Elk Rice Project. Environmental Assessment. April Kootenai National Forest Cabinet Ranger District. Sanders County, Montana

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Region Environmental Assessment Elk Rice Project Kootenai National Forest Cabinet Ranger District Sanders County, Montana April 2017

2

3 Elk Rice Project Environmental Assessment Lead Agency: Responsible Official: Responsible for EA Preparation: For Information Contact: USDA Forest Service Christopher S. Savage, Forest Supervisor Kootenai National Forest US Highway 2 Libby, MT John Gubel, District Ranger Cabinet Ranger District 2693 MT Highway 200 Trout Creek, MT Miles Friend, Project Leader Cabinet Ranger District 2693 MT Highway 200 Trout Creek, MT mfriend@fs.fed.us Telephone: (406) USDA Non-Discrimination Policy Statement DR USDA Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy (June 2, 2015) In accordance with federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

4 Data Accuracy The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those, for which they were created, may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification. For more information, contact: the Cabinet Ranger District at 2693 Highway 200, Trout Creek, Montana, 59874; or call at (406)

5 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Purpose and Need... 1 Location of the Proposed Project Area... 1 Healthy Forest Restoration Act 2014 Farm Bill... 3 Purpose and Need for Action... 5 Chapter 2 Alternatives Alternative Descriptions Design Criteria Alternatives 2 and Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences Air Quality Aquatic Habitat and Species Cultural Resources Economics Fire and Fuels Forest Vegetation Invasive Plant Species Inventoried Roadless and Unroaded Areas Other Resources PTES Plants Scenic Resources Soils Transportation Water Resources Wildlife Sensitive Species American Peregrine Falcon Bald Eagle Black-Backed Woodpecker Fisher Flammulated Owl Gray Wolf Harlequin Duck Townsend s Big-Eared Bat Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species North American Wolverine Grizzly Bear Lynx Management Indicator Species Elk Migratory Birds Appendices i

6 Map 1: Activities in the Beaver Peak Area for Alternative Map 2: Activities in the Beaver Peak Area for Alternative Map 3: Activities in the Rice Draw Area for Alternative Map 4: Activities in the Rice Draw Area for Alternative Map 5: Activities in the East Fork Area for Alternative Map 6: Activities in the East Fork Area for Alternative Map 7: IRAs and Unroaded Areas Map 8: Root Disease Hazard Rating Map 9: Old Growth and Recruitment Potential Old Growth Appendix B Best Management Practices Appendix C Treatment Summary Tables Appendix D Access Management Plan Appendix E Monitoring Plan for the Elk Rice Project Appendix F Literature Cited Appendix G Response to Public Comments Table of Tables Table 1. Harvest and Other Vegetation Treatments Table 2. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Unit Specific Treatments Table 3. Openings Over 40 Acres in Alternative Table 4 Proposed Roadwork for the Elk Rice Project in Alternative Table 5. Alternative 3 Unit Specific Treatments Table 6. Summary table of road storage and decommissioning Table 7. Proposed Road Storage Work in the Elk Rice Project Area Table 8. National Forest System Roads Proposed for Decommissioning Table 9. Undetermined Roads to be Decommissioned Table 10. Undetermined Roads to be added to the National Forest System Table 11. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue Indicator Table 12. Comparison of Proposed Activities by Alternative Table 13. Comparison of Purpose and Need Objectives by Alternative Table 14. Comparison of Similar Openings Over 40 Acres between Alternative 2 and Table 15. Required Road BMP Work to Maintain and Protect Water Resource Values Table 16. Preferred CWD by Biophysical Setting in the Elk Rice Project Area Table 17. Land Ownership by Total Acres and Percent within the Elk Rice Project Area Table 18. Summary of Past, Current, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Table 19. Modeled Particulate Production Pretreatment vs Post Treatment for Alternative 2 86 Table 20. Modeled Particulate Production Pretreatment vs Post Treatment for Alternative 3 87 Table 21. Modeled Particulate Production for Alternative Table 22. Modeled Particulate Production for Alternative Table 23. Probability of Wind Direction that would Affect Areas of Concern Table 24. RHCA Categories and Standard Widths in the 2015 Forest Plan Table 25. Interim Riparian Management Objective standards by stream width Table 26. Sensitive Aquatic Species on the Kootenai National Forest (USDA-FS 2011) Table 27. Existing RMOs for Elk Creek, East Fork Elk Creek, and Deer Creek Table 28. Existing temperature RMO for East Fork Elk Creek, Deer Creek, and West Fork Elk Creek Table 29. PIBO Effectiveness Monitoring Program Index of Physical Habitat Integrity Table 30. Project Feasibility and Financial Efficiency Summary (2016 dollars) Table 31. Elk Rice Project Expenditures ii

7 Table 32. Annual Average Employment and Labor Income Contributions from all Project Activities Table 33. Fire/Fuels 2015 Forest Plan Desired Condition Table 34. Fire/Fuels Forest Plan Objectives Table 35. Geographic Area Desired Condition Table 36. MA6 Guidelines Table 37. Fire Regime Condition Class Table 38. Fire Regime Groups Summary Table within Elk Rice Treatment Areas Table 39. Existing Fuel Models and Crown Fire Potential in the Elk Rice Project Area Table 40. Current CBH and CBD Ranges in the Treatment Areas Table 41. Existing and Post-Treatment Fuel Models and Crown Fire Potential Table 42. Existing and Post-Treatment Fuel Models and Crown Fire Potential - Alternative Table 43. Suppression Capabilities Based on Flame Length by Alternative Table 44. Summary: CBH, CBD, and Crowning Index by Alternative Table 45. Acres Treated in the WUI for each Alternative Table 46. Desired Forest Composition, Structure, and Patterns by Biophysical Setting Table 47. Resource Indicators and Measures Table 48. Resource Indicators and Measures for the Existing Condition Table 49. Correlation between Oliver and Larson and Losensky as they relate to forest structure Table 50. FHP Summary of Root Disease Severity by Habitat Type (Potential Vegetation Type) Table 51. Comparison of Resource Indicators and Measures by Alternative Table 52. Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Noxious Weeds Table 53. Resource Indicators and Measures for the Existing Condition Table 54. Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative Table 55. Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects under Alternative Table 56. Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative Table 57. Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects under Alternative Table 58. Summary Comparison of Environmental Effects to Noxious Weeds by Alternative Table 59. Roadless Designation Acres Table 60. Crosswalk between Wilderness Attributes 1 and Roadless Area Characteristics Table 61. Roadless Characteristics and Descriptions Table 62. Wilderness Characteristics and Descriptions Table 63. Kootenai NF Management Area Designations for IRAs or Unroaded Areas Table 64. Harvest Unit Description Relevant to Unroaded Areas Table 65. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Table 66. NFS trails in or near the Elk Rice Project Area Table 67. Special Uses within the Elk Rice Project Area Table 68. ROS Class, Acreages and Percentages for Alternative Table 69. ROS Class, Acreages and Percentages for Alternative Table 70. PTES Guiding Documents Table 71. PTES Plant Species Biological Evaluation Summary for the Elk Rice Project Area Table 72. PTES Plant Species Known or Suspected in the Elk Rice Project Area Table 73. Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects Table 74. Resource Indicators and Measures for the Alternatives Table 75. Summary Comparison of Environmental Effects to PTES Plant Resources Table 76. Scenic Integrity Descriptions iii

8 Table 77. Acres of Management by Scenic Integrity Table 78. Acres of Treatment by SIO and MA Alternative Table 79. Acres of Treatment by Prescription and Type Alternative Table 80. Acres of Treatment by SIO and MA Alternative Table 81. Acres of Treatment by Prescription and Type Alternative Table 82. Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking Southeast (23 ) Table 83. Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking Southeast (23 ) Table 84. Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking South (58 ) Table 85. Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking South (58 ) Table 86. Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking Southwest (93 ) Table 87. Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking Southwest (93 ) Table 88. Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Gem Peak Viewpoint Looking West Table 89. Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Gem Peak Viewpoint Looking West Table 90. Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking Southwest (227 o ) Table 91. Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking Southwest (227 ) Table 92. Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking West (257 ) Table 93. Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking West (257 ) Table 94. Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking Southeast (167 ) Table 95. Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking Southeast (167 ) Table 96. Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking East (127 ) Table 97. Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking East (127 ) Table 98. Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects Table 99. Monitoring Results of DSD from Management Activities on the Kootenai NF Table 100. Landtypes in the Project Area and Associated Risks of Various Land Management Activities Table 101. Soil Productivity in the Elk Rice Project Area Table 102. Unit Acres on Sensitive Soils Table 103. Existing, During, and Cumulative DSD in Each Proposed Harvest Unit for the Proposed Action and Alternative Table 104. Recommended Levels of CWD* for Proposed Regeneration Timber Treatment 323 Table 105. Transportation Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects Table 106. Elk Rice Road System Existing Conditions Table 107. Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects Table 108. Rosgen Channel Types Identified in the Project Analysis Area Table 109. Rosgen Bed Material Size Categories (from Rosgen 1996) Table 110. Elk Rice Project Area Existing Water Yield Disturbance Factors Table 111. Existing Annual Sediment Contributions from Proposed Haul Routes iv

9 Table 112. Existing Annual Sediment Contributions from Unstable Stream Segments Table 113. Predicted Changes in Disturbance Factors by Alternative Table 114. RHCA Default Buffer Widths Table 115. Haul Route Sediment Reduction by Alternative Table 116. Stream Channel Restoration by Alternative Table 117. Sensitive Species on the Kootenai NF and Status within the Elk-Rice Project Area Table 118. Resource Indicators and findings for Assessing Effects to the Bald Eagle Table 119. Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Wildlife Species Table 120. Resource Indicators, Measures, and Findings to Assess Effects on Wolverine Table 121. Wolverine Habitat Acreage of snow persistent through mid-may by number years it is available Table 122. Resource Indicators, Measures, and Findings for Assessing Effects to Grizzly Bears Table 123. Changes to Grizzly Habitat Parameters by Alternative for the Clark Fork BORZ Polygon Table 124. Detailed Account of Changes to Open and Total Motorized Roads by Alternative Table 125. Undetermined Roads in the BORZ to be added to the National Forest System Table 126. Existing Lynx Habitat in the Elk-Pilgrim LAU Table 127. Existing Snowshoe hare/lynx Habitat Stages within the Elk-Pilgrim LAU Table 128. Proportion of lynx habitat in the LAU in a Stand Initiation phase* Table 129. Snowshoe hare/lynx Habitat within the Elk-Pilgrim LAU converted to an early Stand Initiation Stage through regeneration harvest in the last decade* Table 130. Planned Regeneration Harvest in the LAU on NFS Lands* Table 131. Partners in Flight priority habitats/species for Bird Conservation Region 10 (Partners in Flight 2000) Table 132. Dominant Vegetation Type for the Project Area Organized to Approximate the Partners in Flight Priority Habitats Table of Figures Figure 1. Elk Rice Project Area and Vicinity Map... 2 Figure 2. Beaver Peak, East Fork, and Rice Draw Treatment Areas Figure 3. Maintenance Level 2 road with motor vehicle use restricted by a gate Figure 4. Maintenance Level 1 road with motor vehicle use restricted by a barricade Figure 5. Maintenance Level 1 road blocked to motor vehicles by an earth mound Figure 6. Maintenance Level 1 road blocked to motor vehicles by boulders Figure 7. Maintenance Level 1 road blocked to highway vehicle traffic by posts Figure 8. Maintenance Level 1 road blocked to motor vehicles by natural vegetative overgrowth Figure 9. Land Ownership, Percent of Land Area Figure 10. Population, Percent Change, Figure 11. Employment, Percent Change, Figure 12. Commodity Sectors, Percent of Total Employment, 2014 and 2015** Figure 13. Personal Income (real, adjusted for inflation), Percent Change, Figure 14. Average Earnings per Job, Figure 15. Elk Rice Fire History Figure 16. Fire Regime Definitions Figure 17. Fire Group Definitions v

10 Figure 18. Photo taken (9/2016) in proposed unit 44B in the Beaver Peak area representing Fuel Model Figure 19. Three Key Fuel Factors Contributing to Crown Fires Figure 20. Comparison of Expected Surface Flame lengths in the Proposed Treatment Areas for All Alternatives Figure 21. Comparison of Expected Total Flame Lengths in the Proposed Treatment Areas for All Alternatives Figure 22. Comparison of Expected Crowning Index in the Proposed Treatment Areas for All Alternatives Figure 23. Comparison of Expected Canopy Base Heights in the Proposed Treatment Areas for All Alternatives Figure 24. Comparison of Expected Canopy Bulk Densities in the Proposed Treatment Areas for All Alternatives Figure 25. Desired and Current Forest Composition by Dominance Group at the Forestwide Scale Figure 26. Species Composition in the Elk Rice Analysis Area Figure 27. Viewpoint Locations used to Develop Scenic Simulations Figure 28. Existing Condition from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking Southeast (23 ) Figure 29. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking Southeast (23 ) Figure 30. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking Southeast (23 ) Figure 31. Existing Condition from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking South (58 ) Figure 32. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking South (58 ) Figure 33. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking South (58 ) Figure 34. Existing Condition from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking Southwest (93 ) Figure 35. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking Southwest (93 ) Figure 36. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Dettwiler Viewpoint Looking Southwest (93 ) Figure 37. Existing Condition from the Gem Peak Viewpoint Looking West Figure 38. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternatives 2 and 3 from the Gem Peak Viewpoint Looking West Figure 39. Existing Condition of from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking Southwest (227 o ) 278 Figure 40. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking Southwest (227 o ) Figure 41. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking Southwest (227 ) Figure 42. Existing Condition from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking West (257 ) Figure 43. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking West (257 ) Figure 44. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking West (257 ) Figure 45. Existing Condition from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking Southeast (167 ) Figure 46. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking Southeast (167 ) Figure 47. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking Southeast (167 ) Figure 48. Existing Condition from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking East (127 ) vi

11 Figure 49. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 2 from the Wengerd Viewpoint Looking East (127 ) Figure 50. Simulation of Harvest Units in Alternative 3 from Wengerd Viewpoint Looking East (127 ) Figure 51. Landtypes in the Elk Rice project area Figure 52. Elk Rice Project Boundary Figure 53. Analysis Area for Water Resources in the Elk Rice Project Area Figure 54. Mainstem of Elk Creek Response Reach Figure 55. East Fork of Elk Creek Response Reach Figure 56. Deer Creek Response Reach Figure 57. Rice Draw Response Reach Figure 58. Unstable Streambank Locations along East Fork Elk Creek Figure 59. Project Area and Clark Fork BORZ with IRAs Figure 60. Lynx Habitat in the Elk Rice Project Area vii

12