff periods.

The climate of the area is influenced by both maritime and topographic factors. During winter and spring months, the Aleutian low pressure systems originating in the North Pacific brings moisture laden air masses that account for the winter snow pack and spring rains.


Water Resource - 3

During the summer months, the Pacific high pressure systems dominate the area leading to prolonged dry periods interrupted by convectional thunderstorms that form in response to the diverse topography of the area and more arid continental air masses. Precipitation ranges from 25-30 inches increasing with elevation with upper elevations receiving as much as 80 percent of the precipitation the form of snow from October to March (Larson et. al. 1973). Prolonged dry periods are common during the late summer and early fall interrupted by short duration and sometimes high intensity summer thunderstorms. The high intensity thunderstorms can accelerate surface erosion in degraded areas and lead to short term increases in stream flow. Given the wide elevational range and inclusion of lower elevations (approximately 50 percent of project area less than 4500 feet), “rain on snow” events are likely during the winter and along with spring runoff or snowmelt are the primary sources of peak flows.

Stream channels in the area formed in response to the landforms, diverse climatic conditions, and associated diverse runoff events. Many of the intermittent channels were likely formed during periods of high runoff that scoured and created the channels seen today.

There are approximately 11 miles of intermittent and 0.5 miles of perennial stream channels within the project area. Wikiup Creek is the only perennial stream within the project area.

There are an estimated 10 miles of perennial stream and 25 miles of intermittent channels in the subwatershed. Within the project activity area there are 11 miles of intermittent channels and 0.5 miles of perennial channels (Table 3.4-1 and Figure 3.4-3).

Table 3.4-1. Summary of Stream Types within Lower Bear Creek Subwatershed and Summit Gulch Project Activity Area

Subwatershed Stream Type Total Miles

Miles within Project Activity Area

Lower Bear Creek

Perennial 10.0 0.5

Intermittent 25.0 11.0 Total 35 11.5



Figure 3.4-3. Stream Types within the Summit Gulch Project Activity Area and Affected Subwatershed

Sum

mit

Gul

ch

Bear C

r

Wik

iup

Cr

Thorn Cr

Cal

f Pen

Gul

ch

Wild h

orse

Ri ver

Wik

iup

Cr

Summit Gulch Stream Types

´

Legend


Lower Bear Creek Subwatershed

Streams <all other values>

FLOW_REGIME

Intermittent

Perennial

Existing Watershed Conditions Related to Forest Plan Assessment of the existing conditions of the water resource and relationship to Forest Plan standards relies partly on the application of watershed condition indicator matrix outlined in Appendix B of the Forest Plan. The following sections disclose existing watershed conditions related to the Forest Plan standards. Additional discussion of the Forest Plan Appendix B matrix items, as well as other pertinent descriptions of watershed conditions and processes is provided in the water resource specialist report.

Channel Conditions and Dynamics Complete stream channel condition information across the subwatershed is not known, and no formal stream surveys have been completed. The following descriptions are based on field reconnaissance completed as part of this project.

Across the subwatershed, channel conditions are variable changing with inherent landscape and channel characteristics, management history, and ownership. Wikiup Creek is in good condition sustaining stable banks and healthy streamside vegetation. Flows to Wikiup Creek are augmented by a diversion ditch that carries water from Bear Creek into the Wikiup Creek


Water Resource - 3

drainage. The lower reaches of Summit and Calf Pen Gulches are also considered to be in good condition with relatively stable banks and areas of dense shrubs (hawthorn, willow, and dogwood) that contribute to channel stability and reduced livestock use and associated impacts. These lower reaches also have well armored channels of cobble and larger size substrate.

The upper reaches of Summit Gulch are in fair to poor condition due to past harvest activities that removed the largest trees and located skid trails, roads and landings in and near the stream channel. Several old skid trail stream crossings and landing areas are causing accelerated stream bank erosion and downcutting. Livestock impacts in these areas are also contributing to reduced bank stability and inhibiting riparian vegetation recovery.

The majority of the first and second order channels are higher gradient confined A-channels dominated by gravel to cobble size substrates. As drainage area increases and valley bottoms widen, B type channels with gravel to cobble size substrates are common. In general A-channels are more sensitive to disturbances and changes in flows given their high gradient/energy and inability to diffuse high flows (i.e. no floodplains). B channels are considered fairly resilient given their moderate gradients, and presence of an active floodplain that helps dissipate the energy of high flows. However, their resiliency is somewhat dependant upon healthy streamside and floodplain vegetation (Table 3.4-2).

Table 3.4-2. General Stream Channel Type Characterization*

Channel Type

Valley Form Channel Gradient

Sinuosity Description

A, Aa+ Narrow, steep, V-shaped with high relief (steep side slopes). Narrow floodplains/riparian areas with depositional soils.

4-10+ percent

Low (1-1.1)

Steep, entrenched, cascading step/pool streams. High energy/debris transport. Very stable if bedrock, boulder dominated substrate. Unstable if gravel or finer substrates.

B Narrow; gentle sloping with moderate relief and colluvial or residual soils.

2-4 percent

Moderate (>1.2)

Moderately entrenched, moderate gradient, riffle dominated channel with infrequent pools. Very stable plan and profile with stable banks.

*Source: Rosgen 1994, A classification of Natural Rivers.

Water Quality There are no water quality limited 303 (d) listed waterbodies within the project area or Bear Creek Watershed. Beneficial uses for streams in the project area have not been specifically designated. As nondesignated surface waters, it is presumed that most waters in the state will support cold water aquatic life and primary or secondary contact recreation beneficial uses. Based on this, the most applicable beneficial uses would include cold-water aquatic life and secondary contact recreation. Undesignated waters shall be protected for beneficial uses the same as designated waters (IDAPA 58.01.02, Section 101). Intermittent channels are presumed to meet these beneficial uses during periods of stream flow.

The primary water quality related concern is the impacts of roads and past harvest facilities (landings, skid trails) on overall stream channel conditions.




Introduction Application of 120 and 240 foot RCA’s on intermittent and perennial streams respectively is expected to protect floodplains, maintain existing stream shading and LWD, and provide for future sources of large woody debris for stream channels across the project area. Additionally, the requirement that no ground disturbance (outside of existing roads) is permitted within 200 feet of channels will limit potential ground disturbance and sediment generated from harvest activities from entering stream channels. These buffer widths along with the requirement to locate skid trails and landings at least 200 feet from channels are expected to provide ample vegetative cover between harvest units and stream channels to filter non-channelized sediment resulting from ground disturbance in harvest units.

An internal issue was raised related to the impacts of roads and past harvest activities on riparian conditions and sediment entering Summit Gulch and tributaries. In order to analyze the effects of alternatives on this issue, one indicator was developed.

Issue: Impacts of roads and past harvest disturbance on stream channel conditions

Indicator: Amount and type of ground disturbing activities within 200 feet of stream channels

Additional information on effects to the water resource is included in the Water Resource Specialist Report.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Amount and type of ground disturbing activities within 200 feet of stream channels Background A survey of forest practice compliance by the Idaho Water Quality Bureau (1988) found that roads and disturbance near stream channels are the most important factor currently contributing to water quality degradation. According to local research, roads and other disturbance within 200 feet of channels have the highest risk of contributing non-channelized sediment to stream channels (Belt et al., 1992; Burroughs and King, 1989; Megahan and Ketcheson, 1996).

The area between roads and streams can provide effective sediment buffering for non-channelized flow. The closer the road is to the stream, the smaller the buffering capability becomes. The current width of vegetation “strips” between roads and streams across the project area is variable. Research in granitics looking at the movement of sediment from roads found that 90 percent of non-channelized sediment from road fills traveled less than 88 feet below the road fill and 90 percent of channelized sediment traveled less than 200 feet (Burroughs and King 1989). Another road sediment study concluded that non-channelized sediment generally doesn’t reach the stream at distances of over 200 feet (Megahan and Ketcheson 1996). On relatively stable basalts, Belt et al. (1992) found that protective strips of 35 to 127 feet contained 83.5 percent of the flow and associated sediment (depending upon levels of down wood, ground cover etc.) and estimated that the 97.5 percent containment could be achieved with an additional 60 feet of protective buffer.

Actively eroding road surfaces can generate sediment and route it to the stream through relief ditches, stream crossings or overland flow. The presence of a surfaced road crossing can greatly reduce the potential for sediment to reach the stream channel. Surfaced roads near


Water Resource - 3

streams have less potential to contribute sediment than native surface roads. Research of road related erosion and sedimentation has shown that presence of gravel or other aggregate materials is effective in reducing levels of sediment. Surfaced roads “near streams” have less potential to contribute sediment than native surface roads. Research indicates that the presence of a gravel or pit run surface reduces potential sediment production by 79 to 97 percent (Burroughs and King 1989) over an unsurfaced (native surface) road.

Based on these findings, it is evident that roads and other ground disturbance within 200 feet of streams present the highest risk for inputting sediment to channels, and presence of a road surface can be effective at reducing sediment production from roads.

Alternative 1 No Action Under Alternative 1, the existing road network within 200 feet of stream channels would remain the same. The existing 10.7 miles of road within 200 feet of stream channels (referred to as “near streams” hereafter) across the project area and 18 miles across the affected drainages would remain and continue to be potential sources of sediment to stream channels (Table 3.4-4). No reductions or improvements in roads near streams would occur, and sediment contributions from roads near streams would continue.

Conversely, none of the existing closed roads near streams would be used and thus no temporary increases in sediment from increased traffic would occur. No temporary spurs off the Summit Gulch road would be needed to accommodate harvest activities, so no additional temporary increases in ground disturbance or sediment from such disturbance would occur.

Proposed timber sale and watershed improvement related decommissioning of roads within 200 feet of channels would not occur. The existing location, drainage and erosion problems associated with these roads would continue to negatively impact riparian areas and stream channels (especially Summit Gulch).

Alternative 2 and 3 Road decommissioning completed as part of the timber sale and watershed improvement activities would reduce the amount of road within 200 feet of streams by 3.5 miles (3.7 miles of road decommissioning and 0.2 miles of road relocation/construction within 200 feet of channels) under both alternatives (Figure 3.4-4). Decommissioning activities would include:

Ripping or sub-soiling the road surface to alleviate compacted soils and improve infiltration,

Outsloping the road surface to disperse runoff and restore the slope profile (as much as possible),

Removal of culverts and re-establishment of natural drainage patterns, Scattering of on-site debris (limbs, logs, etc.) to provide a minimum of 35-50 percent

cover to reduce surface erosion, Transplanting of on-site vegetation plugs, Planting conifers and/or hardwoods to facilitate vegetation recovery Stream crossings along decommissioned roads receive added erosion control

measures including: Mulching with weed free straw to provide 75+ percent ground cover Native grass and forb seeding and application of an organic based fertilizer Placement of slash and logs along contour to trap soil and sediment Added transplanting of on-site shrubs along restored stream banks Placement of erosion sediment fence where natural material (logs, slash) is lacking



Figure 3.4-4. Summit Gulch Proposed Road Actions

Sum

mit G

ulch

Wik

iup

Cr

Cal

f Pen

Gul

ch

Summit Gulch Proposed Road Actions

´Legend


Roads

Proposed ActionsNo Change

Watershed Improvement Decommissioning

Long Term Closure

Naturally Re-vegetated

Road Relocation

Timber Sale Decommissioning

Recent monitoring of road decommissioning across the west zone of the Payette National Forest has shown little to no surface erosion or sedimentation, rapid re-vegetation, and effective stabilization along decommissioned roads and associated restored stream crossings. Monitoring results have also indicated that effective ground cover (live vegetation plus slash/litter) generally averages from 60-70 percent within one year, and stream crossings have shown little to no signs of accelerated erosion or sediment entering channels (Payette National Forest Westzone Monitoring Results 2002-2004).

In 2003 researchers from the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Moscow, ID examined infiltration rates at recent (2 to 3 year old) stream crossing sites on obliterated roads on the Payette National Forest. The study found infiltration rates at obliterated stream crossings to be 5 times greater than on a road surface. With improved infiltration, there was a large reduction in the potential for a runoff event to cause surface erosion and associated sedimentation (Foltz and Maillard 2003). Similar effectiveness of treatments in Summit Gulch is expected because ground conditions are similar and the same level and kind of decommissioning practices would occur. These measures have been shown to be highly effective at restoring old road beds while minimizing the potential for accelerated erosion and sedimentation (Payette National Forest Westzone Monitoring Results 2002-2004).

Road relocation in both Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the construction of an estimated 0.2 miles of new road within 200 feet of a channel where the new road crosses an intermittent tributary to Summit Gulch. In order to limit potential impacts, a slash windrow


Water Resource - 3

would be placed at the base of the fill slope within the RCA, and the road surface within the RCA would be surfaced with gravel to limit erosion and sedimentation from the road surface. Additional road maintenance required as part of the timber sale would improve road drainage (cross drains, waterbars, drain dips) reducing the potential for erosion and sediment from these road surfaces.

The following management requirements (based on Soil and Water Conservation Practices [SWCP] FSH 2509.22) and related best management practices (BMPs) apply to all road related actions in order to reduce the potential for impacts to stream channels and overall water quality:

BMP Class* SWCP# Description A 15.02 General Guidelines for Road Location/Design E 15.03 Road and Trail Erosion Control Plan E 15.04 Timing of Construction Activities E 15.05 Slope Stabilization and Prevention of Mass Failures E 15.06 Mitigation of Surface Erosion and Stabilization of

Slopes E 15.07 Control of Permanent Road Drainage E 15.08 Pioneer Road Construction E 15.09 Timely Erosion Control on Incomplete Road and

Streamcrossing Projects E 15.10 Control of Road Construction Excavation & Sidecast

Material S 15.12 Control of Construction In Riparian Areas S 15.13 Controlling In-Channel Excavation S 15.16 Bridge & Culvert Installation (Disposition of Surplus

Material and Protection of Fisheries) E 15.17 Regulation of Borrow Pits, Gravel Sources and Quarries E 15.18 Disposal of Right-of-Way and Roadside Debris S 15.19 Stream bank Protection E 15.21 Maintenance of Roads E 15.22 Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials E 15.23 Traffic Control During Wet Periods E 15.25 Obliteration of Temporary Roads

CLCLASSES OF SWCP *CLASSES OF SWCP (BMP) A = Administrative G = Ground Disturbance Reduction E = Erosion Reduction W = Water Quality Protection S = Stream Channel Protection/Stream Sediment Reduction Approximately 1.8 mile of road that parallels Summit Gulch used for log haul would be ripped, scarified and seeded, and intermittent stream crossings restored (culverts pulled, channel restored) following harvest. This action would aid in restoring infiltration and facilitating re-vegetation, reducing the short to long-term sediment potential from this riparian road.

There would be a temporary increase in potential erosion and sedimentation during harvest activities associated with increased use of roads near streams. Also, several temporary spur roads off the Summit Gulch road would be needed to locate landings at least 200 feet from the stream channel. There would be a temporary risk of increased erosion and sedimentation associated with these spurs. The potential for increased erosion and sedimentation would be minimized through the application of previously mentioned BMPs and SWCPs. Upon completion of harvest, these spurs would be fully reclaimed as described for decommissioning.

As decommissioned roads stabilize and re-vegetate, there is a temporary possibility for increased erosion and sedimentation. Over the short to long-term, stream channels would



benefit from the decommissioning with reduced sediment inputs and long-term increased potential stream shading and future contributions of large woody debris as these currently compacted and disturbed road beds are returned to a productive condition.

Harvest activities (felling and skidding) are unlikely to affect riparian areas or stream channels under either Alternative 2 or 3. Harvest would occur within 200 feet (but no closer than 120 feet) of intermittent channels on an estimated 53 acres under alternative 2 and 30 acres under alternative 3, and pre-commercial thinning on an estimated 16 acres under both alternatives. All trees harvested from 120-200 feet from intermittent channels would be lined or winched to designated skid trails located at least 200 feet from the channel. No trees would be removed from within 120 feet of intermittent channels or 240 feet of Wikiup Creek. No skidding or landing of logs would be allowed within 200 feet of intermittent channels or 240 feet of Wikiup Creek. In addition, overall levels of soil disturbance in harvest units would be limited and kept to a minimum through the use of designated skid trails (see Soils effects section, above) designed to keep levels of disturbance to less than 15 percent of an activity area.

Application of prescribed fire within riparian areas would occur under both Alternative 2 and 3. Both alternatives propose 1,172 acres of prescribed burning in addition to burning in the commercial thin and squirrel treatment areas in an effort to reduce natural fuels and promote the native fire adapted plant communities. Fire would be allowed to back into riparian areas with potential for temporary increases in erosion and sedimentation as ground cover is reduced following the fire. The severity of the fire would be controlled through applying fire only during periods of adequate soil and fuel moisture limiting the potential for creating exposed soil conditions that are vulnerable to increased erosion. Recent monitoring (2004) of prescribed burns has indicated that burning under controlled conditions retains a mosaic of ground litter and vegetation, and that fire scorched needles and leaves rapidly move to the forest floor providing effective ground cover. The mosaic nature of the burns combined with rapid recruitment of ground cover greatly limits the potential for accelerated surface erosion. Small areas of more severe burning are possible in concentrations of fuels and these areas may be more susceptible to erosion, but are generally limited in size and intermixed with a mosaic of lightly burned and unburned areas.

Over the short to long term, fire is expected to improve native upland and riparian vegetation plant communities and lead to improved ground cover over the current condition. As the ground cover is improved, the potential for surface erosion and sedimentation would be reduced.

Summary Road decommissioning proposed under both Alternative 2 and 3 would reduce the miles of road near streams by 3.7 miles while road relocation would add an estimated 0.2 miles of road within 200 feet of an intermittent tributary to Summit Gulch. The net effect would be 3.5 miles or a 33 percent reduction in roads located within 200 feet of streams across the project area. Within the affected drainages (Summit Gulch, Calf Pen Gulch, and Wikiup Creek) proposed road decommissioning would result in a 19 percent reduction in the miles of road within 200 feet of stream channels (Table 3.4-4, Figure 3.4-3).

Table 3.4-4: Miles of Road within 200 Feet of Stream Channels by Alternative

Alternative Summit Gulch Project Area

Affected Drainages

percent Reduction Project Area/Affected Drainages

1 10.7 18.0 0 percent/0 percent 2 7.2 14.5 33 percent/19 percent 3 7.2 14.5 33 percent/19 percent


Water Resource - 3

Alternative 2 includes more harvest treatment within 200 feet of channels than alternative 3 (Table 3.4-5), but effects to stream channels are unlikely given the application of RCA’s and the requirement to locate all skid trails and landings at least 200 feet from channels.

Table 3.4-5: Acres of treatment within 200 Feet of Stream Channels by Alternative

Alternative Commercial Thinning#

Squirrel Thinning#

Pre-commercial thinning

Underburning

1 0 0 0 0 2 23 30 3 50 3 0 30 3 50

#Treatments also include underburning

Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in temporary increases in road related sediment due to increased traffic and maintenance near streams during the life of the timber sale. Given the added acres treated within 200 feet of channels under Alternative 2 and associated additional road use, there is a greater potential for increased sediment than under Alternative 3 (Table 3.4-5). The potential temporary increases in sediment under either action alternative are not expected to inhibit water bodies in the project area or downstream from meeting their designated beneficial uses given the application of stated project design features and BMPs.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects on the water resource will be considered at the Lower Bear subwatershed scale (Figure 3.4-1). This area encompasses 9,063 acres in the lower end of the 57,299 acre Bear Creek watershed. Effects of this proposal are expected to be immeasurable at the watershed scale, given the relatively small relative amount of acreage treated (action alternatives would result in 318-889 acres of harvest and precommercial thinning, and 1,490 to 2,061 acres of prescribed fire representing from 2.6 to 3.6 percent of the watershed), and because all proposed actions include specific design features aimed at protecting and minimizing effects to the water resource.

Effects of past National Forest System activities on the water resource are disclosed in the affected environment section, and the combination of past and present (proposed) actions in the direct and indirect effects section.

Reasonably foreseeable actions that may cumulatively influence the water resource in conjunction with past and present activities include: forest management activities on adjacent private lands, livestock grazing on public and private lands, fire suppression, fire wood cutting, dispersed recreation and continued OHV (including ATV) use. There are no reasonably foreseeable forest management actions (besides livestock grazing and fire suppression) proposed for public lands within the subwatershed based on the current Payette National Forest Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions or the 5-year action plan.

Amount and type of ground disturbing activities within 200 feet of stream channels Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, none of the reasonably foreseeable actions would result in changes in the amount of road within 200 feet of stream channels on National Forest lands. Within private lands, road building may occur and result in increases in roads near streams. Currently there



is no information available suggesting any actions on private lands that would change the amount of road near streams.

Livestock grazing and OHV use would likely continue across the project area and subwatershed, and where concentrated use near streams occurs, it would exacerbate disturbed areas, leading to continued and perhaps increased levels of sediment.

Livestock grazing impacts to stream channels and riparian vegetation would continue on both public and private lands in the subwatershed. Impacts to riparian areas accessed by roads proposed for decommissioning would continue and continue to retard recovery of stream banks and riparian vegetation especially along the upper reaches of Summit Gulch. Accessibility and associated livestock impacts on stream channels would remain unchanged under Alternative 1.

Fire suppression activities would continue across the subwatershed. Where heavy equipment is employed to “fight” fire, areas of disturbance would occur and, where near streams, could result in added sediment. In most instances fire suppression tactics are considerate of other resources and measures taken to minimize negative impacts.

Continued successful fire suppression leads to continued perpetuation of un-natural fuel levels and altered forest structure and composition. As these conditions are maintained (or even enhanced) by fire suppression, the opportunity for an uncharacteristically severe fire would be increased. In the event of such a fire, disturbance to the vegetation and soils near streams and across the subwatershed could lead to increased sediment production and changes in the timing and magnitude of runoff. This in combination with the existing road network and management history could lead to elevated levels of erosion and sedimentation.

Alternative 2 and 3 None of the reasonably foreseeable actions are expected to result in additional changes in the amount of road within 200 feet of streams on National Forest lands. Both alternatives would result in a 33 percent reduction in the amount of road near streams in the project area and a 19 percent reduction within the affected drainages.

In combination, proposed harvest, pre-commercial thinning, and prescribed fire activities within 200 feet of streams would occur on 106 acres in Alternative 2, and on 83 acres in Alternative 3 (Table 3.4-5). This equates to an estimated 6.4 percent of the area within 200 feet of streams across the subwatershed being entered under Alternative 2, and 5 percent under alternative 3. Given that no ground disturbance (outside of existing roads or temporary roads) would occur within 200 feet, and no commercial harvest would occur within 120 feet of stream channels, the cumulative effect of all actions on stream channel conditions is expected to be negligible and likely immeasurable. The reduction of roads within 200 feet of stream channels is expected to result in a positive cumulative effect on channels especially over the short to long-term.

As stated for Alternative 1 there may be road building on private lands that would potentially increase the miles of road near streams, but presently there is no information available that indicates whether this will occur. Given that private lands in the subwatershed are dominated by non-forest communities (little need for roads to facilitate any future harvest activities) and already roaded, additional road building is unlikely.

Livestock accessibility to portions of Summit Gulch and tributaries would be somewhat reduced as a result of proposed road decommissioning under Alternatives 2 and 3. Current road surfaces allow easy riparian access for livestock and other ungulates. Recontouring and scattering of slash would result in more difficult terrain for livestock or other animals to


Water Resource - 3

move through. With reduced accessibility, there would be some reduction in the potential for stream bank trampling and browsing on riparian vegetation.

The combined risk to the subwatershed associated with a severe fire would be somewhat reduced under both Alternatives 2 and 3 since they provide for a reduction in forest density on 889 and 318 acres respectively. Given the added acres of thinning in Alternative 2, there would be more area in a reduced forest density and associated reduced risk of severe fire then under Alternative 3. Levels of natural fuels would be reduced by the same amount under both alternatives with the application of 2,061 acres of prescribed fire.

Fire suppression activities would continue across the subwatershed. Where heavy equipment is employed to “fight” fire, areas of disturbance would occur, and where near streams, could result in added sediment. In most instances fire suppression tactics are considerate of other resources and measures taken to minimize negative impacts.

Firewood cutting would continue across the subwatershed and where firewood is harvested (illegally) from riparian conservation areas (RCA’s), there would be a reduction in LWD available for recruitment into stream channels. The impacts of illegal firewood harvest on levels of LWD would be similar for both alternatives given that overall open road access would remain unchanged.

OHV use would continue across the subwatershed. Some of the riparian roads proposed for decommissioning are currently accessible and being used by OHVs, including ATVs, even though there are closed. As these roads are reclaimed and illegal use effectively stopped, the impacts of OHVs on erosion and sedimentation and associated stream channels would be lessened. There is the possibility that additional, unauthorized ATV trails could be developed in response to reduced access. These unauthorized trails could lead to additional disturbance to riparian areas and stream channels.

Summary Both action alternatives would contribute to cumulative short to long term reductions in erosion and sediment due to decommissioning reducing the amount of road near streams and improvements to the roads used for harvest activities. Temporary increases in sediment associated with increased road use and levels of harvest would be greater for Alternative 2 given the additional 571 acres of commercial thinning harvest proposed and associated increased amount of road use within 200 feet of stream channels.

Alternative 3 would result in greater cumulative reductions in sediment potential because it includes the same road improvements as Alternative 2, but reduced potential for temporary sediment increases given the reduced amount of area impacted by harvest and reduced road use to complete harvest.

Across the subwatershed livestock grazing and OHV use would continue and potentially contribute cumulatively to disturbance near streams that could lead to increased erosion/sedimentation. Actions associated with this project would reduce this risk in the project area as roads currently being used by livestock and ATVs/OHVs are decommissioned.

Forest Plan Consistency All of the proposed alternatives would be consistent with the Forest Plan as it applies to water resources. Beneficial uses of water would be protected based on the implementation of Forest Practices Act, BMPs, SWCPs, and application of additional project design features. The State Antidegradation Policy would be met, and an improvement to current conditions over the long term is expected with any of the action alternatives as a result of road decommissioning. Stream temperature would not be affected given implementation of 120 and 240 foot RCA’s on intermittent and perennial channels respectively. These RCA’s exceed




State FPA stream protection zones and provide for retention of stream shading and effective vegetation strips to filter non-channelized sediment.

No Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would be exceeded by any action alternative. The use of project design features in addition to Forest Plan guidelines exceed the requirements of the State Forest Practices Act (April 1, 2000), Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code, rules for timber harvesting (030) and road construction (040). Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that BMPs and additional mitigation are properly implemented and effective in minimizing non-point source pollutants.

Compliance with Forest-wide direction (standards and guidelines) applicable to this project is documented in the Activity Table located in the Project Record.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments No irreversible commitments of the water resources are expected. New temporary roads, relocated roads, constructed skid trails, and landings are considered irretrievable commitments of soil productivity and hydrologic function until these areas recover naturally or are restored to a productive state and function. Under Alternative 2, 0.8 miles of new road would commit an estimated 1.8 acres to an irretrievable condition while Alternative 3 would commit an estimated 1.4 acres due to the relocation of 0.6 miles of road. Temporary roads, landings and skid trails would be an irretrievable commitment until sites are rehabilitated and recovered. These areas are located outside of riparian areas.

Rehabilitation of all these areas is part of the project design and would be implemented upon completion of harvest activities. Full recovery is expected in the short term (within 15 years). In addition, existing areas of irretrievably committed riparian resources (existing roads near streams) proposed for decommissioning would result in restoration and a short to long term decrease in the amount of irretrievably committed riparian resource in the area.

Short-Term Uses of the Human Environment and the Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity Forest Plan management requirements, project design features, and mitigation measures built into the action alternatives ensure that the water resource and associated water quality will not be impaired by the application of short-term management practices. The action alternatives would improve riparian conditions through road decommissioning that reduces known areas of sedimentation and returning these areas to a productive, hydrologically functional condition.

Monitoring Ground disturbing and watershed improvement activities associated with this project will be monitored to assess implementation and effectiveness of the project design requirements and BMPs and SWCPs in protecting the water resource. The degree of monitoring will vary based on budget, personnel, catastrophic events, and other priority workloads. The goal is to monitor a minimum of 25 percent of the harvest units. Results of the monitoring would be published as part of the annual West Zone and Payette National Forest Monitoring Results.

Project Record This EA hereby incorporates by reference the Water Resource Specialist Report (40 CFR 1502.21). The Water Resource Specialist Report is located in the Project Record and contains the detailed data, analysis, and technical documentation that the Hydrologist relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA.

Soil Resource - 3

3.5 Soil Resource

Issue Effects of proposed actions on soil conditions and long-term site productivity

Indicators Levels of Total Soil Resource Commitment Across the Project Activity Area Levels of Detrimental Soil Disturbance Levels of coarse woody debris

There is concern about the impacts of proposed forest management activities on soil conditions and implications on long-term site productivity. Forest management activities over the past 40+ years have affected soil properties and accelerated erosion processes in disturbed areas. There are approximately 27 miles of roads occupying an estimated 61 acres (1.7 percent of the project area) and past harvest has occurred across an estimated 1958 acres (55 percent of the total project area, 99 percent of the forested area) since 1966. Harvest related landings and skid trails have committed an estimated additional 86 acres of soil to a TSRC condition.

Outside of these areas of TSRC, detrimental soil disturbance from past harvest entries are likely. A compilation of past harvest information reveals that this entry represents the second or third time proposed treatment activity areas have been entered with ground based equipment since 1966 and that 99 percent of the forested ground in the project area has been previously entered. Given this and the inherent susceptibility of the soils to compaction, levels of detrimental disturbance (especially compaction) are a concern. In addition past harvest often included machine piling of down woody debris resulting in a reduction in the amount and distribution of coarse woody debris (CWD) across treatment activity areas.

This section summarizes the current condition of the soil resources occurring in the Summit Gulch Project Area. It includes an evaluation of the existing condition in relation to pertinent soil and water forest plan standards and guidelines, and assessment of the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of proposed activities. Additional information can be found in the soil and water specialist report, the project record and the 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) that are incorporated by reference.

Forest Plan Direction The 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) sets goals, objectives and management direction/standards for the soil resource. The primary goal stated in the Forest Plan is to:

“Maintain soil productivity and ecological processes where functioning properly, and restore where currently degraded. Maintain the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils to support desired vegetation conditions and soil-hydrologic functions and processes within watersheds (SWG001, Forest Plan page III-19).”

The Forest Plan identifies several objectives to aid in reaching this desired goal or condition. These have been listed in Table 2-4 in Chapter 2 of this document.



Scope of the Analysis The geographic scope of the soils analysis is defined by the forest plan as an activity area for determination and evaluation of detrimental soil disturbance, total soil resource commitment (TSRC) and coarse woody debris. An activity area is defined by the Forest Plan as:

“The smallest logical land area where the effect that is being analyzed or monitored is expected to occur. The area may vary in size depending on the effect that is being analyzed or monitored, because some effects are quite localized and some occur across landscapes. Activity areas are to be specifically described when used in planning and project implementation documents.”

The Forest Plan also includes descriptions of activity areas specific to DD, TSRC and CWD:

Total soil resource commitment – Effects are generally measured across an all-inclusive activity area, like a timber sale area, a prescribed burn area, or a grazing allotment, where effects to soil commitment could occur or are occurring. Effects include both proposed actions and existing uses, such as roads (classified and non-classified), dedicated trails and landings, administrative sites, parking lots, and mine excavations.

Detrimental disturbance – The activity area is the specific area where proposed actions may have detrimental soil impacts, such as harvest units within a timber sale area, an individual pasture unit within a grazing allotment, or a burn block within a prescribed burn project area. Existing designated uses such as classified roads and trails, developed campgrounds, and buildings, are not considered detrimental disturbance within an activity area.

Coarse woody debris – The activity area for CWD is the specific site affected by actions listed below, whether effects are positive or negative. Actions affecting activity areas that need to be assessed include timber harvest, site-preparation reforestation, timber stand improvement, and prescribed fire. The activity area reflects the scale at which to plan projects that provide for maintaining or improving trends in snag/CWD amounts. However, this may also parallel the activity area for detrimental disturbance.

This analysis will use treatment activity area boundaries (harvest and/or prescribed burn units) to define the activity areas for evaluation of DD and CWD. The activity area for assessment of TSRC is defined as the 3580-acre project activity area.

The temporal scopes (timeframes) for the analysis are the same as utilized by the LRMP and defined as temporary being from 0 to 3 years, short term as 3 years to 15 years and long term as greater than 15 years.


General Soil Characteristics Soils in the project area were derived from the underlying basalt and are part of the structurally controlled volcanic lands landtype association group. They consist of moderately sloping plateau uplands with nearly level summits, rounded ridges and short steep escarpments. These structurally controlled volcanic landforms have been tilted and faulted producing dip and scarp slopes. Resulting drainage patterns are dendritic on plateau uplands and parallel on the steeper escarpments.

Soil depths range from 10-60 inches with deepest areas associated with swales, gradual slopes and draw bottoms. Water yield is low to moderate with most precipitation returned to


Soil Resource - 3

streams as subsurface flow. Surface erosion hazards are low to moderate given the gentle topography of the project area (most slopes less than 35 percent), but can be accelerated when ground cover is removed or soils are compacted and infiltration reduced. The primary management concern on these soils is the risk of compaction due to their fine clay loam soil textures (Larson et. al. 1973) (Table 3.5-1).

Table 3.5-1. Summary of Soil Characteristics within the Summit Gulch Project Activity Area* Landtype Soil Texture Depth

(in.) Surface Erosion Hazard

Compaction Hazard#

Acres

131-1 Loamy Skeletal 20-50 Mod Low Moderate-High

1,764

134-1 Fine and Loamy Skeletal

20-40 Low-Mod Very High 902

134 Fine Loam 20-60 Mod Low Very High 424 131 Loam and Fine

Loam 10-30 Mod Low Moderate-

High 268

130-1 Loamy Skeletal 10-20 Mod High 222 Total 3,580

*Source: “Soil-Hydrologic Reconnaissance, Council Ranger District, Payette National Forest” (Larson et al. 1973) #Compaction hazard derived from trafficability ratings where: Good Trafficability = Low Compaction Hazard Fair Trafficability = Moderate Compaction Hazard Poor Trafficability = High Compaction Hazard Very Poor Trafficability = Very High Compaction Hazard



Figure 3.5-1. Landtypes in the Summit Gulch Project Area

Sum

mit

Gul

ch

Wik

iup

Cr

Cal

f Pe

n G

ulch

Bear Cr

Tho

rn C

r

Legend


Streams IntermittentPerennial

Project Area Soils131-1134-1134131130-1

Summit-Calf Pen Soil Landtypes

Natural Disturbances and Erosional

Processes An assessment of the inherent surface erosion hazard reveals that overall the soils in the area are fairly resistant to surface erosion when adequate ground cover is retained. The risk of erosion increases with slope steepness especially when the protective ground cover is removed. The project area has a low hazard rating for surface erosion and mass failures using the Forest Practices Cumulative Watershed Effects Process for Idaho (Idaho Department of State Lands, March 2000).

The project area was also analyzed for mass stability hazards using a landslide predictive model (SINMAP) with calibration parameters developed from the 1997 landslide inventory (Dixon, 2000). The analysis identifies potentially hazardous areas for debris slides. The model does not address the potential for large structural failures. Given the gentle topography of the project area, no potentially landslide prone conditions were identified.


Soil Resource - 3

Existing Soil Conditions Related to the Forest Plan

Total soil resource commitment (TSRC) Effects of roads, landings, constructed skid trails, recreational developments and administrative facilities on the soil resource are addressed through evaluation of total soil resource commitment (TSRC).

Past harvest has occurred across an estimated 1,958 acres (55 percent of the total project area, 99 percent of the forested area) since 1966. Harvest related landings and skid trails associated with these past entries have committed an estimated 86 acres or 2.4 percent of the soils in the project area to a TSRC condition. The approximately 27 miles of road in the project area have committed an estimated 61 acres (1.7 percent of project area) to a TSRC condition. There are no recreational or administrative areas within the project activity area. The combined amount of TSRC equates to 4.1 percent of the project activity area, within the forest plan standard of no more than 5 percent (Table 3.5-2) (See soils report for assumptions on TSRC estimates).

Table 3.5-2. Current sources and extent of total soil resource commitment (TSRC) on National Forest System lands within the Summit Gulch Project Activity Area

TSRC Source Estimated Acres percent of Project AreaRoads 61 1.7 percent Harvest Related* Primary Skid Trails 47 1.3 percent Landings 39 1.1 percent Total 86 4.1 percent

Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DD) While TSRC represents the most severe soil impact, detrimental soil disturbance can occur between these areas of TSRC. Types of detrimental soil disturbance include compaction, displacement, puddling and severely burned soils. Heavy equipment operations associated with harvest, fuels reduction and site preparation activities are the primary source of DD in treatment activity areas. Burning of concentrations of slash is another potential source of DD through the creation of severely burned soils. The forest plan has set a limit of no more than 15 percent of a treatment activity area to be in a DD condition in an effort to maintain long-term soil productivity.

Existing levels of detrimental soil disturbance were assessed through field surveys on a sample of 5 proposed harvest units and GIS analysis (See Appendix B of the Soils Specialist Report for information on soil assessment procedures). Field surveys confirm the impacts of multiple prior ground based entries with detrimental disturbance levels ranging from 20-24 percent averaging 26 percent for the 5 units sampled. Total disturbance (TSRC + DD) ranged from approximately 22-39 percent on a harvest unit basis averaging 29 percent. Levels of DD are above the forest plan standards of no more than 15 percent of an activity area. The majority of the observed DD was compaction as evidenced by platy soil structure and J-rooted natural seedlings and areas of displacement were also noted. No severely burned soils were observed within harvest units. Surveys indicated that sources of detrimental disturbance included not only past harvest impacts, but also impacts associated with livestock grazing and heavy use of dispersed recreation sites. The summary of existing detrimental and total disturbance for the sampled areas is provided in Table 3.5-3.



Table 3.5-3. Soil Disturbance Assessment Summary for 5 Activity Areas (Proposed Harvest Units) Surveyed in the Summit Gulch Project Area

Unit # Acres # Prior Entries percent percentDD

Total percent

Assessed TSRC Disturbance 1 41 3 2.0 percent 20 percent 22 percent

6 37 1-2 4.0 percent 29 percent 33 percent

27 41 2 5.0 percent 34 percent 39 percent

28 33 3.0 percent 23 percent 26 percent

41 30 0 percent 23 percent 23 percent

Total Acres 182 Average 2.8 percent 26 percent 29 percent

Maximum 5.0 percent 34 percent 39 percent

Minimum 0.0 percent 20 percent 22 percent

A GIS analysis compiling available harvest history information reveals that there have been at least three previous harvest entries in the project area since 1966. The most recent entry was in 1999 (Squirrel Pen Sale). These entries covered a total of 1,835 acres (51 percent of the project area, 99 percent of the forested area) with all being with ground based harvest systems. An estimated 689 acres have been entered twice and 146 acres entered three times with ground based harvest systems since 1966. An earlier entry is also likely based on the presence of very old stumps and observation of skid trails in areas outside of the known previous harvest units, but no historic information was available to determine where or when these early harvests occurred. Given that all areas have been previously entered with heavy equipment areas of detrimental disturbance are likely and further soil impacts need to be carefully controlled and rehabilitated. The following table provides a summary of existing soils information for the proposed activity areas.

Table 3.5-4. Soils Information for Proposed Treatment Activity Areas

Unit # Proposed Harvest System+

Surface Erosion Hazard

Compaction Hazard

# Previous Entries*

Estimated DD levels~

01 T Low-Mod Very High 3 20 percent 02 T Mod Low Very High 1-2 >15 percent 03 T Mod Low Very High 2 >15 percent 04 T Mod Low Very High 1-2 >15 percent 05 T Mod Low Very High 2 >15 percent 06 T Mod Low Mod-High 1 33 percent 07 T Mod Low Very High 2 >15 percent 08 T Mod Low Very High 2 >15 percent 09 T Mod Low Very High 2 >15 percent 11 T Mod Low Very High 1 >15 percent 13 T Mod Low Very High 1 >15 percent 14 ORJ Low-Mod Very High 1 >15 percent 15 TJ Mod Low Very High 1 >15 percent 16 T Mod Low Very High 1 >15 percent 17 T Low-Mod Very High 1 >15 percent 18 T Low-Mod Very High 1 >15 percent 20 T Mod Low Mod-High 1 >15 percent 21 T Mod Low Mod-High 1 >15 percent 22 T Low-Mod Very High 3 >15 percent 23 T Low-Mod Very High 1 >15 percent 24 T Mod Low Mod-High 1 >15 percent 25 T Low-Mod Very High 1 >15 percent


Soil Resource - 3

Unit # Proposed Harvest System+

Surface Erosion Hazard

Compaction Hazard

# Previous Estimated Entries* DD levels~

26 T Low-Mod Very High 1 >15 percent 27 T Low-Mod Very High 2 39 percent 28 T Mod Low Mod-High 1-2 26 percent 30 T Mod Low Mod-High 2 >15 percent 31 T Mod Low Mod-High 3 >15 percent 32 T Mod Low Very High 2 >15 percent 33 T Mod Low Mod-High 2 >15 percent 34 T Mod Low Mod-High 2 >15 percent 35 T Mod Low Mod-High 2 >15 percent 36 T Mod Low Mod-High 2 >15 percent 37 T Mod Low Mod-High 2 >15 percent 41 T Low-Mod Very High 1 23 percent

*Since earliest recorded sale in 1966 ~ Based on field assessment of 5 units (bold) all of which exceeded 15 percent DD. +TJ=Tractor/Jammer, ORJ=Off-road Jammer, T=Tractor

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Levels of CWD were measured with a series of fuels transects taken across the treatment activity areas. These transects indicate that most areas are currently below forest plan standards for desired levels of CWD, especially in the larger 15+ inch CWD size class (Table 3.5-4). Of the 34 treatment units 10 meet the minimum level of 4 tons per acre of CWD with the majority being in the smaller 3-15 inch size class. On average sites currently have an estimated total of 3.5 tons of CWD per acre (2.1 tons per acre in 3-15 inch class and 1.4 tons per acre in the 15+ inch class).

Table 3.5-4: Levels of CWD by unit for the Summit Vegetation Management

Unit Number

CWD 3-15” Tons/Acre

CWD 15+” Tons/Acre

Forest Plan Guideline CWD Tons/Acre

1 1.7 2.0 4-14 2 1.3 2.2 4-14 3 1.3 2.2 4-14 4 1.3 2.2 4-14 5 1.3 2.2 4-14 6 1.4 2.3 4-14 7 1.3 2.2 4-14 8 0.7 2.1 4-14 9 1.3 2.2 4-14 11 1.4 2.3 4-14 13 1.4 2.3 4-14 14 4.6 1.2 4-14 15 1.7 2.0 4-14 16 1.7 2.0 4-14 17 5.4 0 4-14 18 5.4 0 4-14 20 2.5 1.3 4-14 21 2.5 1.3 4-14 22 4.6 1.2 4-14 23 1.4 2.3 4-14 24 5.4 0 4-14 25 4.6 1.2 4-14 26 5.9 0 4-14



Unit Number

CWD 3-15” Tons/Acre

CWD 15+” Forest Plan Tons/Acre Guideline

CWD Tons/Acre

27 1.0 0 4-14 28 .7 2.1 4-14 30 2.5 1.3 4-14 31 1.0 0 4-14 32 .7 2.1 4-14 33 1.0 0 4-14 34 2.5 1.3 4-14 35 3.8 1.7 4-14 36 2.5 1.3 4-14 37 3.8 1.7 4-14 41 5.9 0 4-14 Average 2.1 1.4

*Forest plan desired ranges for course woody debris based on Table A-9, Appendix A. Additionally, the desired distribution would include 75 percent of the CWD in greater than 15” size classes.

Chapter 3, Section 3.2 (fuels) contains additional information on CWD.


Introduction

Issue: Effects of proposed activities on soil conditions and long-term site productivity

Indicators:

Levels of Total Soil Resource Commitment within the project activity area Levels of detrimental disturbance within treatment activity areas Levels of coarse woody debris within treatment activity areas

Potential soil effects are primarily a function of the type and amount of disturbance, the timing and location of activities, and properties of the landscape (topography) and soils within affected areas. Soil properties and associated erosional processes and site productivity can be affected by proposed activities. Three indicators will be used to evaluate the effects of the alternatives on soil conditions and long-term site productivity: Total Soil Resource Commitment (TSRC), Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DD), and Levels of Coarse Woody Debris (CWD).

The best available information about existing resource conditions and the proposed activities was used to analyze the potential effects on the soil resource. Additional analysis and information can be found in the soil and water resource report in the Project Record. Information in those reports is incorporated by reference.

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed activities can potentially cause changes in total soil resource commitment, detrimental soil disturbance, levels of coarse woody debris and potential for soil loss due to erosion.


Soil Resource - 3

Total soil resource commitment (TSRC)

Background TSRC is a calculated measure of how much land in a project area is converted to an essentially non-productive and hydrologically impaired condition for an extended period of time (50 years or more) (Forest Plan, GL-37). The effects from these land uses may reduce the soils productive potential to 40 percent or less of the natural capability and alter the infiltration and movement of water within the watershed. These impacts can lead to potential changes in surface erosion rates, sedimentation and/or timing and magnitude of runoff.

The forest plan recognizes the potential effects of TSRC conditions on soils and watershed processes and sets a limit of no more than 5 percent of project activity area that can be in a TSRC condition (SWST03 [a]). Additionally, the plan requires levels of TSRC to be reduced when the existing condition for a project activity area has greater than 5 percent TSRC (SWST03 [b]).

Proposed activities potentially affecting TSRC within the project activity area include harvest (primary skidtrails and landings), construction of temporary roads and road decommissioning activities.

Alternative 1 No Action There would be no additional creation of TSRC conditions as a result of harvest, recreation or road related activities. Conversely, there would be no restoration of existing TSRC conditions associated with decommissioning and rehabilitation of existing logging facilities (unclassified roads used as temporary roads, skid trails, landings). Existing amounts of TSRC within the project area would remain at 4.1 percent. The contributions of TSRC conditions to reduced soil productivity, increased erosion, potential sedimentation and changes in the drainage network and timing of runoff would remain.

Alternative 2 Implementation of harvest activities would result in a temporary increase in TSRC due to the construction of skid trails and landing areas in areas without adequate existing harvest “facilities” (i.e. skid trails and landings). Harvest of unit 15 would require an estimated 2,800 feet of constructed skid trails to accommodate ground-based harvest. This would temporarily commit an estimated 1.2 acres of soil to a TSRC condition.

In order to locate landing areas outside of the Summit Gulch RCA and limit ground disturbance within 200 feet of the stream channel, up to 10 temporary “spurs” (a maximum of 200 feet each) would be required. These 2000 feet of spurs would temporarily commit an estimated 1 acre of soil to a TSRC condition. As part of the project design, all of these areas (existing and created) would require rehabilitation upon completion of harvest activities. Given this, harvest related increases in TSRC would be temporary.

Road management actions would also affect levels of TSRC. The relocation of 0.8 miles of classified road would result in the creation of an estimated 1.8 acres of TSRC. Road decommissioning required as part of the timber sale (existing roads used for harvest activities that are not needed for future management), would be implemented on 3.1 miles of road resulting in the restoration of an estimated 7.6 acres of existing TSRC. An additional 2.1 miles of unclassified roads (outside of harvest units) is also identified as a watershed improvement activity and would result in the reduction of an additional 4.9 acres of TSRC.



As part of the project design existing harvest facilities (skid trails and landings) would be re-used as feasible and all existing or created facilities would be reclaimed by sub-soiling to alleviate compaction and scattering of slash and seeding with native grasses and forbs to provide effective ground cover of at least 50 percent to reduce the potential for erosion. This action would result in an additional reduction in TSRC as these existing areas of past harvest related TSRC are reclaimed.

The net result would be an estimated 0.3 percent reduction (11 acres) in TSRC. TSRC levels across the project activity area would be reduced from the current 4.1 percent to 3.8 percent upon completion of proposed timber sale requirements and watershed improvement activities. Associated with reduced levels of TSRC would be increases in soil productivity and reduced potential for soil erosion and associated sedimentation.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 scales back vegetation treatments to northern Idaho ground squirrel areas only and as such results in reduced amounts of harvest and road related TSRC. No skid trails would be constructed in unit 15 and only 0.6 miles of road would be constructed to relocate roads. Timber sale related road decommissioning would also be reduced by 0.9 miles due to deferring harvest and road decommissioning treatment in units 1 and 6. Levels of watershed improvement decommissioning would remain the same (2.1 miles) under Alternative 3.

As part of the project design existing harvest facilities (skid trails and landings) would be re-used as feasible and all existing or created facilities would be reclaimed by sub-soiling to alleviate compaction, and scattering of slash and seeding with native grasses and forbs to provide effective ground cover and reduce the potential for erosion. This action would result in an additional reduction in TSRC as these existing areas of past harvest related TSRC are reclaimed.

Under alternative 3 levels of TSRC would temporarily increase due to the construction of temporary roads and relocation of 0.6 miles of classified road, but would then be reduced by 0.2 percent as timber sale and watershed improvement related road decommissioning is completed. Overall TSRC levels would be reduced from 4.1 to 3.9 percent under alternative 3.

Summary Levels of TSRC would be temporarily increased by an estimated 0.1 percent under both action alternatives. Under alternative 2 post implementation levels of TSRC would be reduced by 11 acres (0.3 percent) due to the required timber sale decommissioning of 3.1 miles and watershed improvement decommissioning of 2.1 miles of existing unclassified road. Under alternative 3 post implementation levels of TSRC would be reduced by 9 acres (0.2 percent) due to the required timber sale decommissioning of 2.2 miles and watershed improvement decommissioning of 2.1 miles of existing unclassified road.

Both alternatives lead to reduced levels of TSRC across the project activity area with alternative 2 resulting in a post treatment level of 3.8 percent TSRC and alternative 3 leaving an estimated 3.9 percent of the area in a TSRC condition (Figure 3.5-2). As levels of TSRC are reduced more area is put back into a hydrologically functional and productive condition, and the potential for accelerated erosion and associated sedimentation due to TSRC conditions is reduced.


Soil Resource - 3

Figure 3.5-2. Levels of Total Soil Resource Commitment within Summit Gulch Project Activity Area Before, During and After Project Implementation

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

TS

RC

%

Present Implementation Post ImplementationTime

No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total Soil Resource Committment (TSRC)

Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DD)

Background While TSRC represents the most severe soil impact, other forms of detrimental soil damage can occur outside of areas of TSRC. Types of detrimental soil disturbance include compaction, displacement, puddling and severely burned soils.

Compaction refers to the loss of soil porosity. Heavy equipment operation and concentrated human or livestock use can create compacted soils. The Forest Plan defines detrimental compaction as a 10 percent reduction in porosity on loamy or clay soils or 12 percent reduction on sandy textured soils. Compaction can occur outside of TSRC areas in secondary skid trails and random locations impacted by heavy equipment, livestock/big game or areas of concentrated recreational use.

Displacement refers to the removal/loss of the organic layer and/or surface horizon from the soil profile. The Forest Plan defines detrimental displacement as the loss of either 2 inches or ½ the humus enriched topsoil (whichever is less) from an area 1 meter by 1 meter or larger. Displacement can occur outside of TSRC areas in secondary skid trails and random locations impacted by heavy equipment, livestock/big game or areas of concentrated recreational use.

Soil puddling damage occurs when the natural structure of a soil is destroyed from a heavy load during wet or saturated conditions. The Forest Plan defines detrimental puddling by the visual indications of clearly identifiable ruts with berms or hoof prints left in the topsoil. Given the management requirement to limit equipment operations to dry or snow covered/frozen soil conditions, detrimental puddling within activity areas is not expected. Livestock/big game watering areas, unregulated off highway vehicle (OHV) use and existing poorly drained road sections are potential sources of puddled soil conditions.

FSH 2509.18 describes severely burned soils as conditions where the duff is completely consumed and the top of the mineral soil is visibly red or orange. This condition is generally limited to areas where concentrations of fuels such as landing piles or machine piles are burned.



Activities proposed with this project potentially creating detrimental soil disturbance outside of TSRC areas include use of heavy equipment for felling and skidding logs and application of prescribed fire for fuels reduction.

Alternative 1 No Action Levels of detrimental soil disturbance would not increase from harvest or fuels reduction activities. Areas of existing detrimental soil disturbance in past activity areas would continue to recover naturally. Natural processes (root penetration, gopher/rodent activity, freeze/thaw, wetting/drying) would slowly restore soil porosity in compacted areas, while continued development/establishment of ground cover and accumulation of organic matter would aid in restoring areas of detrimental displacement.

Soil disturbance associated with livestock grazing, big game use and recreational uses would continue. Use of ATV’s and other off highway vehicles (OHVs) has been increasing in the area. This trend of increased use is expected to continue and with it the possibility of creating additional or adding to existing areas of detrimental soil disturbance.

The existing fuels and forest vegetation conditions that contribute to increased risk of high severity fires would remain. As such, the risk of detrimental soil disturbance associated with a high severity fire (severe burning, displacement) would remain and potentially increase through time as stand conditions continue to change (increased fuel loads and laddering).

Alternative 2 and 3 Harvest activities would create areas of detrimental soil disturbance within treatment activity areas as a result of felling, skidding and/or yarding of logs. There would be a temporary increase in DD as harvest activities are implemented followed by a reduction over the short to long-term as existing areas of DD are reclaimed and natural recovery processes continue. Best Management Practices (BMPs), soil and water conservation practices (SWCPs) (FSH 2509.22) and project design requirements would be implemented to minimize accelerated surface erosion and the extent of detrimental disturbance. Application of the stated BMPs/SWCPs and project design requirements is expected to reduce levels of DD within treatment activity areas. While current levels are above 15 percent the requirements to re-use existing skid trails and landings and restore them would facilitate recovery of existing areas of DD and reduce DD levels from the current condition. Any combination of the following BMPs/SWCPs would be utilized as appropriate:

Table 3.5-5.

BMP Class* SWCP# Description G,E 13.02 Slope Limitations for Tractor Operation G,W 13.03 Tractor Operation Excluded from Wetlands, Bogs, and Wet

Meadows E 13.04 Revegetation of Surface Disturbed Areas G 13.06 Soil Moisture Limitations for Tractor Operation A 14.01 Timber Sale Planning A,G 14.02 Timber Harvest Unit Design A,G,S,W,E 14.03 Use of Sale Area Maps for Designating Soil and Water

Protection Needs A,E,G 14.04 Limiting the Operating Period of Timber Sale E 14.05 Protection of unstable Areas W,S 14.06 Riparian Area Designation G,E,W 14.07 Determining Tractor Loggable Ground


Soil Resource - 3

BMP Class* SWCP# Description E,G 14.08 Tractor Skidding Design E,G,W,S 14.09 Suspended Log Yarding in Timber Harvesting A 14.10 Log Landing Location and Design E 14.11 Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control E 14.12 Erosion Prevention and Control Measures During Timber

Sale Operations E 14.13 Special Erosion Prevention Measures on Areas Disturbed by

Harvest Activities E 14.14 Revegetation of Areas Distrubed by Harvest Activities E,W,S 14.15 Erosion Control on Skid Trails

*CLASSES OF SWCP (BMP) A = Administrative G = Ground Disturbance Reduction E = Erosion Reduction W = Water Quality Protection S = Stream Channel Protection/Stream Sediment Reduction

All of these practices are described in FSH 2509.22, which is incorporated by reference. These BMPs/SWCPs have been shown to be effective at reducing impacts to the soils (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, 1999), and overall implementation rates on forest lands are near 100 percent across the state (Idaho DEQ, 1997, Idaho Forest Practices 1998 Monitoring Report, Heffner, March 1999).

Other requirements are incorporated in the project design to minimize and reduce the magnitude and extent of harvest related detrimental soil disturbance within treatment activity areas. These include:

Use of designated skid trails in all harvest units Re-use/designation of existing skid trails (as feasible) to limit creation of additional

areas of DD On slopes less than 35 percent primary skid trail designation would maintain an

average spacing of 300 feet, and secondary (lateral) skidtrail spacing an average of 100 feet.

On slopes between 35-45 percent all equipment would be confined to primary designated skidtrails located an average of 300 feet apart and all logs would be lined/winched to these primary trails.

Closer spacing on complex terrain would be allowed with advanced approval by the timber sale administrator.

Equipment operations would be limited to dry (less than 20 percent soil moisture) or frozen/snow covered conditions.

Detrimentally disturbed skid trails would be reclaimed following harvest. Reclamation would include sub-soiling to ameliorate compaction, scattering of organic matter to provide a minimum of 35-50 percent effective ground cover and seeding with native species as needed

Random skidding off designated skid trails would be allowed on slopes less than 35 percent only during snow covered/frozen soil conditions.

The requirement that all skid trails be designated at an average spacing of 100-300 feet (depending on slope steepness) and all equipment confined to these designated trails (unless snow covered/frozen) would limit the amount of disturbance from skidding to less than 15 percent (Froehlich et. al. 1981, Garland undated publication). Requirements to re-use existing disturbed areas (skid trails), and to reclaim existing and created skid trails, would limit creation of new areas of DD and result in improved soil conditions in the short and



long-term as restoration of existing areas of DD is facilitated (e.g. sub-soiling of compacted soils, re-vegetation).

Adherence to the soil moisture or frozen/snow covered conditions guideline would help prevent deep compaction and displacement damage caused by equipment movement in activity areas (Monitoring Results 1997, 1999, 2001, Klock 1975). All ground-based operations would be discontinued during wet weather conditions or when there is too little compacted snow and/or frozen ground begins to thaw.

There is also the possibility that a timber purchaser may opt to harvest during winter snow covered/frozen soil conditions. Levels of soil disturbance under snow covered/frozen soils would be much lower than bare ground skidding and similar to those under a skyline harvest (Klock 1975). In the event either of these occurs, creation of new areas of DD would be reduced, but the opportunity for reclamation of existing areas of DD would also be reduced since harvest operations would not re-use as many of the existing skid trails.

Fuel reduction activities can cause soil disturbance similar to ground based harvest when mechanical piling is employed, and can also cause severe burning where prescribed fire is utilized. No mechanical fuel treatments are proposed (except for piling at landing areas) with either action alternative. Proposed fuel reduction activities include a combination of yarding with tops attached, lopping and scattering of limbs and the use of prescribed fire. Prescribed fire can affect levels of DD through the creation of severely burned soils and increase potential erosion by reducing levels of ground cover. These impacts would be reduced through application of fire during periods of adequate soil and fuel moistures that allow retention of an effective duff layer, minimize soil heating and retain adequate levels of CWD (See Fuels Report).

Application of prescribed fire would also have beneficial effects on the soil through nutrient release, promotion of native fire adapted ground vegetation and reducing the risk of wildfire. Monitoring of prescribed fires across the west zone of the Payette have indicated rapid ground vegetation recovery, limited areas of severely burned soils and adequate retention of CWD following prescribed fires implemented under controlled ignitions and appropriate weather and fuel conditions.

Where large concentrations of slash are piled and burned at landings, severely burned soils are likely, but the extent would be limited to the area under the pile and generally confined to existing landing areas that are already considered to be in a disturbed (TSRC) condition.

Summary Given alternative 2 includes more acres of ground based harvest, effects on the soils and levels of DD would be greater than alternative 3 (Table 3.5-6). Under both alternatives, the probable extent of detrimental soil disturbance within treatment activity areas would be limited through the application of BMPs/SWCPs and site specific project design requirements. Requirements to re-use existing trails and rehabilitate all disturbed trails and landings would facilitate recovery of existing areas of DD and lead to a short to long term reduction in levels of DD across treatment activity areas.

Table 3.5-6. Summary of Harvest Systems by Alternative

Alternative Tractor and /or Jammer Harvest Cable Harvest 1 0 0 2 790 9 3 228 0


Soil Resource - 3

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Background Silvicultural practices, and fuels reduction treatments can affect soil productivity by reducing the amount of organic matter and coarse woody debris (CWD) available for the soil. Litter, duff, and small (less than 3 inch) woody material are the primary source of soil nutrient replenishment. Soil organic matter from root and forest-floor decomposition is a key factor in buffering soil against compaction and imparting resilience against permanent change (Powers 1989).

Coarse woody debris (greater than 3 inches in diameter) is also an important component for long-term nutrient cycling and providing microsites and nutrients for beneficial soil organisms such as mycorrhizae (Powers 1989, Amaranthus et al. 1989). Mycorrhizae are beneficial soil fungi important for conifer establishment and survival. Activities that reduce soil porosity or soil organic matter may reduce mycorrhizal activity (Powers 1989).

Research indicates that for habitat types like those found in the treatment activity areas (Douglas-fir/snowberry, Ponderosa pine/pinegrass) retention of 5 to 15 tons per acre of distributed coarse woody debris is adequate to maintain soil productivity, and for maintenance of healthy populations of mycorrhizal fungi and other beneficial soil organisms (Graham et al. 1991 and 1994).

Alternative 1 No Action Levels of coarse woody debris and surface organic matter would gradually increase across the project area. Within forested areas fall down of existing snags, wind/snow related limb and top breakage, and additional natural tree mortality would provide inputs of coarse woody debris through time. Continued firewood cutting activities would reduce levels of snags available for future CWD along open roads and easily accessible areas. However, given the large amount of inaccessible areas levels of CWD would likely still increase (as a whole across the project area) even with continued firewood cutting. Annual leaf and needle fall, and turnover of grasses, forbs and shrubs would add to existing litter/duff layers providing inputs of short-term nutrient sources. Levels of CWD and litter/duff would provide for both short and long term nutrient inputs to the soil.

With this continued accumulation of CWD and litter/duff comes an associated increased risk of wildfires. Occurrence of wild fires would temporarily reduce existing levels of coarse woody debris and duff/litter across the project area. Existing heavy concentrations of fuels would likely burn at high severity potentially creating areas of severely burned soils. These areas could act as sources of increased surface erosion and/or potential flood source sites if hydrophobic soil conditions are created.

Wild fires would also result in an immediate release of nutrients available for surviving and re-establishing vegetation. Over the short to long term, burned areas would see an increase in CWD as fire killed vegetation is recruited to the forest floor (Harmon 1992).

Alternative 2 and 3 Under the action alternatives, the probable amounts of coarse woody debris (especially smaller size classes) within treatment activity areas are expected to increase in the temporary to short term as a result of breakage of tops/limbs during felling and yarding, and lopping and scattering of limbs. In addition, as part of the project design cull/undesirable trees 15



inches larger felled during harvest would be left to increase the amount of larger CWD across treatment activity areas.

Over the short to long-term, tree mortality associated with application of prescribed fire in squirrel treatment areas and prescribed burn area would recruit additional CWD to the forest floor. Additional large CWD (15+ inch) would be left during harvest activities (cull logs) in order to move area towards the desired sizes of CWD as directed by the forest plan. Based on this, post treatment levels of CWD are expected to be within the range specified in the forest plan (4-14 tons/acre). Research indicates that retention of CWD at these levels in these habitat types is sufficient to maintain soil and forest productivity (Graham et. al. 1994).

Harvest activities remove potential future sources of CWD. Harvest activities also recruit CWD to the forest floor through the breakage of limbs and tops and toppling of existing snags during felling and skidding operations. Existing levels of CWD are not affected by harvest other than the potential breaking up and redistribution of CWD by skidding/yarding activities. All harvest prescriptions retain live trees and snags distributed across the unit that will act as future sources of CWD aiding the maintenance of long-term site productivity. Commercial thin and improvement cut treatments (MMP, MMPF) are estimated to retain from 30-45 trees/acre 8 inches and larger, while squirrel treatments (LMP) are estimated to retain approximately 15-20 trees per acre 8 inches and larger. These levels of green tree retention would act as future sources of CWD for maintenance of long-term soil productivity.

Prescribed burn treatments (low intensity underburns) implemented in squirrel treatment areas and prescribed burn area would consume some existing CWD resulting in temporary to short-term reductions of mostly smaller diameter CWD. Overall levels of CWD are expected to increase in forested areas over the short to longer term in area being underburned as trees killed directly by the fire or secondarily by insects are recruited to the forest floor (Harmon 1992). Burn plans would include soil and fuel moisture guidelines (see Fuels Section) to minimize the risk of severely burned soils, excess consumption of CWD and accelerated erosion. Low-intensity fire does not easily consume larger woody material, and charring does not substantially interfere with the decomposition or function of coarse woody debris (Graham et al., 1994).

Local monitoring results (Soil, Water and Fisheries Monitoring Results, Implementation of Coarse Woody Debris Guidelines for Soil Productivity, Council and Weiser Ranger Districts, Payette National Forest, 1996 to 1999, 2004) have documented compliance with CWD retention requirements (when adequate CWD existed) following application of prescribed fire. The same level of success is anticipated for prescribed fire activities proposed in Summit Gulch.

Summary All alternatives would result in increased levels of CWD over the short to long term. Under the no action alternative increases would result from continued natural recruitment as trees succumb to weather, insect and/or disease related mortality, or in response to a wild fire. Under the action alternatives term mortality from prescribed fire related mortality would result in short to long term increases in CWD.

Under alternatives 2 and 3 recruitment of CWD would be facilitated through the felling and retention (or redistribution for pieces taken to the landing) of CWD as part of the project design and from the breakage of limbs/tops during harvest activities. Contributions of CWD from these sources would result in increased levels of CWD and bring treatment activity areas within the forest plan CWD standards of 4-4 tons per acre.


Soil Resource - 3

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects on the soil resource include all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that cause soil disturbance within the same activity areas. Effects of past actions and natural disturbances on the soil resource and indicators are described in the Affected Environment section, and their relationship with present proposed actions in the preceding direct/indirect effects section. Past actions that have contributed to current soil conditions include road building, livestock grazing and harvest and fuels reduction activities. Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area considered in this section that may have an affect on the indicators include firewood cutting, livestock grazing, off highway vehicle (OHV) and road use, and wildland fire suppression.

Total soil resource commitment (TSRC) Past soil disturbances from natural events and management activities were described in the Affected Environment section. The history of management in the project area has resulted in a continual increase in levels of TSRC over the past 40+ years as more roads, constructed skid trails and landings were built to accommodate timber harvest. As more area is converted to a TSRC condition soil erosion rates have likely increased and hydrologic processes altered (reduced infiltration, increased drainage network etc.). These conditions would change little as recovery of TSRC conditions by natural means is slow and in some cases unlikely (such as recovery of primary surfaced roads) without additional human intervention.

Alternative 1 No Action Existing areas of TSRC would remain and continue to contribute to accelerated erosion, altered hydrologic processes and reduced productivity across the project area. Actions to restore areas of TSRC would not occur.

There are no reasonably foreseeable actions would commit additional soils to a TSRC condition under alternative 1. Conversely, no restoration of existing facilities (skid trails, landings, and roads) would occur leaving existing TSRC areas that are proposed for restoration in an essentially non-productive and hydrologically impaired condition. TSRC levels would remain at 4.1 percent.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Implementation of skid trail and landing restoration requirements combined with road decommissioning would reduce both newly created and existing areas of TSRC in the project activity area leading to a reduction in TSRC levels over the current condition. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in incremental TSRC reductions of 0.3 percent and 0.2 percent respectively. Alternative 2 results in slightly more cumulative restoration of TSRC than alternative 3, given the added timber sale related road decommissioning. Given both alternatives include reclamation of existing TSRC (through road decommissioning and skid trail/landing rehabilitation) the cumulative effects of TSRC on the soils and hydrologic processes would be incrementally reduced upon completion of the proposed project.

There are no reasonably foreseeable activities that would contribute (add) cumulatively to TSRC within the project activity area. The cumulative effect of the action alternatives on TSRC is a reduction in the amount of area in a TSRC condition across the project activity area.



Outside the project activity area on private lands there may be foreseeable actions (timber harvest, road building) that would add to levels of TSRC within the subwatershed, but not within the project activity area. The effects of these activities will not change the TSRC assessment since it applies only to National Forest lands. However, the effects of these actions are addressed in the watershed section since they may have impacts hydrological process at the drainage or subwatershed scale.

Detrimental Soil Disturbance Past soil disturbances from natural events and management activities were described in the Affected Environment section. The history of management in the project area has likely resulted in a continual increase in levels of DD over the past 40+ years as activity areas were entered and re-entered with heavy equipment to facilitate timber harvest. Repeated entries with ground based equipment have lead to increased areas of compaction and displacement increasing the potential for soil erosion and altered hydrologic processes (reduced infiltration, increased drainage network etc.). Many areas of DD have also likely experienced some natural recovery of compaction through freeze/thaw and wet/dry cycles, burrowing mammals and root penetration from grasses, trees and shrubs. Similarly areas of past displacement have likely recovered to varying degrees as an organic rich surface of needles, leaves, fine roots and humus have redeveloped. Recovery of DD conditions can be facilitated by active means such as sub-soiling to reduce compaction and promoting re-establishment of healthy ground cover.

Alternative 1 No Action There would be no change in detrimental soil disturbance within activity areas resulting from harvest or fuels reduction activities. The extent of detrimentally disturbed soil would remain at the current levels, but continue recover through natural processes resulting in reduced levels of DD over the long-term. Disturbance associated with livestock grazing would likely be confined to existing disturbed high use areas (watering sites, bedding areas, fence lines etc.) and travel routes. Unregulated OHV use and woodcutter “roads” may lead to additional areas of detrimental soil conditions or inhibit recovery of existing areas of DD across the area. In the event of a wildfire, small areas of severely burned soils may occur in areas of slash concentrations. Given the overall low levels of CWD and fuels across the project area, the probability of creation of severely burned soils from a wildfire is considered low.

Alternative 2 and 3 As discussed in the direct/indirect effects section, harvest and fuels treatment operations would cause additional temporary increases in detrimental soil disturbance in previously entered areas. However, the active restoration of existing and created detrimental soil conditions in previously entered areas would result in an incremental improvement in soil conditions (i.e. reduced levels of DD over the short to long term) and facilitate recovery of DD within treatment activity areas. Other areas of detrimental disturbance occurring outside of proposed treatment activity areas would continue to recover naturally.

Past management activities have reduced fuel loadings in previously harvested areas. This alternative would also reduce hazardous fuels through thinning and prescribed fire treatments within harvest units. The increased amount of area with reduced fuel levels and creation of more resilient stand conditions will incrementally reduce the risk for future high severity fires and associated potential for detrimental effects (severe burning) to the soils


Soil Resource - 3

across the area. Alternative 2 would result in treatment of an additional 343 acres by thinning resulting in larger patches of forest with reduced density and associated reduced risk to fire. Both alternatives include the same amount of prescribed fire and would have similar potential effects on the soil. Cumulative differences related to improved landscape resiliency would be greater for alternative 2 given the added 343 acres of forest thinning.

Known, foreseeable future activities that may contribute to detrimental soil disturbance within treatment activity areas include livestock grazing and unregulated OHV use. Areas of past concentrated livestock use (bedding sites, watering areas) would continue to be disturbed and use of skid trails and roads as travel routes would create additional disturbance on these already disturbed areas. Existing skid trails and roads being used by livestock that are reclaimed through this project would be more difficult for livestock to travel resulting in reduced livestock related soil disturbance in these areas. Trails created by unregulated OHV use and woodcutters may result in added areas of detrimental soil conditions within and outside of existing activity areas.

Outside of National Forest lands planned harvest private lands would likely result in areas of detrimental disturbance. These actions would not affect meeting DD standards since they are located outside of treatment activity areas, but they may have implications on hydrologic or erosional processes that are discussed in the water resource section.

The proposed actions and some reasonably foreseeable actions would cause physical soil disturbances that cannot be avoided, but amounts estimated to qualify as detrimental soil disturbance within treatment activity areas are expected to be incrementally reduced from the current condition. Activity areas would be moved closer to the 15 percent forest plan standard given adherence to BMPs/SWCPs and additional project requirements designed to reduce creation of additional and restore existing areas of detrimental disturbance.

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Levels of CWD have been reduced by past harvest and fuels treatments across the project area. Previous harvests aimed at “capturing” mortality or “sanitizing” forest stands removed many trees that would otherwise have become CWD. In addition, it is likely that natural fuels and harvest generated slash were piled with machinery and subsequently burned effectively altering the distribution and overall amount of CWD across activity areas. The current lack of larger CWD and overall low tonnage per acre of CWD is a reflection of these past management actions.

Alternative 1 No Action Existing levels of CWD would remain and increase in response to natural tree mortality, windthrow and associated breakage of limbs and tops. Loss of existing or potential future (snags) CWD associated with firewood cutting would continue along open roads and easily accessible areas. Areas with high fuel levels would remain and increase through natural mortality and fuel accumulation leading to increased potential for high severity fires. In the event of a high severity fire levels of CWD would be reduced temporarily through consumption and then increased over the short to long term with recruitment of fire-killed vegetation to the forest floor.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Both action alternatives include as part of their design the “recruitment” of CWD through the felling and retention of cull/undesirable trees during harvest that would be left for CWD. In addition, application of prescribed underburns is also expected to result in short to long term increases in CWD as trees killed by fire or subsequent insect mortality are recruited to the



forest floor. While harvest would reduce potential sources of future CWD, adequate trees would be retained in harvest areas to replace CWD through time. Given this the cumulative effect of alternatives 2 and 3 on CWD is increased amounts of CWD being recruited to the forest floor within activity areas.

Natural mortality, windthrow and breakage of tops and limbs would also continue to recruit CWD to forest floor. Firewood cutting along open roads and easily accessible areas would continue to reduce sources of future CWD. Continued fire suppression would allow retention and accumulation of CWD in treatment activity areas and across the project area. In the event of a wildfire, levels of CWD would be temporarily reduced and then increase over the short to long-term as fire killed trees are recruited to the forest floor (Harmon 1992).

The combination of existing levels of CWD, continued natural recruitment, recruitment from trees killed as part of prescribed fire operations and material left/added as part of the project design would move the area towards desired CWD levels under both action alternatives.

Forest Plan Consistency Levels of total soil resource commitment would be reduced under both alternatives. Alternative 2 would reduce levels by an estimated 11 acres, while alternative 3 would restore 9.0 acres of TSRC, reducing TSRC by 0.3 percent to 0.2 percent in Alternative 2 and 3 respectively. Both alternatives reduce TSRC in the project activity area further below the Forest Plan standard of 5 percent and are consistent with forest plan standard SWST03.

The proposed management activities would cause ground disturbances that cannot be avoided, but most of these disturbances would have short-term (less than 15 years) effects to soil productivity because project design requirements and BMPs/SWCPs would be properly implemented during and following project activities. Best Management Practices would be applied to road, harvest and fuel reduction activities. Project design requirements would be enforced to minimize the extent of detrimental soil displacement and/or deep compaction damage. Many of the unavoidable disturbances in random locations are expected to recover through natural means. Under all alternatives, the probable extent of detrimental disturbance within treatment activity areas is expected to be moved closer to allowable Forest Plan limits (less than 15 percent) and consistent with the forest plan DD standard SWST02(b).

Under all action alternatives, the amount of coarse woody debris retained would meet forest plan standards outlined in Appendix A of the Forest Plan.

Compliance with Forest-wide direction (standards & guidelines) applicable to this project is documented in the Activity Table located in the project record.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments The action alternatives are not expected to create any impacts that would cause irreversible damage to soil productivity. Careful planning, project design requirements, and Best Management Practices would be used to prevent irreversible losses of the soil resource.

Irretrievable loss of soils would occur in conjunction with relocation of 0.9 miles of road under alternative 2 and 0.6 miles of road under alternative 3. Road decommissioning would return an estimated 11 acres of previously committed soils to a productive, hydrologically functional condition under Alternative 2 and 9.0 acres under Alternative 3. Implementation of road decommissioning with the action alternatives would result in a net reduction of irretrievable commitments of the soil resource across the project area.


Soil Resource - 3


Short-Term Uses of the Human Environment and the Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity Forest Plan management requirements and project design features built into the action alternatives ensure that long-term productivity will not be impaired by the application of short-term management practices. The action alternatives would improve soil productivity in specific areas proposed for skid trail and landing restoration, and watershed improvement activities.

Monitoring Ground disturbing activities associated with this project will be monitored to assess implementation and effectiveness of the project design requirements and BMPs/SWCPs. The degree of monitoring will vary based on budget, personnel, catastrophic events, and other priority workloads. The goal is to monitor a minimum of 25 percent of the harvest units. Results of the monitoring would be published as part of the annual West Zone and Payette National Forest Monitoring Results.

Project Record This EA herby incorporates by reference the Soil Resource Specialist Report in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). The Soil Resource Specialist Report is located in the Project Record and contains the detailed data, analysis, and technical documentation that the Soil Specialist relied upon to reach the conclusions in this EA.


3.6 Other Disclosures

Legal and Regulatory Requirements This EA adheres to the following applicable legal and regulatory requirements and coordination, and contains disclosures of effects that are required by federal law, regulation, policy, or precedent.

Conflicts with Other Agency Goals and Objectives Research, interviews, public involvement, and consultation with other federal and state agencies indicate there are no other major conflicts between the provisions of the proposed activities and the goals and objectives developed for other governmental entities.

Executive Order 12875 Executive Order 12875 clarifies government-to-government relations with American Indian governments.

In accordance with this order, letters describing the proposed action and requesting comments and concerns were sent to the Tribal Chairman of the Nez Perce, Shoshone Bannock, and the Shoshone-Paiute tribes.

The Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project is within Nez Perce ceded lands.

Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 directs each federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. On March 24, 1995, the Department of Agriculture completed an implementation strategy for the executive order. Where Forest Service proposals have the potential to adversely affect minority or low-income populations disproportionately, these effects must be considered and disclosed (and mitigated to the degree possible) through NEPA analysis and documentation.

Effects on the Human Environment (Civil Rights and Environmental Justice) The civil rights of any American citizen, including women and minorities, are not differentially affected by implementation of any alternative, including the No Action Alternative.

The alternatives analyzed in this EA might affect subsets of the general population identified through Civil Rights legislation and policies, and Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice). These subsets include ethnic minorities (American Indians, African Americans, and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans), disabled people, and low-income groups. The Payette National Forest has lands within four counties: Adams, Idaho, Valley, and Washington. The percent of ethnic population within these counties in the year 2000 was as follows: 93 percent white, 5 percent Hispanic, 2 percent American Indian, and less than 1 percent combined Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander (Idaho Bureau of Census 2000). Specific uses of the lands in the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project Area by ethnic minorities are


Other Disclosures - 3

unknown and assumed to be low. Some hunting by Nez Perce Tribal members may occur outside of state regulated hunting seasons because the area is ceded Nez Perce Tribal lands.

Data regarding the percentage of people with disabilities employed in the timber and road construction sectors is not readily available. Disabled people may occasionally use the Summit Gulch area for motorized recreation on Forest roads. Road closures and decommissioning proposed in the action alternatives would limit access to some areas by disabled people.

Low-income groups could use the area for gathering firewood. Opportunities for public firewood gathering are provided in all alternatives. None of the alternatives in the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project are expected to have disparate impacts on ethnic minorities, disabled people, or low- income groups.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential Alternatives requiring the most roadwork and logging have the least potential for conserving energy. In this sense, Alternative 1 would have more energy conservation potential than the action alternatives. In terms of petroleum products, the energy required to implement any of the action alternatives is insignificant when viewed in light of productions costs, and the effect on national and worldwide petroleum reserves.

Natural or Depletable Minerals This project proposal and all connected activities would not affect natural or depletable minerals within or adjacent to the project area. No activities with this project proposal will be developing or extracting any natural or depletable minerals.

Prime Farm Land, Rangeland, and Forest Land All alternatives are in accordance with the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for prime farmland, rangeland, and forest land. The project area does not contain prime farmland or rangeland. “Prime” forest land is a term used only for non-federal land, which would not be affected by proposed activities. Whichever alternative is selected for implementation, National Forest System lands would be managed with sensitivity to adjacent private and public lands.

Short-Term Uses of the Human Environment and the Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity Short-term uses are those that generally occur on a yearly basis, such as livestock grazing as a use of the forage resource or timber harvest as a use of the wood resource. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land to provide market outputs and amenity values for future decades. The quality of life for future generations is linked to the capability of the land to maintain its productivity.

For this proposed project, project design, management requirements, and mitigation measures built into the action alternatives ensure that long-term productivity would not be impaired by the application of short-term management practices. For some resources, such as water quality and timber, long-term productivity is expected to increase due to the short-term projects and mitigation proposed by the action alternatives.



Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species This required disclosure involves wildlife, plant, fish, and habitat listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Effects to species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed and regionally sensitive are disclosed in Chapter 1, Threatened and Sensitive Plant Resources, Fisheries, and Chapter 3, Section 3.3 - Wildlife Resource.

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Proposed activities would likely produce adverse effects on some components of the environment that cannot be avoided. Actions that benefit one component can have at least temporary adverse effects on another. Potential adverse effects are documented by resource in Chapter 3. The alternatives meet Forest Plan direction and include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse environmental effects. Monitoring Plans (Appendix F) have been designed to measure how effective the management requirements and mitigation measures are in reducing adverse effects.

Wetlands and Floodplains No wetlands or floodplains in the watershed would be filled under any alternative. The action alternatives would improve some existing stream crossings through road decommissioning that includes restoration of the natural channel. These activities are permitted under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits, Section 330.5(a). The goal and intent of Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) would be met because no drainage of wetlands would occur and no wetlands and floodplains would be altered except at road crossings.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 The purposes of this Act are to establish an international framework for the protection and conservation of migratory birds (all wild species of ducks, geese, brants, coots, gallinules, rails, snipes, woodcocks, crows, and mourning and white-winged doves). The Act makes it illegal, unless permitted by regulations to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in this Convention…for the protection of migratory birds…or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 USC 703). The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada). Later amendments implemented treaties between the United States and Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (now Russia).

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds [Executive Order 13186] The environmental analyses of federal actions are to evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern. There are no interagency determination calls to be made for migratory birds as with federally listed species. This information is reviewed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but there is no mechanism in place for that agency to consult on project effects.

Chapter 3, Section 3.3 analyzes the effects of this project on migratory birds.



The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended The purposes of this Act are “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality” (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321). The law further states “...it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans” [42 U.S.C. Sec. 4331(a)]. NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation, such as the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project EA.

The Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977 and 1982 This primary objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation’s waters. This objective translates into two fundamental national goals: 1. Eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters; and 2. Achieve water quality levels that are fishable and swimable. This Act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects.

There are no 303 (d) listed waterbodies within the Bear Creek Watershed. Beneficial uses for Summit Gulch, Calf Pen Gulch, or Wikiup Creek have not been specifically designated. As nondesignated surface waters it is presumed that most waters in the state will support cold water aquatic life and primary or secondary contact recreation beneficial uses. Based on this, the most applicable beneficial uses for streams in the project area would include cold-water aquatic life and secondary contact recreation. Undesignated waters shall be protected for beneficial uses the same as designated waters (IDAPA 58.01.02, Section 101). This would be accomplished through implementation and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and site-specific project design features described in the soil and water sections of this EA and associated Project Record.

The Clean Water Act is addressed through management direction (Forest Plan), mitigation measures (Table 2-4), and monitoring (Appendix F). For more information, see Chapter 3, Section 3.4 of this document.

The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 The purposes of this Act are “…to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population; to initiate and accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of air pollution; to provide technical and financial assistance to State and local governments in connection with the development and execution of their air pollution prevention and control programs; and to encourage and assist the development and operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs.” This is addressed in Chapter 1, Issues Not Analyzed in Detail, Air Quality.




Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 This act provides for the control and management of non-indigenous weeds that injure or have the potential to injure the interests of agriculture and commerce, wildlife resources, or the public health.

Noxious weed treatment would be conducted according to federal and state law if implemented in conjunction with this project. This is addressed in Chapter 1, Rangeland Resource, and Chapter 2, Table 2-4 – Mitigation Measures.

The Idaho Forest Practices Act: The Idaho Forest Practices Act states under Title and Scope: “These rules constitute the minimum standards for conduct of forest practices on forest land and describe administrative procedures necessary to implement those standards.” The Antidegradation Policy at 40 CFR 131.12(a) stipulates, “The State shall develop and adopt a statewide antidegradation policy and identify the methods for implementing such policy...” The Idaho Forest Practices Act is the primary method for implementing the antidegradation policy. Site-specific design features and Forest Plan standards and guidelines applicable to this project exceed the requirements of the Idaho Forest Practices Act.

Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential The Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project has been designed to conform to applicable laws and regulations pertaining to natural or depletable resources, including minerals and energy resources. Regulations of mineral and energy activities on the National Forest, under the U.S. Mining Laws act of 1872 and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, are shared with the Bureau of and Management.

Public Involvement - 4


Chapter 4-Public Involvement

4 – Public Involvement


Public Involvement - 4

Chapter 4

Public Involvement This chapter includes a summary of the scoping and public involvement efforts; and a list of agencies, organizations, and persons solicited for input on this project.

Public Involvement Summary A legal notice was published in both the Idaho Statesman and Adams County Record on March 3, 2005 requesting comments on issues the environmental analysis should address. A scoping letter with preliminary effects for the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project was sent to 163 individuals, organizations, and agencies for a 30-day comment period. This process generated eight written comment letters. The project interdisciplinary team analyzed the comments for additional issues relative to the proposed action. These comments were considered in relation to the preliminary issues identified from within the agency, and the comments were categorized. The disposition of each comment can be found in the Project Record. This project was also listed in the April and July issues of the Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions for the Payette National Forest.

Tribal Consultation Tribal letters were sent to the Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in May 2004. On September 21, 2004, Mary Farnsworth, Council District Ranger, and Maura Laverty, Acting Weiser District Ranger, spoke to the Nez Perce Tribe’s Resource Advisory Committee regarding this project and other upcoming projects. No comments were received.

List of Recipients of the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment The following individuals, businesses, and agencies have been sent a copy of the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project EA. This list includes respondents to project scoping (30-day comment period), those who requested copies, and other involved parties. Additional copies of this document are available by request from the Council Ranger District Office of the Payette National Forest.

Individuals Ron Hamilton

John Swanson

Irene Victory


4 – Public Involvement


Organizations Intermountain Forest Association

Idaho Conservation League

Hells Canyon Preservation Council

Idaho Sporting Congress

Ecology Center

Alliance for the Wild Rockies

Center for Biological Diversity

State Agencies Idaho Fish and Game (Al Van Vooren)

Idaho State Parks and Recreation

Tribal Contacts Nez Perce Tribe: Honorable Rebecca Miles-Tribal Council Chairperson

Nez Perce Tribe: Aaron Miles, Natural Resources Director

Nez Perce Tribe: Jessie Leighton, Executive Director

Nez Perce Tribe: Dave Johnson, Director of Fisheries Resource Management

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes: Honorable Blaine Edmo, Tribal Council Chairman

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes: Yvette Tuell, Environmental Program Manager, Fish and Wildlife Department

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes: Terry Gibson, Tribal Council Chairman

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes/Ted Howard, Director, Cultural Resources Program

Federal Agencies

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Preparers - 5

Chapter 5

List of Preparers The following are member of the Interdisciplinary Team or have contributed background information and analysis for this EA.

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Core Team Denise Cobb/Ken Meyers – Writer/Editors

Michael Coggin –Silviculturist

Bill Gamble – Hydrologist/Soil Scientist

Karen Gamble – GIS Support

Shelly Lewis – Fire/Fuels/Air Quality

Amee Rief – Fisheries Biologist

Lon Schultz – Wildlife Biologist

William Spoerer – ID Team Leader/NEPA Coordinator

Extended Team Members Ted Demetriades – Forest Inventories

Gayle Dixon – Cultural Resources

Mike Dixon – Transportation/Economics

Bill Florence – Sale Prep/Economics

Bob Gratton – Field Review

Larry Kingsbury – Cultural Resources

Ralph Kingsbury – Botany

Maura Laverty – Rangeland Management Specialist

Management and Review David Burns – Fisheries Biologist

Mary Farnsworth – Council District Ranger

Bob Giles – Ecosystems Resources Staff Officer

Dave Kennell – Hydrologist

Dean Martens – Soil Scientist

Gary Phillips – Fuels Specialist

Curt Spalding – Forest NEPA Coordinator


5 – Preparers

5-2 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project EA

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix A-References.....................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B-Glossary.........................................................................................................B-1

Appendix C-Mitigation Measures for Fuel Haul...............................................................C-1

Appendix D-Federal Consistency Checklist......................................................................D-1

Appendix E-Forest Vegetation Types................................................................................E-1

Appendix F-Monitoring.....................................................................................................F-1

Appendix G-Management Direction.................................................................................G-1

Appendix H-Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................H-1

Appendix I-Modeling Forms..............................................................................................I-1

Appendix J-Road Management.........................................................................................J-1


Appendices


Appendix A

Appendix A – References

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Agee J.K., B Bahro, M.A. Finney, P.N. Omi, D.B. Sapsis, C.N. Skinner, J.W. Van Wagtendonk, and C.P. Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of shaded fuel breaks in landscape fire management. For. Ecol. Manage. Vol. 127, no. 1-3, pp 55-66. 1 Mar.

Amarnathus, M. P., J.M. Trappe and R.J. Molina. 1989. Long-Term Forest Productivity and the Living Soil. In: Proceedings of Maintaining the Long Term Productivity of Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystems. Timber Press. Portland ,Oregon.

Anderson, H. E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT122. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Andrews, P.L. 1986. BEHAVE: Fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system. BURN subsystem, part 1, Gen.- Tech., Rep. INT-194. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 130p

Barrett, S.W. 1994. Fire Regimes on the Payette National Forest; Bear Analysis Area. USDA Forest Service. Payette National Forest. Final Report Purchase Order No. 43-0256-3-0755. 3-14p.

Belt, G.H., J. O'Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for the protection of water quality: analysis of scientific literature. Rep. No. 8. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. 35 p. Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research: Vol. 14, No 6. Pgs: 1011–1016.

Bull, E.L., A.L. Wright, and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Nesting Habitat of Flammulated Owls in Oregon. J. Raptor Res. 24(3):53-55.

Bull, E.L. and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 57(2): 335-345. 10 p.

Bull, E.L.; C.G. Parks; and T.R. Torgensen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 55 p.

Burroughs, E.R. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical Report INT-264. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. July 1989 21p.

Covington, W.W. and Moore M.M. 1994. Post-settlement Changes in Natural Fire Regimes and Forest Structure: Ecological Restoration of Old-Growth Ponderosa Pine Forests. Hawthorn Press, Inc.

DeBano, L.F. and R.M. Rice. 1970. Fire in Vegetation Management: Its Effects on Soil. In: Proceedings, Symposium on Interdiciplinary Aspects of Watershed Management. Bowsman, MT., pp327-345. (p. 327,328).

Dixon, M. D. 2000. Computer Modeling Landslide Potential. USDA Forest Service. Payette National Forest. McCall, Idaho.

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project A-1

Appendices

Fire Program Solultions, LLC/Acacia Services. 1999-2001. Fuels Management Analyst (FMA) Plus. Version 1.2.20. Estacada, Oregon.

Fiedler, C.E., Keegan III, C.W. Woodall, T.A. Morgan, S.H. Robertson, and J.T. Chmelik. 2001. A Strategic Assessment of Fire Hazard in Montana. Report submitted to the Joint Fire Sciences Program, September 29, 2001. 33 p.

Foltz, R.B and E. Maillard. 2003. Infiltration Rates at Abandoned Stream Crossings. Presentation Paper at 2003 ASAE International Meeting. July 27-30, 2003. Las Vegas, Nevada.

Fowler, W.B., J.D. Helvey and E.N. Felix. 1987. Hydrologic and climatic changes in three small watersheds after timer harvest. Res. Paper PNW-RP-379. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p.

Frederick, G.P. and T.L.Moore. 1991.Distribution and Habitat of White-headed Woodpeckers (Picoides albolarvatus) in West-Central Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Froehlich, H.A., D.E. Aulerich, R. Curtis, 1981. Designing Skid Trail Systems to Reduce Soil Impacts from Tractive Logging Machines, Research Paper 44, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvailis, Oregon. 13 pages.

Garland, John J. 1983. Designated Skidtrails to Minimize Soil Compaction. Unpublished

Gavin, T.A., P.W. Sherman, E. Yensen. 1997. Transplanting northern Idaho ground squirrels, report on the 1997 transplants. 8 p.

Gill, A.E., and E. Yensen. 1992. Biochemical Differentiation in the Idaho Ground Squirrel. Grest Basin Naturalist 52 (2):155-159.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, D.S. Page-Dumroese, J.R. Tonn, T.B. Jain, and K. Geier-Hayes; 1991. Sustaining Soil Productivity of Forest Soils in the Inland Northwest. 42 pages.

Graham, Russel T., Alan E. Harvey, Martin F. Jurgensen, Theresa B. Jain, Jonalea R. Tonn, Deborah S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-RP-477. Pages 1-13.

Harmon, Mark E. 1992. Fire Influences on Coarse Woody Debris. In: Proceedings of Fire in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems: Exploring Emerging Issues. Portland Oregon.

Heffner, Ken. 1999. Idaho Forest Practices 1998 Monitoring Report. Hillis, Michael J., Michael J. Thompson, Jodie E. Canfield, L. Jack Lyon, C. Les Marcum, Patricia M. Dolan, and David W. McCleerey, 1991, Defining elk security: the Hillis paradigm, In: Proceedings - Elk Vulnerability Symposium, Montana State University, Bozeman, 1991.

Hillis, M.J., M.J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan, and D.W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining Elk Security: the Hillis Paradigm. Proceedings of Elk Vulnerability – A Symposium. A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon and T.N. Lonner, eds., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT. 330 p.

Idaho Bird Conservation Plan.- Version 1.0. January 2000. Idaho Partners in Flight. 156 pages.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel Population

Monitoring 2003 Annual Report. 12p.


Appendix A

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2000. Elk Sightability Flight Summary.

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. 1997. Forest Practices Water Quality Audit – 1996. Boise, Idaho.

Idaho Department of Lands. 2000. Forest Practices Cumulative Watershed Effects Process for Idaho. Boise, Idaho.

Klock, G.O. 1975. Impact of five postfire salvage logging systems on soils and vegetation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. March-April 1975. pp 78-81.

Larson K., D. Paulson and R.A. Thompson. 1973. Soil-Hydrologic Reconnaissance, Council Ranger District, Payette National Forest. March, 1973.

Ligon, J.D. 1973. Foraging Behavior of the White-headed Woodpecker in Idaho. The Auk 90 862-869.

Mech, L.D. 1970. The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. University of Minnesota Press 384 p.

Megahan, W. F., J.G. King and K.A. Seyedbagheri. 1995. Hydrologic and Erosional Responses of a Granitic Watershed to Helicopter Logging and Broadcast Burning. Forest Science. Vol 41(4):pp 777-795.

Megahan, W. F. and G.L. Ketcheson. 1996. Predicting downslope travel of granitic sediments from forest roads in Idaho. Water Resources Bulletin. 32(2):371-382.

Neuenschwander, L.F., J. Greenlee, and G.E. Gollberg. 1999. A Scientific Basis For the Regeneration of Fire into Forested Ecosystems in the Western United States.

Pollet, J. and Omi, P.N. 2000. Effect of Thinning and Prescribed Burning on Wildfire Severity in Ponderosa Pine Forests.

Powers, R.F. 1989. Maintaining Long-Term Forest Productivity in the Pacific Northwest – Defining the Issues. In: Proceedings of Maintaining the Long Term Productivity of Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystems. Timber Press. Portland, Oregon.

Reinhardt, E. D., R. E. Keane, and J. K. Brown. 1997. First Order Fire Effects Model; FOFEM 4.0, User’s Guide. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-344.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Basselt, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce Jr., G.

Rohlman, Jeff. October 17, 2005. Personnal Conversation. Elk winter range in the project area.

Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. INT-GTR-143. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT.

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. Southwest Region Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report. GTR-RM-217. 184 p.

Reinhardt et al. 1999. Crown fire assessment for fuels managers. Version 0.0.5. Excel spreadsheet.

Reynolds, R.T., and B.D. Linkart. 1987. The Nesting Ecology of Flammulated Owls in Colorado. Pages 239-248 in R.W. Nero, R.J. Clark, R.J. Knapton, and R.H.


Appendices

Hamre, eds. Biology and Conservation of Northern Forest Owls. U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report RM- 142.

Rohlman, J. 2001/ Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife Biologist. April 18, 2001. Personal Communication with Lon Schultz, Wildlife Biologist, Payette National Forest.

Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT.

Scott, J.H., and E.D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. NEXUS, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RMRS-RP-29. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO.

Thomas, J.W., R.G Anderson, H. Black, E.L. Bull, P.R. Canutt, B.E. Carter, K. Cromack, F.C. Hall, R.E. Martin, C. Maser, R.J. Miller, R.J. Pederson, J.E. Rodiek, R.J. Scherzinger, H.L. Wick, and J.T. Williams. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. September 1979. USDA Agric. Handbook #553. J.W. Thomas, tech. ed. USDA-Forest Service. 512 p.

USDA Forest Service 2000a. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems. A Cohesive Strategy. The Forest Service Management Response to the General Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-65, October 13, 2000. (http://www.fs.fed.us/pub/fam/). Pp12,71.

USDA Forest Service. 2000b. Habitat Restoration Plan (2001 – 2006) for the Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel, Payette National Forest. November 2000. 38 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2003 Status of the Pileated Woodpecker A Management Indicator Species Payette National Forest. 21p.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Upper Bear Timber Sale. Final Environmental Impact Statement. July 2003

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revised July 2003. Payette National Forest, McCall, Idaho.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife, et al. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class, Methods Great Basin Geographic Area. Version 1.0.5.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Draft Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk. Payette National Forest. Revised February 6, 2004. 33p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel. Federal Register Vol. 65. No. 66, April 5, 2000.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus). 68 p.

Verner, J., J.R. Duncan, P.H. Hayward, J.R. Habeck, and G.D. Hayward. 1994. Great Gray Owls. Pages 154-211 in Flammulated, Boreal and Great Gray Owls in the United States. A Technical Conservation Assessment, G.D. Hayward and J.


http://www.fs.fed.us/pub/fam/

Appendix A

Verner, tech. eds. (GTR RM-253.) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, Colorado 214 pp.,

Wisdom, M. J.; R. S. Holthausen; B. C. Wales; C. D. Hargis; V. A. Saab; D. C. Lee; W. J. Hann; T. D. Rich; M. M. Rowland; W. J. Murphy; and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 3 vol.

Yensen, E. 1985. Taxonomy, Distribution, and Population Status of the Idaho Ground Squirrel, permophilus brunneus. A report prepared for Idaho Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


Appendices


Appendix B

Appendix B - Glossary

activity area-The smallest logical land area where the effect that is being analyzed or monitored is expected to occur. The area may vary in size depending on the effect that is being analyzed or monitored, because some effects are quite localized and some occur across landscapes.

activity fuel-The combustible material resulting from or altered by forestry practices such as timber harvest or thinning, as opposed to naturally created fuels.

air quality-The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used most frequently in connection with “standards” of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations.

allotment (grazing) -Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock for a prescribed period of time.

Alternative - In an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA), one of a number of possible options for responding to the purpose and need for action.

analysis area – One or more areas grouped for purposes of analysis based on common impacts, effects, and social or economic factors.

beneficial use – An actual or potential use that may be made of the waters of the State that are protected against quality degradation. Beneficial uses contained in the State Water Quality Standards include domestic, agricultural, and industrial water supplies, recreation, aquatic life, and salmonid spawning.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Practices determined by the State of Idaho Division of Environmental Quality to be the most effective and practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources.

Biological opinion (BO)- A document resulting from formal consultation that states the opinion of USDI Forest Service or NOAA fisheries as to whether a federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or their habitat.

board foot - A measurement of wood equivalent to a board 1-foot square and 1 inch thick. Usually expressed in terms of thousand board feet (MBF) or million board feet (MMBF).

broadcast burning - Burning forest fuels as they are, with no piling or windrowing.

candidate species - Plant and animal species being considered for listing as endangered or threatened, in the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Category 1 candidate species are groups for which the FWS or NMFS has sufficient information to support listing proposals; category 2 candidate species are those for which available information indicates a possible problem, but that need further study to determine the need for listing.

canopy – The more-or-less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by the crown of adjacent trees and other woody growth.

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project B-1

Appendix B

cavity – The hollow excavated in trees by birds or other natural phenomena; used for roosting and reproduction by many birds and mammals.

channel stability - The ability of a stream channel to resist the effects of natural and human-caused disturbance.

chain – a measurement of distance equivalent to 66 feet.

classified road - Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to national Forest System lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access. Classified roads can include state roads, county roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest Service.

climax conditions - The highest ecological development of a plant community capable of perpetuation under the prevailing climactic conditions.

coarse woody debris (CWD) - Pieces of woody material having a diameter of at least 3 inches and a length greater than 6 feet (also referred to as large woody debris, or LWD).

codominant-Tree species in a forest that are about equally numerous and exert the greatest influence.

cold water biota - Animal and plant life that grow best in water temperatures below 18 degrees C.

commercial thin- Any type of thinning that produces merchantable material at least equal to the value of the direct cost of harvesting.

condition class – The degree of departure from historic fire regimes and vegetation characteristics. Condition Classes are a method to quantify the amount of area that has uncharacteristic or undesirable fire risk. Condition Class 1 shows no departure from historic fire regimes, Condition Class 2 shows moderate alterations, and Condition Class 3 shows the greatest amount of departure.

corridor (landscape) - Landscape element that connect similar patches of habitat through an area with different characteristics. For example, streamside vegetation may create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows or through a conifer forest.

cover type - The current or existing vegetation of an area, described by the dominant vegetation.

critical habitat - Endangered Species Act - Designated by the FWS or NMFS, specific areas, within a geographical area occupied by a threatened or endangered species, on which are found physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species. These areas may require special management consideration or protection, and can also include specific areas outside the occupied area that are deemed essential for conservation.

cultural resources - Cultural resources include sites, structures, or objects used by prehistoric and historic residents or travelers. They are non-renewable resources that tell of life-styles of prehistoric and historic people. Cultural resources within the Forests are diverse and include properties such as archaeological ruins, pictographs, early tools, burial sites, log cabins, mining structures, guard stations, and fire lookouts.

B-2 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

Appendix B

cumulative effects - Impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

current condition- The present condition of a resource or resource area.

cut slope - that portion of the slope that is excavated for road construction, trails, landings, or skidtrails.

DBH (diameter at breast height) – Diameter at breast height. The diameter of a tree measured 4 feet 6 inches above the ground.

decommission (Road Decommissioning) - Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded classified roads to a more natural state.

degrade - To degrade is to measurably change a resource condition for the worse within an identified scale and time frame. Where existing conditions are within the range of desired conditions, “degrade” means to move the existing condition outside of the desired range. Where existing conditions are already outside the range of desired conditions, “degrade” means to change the existing condition to anything measurably worse. The term “degrade” can apply to any condition or condition indicator at any scale of size or time, but those scales need to be identified. This definition of “degrade” is not intended to define degradation for the State of Idaho as it applies to their Antidegradation Policy (IDAPA 16.01.02.051).

demographic - Related to the vital statistics of human populations (size, density, growth, distribution, etcetera).

denning habitat or sites - Habitat and locations used by mammals during reproduction and rearing of their young, when the young are highly dependent on adults for survival.

Desired Condition (DC) - Also called Desired Future Condition, a portrayal of the land, resource, or social and economic conditions that are expected in 50-100 years if management goals and objectives are achieved. A vision of the long-term conditions of the land.

detrimental soil disturbance - The alteration of natural soil characteristics that results in immediate or prolonged loss of soil productivity and soil-hydrologic conditions. Detrimental disturbance can occur from soil that has been displaced, compacted, puddled or severely burned.

disturbance - Any event, such as wildfire or a timber, sale that alters the structure, composition, or function of an ecosystem.

dominant -The component of an ecosystem, typically a species, exerting the greatest influence on its character because of its life form or great abundance (see codominant).

down or downed logs - Fallen trees and large logs lying on the forest floor.

easement - A special-use authorization for a right-of-way that conveys a conditioned interest in National Forest System land, and is compensable according to its terms.

ecosystem - A naturally occurring, self-maintained system of living and non-living interacting parts that are organized into biophysical and human dimension components.


Appendix B

ecosystem health - A condition where the components and functions of an ecosystem are sustained over time and where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals for ecosystem uses, values, and services are met.

endangered species - Designated by the FWS or NOAA Fisheries, an animal or plant species that has been given federal protection status because it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its natural range.

endemic – A plant or animal native to the local area.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - A document required of federal agencies by the National Environmental Policy Act for major projects or legislative proposals significantly affecting the environment. A tool for decision making, it describes the positive and negative effects of the undertaking and cites alternative actions.

ephemeral stream - A stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation or run-off events, and that receives little or no continuous water from springs, snow, or other sources. Unlike intermittent streams, an ephemeral usually does not have a defined stream channel or banks, and its channel is at all times above the water table.

erosion – This includes processes of weathering, solution, corrosion, and transportation of earth and rock materials. Forces involved may be water, ice, wind, and gravity.

Executive Order (EO) - Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.

fill - Earth or rock moved during road construction and used to build up portions of the roadway.

fill slope - The sloping earth surface on the downhill side of a road resulting from roadway excavation.

fine fuels - Cured grasses, leaves, needles, twigs, and small branches that ignite easily and carry fire rapidly.

firefighter effectiveness – The ease at which firefighters are able to suppress a fire, based on the flame lengths and rates of spread, which are dependent on the fuel loading and horizontal and vertical continuity of the fuels.

fire regimes - The characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, including factors such as frequency, intensity, severity, and patch size. The terms used for the different fire regimes are: Group I, II, III, IV, and V. Group I fires are generally of lowest intensity and severity with the smallest patches of mortality, while lethal fires are generally of highest intensity and severity with the largest patches of mortality. The others fall in between.

fire intensity - The effects of fire on the above-ground vegetation generally described in terms of mortality.

fire return interval - The average time between wildfires in a given ecosystem.

fire scar - A healing or healed-over injury caused or aggravated by fire, on a woody plant.


Appendix B

fire severity - Fire effects at and below the ground surface. Describes the impacts to organic material on the ground surface, changes to soils, and mortality of below-ground vegetative buds, roots, rhizomes, and other organisms.

forage - Plant material (usually grasses, forbs, and brush) that is available for animal consumption.

forbs - Broadleaf ground vegetation with little or no woody material.

Forest plan – In this document, the Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2003).

fragmentation - The splitting or isolation of habitat into smaller patches because of human actions. Habitat can be fragmented by management activities such as timber harvest and road construction, and changes such as agricultural development, major road systems, and reservoir impoundments.

fuel - Any substance or composite mixture susceptible to ignition and combustion.

fuel loading -The weight per unit area of downed woody material (Brown et al. 1982).

fuel model-A set of numerical values that describe a fuel type for the mathematical model that predicts spread rate and intensity. The parameters that can be varied in a fuel model are: loading, surface area-to-volume ratio, fuel bed depth, and heat content of fuel and moisture of extinction.

fuel moisture-The amount of moisture in the fuel. Dead fuels can absorb or lose moisture from the air. Small diameter fuels can change in moisture content rapidly, because they have large surface area compared to their volume.

fuel profile -The properties that describe wildland fuel including chemistry, compaction, continuity, loading, moisture content, and size. The fuel profile consists of aerial fuels as well as surface and ground fuels.

fuel treatment-The rearrangement or disposal of natural or activity fuels to reduce the fire hazard. Fuels are defined as both living and dead vegetative materials consumable by fire.

fuelbreak-Areas manipulated for the common purpose of altering surface fuels, decreasing ladder fuels, and reducing tree densities (opening the tree canopy) to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and the potential for crown fire (adapted from Agee et al. 1999).

Geographic Information System (GIS) - A computer system that stores and uses spatial (mappable) data.

goal - As Forest Plan management direction, a goal is a concise statement that helps describe a desired condition, or how to achieve that condition. Goals are typically expressed in broad, general terms that are timeless, in that there are no specific dates by which the goals are to be achieved. Goal statements form the basis from which objectives are developed.

granitics - Soils derived from granite. Pertaining to relatively coarse-grained, light-colored rocks.

ground cover – All vegetative material within 3 feet of the exposed soil surface as well as any additional litter, rock, and rock fragments that are in contact with the soil surface.


Appendix B

ground fire –A fire that burns the organic material in the upper soil layer (DeBano et al. 1998).

guideline - As Forest Plan management direction, a guideline is a preferred or advisable course of action generally expected to be carried out. Deviation from compliance does not require a Forest Plan amendment (as with a standard), but rationale for deviation must be documented in the project decision document.

habitat - A place that provides seasonal or year-round food, water, shelter, and other environmental conditions for an organism, community, or population of plants or animals.

habitat security - The protection inherent in any situation that allows big game to remain in a defined area despite an increase in stress or disturbance associated with the hunting season or other human activity. The components of security may include, but are not limited to: vegetation, topography, road density, general accessibility, hunting season timing and duration, and land ownership. Habitat security is area specific, while hiding cover (see definition below) is site specific.

habitat type – The aggregate of all areas that support or can support the same primary vegetation at climax.

harvest - Removal of timber (or a portion of an animal population) to achieve a desired condition.

herbaceous - Referring to grasses and small annual and perennial plants.

Historical Range of Variability (HRV) - The natural fluctuation of healthy ecosystem components over time. In this document, HRV refers to the range of conditions and processes that likely occurred prior to settlement of the area by people of European descent (around the mid 1800s), and that would have varied within certain limits over time.

home range – The area that an animal habitually uses during nesting, resting, bathing, foraging, and roosting.

hydrologic - Refers to the properties, distribution, and effects of water. “Hydrology” is the study of water; its occurrence, circulation, distribution, properties, and reactions with the environment.

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) - A hierarchal coding system developed by the U.S. Geological Service to map geographic boundaries of watersheds of various sizes.

hydrophobic soils - Soil that is water repellant due to the intermixing of mineral soil and decomposing organic matter; or organic matter that partially covers the soil particles.

ID (Interdisciplinary) team - A team of individuals with skills from different disciplines that focus on the same task or project.

Idaho batholith - A great mass of intruded igneous rock that is primarily granite and covers much of central Idaho.

improvement cutting - The removal of less desirable trees of any species in a stand of poles or larger trees, primarily to improve composition and quality (Helms 1998).


Appendix B

indicator - In effects analysis, a way or device for measuring effects from management alternatives on a particular resource or issue.

indirect effects - Impacts caused by an action but occurring later in time or farther removed in distance.

insignificant effect - An insignificant effect is one that cannot by detected, measured, or evaluated in any meaningful way.

intermittent stream - A stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation or seasonal run-off, and that receives little or no water from springs or other permanent sources. Unlike ephemeral streams, an intermittent has well-defined channel and banks, and it may seasonally be below the water table.

irretrievable commitments - Losses of production or use for a period of time. An example is suited timberland being used for a skidtrail. Timber growth on the land is irretrievably lost while the land is a skidtrail, but the timber resource is not irreversibly lost because the land could grow trees again in the near future.

irreversible commitments - Permanent or essentially permanent resource uses or losses that cannot be reversed, except in the extreme long term. Examples include minerals that have been extracted or soil productivity that has been lost.

issue - A public or agency concern about a specific action or area that is addressed in the NEPA process.

juxtaposition – The position of being side by side or close together. Relative position of forage, cover, and other important habitat components for big game.

Knutson-Vandenburg Act (KV) - In 1930, Congress passed the Knutson-Vandenburg Act (KV Act) to authorize collection of funds (KV Funds) for reforestation and timber stand improvement on areas cut over following a timber sale. Funds are to be used to protect and improve the future productivity of renewable resources on timber sale areas.

ladder fuels -Continuous vertical vegetation that connects surface fuels to the crown fuels of overstory trees, forming a ladder by which a fire can spread into tree or shrub crowns (DeBano et al. 1998).

landform - A natural feature of the land surface such as a mountain, valley, or ridge.

landing –A location (usually cleared and level) where logs are stored or loaded onto logging trucks for transport.

landslide prone - Land that has a probability of mass movement greater than or equal to 10 percent during a period of 100 years.

landtype - A portion of the landscape resulting from geomorphic and climatic processes with defined characteristics having predictable soil, hydrologic, engineering, productivity, and other behavior patterns.

landtype associations - A grouping of landtypes similar in general surface configuration and origin.


Appendix B

long-term - For environmental effects, greater than 15 years. See short-term and temporary.

long-term road closure – Roads placed in maintenance level 1 and receiving treatments to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level, and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. These roads were identified as not needed for project use for more than 15 years. Closure activities could include removing man-made drainage structures, restoring stream channel and banks, providing for drainage (waterbars), scarifying, seeding, and fertilizing.

lop and scatter - When branches are cut from fallen trees and scattered over the area rather than piled for burning. This allows the slash to lie close to the ground to reduce the fire hazard and accelerate decomposition.

maintain - When used in a management goal or objective for biological and physical resources, “maintain” means to stay within the range of desired conditions. The context is that resource conditions are already within their desired range, and the expectation is that management actions to achieve goals or objectives maintain resource conditions within their desired range in the planning period.

When used in a standard or guideline for biological and physical resources, “maintain” means that current conditions are neither restored or degraded, but remain essentially the same. The context is that resource conditions may or may not be in their desired range, and the expectation is that maintenance management actions do not degrade or restore current conditions.

This is an important distinction because most goal or objective management actions cannot be designed to achieve desired conditions for all resources. Specific actions are designed to achieve desired conditions for specific resources, but may simultaneously have effects on those or other resources. The intent behind “maintain” when used in a standard or guideline is to keep those effects from degrading resource conditions; i.e., moving conditions from functioning properly to functioning at risk, or making conditions measurably worse when they are currently functioning at risk or not functioning properly. See definitions for “degrade” and “restore” in this Glossary.

For Recreation, Scenic Environment, Heritage, Lands, Special Uses, and Wilderness resources, “maintain” means to continue a current or existing practice, activity, management strategy, resource condition, or level of use.

For physical improvements managed under the Roads and Facilities programs, “maintain” means to keep the road or facility in a usable condition.

For resource inventories, databases, plans, maps, or other documents related to all resources, “maintain” means to periodically update these items to reflect current conditions and/or status.

Management Area - A land area with similar management goals and a common prescription, as described in the Forest Plan.

management direction – Activities that must be carried out to meet the goals of agency management.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) - Representative species whose habitat conditions or population changes are used to assess the impacts of management activities on similar species in a particular area. MIS are generally presumed to be sensitive to habitat changes.


Appendix B

Management Prescription Category (MPC) - Management prescriptions are defined as, “Management practices and intensity selected and scheduled for application on a specific area to attain multiple use and other goals and objectives” (36 CFR 219.3). MPCs are broad categories of management prescriptions that indicate the general management emphasis prescribed for a given area. They are based on Forest Service definitions developed at the national level, and represent management emphasis themes, ranging from Wilderness (1.0) to Concentrated Development (8.0). The national MPCs have been customized during Forest Plan revision to better fit the needs and issues of the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Forests.

market value – The price that timber and wood products would bring if sold today.

MBF and MMBF – One thousand board feet, and one million board feet, respectively.

merchantable (timber) – Trees or stands of size and quality suitable for marketing and utilization.

mitigation - Actions to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the impact of a management practice.

mixed conifer – Stands on the Payette composed primarily of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir.

monitoring - The process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and anticipated results of a management plan are being realized, or if implementation is proceeding as planned.

mortality (stand) - The number or volume of trees that died because of fire, insects, disease, climatic factors, or competition from other trees or vegetation.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires environmental analysis and public disclosure of federal actions.

National Fire Plan (NFP) - Strategic and implementation goals, budget requests and appropriations, and agency action plans to address severe wildland fires, reduce fire impacts on rural communities, and ensure effective firefighting capability in the future.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) – A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act requiring the preparation of Regional Guides and Forest Plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) - A list of cultural resources that have local, state, or national significance maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.

native species - Animals or plants that originated in the area in which they live. Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem.

natural fuel - The combustible material resulting from natural processes and not directly generated or altered by land management practices.

no action (alternative) - The most likely condition expected to exist if current management practices continue unchanged. The analysis of this alternative is required for federal actions under NEPA.

non-point pollution – Pollution that emanates from diffuse and intermittent sources.


Appendix B

noxious weed - A state-designated plant species that causes negative ecological and economic impacts to both agricultural and other lands within the state.

objective - As Forest Plan management direction, an objective is a concise time-specific statement of actions or results designed to help achieve goals. Objectives form the basis for project-level actions or proposals to help achieve Forest goals. The time frame for accomplishing objectives, unless otherwise stated, is generally considered to be the planning period, or the next 10 to 15 years. More specific dates are not typically used because achievement can be delayed by funding, litigation, environmental changes, and other influences beyond the Forest’s control.

open road density - Miles of open road per square mile.

opening (created) -Related to vegetation management, openings are created only by planned, even-aged, regeneration timber harvesting. Only those even-aged timber harvest practices that reduce stocking levels to less than 10 percent create openings. Canopy closure will normally be used to determine stocking levels. Residual stands of mature trees will generally have less than 10 percent stocking when fewer than 10 to 15 trees per acre remain following harvest. Even-aged harvest practices that may result in the creation of openings include clear-cutting, reserve tree clear-cutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood seed cutting, and overstory removal.

overmature timber - Trees that have attained full development, particularly in height, and are declining in vigor, health, and soundness.

overstory – That portion of the trees, in a Forest of more than one story, forming the upper or uppermost canopy.

overstory removal - Removal of most or all of the trees forming the uppermost canopy in a two or multi-storied stand. The remaining trees are of good quality and will be managed as the next crop of trees on the site.

perennial stream - A stream that typically maintains year-round surface flow, except possibly during extreme periods of drought. A perennial stream receives its water from springs or other permanent sources, and the water table usually stands at a higher level than the floor of the stream.

pile and burn - Natural or activity-generated fuels that are piled by hand or with equipment and then burned. Fuels are piled in openings where fire spread can be controlled and heat will do minimal damage to surrounding trees.

Potential Vegetation Group (PVG) – Potential vegetation types grouped on the basis of a similar general moisture or temperature environment.

Precommercial thinning (PCT) – The selective felling, deadening, or removal of trees in a young stand primarily to accelerate diameter increment on the remaining stems, maintain a specific stocking or stand density range, and improve the vigor and quality of the trees that remain.

prescribed fire - Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives.

project area - The area that includes a project or proposed activities that are in the planning stages.

proposed action - A proposal made by the Forest Service or other federal agency to authorize, recommend, or implement an action to meet a specific purpose and need.


Appendix B

proposed species-Species that are proposed to the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service for threatened or candidate status.

proposed endangered-Taxa proposed to be listed as endangered. proposed threatened- Taxa proposed to be listed as threatened. candidate species-Taxa for which the USDI Fish and wildlife Service has on

file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded.

recontour –Reestablish the natural slope of the land where a road has been located. This may involve pulling the fill material up onto the road surface and/or bringing in material to replace that, which was removed to build the road.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) - A framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation environments, activities, and experience opportunities. The settings, activities, and opportunities for obtaining experiences are arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into six classes--primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban.

reforestation – The natural or artificial restocking of an area with Forest trees.

regeneration – The renewal of a tree crop, whether by natural or artificial means. Also, the young crop itself, which commonly is referred to as reproduction.

restore - For biological and physical resources, restore means to repair, re-establish, or recover ecosystem functions, processes, or components so that they are moving toward or within their range of desired conditions.

For the Recreation, Scenic Environment, Heritage, Lands, Special Uses, Wilderness, Roads and Facilities resources, restore means to use management actions to re-establish desired resource conditions.

revegetation - The re-establishment of plant cover, either naturally or by manually seeding.

riparian - Relating to the banks of natural watercourses such as rivers or streams.

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) - Portions of watersheds where riparian-dependant resources receive primary emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. RCAs include traditional riparian corridors, perennial and intermittent streams, wetlands, lakes, springs, reservoirs, and other areas where proper riparian functions and ecological processes are crucial to maintenance of the area’s water, sediment, woody debris, nutrient delivery system, and associated biotic communities and habitat.

ripping - Breaking up a compacted surface to a depth of at least 16 inches.

road decommissioning - Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7703). The road is removed from the transportation system after rehabilitation and restoration practices are applied. These practices may include ripping the road surface to a depth of 16”; recontouring the road prism; culvert removal; restore stream banks and channel; installing self-maintaining drainage structures; seed, fertilize, and hydromulch or spread slash where needed and available.


Appendix B

road maintenance - The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to the approved road management objective.

road reconstruction - Activity that results in improvement or realignment of an existing classified road as defined below:

road improvement – Activity that results in an increase of an existing road’s traffic service level expansion of its capacity, or a change in its original design function.

road realignment – Activity that results in a new location of an existing road or portions of an existing road and treatment of the old roadway (36 CFR 212.1).

sawtimber -Trees containing at least one 8-foot sawlog with a top diameter of 6-inches and meeting regional specifications for freedom from defect.

scale - Defined in this framework as geographic extent; for example, region, sub-regional, or landscape scale.

scarification - Exposing or roughing mineral soil surface for better seed germination.

scoping - The process the Forest Service uses to determine, through public involvement, the range of issues that the planning process should address.

seasonally closed (seasonal road closure) - Roads closed to motorized use on a seasonal basis (e.g., closed during hunting season).

Section 106 review- A review required by the National Historic Preservation Act to determine effects of a federal action on cultural resources.

Section 7 Consultation - Consultation required by the Endangered Species Act with the appropriate jurisdictional agency for a listed species.

sediment - Any solid material (mineral and organic) that has been moved to a water body and is being transported or has been deposited.

sensitive species - A Forest Service or BLM designation, sensitive plant and animal species are selected by the Regional Forester or the BLM State Director because population viability may be a concern, as evidenced by a current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or a current or predicted downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. Sensitive species are not addressed in or covered by the Endangered Species Act.

seral - The unique characteristics of a biotic community that is a developmental, transitory stage in an orderly ecological succession involving changes in species, structure, and community processes with time.

short-term-For environmental effects, greater than 3 to 15 years. See temporary and long-term.

short-term road closure – Roads placed in maintenance level 1 and closed to vehicular traffic for greater than one year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level, and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns.

silvicultural prescription - The method selected to manage a forest stand. Silvicultural prescriptions are broken into broad types, including even-aged and uneven-aged. Even-aged prescriptions include clearcut, seed tree, and shelterwood.


Appendix B

Uneven-aged prescriptions include individual tree selection and group selection. Other non-regeneration prescriptions include thinning and sanitation/salvage cuttings.

silviculture - The care and tending of stands of trees to meet specific objectives.

site potential tree height - For delineating RCAs, a site potential tree height is the height that a dominant or co-dominant tree within a stand is expected to attain at an age of 200 years. Outside of RCAs, a site potential tree height is the average height that the dominant or co-dominant tree within a stand will attain within 100 years.

site preparation – A general term for removing unwanted vegetation, slash, roots, and stones from a site before reforestation.

skid trail - A route used by loggers to drag logs from stump to landing.

skidding – A loose term for hauling trees by sliding, not on wheels, from stump to roadside, deck, skidway, or other landing.

skyline logging - A logging system using steel cable, a tower, and a powered winch to elevate logs from their position in the woods and carry them suspended to a point where they can be loaded on to trucks.

slash - The residue left on the ground after timber cutting and/or accumulation as a result of storm, fire, or other damage. It includes logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, branches, twigs, leaves, bark, and chips.

slash filter windrow - Woody debris placed along a slope to trap and hold sediment coming off a hill or road above.

snag - standing dead tree.

soil compaction – Where one or more of the following conditions occurs in relation to natural: a 50 percent reduction in macropore space; less than 15 percent macropore space, total; 15 percent increase in soil bulk density; or a 40 percent reduction in hydraulic conductivity.

soil erosion - Soil erosion is the detachment and transport of soil particles or aggregates by wind, water, or gravity. Management practices may increase soil erosion hazard when they remove ground cover and detach soil particles. .

soil productivity - Soil productivity includes the inherent capacity of a soil under management to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in terms of volume or weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation.

species composition - The different tree species within a stand, usually expressed as a percentage within each age class.

stand - An aggregation of trees or other vegetation occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in composition (species), age arrangement, and condition as to be distinguishable from the Forest or other vegetation of land cover on adjoining areas.

stand density - A measure of how crowded a stand is. Measures of density include: trees per acre, square feet of basal area, stand density index (SDI), and percent of maximum SDI.

stand initiation - A stage of stand development following a disturbance when new individuals and species continue to appear for several years (Oliver and Larson 1996).

stand structure - The different sizes and ages of trees within a stand.


Appendix B

standard - As Forest Plan management direction, a standard is a binding limitation placed on management actions. It must be within the authority and ability of the Forest Service to enforce. A project or action that varies from a relevant standard may not be authorized unless the Forest Plan is amended to modify, remove, or waive application of the standard.

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) - A person appointed by a state’s Governor to administer the State Historic Preservation Program.

strata - Groups of stands that are relatively homogeneous in age, productivity, and density.

structure - The size and arrangement, both vertically and horizontally, of vegetation.

substrate - The composition of a streambed, including mineral and organic materials.

subwatershed - An area of land that drains to a common point. A subwatershed is smaller subdivision of a watershed but is larger than a drainage or site. Subwatersheds are often synonymous with sixth-field hydrologic units, which are nested within larger watersheds (fifth-field units), and are comprised of smaller drainages, sites, and stream reaches.

succession - The replacement in time of one plant community with another. The prior plant community (or successional stage) creates conditions that are favorable for the establishment of the next stage. These changes often occur in a predictable order. More specifically, the gradual and natural progression in composition and structure of an ecosystem toward a climax condition or stage.

successional stage – A stage or recognizable condition of a plant community that occurs during its development from bare ground to climax.

summer range - The area essential for big game to carry out their reproductive cycles.

surface erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by running water or wind.

surface fire - A fire that burns only surface fuels (DeBano et al. 1998).

sustainability - The ability to maintain a desired condition or flow of benefits over time.

temporary-For environmental effects, 0 to 3 years. See short-term and long-term.

temporary road - Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation, that are not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system, and that are not necessary for long-term resource management.

thinning - A cultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality (Helms 1998). Types of thinning include the following: Crown thinning - the removal of trees from the dominant and codominant crown classes in order to favor the best trees of those same crown classes- synonym thinning from above. Free thinning - The removal of trees to control stand spacing and favor desired trees, using a combination of thinning criteria without regard to crown position. Low thinning - The removal of trees from the lower crown classes to favor those in the upper crown classes – synonym thinning from below.

threatened species - Designated by the FWS or NOAA Fisheries; a plant or animal species given federal protection because it is likely to become endangered throughout all or a specific portion of its range within the foreseeable future.


Appendix B

timber sale contract - The binding document between the Forest Service and timber purchaser that states, among other things, how the sale will be logged.

Timber Stand Improvement (TSI)-An intermediate treatment made to improve the composition, structure, condition, health, and growth of even or uneven aged stands.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) - TMDL is the sum of waste load allocations for point sources, non-point sources, natural background, and a margin of safety. A TMDL specifies the amount of a pollutant that needs to be reduced to meet water quality standards set by the state. TMDL is used in a process to attain water quality standards that (1) identifies water quality problems and contributing pollutant sources, (2) allocates pollution control responsibilities among sources in the watershed, and (3) provides a basis for taking actions needed to restore a water body.

Total Soil Resource Commitment (TSRC) – A measure of how much land in a project area is converted to a non-productive condition for 50 years or more. Examples are permanent skidtrails, landings, roads, campgrounds, administrative sites, and recreational trails.

tractor logging – Any logging method, which uses a tractor as the motive power for transporting logs from the stumps to a collecting point – whether by dragging or carrying the logs.

uncharacteristic wildfire - A fire that is burning in a way that does not emulate historical effects. This may include fire intensity, severity, size, and landscape patterns.

unclassified road - Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as trails. Unclassified roads also include those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization (36 CFR 212.1).

underburn - A light broadcast burn under an existing forest canopy. A fire prescribed to reduce fuels without damaging existing trees.

understory - The trees and other woody species growing under a more-or-less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by the upper portion of adjacent trees and other woody growth.

viability - The ability of wildlife or plant populations to maintain a sufficient size so that it persists over time in spite of normal fluctuations in numbers. Viability is usually expressed as a probability of maintaining a specific population for a specified period.

viable population - A population that is regarded as having the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure that it will continue to exist over time and will be well distributed within a given area.

Visual Quality Objective (VQO) - Categories of acceptable landscape alteration measured in degrees of deviation from the natural-appearing landscape. The categories include Preservation, Retention, Partial Retention, Modification, and Maximum Modification.


Appendix B


water quality - Refers to the chemical, physical, or biological characteristics that describe the conditions of a river, stream, or lake.

Water Quality Limited Segment (WQLS) - A stretch or area of surface water where technology-based controls are not sufficient to prevent violations of water-quality standards. In such cases, new permit limitations are based on ambient-water-quality considerations.

waterbar - An earthen barrier across a road or skidtrail used to divert water and reduce erosion. It is usually designed to allow limited vehicle passage.

watershed - The entire land area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream.

Watershed Condition Indicator (WCI) - WCIs are an integrated suite of aquatic (including biophysical components), riparian (including riparian –associated vegetation species), and hydrologic (including uplands) condition measures that are intended to be used at a variety of watershed scales. They assist in determining the current condition of a watershed and should be used to help design appropriate management actions, or to alter or mitigate proposed and or ongoing actions, to move watersheds toward desired conditions. WCIs represent a diagnostic means to determine factors of current condition and assist in determining future conditions associated with implementing management actions or natural restoration over time.

wetlands - Land areas that are wet at least for part of the year, are poorly drained, and are characterized by hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Examples of wetlands include swamps, marshes, and bogs.

wildland fire - Any fire not involving a home or other structure, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland.

Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) - The line, area, or zone where structures and other human developments meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuel.

yarding – The operation of hauling timber from the stump to a collecting point.

Appendix C

Appendix C - Mitigation Measures for Fuel Haul

A. Spill response plan approved by U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

B. Spill containment materials required at fuel transfer stations.

C. No trailers permitted.

D. Spill/resource protection kit required for all drivers.

E. Inclement weather equipment required on fuel haul and pilot vehicles.

F. Roads subject to closure by USFS to minimize soil erosion and spill risk. Criteria can include:

Presence of snow floor on road

Rutting on road

Water flowing down tire tracks

Large ice patches

Identifying limiting sections of road

Sediment input into live water observed

Road surface visibility deforming under load

Requiring a test driver to determine road conditions

G. Fuel haul permitted during daylight hours only.

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project C-1

Appendix C

C-2 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

Appendix D

Appendix D

Federal Consistency Checklist

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project (JULY 23, 2005)

(Best Management Practices)

(Pertinent sections of the Water Quality Standards are referenced and need to be used in conjunction with the checklist.)

The 2003 Payette National Forest Management Plan Guideline SWGU09 states that project proposals that may affect water quality should answer the questions outlined in the Idaho Nonpoint Source Management Plan to achieve federal consistency with the Clean Water Act as implemented by the State, and SWGU08 specifies that actions should adhere to Sections 313 and 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Section 313 applies to pollution control from federal facilities and is not applicable in context of this project. Following are responses to the questions related to the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project.

Was the appropriate regional office of IDEQ informed of the activity and steps taken to minimize pollution? All ground disturbing and potentially channel altering activities are presented to the western region of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers and IDEQ at annual coordination meeting held in McCall, Idaho in the spring of each year. Summaries of projects are presented along with applicable best management practices and soil water conservation practices being utilized to control non-point pollution sources. The Summit Gulch project will be identified for implementation and presented at next years (2006) annual coordination meeting in McCall.

Was a determination made if water quality limited (State 303{d} list) stream segments exist within the project area? Yes. There are no 303(d) listed waterbodies within the project area or Bear Creek Watershed in which it is located.

Was a determination made if Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) exist within the project area? Yes. There are no Outstanding Resource Waters within the project area.

IDAPA 58.01.02.003.71 - Definition of ORW.

IDAPA 58.01.02.055.01-06 - Outstanding Resource Waters.

Were the “appropriate beneficial uses” for the waterbodies in the project area identified?

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project D-1

Appendix D

According to the most recent Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Standards publication (IDAPA 58.01.02) none of the waterbodies in the project area have designated surface water beneficial uses. All streams are undesignated surface waters. As undesignated waterways, the department presumes the water will support cold water aquatic life and primary or secondary contact recreation beneficial uses.

IDAPA 58.01.02.003.04 - Definition of beneficial use.

IDAPA 58.01.02.100.01-05 - Surface Water use Designations

IDAPA 58.01.02.101.01 - Nondesignated Surface Waters

IDAPA 58.01.02.140.19 - Southwest Idaho Basin/Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin.

Were the water quality standards and criteria to protect the “appropriate beneficial uses” identified and are they being met? As undesignated waterways, the department presumes the water will support cold water aquatic life and primary or secondary contact recreation beneficial uses. Grab temperatures taken during fish and stream surveys on Wikiup Creek indicate stream temperatures meet the Idaho State cold water aquatic life standards (i.e. average daily temperatures of <=19 degrees Celsius, and daily maximum temperatures of <=22 degrees Celsius). No formal temperature or other water quality monitoring has been completed.

IDAPA 58.01.02.200.01-08 - General Surface water quality criteria

IDAPA 58.01.02.250.01,02 - Surface water quality criteria for aquatic life use designations

IDAPA 58.01.02.251.01,02 - Surface water quality criteria for recreation use designations

Have the non-point source activities regulated by the Idaho Water Quality Standards been identified? Yes. Nonpoint source activities identified within the project area include: silviculture, forest road construction/reconstruction and maintenance, grazing, and dispersed recreation. Other non-point sources on adjoining Off-Forest lands can include: silviculture, road construction, reconstruction and maintenance, grazing, non-irrigated and/or irrigated lands for production and pasture, dispersed recreation and mining.

IDAPA 58.01.02.003.63.a-h - Nonpoint source definitions.

Were state-approved BMPs for each nonpoint source activity identified? Yes. The Soil and Water Report identifies applicable BMP’s for road and silviculture related activities associated with the project area.

IDAPA 58.01.02.350.03.a, d - Approved Best Management Practices.

IDAPA 20.02.01 – Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act

D-2 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

Appendix D

For each nonpoint source activity that does not have approved BMPs, were management practices identified that demonstrate a knowledgeable and reasonable effort to minimize resulting water quality impacts? Most proposed activities have approved BMP’s that are listed in the environmental assessment and associated soil and water resource reports. Additional project design features are included to aid in minimizing impacts to water quality associated with road and skid trail reclamation activities. Past monitoring of these measures and activities has demonstrated their effectiveness at minimizing impacts to water quality and facilitation in the recovery of soil and watershed processes.

IDAPA 58.01.02.350.02.ii, 2 - Rules Governing Nonpoint Source Activities.

Was a monitoring plan developed, and when implemented, did it provide adequate information to determine effectiveness of the approved or specialized BMPs in protecting the beneficial uses of water? Yes. Harvest areas and road decommissioning areas will be monitored during operation for implementation of BMP’s, SWCP’s, Forest plan standards and project specific requirements. The following field seasons (year 1, 3 and 5) these areas will be monitored to determine effectiveness of BMP’s, SWCP’s and project specific requirements in protecting water quality and associated beneficial uses. These specific monitoring elements and results are documented in annual monitoring plans and results available at the District office. The results of this monitoring are provided to the IDEQ/DWR at annual coordination meetings.

IDAPA 58.01.02.350.02.3,c, ii - Monitoring plan requirements.

Was a process (including feedback from water quality monitoring) identified for modifying the approved or specialized BMPs in order to protect the beneficial uses of water identified? The annual monitoring plan includes confirming the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs and SWCPs. This process is tied to the Feedback Loop Process for Nonpoint Source Control, in which BMPs are evaluated and modified as necessary in order to protect the beneficial uses of water.

IDAPA 58.01.02.350.02.3,c, iii - Modification of BMPs.

Did pre-project planning and design include an analysis of water quality resulting from implementation of the proposed activity sufficient to predict exceedences of water quality criteria for the appropriate beneficial use(s), or in the absence of such criteria, sufficient to predict the potential for beneficial use impairment? The water and soil report discloses site-specific project design criteria/recommendations for protecting water quality. The project as designed in combination with application of BMP’s and SWCP’s is predicted to protect designated beneficial uses. Past monitoring on the Council RD and throughout the region indicate that proper implementation of the proposed design criteria and application of BMP’s and SWCP’s are expected to protect beneficial uses and not result in beneficial use impairment.

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project D-3

Appendix D

D-4 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

Appendix E

Appendix E - Forest Vegetation

Potential Vegetation Groups

PVG 1 - Dry Ponderosa Pine/Xeric Douglas-fir This group represents the warm, dry extreme of the forested zone. Typically this group occurs at lower timberline down to 3,000 feet and up to 6,500 feet on steep, dry, south-facing slopes. Ponderosa pine is a dominant cover type that historically persisted due to frequent nonlethal fire. Under such conditions, open park-like stands of large, old ponderosa pine dominated the area, with occasional Douglas-fir, particularly at higher elevations. Understories are sparse and consist of low to moderately dense perennial grasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue. In some areas, shrubs such as mountain snowberry and bitterbrush dominate. This group is found scattered throughout the Payette National Forest.

PVG 2 - Warm, Dry Douglas-fir/Moist Ponderosa Pine This group represents warm, mild environments at low-to-middle elevations, but may extend upward to 6,500 feet on dry, southerly slopes. Ponderosa pine, particularly at lower elevations, or large ponderosa pine mixed with smaller size classes of Douglas-fir, are the dominant cover types in this group. Historically, frequent nonlethal fire maintained stands of large, park-like ponderosa pine. Douglas-fir would occur on moister aspects, particularly at higher elevations. Understories are mostly graminoids such as pinegrass and elk sedge, with a cover of shrubs such as common snowberry, white spirea, and mallow ninebark. This group is found in many places on the Payette National Forest.

PVG 3 - Cool, Moist Douglas-fir This group represents the cooler extremes in the Douglas-fir zone. The group can extend from 6,800 feet down to 4,800 feet following cold air. Adjacent sites are often subalpine fir. Some areas support grand fir. Ponderosa pine occurs as a major seral species only in the warmest extremes of the group. In cold air areas, particularly where cold air accumulates to form frost pockets, lodgepole pine may dominate. In some areas, Douglas-fir is the only species capable of occupying the site. The conifer cover types that historically dominated are a combination of several factors including fire frequency and intensity, elevation, and topography. Understories in this group are primarily shrub species including mountain maple, mountain ash, and blue huckleberry. Several other species, including scouler willow, thimbleberry, and chokecherry, may occur from disturbance, depending on its severity. Historical fire regimes were mixed (generally mixed1 where ponderosa pine occurs and mixed2 where other species dominate), creating a diversity of vegetative combinations. Very little of this PVG occurs on the Payette National Forest; what does occur is found in isolated cool-air drainages.

PVG 4 - Cool, Dry Douglas-fir Douglas-fir is the only species that occurs throughout the entire range of the group. Lodgepole pine may be found in areas with cold air. Quaking aspen is also a common early seral species. Understories are sparse due to the cool, dry environment, and often support pinegrass and elk sedge. Understories of low shrubs, such as white spirea, common snowberry, Oregon grape, and mallow ninebark, occur in some areas that

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project E-1

Appendix E

represent slightly different environments across the group. The historical fire regime was primarily mixed1-mixed2, depending on the fuels present at the time of ignition. Organic matter accumulates slowly in this group; so fire effects depend on the interval between fires, stand density and mortality, and other factors. This group may be found in minor amounts at higher elevations in the Douglas-fir zone in other parts of the Forest. In these cases, it is usually found above 6,000 feet on sites that are too cool to support ponderosa pine. Where it is common, it occurs at lower elevations in areas that are beyond the extent of ponderosa pine.

PVG 5 - Dry Grand Fir The Dry Grand Fir Group is found throughout the distribution of grand fir. It ranges from 4,300 to 6,400 feet in elevation, often on drier upper slopes and ridges. Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir are common cover types that appear to have been maintained by fire regimes that were historically nonlethal to mixed1. In many areas this group may have resembled PVG 1 and PVG 2, with open park-like stands of large ponderosa pine. Mixed species stands were likely restricted to small micro-sites that burned less frequently. Understories are similar to PVG 2 in that pinegrass, elk sedge, and white spirea are common.

PVG 6 – Cool, Moist Grand Fir This group ranges in elevation from 3,400 to 6,500 feet and represents more moist environments in the grand fir zone. It often occurs adjacent to dry grand fir, and the two may intermix with each other, depending on topography. Ponderosa pine is common at the drier extremes of the group, and lodgepole pine occurs in colder areas. Western larch may also be present as an early seral species. Cover types of Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce also occur in this group. Understories in this group are shrubby and include blue huckleberry, mountain maple, mountain ash, mallow ninebark, and occasionally pachistima. A conspicuous herb layer is also common, particularly following disturbance. Historical fire regimes were mixed, ranging from mixed1 to mixed2, in part due to the wide environment represented by this group. Where ponderosa pine was maintained as a common seral species, it appears that fires were more often mixed1 because ponderosa pine produces a heavy seed that generally disperses only short distances. In other areas where western larch or Douglas-fir were maintained as common seral species, mixed 2 fires may have been more common. Douglas-fir and larch produce lighter seed that can disperse much farther than ponderosa pine.

PVG 7 - Warm, Dry Subalpine Fir This group is common on the Forest. It represents warmer, drier environments in the subalpine fir zone. Elevations range from 4,800 to 7,500 feet. At lower elevations, this group is found on steep, north-to-east aspects, but shifts to south-to-west aspects as elevation increases. Adjacent sites at lower elevations are Douglas-fir or grand fir, and these commonly intermix where topography controls cold airflow. Douglas-fir is the most common cover type throughout the group. Ponderosa pine may be found at the warmest extremes, particularly where this group grades into the Douglas-fir or grand fir zone. Lodgepole pine or Engelmann spruce may occur at cool, moist extremes, but these cover types rarely dominate. Understories are commonly shrubby and include mountain maple, mountain ash, serviceberry, and scouler willow. Historical fire regimes were generally mixed2, though mixed1 fires may have occurred where ponderosa pine was maintained.

E-2 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

Appendix E

PVG 8 - Warm, Moist Subalpine Fir This group occurs mainly north of Cascade, primarily on the Payette National Forest and as a relatively minor PVG on the Boise National Forest. It becomes better represented on the Nez Perce National Forest. Elevations range from 5,000 to 7,200 feet but may follow cooler air down to 4,500 feet. This group occurs on moist, protected areas such as stream terraces, toe slopes, and steep, northerly aspects. Cover types include lodgepole pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, and Engelmann spruce. The presence of these and combinations depend on site conditions and past disturbances. Dense shrubs are common in the understory and include Sitka alder, menziesia, blue huckleberry, Utah honeysuckle, mountain maple, mountain ash, and serviceberry. Historical fire in this group was more commonly lethal, though underburns may have occurred occasionally. Ignitions likely occurred in adjacent areas due to the location of this group. Whether these areas burned or not may have depended on weather prior to and at the time of the ignition.

PVG 9 - Hydric Subalpine Fir Seasonally high water tables control this group, and the extent may be small in some areas depending on the presence of these conditions. Elevations range from 9,000 to as low as 4,500 feet in frost pockets and along cold air drainages. This group most commonly occurs on wet toe slopes, stream terraces, seep areas, and old bogs. Cover types are lodgepole pine, followed by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. Early seral conditions usually support lodgepole pine because this species can tolerate intermittent high water tables and cold air that often accumulates. In severe frost-prone areas, lodgepole pine can persist for long periods. In other areas with better cold air drainage, Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir rapidly establish under the lodgepole pine. Understories in this group are primarily dominated by herbs and grasses that require the seasonal influence of a high water table. Shrubs are sparse, though Labrador tea can dominate some sites. Historically, fire was lethal in this group. Like PVG 8, ignitions more likely occurred on adjacent drier slopes, and burning in this group likely depended on weather conditions before and at the time of the ignition.

PVG 10 - Persistent Lodgepole Pine This group is common throughout the subalpine fir zone. It represents cold, dry subalpine fir sites that range in elevation from over 9,200 down to 5,200 feet in frost-pockets. Lodgepole pine is the dominant cover type, though small amounts of other species may occasionally occur. Understories can be sparse. Generally, grasses and scattered forbs are the most common understory components. Shrubs are sparse and consist mainly of low-growing huckleberries, including dwarf huckleberry and grouse whortleberry. Historically, this group experienced lethal fire, though nonlethal fires may have occurred during stand development. Lodgepole pine is more often non-serotinous in western portions of the Forest and appears to become more serotinous moving easterly. Within the Forest, lodgepole pine may reproduce in areas that experience nonlethal fires. The result is more vertical stand diversity in some areas than is often found where lodgepole pine is mostly serotinous. Over time, the combinations of these low-intensity events, subsequent reproduction, and mountain pine beetle mortality would have created fuel conditions that allowed lethal fires to occur under the right weather conditions.

PVG 11 - High Elevation Subalpine Fir (with whitebark pine) This group occurs at the highest elevations of the subalpine fir zone and generally represents the upper timberline conditions. It often grades into krummholz or alpine


Appendix E

communities. Whitebark pine is a major seral species in this group. Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir are the climax co-dominates. In some areas, whitebark pine serves as a cover for Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir establishment. Understories are primarily forbs and grasses tolerant of freezing temperatures that can occur any time during the growing season. Shrubs are sparse due to the cold, harsh conditions. Historically, the fire regime in this group is characterized as mixed2, though the effects of fires were highly variable. Ignitions are common due to the high elevation, however fuel conditions were historically sparse due to the cold growing conditions and shallow soils. Therefore, fire effects were patchy. Fire regimes are mixed2 with whitebark pine being a major seral component.

Strata 20 Clearcuts

21 Partial Cuts – Low Stocking

22 Partial Cuts – Moderate Stocking (Young)

23 Mature/Overmature – High Stocking

24 Mature/Overmature – Moderate Stocking

25 Mature/Overmature – Low Stocking

26 Partial Cuts – Moderate Stocking (Old)

29 Burned Areas

30 Sapling/Poles – Natural Regeneration

32 Sapling/Poles – Artificial Regeneration

33 Immature/Mature – Low Stocking

34 Immature/Mature – Moderate Stocking

35 Immature/Mature – High Stocking

41 Unsuitable – Low Stocking

42 Unsuitable – Moderate to High Stocking

60 Nonforest Lands

61 Nonforest Lands (Cultivated)

70 Hardwoods or High Brush

98 Water (Noncensus)

99 Water (Census)


Appendix E

STRATUM 20

CLEARCUTS These are regeneration harvest areas that are generally less than 10 to 15 years old. A few residual mature trees or snags may be retained on the site, and planted seedlings are usually abundant, but less than 10% canopy cover is visible on aerial photos. These stands may have a moderate to heavy component of brush and/or grass on the site, depending upon how old the cutting activity is, and what habitat type is present. Fuels and down woody debris are usually light in this stratum. Once the seedlings reach sufficient height to be visible on aerial photos (around 8 feet, usually at 10 to 15 years), these stands move into the next stage and are called stratum 32.

STRATUM 21

PARTIAL CUTS These are harvested areas that retain a low residual stocking of trees on the site, with canopy cover from 10 to 39 percent. They have generally been harvested sometime within the past 35 to 40 years, and the age of the residual trees is usually less than 120 years. Typically this stratum represents seed tree or overstory removal treatments. They are generally single-storied stands, as in the case of seed tree cuts, but can have two or more tree layers in clumpy distribution in some overstory cuttings, depending on the age of the harvest. These stands often have a moderate stocking of seedlings and saplings, both planted and natural. Large snags are uncommon, usually <1 per acre, and fuels and down woody debris is light.

STRATUM 22

PARTIAL CUTS These are harvested areas that retain a moderate residual stocking of trees on the site, with canopy cover greater than 40%. They have generally been harvested sometime within the past 35 to 40 years, and the age of the residual trees is usually less than 120 years. Typically this stratum represents commercial thinning or selection cutting. They are generally even-aged single-storied stands in the case of commercial thins, or two-storied with scattered overmature trees above a second layer of immature sawtimber in the case of selection type cuts. Stands may have clumpy distribution, with abundant seed/saps in openings. Large snags are uncommon, usually <1 per acre, and fuels and down woody debris is light to moderate.

STRATUM 23

MATURE/OVERMATURE These are unmanaged, dense, multi-storied stands, often exhibiting old growth characteristics for the habitats within which they occur. Canopy cover is high at 70% and greater. Although patches of young sawtimber trees may occur throughout the stand, the majority of trees are larger diameter mature and overmature individuals, with stand age generally 120 to 250 years and more. Decadence is evident with large snags common, usually >1 per acre, and fuels and down woody debris is moderate to high. Non-stockable rocky areas, scabland, or brush fields occupy less than 10% of the site.


Appendix E

STRATUM 24

MATURE/OVERMATURE These are unmanaged, moderately dense to clumpy, multi-storied stands, often exhibiting old growth characteristics for the habitats within which they occur. Canopy cover ranges from 40 to 69 percent. Although patches of young sawtimber trees may occur throughout the stand, the majority of trees are larger diameter mature to overmature individuals, with stand age generally 120 to 250 years and more. Decadence is evident with large snags common, usually >1 per acre, and fuels and down woody debris is moderate to high. Non-stockable rocky areas, scabland, or brush fields may occupy up to 25% of the site.

STRATUM 25

MATURE/OVERMATURE These are unmanaged, low density to clumpy, single or multi-storied stands, often exhibiting old growth characteristics for the habitats within which they occur. Canopy cover ranges from 10 to 39 percent. The majority of trees are larger diameter mature to overmature individuals, with stand age generally 120 to 250 years and more. Decadence is evident with large snags scattered, usually around 1 per acre, and fuels and down woody debris is low to moderate. Non-stockable rocky areas, scabland, or brush fields may occupy up to 50% of the site. These stands may exhibit an open park-like condition and often occur on drier slopes and habitats.

STRATUM 26

PARTIAL CUTS These are harvested areas that retain a moderate residual stocking of trees on the site, with canopy cover greater than 40%. They have generally been harvested sometime within the past 35 to 40 years, and the age of the residual trees is usually greater than 120 years, with mainly larger diameter mature to overmature individuals remaining. Typically this stratum represents shelterwood or salvage/sanitation cutting. Stands may have clumpy distribution, with abundant seed/saps in openings. Large snags occur, but usually number <1 per acre, and fuels and down woody debris is light to moderate.

STRATUM 29

BURNED AREAS These are sites where a stand-replacing wildfire has occurred, and less than 10% canopy cover of live trees is visible on aerial photos. The stands are generally less than 20 years old. These areas may have extremely heavy brush. Snags of all sizes are abundant, and fuels and down woody debris can range from moderate to high. Once the natural conifer regeneration reaches sufficient height to be visible on aerial photos (around 8 feet, usually within 20 years), these stands move into the next stage and are called stratum 30.


Appendix E

STRATA 30 and 32

SAPLING/POLES These stands consist of a sapling to pole conifer component that can range from 100 to over 1,000 trees per acre, with canopy cover ranging from 10% to over 90%. Depending on the site, these areas may have a large brush component. Stand age is generally from 10 to 50 years.

Stratum 30 originates from a natural event such as wildfire or windstorm, and therefore patterns of regeneration may tend to have a patchy distribution. Snags and coarse woody debris are usually common on these sites.

Stratum 32 is plantations, originating from harvest activity, and tends to be of a more uniform nature since many are thinned to a desired spacing. Snags and coarse woody debris are less frequent on these sites.

STRATUM 33

IMMATURE/MATURE These are unmanaged, low stocked stands of mostly immature trees, often with a scattered overstory of mature to overmature individuals. Greater than half the stand is immature sawtimber, generally 50 to 100 years old. Canopy cover ranges from 10 to 39 percent, and these sites usually occur on drier and less productive habitats. Distribution of trees tends to be clumpy. Non-stockable rock, brush fields, or bare ground can occupy up to 50% of the area. Snags are infrequent, and woody debris is generally light.

STRATUM 34

IMMATURE/MATURE These are unmanaged, moderately dense to clumpy stands of mostly immature trees, often with scattered mature to overmature individuals. Greater than half the stand is immature sawtimber, generally 50 to 100 years old. Canopy cover ranges from 40 to 69 percent. Non-stockable rock, brush fields, or bare ground can occupy up to 25% of the area. Snags are usually infrequent, and woody debris is generally light to moderate.

STRATUM 35

IMMATURE/MATURE These are dense unmanaged stands of mostly immature trees, often with scattered mature to overmature individuals. Greater than half the stand is immature sawtimber, generally 50 to 100 years old. Canopy cover exceeds 70%. Typically these are even-age, single-storied stands. Non-stockable rock, brush fields, or bare ground occurs on less than 10% of the area. Snags occur but are somewhat infrequent, and woody debris is generally moderate (often high in subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce/lodgepole pine types).


Appendix E

STRATUM 41

UNSUITABLE These are low-stocked stands with low site potential and an abundance of bare ground, rock outcrops, brush fields, or in the case of spruce areas, a high water table. They are classed as forested lands, but are deemed to be unsuitable for any conventional silvicultural management, although salvage opportunities may occur on them. These areas often lie at the extremes in elevation, moisture regimes, or on oversteepened slopes. Canopy cover ranges from 10 to 39 percent. The ages of the trees can vary widely, but are generally mature to overmature. Snags are infrequent to abundant, depending upon the site and/or disturbance regime.

STRATUM 42

UNSUITABLE These are moderately stocked stands with low site potential and an abundance of bare ground, rock outcrops, brush fields, or in the case of spruce areas a high water table. They are classed as forested lands, but are deemed to be unsuitable for any conventional silvicultural management, although salvage opportunities may occur on them. These areas often lie at the extremes in elevation, moisture regimes, or on oversteepened slopes. Canopy cover is greater than 40%. The ages of the trees can vary widely, but are generally mature to overmature. Snags are infrequent to abundant, depending upon the site and/or disturbance regime.

STRATA 60 and 61

NON FOREST These are grasslands, sagebrush, scablands, dry and wet meadows, or rocky areas; all sites incapable of supporting more than 10% stocking of conifer trees.

Stratum 61 is cultivated land; land that may or may not have once been forested but is currently utilized as cropland.

STRATUM 70

HARDWOODS or HIGH BRUSH These areas contain a hardwood and/or brush component that represents 75% or more of the site. This includes areas such as willow patches, alder glades, riparian stringers of cottonwood, aspen stands, or hillside patches of tall chokecherry and the like. Scattered conifers will often comprise a minor component of these stands.


Appendix E


STRATA 98 and 99

WATER Non-census (stratum 98) – These are bodies of water less than 40 acres in size, or streams less than 120 feet wide.

Census (stratum 99) – These are bodies of water greater than 40 acres in size, or streams more than 120 feet wide.

Working Groups 1 Mixed Conifer – High Productivity

2 Mixed Conifer – Moderate Productivity

3 Mixed Conifer – Low Productivity

4 Subalpine Fir – All Productivities

5 Engelmann Spruce – All Productivities

6 Lodgepole Pine - All Productivities

7 Ponderosa Pine - High Productivity

8 Ponderosa Pine - Moderate Productivity

9 Ponderosa Pine - Low Productivity

Tree Size Class Open boxes indicate range of desired size classes per Appendix A (Forest Plan).

Square black markers indicate current percentage of size class within the Potential Vegetation Group (PVG).

Grass-Seedling = Trees < 4.5 feet tall

Sappling = Trees between 0.1 – 4.9” DBH

Small = Trees between 5.0 – 11.9” DBH

Medium = Trees between 12.0 – 19.9” DBH

Large = Trees > 20” DBH

Appendix E

Table E-1: Alternative 2 Harvest Unit Descriptions Pre & Post Treatment Stand Description Unit Acres PVG /

Strata BD Tree

Size Class

Rx Yarding System

Volume (MBF)

Trees per Acre % Canopy Closure

Basal Area per Acre (sq ft)

Before After Before After Before After 1 41 2 / 21 WTY Med TIC T/J 100 45 30 35 25 80 50 2 9 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC C 25 60 45 65 40 110 70 3 8 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T 20 80 45 60 35 100 65 4 8 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T 20 80 45 55 35 100 65 5 9 2 / 22 Lop Med LDIC T 40 85 20 65 20 110 35 6 37 2 / 21 WTY Med TIC T 55 60 35 35 30 80 55 7 14 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T 35 85 45 60 35 100 65 8 9 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T 20 85 45 65 40 110 70 9 28 2 /22 Lop Med LDIC T 125 85 20 65 20 110 35 11 22 2 / 21 WTY Med TIC T 45 60 35 35 30 70 55 13 22 2 / 21 Lop Small PCT T 0 50 40 20 10 40 20 14 11 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T/J 30 60 30 40 25 90 50 15 71 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T/J 175 60 30 40 25 90 50 16 46 2 / 21 WTY Med TIC T 70 45 30 30 25 55 45 17 44 2 / 22 Lop Med LDIC T 180 80 20 60 20 100 35 18 43 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T 130 80 40 60 35 100 60 20 9 2 / 21 WTY Med TIC T 10 50 30 35 25 80 40 21 13 2 / 21 Lop Med LDIC T 20 50 15 30 15 55 25 22 68 2 / 32 Lop Small PCT T 0 200 65 45 10 60 20 23 53 2 / 22 Lop Med LDIC T 240 80 20 60 20 100 35 24 52 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T 85 75 35 50 30 80 55 25 22 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T 65 80 45 60 40 110 70 26 28 2 / 22 Lop Med LDIC T 100 60 15 45 15 90 25 27 41 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T 125 85 45 65 40 105 65 28 33 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T/J 75 80 45 60 40 100 65 30 5 2 / 21 Lop Med LDIC T 10 50 15 30 15 55 25 31 36 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T/J 80 75 45 50 40 95 70 32 22 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T 50 75 45 50 40 95 70 33 7 2 / 22 WTY Med TIC T 15 60 35 45 30 90 60 34 8 2 / 21 WTY Med TIC T 10 50 30 30 25 70 40 35 22 2 / 21 WTY Med TIC T 35 50 30 30 25 60 40 36 4 2 / 21 Lop Med LDIC T 5 50 15 30 15 60 30 37 14 2 / 21 Lop Med LDIC T 30 50 15 30 15 40 25 41 30 2 / 21 Lop Med LDIC T 45 40 15 25 15 40 25

Total 889 2070

Table E-2: Alternative 3 Harvest Unit Descriptions


Appendix E

Pre & Post Treatment Stand Description Unit Acres PVG / Strata

BD Tree Size

Class

Rx Yarding System

Volume (MBF)

Trees per Acre % Canopy Closure

Basal Area per Acre (sq ft)

Before After Before After Before After 5 9 2 / 22 Lop Med LDIC T 40 85 20 65 20 110 35 9 28 2 /22 Lop Med LDIC T 125 85 20 65 20 110 35 13 22 2 / 21 Lop Small PCT T 0 50 40 20 10 40 20 17 44 2 / 22 Lop Med LDIC T 180 80 20 60 20 100 35 21 13 2 / 21 Lop Med LDIC T 20 50 15 30 15 55 25 22 68 2 / 32 Lop Small PCT T 0 200 65 45 10 60 20 23 53 2 / 22 Lop Med LDIC T 240 80 20 60 20 100 35 26 28 2 / 22 Lop Med LDIC T 100 60 15 45 15 90 25

30 5 2 / 21 Lop Med LDIC T 10 50 15 30 15 55 25

36 4 2 / 21 Lop Med LDIC T 5 50 15 30 15 60 30

37 14 2 / 21 Lop Med LDIC T 30 50 15 30 15 40 25

41 30 2 / 21 Lop Med LDIC T 45 40 15 25 15 40 25

Total 318 795

Legend

TIC = Thinning and Improvement Cut

LDIC = Low Density Improvenent Cut for NIDGS Habitat Improvement

PCT = Precommercial Thin for NIDGS Habitat Improvement


Appendix E


Appendix F

Appendix F – Monitoring

Monitoring Plan Summary Sheets

Program Terrestrial Species

Activity, Practice or Effect Monitor effects of project activities on the northern Idaho ground squirrel.

Project Name Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

Location Payette National Forest, Council Ranger District, Summit Vegetation Management Project Analysis Area, about 25 air miles northwest of Council, Idaho.

Objectives 1) Determine if habitat enhancement project which expanded the amount of

suitable habitat, road closures, and the opening of a dispersal corridor are benefiting the Summit/Tree Farm metapopulation of northern Idaho ground squirrels.

2) Determine effectiveness of project design features and mitigation measures for the northern Idaho ground squirrels.

Parameters Monitoring will focus on changes in habitat suitability, and population of the of the northern Idaho ground squirrels in the Summit/Tree Farm metapopulation area. Visual observations of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures before, during, and after implementation would be completed.

Methodology Visual observations of habitat and population changes.

Frequency/Duration Beginning in the spring following project activities, field-check all habitat enhancement units twice during the April to June period and twice again July to August for evidence of population expansion. The following two years, check each unit once during the same two periods. A total of three years of monitoring the expansion of the population should be sufficient. Effectiveness of mitigation measures should be reviewed at least weekly, if harvest activities take place during the time that the northern Idaho ground squirrel is active above ground (April through August).

Data Storage Council Ranger District

Analysis Comparison of current conditions with post-treatment conditions and extent of population recovery for the metapopulation.

Report Summary report will be provided to the District Ranger

Cost

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project EA F-1

Appendix F

About $2,000 the first year and about $1,000 each year for the following two years

Responsible Individual Journey Level Wildlife Biologist and biological technician

Responsible Official Mary Farnsworth, Council District Ranger

Prepared by Lon Schultz, Wildlife Biologist

Date April 25, 2005

F-2 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project EA

Appendix F

Program Soil & Water

Activity, Practice or Effect Project Monitoring, Timber Management, Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring of Timber BMPs and SWCPs.

Project Name Summit Gulch

Location Council Ranger District, Bear Creek Watershed. National Forest System lands located in Townships 19N, Range 3W, in all or portions of sections 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34, and Township 20N, Range 3W, in all or portions of sections 3,4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 17, Boise Meridian

Objectives 1. Determine if BMPs and SWCPs are being implemented.

2. Determine if BMPs and SWCPs are effective.

3. Evaluate levels of detrimental soil disturbance in harvest units to assess compliance with forest plan standards.

4. Determine if specific mitigation measures/design features identified in the NEPA document have been carried forward to the Timber Sale Contract and implemented on the ground. These include:

Use of designated skid trails in all ground based units Re-use/designation of existing skid trails (as feasible) to limit creation of

additional areas of DD On slopes less than 35% primary skid trail designation would maintain an

average spacing of 300 feet, and secondary (lateral) skidtrail spacing of 100 feet.

On slopes between 35-45% all equipment would be confined to primary designated skidtrails located an average of 300 feet apart and all logs would be lined/winched to these primary trails.

Closer spacing on complex terrain would be allowed with advanced approval by the timber sale administrator.

Equipment operations would be limited to dry (<20% soil moisture) or frozen/snow covered conditions.

Detrimentally disturbed skid trails would be reclaimed following harvest. Reclamation would include sub-soiling to ameliorate compaction, scattering of organic matter to provide a minimum of 50% effective ground cover and seeding with native species as needed

Random skidding would be allowed on slopes less than 35% only during snow covered/frozen soil conditions.

No equipment operation within 200 feet of streams except on existing roads. No harvest within riparian conservation areas (120 foot on intermittent, 240

feet on perennial streams


Appendix F

Parameters Planned monitoring includes specific BMP and SWCP requirements for Watershed Management, Vegetation Manipulation, Timber, Roads and Trails. The special mitigation measures/design features, identified in the NEPA document, will also be listed on the BMP checklist (See above.).

Methodology The BMPs and site-specific mitigation measures will be monitored through qualitative field observations and some quantitative measurements of slope, distance and amount of areas detrimental disturbance. Field forms and on-site photographs will be evaluated for reporting monitoring results.

The Zone Hydrologists and Sale Administrator will review the NEPA document and other appropriate documentation in the office. Any special mitigation measures will be listed on the BMP checklist. The BMPs will be visually inspected during harvest activities and at the end of the operating season. Sale Administrators Daily Diary Log and Engineering Reports will also be reviewed to ensure tracking and compliance.

Frequency The majority of the monitoring will take place in FY-06 and/or FY 07. Where revegetation is specified in BMP’s monitoring will need to be conducted twice. The first year for implementation and the second year for effectiveness, allowing one snowmelt and spring runoff to occur.

Duration Two years, to be re-evaluated at that time.

Data Storage The results will be written up and included in the annual westzone and forest monitoring results publication, and the data stored in Soil and Water files on the district. Photos taken during monitoring will be stored on the district, with the results.

Analysis BMP monitoring forms, field notes, on-site photographs will be analyzed to answer the following questions:

1. Which of the Soil and Water BMPs were implemented?

2. Which of the Soil and Water BMPs appear to be effective at this time?

3. Do any of the Soil and Water BMPs need to be modified or improved?

4. Were the special mitigation measures/design features implemented, and do they appear to be effective at this time?

Results will be used to validate contract compliance along with recommending any modifications needed for any BMP &/or SWCP practices. Recommendations may include additional mitigation measures to be completed, timing and application of BMPs, and actual construction modifications.

Report The report will follow the format of the monitoring results data form put together for the Payette National Forest.


Appendix F

Cost The total cost will be about $3000. This covers a GS-6 Hydro-Tech for 5 days to collect field data. This also includes 5 days for a GS-5 Hydro-Tech for field review of the timber sale activities and 3 days for a GS-11 to review the EA, TS Contract, TSA daily diaries, etc. and prepare the final document. Additional costs include $200 to mileage for vehicles, and minor office supplies.

Personnel One GS-6 Hydro-Technician, one GS-5 Hydro-Technician, and one GS-11 Zone Hydrologist.

Responsible Individual Zone Hydrologist and Hydrologic-Technician


Prepared by Bill Gamble, West Zone Hydrologist Date: 3/17/05


Appendix F

Program Soil & Water

Activity, Practice or Effect Project Monitoring, Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring. of Watershed Improvement Activities

Project Name Summit Gulch Watershed Improvement/Road Decommissioning

Location Council Ranger District, Bear Creek Watershed. National Forest System lands located in Townships 19N, Range 3W, in all or portions of sections 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34, and Township 20N, Range 3W, in all or portions of sections 3,4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 17, Boise Meridian

Objectives Determine effectiveness of decommissioning methods on approximately 5.2 miles of unclassified road and 1.8 miles of long-term closure. Methods include: de-compacting the road surface, re-contouring to natural slope profile (as much as possible) to disperse runoff, spreading slash over disturbed surfaces and seeding/straw mulching within riparian areas, pulling culverts and restoring stable bank angles.

Parameters Visual evidence of surface erosion,

Digital photographs

Type and percent ground cover

Methodology Effectiveness monitoring will be accomplished through field verification of the planned treatments including:

Establishing photo points Heel toe transects at photo points Visual inspection of erosion/sedimentation

Frequency Implementation monitoring would occur during year of implementation (estimated FY 06). Effectiveness monitoring will occur once during the FY-07 field season and depending upon findings possibly again at the third year (FY-09) and fifth year (FY-11) interval.

Duration Up to five years.

Data Storage District files.

Analysis Field documentation and on-site photographs before and after project implementation.


Appendix F

Report The written report will follow the format of the monitoring results data form developed on the Payette National Forest.

Cost First year cost ~$3000 then $1500 per year for subsequent years.

Personnel One GS-5 Hydro-Technician, one GS-6 Hydro-Technician, one GS-11 Hydrologist.

Responsible Individual West Zone Hydrologist and Hydrological Technicians


Prepared by Bill Gamble, West Zone Hydrologist Date: 08/01/05


Appendix F


Program Fire and Fuels

Activity, Practice or Effect Evaluate fuel conditions in fuel treatment units. This includes pre and post treatment levels of course woody debris, pre and post burn duff and litter depth and post burn tree mortality. Report acres of hazardous fuels treated through the National Fire Plan Operations and reporting System (NFPORS).

Project Name Pole Creek Vegetation Management Project

Location Fuel Treatment Units in the project area

Objective Ensure that fuel loadings, tree mortality, and coarse woody debris guidelines are within acceptable limits, and that project accomplishments are reported.

Parameters Specifications within the EA for fuel loading, tree mortality, forest plan desired conditions for coarse woody debris, and NFPORS handbook.

Methodology On site permanent plots of fuel levels pre and post treatment. On site observations and photos of tree mortality.

Frequency/Duration Post burn monitoring will be done immediately following prescribed fire operations for cwd, fuel loading, and duff/ litter depth. Monitoring of post burn mortality will be done after one year and again the following year.

Data Storage District fuels and/or soil management folders and NFPORS database.

Analysis/Report Standard CWD monitoring sheets and NFPORS report form.

Cost 5 days @ $150/day = $750.

Personnel District fire/fuel specialist, and silviculturist

Responsible Individual District fuels specialist.

Responsible Official Mary Farnsworth, Council District Ranger.

Prepared by: Shelly Lewis, Fuels Specialist Date: May 4, 2005

Appendix G

Appendix G – Management Direction

Introduction Chapter 2, Table 2-4 has a list of Mitigation Measures/Project Design features for this project with the relevent Forest Plan Standard/Guideline (when applicable). These Standards and Guidelines are listed below.

Management Direction for Soil, Water, and Aquatic Resources Type Number Direction Description

SWST01

Management actions shall be designed in a manner that maintains or restores water quality to fully support beneficial uses and native and desired non-native fish species and their habitat, except as allowed under SWRA Standard #4. Use the MATRIX located in Appendix B (Forest Plan) to assist in determining compliance with this standard.

SWST02

Management activities that may affect soil detrimental disturbance (DD) shall meet the following requirements: In an activity area where existing conditions of DD are below 15 percent of the area, management activities shall leave the area in a condition of 15 percent or less detrimental disturbance following completion of the activities. In an activity area where existing conditions of DD exceed 15 percent of the area, management activities shall include mitigation and restoration so that DD levels are moved back toward 15 percent or less following completion of the activities. To estimate soil DD, it is essential that the glossary definitions for activity area, detrimental soil disturbance and total soil resource commitment (TSRC) are clearly understood.

SWST03

Management activities that may affect TSRC shall meet the following requirements: In an activity area where existing conditions of TSRC are below 5 percent of the area, management activities shall leave the area in a condition of 5 percent or less TSRC following completion of the activities. In an activity area where existing conditions of TSRC exceed 5 percent of the area, management activities shall include mitigation and restoration so that TSRC levels are moved back toward 5 percent or less following completion of the activities. To estimate TSRC, it is essential that the glossary definitions for activity area, detrimental soil disturbance and total soil resource commitment are clearly understood.

SWST04

Management actions will neither degrade nor retard attainment of properly functioning soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions, except: Where outweighed by demonstrable short- or long-term benefits to watershed resource conditions; or Where the Forest Service has limited authority (e.g., access roads, hydropower, etc.). In these cases, the Forest Service shall work with permittee(s) to minimize the degradation of watershed resource conditions. Use the MATRIX located in Appendix B (Forest Plan) to assist in determining compliance with this standard.

Standards

SWST10

Trees or snags that are felled within RCAs must be left unless determined not to be necessary for achieving soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions. Felled trees or snags left in RCAs shall be left intact unless resource protection (e.g., the risk of insect infestation is unacceptable) or public safety requires bucking them into smaller pieces.

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project G-1

Appendix G

Management Direction for Soil, Water, and Aquatic Resources

Type Number Direction Description

Standards SWST11

Do not authorize storage of fuels and other toxicants or refueling within RCAs unless there are no other alternatives. Storage of fuels and other toxicants or refueling sites within RCAs shall be approved by the responsible official and have an approved spill containment plan commensurate with the amount of fuel.

SWGU05

After completion of ground-disturbing activities in a watershed, the minimum ground cover should be sufficient to prevent erosion from exceeding the range of soil erosion rates that are characteristic of the local soil type, landform, climate, and vegetation of the area, or the soil-loss tolerance.

SWGU08 Proposed actions analyzed under NEPA should adhere to the State Nonpoint Source Management Plan to best achieve consistency with both Sections 313 and 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Guidelines

SWGU11 Transport hazardous materials on the Forest in accordance with 49 CFR 171 in order to reduce the risk of spills of toxic materials and fuels during transport through RCAs.

Management Direction for Wildlife Resources Type Number Direction Description

WIST01

Maintain at least 20 percent of the acres within each forested PVG found in a watershed (5th field HU) in large tree size class (medium tree size class for PVG 10, persistent lodgepole pine). Where analysis of available datasets indicates that the large tree size class (medium tree size class in PVG 10) for a potential vegetation group in a watershed (5th field HU), is less than 20 percent of the total PVG acres, management actions shall not decrease the current area occupied by the large tree size class, except when: a) Fine or site/project scale analysis indicates the quality or quantity of large tree size class for a PVG within the 5th field HU would not contribute to habitat distribution or connective corridors for TEPCS and MIS species in short or long-term, and b) Management actions that cause a reduction in the area occupied by the large tree size class would not degrade or retard attainment of desired vegetation conditions in the short or long-term as described in Appendix A, including snags and coarse woody debris.

WIST05 In goshawk territories with known active nest stands, identify alternate and replacement nest stands during project-level planning when it is determined that the proposed activity is likely to degrade nest stand habitat.

Standards

WIST06 Mitigate human-caused disturbances within winter/spring ranges if disturbances cause displacement of wildlife while they are occupying those ranges.

G-2 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

Appendix G

Management Direction for Wildlife Resources


WIGU01

Vegetation management should consider the following habitat conditions or features:

a) The amount, quality, and distribution of habitats, b) Fragmentation within habitats, c) Juxtaposition and connectivity to other habitats, d) The influence of road-related degradation, and

Ecosystem processes that develop and modify habitat.

WIGU07 Use appropriate research to help define active, alternate, and replacement nest stands for goshawks, and configuration of post-fledging areas.

WIGU08 Big game vulnerability to road related mortality should be evaluated during mid-, fine- or site/project-level travel management planning to help assess effects of potential travel management decisions on state population objectives.

WIGU12 Calving and fawning areas should be protected from project-related disturbance during big game calving or fawning. Calving/fawning areas and periods should be determined during site/project-level planning.

Guidelines

WIGU13

To address big game vulnerability to mortality, components of habitat security should be identified and managed during project planning and implementation. Management requirements or mitigation measures needed to maintain these components should be determined during site/project-level planning. Consider components such as big game wallows and licks, public access, wildlife travel routes, created openings, meadows, forested stringers, and winter/spring ranges.

Management Direction for Vegetation Type Number Direction Description

VEGU01

During site/project-scale analysis, tradeoffs in the achievement of one or more of the vegetative components described in Appendix A may need to be considered. Current conditions of the vegetation may necessitate the need to move one component away from the desired condition in order to move another one toward the desired condition. In these situations, decisions should be based not only on which vegetative component is important to emphasize at any point in time to meet resource objectives, but also how to effectively move all components toward their desired condition over the long term.

VEGU02

Prior to developing vegetative management project proposals whose purpose is to maintain or restore live vegetative components described in Appendix A, a vegetative assessment at the watershed scale (5th field HU) using available forest level datasets (e.g., LANDSAT) should be completed to describe current vegetative conditions and identify opportunities for treatment. A scale other than watershed may be used where it is determined that a different reference area is more appropriate for identifying opportunities for a specific type of treatment.

Guidelines

VEGU03

When coarse woody debris (CWD) in the larger size classes (>15” diameter) is not available for retention in an activity area, smaller size classes (< 6”diameter) may or may not be utilized to meet desired tonnage levels described in Appendix A. Decisions on the amount of CWD in smaller classes that are retained, whether the larger size classes are available or not, should be based on the level of fire hazard risk that can be reasonably assumed in light of management objectives. Risk as it relates to both the activity area and adjacent areas should be considered.


Appendix G

Management Direction for Non-native Plants


NPST01 Only certified noxious weed-free hay, straw, or feed is allowed on National Forest System lands.

NPST02 All seed used on National Forest System lands will be certified to be free of seeds from noxious weeds listed on the current All States Noxious Weeds List.

NPST03

To prevent invasion/expansion of noxious weeds, the following provisions will be included in all special use authorizations, timber sale contracts, service contracts, or operating plans where land-disturbing activities are associated with the authorized land use (additional direction may be found in timber sale and service contract provisions and in Forest Service handbooks): Revegetate areas, as designated by the Forest Service, where the soil has been exposed by ground-disturbing activity. Implement other measures, as designated by the Forest Service, to supplement the influence of re-vegetation in preventing the invasion or expansion of noxious weeds. Potential areas would include: construction and development sites, underground utility corridors, skid trails, landings, firebreaks, slides, slumps, temporary roads, cut and fill slopes, and traveledways of specified roads. Earth-disturbing equipment used on National Forest System lands--such as cats, graders, and front-loaders--shall be cleaned to remove all visible plant parts, dirt, and material that may carry noxious weed seeds. Cleaning shall occur prior to entry onto the project area and again upon leaving the project area, if the project area has noxious weed infestations. This also applies to fire suppression earth-disturbing equipment contracted after a WFSA/WFIP has been completed.

NPST04

Contractors, with the exception of fire suppression prior to completion of WFSA/WFIP, shall be required to clean earth-disturbing, construction, and road maintenance equipment, of all sizes, to remove all plant parts, dirt, and material that may carry noxious weed seeds, prior to entry onto the Forest, or movement from one Forest project area to another.

NPST06

Materials such as hay, straw, or mulch that are used for rehabilitation and reclamation activities shall be free of noxious weed seed, and shall comply with the 1995 weed-free forage special order against use of non-certified hay, straw, or mulch. Materials that are not covered under a weed seed free certification, and that have the potential to contain noxious weed seed, shall be inspected and determined to be free of weed seed before purchase and use.

NPST07 Source sites for gravel and borrow materials shall be inspected for noxious weeds before materials are processed, used, or transported from the source site into the project area or onto the National Forest.

NPST08 Gravel or borrow material source sites with noxious weed species present shall not be used, unless effective treatment or other mitigation measures are implemented.

Standards

NPST10 Projects that may contribute to the spread or establishment of noxious weeds shall include measures to reduce the potential for spread and establishment of noxious weed infestations.

NPGU01 Noxious weeds and undesirable non-native plants should be eradicated. Where it is not practical to eradicate existing infestations, infestations should be managed to prevent seed production and spread.

NPGU02 Clean borrow and gravel sources on Forest should be maintained as noxious weed free through an inspection and treatment program. Off-Forest inspections and treatments should be coordinated with county weed agents.

Guidelines

NPGU03

Identify areas with extensive noxious weed infestations where precautionary actions are necessary when planning and implementing management activities. In areas of extensive weed infestations, designated wash sites should be established as part of project planning. Wash sites should be located: (1) where they are easily accessible and useable, (2) on gravelly or well-drained soils, (3) where wash water runoff will not carry seeds away from site, (4) where wash water runoff will not directly enter streams, and (5) where they may be used repeatedly for several projects or activities within the area.


Appendix G

Management Direction for Non-native Plants Type Number Direction Description

NPGU05

Noxious weed management should determine the presence, location, and amount of noxious weed infestations. Management strategies should also identify: Methods and frequency for treating infestations, Treatment procedures and restrictions, Reporting requirements, and Follow-up or monitoring requirements.

Management Direction for Timberland Resources Type Number Direction Description

Guidelines TRGU01

Provide long-term protection of conifer plantations by any one, or a combination of the following, or similar, actions within and adjacent to plantations:

a) Release and weeding to control competing vegetation, b) Thinning to control stand density, c) Brush disposal to reduce fuel loading, d) Prescribed fire (underburning) to reduce fuel loading, fuel ladders, and

understory vegetation, e) Animal damage control.

These and other activities should be integrated with other resource management objectives to provide protection against undesirable effects of fire, insects, and disease.

Management Direction for Scenic Environment Type Number Direction Description

SCGU03 To meet fgR, visibility of stumps should be mitigated. There should be a general lack of visible ground disturbance.

SCGU04

Slash and harvest residues remaining after project completion should appear to be naturally occurring downed material in fgR and mostly naturally occurring downed material in fgPR. Techniques to mitigate visibility of slash include lopping to low heights, burning, physically removing material excess to other resource needs, and dispersing concentrations.

SCGU05

Most timber changes in mgR should be textural, with some small, simulated natural openings where openings already occur, or a limited number of small natural-appearing openings that are developed normally over two or more harvest entries.

Guidelines

SCGU06 Ridgeline silhouettes in mgR, mgPR, and bgR should not have unnatural-appearing breaks along them.


Appendix G


Management Direction for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species

Type Number Direction Description TEST03 Design and implement projects to meet the terms of Forest Service approved

portions of recovery plans. If a recovery plan does not yet exist, use the best information available (for example, BAs, BOs, letters of concurrence, Forest Service-approved portions of Conservation Strategies) until a recovery plan is written and approved.

TEST06 Management actions shall be designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed species and their habitats. For listed fish species, use Appendix B for determining compliance with this standard.

Standards

TEST12

Mitigate, through avoidance or minimization, management actions within known nest or denning sites of TEPC species if those actions would disrupt reproductive success during the nesting or denning period. During project planning, determine sites, periods, and appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or minimize effects.

TEGU01 Discretionary actions should avoid take of listed species, and actions where the Forest’s discretion is limited should minimize adverse effects that could lead to a take.

TEGU06 Coordinate with Forest resource specialists to consider TEPC habitat needs when designing and implementing management activities that may affect TEPC species and their habitats.

Guidelines

TEGU14 For watersheds with listed aquatic species, essential fish habitat, or designated critical habitat, transportation system design criteria for fish passage should be coordinated with NMFS or USFWS, as appropriate.

Management Direction for Botanical Resources Type Number Direction Description

Standards BTST01 Management actions that occur within occupied sensitive plant species habitat must incorporate measures to ensure habitat is maintained where it is within desired conditions, or restored where degraded.

Appendix H

Appendix H – Cumulative Effects

Introduction

This appendix discloses actions considered in the cumulative effects sections of resources in Chapter 3*.

Table H-1. Actions That May Be Considered in the Cumulative Effects Analysis for the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

Action Description Date Past

Timber harvest on National Forest System land

Timber harvest has occurred on an estimated 19,569 acres within the 5th field HU during the last 46 years. Recent past actions (last 10 years) within the Bear Creek Watershed 5th field HU include Chips Ahoy, Hot Licks, Long Shot, Lookout Salvage, Mickey Creek, Parkaye, Thorn Creek, Thorny Creek, Squirrel Pen, and Little Squirrel (a northern Idaho ground squirrel habitat improvement project).

Numerous past timber sales in the project area including: Calf Pen Gulch (1966), Calf (1967). Gabbert Summit (1973), Calf Pen Progeny (1975), Summit Gulch (1976), Calf Pen (1976-1979), Signature Salute (1984) Shotgun (1985) and Squirrel Pen (1999). In total these sales entered 1835 acres across the project area with a variety of silvicultural prescriptions (salvage/sanitation, commercial thin, shelterwood, clearcut and removal cuts).

1966-1999

Adjacent Private Land Activities

Adjacent land owned by OX Ranch with primary activities being livestock grazing and various recreational uses (fishing, hunting).

National Forest System roads

Road building has generally been in conjunction with past timber harvest with most roads being built in the 1960’s.

Fire Suppression Active fire suppression since the 1930’s Ongoing Fawn Creek Fire Burned 344 acres 1991

Present and/or Ongoing ATV Use Authorized and unauthorized use occurring throughout the

project area. Ongoing

Forest Trails Management of forest trails including erosion work, route signing and maintenance. There are no Forest Trails in the project area.

Ongoing

Recreation Use Camping at numerous dispersed camp sites (June-October) and hunting in the fall months.

Ongoing

Recreation Use Snowmobiling (no groomed trails) (December-February). Ongoing Water Ditches One private ditch from Bear Creek drains into Wikiup Creek.

No diversions in project area Ongoing

Road Maintenance

Cleaning culverts, blading existing roads, brushing right-of-ways.

Ongoing

Livestock management

Management of the Lick Creek C&H Allotment and livestock trailing.

Ongoing

Personal use firewood

Harvest to occur along open roads while adhering to Forest Firewood restrictions within RCAs.

Ongoing

Noxious weeds Treatment of noxious weeds. Ongoing Fire Suppression Active fire suppression will continue under current forest plan

and agency policy. Ongoing

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project H-1

Appendix H

H-2 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

Future

Timber harvest/Precommercial Thinning on National Forest

The current schedule of proposed activities and outyear program of work do not identify further forest management within the project area or subwatershed in the next 5 years.

Prescribed fire on National Forest Lands

Given the desire to maintain grasslands/shrublands, squirrel treatment areas and appropriate condition classes in forested areas, future prescribed fire (underburning) is likely.

Improve System Trails

Maintenance off existing designated system recreation trails. Ongoing

Upper Bear Timber Sale

Manage vegetation on 1,668 acres Bid awarded September 2004

Lick Creek Timber Sale

Manage vegetation on 729 acres Contract scheduled for 2006

Fire Suppression

Active fire suppression will continue under current forest plan and agency policy.

Ongoing

Adjacent private Land

No information available/provided on future actions on adjacent private lands. Assume continued grazing and recreational uses.

*Cumulative Effects Analysis varies by resource. Past, Present, Ongoing and Future Actions applicable to each resource’s cumulative effects sections will vary.

Appendix I

Model Forms

FOFEM

MODELING PROGRAM: First Order Fire Effects Model: FOFEM 4.0 –Mortality Sub-model (Reinhardt et al. 1997. First Order Fire Effects Model: FOFEM 4.0, User’s Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-344. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 65 p.)

PURPOSE OF THE MODEL: To make quantitative predictions of first order fire effects for tree mortality, fuel consumption, mineral soil exposure, and smoke. First order fire effects are those that concern the direct or immediate consequences of fire.

METHODOLOGY: FOFEM uses algorithms from existing research to provide predictions on fire effects in an easy-to-use program.

ASSUMPTIONS: Differences in fire-caused tree mortality in trees of differing species and sizes can be accounted for primarily by differences in bark thickness and proportion of tree crown killed. If flame length is used, scorch height and resulting tree mortality will be over predicted with higher windspeeds. In predicting stand mortality, FOFEM assumes a continuous fire.

LIMITATIONS: FOFEM only models fire effects and does not model fire behavior. Tree mortality predictions are limited to western coniferous tree species and aspen greater than 1-inch DBH. Data used to develop predictions were taken primarily from prescribed fires. Some postfire insect interactions are implicitly included in mortality predictions; however, major postfire insect attacks are not modeled.

DATA STORAGE: Inputs/outputs for modeling runs are found in the project record.

OUTPUT: Model output includes fire effects predictions and fire planning recommendations.

PREPARER: Shelly Lewis, AFMO Fuels

DATE: 8/2005

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project I-1

Appendix I

BEHAVE

MODELING PROGRAM: BEHAVE: Fire Behavior Prediction and Fuel Modeling System (Andrews, P.L. 1986. BEHAVE: Fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system—BURN subsystem, Part 1. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-194. Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Ogden, Utah 84401. 130 p.)

PURPOSE OF THE MODEL: To provide real-time prediction of the behavior of wildfire or prescribed fires.

METHODOLOGY: The fire behavior predictions that come from BEHAVE are based on mathematical models of fire behavior.

ASSUMPTIONS: BEHAVE predicts fire behavior only at the flaming front. It assumes that the primary driving force in the flaming front is dead fuel less than one-fourth inch in diameter. It assumes that the residence time of the flame at a given point is a function only of the characteristic surface-area-to-volume ratio of the fuel array. It describes fires that are independent of the source of ignition. Fuel, fuel moisture, wind, and slope are assumed constant.


LIMITATIONS: The BEHAVE model can only be applied to fires spreading through surface fuels. Projection times should be limited to 2-to 4-hour periods.

OUTPUT: Model outputs include rate of spread, heat per unit area, fireline intensity, flame length, reaction intensity, and effective windspeed.


DATE: 8/2005

I-2 Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project

Appendix I

Crown Fire Assessment for Fuels Managers MODELING PROGRAM: Crown Fire Assessment for Fuels Managers (Reinhardt et al. 1999. Crown fire assessment for fuels managers. Version 0.0.5. Excel Spreadsheet)

PURPOSE OF THE MODEL: To quantitatively characterize crown fuels from existing stand data and assess the potential for crown fires at the stand level.

METHODOLOGY: Crown Fire Assessment for Fuels Managers links existing models of surface and crown fire behavior to produce a system of models with which to assess the potential for crown fire.

ASSUMPTIONS: Crown Fire Assessment for Fuels Managers uses Anderson’s (1982) fuel models. Crown calculations are based on standardized characteristics for tree species, DBH, tree height, and crown ratio.


LIMITATIONS: Crown fire characterization is an average of real-time stand conditions, and is entirely based on stand inputs.

OUTPUT: Model output includes type of fire, total crown loading, crown bulk density, crown base height, stand basal area, and final rate of spread.


DATE: 8/2005


Appendix I

Fuels Management Analyst (FMA) Plus, CrownMass MODELING PROGRAM: Fuels Management Analyst (FMA) Plus (Fire Program Solutions/Acacia Services. 1999-2001. Fuels Management Analyst (FMA) Plus Edition 1.2.20).

PURPOSE OF THE MODEL: The purpose of the CrownMass program within Fuels Management Analyst Plus is: to facilitate the calculation of the loading of foliage and woody biomass in tree species from plot data consisting of a minimum of tree species, tree diameter breast high, tree height, tree canopy ratio and tree structural stage, the calculation and display of the vertical fuel profile within tree crowns by one foot segments, the estimation of crown fire assessment parameters such as stand height, canopy base height and canopy bulk density, and the calculation and display of the vertical fuel profile within tree crowns.

METHODOLOGY: The CrownMass program uses a process developed at the Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory to estimate the canopy base height, the canopy ceiling height, and the canopy bulk density. This process requires the assignment of the Running Mean Window, 1-hr Contribution to Crown Fire and the Critical Canopy Bulk Density. CrownMass also contains algorithms based on the work of Alexander (1988), Ryan and Reinhardt (1988), Beukema et al. (1999) Rothermel (1972), Andrews (1986), Andrews (1989) and Finney (1998).

ASSUMPTIONS: CrownMass assumes that a fire will spread vertically through the densest portion of the canopy. To use the native segment bulk densities can yield a rather discontinuous distribution of segment bulk densities so a running mean of these values is calculated. The default number of segments used for this running mean is 15. The maximum of this running mean is the value used by CrownMass as canopy bulk density.

1-hr Contribution to Crown Fire: From the tree list data input, the weight is determined for the needle and the 1-hour time lag live and the 1-hour time lag dead fuel categories. Current assumptions (Reinhardt et. al. 2000) are that the needle fuel loading and 50% of the 1-hour time lag crown fuel loading contribute to the flaming portion of crown fire. The proportion of the 1-hour time lag crown fuel loading that contributes to the flaming portion of crown fire can be set here. The program default is 0.50. The sum of the needle fuel loading and the assumed proportion of 1-hour time lag fuel loading will be referred to as the crowning assessment canopy fuel (CACF).

Critical Canopy Bulk Density: The canopy base height and the canopy ceiling height are determined by CrownMass as the lowest and highest segments respectively where the running mean segment bulk density is greater than the minimum crown bulk density to sustain vertical propagation of fire.


LIMITATIONS: Canopy bulk density characterizations are an average of real-time stand conditions, and are entirely based on stand inputs.

OUTPUT: Model output includes the determination of canopy base height and canopy bulk density. From this information, effects of varying management strategies of tree density and surface fuel loading can be assessed to estimate the attainment of proposed or defined management objectives.

PREPARER: Shelly Lewis, AFMO Fuels DATE: 8/2005


Appendix I

Model Form - NEXUS

MODELING PROGRAM: NEXUS is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet initially implemented in 1998, and updated in 2001. Further information on the program can be obtained from Scott & Reinhardt (2001).

PURPOSE OF THE MODEL: The purpose of NEXUS is to assess the potential for crown fires at the stand level by linking existing models of surface and crown fire behavior.

METHODOLOGY: NEXUS uses algorithms from existing research to assess crown fire potential in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

ASSUMPTIONS: NEXUS assumes the Rothermel crown model estimates the spread rate of fully-active crown fires. The correlation simulates the flame front spread rate alone, without the effect of spotting. However, the observed spread rates used in the correlation include the effect of short- and medium- spotting on overall fire spread rate. Also, the average spread rate from Rothermel is used, instead of the maximum.

LIMITATIONS: Due to a lack of high-quality validation data, NEXUS methods have not been validated. Users should apply results cautiously.


OUTPUT: Relevant model outputs include type of fire, rates of spread, and flame lengths.


DATE: 8/2005


Appendix I


SINMAP

MODELING PROGRAM: SINMAP (Stability Index MAPing) is an Arcview extension that implements the computation and mapping of a slope stability index based on geographic information, primarily digital elevation data. The program was developed in 1998 by Utah State University, Terratech Consulting LTD., Canadian Forest Products LTD, and C.N. Goodwin Fluvial System Consulting. Funding was provided by the Canadian government. Further information on the program can be obtained from http://www.crwr.utexas.edu/gis/gishydro99/uwrl/sinmap.htm

PURPOSE OF THE MODEL: The purpose of SINMAP is to provide an objective terrain stability mapping tool for use in areas that experience shallow translational landsliding.

METHODOLOGY: SINMAP uses digital elevation data to model ground water convergence coupled with ground slope to compute and map a stability index based on the infinite slope stability equation. Local landslide data is used to calibrate the model to local conditions.

ASSUMPTIONS: Landslides mapped on the Payette Forest on similar geology and landform may be used to calibrate the SINMAP model in areas where no inventoried landslides are available for calibrating the model.

LIMITATIONS: The accuracy of the model is limited by the accuracy and the pixel size of the digital elevation model. A pixel size of 30 meters was used


OUTPUT: Slope stability index map

PREPARER: Michael Dixon, Civil Engineer

DATE: 8/2005

Appendix J

Appendix J – Road Management

Figure J-1: Road Management in the Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Analysis Area (excluding private land)

Summit Gulch Vegetation Management Project J-1

Appendix G

J-2 Lick Creek Vegetation Management Project EA

summit gulch agriculture vegetation management...

Documents