Boulder Creek Restoration Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Boulder Creek Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests Bonners Ferry Ranger District September 2017

2 For More Information Contact: Doug Nishek Bonners Ferry Ranger District 6286 Main St. Bonners Ferry, ID The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 BCRP Environmental Assessment Contents Introduction - About the Boulder Creek Restoration Project... 1 Where the Project is Located... 1 Why are we proposing this project?... 2 Management Direction from the Forest Plan... 3 Purpose and Need for the Project... 3 Aquatic Resource... 4 Fire and Fuels Resource... 4 Changing Forest Vegetation to Improve Landscape Resiliency... 4 Wildlife Habitat... 4 Recreation and Heritage Resources... 5 Controlling Invasive Plants... 5 Enhancing the Scenic Integrity of the Area... 5 Contributing to the Local Economy... 5 Purpose and Need - Resource Details... 5 Aquatic Resource... 5 Fire and Fuels... 6 Changing Forest Vegetation to Improve Landscape Resiliency... 7 Wildlife Habitat Recreation and Heritage Resources Controlling and Managing Spread of Invasive Plants Enhancing the Scenic Integrity of the Area Contributing to the Local Economy Public Involvement, Comments, and Issues Issues Details of Our Proposed Action Vegetation Management Prescriptions Fuel Reduction Activities Managing the Road System Managing the Road System for Long-Term Transportation and Resource Needs Managing the Road System to Meet Forest Plan Compliance Openings Exceeding 40 Acres Measures Designed to Avoid, Minimize or Mitigate Adverse Effects Alternatives Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Further Opportunities Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Actions and Alternatives Effects to Aquatic Resources Effects to Hydrology Effects to Sediment Delivery Supporting Information Effects to Water Temperature Supporting Information Effects to Road Density Supporting Information Effects to Equivalent Clearcut Area Supporting Information Effects to Fish and Aquatic Habitat Effects to Aquatic Habitat and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Supporting Information Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 3

4 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Effects to Fire and Fuels Effects to Surface Fuels and Flame Lengths Supporting Information Effects to Ladder Fuels and Canopy Base Heights Supporting Information Effects to Canopy Fuels and Potential Crown Fire Activity Supporting Information Cumulative Effects Effects to Forest Vegetation Effects to Forest Composition Supporting Information Effects to Forest Structure Supporting Information Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat Species Relevancy Screen Issue Indicators Scope of Analysis Effects to Canada Lynx Supporting Information Effects to Grizzly Bear Supporting Information Effects to Fisher Supporting Information Effects to Flammulated Owl, Pygmy Nuthatch and Fringed Myotis Supporting Information Effects to Recreation Effects to Resource Element #1 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Supporting Information Effects to Resource Element #2 - Forest Plan Standards Supporting Information Effects to Resource Element #3 Desired Future Condition Supporting Information Effects to Heritage Resources Effects to Resource Elements #1 and # Supporting Information Effects to Native American Concerns Effects to Resource Elements # Supporting Information Effects to Resource Elements # Supporting Information Effects to Non-Native Invasive Plants Effects to Weed Spread and Establishment Supporting Information Effects to Rare Plants Effects to Rare Plants or Suitable Habitat Effects to Scenic Resources Effects to Scenic Integrity Economic Contributions Effects to Soils Effects to Soil Productivity Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 2 and Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

5 BCRP Environmental Assessment Potential for Mass Failure and Surface Erosion Cumulative Effects Maintenance of Coarse Woody Debris Effects to Inventoried Roadless Areas Effects to Natural Attribute of Katka Peak and Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle IRAs Effects to the Undeveloped Attribute of the IRAs Supporting Information Effects to the Solitude and Primitive Recreation Attribute of the IRAs Effects to the Special Features of the IRAs Effects to the Manageability Attribute of the IRAs Effects to Forest Carbon and Storage Effects to Carbon Cycling Supporting Information Agencies and Persons Consulted The Interdisciplinary Team Federal, State, and Local Agencies, Tribes, and Others: References... 3 Appendix A - Maps... 8 Appendix B Measures Designed to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Effects Measures to Protect Hydrologic Resources and Fish Habitat Measures Related to Fire and Fuels Measures to Maintain Desired Vegetation Composition and Structure Measures to Protect Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Measures to Protect Trails and Recreation Use Measures to Protect Cultural Resources (National Register of Historic Places Eligible Sites and Traditional Cultural Properties) Measures to Prevent Noxious Weed Introduction and Spread Measures to Protect Rare Plants (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species) Measures to Protect Soils Appendix C Unit Prescriptions Alternative 2 and 3 - Silvicultural Prescriptions Figure 1. Location of the Boulder Creek Restoration Project Figure 2. View from Black Mountain looking southeast into the headwaters of Boulder Creek... 7 Figure 3. Chart depicting the forest composition within the Boulder Creek Restoration project area Figure 4. Chart depicting the forest structure within the Boulder Creek Restoration project area compared to historical Kootenai sub basin averages Figure 5. Example of a precommercial thinning. This management technique helps reduce competition among young trees so they get more light, water and nutrients Figure 6. Graphic simulations showing what vegetation prescriptions would look in about 5 to 10 years Figure 7. Initial structure for beavers to use Figure 8. Current forest composition as compared to historical composition of the Kootenai sub basin Table 1. Proposed trail work Table 2. Road Treatment Summary Table 3. Road Details for Alternatives 2 and Table 4. Alternative treatment summary Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 5

6 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Table 5. Further Opportunities Table 6. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions Table 7. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to hydrology Table 8. Road density in riparian habitat Table 9. Percent Equivalent Clearcut Acres (ECAs) Table 10. Principal elements and relevant indicators for the fisheries resource Table 11. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to fuels and fire behavior Table 12. Issues and indicators Table 13. Vegetation Resource alternative summary Table 14. Wildlife species analyzed in detail Table 15. Issue indicators used to measure effects Table 16. Existing condition, proposed treatment acres, and post-implementation condition of LAUs included in the Boulder Creek Restoration Project Table 17. Recreation Resource Indicators and Measures Table 18. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition Table 19. Principal issues and indicators for invasive plants Table 20. Principal issues and indicators for rare plants Table 21. Issue and indicator for scenic resources Table 22. Principal issues and indicators for soil resources Table 23. Mass failure potential for alternatives 2 and Table 24. Erosion potentials for alternatives 2 and Table 25. Sensitive landtype rating for alternatives 2 and Table 26. Resource Indicators and measures for assessing effects to Inventoried Roadless Areas Table 27. Carbon cycling indicators and measures Table 28. Alternative 2 and 3 prescriptions Map 1. Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) and the BCRP... 9 Map 2. Alternative Map 3. Alternative Map 4. Existing Transportation System Map 5. Alternative 2 and 3 Proposed Transportation system Map 6 Alternative 2 - location of old growth and whitebark pine stands Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

7 BCRP Environmental Assessment Introduction - About the Boulder Creek Restoration Project The Boulder Creek Restoration Project (BCRP) is part of a broader Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) occurring in the lower Kootenai River Watershed. In 2011, a group known as the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) 1 developed the Lower Kootenai River Watershed Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Proposal. 2 That document identified the need for holistic ecological restoration across all land ownerships in the watershed. KVRI s desired condition for the lower Kootenai River Watershed is a landscape that maintains natural processes, patterns and functions, and is more resilient to unforeseen disturbances. After numerous project development meetings and field trips to the Boulder Creek watershed area, we collectively developed the BCRP proposal. Conditions in the BCRP area are consistent with criteria described in the CFLRP proposal, as well as with broader scale landscape conditions described in the Upper Columbia River Basin Assessment, the Idaho Panhandle National Forest s (IPNF) Forest Plan, and the North Zone Geographic Assessment. 3 These assessments verify current ecosystem conditions described in the KVRI CFLRP and those that exist in the BCRP project area. This proposal incorporates the CFLRP goals that are relevant to the National Forest System lands in the Boulder Creek watershed area. Where the Project is Located The project area is located in the Bonners Ferry Ranger District of the IPNF. It lies southwest of Highway 2 about 8 linear miles east of Naples, Idaho (see figure 1 below). The project area is located in Boundary County, Idaho and encompasses 40,612 acres which includes the Boulder Creek watershed. 1 The KVRI collaborative consists of the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Boundary County, City of Bonners Ferry, private citizens, landowners, Federal and State agencies, conservation/environmental advocacy groups, and representatives of business and industry. 2 Further information regarding the KVRI CFLRP can be found on the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho s website 3 Quigley and Arbelbide 1997; USDA Forest Service [no date]. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 1

8 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Figure 1. Location of the Boulder Creek Restoration Project. Why are we proposing this project? Our primary focus of the BCRP is to manage the forest stands in the project area to maintain or improve their resilience to disturbances such as drought, insect and disease outbreaks, and wildfires. We are also concerned about areas where forest fuel accumulations are high and continuous across the landscape, conditions which often contribute to large severe wildfires. The steep and inaccessible topography makes fire suppression difficult over most of the project area. The northern section of the BCRP is in or adjacent to the wildland-urban interface (WUI). This area has continuous stands of trees with high fuel loadings (dead trees, branches, and forest litter). When wildfire(s) occur in these fuel types, these conditions could cause a severe fire that is difficult to control or could spread onto private lands to the north or the project area. If such a fire were to kill expansive areas of trees across multiple drainages, heavy rains could cause large flash floods and debris flows, negatively affecting private landowners and community water systems. Values at risk in the project area include the communication equipment and the lookout tower located at the top of Black Mountain. Other assets that could be negatively impacted by fire include the historic resources in the vicinity of the Boulder City Ghost Town (site 10BR0027) and the small community water systems north of the project area. 2 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

9 BCRP Environmental Assessment Another main focus of our proposal is specific to grizzly bear habitat. The 2015 Revised Land Management Plan for the IPNF retained direction from several amendments of the (1987) Forest Plan. The retained direction includes design elements of the selected alternative for the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, and Lolo National Forests Land and Resource Management Plans Amendment for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. This direction requires all Grizzly Bear Management Units (BMUs) within the affected Forests to meet access management standards by The Boulder BMU (where the BCRP is located) currently does not meet these standards. This project will serve as the mechanism to achieve access management standards for the BMU by increasing grizzly bear core habitat and reducing the Total Motorized Route Density (TMRD) for this BMU by We have other resource objectives we would like to accomplish while working in this area. These objectives include: maintaining and improving recreational sites and experiences, maintaining aquatic ecosystems, treating noxious weeds, and promoting the persistence and stability of wildlife habitat. Management Direction from the Forest Plan The 2015 forest plan for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests provides overarching guidance for managing the lands within the national forest boundaries. These lands are divided into management areas, which specify standards and guidelines for managing the resources in each area. We have designed the BCRP to achieve direction in the forest plan that also complements the goals of the KVRI Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Proposal. The following management area direction from the forest plan is applicable to this project area. The BCRP boundary totals 40,612 acres and overlaps the following different Management Areas (MA): MA 2b (Eligible Wild and Scenic River) 35 acres (0.01 percent), MA 4a (Hunt Girl Research Natural Area) 1,425 acres (3percent), MA 5 (Backcountry) 23,384 acres (58 percent), MA 6 (General Forest) 15,717 acres (39 percent) 51 acres of private land (0.01 percent). Purpose and Need for the Project The purpose and need for this project was developed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and the KVRI collaboration group. We studied the current conditions of various resources in the BCRP area and compared them to the management direction for each resource in the IPNF Forest Plan. Together the IDT and KVRI determined that the following resources are the most important ones to address with this project from a social, ecological and economic perspective. The following resource needs and project objectives are listed below. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 3

10 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Aquatic Resource Currently, many of the road systems in the BCRP are in need of maintenance and need surface work and drainage improvements to prevent sediment from roads entering into the stream systems and becoming detrimental to aquatic species. We want to reduce the risk of sediment entering the stream systems from sources such as roads, trails and recreation sites. Fire and Fuels Resource Protect the communication site infrastructure and Black Mountain lookout tower from potential wildfire damage. Reduce hazardous fuels around the facilities and along access roads to help protect the sites and provide for firefighter safety. Return the role of fire to the ecosystem. Disrupt the continuity of fuels and create a mosaic of stand structures across the landscape to increase flexibility in management options for future fires. Changing Forest Vegetation to Improve Landscape Resiliency We want to maintain and improve forest landscape resiliency by providing for tree species, stocking levels, and landscape patterns that better resist insects, disease, and stand-replacing wildfire(s). Needs that are specific to the Boulder Creek Restoration Project include: Restoration of white pine on habitat types that historically supported the species. Reduction in acres of moderate and high hazard lodgepole pine stands. Maintenance and restoration of ponderosa pine and western larch on habitat types that historically supported these species. Maintenance and restoration of dry-site old growth stands. Increased patch size of forest openings (seedling/sapling) and decreased patch size of immature forests (small and medium). Conserve existing whitebark pine populations and enhance opportunities for restoration. Retention or restoration of ecological conditions and processes that sustain the habitats currently or potentially occupied by sensitive plant species. Wildlife Habitat The project area contains stands that are relatively similar in size and age, and therefore, not providing a wide range of wildlife habitats. Contribute to meeting the standards of the Grizzly Bear Access Amendment for the Bear Management Units by increasing core habitat. Promote the long-term persistence and stability of wildlife habitat and biodiversity by trending toward an ecosystem composed of vegetation that more closely resembles the historic range of variability. Improve the diversity of forest and riparian structures. Emulate historic disturbance patterns. 4 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

11 BCRP Environmental Assessment Recreation and Heritage Resources There is a need to maintain and improve recreational sites and experiences in the Boulder Creek area because of the increasing demand for outdoor experiences including hiking, hunting, berry picking, dispersed camping and fishing. By improving recreational sites we can also provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the local history, protect off road areas and connecting non-motorized trail systems from illegal ATV use. Controlling Invasive Plants Although some areas within the Boulder project area are currently under weed management direction as prescribed in the Bonners Ferry Ranger District Weed Management Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1995) many of the roads are not currently covered under any management direction. However, substantial weed populations occur in the project area, particularly adjacent to roadways. We want to contain or control existing noxious weed populations along road and trail systems minimize potential for new weed infestations into riparian areas such as Boulder Meadows. Enhancing the Scenic Integrity of the Area A portion of the project area was harvested in the 1970s through the 1980s, back when stands were cut with little consideration for how the result would appear when viewed at a distance. Natural vegetation patterns, which historically were shaped by events such as wildfire, are not obvious and geometric; their shapes, sizes and burn patterns resulted in irregular shaped openings and patches across the landscape. As we complete our restoration work, we want areas viewed from routes and sites of high scenic concern such as U.S. Highway 2, Trail 182 (between Katka Pass and Clifty Mountain) and the Black Mountain Lookout to mimic natural vegetation patterns and reflect healthy, resilient vegetation conditions. Contributing to the Local Economy In addition to other landscape restoration work happening in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed, the BCRP can help contribute to local economic growth. We propose to accomplish this by: Maintaining and improving the recreational visitor capacity and potential in the Boulder Creek area. Utilize any forest products that may be produced as a result of the restoration activities. Purpose and Need - Resource Details Aquatic Resource Currently, many of the roads in the BCRP are in need of maintenance consisting of surface work and drainage improvements to prevent sediment from entering into streams and impacting aquatic habitat and aquatic species. We want to reduce this risk by performing necessary maintenance, repairs and drainage improvements to a portion of the roads, trails and recreation sites in the project area. Details regarding miles of road treatments are in the Road Management section of this document. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 5

12 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Improving Fish Passage in the Middle Fork of Boulder Creek Fish and aquatic habitat surveys indicate that streams in the project area are functioning properly and require little restoration. However, one culvert passing Middle Fork Boulder Creek under Forest Service Road #628 is deemed a barrier to upstream fish passage. Replacing this culvert with a structure that will allow fish access to beneficial aquatic habitat upstream of this location would benefit all life stages of fish species in the project area. Effects of replacing this culvert would be analyzed with this project as an opportunity and replacement may occur as priorities and funding allow. Fire and Fuels Large fires were once common across all of north Idaho, including the Boulder Creek landscape. Big fire years included 1889 and 1910; more than 27,000 acres burned through the Boulder area in 1910 alone. Smaller fires also occurred in the early 1920s (burning just a few hundred acres each), suggesting that up until the era of successful fire suppression (early 1930s) fire disturbance was frequent across this and neighboring landscapes. These variable-intensity fires likely maintained low fuel loads, helped create a mosaic of stand conditions, and provided for a range of wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, natural fires have now been absent for over 100 years, resulting in increased fuels and dense stands of similar age, structure, and composition. Proposed Action for Burn Only Units The BCRP project area is over 40,000 acres in size and prescribed burning without timber harvest is being proposed on approximately 20 percent of that to help meet the project purpose and need. Fifteen burn only units have been identified ranging in size from 120 acres to just over 2,000 acres. The burn units were designed to improve the historical integrity of the area because they would create openings, rejuvenate aspen clones, improve wildlife habitat, reduce fuels, return fire to a fire-dependent landscape, and help provide for safe and effective fire management into the future, as described in the IPNF Forest Plan. Specifically, prescribed burns would: Maintain and improve forage and quality and quantity of browse by: Top-killing at least 50 percent of the brush on-site to stimulate brush resprout and aid brush seedling establishment. Stimulating forage plants to regenerate from seeds stored in the soil. Consume surface fuels (such as grass, small shrubs, and jackpots of down woody fuel) and ladder fuels (tall shrubs, small conifers, and lower branches of larger conifers). Percent blackened within the burn areas should be at least 50 percent. Apply low-intensity surface fire to just over 170 acres of dry forest (dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir) old growth to moderate fuels while minimizing any damage to the overstory. Return fire to stands that historically burned on average of every 40-years. Maintain the old-growth now and over the long-term by reducing the risk of losing it to competition factors or high-intensity and severe wildfires. Maintain or enlarge existing openings by killing encroaching conifers. Revitalize decadent brush, reduce shrub height, and stimulate new growth in the existing openings. 6 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

13 BCRP Environmental Assessment Create new openings, specifically in the mid-elevation cool/moist forests and upperelevation cold/dry forests. This would be accomplished utilizing high-intensity surface fire and passive crown fire (torching of individual trees or groups of trees) to kill up to about one-third of the dominant overstory in patches up to approximately 10 acres. These openings would: Disrupt the continuity of large patches of similar sized and aged forests, creating variability in forest structures. Allow increased sunlight to the forest floor to stimulate new growth. Help reduce spread potential, intensity, and severity of future wildfires. Changing Forest Vegetation to Improve Landscape Resiliency The following sections highlight our purpose and need for the Boulder Creek Restoration Project, providing context and explaining why they are necessary. Forest vegetation in the BCRP area has changed over time due to a combination of fire suppression, introduction of white pine blister rust and past forest management practices. Before the accidental introduction of blister rust, white pine was a more significant component of the landscape. Historically, larch and white pine stands regenerated in the sunny openings created by wildfires. What is landscape resiliency? In ecology, resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to withstand a disturbance by resisting damage and recovering over time to its original state. Such disturbances can include events such as fires, flooding, windstorms, insect population explosions, and human activities such as fire suppression and the introduction of exotic plant or animal species. Figure 2. View from Black Mountain looking southeast into the headwaters of Boulder Creek Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 7

14 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Forest ecosystems may be ecologically stable, unstable or somewhere in between given their respective composition and structure and resilience to changes. In the case of the BCRP and the inherent fire risk across the landscape, we know that we cannot change the topography nor the weather; but we can adjust the stand structure and composition, fuel loadings and continuity of the forested areas. The vegetation management part of this proposal is exploring what, where and how can we manage the forest stands and fuel types in the project area. One way to evaluate risks pertaining to overall ecosystem stability is to compare the current and historic values 4 of the vegetation structure and composition at the landscape level. Figures 3 and 4 indicate which composition and structural components of the landscape are within or outside of the historical range. Forest Composition Forest composition refers to the assemblage of tree species. Figure 3 shows that the percentage of lodgepole pine (LP) is well above the historic average of 8 percent. Many of the lodgepole pine stands are considered a high hazard for bark beetle attacks because they are mature, growing in crowded conditions and therefore often stressed due to inter-tree competition for nutrients, water and sunlight, a trend that is expected to continue in the near future without active management. Western white pine (WP) is well below the historic average of 20 percent. This is likely due to the introduction of white pine blister rust. Ponderosa pine (PP) and western larch (L) are also below historic average. Aspen stands within the BCRP area typically regenerated after wildfires, now with successful fire suppression they are often competing with conifer trees for light, water and nutrients, which limits their ability to regenerate. Why is a diversity of tree species so important? Because a forest with a mix of different tree species will be more resilient to events like fires and insect attacks than a forest dominated by very few species. Species such as Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine are very susceptible to insects and diseases, whereas white pine and larch are less susceptible. Larch is also the most fireresistant conifer species in the Northern Rockies. Increasing the percentage of these species and overall species diversity will improve landscape resilience. 4 Historic ranges and averages for structure and composition are compared to the Kootenai River Sub-Basin and derived from the North Zone Geographic Assessment (NZGA) 8 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

15 Acres BCRP Environmental Assessment Current Historic 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Species Figure 3. Chart depicting the forest composition within the Boulder Creek Restoration project area. Species Key C Western red cedar DF Douglas-fir GF Grand fir WH Western hemlock L Larch LP Lodgepole pine PP Ponderosa pine SAF Subalpine fir WP White pine WBP - Whitebark pine HDW Hardwoods such as Aspen, Birch and Cottonwood. Forest Structure Forest structure is the horizontal and vertical distribution of layers in a forest. Structure looks at the proportion of young, mature, and old trees across the landscape. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 9

16 Acres Boulder Creek Restoration Project Figure 4. Chart depicting the forest structure within the Boulder Creek Restoration project area compared to historical Kootenai sub basin averages. Low Current High 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Open Pole+Imm Mature Old Structure Figure 4 shows that openings in the forest canopy currently occupy only 9 percent of the project area. This is below the sub-basin range of 15 to 50 percent of the landscape. Young forests (Pole and Immature) are currently 53 percent of project area. This number is slightly above historic sub-basin upper range of 50 percent. Mature forests are currently within the historic range at 28 percent. Old growth currently comprises 10 percent of the landscape which is outside and below the historic range of 15 to 35 percent. Wildlife Habitat As depicted in Figures 3 and 4, and in the landscape resiliency discussion; the project area contains a landscape of stands that are relatively similar in size and age, and therefore, not providing a wide range of wildlife habitats. Therefore, this project proposes to: Contribute to meeting the standards of the Grizzly Bear Access Amendment for the Bear Management Units by increasing core habitat. Promote the long-term persistence and stability of wildlife habitat and biodiversity by trending toward an ecosystem composed of vegetation that more closely resembles the historic range of variability. Improve the diversity of forest and riparian structures. Emulate historic disturbance patterns. Part of the purpose and need for this project is to contribute to meeting the standards of the Grizzly Bear Access Amendment for the Bear Management Units by increasing core habitat which would be done through road management and storing roads in a non-drivable state (see road storage in Table 3). The vegetation communities in the BCRP provide the wildlife habitat we 10 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

17 BCRP Environmental Assessment see there today. The overall strategy is to emulate historic disturbance patterns and promote the long-term persistence and stability of wildlife habitat and biodiversity by trending toward an ecosystem composed of vegetation that more closely resembles the historic range of variability. Vegetation treated through harvesting and underburning or using prescribed fire alone is expected to improve forage and habitat for various types of wildlife. Recreation and Heritage Resources There is a need to maintain and improve recreational sites and experiences in the Boulder Creek area because of the increasing demand for outdoor experiences including hiking, hunting, berry picking, dispersed camping and fishing. By improving recreational sites we can also provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the local history, protect off road areas and connecting trail systems from illegal ATV use. The Boulder City Ghost Town (site 10BR0027), established over 100 years ago, is a well-known and much loved day-hike destination for local history buffs. Nestled in the timber above Boulder Creek near its confluence with the Kootenai River, Boulder City boasts a dynamic history suitable for an adventure novel: a business man of questionable business ethics, but a heart for the poor man; years of backwoods and pioneer mining and living; and a lifespan extending from the expansion of the population into the west through the devastation of the depression. With the popularity of Daniel James Brown s Award winning book Boys in the Boat one in which Boulder City plays a part, the national and international tourist communities have become aware of this northern Idaho gem. With the rise in popularity of the area, the age of the wooden and metal remnants of a historic town site not occupied for 60 years, and the increase in public visits, the limited remaining fragile historic remains of the town are in serious jeopardy. Lack of directed public use of this high interest area has led to many activities that have degraded the town site remains: graffiti on historic structural remains, wooden house remains being scavenged for camp fires, illegal digging through the housing areas by metal collectors, scavengers seeking and removing historic artifacts, and other activities are visible throughout the historic town site. To help preserve what remains of the historic town, to give the public the best experience, and to manage more proactively how the public interacts with the history and the historic remains, we propose to do the following: 1. Create a self-directed discovery of what remains of the structures of this once vibrant enclave. 2. Establish an official ¼ mile walking trail in the location of an unofficial walking trail created by the public that covers the mid-housing area and leads to vistas of the main mine hydro-diggings. 3. Re-establish the trail head for Trail 51 which leads to the Timber Mountain trail (also the boundary between the Kootenai National Forest and the IPNF), stabilization and protection of the historic remains along the base of the path. 4. Install a toilet facility, more clearly define dispersed camping spots, build and install two housings for interpretive panels. 5. At the historic cemetery site, more clearly define dispersed camping spots and protect the cemetery area. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 11

18 Boulder Creek Restoration Project 6. Create and publish a History of the Boulder City Ghost Town with a self-guided selfdiscovery tour of the town from the gauging station and tying in all of the work from 1-5, above. Improving Trail Parking Facilities Trailhead parking areas within the project boundary are brushy, not well defined and are merely a wide spot on the road shoulder. Most of these trailheads are too small to turn around in safely with a vehicle and trailer. We propose to widen trailheads to allow for safer parking and travel. We propose to widen trailheads and clear brush to accommodate trailers with ample room for turning around. For a location of the trailheads, please refer to the proposed transportation map in Appendix A. Table 1. Proposed trail work. Trail Trailhead Location Trail # 184 Kootenai River Walk Trail Access from Road # 2209 Trail # 51 Timber Mountain Trail Trail # 136 EF Boulder Creek Trail Trail # 143 Dobson Creek Trail Access from Road # 408. Trail # 180 Iron Mountain Trail Access from Road # 628. Trail # 182 Clifty Mountain Trail Access from Road # 274. Access from Road # 4402 at Boulder City Provide for mountain bike single track tread on Road 1304G after road is stored. Relocate current Trailhead from Boulder Creek bridge about ½ mile SE to Road # Current Trailhead is too congested and the trail is washed out just up from the trailhead. Reroute trail around washout to connect to the new trailhead. Controlling and Managing Spread of Invasive Plants Although some areas within the Boulder project area are currently under weed management direction as prescribed in the Bonners Ferry Ranger District Weed Management Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1995) many of the roads are not currently covered under any management direction. However, substantial weed populations occur in the project area, particularly adjacent to roadways. Therefore, as part of the BCRP, we propose to treat weed populations along trailheads and roads within the project planning area using Forest Service approved herbicides and weed management practices. Methods of weed containment or control may include biological, cultural, mechanical, and chemical management practices (our analysis will cover use of accepted herbicides and weed management practices in the project area, as well as all National Forest System roads leading into or going out of the project area). We would also provide follow-up weed treatments (by contractor or Forest Service) in the area to keep existing weed populations and potential new weed invaders in check. 12 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

19 BCRP Environmental Assessment Enhancing the Scenic Integrity of the Area A portion of the project area was harvested in the 1970s through 80s, back when stands were cut with little consideration for how the result would appear when viewed at a distance. Natural vegetation patterns, which historically were shaped by events such as wildfire, are not obvious and geometric; their shapes, sizes and burn patterns resulted in irregular shaped openings and patches across the landscape. As we complete our restoration work, we want areas viewed from routes and sites of high scenic concern such as U.S. Highway 2, Trail 182 (between Katka Pass and Clifty Mountain) and the Black Mountain Lookout to mimic natural vegetation patterns and reflect healthy, resilient vegetation conditions. Contributing to the Local Economy In addition to other landscape restoration work happening in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed, the BCRP can help contribute to local economic growth. This project is not expected to create new permanent jobs in the long term, however it is expected to bolster the local economy because of improvements to the recreation resource and an increase in visitor days into the community of Bonners Ferry. The project would also generate activities and funds from forest products that would be produced as a result of the restoration activities. Public Involvement, Comments, and Issues Public involvement played a central role in the development of the purpose and need, proposed action and associated alternatives for the BCRP. Starting in 2014, the BCRP proposal was developed and refined by resource specialists working collaboratively with the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) group over the course of multiple meetings and field trips. These meetings were advertised and open to the public. In December of 2016, a scoping notice was distributed to solicit comments on the proposed action from the public, various interest groups, tribes, and agencies. A press release was issued, and the project details were listed on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest s Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). As a result of these public involvement efforts, a total of 14 comment letters were received (see project file). The KVRI collaborative group and the IDT carefully considered the comments we received and determined how they would be incorporated into project development. We continued to work with the KVRI collaborative group through this process as the proposed action evolved and alternatives were developed. Issues Issues are concerns or points of debate that the proposed action could cause an undesirable effects on the environment. The National Environmental Policy Act directs the agency to focus on a full and fair discussion of issues, and identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant. Primary issues that were identified are listed below. Other concerns raised were either not relevant or site-specific to the project, or we were able to address them through design of the project. Please refer to the project record for a complete description of comments, issues, and how we used them for project development. The scoping notice sent to the public included the proposed action (alternative 2) which would use commercial harvesting and prescribed fire in the Katka Peak and Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle roadless areas as tools to address the purpose and need for the project. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 13

20 Boulder Creek Restoration Project In response to the scoping notice, we received comments that stated that no management activity should be allowed in either of the roadless areas, that they should be left untouched, and only allow for passive management (allowing nature to take its course). This led to the development of alternative 3, which has no proposed activities included in either of the roadless areas. Refer to the alternative description section for details. Details of Our Proposed Action The BCRP area boundary encompasses about 40,612 acres which is the Boulder Creek watershed. This project proposes to treat about 9 percent of the forest stands (3,433 acres) in the project area using commercial harvest and 18 percent (7,407 acres) using prescribed fire only. In inaccessible areas of the project, located primarily in roadless areas, prescribed burning would be used on about 7,400 acres to create a mosaic of openings in the forest canopy, reduce fuel loading and continuity across the landscape and return the role of fire back into the local ecosystem. We propose about 76 miles of road maintenance and reconstruction, 3.2 miles of temporary road construction, 13.4 miles of road storage, and 0.7 mile of road decommissioning. In order to improve access to the River Walk trailhead we propose to change the closure period to April 1 through June 15 for Road We also propose to treat weed populations along trailheads and roads within the project planning area using USFS approved herbicides and weed management practices. Trail management includes improving turnarounds and parking at six trailheads. Road 1304G is proposed for storage. We propose to store this road and convert its surface to a non-motorized biking trail, which will serve as an additional single track access to Trail 51. Other recreational improvements include an interpretive trail at the Boulder City ghost town (site 10BR0027), a toilet, and a parking lot to support the increasing recreational pressure this area receives. Logging equipment used to implement the harvest would include ground based equipment on 1,862 acres, skyline machinery on 631 acres, a combination of ground based and skyline on 595 acres, and helicopter on 345 acres. About 800 acres of precommercial thinning is also proposed that would be carried out using chainsaws. Fuels reduction treatments would occur in the 3,433 acres of commercial harvest units using grapple piling and prescribed fire. The prescribed burning would reduce the amount logging slash, prepare the areas for seedlings and stimulate browse plants for wildlife. A fuel break 22 acres in size would also be implemented on Black Mountain below the lookout. For details on each specific treatment unit, refer to Unit prescriptions in Appendix C. Vegetation Management Prescriptions We are prescribing several different methods to manage the vegetation in the BCRP area. For details, please refer the Appendices EA and the vegetation report. Seedtree with Reserves This prescription is designed to encourage the growth and regeneration of white pine and larch by cutting most of the trees except those needed for seed production. These areas would appear very open with 5 to 10 trees per acre and would include reserves of tree groups in various areas of the stand. 14 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

21 BCRP Environmental Assessment Shelterwood with Reserves This prescription is designed to encourage the growth and regeneration of white pine and larch. These areas would appear moderately open with an average of 10 to 20 trees per acre and include reserves of tree groups in various areas of the stand. Group Selection This prescription removes groups of trees in 1- to 3-acre patches, creating sunny openings in areas where we want to regenerate ponderosa pine and larch. Between the openings, we would use commercial thinning to remove the less desirable understory trees to provide the remaining trees more growing space and less competition for water and nutrients. In general, we would leave about 10 larger overstory trees per acre in the openings and 70 to 130 trees per acre in thinned areas. Precommercial Thinning 5 In old harvest areas where the regenerating trees have grown dense and are beginning to compete with each other for light, water and nutrients, we would thin out the smaller suppressed trees and primarily select larch and white pine as leave trees with a target density of about 200 to 300 trees per acre. Figure 5. Example of a precommercial thinning. This management technique helps reduce competition among young trees so they get more light, water and nutrients. Seedtree Shelterwood 5 The term precommercial indicates that the cut material is too small for sawlog products. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 15

22 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Group selection Commercial thinning Figure 6. Graphic simulations showing what vegetation prescriptions would look in about 5 to 10 years. How Trees would be Removed (Logging Systems) Where trees to be removed have commercial value, we would use various types of equipment based on the terrain and access constraints. Helicopter yarding would be used in areas not easily accessible by roads. Skyline yarding would be used on steep terrain. Tractor yarding would be used on flat to gentle slopes, and a combination of skyline and tractor yarding would be used where slopes vary. In areas of precommercial thinning, small trees and large shrubs would be cut by hand with a chainsaw. See Table 4 for a list of logging systems by acreage. Fuel Reduction Activities Preexisting forest fuels and those created by debris left from logging activities would be treated through prescribed underburning, machine piling, whole-tree yarding, or a combination of these treatment options. In machine-piled units, only fuels in excess of what is desired to meet coarse woody debris and soil productivity objectives would be piled. In precommercial thinning units, fuels would be allowed to decompose naturally over time. See Table 4 for a list of fuel treatment methods and acres of treatment. Managing the Road System There are two primary reasons we need to manage the road systems within the BCRP area. One is to be in compliance with the forest plan and the standards of the Grizzly Bear Access Amendment and the other is to manage the road systems for long-term transportation and resource needs. Managing the Road System for Long-Term Transportation and Resource Needs The interdisciplinary team and KVRI reviewed all of the road systems affiliated with the BCRP area. Over several meetings and field trips, the entire collaborative group went through an assessment of the transportation system using the Travel Analysis Process (TAP) to identify a future road system that would meet the purpose and need of this project as well as provide access for a variety of uses and minimize unwanted impacts to natural resources. 16 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

23 BCRP Environmental Assessment Table 2. Road Treatment Summary Road Treatments Miles Reconstruction and maintenance 76 Temporary Road Construction 3.2 Storage 13.4 Decommission 0.7 Road Reconstruction and Maintenance To support large trucks and equipment, we would need to perform road reconstruction and maintenance on about 76 miles of existing roads. These activities would include clearing brush from the road shoulders to improve sight distance, blading and shaping the road, cleaning ditches, improving drainage structures, and adding gravel to the road surface. Development of Gravel Pit The existing gravel pit located on Road 628 is roughly in the center of the project area and would be used as a gravel source for this project. Crushing and hauling activities would occur for a few months while the project roads are being improved. Converting Road Segment to Non - Motorized Use Trail Converting Road 1304G to Non- Motorized Use Trail Once our proposed activities are complete on Road 1304G, we propose to store this road and convert its surface to a non-motorized biking trail, which will serve as an additional single track access to Trail 51. Road 2209 Open Seasonal Change Road 2209 is currently classified as an open seasonal road. It is closed from April 1 through November 30. We propose to change the closure to April 1 through June 15. Temporary Road Construction We are proposing to construct four temporary road segments totaling approximately 3.2 miles for the purpose of accessing harvest units for our proposed activities. These temporary roads would be constructed just for this project and would be decommissioned when restoration activities are completed. Managing the Road System to Meet Forest Plan Compliance We propose the following actions to meet compliance with the forest plan and the Grizzly Bear Access Amendment 6. Placing Roads in Storage We will be using many of the roads in the project area to accomplish our proposed activities. To meet the forest plan and Grizzly Bear Access Amendment, we are proposing to put 13.4 miles of roads into storage after we use them for this project. Stored roads would no longer be drivable. They would be blocked with an earthen berm or a short section of full recontour matching the original slope of the land. Storage would remove high risk drainage structures and install additional drainage, such as waterbars and relief swales, to render the road stable and hydrologically inert. Stored roads should need no maintenance when in storage but remain on the FS inventory for possible future and emergency use. Stored roads would remain as part of the National Forest Transportation System and could be reopened as 6 The Access Amendment is a retained decision in the 2015 Forest Plan (page 5) through standard FW- STD-WL-02. Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management Within the Selkirk and Cabinet- Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service, November 2011). Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 17

24 Boulder Creek Restoration Project needed in the future. Roads stored for replacement of grizzly bear core habitat would remain stored for a minimum of ten years. Road Decommissioning We propose to decommission approximately 0.7 miles of Forest Service Road This road is currently closed with a barrier. Decommissioned roads would no longer be drivable and we would remove all drainage structures, such as culverts, stabilize slopes, and may decompact the driving surface or partially or fully recontour the road prism to restore natural drainage patterns. Decommissioned roads are removed from the Forest Service road inventory. We also propose to decommission approximately 3.38 miles of non-system roads that are currently not part of the National Forest System of roads. These roads do not provide legal public access and are generally impassable. Removing these roads from the system will help us meet compliance with our forest plan. Add to NFS System and Restrict with a Gate Road 427UH is currently not a system road. It provides access to a private mining claim and public access is restricted using a gate. We propose to add this road to the system (approximately 0.99 miles). Table 3. Road Details for Alternatives 2 and 3. Existing Road Prescription Proposed Road Prescription Road Number Mile Post (MP) Proposed Action Miles Road Decommission - Remove from System Closed w/barrier Decommission Total Removed from System - Decommission = 0.70 Added to NF System - Restricted w/gate Proposed Existing Road Road Prescription Prescription Road Number M.P. to M.P. Proposed Action Miles Closed Nonsystem Add to NFSR 427UH Total Added to NF System 0.99 System Roads Existing Road Prescription Closed w/barrier Closed w/barrier Closed w/barrier Closed w/barrier Proposed Road Prescription Reconstruct Total Change Added to System: = 0.29 Road Number M.P. to M.P. Proposed Action Miles & Store Reconstruct & Store 1304D Reconstruct & Store 1304A Reconstruct & Store 1304C Storage - Currently Restricted Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

25 BCRP Environmental Assessment Open Seasonal Store Open Seasonal Store 2113A Open Seasonal Store Open Seasonal Store 628A Open Seasonal Store 628C Open Seasonal Store Open Seasonal Store 1304G Open Seasonal Store 1304H Storage - Currently Open Seasonally Total Change in Road Storage: = Non-system Roads Existing Road Proposed Status - Road Status - Closed Decommission Roads * M.P. to M.P. Proposed Action Miles Undetermined Not Needed 274UA Undetermined Not Needed 274UB Undetermined Not Needed 274UC 0.28 Undetermined Not Needed 408UD Undetermined Not Needed 408UE Undetermined Not Needed 427UD Undetermined Not Needed 314UE Total Non-system Road Decom = 3.38 * All other roads not on this list will remain as is. Road 408UD will be opened as temporary road and decommissioned after use. Open Seasonal Road 2209 Changes- currently closed April 1 - November 30, proposing to close April 1 thru June 15 and restrict access beyond the trailhead. Roads 1304A, 1304C and 1304 D - currently restricted with berms will be opened for logging then stored after use. Openings Exceeding 40 Acres Forest Service policy FSM directs land managers to normally limit the size of openings created by even-aged silvicultural methods to 40 acres or less. With the BCRP, the shelterwood and seedtree with reserve treatments are considered even-aged silvicultural prescriptions. The Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 19

26 Boulder Creek Restoration Project proposed action includes 22 patches (units or adjacent units) of early seral vegetation (even-aged regeneration harvest openings) over 40 acres in size that would be created by the proposed action. These patches would not be entirely open and would contain leave areas of diverse shapes and sizes, see design features in the EA and the vegetation report for details. With some exceptions, creation of larger openings is allowable with Regional Forester authorization. Regional Forester authorization to exceed 40-acre regeneration openings would occur after public input on this project and prior to issuing a decision on this project. Measures Designed to Avoid, Minimize or Mitigate Adverse Effects Our proposed activities are designed with a variety of measures, known as design features, that are intended to avoid, minimize, or mitigate known or potential adverse effects to various resources. Please refer to Appendix B for a list of detailed measures. Alternatives We are analyzing the potential effects of three alternatives in this environmental assessment, including the proposed action. Alternative 1 is no action. Existing approved management of the BCRP area would continue but none of the activities proposed for this project would occur. Including this alternative in our analysis helps us compare environmental conditions and trends that exist in the project area with how they would change if we actively manage the area. Alternative 2 is our proposed action as described above. Alternative 3 is composed of the same proposed actions as in alternative 2, less any activities in the IRA s. We developed this alternative to address concerns about the impacts that would occur with the proposed action in the IRA s. For a comparison of the alternatives, please refer to Table 4. For a unit-by-unit comparison with maps and prescriptions, please refer to the Appendices. Table 4. Alternative treatment summary Vegetation Prescriptions Alternative 1 (acres) Silvicultural Rx Alternative 2 (acres) Alternative 3 (acres) Group Selection Shelterwood with Reserves Seedtree with Reserves 0 2,872 2,872 Total Commercial Harvest 0 3,433 3,433 Precommercial Thinning Total Vegetation Treatments Logging System Tractor Skyline Combination (skyline and tractor) Helicopter Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

27 BCRP Environmental Assessment Vegetation Prescriptions Alternative 1 (acres) Alternative 2 (acres) Alternative 3 (acres) Total Fuels Treatments Harvest followed up with underburning Harvest followed up with a combination of underburning and grapple piling Fuel Break on Black Mountain (slash and grapple pile) 0 1,423 1, ,010 2, Prescribed Burn Only Includes about 100 acres of ladder fuel reduction / pre-slashing in dry-site old growth stands before underburning can safely occur. 0 7, Total 0 10, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated We considered two alternative ways of accomplishing this project, but eliminated them from detailed consideration as described below. In an effort to meet the purpose and need, we looked at ways to access and treat about 1,950 acres of forest stands in the IRAs. Due to the rugged topography, these acres would need to be treated with a mix of ground-based logging (350 acres) and helicopter logging (1600 acres). Issues related to the economic feasibility of helicopter logging and the lack of available helicopters within the industry, prompted us to drop the helicopter acres from consideration. We similarly chose to drop the ground-based logging from consideration due the combination of public concerns related to logging in IRAs, as evidenced by comments received on the scoping notice, and internal concerns related to the ability to designate these IRAs as wilderness areas in the future. The Idaho Roadless Rule has exceptions that allow for harvesting timber in these two IRAs, but further internal analysis revealed that the type of harvest necessary in these areas may preclude them from future consideration as wilderness areas. This preclusion was deemed a significant effect warranting analysis using an environmental impact statement (EIS). Discussions were held with the collaboration group and it was decide not to analyze this alternative in detail. 1. Limit Forest Openings to 40 acres or less. All action alternatives analyzed in detail include even-aged regeneration harvest treatments that would create forest openings larger than 40 acres in size. Forest Service policy and the National Forest Management Act limits the size of openings created by even-aged silvicultural systems to 40 acres or less, unless Regional Forester approval is obtained to exceed that size (FSM R1 Supplement ). For this project we are seeking approval to create forest openings that exceed that size. An alternative was considered that constrained the size of openings to 40 acres or less. This alternative was proposed by the interdisciplinary team as a way to help determine if the project goals and objectives could be achieved without exceeding the opening size restriction. For the reasons summarized below, this alternative was subsequently dismissed prior to fully analyzing it. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 21

28 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Currently, large patches of potentially long-lived early seral species (e.g. western white pine, western larch and ponderosa pine) are under-represented relative to the historic range of variability in the planning area and surrounding landscape. One of the main goals of the BCRP is to trend a landscape pattern, stand composition, structure and patch sizes towards a configuration within the historic range of variability. The establishment of large patches of early seral stages of western white pine, western larch and ponderosa pine forest types needs to occur if the project is to a successfully trend landscape pattern in this direction. Establishment of these large patches requires the creation of extensive canopy openings. An alternative limiting the size of openings to 40 acres or less would directly constrain the size of canopy openings and effectively preclude the establishment of these large patches. By greatly limiting the size of early seral vegetation patches that were created and by advancing fragmentation of existing forest patches, this alternative would not effectively trend the landscape towards a more desirable pattern of forest composition, structure and patch size. An alternative that held openings to 40 acres or less but still proposed treatments over a similar number of acres would have required that more new or reconstructed roads be included to access the smaller and more numerous openings. This would have led to the potential of negatively impacting aquatic resources through sediment production or impacting certain wildlife species through additional disturbance or habitat fragmentation. Limiting treatments to relatively small, discontinuous areas would thus effectively reduce the total portion of the project area treated relative to the other action alternatives. This reduction in area treated would decrease the this alternative s responsive to the project goal of reducing the amount of forested area at risk to insect disease depredation including large expanses of lodgepole pine dominated stands that are at increasing hazard to bark beetle attacks. A primary goal of the BCRP is to promote forest conditions that reduce fire hazard on National Forest System lands, aid fire suppression efforts and reduce the potential impacts of wildfire in order to protect firefighters and resource values. There are areas within the BCRP project area that have continuous forest fuels that are in a hazardous conditions (i.e., heavy loading, low canopy base height and/or high canopy bulk density). An alternative that held openings to 40 acres or less would not have been as effective in reducing these hazardous forest fuels and decreasing the continuity of those fuels across the landscape. The larger openings proposed in the other action alternatives would provide more effective areas for suppression resources to engage wildfires safely under more severe conditions. Additionally, the smaller openings created by this alternative would not result in the same reduction of potential wildfire activity. The smaller treatment areas would be subject to increased risk of fire spread via spotting as there would be less distance for embers to travel to reach receptive fuels. This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because a management strategy that limited openings to less than 40 acres would clearly not allow the realization of several of the primary goals for the project. Additional information on this alternative and the preliminary analysis that contributed to its dismissal can be found in the project file and specialist reports. 22 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

29 BCRP Environmental Assessment Further Opportunities As displayed in Table 5, several opportunities in addition to the proposed action were identified and analyzed as necessary by the interdisciplinary team. When funding becomes available, the line officer will choose which activities to prioritize and implement. Table 5. Further Opportunities Resource Aquatics Activity Beaver habitat restoration in Boulder Meadows. This would consist of reintroducing beavers back into the meadows section of Boulder Creek through a partnership with Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). IDFG would assess habitat and provide animals for release. We would monitor the success of the animal reintroductions and if necessary, we would help them get a better foothold by building several starter beaver dams called beaver dam analogs (see figure 7). These structures would be built by hand and can increase the chances of successful beaver reintroductions by priming the habitat, while simultaneously providing some of the beneficial effects of real beaver dams. Figure 7. Example photograph of a beaver dam analog. Aquatics Recreation Culvert and fish presence surveys in the project area identified three culverts that are likely impeding or preventing upstream fish passage to beneficial spawning and rearing habitat. These culverts are located where Black Creek passes under FSR #427, where the Middle Fork of Boulder Creek crosses under FSR #628 and where Cabin Creek passes under FSR #427. At each of these locations, the existing culverts would be replaced with a structure that allows upstream passage for aquatic organisms and would allow efficient passage of up to 100-year flood events. Improve (drainage, gravel, blade) Road #2209 to allow motorized access to the Kootenai River Walk trail #184. Create a trailhead/turn-around area on the northwest trail access. Trailhead should be adequate for 3 passenger Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 23

30 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Resource Noxious Weeds Activity vehicles at a minimum. Truck-trailer parking may parallel or use turn-outs on the road prior to trailhead turn-around. Develop trailheads for Trails #143, #51 (northern end) #180 (near gravel pit) and #182 (Southeast end). Move trail and trailhead #136 to Road #314 near the second switchback. A landing in unit 174 could potentially serve as a trailhead. Construct new trail to access T#136. This would avoid a massive slough into Boulder creek and major drainage problems along the lower trail. Design and rebuild Boulder Meadows Horse camp to accommodate 3 truck/trailer combinations and several passenger vehicles. Install an SST for health and safety. Develop interpretive trails near the Boulder Gaging/Idamont townsite area. Organize dispersed camping and install a sweet smelling toilet (SST) for health and safety. Treat noxious weed populations on Forest Service Roads 427 and 427A leading to Boulder meadows. Treat weed populations outside of the haul routes utilized for the timber sale. Due to the existing weed populations in the project area, including some areas outside of proposed silvicultural and fuels treatments, widespread treatment to control weeds would be extremely beneficial. However, weed treatment everywhere in the area cannot be required of contract purchasers, and some portions of the project area were not previously covered under prior management decisions. Therefore, as funding allows, we also propose to treat weeds adjacent to roads, recreation trails, developed and dispersed recreation sites, gravel pits, as well as dense off-road weed infestations or new discoveries of new invader species within the BCRP project area. Weed control activities will be tiered to existing management direction. Such weed control treatments may be a combination of herbicide treatments, biological controls, and mechanical removal, as described in the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 1995) and as directed in the Forest Service Best Management Practices for Chemical Use and the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Pesticide Discharge Management Plan. We would also use Aminopyralid to treat weed populations. 24 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

31 BCRP Environmental Assessment Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives on various resources. Each resource section describes which issues are relevant to the resource under discussion, and how they are measured. Detailed analysis discussions are available from individual specialist reports for each resource, located in the project file. Analysis of cumulative effects presented in this section considered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on public and adjacent private lands. A list of these activities is presented in Table 6. Each resource considers the relevant actions in the cumulative effect analysis as appropriate. Table 6. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions Action Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable Timber harvest activities X X X 1 Prescribed burning for site prep and fuels treatment X X Tree planting X X Public activities: firewood cutting, driving roads, camping, snowmobiling, hunting, hiking, berry X X X picking Road construction X Road storage and decommission X X Road maintenance X X X Wildfires X Unknown Fire suppression X X X Trail maintenance X X X Pre-commercial timber stand improvement X X Spraying herbicides to control and prevent noxious weeds X X X IPNF WEEDS EIS Clearing brush and trees to maintain helispots X X X Abandoned mines and mining activities. X X X Radio and Telecommunication infrastructure maintenance on Black Mountain. X X X Private Land Activities in Project Area (50 acres) X X X Adjacent Starry Goat Project (Kootenai National Forest) X 1 - The North Zone Roadside Salvage project would remove hazard trees and blow down along selected open National Forest System roads in the project area. This project is not expected to cause additional effects because of designed measures and no equipment would travel off the road surface. X X Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 25

32 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Effects to Aquatic Resources Effects to Hydrology Resource indicators and measures are used to address key issues brought up internally or through scoping efforts and evaluate the environmental effects and offer a basis for comparing the effects of management practices as presented in the alternatives. The following table lists the resource indicators and measures for this Hydrology Report. Table 7. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to hydrology. Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Water Quality Sediment Delivery Amount of sediment delivery to project streams (tons/year) Temperature Riparian vegetation preserved or improved (acres) Watershed Function Road Density Miles of road per square mile (mi/ mi 2 ) Equivalent Clearcut Area Acres Effects to Sediment Delivery Summary: Both action alternatives would reduce sediment delivery by improving road drainage, replacing, upgrading, or installing new culverts, cleaning ditches and adding gravel to the driving surface. Sediment reductions will also be realized through road storage and decommissioning treatments and recreation improvements. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Sediment contributions from roads would remain unchanged from the existing condition. Road maintenance would occur as normal and would be beneficial, but the normal intensity of maintenance may not provide the same degree of improvements as proposed with reconstruction, to reduce the risk of road failures. Therefore, the lack of road improvements commensurate with the current level of road conditions in the project area could perpetuate sediment delivery from surface erosion and increasing risk of culvert failures. Alternatives 2 and 3 Both action alternatives would result in a reduction of sediment delivery of 3.3 tons/year from road reconstruction and maintenance activities. Road reconstruction would improve drainage by replacing, upgrading, or installing new culverts, and/or cleaning and armoring ditches where necessary. This includes reconditioning specific segments of FSR 274, 427 and 408, totaling about 1.3 miles that was identified during field review. The reconditioning of these segments 26 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

33 BCRP Environmental Assessment would include a combination of installing ditch relief culverts or drivable dips before each perennial tributary crossing and graveling the driving surface over the crossings. Installing ditch relief culverts before stream crossings disconnects the ditch from the stream and allows sediment to filter out across the forest floor. The proposed road storage and decommissioning would reduce the risk of sediment delivery from culvert failures. Erosion modeling indicates negligible sediment delivery from timber harvest and landscape burning activities through inclusion of riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) and best management practices (BMPs). Cumulative Effects The combination of direct and indirect effects of all alternatives with past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities within the cumulative effects area would result in an overall net decrease in sediment yield to the Boulder Creek watershed upon project completion. As calculated, both alternatives would have the same net reduction in sediment of approximately 3.2 tons per year (average annual amounts). These reductions are realized primarily by the proposed road reconstruction. The road storage and decommissioning treatments would also reduce the risk of sediment delivery due to road failures but this amount is not included in the sediment modeling results. Alternative 1 would provide no sediment reductions since none of the identified road segments would be addressed. Effects to Water Temperature Summary: Through the implementation of the INFS (USDA 1995) and the incorporation of RHCAs into the Boulder Creek Restoration Project, all alternatives would not further degrade water quality with respect to temperature because RHCAs would retain the canopy cover that prevents solar inputs to the stream. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would not include timber harvest, fuel treatments or road decommissioning, storage or reconstruction; thus no new direct or indirect effects to riparian areas would occur. Through natural growth, plant vigor and composition in the riparian zones would be expected to increase and contribute more shade as these areas recover from past treatments. The rate of progression and anticipated temperature changes would be slow and vary in time depending on the existing condition of the watershed including soils, vegetation, continuing activities, and intensity of past activities. Alternatives 2 and 3 The action alternatives propose about 10 acres of timber harvest within riparian habitat conservation areas along the main Boulder Creek Channel. This proposed activity within the RHCA is not expected to be detrimental to stream temperatures because the natural topography and locations of the proposed units will protect streams and streamside resources and about 10 acres of timber harvest in over 5000 acres of RHCAs is a negligible percentage. The portions of unit 42 that encroach on the RHCA lie to the north of Boulder Creek and will maintain at least 150 feet of undisturbed vegetation between the unit and stream. This unit would harvest a decadent stand of lodgepole pine to promote the regeneration of longer lived species such as white pine and larch, which would be beneficial to the riparian area when established. Special Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 27

34 Boulder Creek Restoration Project design features are included for this unit. Field reviews of project area streams documented dense, intact overstory and understory vegetation providing canopy cover. The beaver reintroduction proposed by alternatives 2 and 3 would also have a benefit for stream temperatures. Beaver are an integral component of hydrologic, geomorphic, and biotic processes within North American stream systems, and their propensity to build dams alters stream and riparian structure and function to the benefit of many aquatic and terrestrial species. Recognizing this, beaver relocation efforts and/or application of structures designed to mimic the function of beaver dams are increasingly being utilized as effective and cost-efficient stream and riparian restoration approaches (Weber et al. 2017). This same study observed several benefits from beaver dams that may reduce temperature regimes, such as increased groundwater storage and release, and cold water habitat for fish. Cumulative Effects The combination of direct and indirect effects of the action alternatives with past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities would preserve the shade-providing riparian vegetation within the 5000 acres of project area RHCAs. This would not further degrade water quality with respect to temperature because RHCAs would retain the canopy cover that prevents solar inputs to the stream. The riparian vegetation would continue to slowly improve as the stands grow and mature. The 10 acres of timber harvest proposed within the RHCAs would reduce canopy cover, though it wouldn t impact stream shade because the unit is oriented to the north of Boulder creek and 150 feet of undisturbed RHCA would be left between the unit and the stream. Once established, the beaver reintroduction and possible construction of beaver dam analogs in the Boulder Meadows reach would be expected to have a positive benefit for water temperatures through increased surface water storage, increased groundwater to surface water exchange which may augment early summer baseflows (Baldwin 2015). Effects to Road Density Summary: Road densities within the Boulder Creek watershed would decrease with the implementation of either action alternative upon project completion. The decrease is due to the proposed road storage of 13.4 miles and 0.7 miles of decommissioning for both action alternatives. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Project area road densities would remain unchanged because no temporary roads would be constructed and no roads would be stored or decommissioned. Alternatives 2 and 3 Road densities would decrease with the implementation of either action alternative (see table below). The decrease is due to the proposed road storage of 13.4 miles and 0.7 miles of decommissioning for both action alternatives. This lower road density within RHCAs would help decrease the probability of modifying flows and decrease the likelihood of contributing sediment into stream networks. The proposed actions also include the construction of 3.2 miles of temporary roads, which would be stored after the timber harvests are complete. Temporary roads are not included in the road density calculations because of the limited amount of time they will be left on the landscape. 28 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

35 BCRP Environmental Assessment Table 8. Road density in riparian habitat. Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3 Motorized Roads (mi) Project Area (mi 2 ) Road Density (mi/ mi 2 ) Roads within RHCAs (mi) Area of RHCAs (mi 2 ) Road density within RHCAs (mi/ mi 2 ) Cumulative Effects Both action alternatives would reduce the overall road density in Boulder Creek. The Leonia project will store an additional 2 miles of FSR 2111 which is located in the Boulder Creek watershed, upon completion of that project. That will further reduce road overall road densities in the Boulder Creek watershed from 1.1 to 0.86 mi / mi 2 and would reduce road densities within RHCAs from 1.3 to 0.88 mi / mi 2. The road storage and decommissioning proposed with BCRP would complement the road storage that has already been completed in the watershed. Lower road density overall and especially within RHCAs would help decrease the probability of modifying flows and decrease the likelihood of contributing sediment into stream networks. Effects to Equivalent Clearcut Area Summary: ECA values as a result of either action alternative would not result in changes to water yield or peak flows that could be differentiated from normal climatic fluctuations. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Under the no action alternative, ECA would be the same as described for the existing condition and would decrease as past harvest units throughout the watersheds continue to recover. There would be no new management activities that would affect ECA. However, delaying harvest in overstocked timber stands could result in an increase in tree mortality and fuel build-up. Continued fuel loading would increase the risk of high intensity wildfires that could kill most of the vegetation in both upland and riparian areas, thus increasing the ECA. Alternatives 2 and 3 The ECA s for the alternatives is presented in the table below. The timber harvest and landscape burning activities proposed with Alternative 2 would raise ECA 9% to 5459 acres, or raise ECA 7.5% to 4881 acres with Alternative 3. The larger increase associated with alternative 2 is attributed to the greater amount of proposed landscape burning. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 29

36 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Table 9. Percent Equivalent Clearcut Acres (ECAs) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 ECA (acres) ECA (% of watershed) Increase in ECA from Existing Condition (% of watershed) The Boulder Creek watershed is approximately 40,000 acres. Alternatives 2 and 3 would create a watershed ECA value of 13.5 percent and 12 percent respectively. Increases in peak flow under either of the action alternatives would probably not be detectable in the main Boulder Creek channel and could not be differentiated from normal climatic fluctuations. As discussed in the hydrology report, research supports that watershed ECA values under 20% will not have a detectible influence on water yield or peak flows that can be measured beyond natural variability. The above table shows that the watershed ECA s are indeed less than 20% of the watersheds, no further calculation or modeling of water yield or peak flow is warranted. The BCRP would have no detectible influence on water yield or peak flow. Cumulative Effects Since the BCRP considered with other activities occurring in the Boulder Creek watershed will not increase ECA beyond 13.5 percent and 12 percent for alternatives 2 and 3 respectively, the BCRP would have no detectible influence on water yield or peak flows. Effects to Fish and Aquatic Habitat The purpose of this section is to identify potential concerns for the fisheries resource (fish and aquatic habitat) associated with the three project alternatives and determine their expected significance to the persistence of fish populations in the BCRP area. Only three of the proposed project activities common to alternatives 2 and 3 will need to be fully analyzed as these have been determined to be of greatest concern for potential effects to the fisheries resource. The remaining activities will not be discussed in detail because they present a very low risk to the fisheries resource as determined by relevant peer-reviewed research and literature or because the modeling and hydrologic analysis for the BCRP (Hydrology Report - project file) determined these activities would not likely pose a measurable change to the aquatic environment. A complete and more detailed version of this discussion, existing conditions in the project area, and supporting documentation for effects determinations and conclusions can be found in the Fisheries Resources Report in the BCRP project file. Table 10 displays the two principal Resource Elements of the fisheries resource, the three Project Activities of greatest concern to the fisheries resource, and the Habitat Indicators used to facilitate the effects discussion. These resource indicators represent important components of beneficial cold water habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. A more detailed explanation of how these habitat indicators benefit fish populations is located in the Fisheries Resources Report. The following discussion will focus on the potential for these project activities to substantially alter the habitat indicators from their existing condition and the effect that may have on the overall aquatic habitat condition and westslope cutthroat trout populations in the BCRP. 30 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

37 BCRP Environmental Assessment Table 10. Principal elements and relevant indicators for the fisheries resource. Resource Element Project Activity Habitat Indicators Aquatic habitat Westslope cutthroat trout. Commercial harvest in riparian habitat conservation areas Culvert removal and replacement Controlling the spread of invasive plants Changes to water temperatures Changes to instream large wood Changes to sediment levels in streams Changes to riparian zone function Changes to habitat connectivity Changes to water quality Bull trout, a threatened species, have been documented in the very lowest reaches of Boulder Creek downstream of a large waterfall that stops their migration, this is well downstream of the area of influence presented by this project. As a result, bull trout will not be the focus of this discussion. Effects to Aquatic Habitat and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Summary: When considering the influences from direct and indirect effects of alternative 1, and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for alternatives 2 or 3, none of the alternatives are expected to substantially impact existing aquatic habitat and fish populations in the Boulder Creek Restoration Project area or cumulative effects area. The replacement of the culvert passing Middle Fork Boulder Creek under FSR #628, which would likely occur regardless of the selected alternative, would have the most beneficial effect on local fish populations by improving upstream access to about 2 miles of spawning and rearing habitat. A short-term increase in sediment yield would be expected from certain project activities, such as culvert removal and replacements and road maintenance activities, but the long term benefits to the fisheries resource would outweigh the minor impacts. As a result, when considered with other activities occurring in the cumulative effects area, the Boulder Creek Restoration Project is not expected to substantially alter aquatic habitat and fish populations in the watershed. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Under this alternative, certain management activities, such as stand improvement/timber harvest, prescribed burning/fuels reduction, road decommissioning/storing, recreational site improvements, and wildlife habitat improvements would not occur in the short-term in the Boulder Creek watershed. The condition of aquatic habitat and health of westslope cutthroat trout populations in the watershed would likely follow existing trends and remain relatively unchanged while relying on natural processes to maintain or restore some impacts associated with existing conditions. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 31

38 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Alternative 2 and 3 This section discusses the potential effects to the aquatic habitat indicators associated with the three different project activities determined to be of greatest concern to the fisheries resource (Table 10). All three project activities are common to both action alternatives. Commercial Harvest in the RHCA of Unit 42 - Both alternatives would commercially harvest trees in a total of 10 acres in the outer portion (farthest from the stream) of the 300-foot RHCA in Unit 42. The timber stand in this unit is currently overstocked with lodgepole pine, which increases the risk of mountain pine beetle infestation and reduces the viability of existing desirable species such as western larch, ponderosa pine, and western red cedar. Commercial harvest in this RHCA would help regenerate this area into a healthy resilient forest type that will likely improve riparian function in the long term and help achieve our desired condition for this area. Solar radiation plays a large role on influencing stream water temperatures (Brown 1969; Johnson and Jones 2000; Johnson 2004; Caissie 2006) and maintaining adequate overhead canopy cover along streams is likely the most effective variable to reduce that radiant heat source (Gravelle and Link 2007; Krauskopf et al. 2010). To minimize or eliminate the potential to increase stream temperatures as a result of this activity, a design feature that requires a minimum 150-foot vegetated stream buffer would be mandatory. Because this buffer would leave all trees that are providing the existing shade to the stream, and because Unit 42 is on the north side of Boulder Creek, the potential for solar radiation to reach Boulder Creek and increase water temperature as a result of this activity is discountable. Instream large wood found in many streams is a critical component providing increased complexity of stream habitat by creating areas with different depths, velocities, substrate types, and amounts of instream cover. As described above, a minimum of a 150-foot undisturbed RHCA buffer will be maintained in this particular unit under both action alternatives. Because very few trees in this area reach 150 feet in height, only those trees closer to the stream than 150 feet will effectively provide recruitment potential of large wood into the stream channel. In other terms, tree height should dictate the size of the undisturbed riparian corridor, as wood cannot be recruited from a distance that exceeds tree height. As a result of maintaining a 150-foot buffer, large wood recruitment potential is expected to be maintained under either action alternative. One of the most important benefits to maintaining appropriate buffer widths is the ability of these buffers to filter out and minimize fine sediments from reaching the stream, which may originate from upland management activities. In a recent study conducted by Witt et al. (2016), stream buffers of 110 feet were similarly effective at preventing sediment from entering a stream channel as those of the unharvested control watersheds during both base flows and storm flow conditions. Further, in a literature search of the scientific function and effectiveness of stream buffers, Castelle et al. (1994) concluded that buffer widths of a minimum of 49 to 98 feet were necessary to effectively protect wetlands and streams. By maintaining a minimum 150 foot RHCA buffer for Unit 42, concerns about fine sediment reaching Boulder Creek have been addressed. In addition to maintaining no less than a 150-foot RHCA buffer in unit 42, mandatory design features would not allow any equipment to be operated on slopes greater than 40% in the RHCA of Unit 42. Equipment operated on slopes less than 40% in the RHCA of Unit 42 would be required to operate on a slash mat, and all slash generated in the 300-foot RHCA would not be piled and burned but would be left on the forest floor to help with sediment filtration and the soilbuilding process. As a result, it is unlikely that any sediment generated by management activities 32 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

39 BCRP Environmental Assessment in the vicinity of this unit will reach Boulder Creek and affect aquatic habitat or westslope cutthroat trout. Finally, the prescription for this unit and the associated design features were developed together with an emphasis towards riparian management objects (RMO s). Whereas commercial harvest in a small section of this RHCA would likely improve riparian conditions in the long term (>10 years), mandatory design features for this management action would assure RMO s are not obstructed in the short-term. Culvert Removal and Replacement Both action alternatives would include the replacement of the culvert passing Middle Fork Boulder Creek under Forest Road #628. Additionally, as project opportunities under both action alternatives, the culverts passing Cabin Creek under Forest Road #427 and Black Creek under Forest Road #427 would also be replaced. Heavy equipment will be used during construction at each location. Instream work would not begin until July 15 and work could be extended into early fall on these streams to minimize disturbances to westslope cutthroat trout. Disturbance would be limited to the existing road prism and road maintenance right of way and Best Management Practices and Design Criteria will be mandatory to minimize or eliminate potential impacts to all resources. A short-term increase of sediment levels in the associated streams would likely occur when replacing these three culverts. However, Folz et al. (2007) research of removing culverts suggests that the average sediment delivery of an unmitigated culvert removal (150 pounds) can be reduced to about 3 pounds with the use of appropriate best management practices. Further, the same study documented that sediment levels exceeding criteria known to cause stress to adult fish at unmitigated culvert construction sites had an average duration of only about 5 hours, as measured about 65 feet downstream of the activity. As a result, the long-term benefits of providing greater upstream access to beneficial spawning and rearing habitat for westslope cutthroat trout would far outweigh the potential short-term negative impacts associated with culvert replacement construction. Currently, all three of these culverts already either block or substantially impede upstream fish passage to beneficial spawning and rearing habitat. Replacing these culverts would have an extremely high likelihood of improving habitat connectivity beyond what currently exists which would allow for unimpeded upstream access to additional habitat for westslope cutthroat trout and other resident fish species. Replacement of these culverts could have short-term (less than 5 days) impacts to habitat connectivity as a section of the stream (<100 feet) would need to be dewatered in the location of the crossing to reduce sediment while construction occurs. However, these impacts would not be long-lasting and the long-term benefits of providing enhanced connectivity to additional habitat would far outweigh any short-term complications. Control of Invasive/Noxious Plant Species Weed treatments on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District are typically conducted according to the guidelines, priorities, approved herbicides, methods, and required BMPs established in the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds EIS (USDA 1995). However, for the BCRP, we are proposing to use a newer herbicide, aminopyralid, which can be used more effectively and is safer for aquatic environments, but was not covered in the original Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds EIS. As a result, use of this herbicide needs to be analyzed in the Boulder Creek Restoration Project EA. Aminopyralid has many advantages over picloram and these advantages are described in the Fisheries Resource Report (pages 16 & 17) in the project file. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 33

40 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Because aminopyralid can safely be used up to the water s edge, we will be able to treat invasive/noxious weed species in areas we have never been able to treat in the past. Per direction in the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds EIS for using picloram, all treatment needs to stop 150 feet from any surface water. This leaves an invasive weed source to proliferate in riparian areas and eventually spread back into areas already treated (>150 feet from water s edge). By using aminopyralid, most areas with invasive weeds can be treated leaving fewer plants as a source of recruitment. As a result, we would expect the spread of noxious weeds in the RHCA to be reduced and allow native riparian plants to flourish without competition, which should maintain or improve the riparian zone function. Based on a comprehensive review of this herbicide by the USDA Forest Service (Durkin 2007), aminopyralid at environmentally relevant concentrations has low potential toxicity to humans, as well as terrestrial animals and aquatic organisms. Though the potential for aminopyralid to contaminate groundwater is high due to its high solubility and prolonged half-life in soil, both EPA and the U.S. Forest Service concluded that predicted short and long-term concentrations of aminopyralid in groundwater are substantially below concentrations of health concern for people using groundwater as a source of drinking water. In terms of ecological effects, a series of ecological benchmark toxicity concentrations were developed by both EPA and the US Forest Service for various terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Though there were some differences in some of these values between the two agencies, the evaluations conducted by both agencies point to the same conclusion, that there is no indication from the available data that aminopyralid will adversely affect mammals, birds, fish, aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, terrestrial microorganisms and amphibians. Whereas aminopyralid should not be applied directly into water, if applied in a manner that is consistent with the product label, this herbicide should not contribute to significant changes to water quality in the BCRP area. Cumulative Effects A list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that could be considered in the cumulative effects analysis have been identified and listed previously in this document. However, not all of these listed actions are relevant to the discussion of the fisheries resource. Those that have the greatest potential to have considerable effects to aquatic organisms or their habitat, when combined with direct and indirect effects associated with each action alternative, include timber harvest, road maintenance, road decommissioning or storage, wildfires, and fire suppression. Based on literature reviews and the effectiveness of properly used BMP s, in addition to results generated in the BCRP Hydrology Report, if alternative 2 or 3 was selected, there would be very little chance that substantial adverse effects to the fisheries resource would occur as a result of proposed activities when considered with relevant cumulative effects. A more detailed explanation on cumulative effects can be found on pages of the Fisheries Resources Report in the project file. Determination of Effects on Aquatic Habitat from Alternatives 2 and 3 The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of alternatives 2 or 3 would not be expected to have substantial or measurable impacts to the existing condition of aquatic habitat in the Boulder Creek Restoration Project area or the cumulative effects area. The replacement of the culvert passing Middle Fork Boulder Creek under FSR #628 will certainly reduce habitat fragmentation and 34 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

41 BCRP Environmental Assessment improve upstream access to beneficial spawning and rearing habitat. When applied appropriately, the use of aminopyralid will enable more effective control of noxious weeds and allow treatment well into the RHCA s. This, in turn, should reduce competition to native riparian plant species and allow these areas to continue to function properly. The associated road maintenance and storage in both alternatives will provide some relief to chronic sedimentation into streams and reduce the chances for larger road fill failures. Reducing sedimentation into Boulder Creek and its tributaries will allow these streams to continue to effectively process and cycle sediment through the system and help maintain existing aquatic habitat conditions. Determination of Effects on Westslope Cutthroat Trout from Alternatives 2 and 3 The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of alternatives 2 or 3 would likely not have a measurable negative impact on the resident population of westslope cutthroat trout in the Boulder Creek Restoration Project area or the cumulative effects area. The replacement of the culvert passing Middle Fork Boulder Creek under FSR #628 would have to most beneficial effect to the local population. An initial increase in sedimentation into the stream may occur as a result of the culvert replacement, and some of the road maintenance, but effects would be very short term, limited to a few individual fish, and would not likely lead to a trend that would warrant federal listing for the species. Effects to Fire and Fuels The effects of the Boulder Creek Restoration Project activities on fuels is a potential concern due to the influence fuels have on fire behavior, fire severity, and decisions on how to manage wildfires. Consistent with the Forest Plan, this project proposes to reduce hazardous fuels within the WUI and other areas where values may be at risk. The desired fire behavior is characterized by low-intensity surface fires with limited potential for crown fire; preferred forest conditions across the landscape are such that the risk for large-scale, stand-replacing fire is low. Prescribed fire only treatments are proposed to trend towards desired vegetative conditions in the backcountry the preferred method in this area as outlined in the Forest Plan. Indicators and measures were selected in order to assess the effectiveness for treatments to meet these objectives related to fuels and fire behavior. One way to measure the intensity of a fire is by the flame lengths at the head. Flame lengths also influence fire movement from the surface fuels into the canopy fuels, as well as influence suppression tactics. For these reasons, flame lengths were used as a measure to assess the effects of project treatments on surface fuels. Ladder fuels serve as an avenue to move fire from the surface fuels into the tree crowns; canopy base height (CBH; measured in feet) is the lowest height above the ground where there is a sufficient amount of fuel for that fire transition to take place. Low canopy base heights in a stand suggests an abundance of ladder fuels and a high likelihood that torching will occur. On the other hand, a stand with a high canopy base height generally has minimal ladder fuels and a low probability that torching or transition of surface fire to crown fire will occur. Therefore, canopy base heights were used as an indicator of ladder fuels, measured by the probability of torching both with and without proposed treatment. If torching occurs, crown fire can be sustained based on the relationship between the volume of canopy fuel and the rate of spread. Canopy bulk density (CBD) is the mass of available fuel per unit canopy volume; it affects the spread rate needed to sustain active crown fire. The lower the canopy bulk density, the lower the potential for active crown fire and the greater the winds necessary to move fire through the tree crowns (known as the crowning index). Using canopy Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 35

42 Boulder Creek Restoration Project bulk density as an indicator of the canopy fuels and measuring the winds necessary to sustain crown fire, helps managers evaluate the effectiveness of project activities to mitigate crown fire potential. Table 11. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to fuels and fire behavior Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Surface Fuels Fuel Models & Fuel Load Flame Lengths (Feet) Ladder Fuels Canopy Base Heights (Feet) Probability of Torching (%) Canopy Fuels Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3) Crowning Index (winds in mph) The current condition of the resource elements and indicators were assessed using stand exam data, LANDFIRE, as well as data gathered during multiple site-visits to proposed treatment areas. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FFE-FVS) incorporates existing fire behavior models so it was used in this analysis to summarize stand-level fuels conditions and potential fire behavior by alternative, now and into the future. More information about this model is available in the fire and fuels specialist report, as well as the project file. Effects to Surface Fuels and Flame Lengths Summary: Without treatment (Alternative 1), surface fuels across the majority of the area would remain heavy with down woody material and shrubs. Under periods of high fire danger, associated flame lengths would likely be between 4-8 feet (averaging 5 feet) exceeding the threshold for direct attack by ground-based firefighters. Proposed harvest and fuels treatments (i.e. prescribed fire), which would occur under Alternatives 2 and 3, would reduce surface fuels to light and compacted timber litter (fuel loading could be reduced by one-half or more). These reduced fuel loads would translate to low expected surface flame lengths of just 1-2 feet well within the threshold for safe direct attack by ground firefighters (flame lengths less than 4 feet). Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Predicted surface flame lengths can vary considerably based on fuel loading and type (brush, grass, timber litter, slash), fuel bed depth, how open the stand is, topography, fuel moistures, time of year, current weather, etc. Most of the stands proposed for timber harvest under one of the action alternatives have either heavy loads of timber litter and shrubs (TU5 fuel model) or heavy loads of grass and shrubs (GS2 fuel model) in the surface fuels. Without treatment under alternative 1, both of these fuel types could result in expected flame lengths greater than 4 feet above the threshold of direct attack by ground firefighters. Alternatives 2 and 3 The application of prescribed fire is considered one of the best methods to reduce surface fuels and modify fire behavior (Graham et al. 1999, Pollet and Omi 2002, Stephens et al. 2009). Following harvest and prescribed fire (which includes pile burning), surface fuels would likely be 36 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

43 BCRP Environmental Assessment reduced by about one-half to two-thirds from heavy down timber litter to light timber litter (fuel models TL1 or TL3) in most places and low fuel bed depths just a couple inches deep. These reduced fuel loads translate to low predicted surface flame lengths of about 1-2 feet; well within the 4-foot threshold for direct attack. Where prescribed fire only treatments occur, surface fuels would be expected to be reduced to a similar degree. Pre-commercial thinning would be anticipated to result in a short-term increase in surface fire hazard. This is because the cut material would be left on site and would consist of mostly small woody material arranged in a continuous manner. This would result in a fuel model most similar to a light slash load (SB1 fuel model), where fires can be active in the slash and intermixed herbaceous material, exhibiting moderate spread rates and flame lengths around 4 feet or greater. This increased hazard would be expected to persist for about 5-7 years until the slash fuels mitigated naturally. Effects to Ladder Fuels and Canopy Base Heights Summary: Without treatment (Alternative 1), continued low canopy base heights averaging 5 feet would maintain a high probability of torching in most stands above 95%. As forests continue to go through succession without disturbance, more shadetolerant trees are expected to regenerate. These species (such as grand fir and western hemlock) typically have low-growing crowns, contributing to low canopy base heights and torching potential. Following harvest and prescribed burning (Alternatives 2 and 3), nearly all ladder fuels small diameter trees, tall shrubs, and even many overstory trees would be removed. this would increase canopy base heights to approximately 30 feet, therefore, reducing the probability of torching to 0%. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Without harvest and fuels treatment or prescribed burning, higher surface flame lengths coupled with low canopy base heights (averaging 5 feet), maintains a high probability of torching above 95%. In the absence of management or other disturbance (natural fire), the potential for transition to crown fire would likely remain into the future, as forest succession contributes to accumulation of fuels in all layers. Alternatives 2 and 3 Following harvest and fuels treatments, canopy base heights would be increased to near 30 feet to the base of the crowns of the large residual overstory trees. This is well beyond the level needed to inhibit torching, especially in consideration of the treatment effects on surface flame lengths. With such high canopy base heights, the winds necessary to initiate torching would be unreasonably high (modeled greater than 100 mile/hour), thus the probability of torching is essentially zero. Prescribed fire only treatments are not expected to have as great an influence on ladder fuels as harvest followed by fuels treatment (piling or underburning). Although prescribed fire only would consume tall shrubs, kill small trees, and consume the lower branches of large trees, the Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 37

44 Boulder Creek Restoration Project treatment is not expected to have uniform effects on these fuels. Simulation of prescribed fire showed variable CBH increase near 30 feet and the probability of torching reduced to about percent (dependent on forest type), as compared to 95 percent without treatment. According to the model, these conditions would be maintained out approximately 40 years. Following PCT, canopy base heights of the residual young trees would still be very low, so torching of those individual trees would still be expected. In the long-run, as the residual trees grown, canopies will raise up off the forest floor and stand canopy base heights would be expected to increase. Effects to Canopy Fuels and Potential Crown Fire Activity Summary: Canopy fuel loads currently range from about kg/m 3 in previously untreated stands. Without treatment (Alternative 1), these canopy loads are sufficient to allow torching and active crown fire with 20-foot winds around just 15 mph. Wind speeds such as this can be common during fire season. The amount of canopy removed during harvest treatments proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 would vary to some degree depending on prescription. However, all harvest treatments would be expected to reduce canopy bulk density such that fire spread from tree to tree (active crown fire) would be unlikely, except under very high winds. For example, a regeneration harvest could reduce the canopy bulk density by about 80% - a unit having a canopy bulk density of 0.16 kg/m 3 prior to harvest would be reduced to approximately 0.03 kg/m 3 after the overstory trees are removed. A reduction in CBD of that degree would result in an increase in the crowning index from just under 15 mph to greater than 60 mph (following treatment the winds necessary to sustain crown fire would have to be 60 mph). Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Crown fire activity represents a problem for fire managers (Rothermel 1983) due to the high rates of spread and very high intensity. If torching occurs, the crown structures and available canopy fuel load would remain sufficient in previously untreated stands under the No Action alternative that crown fire could occur with 20-foot wind speeds of about 15 miles/hour (20-foot winds are those twenty feet above the average height of the nearby vegetation). Crown fire results in flame lengths and rates of spread well beyond firefighter, mechanical, or aerial abilities to direct attack a fire. In addition, spotting and increased radiation make values-at- risk more difficult to defend than a surface fire (Cohen and Butler 1998 and Scott and Reinhardt 2001). In regards to standreplacing fire, crown fires nearly always result in total tree mortality (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Alternatives 2 and 3 A key in treating the crown fuels by harvesting overstory trees is to effectively reduce the canopy bulk density to a level where active crown fire is not possible or the chances are significantly reduced (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Essentially, the fire spread rate thus needed in order to sustain active crown fire is unrealistically high. Simulating a regeneration harvest in a representative stand (Unit 236), the canopy bulk density decreases from 0.16 kg/m 3 to about 0.03 kg/m 3. Even if crown fire initiation (torching) were to occur, harvest would space tree crowns, 38 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

45 BCRP Environmental Assessment reducing the likelihood of spread from tree crown to tree crown. With this reduction in crown fuel, the predicted crowning index would increase from just under 15 miles/hour to 60 miles/hour. Prescribed fire only treatments are not expected to reduce canopy fuels and canopy bulk densities to the degree in which timber harvest would prescribed fire alone would be much less uniform in resulting fuels. However, mortality to trees is expected, especially outside old growth and where intense fire is intended to create openings in dense timber stands. In some areas, there could be canopy bulk density reductions of more than half. In a simulation, prescribed fire in these areas resulted in a crowning index increase from about 13 miles/hour up to about 26 miles/hour. By treating the pre-commercial thin units, an additional fire hazard reduction would be realized above the current condition through a reduction in tree density by as much as 90%. Fewer trees per acre would result in spaced tree canopies and a reduced canopy bulk density as trees mature (as compared to no action), limiting fire spread from tree to tree now and likely in the future. Cumulative Effects In the BCRP area, activities which could contribute to cumulative effects under the two action alternatives are fire suppression and future fire use, timber harvest, the North Zone Roadside Salvage project, precommercial thinning, and prescribed burning. These activities have both direct and indirect influences on fuels conditions, and therefore, have the potential to influence surface flame lengths, probability of torching, and crown fire behavior. When combined with this project, ongoing and future timber harvest or fuels treatments, such as the Leonia project, would decrease surface, ladder, and canopy fuels across an even larger proportion of the landscape. This would increase the effective area where the potential for standreplacing fire is reduced. However, any PCT within the BCRP landscape, in addition to what is proposed, would increase surface fire hazard in the short-term across even more acreage if the cut trees are not piled and burned. Effects to Forest Vegetation The forest vegetation across the BCRP area is constantly changing because of the interaction of plant succession and the influence of disturbances (both natural and human disturbances). This analysis focuses on the alternatives and the predicted effects to the forest vegetation in the BCRP. Although the analysis is centered on the conifer tree component, it is recognized that associated layers of vegetation are important parts of the plant communities in the area. Table 12 lists the principle issues and indicators that are designed to help the reader assess the effectiveness of the alternatives in meeting project objectives and also be a trend indicator (toward or away) from the desired conditions for vegetation resources as listed in the Forest Plan. Table 12. Issues and indicators Principle Issue Forest Composition Principle Issue Indicators Acres trended toward dominance of long-lived seral 7 species (i.e., ponderosa pine, western larch, aspen, whitebark pine and western white pine) that better resist drought, insects and disease and fire. 7 A seral community (or sere) is an intermediate stage found in ecological succession in an ecosystem advancing towards its climax community. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 39

46 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Principle Issue Forest Structure Principle Issue Indicators Acres of moderate and high hazard lodgepole stands converted to early successional forests. Acres of health, vigor and resilience improved, or maintained, through stocking control. Increased patch size of forest openings (seedling/sapling) Maintenance and restoration of dry-site old growth stands. Effects to Forest Composition Alternatives 2 and 3 would trend the forest composition in the project area towards desired conditions using forest restoration prescriptions including commercial timber harvest, precommercial thinning, and prescribed burning. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase the percentage of long-lived seral species across the landscape and decrease the shorter-lived seral species such as lodgepole pine and the percentage of shadetolerant species. Both action alternatives would also help restore aspen stands that are overcrowded with conifers and would also create and maintain more stands in the project area that have a greater diversity of species and therefore a greater resiliency to drought, insects, and unwanted wildfires. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Historically, fire was the primary disturbance process that determined forest composition in most of the northern Rockies (Hessburg and Agee 2003). Since fire has essentially been removed from the ecosystem for approximately 100 years, forest composition has been determined mostly by fire suppression and timber harvest. As a result, substantial changes in forest composition have occurred in the BCRP area as displayed in Figure 3. The most dramatic changes have occurred with respect to long-lived seral species such as western white pine, ponderosa pine, whitebark pine and western larch. Whitebark pine is considered a keystone species in high elevation ecosystems because it increases biodiversity and contributes to critical ecosystem functions. It is frequently the first conifer to become established after disturbances like wildfires and subsequently stabilizes soils and regulates runoff. Snow will drift around whitebark pine trees, thereby increasing soil moisture, modifying soil temperatures, and holding soil moisture later into the season. Whitebark pine also provides important, highly nutritious seeds for numerous birds and mammals. In addition to these important contributions to high elevation ecosystems, whitebark pine forests have a high esthetic value that is prized by backcountry hikers and other recreational users. The majority of the whitebark pine stands are outside of the proposed burning areas with a few scattered individual trees in the rocky open areas that are unlikely to burn hot enough to cause mortality. Seral species have been replaced across the landscape by more shadetolerant climax species like Douglas-fir, grand fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock as well as lodgepole pine, a shade-intolerant species. Forest vegetation communities are dynamic and not static, they continue to change through growth and mortality over time and are affected by disturbance agents such as drought, insects, disease or wildfires. Following the findings of the Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin (ICBEMP), Northern Region Overview, and the North Zone Geographic Area (NZGA), the forests of North Idaho and the Kootenai River Basin (Figure 8) are generally not healthy, nor is their health and resilience to external forces expected to improve over time without some sort of 40 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

47 BCRP Environmental Assessment active management which would be essential to restoring them. Forest composition and structural changes at the local project level reflect these findings. Figure 8. Current forest composition as compared to historical composition of the Kootenai sub basin. Species Key: C = western redcedar; DF = Douglas-fir; GF/WH = grand fire and western hemlock; L = western larch; LP = lodgepole pine; PP = ponderosa pine; SAF = subalpine fir; WP = western white pine Alternative 1 Without treatment, existing trends in forest species composition would continue, resulting in a continued decrease in the percent composition of western white pine, whitebark pine, western larch and ponderosa pine. In lodgepole pine forests, species composition would trend toward dominance of Douglas-fir, grand-fir, cedar, hemlock, and subalpine fir as mature lodgepole succumbs to pine beetle and other natural disturbances such as wind (Smith and Fischer 1997). In mixed conifer stands, there would be a continued decrease in the percent composition of western white pine and western larch and an increase in species such as Douglas-fir and grand fir that are more susceptible to insect and disease problems. Harvey and others (1994) state that with continued overcrowding of Douglas-fir and grand fir, the competition for water and nutrients would increase, ultimately increasing the susceptibility of these forests to lethal fires and losses in productivity. Changes in composition would be accomplished using even-aged regeneration harvests and prescribed fire that convert stands to various long-lived seral species, one exception would be in the relatively pure lodgepole pine stands on Iron and Buck Mountains. In this vicinity, regeneration after prescribed burning is expected to be mostly lodgepole pine because of the lack of other tree species. Without disturbances such as active management or wildfires, the forest vegetation composition in project area will continue trending away from desired conditions. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 41

48 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternative 2 The proposed action includes about 3,433 acres of commercial vegetation treatments, 806 acres of precommercial thinning and a 22 acre fuel break by Black Mountain Lookout. Alternative 2 also proposes about 7, 400 acres of prescribed burning in the Katka Peak and Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle roadless areas. Alternative 3 proposes the same 3,433 acres of commercial vegetation treatments, 806 acres of precommercial thinning and 22 acre fuel break as listed in alternative 2. The main difference is that alternative 3 does not propose any commercial harvesting or prescribed burning activities in either the Katka Peak or Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle roadless areas, and proposes about 172 acres of prescribed burning treatments outside of the roadless areas. As with alternative 2, these various vegetation treatments are designed to meet the purpose and need and provide for forest composition that would be more resilient to future disturbances such as drought, wildfire, insects and diseases. Cumulative Effects In the absence of wildfires, past timber harvest has been the primary mechanism for managing forest composition. The majority of stands in the area that are currently dominated by larch and white pine are a result of past regeneration harvesting. Both action alternatives, through evenaged and uneven-aged regeneration harvesting, would add to the total acres of stands dominated by seral species. Increasing the percentage of long-lived seral species on the BCRP landscape would improve overall ecosystem health by reducing the percentage of Douglas-fir, grand fir, and lodgepole pine, which are more susceptible to insect and disease. Additionally, ponderosa pine and western larch are more resistant to fires than the species they would be replacing (Harvey and others 1994). Finally, developing mixed species plantations would increase the diversity of tree species composition, which helps create forests that are more resilient to ongoing climate-related changes (Hubbard and others 2007). With alternative 2, prescribed burning in the Katka Peak roadless area would create about 213 acres of potential whitebark pine habitat or places for whitebark pine to naturally regenerate in. Larger seed producing whitebark pine are located just outside the proposed burn areas and are expected to provide the seed for the new whitebark pine stands. Prescribed burning in the Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle roadless area would create about 545 acres of potential whitebark pine habitat for natural regeneration as well. About 23 acres of potential whitebark pine habitat are located outside but adjacent to the Katka Peak roadless area. Refer to maps in Appendix A for whitebark pine habitat distribution and prescribed burning areas. Alternatives 2 and 3 meet these forest composition indicators to a varying degrees as portrayed in Table 13. Alternative 1 would not improve forest composition in the BCRP area and would trend the forest composition away from desired conditions. Because the North Zone Roadside Salvage project would only remove dead and dying hazard trees and blow down along selected open National Forest System roads in the project area, the limited area of roadside harvest would affect less than 1 percent of the stands in the BCRP area. Therefore, none of the past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Table 6 would add any measurable cumulative effects to the forest composition component of this project. Effects to Forest Structure The action alternatives would meet the purpose and need by improving the diversity of forest structure over the project area, alleviate stand congestion, and improve the overall forest health and resilience to future disturbances. Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the 42 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

49 BCRP Environmental Assessment acres of lodgepole pine stands at risk of bark beetle attacks, increase opening sizes and trend the forest structure indicators toward desired conditions. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a positive effect on the resilience in dry site old growth stands because of the reduced inter-tree completion for growing space, water and nutrients after treatments are completed. None of the alternatives would reduce the number of acres of old growth in the forest plan. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Forest structure is the horizontal and vertical distribution of layers in a forest. Forest structure is the proportion of young, mature, and old trees across the landscape. For this analysis, the forested landscape was broken into the following structural classifications in Figure 4. Forest openings compose about percent of the project area and are below the Kootenai sub basin range of 15 to 50 percent of the landscape. Historically, stand-replacing fire was the primary ecosystem process responsible for creating forest openings. In the age of successful fire suppression, even-aged silvicultural systems have been the primary mechanism for creating forest openings. However, these openings were generally limited to less than 40 acres due to requirements in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) that place limitations on the size of openings created through even-aged timber harvest. Based on a patch size analysis of historic data in the BCRP (~40,600 acres) average patch size was close to 300 acres, with the largest patch being more than 700 acres (PF). Given the 115-year gap between the last major standreplacing fire and the advent of regulated timber harvest (1970s), it is not surprising that the combination of pole, immature, and mature forest comprise over 80 percent of the landscape and forested openings are below the lower end of the historical range. With fire basically removed from the BCRP ecosystem for nearly a century, fire suppression and timber harvest have shaped the current forest structure. Old growth forests total only about 9 percent of the total forested acreage, which is outside the historical range of variability and below the lower end of the range (15-35%) at the Kootenai sub basin level. Because the BCRP landscape is in the lower ranges for old growth coverage in the Kootenai sub basin, many of the mature forest stands would be underburned with prescribed fire or passively managed so they can trend towards old growth stand composition and structure where needed in the BCRP for various resource benefits on the landscape such as wildlife habitat. Alternative 1 Forest vegetation communities are not static but dynamic, they continue to change through growth and mortality over time and are affected by disturbance agents such as drought, insects, disease or wildfires. The No Action alternative is useful for the reader to use as a baseline in order to compare effects of the action alternatives and understand the trade-offs of not taking any management action. Current trends related to forest vegetation would likely continue over time and the forest vegetation structure would likely deviate further from the forest structure indicators and desired conditions as described in the forest plan. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 43

50 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Alternatives 2 and 3 Both action alternatives 2 and 3 would improve forest structure over the project area as listed in Table 13. The prescribed burns in alternative 2 would reduce the amount of lodgepole pine forest type in the project area by about 4300 acres and alternative 3 would reduce the amount by about 75 acres. The openings created using commercial harvest and prescribed burning activities are expected to be a mosaic of shapes and sizes. Historically, forested openings ranged from 15 to 50 percent of the landscape whereas today they are at 9 percent. Alternative 2 would increase openings to about 22 percent of the analysis area and alternative 3 would increase them to 14 percent. These openings are expected to regenerate with seral plant and tree species. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a positive effect on the resilience in dry site old growth stands after treatments are completed because of the reduced inter-tree competition for growing space, water and nutrients. None of the alternatives would reduce the number of acres of old growth in the forest plan. Cumulative Effects In the absence of fire, past timber harvest has been the primary mechanism for managing forest structure through the conversion of mature stands to forest openings through regeneration harvesting. Both action alternatives, through even-aged regeneration harvesting and prescribed burning, would add to the total acreage of forest openings, diversify the forest structure on the landscape, and increase overall resiliency of the ecosystem in the project area to future stressors such as drought, insects, diseases and wildfire(s). Analysis of vegetation changes over time shows that the amount of mature and old growth forests is expected to increase through time, without large landscape fires. While continued fire suppression would contribute to an increase in mature and old growth forest stands, it would also increase the long-term risk of stand-replacing fires and the eventual loss of some old growth and potential old growth stands. Because the North Zone Roadside Salvage project would only remove dead and dying hazard trees and blow down along selected open National Forest System roads in the project area, the limited area of roadside harvest would affect less than 1% of the stands in the BCRP area. Therefore, none of the past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Table 6 would add any measurable cumulative effects to the forest structure component of this project. Table 13. Vegetation Resource alternative summary. Total Acres in project area - 40,613 Alt. 2 % Total Acres Alt. 3 % Total Acres Commercial Vegetation Harvest % % Pre commercial Thinning 806 2% 806 2% Fuel Break 22 Trace 22 Trace Prescribed Burning % % Acres or (%) trended toward desired conditions 11,668 29% 4,433 11% 44 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

51 BCRP Environmental Assessment Total Acres in project area - 40,613 Principle Issue Indicators Forest Composition - Acres trended toward dominance of long-lived seral species (i.e., ponderosa pine, western larch, whitebark pine and western white pine) that better resist insects and disease Forest Structure Acres of moderate and high hazard lodgepole stands converted to early successional forests. Alt. 2 % Total Acres Alt. 3 % Total Acres 11,668 29% 4,433 11% 1,137 (harvest) 4300 (Rx fire) 3% 11% 75 0 Trace 0% Acres of health, vigor and resilience improved, or maintained, through stocking control. Existing plus proposed increased patch size of forest openings (seedling/sapling). Maintenance and restoration of dry-site old growth stands. Total acres of old growth stands in project area is 4,164 acres. 11,668 29% 4,433 11% % % 118 (harvest / Rx fire) 172 (Rx fire only) 3% 4% 118 (harvest / Rx fire) 0 3% 0% Alternative 1 is the No action alternative and not included in the table. Forest composition and structure would trend away from desired conditions. Is there a way to cram a column in the above table for Alt 1, without destroying the table? Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat This section summarizes the Boulder Creek Restoration Project (BCRP) Wildlife Report, which discusses in detail the effects of the proposed alternatives on affected threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species and their habitat. The Wildlife Report also discusses the regulatory framework (Wildlife Report p. 3); geographic and temporal scope of the analysis (Wildlife Report pp ); analysis methodology (Wildlife Report pp. 9-10); habitat relationships, affected environment, and expected environmental consequences of proposed alternatives ( No Action plus two action alternatives) for each species fully analyzed (Wildlife Report p ); and Design Features (pp ). Species Relevancy Screen Species considered in this analysis were identified from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species List provided (project file) and the Regional Forester s Sensitive Species List. Some wildlife species do not have suitable habitat or are not regularly present or expected to be in or near the proposed activity area, are affected at a level that does not increase risk to the species, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 45

52 Boulder Creek Restoration Project or effects have been adequately mitigated by altering the design of the project. For these reasons, these species were not analyzed in detail. Preliminary analysis information and effects determinations for species not analyzed in detail are located in the project file. The following table summarizes the wildlife species and wildlife habitat components analyzed in more detail, the rationale for analysis (and conditions that influence the scope of analysis), and a brief description of their habitats. Table 14. Wildlife species analyzed in detail Species Preferred Habitat Rationale for Detailed Analysis Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) Fisher (Martes pennanti) Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Threatened and Endangered Species Higher elevation spruce/ fir forests with adequate prey base of snowshoe hares, its primary food. Habitat generalist. Denning areas isolated and remote from human development. Sensitive Species Mesic mature forest habitats Mature or old growth ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forest Ponderosa pine habitat, especially mature and old growth stands Caves, mines, and abandoned buildings; large snag habitat in drysite forest The project is within designated lynx analysis units (LAUs) and potentially affects lynx habitat. The project is within the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Area and would result in effects to core habitat and changes to road densities. Potentially suitable denning and foraging habitat is present and may be impacted within the analysis area. Potentially suitable nesting/roosting habitat may be affected. Proposed activities expected to trend other capable habitat toward suitability. Issue Indicators The table below displays the indicators that were used to measure effects on wildlife species. Indicators for each species vary and are based on those factors that could result in measurable effects (positive or negative) to the species. For most species being analyzed, appropriate habitat parameters were measured to distinguish potentially suitable habitat. A discussion of the changes in potentially suitable habitat for each relevant species and subsequent effects on species are discussed in further detail in the Wildlife Report. Table 15. Issue indicators used to measure effects Species Resource Indicator Measure Used to address: P/N, or key issue? Source Canada lynx amount of lynx habitat in a LAU currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat Acres of regeneration harvest, commercial thin or precommercial thinning, or standreplacing burn in lynx habitat Yes Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2007) 46 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

53 BCRP Environmental Assessment Species Resource Indicator Measure Used to address: P/N, or key issue? Source amount of lynx habitat regenerated in the previous 10- year period impacts to multi-storied mature or late-successional forests amount of lynx habitat in a stand initiation structural stage currently providing winter snowshoe hare habitat affected by thinning Grizzly bear Grizzly bear habitat effectiveness changes to core, open and total motorized route densities (% of BMU) Yes Motorized Access Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2011 Fisher Changes to potentially suitable denning habitat, changes to mature forest habitat, effects on large snag habitat, changes in linear road miles Acres harvest in potentially suitable or mature stands, drivable road miles No n/a Flammulated owl / Pygmy nuthatch / Fringed myotis Changes to dry forest habitat (including large snags) and trend toward suitable habitat conditions Acres harvest in dry-site stands Yes n/a Scope of Analysis The geographic scope of potential effects on wildlife for this analysis was determined based on the spatial extent of proposed Federal actions. The appropriate scale or geographic bounds for wildlife effects analysis varies on a species by species basis and may include review at multiple scales. Varying scales that were considered include the Boulder Creek watershed (about 40,578 acres nearly all National Forest System lands); the Katka, Boulder and Grouse Canada Lynx Analysis Units (approximately 17,750, 17,380, and 15,869 acres, respectively); the Boulder Grizzly Bear Management Unit (about 62,369 acres), the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (2,500,000 acres), and the Northern Region of the Forest Service. The temporal scope of the analysis is a function of the nature of the proposal, the geographic scope of the analysis, ongoing management goals and actions, and natural events. The analysis assesses effects based on both existing conditions at the time of the analysis and potential conditions (e.g., capable habitat that may or may not be currently suitable) at some undetermined time in the future. The time period that project-related disturbance may be present is expected to be from 5 to 8 years based on a 5-year timber sale contract and additional post-sale fuel treatments. The effects of vegetation management from this project may be still apparent 50 or more years beyond this, barring other natural or artificial disturbance in the area. Effects to Canada Lynx Summary: Alternatives 2 and 3 propose regeneration harvest and burning of lynx habitat in the Boulder, Grouse, and Katka LAUs. These alternatives would not result in Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 47

54 Boulder Creek Restoration Project greater than 30 percent of lynx habitat in the affected LAUs being in the stand initiation structural stage not yet providing winter snowshoe hare habitat, or more than 15 percent of lynx habitat in the LAUs having been regenerated by timber management within a 10- year period. There would be no project activities in mature, multi-story lynx habitat or precommercial thinning in lynx habitat under any of the proposed alternatives. All alternatives would be consistent with all standards and guidelines in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 All project activities would take place within the Boulder, Grouse and Katka LAUs. Currently, the Boulder and Grouse LAUs both contain less than one percent of lynx habitat in the early stand initiation structural stage not yet providing lynx habitat (Standard VEG S1), while the Katka LAU contains about 349 acres (3.6 percent) in this stage (table 16). Alternative 1 would not have any direct or indirect effects on lynx or lynx habitat in the affected LAUs, although habitat would continue to change if left untreated. Lodgepole pine is eventually expected to die off and be replaced by subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce in most lynx habitat stands. The occasional mature, multi-storied stand would likely improve, while some winter snowshoe hare habitat would move out of the stand initiation stage and lose its value as preferred hare habitat. While the action alternatives would not remove the risk of wildfire, they would reduce fire severity in and around treated stands (see Fire Report). A mixed-severity fire would not likely alter large portions of available habitat, but a large stand-replacing fire would convert mature stands to a stand initiation phase, which may take 20 or more years to mature to the point where they could support high densities of snowshoe hares. Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternatives 2 and 3 propose regeneration harvest on a total of approximately 743 acres of lynx habitat in the three affected LAUs: 504 acres in the Boulder LAU, 41 acres in the Grouse LAU, and 198 acres in the Katka LAU (table 16). The remaining harvest acres are either outside of LAUs (1,766 acres), or in non-lynx habitat (i.e., not subalpine fir/engelmann spruce or cool/moist habitats adjacent to it) within LAUs (924 acres). Regeneration harvest would contribute to both Standard VEG S1 (amount of lynx habitat in the lynx analysis unit in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat) and Standard VEG S2 (amount having been converted within the previous ten years). Affected stands are expected begin to provide high quality winter snowshoe hare habitat within approximately 16 to 20 years following treatment (Wildlife Report p. 21). Table 16. Existing condition, proposed treatment acres, and post-implementation condition of LAUs included in the Boulder Creek Restoration Project. Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) Boulder Grouse Katka Lynx Analysis Unit (acres) 17,380 15,869 17, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

55 BCRP Environmental Assessment Potential lynx habitat (acres) 14,221 12,320 9,762 Existing condition of LAUs Proposed treatments Stand initiation structural stage (acres (%)) 1 95 (0.7) 5 (<0.1) 349 (3.6) Regenerated by timber management in past 10 years (2.8) (acres (%)) 2 Regeneration harvest (acres) 3 Burn only (acres) Alternative 2 3, ,194 Stand initiation structural stage (acres (%)) 1 Alternative Postimplementation condition of LAUs Alternative 2 1,594 (11.2) 257 (2.1) 895 (9.2) Alternative (4.4) 46 (0.4) 596 (6.1) Regenerated by timber management in past 10 years 504 (3.5) 41 (0.3) 519 (5.3) (acres (%)) 2 1 acres/percentages counted toward Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2007) standard VEG S1 2 acres/percentages counted toward Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2007) standard VEG S2 3 analysis assumes that all regenerated acres revert to stand initiation structural stage 4 analysis assumes that approximately 25 percent of total burn area would revert to stand initiation structural stage There would be no project activities in mature, multi-story lynx habitat or areas capable of achieving this stage within the next 10 to 20 years. No precommercial thinning would occur in lynx habitat in this proposal. Approximately 308 acres of precommercial thinning are proposed within LAUs (72 acres in Boulder, 235 acres in Katka). Although within the LAU boundaries, these acres are not considered lynx habitat based on the site potential and characteristics of the stand. Therefore, the precommercial thinning of these acres would not negatively impact lynx or their habitat. As a result, all alternatives would be consistent with NRLMD Standards VEG S5 and VEG S6 (Wildlife Report p. 22). Approximately 99 acres of prescribed burning of lynx habitat (no harvest) are common to alternatives 2 and 3. This portion of burn unit 12 outside the inventoried roadless area consists of predominantly lodgepole pine overstory with small (1-5 acres) openings on the upper (southern) end. This burn is intended to enlarge these openings, as well as creating other openings in the lodgepole overstory. Effects to lynx would be minor, as no mature multistoried habitat would be affected, and only a small (less than 30 acres) amount of the Boulder LAU is expected to be converted to early successional habitat in this burn area (Wildlife Report p. 23). The project also proposes creating an approximately 25-acre fuel break immediately downslope of the site where the historic Black Mountain lookout is to be relocated. This stand is currently Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 49

56 Boulder Creek Restoration Project dominated by pole-sized lodgepole pine with a patchy understory of lodgepole pine, subalpine fir and spruce that does not provide high horizontal cover due to lack of branches near the ground. Invasive plant (weed) treatments would occur along roads, trailheads, and other disturbed areas. This activity could inadvertently reduce hare habitat (shrubs) in treated areas, but would affect an inconsequential amount of lynx habitat. The reduction of seasonally restricted road miles would reduce potential incidental trapping mortality for this species since trappers would be less likely to access these areas. The conversion of FSR 1304G to a non-motorized trail would have no effect on Canada lynx because the actual condition would remain essentially unchanged (Wildlife Report p. 23). Effects of Alternative 2 Only Alternative 2 proposes approximately 5,916 more acres of prescribed burning in lynx habitat than alternative 3 (6,015 acres compared to 99 acres). This includes approximately 3,978 acres in Boulder LAU, 843 acres in Grouse LAU, and 1,194 acres in Katka LAU. Proposed burn areas contain a mixture of open shrubfields and patchy conifer stands (often dominated by lodgepole pine). The intent is to burn large portions of the open shrubfields limiting or reversing the encroachment of conifers in the process. In lodgepole pine-dominated stands, the intent is to create openings by running mixed-severity fire in through them (Wildlife Report pp ). It is estimated that approximately 25 percent of the timbered areas within burn units would experience high-severity fire (see Fuels Report) that would revert them to the stand initiation structural stage. This would convert about 995 acres of lynx habitat in the Boulder LAU (25 percent of 3,978 acres), about 211 acres in the Grouse LAU (843 acres in burn units), and approximately 299 acres in the Katka LAU (1,194 acres in burn units) to the stand initiation stage. These acres would count toward standard VEG S1, and would result in 11, 2, and 9 percent of the lynx habitat in an early successional stage in the Boulder, Grouse and Katka LAUs, respectively (table 16). Since these acres would not be regenerated by timber management, they would not count toward standard VEG S2. As a result, all three affected LAUs would meet the standards of no more than 30 percent of lynx habitat in an LAU in the stand initiation structural stage (VEG S1) and no more than 15 percent of the LAU converted to this stage within the last 10 years (VEG S2) (Wildlife Report p. 24). Cumulative Effects Personal use firewood gathering, dispersed camping, wheeled vehicle use, and most forms of non-motorized recreation would not significantly impact Canada lynx as these activities would result in inconsequential changes to forest structure, and lynx are not particularly vulnerable to human disturbance. This proposal would not increase over-snow motorized vehicle use above current levels, and may reduce this use when currently drivable roads are placed into long-term storage. Similarly, the risk of trapping mortality would not increase as a result of this proposal. Since none of the alternatives propose increases in motorized route density, additional cumulative impacts from incidental trapping and snowmobile use are not expected (Wildlife Report p. 24). Continued fire suppression in lynx habitat would help keep potential denning habitat intact, although this habitat component is not thought to be limiting throughout most of lynx range. Since fewer acres would be allowed to burn, fire suppression also has the potential to prevent habitat from reaching an early successional structural stage that would support high densities of snowshoe hares in subsequent years. Roadside salvage would not affect lynx habitat in any of the LAUs included in the BCRP. Approximately 20 acres of roadside maintenance are proposed within the Katka LAU, and none 50 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

57 BCRP Environmental Assessment in the Boulder or Grouse LAUs. Road maintenance work includes cutting and removal of utilizable brush and trees within the maintenance clearing limits (10 to 20 feet off road shoulders), ditch work, relief pipe and culvert cleaning or replacements, spot graveling and blading along roads currently open to public use. Changes to lynx habitat from this project would be inconsequential. The Twentymile Creek project will harvest timber on approximately 319 acres of lynx habitat (272 of which are regeneration harvest) and about 532 acres on non-lynx habitat in the Katka LAU. The project also includes precommercial thinning within the WUI on about 239 acres in the Katka LAU along with about 37 acres in the Grouse LAU. Combined effects to the Katka LAU from the Twentymile Creek Project and BCRP as they relate to NRLMD standards VEG S1 and S2 are reflected in table 16, above. Effects to Grizzly Bear Summary: The Boulder Creek Restoration Project alternatives 2 and 3 would authorize long-term road storage and decommissioning to increase core habitat and decrease TMRD in the Boulder BMU to meet Forest Plan motorized access standards. OMRD would increase during each of the three separate harvest phases of the project, but would not exceed the Forest Plan standard of 33% during any phase. The BCRP may result in short-term (during implementation) disturbance to grizzly bears, but would achieve long-term (after 8-10 years) improvements to grizzly bear habitat in the BMU. Potential disturbance and displacement of individual bears from project activities, along with the current (substandard) condition of the Boulder BMU, would produce effects that are not completely insignificant or discountable. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 With no action, motorized access and vegetative habitat conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no additional disturbance to grizzly bears above what currently exists. Although there would be no temporary displacement of grizzly bears from project activities, some timber stands in the BMU would continue to deteriorate as mortality from insects and disease increases. Core habitat and TMRD would not meet the Forest Plan standard for access management under this alternative (Wildlife Report pp ). Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 The Boulder Creek Restoration Project alternatives 2 and 3 would authorize long-term storage of approximately 11.8 miles of currently restricted roads (including one mile of road behind a guardrail barrier) and decommissioning of approximately 0.7 mile of currently open road. This would increase core habitat in the Boulder BMU by three percentage points and decrease Total Motorized Route Density greater than 2 miles/mile 2 (TMRD) by 5 percentage points, bringing the BMU up to the Forest Plan motorized access standards when fully implemented (Wildlife Report p. 34). Open Motorized Route Density greater than 1 mile/mile 2 (OMRD) in the Boulder BMU would increase during each of the three separate harvest phases of the project, but would not exceed Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 51

58 Boulder Creek Restoration Project the Forest Plan standard of 33% during any phase. Once all harvest activities are completed, OMRD would return to the pre-project level of 29 percent. To reduce potential impacts to grizzly bears, all timber harvest, road reconstruction, road storage, grapple piling and slashing activities proposed in the BMU would take place outside of the grizzly bear spring season (April 1 June 15); and the proposed temporary road off FSR 2113 would be constructed and used only during the denning (winter) season (Wildlife Report p. 36). The project proposes approximately 3,139 acres of ground-based (tractor and skyline) timber harvest and 345 acres of helicopter harvest in the Boulder BMU. About half of the proposed harvest (approximately 1,771 acres) would be accessed by gated roads and would be subject to timing restrictions (phases). The remaining approximately 1,713 acres of harvest are concentrated near the western or eastern edges of the central portion of the Boulder BMU. Since the largest part of proposed units are adjacent to drivable roads, effects to core habitat from timber harvest would be minimal. Nearly all (3,050 acres) of the proposed harvest is even-aged regeneration, but hiding cover would remain on almost 64 percent of the BMU following implementation. Regeneration harvest is expected to result in increased grizzly bear forage from both plant and animal sources. All post-harvest fuels activities (piling, burning, and planting) would remain within administrative use limits on restricted roads, and with the possible exception of helicopter ignition of helicopter harvest units, would be ground-based (Wildlife Report pp ). Opening approximately 2.1 miles of FSR 2209 to provide improved access to the Kootenai River Walk (trail 184) would have no effect on core or TMRD, and no measurable effect on OMRD. Since any grizzly bear use of this area likely occurs in the spring season, FSR 2209 would remain restricted from April 1 June 15 to reduce human disturbance and the risk of mortality during spring black bear hunting seasons. As a result, this feature would have minor impacts on grizzly bears (Wildlife Report pp ). Storage of FSR 1304G and conversion to a non-motorized trail is expected to have mixed effects on grizzly bears that may utilize this portion of the BMU. Since the proposed trail would begin nearly 4.5 miles up a restricted (gated) road, it has a low probability of being violated by motorized users, and would not likely receive high-intensity use as defined by IGBC. Additionally, the road does not traverse any exceptional seasonal habitats that would make it particularly attractive to bears. Although there would continue to be some level of human disturbance present, motorized use would be eliminated. Therefore, this would not would not preclude the surrounding area from being considered grizzly bear core habitat (Wildlife Report pp ). Both action alternatives also propose approximately 172 acres of burn-only units, precommercial thinning of approximately 806 acres, creation of a 25-acre fuel break near Black Mountain, and weed treatments along roads and turnouts all outside inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). Vegetative changes to grizzly bear habitat from these activities would be minor (except possibly 172 acres of burning), and potential disturbance of bears from non-harvest activities would be inconsequential (Wildlife Report pp ). Effects of Alternative 2 Only Alternative 2 proposes an additional 7,235 acres of prescribed burning in inventoried roadless areas (much of it in core habitat), including about 100 acres of hand-slashing in two of the proposed burn units. This activity is expected to increase forage value for a variety of wildlife species by preserving, increasing or creating openings (early-seral habitats) in portions of the BMU where hiding cover is currently not limiting. Due to steepness of terrain and limited road access, most or all of the burn-only acres would be ignited using a helicopter. Although the 52 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

59 BCRP Environmental Assessment reaction of grizzly bears to aircraft disturbances can be highly variable, the potential temporary disturbance of grizzly bears has been considered and opportunities to reduce the impact have been incorporated (Wildlife Report pp ). Cumulative Effects Most of the Twentymile Project activities take place in the neighboring Grouse BMU, with approximately 127 acres of timber harvest and 150 acres of non-commercial treatments in the Boulder BMU. The project will also result in a core gain of about 152 acres (0.2 percent) and small (0.3 percent) reduction in TMRD in the Boulder BMU. OMRD temporarily increased in the Boulder BMU by one (1.0) percent during project implementation, mainly as a result of hauling on FSR However, remaining timber harvest on this road is confined to the Grouse BMU, and will have little effect on OMRD in the Boulder BMU. As a result, this project can take place concurrently with BCRP phases 1 and 2 while not exceeding the Boulder BMU OMRD standard. The Twentymile Project is expected to be completed prior to any phase 3 activity, so would not cumulatively raise OMRD above the Forest Plan standard during implementation of the BCRP. Postharvest fuels treatments would be accomplished under administrative use limits, so would not affect road densities in the BMU. The Leonia Project authorized about 615 acres of timber harvest, plus temporary road construction affecting core habitat, in the Boulder BMU. This temporary core loss was compensated for by replacement core habitat of equivalent size and greater strategic value prior to project-related core impacts, and the net result of the project is a core increase of approximately 640 acres (one percent of the BMU) and TMRD reduction of about two percent. The project did not elevate OMRD above the standard of 33 percent during project implementation, and OMRD will return to baseline levels following project activities. Leonia Project activities would not cumulatively increase road densities during BCRP implementation. The Boulder BMU has substantial private ownership along the northwestern boundary that makes little contribution to core habitat or low road densities in this BMU. As a result, there would be no additive cumulative effects to grizzly bears (with regard to core habitat or road densities) from these ownerships. The IPNF is currently unaware of any proposed activities on the patented mining claims in the eastern portion of the BMU that would be considered reasonably certain to occur, and the active mining claim in upper Boulder Creek ( Boulder Mine ) receives infrequent vehicle use and small amounts of activity that are unlikely to result in considerable effects. Personal use firewood gathering, non-motorized recreation, winter motorized recreation, dispersed camping and motor vehicle use of roads would not appreciably impact grizzly bears since none of these activities would elevate road densities or cause substantial habitat modifications. Additionally, the risk of grizzly bear mortality from black bear hunting would not increase as a result of this proposal since there would be no increase in public motorized access in the BMU under any alternative. Up to 570 acres of salvage of standing dead, down and live hazard trees, and approximately 50 acres of roadside maintenance, are possible in the Boulder BMU. Approximately 123 of the roadside salvage acres are within proposed BCRP harvest units, so this project could cumulatively add approximately 497 acres of roadside disturbance. The proposed salvage and maintenance would take place along currently drivable roads, and so would not increase motorized access. Changes to vegetative components of habitat (forage and hiding cover) would be inconsequential. Therefore, salvage would have minor effects to grizzly bears in the BCRP area. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 53

60 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Although the proposed Starry Goat activities are outside the cumulative effects area for grizzly bear, road construction, decommissioning or storage, or other changes in designation have the potential to affect neighboring BMUs if these roads are in close proximity to the shared boundary. The only road in the Starry Goat proposal that meets this description is FSR 4401 a currently restricted road segment that will be opened for a portion of the project. However, due to its location between two segments of open road, this portion of Boulder BMU is already in a high open road density category. As a result, the Starry Goat Project would not cumulatively add to the effects of the BCRP on grizzly bear. Effects to Fisher Summary: The BCRP would regenerate stands that provide potentially suitable fisher denning/resting habitat, but this represents a relatively small proportion of this habitat in the analysis area. While the mature forest in the BCRP area would also be affected, about 80 percent of the area would remain in a large, interconnected patch of 60+ year old forest following project implementation. Although the open areas of the two hypothetical fisher home ranges in the BCRP area would increase by 2, and almost 6, percent, this would also increase the diversity of habitats within these home ranges. Road storage would reduce potential trapper access and attendant risk of trappingrelated mortality. Project activities may impact fisher habitat at a localized scale, but they would not substantially affect species population or distribution at larger scales, and would have inconsequential effects relative to natural changes expected to take place over the coming decades. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 The BCRP area currently contains about 35,400 acres of well-distributed and connected mature forest habitat (about 87 percent of the analysis area). Approximately 3,600 acres (9 percent) of the project area currently have less than 10 percent canopy cover. Most of these openings are not the result of human activities, but rather encompass large areas of bare rock and thin (treeless) soils at upper elevations in the BCRP area. While the no action alternative would provide better habitat than the action alternatives in the near future, this habitat is not expected to persist over time. Habitat modeling conducted for the 2015 revised Forest Plan determined that habitat would slowly decrease over the next five decades in the absence of activity, largely as a result of wildfire and root disease (Wildlife Report p. 53). Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 The action alternatives propose timber harvest on approximately 3,370 acres of capable fisher denning/resting habitat. This includes about 2,811 acres of seedtree harvest, 125 acres of shelterwood harvest, and about 434 acres of group selection. Proposed regeneration harvest includes up to 695 acres in stands that provide potentially suitable fisher denning/resting habitat (all seedtree harvest). Regeneration harvest would revert habitat to an earlier successional stage where it would no longer be considered potentially suitable for denning or resting. However, more than 60 percent of the potentially suitable denning/resting habitat in the vicinity of proposed harvest units would remain unaffected. Potentially suitable denning/resting habitat would persist 54 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

61 BCRP Environmental Assessment (outside harvest areas) in the vicinity of units where this habitat component is lost. In the North Creek area, which contains most of the potentially suitable habitat acres to be treated, more than 700 acres of potentially suitable habitat (as determined by habitat evaluation surveys) would not be affected. Also, since habitat evaluation surveys occurred on less than one-quarter of the capable habitat in the BCRP area, and it is reasonable to believe that similar amounts of suitable denning or resting habitat remain on the 75 percent of the BCRP area not in proximity to proposed harvest (Wildlife Report p. 56). Regeneration harvest of stands that are not currently suitable denning/resting habitat would similarly set them back to an earlier successional stage that would probably require between 50 and 100 years (depending upon how many residual green trees remain after harvest) to reach suitable condition. Some stands may reach suitable condition more rapidly if left untreated, but treated stands would have considerably higher proportions of long-lived seral species and are expected to remain in suitable condition (once attained) for a longer period of time as they would be more resistant to insects and disease, weather events, and fire. Approximately 3,278 acres of mature (more than 60 years old) forest are within proposed timber harvest units, including 403 acres of group selection, 2,751 acres of seedtree harvest, and 125 acres of shelterwood harvest. Assuming about one-third of the areas within group selection units are regenerated, this would reduce the amount of mature forest in the BCRP area to about 32,390 acres (80 percent). Following harvest, the remaining mature forest would still be interconnected. As a result, the proposed timber harvest would leave a well-connected mature forest pattern recommended for fishers. (Wildlife Report pp ). Timber harvest also has the potential to increase the amount of open area in the BCRP area by approximately 1,526-acres (3.6 percent) - about 1,392 acres of seedtree harvest plus 134 acres in group selection units. The Upper Boulder subwatershed currently contains about 2,174 acres (9.7 percent) open areas, which would increase by 2 percent as a result of proposed timber harvest. The Lower Boulder subwatershed currently contains about 1,436 acres (7.8 percent) openings, increasing to 13.7 percent from proposed timber harvest. However, existing research generally supports the supposition that habitat heterogeneity and diversity is important to fishers. The BCRP would increase diversity (in structure and composition) of forest stands while maintaining connectivity of mature forest patches, despite the relatively small increase in open areas (Wildlife Report p. 57). Pre-commercial thinning, post-harvest fuels treatments (burning and piling), and construction of a fuel break near Black Mountain would have relatively minor effects on fishers, since they are not particularly sensitive to disturbance, and the areas in question are unlikely to be used by this species when these activities take place. Similarly, creation of a trailhead at the west end of the River Walk trail and converting FSR 1304G to a non-motorized trail would have little or no impacts on fishers because these activities would make little (if any) changes to existing human use or fisher habitat (Wildlife Report pp ). Proposed road storage would make small improvements to fisher habitat by reducing the miles of roads potentially available to trappers during the winter, and subsequently slightly reducing the risk of trapping mortality. Temporary roads and roads reconstructed for project purposes would not be made available for public use, and would be closed following project implementation. Spraying herbicides to control and prevent noxious weeds is unlikely to have any impacts on fisher because it would not cause changes in important fisher habitat components, and the species is not particularly vulnerable to disturbance (Wildlife Report p. 58). Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 55

62 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Effects of Alternative 2 Only Proposed burning only under alternative 2 could affect up to 7,407 acres in the BCRP area. The effects to fishers from this activity are expected to be relatively minor. Stands providing potential denning/resting habitat are unlikely to burn with high severity, open areas comprise a substantial portion of the proposed burn units, effects to low- to medium-elevation mesic forests and riparian areas (preferred fisher habitat) are not expected, most of the affected areas would be either smaller-diameter trees encroaching on historic openings or dense lodgepole pine stands with depauperate understories that provide limited foraging (and poor denning/resting) habitat for fishers, and fishers are not particularly sensitive to human disturbance. Proposed burning is designed to diversify habitats compared to the existing condition, resulting in increased populations of small mammals and other items that fisher prey upon. Cumulative Effects Although unlikely to disrupt normal fisher use patterns, firewood cutting can deteriorate habitat in roadside areas by removing large snags that represent future dead and down wood denning opportunities. Various recreation activities would not impact fishers, with the exception of oversnow motorized vehicle travel that can provide access for trappers. The effects of oversnow motorized vehicle use, as well as trapping itself, are characterized by the analysis of changes in motorized route miles. This proposal would not increase over-snow motorized vehicle use above current levels, and may reduce this use when currently drivable roads are placed into long-term storage. Therefore, the risk of trapping mortality would not increase as a result of this proposal. Other public recreation activities are not expected to impact fishers. Fire suppression activities are generally good for fisher habitat in the short term (5-10 years), as they protect denning habitat from stand-replacing fire and contribute to understory congestion in dry-site stands that provide cover for small mammals that fishers prey upon. However, this activity can also slow the development of quality late-successional habitat where it does not currently exist by encouraging growth of higher densities of smaller-diameter shade-tolerant species and contributing to higher incidences of insects and disease. This can result in fuel loading that may cause larger, hotter future wildfires. As a result, fire suppression benefits this species in the short term by helping preserve mature forest cover, although the longer-term effect may ultimately be a deterioration of habitat quality and quantity. While small pockets of dead and dying or down trees may be salvaged in the project area, this would not affect old growth and would generally only remove pockets of down trees adjacent to open roads. As a result, the habitat potentially affected by this activity would not be of great value to fisher. Cumulative effects from this activity overlap those discussed in for firewood gathering and are minimal, and thus would not result in consequential additional effects. Effects to Flammulated Owl, Pygmy Nuthatch and Fringed Myotis Summary: The proposed treatments would trend capable, but not currently suitable, habitat towards a suitable condition by reducing stand density while favoring retention of larger trees and snags. While some potentially suitable habitat would be made unsuitable by timber harvest, other treated acres are expected to maintain suitability for a much longer time period than if left untreated. Proposed activities may affect individuals of these species, but are not expected to cause a local or regional change in habitat quality or population status. 56 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

63 BCRP Environmental Assessment Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 These three species all require large-diameter (mature and old growth) open-grown dry-site forests dominated by ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir, and the presence of large snags for nesting and roosting. Because of habitat similarities between these species, they are analyzed as a group (Wildlife Report p. 62). Since alternative 1 would not alter existing vegetation patterns through mechanical means, tree mortality caused by agents such as root disease would continue to exert change on habitat conditions. Additionally, dry-site habitat in the project area is increasingly becoming more congested in structure due to the presence of shade-tolerant species. Without management intervention, it is likely that these habitats would not trend toward an increase in habitat quality and would face an increasing likelihood of a stand-replacing future event. If a stand-replacing fire were to occur, it would take at least 100 years for successional processes to restore habitat that would begin to provide suitable habitat conditions. Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 The BCRP proposes timber harvest on approximately 503 acres of capable habitat for these species, approximately 44 acres of which were determined to be potentially suitable. This includes about 31 acres of seedtree harvest and another 13 acres of group selection harvest. Group selection is expected to maintain, or enhance, suitability by reducing understory congestion, increasing habitat heterogeneity (creation of small openings), and increasing tree diameter in the primary canopy layer by decreasing competition for water and nutrients. Conversely, seedtree harvest would make habitat unsuitable by removing structural complexity (only one size class would remain) and decreasing overstory canopy cover below what these species prefer for nesting/roosting and foraging. (Wildlife Report p. 66). An additional approximately 123 acres of capable habitat not identified as potentially suitable could be converted to, or trended toward, this condition through mechanical treatment. Both group selection and shelterwood harvest prescriptions are designed to trend currently unsuitable dry-site stands toward conditions similar to what would have been created through natural disturbances and, therefore, closer to suitable nesting or roosting habitat conditions. These prescriptions are designed to favor ponderosa pine in stands that currently contain a high density of shade-tolerant species in the understory layers. Approximately 58 of these acres would be treated by group selection, and the remaining 65 acres would be a seedtree harvest (Wildlife Report p. 67). Both action alternatives propose burning approximately 73 acres of potentially suitable habitat in burn unit 4. This activity is expected to reduce understory density, but not make substantial changes to the stand overstory structure. As a result, it would not affect suitability of this stand. Road treatments are not expected to substantially impact these species in the short term (up to 20 years), as the road segments to be reconstructed or improved are currently drivable and available to woodcutters for at least a portion of the year. In the long term, storage of FSR 2113A and the end of FSR 2662 may reduce woodcutter access (and preserve roadside snags) along these routes over the time period they remain in storage. Invasive plant (weed) treatments would occur along roads, trailheads, and other disturbed areas. This activity could result in slight reductions to prey (insect) populations in treated areas, but the overall effect would be localized and Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 57

64 Boulder Creek Restoration Project inconsequential. Other proposed activities would not result in appreciable habitat modifications or disturbance (Wildlife Report pp ). Effects of Alternative 2 Only Alternative 2 proposes burning on another approximately 850 acres of dry-site (capable) habitat, including about 97 other acres of potentially suitable nesting habitat in burn unit 3 and a small portion of burn unit 2. These burns are intended to mimic mixed-severity fires such as would have occurred naturally, and therefore are expected to benefit these species by maintaining currently suitable habitat and thinning dense forest by underburning and occasional crown fire in immature stands. Similarly, burning in unsuitable stands would reduce understory congestion and create small openings in the canopy that would increase structural complexity and encourage seral species establishment (Wildlife Report pp ). Cumulative Effects Snag removal through firewood cutting can occur along any of the open and seasonally restricted roads in the analysis area. However, since firewood removal affects a relatively small portion of capable habitat and usually only results in removal of hard snags that are less likely to be used by secondary cavity nesters, this activity would have minor effects on suitable habitat. Other recreational activities are unlikely to have any impacts on flammulated owl, pygmy nuthatch or fringed myotis since they would not result in habitat modifications and these species are not readily disturbed by sporadic human activity. Thus, overall incremental cumulative effects of these activities are minimal. Interrupting the periodic disturbances created by lethal wildfires through continued fire suppression probably has mixed impacts on members of this habitat group. High-intensity wildfire often reverts stands to an earlier successional stage. In some cases this would interrupt immature stands from reaching habitat suitability, and in other cases would regenerate stands with high densities of small stems that may never reach suitability lacking disturbance. Regardless, fire suppression through the years has heavily contributed to reduction of open grown ponderosa pine stands by preventing periodic underburns in these stands. Since fire suppression is expected to continue, the results would be partially compensated for by activities described in this proposal. Salvage could occur within 200 feet of several roads in the BCRP area that are also currently open to firewood cutters. However, roadside salvage by design would not affect old growth, and would generally only remove pockets of down trees that do not provide important habitat attributes for these species. Cumulative effects from this activity overlap those discussed in for firewood gathering, are minimal, and thus would not result in consequential additional effects to flammulated owls, pygmy nuthatch or fringed myotis. Effects to Recreation Boulder planning area has been recognized as a primitive recreation area for more than 30 years. Two Inventoried Roadless areas, (Katka and Mt. Willard - Lake Estelle) comprise the largest portion of the BCRP planning area. Mt. Willard Lake - Estelle Roadless lands extend into Montana and the Kootenai National Forest. The effects of management activity in the BCRP area on developed and undeveloped recreational opportunities will be measured in changes to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), compliance with the Land Management Plan or Forest Plan, and the degree to which the activities compliment or conflict with recreation desired future condition for sites and experiences. 58 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

65 BCRP Environmental Assessment Table 17. Recreation Resource Indicators and Measures Resource Element Resource Indicator Measures Recreation Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Forest Plan Standards Desired Conditions ROS Classes Compliance With IPNF Land Management Plan Compliment or Conflict with IPNF Land Management Plan Effects to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Summary: None of the action alternatives would permanently change the current Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) within the BCRP planning area. All planned activities are appropriate in the Semi-Primitive and Roaded Natural ROS environments. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 This alternative would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to recreation related resources. Existing recreation opportunities, public access and ROS classifications would not change. Recreation activities such as driving for pleasure, hunting, camping, hiking, horse riding, gathering forest products including berries, firewood, mushrooms, etc. would continue. Indirectly however, improvements to recreation and heritage features as described in alternatives 2 and 3 would not occur. Unregulated dispersed camping and user created trails could continue to expand, contributing to resource damage from soil erosion and noxious weeds. Safety concerns with brushed in trailheads and narrow roads with limited site distance would also continue. Alternatives 2 and3 None of the action alternatives would permanently change the current Recreation Opportunity Spectrum within the planning area. All planned activities are appropriate in the Semi-Primitive and Roaded Natural ROS environments. Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects were identified for the ROS resource Indicator. All past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities are appropriate for the Semi Primitive and Roaded Natural ROS classes. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 59

66 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Effects Forest Plan Standards Summary: All proposed activities are compliant with Forest Plan standards for recreation. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 All proposed activities are compliant with and meet Forest Plan standards for recreation. Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects were identified as all of the past, present and reasonable foreseeable activities meet and are compliant with forest plan standards for recreation. Effects to Desired Conditions Summary: None of the planned activities in the proposed action impede future desired conditions for recreation. Alternatives 2 and 3 both compliment the desired future conditions in the IPNF land management plan. Alternative 2 would temporarily impact the primitive and remote recreational settings during prescribed burning operations. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Landscapes would retain a diversity of recreational opportunities. Cultural sites would fuse easily with both natural and manmade openings. Views from trails, roads and recreation sites would offer a range of natural unmodified landscapes to modifications that would resemble landscape burn patterns. In general, modifications would be harmonious or blend with geological features. Lands in the northeast of the project area will appear physically heavily modified but will retain more primitive social characteristics. Unregulated dispersed camping and user created trails could continue to expand, contributing to resource damage from soil erosion and noxious weeds. Safety concerns with brushed in trailheads and narrow roads with limited site distance would also continue. Not addressing these issues is trending away from the desired conditions listed in the forest plan (pages 34 35). Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternative 2 would create disturbance that the No action alternative does not create. The proposed action would create new openings visible across the landscape and along travel ways. The introduction of prescribed burning activities would temporarily affect long segments of trails in the planning area. Trails that either traverse planned burn areas, view them from afar, or both. Activities would be temporarily intrusive at the Boulder Meadows Horse Camp. Traffic would increase substantially, and sights and sounds of planned activities would be very apparent for the short term. Prescribed burning activities would ultimately appear natural and would be in concert with the 60 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

67 BCRP Environmental Assessment existing landscape. Helicopter use when implementing the prescribed burning operations would temporarily reduce the feeling of remoteness and solitude associated with Primitive and semi- Primitive settings. Upon completion of the work, the setting would return to the Semi Primitive Non-Motorized condition it now exhibits. Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects were identified as all past, present and reasonable foreseeable activities planned are in alignment with the desired condition for the analysis area. Effects to Heritage Resources Heritage resource concerns are defined by the Code of Federal Regulations in relation to identified sites within the project s Area of Potential Effect (APE): those areas where project activities have the potential to have an adverse effect or a no adverse effect on a heritage property s eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The measurement indicators are defined in Table 18, below. The methodology utilized to analyze for adverse effect and no adverse effect included: identification and documentation of archaeological sites within the project s APE; determination of eligibility status for each archaeological site; analysis of potential effect(s) of the proposed action for each archaeological determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Table 18. Resource indicators and measures Resource Element Element #1: All Historic Properties (i.e., all archaeological sites determined eligible for the NRHP) and those archaeological sites of undetermined eligibility status. Element #2: All Historic Properties and those archaeological sites of undetermined eligibility status. Resource Indicator (Quantify if possible) The element(s) that qualify the site for nomination to the NRHP. The element(s) that qualify the site for nomination to the NRHP. Measure (Quantify if possible) no adverse effect as defined under 36CFR800.5(3)(b): If an activity can foreseeably alter the element(s) that qualify the historic property for inclusion in or eligibility for the NRHP, but can be mitigated in consultation with SHPO and ACHP. adverse effect as defined in 36CFR800.5(1): If an activity can foreseeably remove the element(s) that qualify the historic property for inclusion in or eligibility for the NRHP Effects to Resource Elements #1 and #2 Summary: For Alternatives 2 and 3, regardless of eligibility status, all archaeological sites located within the project area are protected from potential no adverse effect and adverse effect scenarios through avoidance, project design, and planning to avoidance possibility of intrusion into the site area by project activities, except for site 10BR0027. As per the National Historic Preservation Act and 36CFR800, mitigation for no adverse effect to site 10BR0027 is planned through consultation and Memorandum of Agreement with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 61

68 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1, no planned action, within the project area will create the potential direct, indirect, and/or cumulative effects that could create an adverse effect to archaeological sites that are eligible for nomination to the NRHP as per 36 CFR 800.5(2)(vi). Without some level of vegetation and multi-utilization restoration work in areas of complex, wooden, historic properties, as well as planned recreation management of those properties, historic era cultural resources are at high risk of adverse effect from environmental forces, including: wildfire and environmental degradation as well as continued vandalism and inappropriate use by unconstrained recreation. Alternatives 2 and 3 address the potential adverse effect and no adverse effect to archaeological sites as defined in 36CFR800.5(3)(b) and 36CFR800.5(1) through avoidance, project design, and planning to avoidance possibility of intrusion into the archaeological site area by project activities, except for site 10BR0027. Project planning to protect site 10BR0027, as well as manage the activities around and within the site into the future in a no adverse effect scenario will include: on-site heritage specialist input to protect known sites and site features during planned harvest in specific units as well as associated road maintenance, temporary road construction, landings, and creation of an interpretive site utilizing site 10BR0027. Cumulative Effects Past, ongoing, and foreseeable actions that have affected, and may continue to affect, heritage resources in the project planning area include timber harvest, prescribed fire, wildfires and associated suppression and rehabilitation activities, road and trail construction and/or maintenance, and dispersed recreational use. Some level of artifact removal during the 20th century by members of the public has most certainly occurred, is known to occur at least one known historic eligible property, and most probably continues in other areas at a reduced rate. Past road construction has caused the most direct effects to those sites where a historic road or railroad bed/spur existed. Timber harvests have occurred relatively recently and to a limited extent and as a result, direct and indirect effects to heritage sites have been minimal. Potential impacts that heritage sites might incur from such ongoing and foreseeable actions such as noxious weed treatment, prescribed burning, hazard tree removal, recreation improvements, and any other potential undertakings common in lands management would be assessed and, if necessary, the potential impact would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated through the Section 106 process of the NHPA in consultation with the Idaho SHPO. Previous timber harvest projects, modern mining activity, wildfires, livestock grazing, firewood cutting, recreational activities, and construction of Forest Service roads, have had incremental adverse effects on the cultural properties that have been identified within the Boulder Creek Restoration Project area. With the implementation of the project design criteria for heritage resources, there is minimal risk of additional incremental degradation of the cultural properties associated with the Proposed Action. Effects to Native American Concerns Resource issues of concern were defined through tribal consultation (Bigelow, 2016) as part of the trust responsibility between the Forest Service and the tribal governments under numerous federal authorities. Resource indicators and measures for those resource issues of concern are defined through coordination and collaboration with the affected tribes. 62 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

69 BCRP Environmental Assessment The methodology utilized to analyze for effects to concerns identified by Native American governments and staff includes a two-step process. First, each resource issue of concern identified through tribal consultation were analyzed by the appropriate forest service resource specialist under each of the projects proposed alternatives. Second, after this analysis, the tribes concerns are reviewed by both the forest service staff and the tribal staff to determine if the concerns were addressed and at what level. Effects to Resource Elements #1 Summary: Planned activities within the project area could have short-term or long-term adverse effects to areas of tribal concern in relation to Traditional Cultural Properties, areas of traditional lifeways resource acquisition, and archaeological/heritage resources. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects With Alternative 1, no planned action, there would be no impacts or effects to this Issue of Concern as defined through tribal consultation. The proposed activities of Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to have no direct effects on all known Traditional Cultural Properties, areas of traditional lifeways resource acquisition, and archaeological/heritage resources within the project planning through the Project Design Criteria, unanticipated discovery plan, and all other requirements. Cumulative Effects Past, ongoing, and foreseeable actions that have affected, and may continue to affect Traditional Cultural Properties, areas of traditional lifeways and resource acquisition, and archaeological/heritage resources in the project planning area include timber harvest, prescribed fire, wildfires and associated suppression and rehabilitation activities, road and trail construction and/or maintenance, modern mining activity, wildfires, livestock grazing, firewood cutting, and dispersed recreational use. All of these activities have impacted to a greater or lesser degree these three levels of traditional concern as identified through tribal consultation. Potential impacts are possible in the future from such ongoing and foreseeable actions such as noxious weed treatment, prescribed burning, hazard tree removal, recreation improvements, and any other potential undertakings common in lands management would be assessed and, if necessary, the potential impact would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated through the Section 106 process of the NHPA in consultation with the Idaho SHPO and continued on-going consultation with tribe(s) of interest in the proposed project area. With the implementation of the project design criteria for heritage resources and project planning there is minimal risk of additional incremental degradation of Traditional Cultural Properties, areas of traditional lifeways and resource acquisition, and archaeological/heritage resources in associated with the Proposed Action. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 63

70 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Effects to Resource Elements #2 Summary: One tribe has identified Whitebark pine as a species of cultural concern. Planned reforestation activities within the project area should include a Whitebark pine reforestation component. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1, no planned action, within the project area there would be no impacts or effects to this Issue of Concern as defined through tribal consultation. The proposed activities of Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to have no direct effects on all known Traditional Cultural Properties, areas of traditional lifeways resource acquisition, and archaeological/heritage resources within the project planning area as long as the Project Design Criteria, unanticipated discovery plan, and all other requirements are followed. Through discussions with tribal cultural committees and tribal administrative and university forestry departments, an on-going system of communication has been created to discuss for mutual scientific benefit the tribal and forest service systems of restoration and regeneration of the Whitebark pine species. Cumulative Effects Past, ongoing, and foreseeable actions that have affected, and may continue to affect, the survival of the Whitebark pine species and the tribes ability to utilize this species of traditional concern include: timber harvest, prescribed fire, wildfires and associated suppression and rehabilitation activities, road and trail construction and/or maintenance, and dispersed recreational use. With the implementation of the project activities in relation to Whitebark pine there is a higher potential of Whitebark pine restoration and survival within the project area. Effects to Non-Native Invasive Plants The non-native invasive plants analysis discusses the potential risk for invasive plant establishment or expansion resulting from proposed activities. Effects of proposed actions on invasive plant (or noxious weed) spread or establishment are based primarily on two factors: forest canopy cover changes and soil disturbance. Soil disturbance (compaction, rutting, or displacement) can result in exposed, bare, mineral soil or changes to soil structure or productivity, both of which tend to allow noxious weed establishment on a site. Decreases in forest canopy cover or understory vegetation disturbance (caused by mechanical equipment, logging, skidding, yarding, burning, etc.) can result in more sunlight reaching the forest floor, which also provides the high light conditions that most noxious weeds require to germinate or expand. Table 19. Principal issues and indicators for invasive plants Invasive Plants Issue The effect of proposed activities on weed spread and establishment. Issue Indicators Reduction in forest canopy cover Soil disturbance 64 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

71 BCRP Environmental Assessment Effects to Weed Spread and Establishment Summary: Alternatives 2 and 3 (which include noxious weed treatments in proposed activity areas) are expected to result in low risk for new weed invaders to establish and moderate risk for existing infestations of spotted knapweed, thistles, common tansy, oxeye daisy, meadow hawkweed, and goat weed to spread. With no action, some limited road systems would continue to be treated under existing ranger district weed management. However, current authority does not allow all of the roads and trails within the BCRP area to be treated, which means weed populations would continue to expand in those areas, and new invaders could become established. Additionally, current authority to treat weeds does not include use of a newer, less-toxic yet effective herbicide, aminopyralid. All existing best management practices, IPNF Pesticide Discharge Management Plan, and methods for herbicide application will remain in effect. By incorporating this additional herbicide, as well as allowing all roads and trails within the BCRP area to be treated, overall effectiveness will be improved in reducing new weed establishment and weed spread from existing populations. Supporting Information Effects with regard to noxious weeds from proposed activities are generally described as very low, low, moderate or high, with the following definitions: very low = no measurable effect on existing weed infestations or susceptible habitat low = existing weed infestations and/or susceptible habitat not likely affected; establishment of new invaders not likely moderate = existing weed infestations or susceptible habitat affected, with the potential for expansion into uninfested areas and/or establishment of new invaders high = weed infestations and/or susceptible habitat affected, with a high likelihood of expansion into uninfested areas and/or establishment of new invaders. Direct and Indirect Effects With no action (alternative 1), there would be no change from current management activities on National Forest System lands in the project area. Noxious weed management would continue to occur as the Bonners Ferry Ranger District Noxious Weed Control EIS and Record of Decision allow, which for the BCRP area is very limited. As a result, some existing weed infestations along primary access roads in the project area would remain. Although some weeds would be treated resulting in some direct effects to weed populations, the lack of comprehensive weed management throughout the area would indirectly allow weed populations to continue to expand, as well as potentially allow new invaders to become established within the project area. Because there would be no new road construction, timber harvest or underburning, there would be no management induced changes to forest canopy cover or soil disturbance. Therefore, there would be no direct impacts to noxious weed spread and establishment. The short-term risk of weed spread would not change from current levels, and the majority of the weed spread or expansion would continue to occur adjacent to existing roads and trails. Because both alternative 2 and alternative 3 include timber harvest, fuels treatment, road reconstruction, maintenance, improvements, and road decommissioning, there is a greater short- Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 65

72 Boulder Creek Restoration Project term risk of weed introduction and spread than with no action. The risks and potential for direct and indirect effects on weed spread associated with proposed activities are discussed below. The risk of spread of existing weed infestations from project activities would vary based on the proximity of a weed seed source to areas of disturbance. A moderate to high risk of weed spread would likely be associated with regeneration (even-aged) silvicultural treatments, ground-based logging systems, and new road construction. Moderate risk of weed spread would likely be associated with skyline type harvest systems, thinning (uneven-aged) silvicultural treatments, prescribed burning and road maintenance, improvement, reconstruction, or decommissioning activities. Very low to low risk of weed spread might be associated with precommercial thinning activities. Project design features would reduce but would not eliminate those risks. Preventive seeding (using source-identified, site-appropriate, locally-adapted, native and desired non-native species) for disturbed sites (such as landings and roads proposed for decommissioning) would also reduce but not eliminate the risk of introduction of new weed invaders. Contract requirements to clean off-road harvest and road construction equipment prior to entry into the sale area would also reduce but would not eliminate the risk of introduction of weeds. Monitoring and treatment of new weed infestations discovered on National Forest System lands would further reduce the risk that any new weed infestations would become established. The risk of establishment of new weed invaders to the project area is expected to be low with implementation of the required design features. Cumulative Effects In the short term, the no-action alternative would contribute a very low level of cumulative effects to the risk of weed spread. The no-action alternative does not provide for improved noxious weed treatment in the project area. Therefore, weed spread of existing weed populations along road and trail corridors will likely continue along some of those corridors, particularly FSR 427. Over the long term, the no-action alternative could further increase the risk of widespread standreplacing fires. Should such a fire occur, it would likely cause existing infestations to spread to previously uninfested areas. It would also provide the disturbance that would allow dormant weed seeds in the soil to germinate. However, the occurrence and intensity of a future wildfire in the project area is difficult to predict. The areas proposed for treatment are already influenced substantially by the adjacent uses and recreation on public lands. Heavily traveled roadways are already conduits for established weed infestations. Weed infestations within the BCRP area are low to moderate, particularly along travelways, and the activities associated with both alternatives 2 and 3 would increase the potential for existing weed populations to spread outward away from roads into adjacent treatment areas (particularly those planned for regeneration or underburning). The introduction of disturbance to the project area also increases the risk of new weeds becoming established in the area. However, the additional proposed action of weed treatment in the project area would help to reduce the existing weed populations and help to somewhat reduce the potential for existing weed spread or new weed establishment. When combined with all of the above past, current and reasonably foreseeable activities, overall cumulative effects of alternatives 2 and 3 with regard to noxious weeds are expected to be low risk for new weed invaders to establish and moderate risk for existing infestations of spotted knapweed, thistles, common tansy, oxeye daisy, meadow hawkweed and goatweed to spread. 66 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

73 BCRP Environmental Assessment Effects to Rare Plants This section discusses the potential environmental effects of the BCRP on threatened, endangered and sensitive plants, collectively called rare plants. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently does not list any threatened or endangered plant species as suspected to occur in Boundary County, Idaho, in which the BCRP area occurs. Additionally, activity areas in the BCRP area were field surveyed in 2013, 2014, and 2015, and no potentially suitable habitat for, or occurrences of, threatened or endangered plants were found. Therefore, this analysis focuses on potential effects to sensitive plant species, Fifty-six sensitive species are known or suspected to occur in the north zone of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, and suitable habitat for some of these sensitive species occurs within the BCRP area. Table 20. Principal issues and indicators for rare plants Rare Plants Issue The effect of harvest activities and other ground-disturbing activities on rare plants or suitable habitat Issue Indicators Relative amount of canopy opening and/or ground disturbance in and next to documented rare plant occurrences or suitable rare plant habitat Effects to Rare Plants or Suitable Habitat Summary: Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no effects to rare plants or suitable habitat within the aquatic, deciduous riparian, peatland, or wet forest habitat because no activity would occur within those environments. Within dry forest, moist forest, cold forest, and subalpine habitats, proposed treatments associated with alternatives 2 and 3 would likely have low to moderate effects (individual plants or habitat may be impacted, but would not result in a loss of population viability) to rare plants or suitable habitat. If proposed activities are not implemented (alternative 1) there would be no direct effects to rare plants or suitable habitat within dry forest, moist forest, cold forest, and subalpine habitat guilds. Although a severe fire could occur with any alternative due to fuel accumulations in untreated areas, it would likely cause the least amount of damage to rare plant habitat and populations where fuels treatments occur. Effects to rare plant species and suitable habitat from proposed activities are generally described as very low, low, moderate, or high, with the following definitions: very low = no measurable effect on individuals, populations or habitat low = individuals, populations and/or habitat not likely affected moderate = individuals and/or habitat may be affected, but populations would not be affected, and habitat capability would not over the long term be reduced below a level which could support sensitive plant species high = populations would likely be affected and/or habitat capability may over the long term be reduced below a level which could support sensitive plant species Direct and Indirect Effects If the BCRP is not implemented (alternative 1), there would be no direct impacts to rare plants or their habitat. However, there could be indirect impacts of not treating accumulated forest fuels if a severe wildfire were to occur. Such a fire could extirpate documented occurrences or undetected Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 67

74 Boulder Creek Restoration Project rare moonworts and other rare plants in the project area, particularly those associated with moist forest and cold forest habitats. Canopy removal and disruption of soil mycorrhizae are a concern for many sensitive and rare plants. These issue indicators were determined based on the affinity of moist forest moonworts for relatively closed-canopy conditions (Evans and Associates 2005) and their dependence on soil mycorrhizae, which may be destroyed during ground-disturbing activities. Canopy removal and disruption of soil mycorrhizae are also a concern for some dry forest habitat-dependent rare plants, as is disruption of natural fire regimes in drier forest types. Even where thorough floristic surveys were conducted, undetected individual rare plants and/or suitable moist forest, wet forest, and dry forest habitat may be directly impacted by project activities. During botanical surveys of proposed activity areas, several new occurrences of Botrychium species and one new population of Lycopodium dendroideum (within moist forest habitat and cold forest habitats) were identified. However, these plants would not be directly affected by project activities because the project is designed to avoid all occurrences of rare plants by providing protective buffers or excluding them from treatment areas. Because there is always a chance that undetected individual plants could be directly affected by proposed activities or soil mycorrhizae could be disturbed, the risk of direct effects to rare plants within the dry forest, moist forest, cold forest, and subalpine habitat guilds, as a result of implementing alternatives 2 or 3, are predicted to be low to moderate. Dry forest habitat, which is marginally-suitable habitat for pine broomrape, occurs within areas proposed for treatment under both alternatives 2 and 3. Although this area was surveyed intensively for dry forest guild rare plants, no populations of pine broomrape (Orobanche pinorum) were found. Even with intensive surveys, some pine broomrape individuals could have been missed because they often do not exhibit above-ground growth every year. Therefore, some suitable dry forest habitat for rare plant species and/or undetected rare plants suited to this habitat may be impacted by the proposed activities. The impacts of proposed treatments to suitable dry forest habitat for this species cannot be predicted with certainty because the species' ecology is poorly understood. However, over time proposed treatments would likely enhance oceanspray, which is the preferred host species. Oceanspray is considered to be an early to mid-seral plant species and well adapted to disturbance by fire, usually responding to a low-intensity burn by root crown and rhizome sprouting (Young 1983). The proposed activities under both alternatives 2 and 3 would, to some degree, trend the treated areas toward historical conditions and would reduce the risk of large, stand-replacing fires, which could be more intense and has the potential to destroy root crowns and rhizomes of the host species. Furthermore, some proposed activities would likely emulate low-intensity wildfires (through regeneration harvest, followed by prescribed burning). There is no aquatic, deciduous riparian, peatland, or wet forest guild habitats within proposed treatment units or proposed road locations for either action alternative. Because these guilds would not incur ground disturbance or changes in canopy coverage, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to these habitat guilds or species of these guilds under either alternative. Although some wet forest habitat, deciduous riparian, and microsites of peatland rare plant habitat occur within the project area, no proposed treatment areas in either action alternative contain such habitat. Because these guilds would not incur ground disturbance or changes to canopy coverage, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to these habitats or rare plants that occur within these habitats under either alternative. 68 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

75 BCRP Environmental Assessment Cumulative Effects Past wildfires, mining, timber harvest on National Forest System lands, as well as road and trail construction or maintenance may have affected rare plants and rare plant habitat through ground and vegetation disturbance and canopy removal. Few floristic surveys were conducted on National Forest System lands before 1990, so the extent of, and the effect on, rare plant populations of older projects is unknown. Timber harvest on National Forest System lands after 1990 occurred with protections for rare plants. Road, trail and heli-spot maintenance, as well as noxious weed treatment activities associated with roads would occur in areas with low suitability as rare plant habitat. Therefore, no effects to rare plants or suitable habitat are expected to occur. When combined with and considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities, alternatives 2 and 3 would have very low to low cumulative effects to rare plants and/or suitable habitat within dry forest habitats and low to moderate cumulative effects to rare plants and/or suitable habitat within moist forest, cold forest, and subalpine habitat guilds. Proposed treatment areas within the different forest habitats vary slightly between alternatives; however, impacts would be similar. No cumulative impacts to rare plants or habitat in the wet forest, deciduous riparian, aquatic, or peatland habitats would occur, because these habitats would not incur either direct or indirect effects from either alternative 2 or 3. Effects to Scenic Resources Effects of the Boulder Creek Restoration Project as viewed from the Concern Level (CL) 1 and 2 viewing platforms (roads, trails, and sites) identified in the Forest Plan is a potential concern for scenic resources. Scenic integrity is measured by the degree to which the landscape appears to be intact, reflecting the inherent landscape character of the surrounding area. The analysis of the direct and indirect effects is based on how the proposed activities are expected to affect the scenic integrity of the landscape in Boulder Creek and associated drainages. Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are used to measure impacts to scenery. The Forest Plan guideline relevant to the project would be to meet the SIOs from the identified CL 1 and 2 viewing platforms selected during the forest planning process. These viewing platforms include: Black Mountain Lookout, Boulder Meadows recreation site, Boulder Town Site, US Highway 2, Clifty Mountain Trail (all CL 1 viewing platforms). CL 2 viewing platforms include Forest Roads 314, 408, and 427, and trails 51 and 180. SIOs that apply to this project are High for areas within 1/2 mile and Moderate for areas viewed between 1/2 mile and beyond from CL 1 viewing platforms. SIOs from CL 2 viewing platforms are Moderate within 4 miles, and Low for areas beyond 4 miles. Table 21. Issue and indicator for scenic resources Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Scenic Integrity Scenic Integrity Level Does the activity meet Forest Plan Scenic Integrity Objectives? Effects to Scenic Integrity Summary: Harvest and prescribed burning activities proposed in both alternative 2 and 3 for the Boulder Creek project would be visible from multiple CL 1 and 2 viewing platforms, but visible units would be designed to emulate the openings Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 69

76 Boulder Creek Restoration Project created by natural processes within the area. Some of the units over 40 acres would be designed to eliminate straight edges and geometric shapes from past harvest activities and would improve the appearance of openings created by past harvest over the long term. While the openings would be apparent, they would not dominate the existing scenic character of the area in the long term and would improve the health and resilience of the forest landscape over time. Given the design measures outlined for all visible units, both action alternatives would meet Scenic Integrity Objectives outlined in the Forest Plan. Alternative 2 would achieve the purpose and need the most, alternative 3 to a lesser extent, and alternative 1 would not achieve it at all. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the existing condition would prevail, and the current trend of the declining overstory of western larch, western white pine, whitebark pine and ponderosa pine and increase in the shade tolerant understory of fir species, cedar, and hemlock would continue. Views will remain unchanged in middleground and background viewing distances, and visual penetration will continue to be limited in foreground viewing distances. This situation will result in a homogenized and simplified landscape from a scenic resources standpoint, as contrast and interest associated with color and texture are reduced in all viewing distances. However, it results in a reduction of natural diversity in the long term, less color and texture variety, and it does not move the project area toward the forest-wide desired condition for scenic resources in which scenic resources of the IPNF reflect healthy and sustainable ecosystem conditions (Forest Plan, p. 34). Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2, harvest activities proposed for this project would be visible from several locations (including some of the Forest Plan-identified CL 1 and 2 viewing platforms) but would be designed to emulate the openings created by natural processes within the area. Effects of vegetation management treatments will range from created openings with few remaining trees (seedtree, shelterwood treatments) to areas in which trees are separated from one another (group selection/thinning, precommercial thinning, sheltered fuelbreak). Effects will be most evident in the short term, following harvest activities, and dissipate over the long term as regeneration/revegetation occurs. Likewise, effects of logging and construction operations (such as ground disturbance, slash piling, road/landing construction/reconstruction) will be greatest in the short term, minimized both in the short term and long term by the implementation of project design features. These project design features include cutting stumps low and minimizing cuts and fills of landings and temporary roads as well as recontouring/reseeding of these features following use. Leaving reserve trees within units will also provide vertical structure and break up openings. Units would also be designed to avoid straight edges and geometric shapes. While the new unit openings are often over 40 acres, they would not dominate the existing scenic character of the area in the long term and would improve the appearance of past harvest by eliminating geometric corners and straight edges. Given the project design features developed for scenery, alternative 2 would meet the identified Forest Plan SIOs. Effects associated with burning will vary in intensity and visual impact, potentially interspersed with areas of unaltered, live vegetation, and may result in color contrasts. Changes in texture 70 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

77 BCRP Environmental Assessment would also result but would depend primarily on viewing distance and angle. In general, however, these contrasts would be limited in time and scale. Effects from low- intensity fires may remain noticeable to a forest visitor for 2 to 3 years, but would be reduced after one to two seasons of snow-cover and by grass and forb growth the following spring. In both the short and long term, these effects are consistent with a scenic character that reflects Forest Plan desired conditions. Long-term goals of a more healthy and resilient forest would also improve the scenic character over time. Openings larger than 40 acres would be designed to emulate natural processes, such as fire. Unnatural appearing harvest boundaries from past timber harvest adjacent to proposed harvest units would be addressed through project design features. Edges between existing and proposed openings would be feathered to appear more like natural openings. In the long term, the landscape would have the appearance of large openings caused by natural fire rather than man made activities. Openings larger than 40 acres are necessary to create these conditions and meet the desired condition for scenic resources and meet SIOs identified in the Forest Plan. Alternative 3 Effects of harvest under alternative 3 are the same as alternative 2. Effects of prescribed burning will be greatly limited as the majority of the prescribed burning units are not included in this alternative. This will reduce the beneficial effects of this activity. Cumulative Effects Past harvest activities are visible throughout the project area and the surrounding area from the identified CL 1 and 2 viewing platforms. Road construction and timber harvest have some of the greatest impacts on scenery in terms of color and line contrasts, depending on viewing distance. In close up views from roads and trails, these effects may dominate the character, but are generally subordinate to the scenic character in more distant views. The proposal would blend existing units with the proposed units, emulating the appearance of areas that have undergone changes through the natural processes of fire and insect and disease. As experienced from the CL 1 and 2 viewing platforms, the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would meet a Moderate to High scenic integrity level, and the alternatives will maintain those scenic integrity levels in the long term. Economic Contributions The BCRP is part of the Lower Kootenai Valley River Watershed Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Proposal. As one of several landscape restoration projects in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed, the BCRP is designed to maintain and restore various parts of the ecosystem components in the Boulder Creek area. As outlined in the project objectives, improving the stand composition and structure will also provide wood products produced from our vegetation management prescriptions to help contribute to the local economy. Alternatives 2 and 3 would help provide some jobs and income to the local economy during the life of the project. Alternative 2 and 3 would produce the same amount of wood products and generate the same amount of revenue. Jobs associated with restoring the roads systems, drainage improvements, trail heads and recreation areas are also the same in both alternatives 2 and 3. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 71

78 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Alternative 2 and 3 are estimated to produce about 30 to 35 million board feet. Consequentially, the funds generated from the sale of the wood products may be used to fund other restoration projects not included in the timber sale design criteria (such as aquatic habitat improvement which creates additionally jobs). Many factors influence and affect the local economies, including changes to industry technologies, economic growth, international trade, adjacent private and State forest management, and the economic diversity and dependency of the counties. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities on national forest and other lands within the project area are not predicted to have a measurable effect on the economic issues for these alternatives. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. However, the restoration related jobs and income associated with alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to bring the local economy some increased relative stability during the life of the project. Effects to Soils Effects of the BCRP on soil productivity and function are potential concerns for the soil resource. The analysis of the soil resource addresses existing soil disturbance from past activities within the proposed units and the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of proposed treatments within the units. Soil productivity and function is potentially affected by treatments through erosion, compaction, rutting, displacement and burning. Removal of woody material has the potential to interfere with soil and ecosystem function. Table 22. Principal issues and indicators for soil resources. Soils Issues The effect of harvest activities and other soil disturbance activities on soil productivity and capability and the ability of soil conditions to achieve forest plan and regional soil quality standards. The effect of harvest activities on levels of large woody debris within treatment areas. The effect of timber harvesting and road activities on mass failure potential areas within the project area. Issue Indicators Detrimental soil disturbance: Amount of area resulting in compaction, rutting and soil displacement. Percent of treated areas maintained in a condition of acceptable productivity potential for trees and other managed vegetation. Levels of woody debris that remain on treated areas. Amount of area with high ratings for mass failure potential, surface erosion and sensitive landtypes. Effects to Soil Productivity Summary: The BCRP would not cause detrimental impacts that exceed the forest plan (2015) guidelines or Northern Region standards for soil quality under any of the alternatives. A minimum of 85 percent of each unit would maintain full productivity as evaluated under Northern Region -1 standards. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 Timber harvest activities that may affect soils include approximately 284 acres for alternative 2 and 3 using a combination of ground-based and skyline harvest methods (Table 11 located in the 72 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

79 BCRP Environmental Assessment soils report). These vegetation management activities have the potential to cause both direct and indirect effects to soil. Examples of direct effects would be detrimental soil disturbance, such as compaction and displacement. Indirect effects are reductions in productivity. The level of soil disturbance increase depends primarily on the amount or lack of existing skid trails. Activity units that have had little prior disturbance would show a greater incremental increase in potential detrimental disturbance than those units that contain a network of existing skid trails (Table 11 and Table 12 in the soils report). Existing skid trails would be used for the proposed harvest whenever possible (see Design Features in Appendix B ). Proposed skyline units that were previously yarded with the same logging system have little to no additional impacts because existing corridors would generally be reused. Soil compaction effects can last for decades but are reversible. For the BCRP area, the soils with existing disturbance show little impact from past harvest (see soils report). These soils appear to be very resilient. For this reason the existing design features are expected to be sufficient to protect the soils. Potential for Mass Failure and Surface Erosion Summary: A majority of the units in the Boulder project area contain soils with low potential for mass failure. There are approximately100 acres in proposed units that have a high mass failure potential in alternative 2 and 3, however, low impact harvest systems such as skyline or helicopter yarding would be used, therefore, there would be little to no risk of mass failure. No acres in either alternative 2 or 3 rate high for surface erosion. Mass failure potential is the relative probability of down-slope movement of masses of soil material. Besides natural failure, landslides or slumping can be triggered by a number of mechanisms including harvest activities, severe burning, and related road building. Mass failures detrimentally disturb soils because organic matter, the productive ash layer, and even subsurface layers of the soil can be carried down slope during a failure. Within proposed treatment areas for all alternatives, the majority of soils have a low mass failure potential. Based on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Landtype Survey (project file S-1), There are approximately100 acres in proposed units that have a high mass failure potential in alternative 2 and 3. See Appendix A in the Soils Report and project file S-3 to S-9 for thematic maps displaying the information about the soil resource that is described in the following tables. Table 23. Mass failure potential for alternatives 2 and 3 Mass Failure Potential Alternative 2 and 3 Acres Area (%) Low Moderate 20.6 High Rounding may produce small variations in numbers Surface erosion potential is a rating of the relative susceptibility of exposed soils to sheet and rill erosion. Surface erosion potential within proposed treatment areas for both alternatives is rated as low. There are no treatment units in either alternative with a high potential for surface erosion. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 73

80 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Table 24. Surface erosion potentials for alternatives 2 and 3. Surface Erosion Potential Alternative 2 and 3 Acres Area (%) Low Moderate High 0 0 Landtype Sensitivity is a rating that incorporates mass failure, surface erosion, sediment delivery potentials, and average slope gradient to determine a rating of low, moderate, or high sensitivity for landtypes. This is a multi-factor interpretation that incorporates the potential for soil movement with the landscape feature of slope gradient to rate landtypes sensitivity to movement. Management activities are an important consideration when evaluating the weight an interpretation should be given. In this project area the activity units that contain areas rated with a high sensitivity is 5 percent in alternative 2 and 3. Within the proposed treatment areas, the majority of soils are rated low and moderate for landtype sensitivity potential in both alternatives. Both alternatives have 87 percent of the units rated as low, which equates to approximately 2963 acres (Table 25). In general, the soils in both alternatives are low to moderate sensitivity and are expected to do well with the recommended design features. Table 25. Sensitive landtype rating for alternatives 2 and 3 Sensitive Landtype Rating Alternative 2 and 3 Acres Area (%) Low Moderate High Rounding may produce small variations in numbers Permanent system roads are considered dedicated lands and not considered for soil detrimental disturbance under the Northern Region standards. They are considered a disturbance for evaluation of the standards in the forest plan. Proper maintenance of roads is important to limit the amount of sediment that is derived from them. No additional soil impacts would occur from proposed road maintenance activities such as blading, drainage improvements, and surfacing on existing dedicated roads. No new permanent road construction is planned for this project. Cumulative Effects Past disturbances within these activity areas are recovering in areas where ground-based yarding occurred or have recovered with little evidence to show harvest had occurred except for the 74 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

81 BCRP Environmental Assessment decaying stumps left behind. Past monitoring of skyline yarding operations have found disturbance is localized and tends to recover in a very short period of time. At the current time, there are no detrimentally disturbed soils from past logging or wildfire within the analysis area. Even considering past activities within the harvest units, full productivity potential would be maintained on at least 85 percent of the activity area under the Regional soil quality standards in every activity area after all activities are complete. Alternative 2 treatments would maintain productivity on 92 percent of the activity area. Both alternatives 2 and 3 would meet Region 1 soil quality standards and the requirements in the Forests Land Management Plan (revised 2015) in 100 percent of the units following all past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities as planned. See Table 11 in the soils report for detailed information by unit. Roads are not expected to contribute to the cumulative effects within the project area. Road maintenance activities would not go beyond the existing road prism, and no new system roads are proposed. Temporary roads are proposed and do contribute to the cumulative effects which are displayed in Table 11 in the Soils Report for alternative 2 and 3. Maintenance of Coarse Woody Debris Summary: Alternative 1 would allow for more accumulation of coarse woody debris until it either it either decays slowly or a fire consumes it. With alternatives 2 and 3, coarse woody debris would be maintained in units that are currently within the recommended ranges and raised in units that are below. Units in excess of those recommended levels would be lowered through fuel reduction activities. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The distribution of coarse woody debris is varied throughout the project area. Most of the project area has sufficient levels of coarse woody debris, as recommended by Graham and others (1994). There are 22 units below the recommended levels. They are between 0 and 6 tons per acre. There are six units of these that are not a concern for under recommend amounts. These units (50, 51, 52, 116, 128, and 239) are high use areas for recreation and are being managed for recreation, high accidental fire risk and they are adjacent to WUI. See the fuels report for details. Harvesting the tree bole, tops and limbs may cause indirect effects to vegetation as nutrient sources are removed from site. Yarding of tops and limbs is proposed in all units for both alternatives except in units 43, 48, 60, 62, 66, 108, 112, 120, 130, 139, 140, 141, 142, 172, 174, and 196. Yarding tops and limbs is restricted in those units due to the low levels of available coarse woody debris. Logging slash from breakage, which could include tree limbs, tops, and unmerchantable pieces, would remain within all harvest units to overwinter to maintain nutrient levels. Harvest activities are not expected to reduce soil organic matter within proposed units. Harvest activities may actually increase organics that would contribute to the surface layer through harvest breakage and slash left on-site during the over-wintering period. Following harvest activities and fuel treatments, organic matter recruitment would likely be lessened until vegetation recovers in those areas. Coarse woody debris would be maintained and/or elevated to recommended levels in all units so that preservation of ecological function is expected. In units with excessive accumulations, the coarse woody debris would be reduced through fuels treatments associated with alternative 2 and Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 75

82 Boulder Creek Restoration Project 3 but would still remain above recommended levels upon completion. Using Regional guidance for coarse woody debris retention these units would also comply with the forest plan standard to maintain sufficient microorganism populations for site productivity. Design features, including nutrient management recommendations, would ensure compliance with the standards to maintain sufficient nutrient capital. Since direct and indirect effects on soils are measured within the activity areas, the cumulative effects analysis area for the soil resource is localized. In regards to coarse woody debris there are no other foreseeable management activities that would alter the amount of debris on the treated acres. Effects to Inventoried Roadless Areas Proposed actions are evaluated in relation to their effects on the two roadless areas that overlap with the BCRP. The analysis discloses potential effects to the roadless character & wilderness attributes in order to determine if, or to what extent these effects might influence future consideration for wilderness recommendations. This analysis focuses on the potential effects on roadless characteristics as defined in the Idaho Roadless Rule and wilderness attributes as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) (72.1). Within the project area, two Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) exist. The first is Katka Peak IRA (10,300 acres). Located entirely within the state of Idaho, Katka Peak consists of 9,000 acres of the IRA management theme Backcountry and 1,300 acres of General Forest. The Idaho Roadless Area Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C) provides overall guidance for this entire IRA. The roadless expanse, included in the analysis of impacts to this IRA, is the boundary of the Katka Peak IRA. It is bound by lands of mixed ownership (primarily private) and by existing roads. Refer to map in Appendix A. The second IRA is Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle IRA (68,000 acres.). It is located within both Idaho and Montana. On the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle IRA consists of 33,600 acres of Backcountry and 1,400 acres of Forest Plan Special Area. The Forest Plan Special Area refers to the Hunt Girl Creek - Research Natural Area (RNA) located within the project boundary. On the Kootenai National Forest, 23,400 acres are located in Idaho and are considered Backcountry. The Idaho Roadless Area Rule provides guidance for all portions of this IRA found within the state of Idaho. The 9,600 acres that are located in the state of Montana would be managed according to the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart B, published at 66 fed Reg ). The roadless expanse in this case would be the northernmost boundary of the IRA extending down to the southern boundary of the Scotchman Peaks Recommended Wilderness. The roadless expanse extends from the western boundary of the Mt. Willard Lake Estelle IRA to the Eastern most portions of the Willard Lake Estelle IRA on the Kootenai National Forest. Maps are located on the IPNF website under the BCRP heading. Table 26 shows the crosswalk or relationship between the wilderness attributes identified in Forest Service Handbook and the roadless area characteristics defined in the Idaho Roadless Rule. 76 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

83 BCRP Environmental Assessment Table 26. Resource Indicators for assessing effects to Inventoried Roadless Areas Wilderness Attributes Natural: Extent to which the area s ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization and generally appear to have been affected primarily by forces of nature. Undeveloped: Degree to which the area is without permanent improvements or human habitation. Corresponding Roadless Characteristic High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air; Sources of public drinking water; Diversity of plant and animal communities; Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and for sensitive species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land. Reference landscapes; Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. Solitude and Primitive Recreation: Personal subjective value defined as the isolation from the sights, sounds, and presence of others and the developments of man Special Features: Unique and/or special geological, biological, ecological, cultural, or scenic features. Manageability/boundaries: Ability to manage a roadless area to meet the minimum size criteria (5,000 acres) for wilderness. Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semi- primitive motorized ROS classes of dispersed recreation. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; Other locally identified unique characteristics. No criteria Effects to Natural Attribute of Katka Peak and Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle IRAs Summary: Under Alternatives 1 & 3, the IRAs would continue to maintain the appearance of being Natural and primarily affected by the forces of nature. Alternatives 1 & 3 would not however, address the human induced changes resulting from years of fire suppression activities. Under Alternative 2, the reintroduction of fire would have the additional benefit of introducing more natural processes to the ecosystem. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 3 (No Activities in the Roadless Areas) As a direct effect, alternatives 1 and 3 would support the Natural appearance of the IRA. Annual fire occurrence in the project area is low however; all northern Idaho ecosystems are naturally subject to periodic wildfires. Fire records including the ignition location, size, and cause (i.e. human, lightning) have been kept since the early 1940s on the district, however, the region has been maintaining this information since 1970 and it is believed this 47 year period likely has the most complete and accurate information. Since 1970 there have been 49 fire starts within the Boulder project area, with another 4 ignitions occurring on the border of the project area and 9 starting within a half-mile. Had these fires not been successfully suppressed, each would have had the potential to burn large acreages. Due to suppression, natural fire has been mostly absent from the landscape for 107 years. Under alternatives 1 & 3, natural processes including insect and disease activity would continue to occur and vegetation composition and structure would change over time through natural growth, mortality, and events such as wildfires, and wind throw. This cycle causes an Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 77

84 Boulder Creek Restoration Project accumulation of fine fuels, and once dead trees fall, they contribute to large woody debris that may persist for several decades. This increased fuel loading supports high-intensity fires during periods of extreme fire weather, leading to more severe fire effects. For additional information on aquatic resources, diversity of plant and animal communities and habitat for threatened and endangered, proposed candidate, and sensitive plant and animal species, please refer to the respective resource specialist reports. Alternative 2 (Burn Units Only in Inventoried Roadless Areas) The reintroduction of fire to an ecosystem where fire suppression activities have reduced the acres of forest that would have burned had natural ignitions run their course, would have positive effects to the Natural quality of the IRAs. It would help to restore the ecosystem to more natural processes. Fuels treatment could also result in a short term negative impact to air quality as described in the fuels report. Please see the fuels specialists report for a more detailed description of the potential effect of the fire resource. Positive impacts include the restoration of the whitebark pine communities which enhances the Natural quality of the IRA. The need for the whitebark pine restoration is directly linked to the human-induced changes associated with the introduction of the invasive blister rust fungus. Please see the vegetation report for further information. The reintroduction of fire could also result in an increase in browse and forage for big game. Overall, the proposed activities would have a short term adverse effects with a long term beneficial effects. Please refer to the wildlife, fisheries, and vegetation section of this document for more information. Cumulative Effects Continued suppression of fire in the roadless expanse may result in continued encroachment of timber and vegetation into existing openings, and could reduce huckleberry, mountain ash and other shrub and forage components. Lack of fire in these areas reduces the release of nutrients into soils, could lead to higher fuel loadings for future wildfires, and affects those plants and animals that are dependent on fire. Succession would play a large role with conifers reestablishing populations on post burned landscapes. When combining continued fire suppression activities with actions proposed in Alternatives 1 and 3, no changes would occur to the likely risk of future high intensity fires. When considered in combination with the action proposed in alternative 2, cumulatively, the future fires would be tend to be of more naturally occurring intensity and severity. Effects to the Undeveloped Attribute of the IRAs Summary: Under alternatives 1 and 3, the undeveloped character would not directly change. Under alternative 2, impacts to the undeveloped character of the IRAs would include evidence of chainsaw use. Fuels reduction operations would include slashing sapling size trees out from around valuable old growth trees. Supporting Information 78 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

85 BCRP Environmental Assessment Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 3 (No Activities in the Roadless Areas) The undeveloped character of the IRAs would not be directly affected by Alternatives 1 and 3. These alternatives would not impair the ability of the area to be used as a reference landscape or adversely affect the high scenic quality of areas. Indirectly, Alternatives 1 and 3 could result in an increased likelihood of a high severity fire when compared to Alternative 2. Please see the fuels specialists report for a more detailed description of the potential effect of the fire resource. Alternative 2 (Burn Units Only in Inventoried Roadless Areas) Impacts to the undeveloped character of the IRAs could include evidence of Forest Service management activities in the form of chainsaw use (cut stumps of saplings) and evidence of prescribed fire activities. Proposed activities in dry site old growth stands would include pretreatment including the slashing of ladder fuels in the stands to minimize old growth tree mortality during burning activities. The linear recreational trails found within the area could act as a fire line and result in a linear edge to a burned area. These impacts would occur only as long as the burned area was noticeable. The undeveloped character of the area would be altered to a greater degree if a large scale high severity fire were to occur due to unnatural fuel loading and previous suppression tactics. Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects would occur to the undeveloped character of the IRAs. Effects to the Solitude and Primitive Recreation Attribute of the IRAs Summary: Alternatives 1 and 3 would have no direct effect on opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive recreation. Under alternative 2, impacts could include a short term loss of opportunities for solitude, primitive and unconfined type of recreational experiences. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 3 (No Activities in the Roadless Areas) Alternatives 1 and 3 would have no direct effect on opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive recreation. Indirectly though, by taking no action the likelihood of a stand replacing type fire may be greater. If a large scale high intensity wildfire were to occur in the IRA(s), the character of the area could completely change from a lush forested environment to a blackened post fire area with heavy tree mortality. Depending on visitor s values, the loss of a canopy cover could be considered a loss of solitude. Furthermore, unsafe post fire conditions could necessitate area closures which in turn could be considered a temporary loss of primitive recreational opportunities. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 79

86 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Alternative 2 (Burn Units Only in Inventoried Roadless Areas) Impacts include the short term loss of opportunities for solitude and/or a primitive and unconfined type of recreational experiences. During project implementation the use of chainsaws for slashing saplings in the old growth stands could contribute to loss of a feeling of solitude. Temporary area closures while fire crews are working could be also be interpreted as a loss of primitive recreational opportunities. These short term impacts may be outweighed by the long term benefits associated with a reduced risk of severe fire. Conversely, if a large scale high intensity wildfire fire were to occur in one or more of the IRAs, the loss of solitude and primitive recreational opportunities may occur for a longer period of time due to unsafe post fire trail conditions and prolonged closures needed for the public safety. Public activities including mushroom gathering, firewood cutting, driving roads, camping, snowmobiling, hunting, hiking, berry picking may occur in areas disturbed by activities proposed under alternative 2. In particular, larger openings in the forest canopy may create additional opportunities for berry picking. The prescribed burning units may also create additional opportunities for mushroom gathering. Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects would occur to the Solitude and Primitive Recreation Attribute of the IRAs. Effects to the Special Features of the IRAs Summary: None of the alternatives would directly affect the Special Features attribute of the IRAs. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternatives 1 and 3 would have no direct effect on Special Features because no actions are being proposed within the IRAs. There could be indirect impacts of not treating accumulated forest fuels if a severe wildfire were to occur. Such a fire could extirpate documented occurrences or undetected rare moonworts and other rare plants in the project area, particularly those associated with moist forest and cold forest habitats. These rare plants would be considered special features of the IRAs. Please see the rare plants resource analysis for additional information. Alternative 2 (Burn Units Only in Inventoried Roadless Areas) Core grizzly habitat is a special biological feature of both IRAs. Prescribed burning activities proposed in alternative 2 would result in minor impacts to grizzly habit during project implementation and long term positive effects (increasing browse and forage) upon project completion. Please see the wildlife specialist report for additional information. Another positive impact would be the restoration of the whitebark pine communities which are also considered a special feature of the IRA. The need for the whitebark pine restoration is directly linked to the human-induced changes associated with the human introduction of the invasive blister rust fungus. Please see the vegetation report for further information. 80 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

87 BCRP Environmental Assessment Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects would occur to the special feature wilderness attribute because actions proposed in this project under Alternative 3 would not affect the areas suitability for wilderness designation. Effects to the Manageability Attribute of the IRAs Summary: None of the alternatives would affect the Manageability attribute of the IRAs. None of the actions proposed (under any alternative) would adversely affect the Forest Service s ability to maintain the IRA s wilderness attributes or meet the minimum size criteria (5,000 acres) for wilderness. Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects All Alternatives Actions proposed under alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would not affect the manageability attribute of the IRAs. Nothing proposed would detract from the Forest Service s ability to maintain the IRA s wilderness attributes and/or meet the minimum size criteria (5,000 acres) for wilderness. Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects would occur to the manageability attribute of the IRAs because no past, present or reasonable foreseeable actions would adversely affect the Forest Service s ability to maintain the IRA s wilderness attributes or meet the minimum size criteria (5,000 acres) for wilderness. None of the proposed alternatives would affect the areas suitability for future wilderness designation. Effects to Forest Carbon and Storage Forests cycle carbon. They are in a continual flux, both emitting carbon into the atmosphere and removing it (sequestration) through photosynthesis. The proposed actions being considered here may alter the rates and timing of that flux within the individually affected forest stands. These changes would be localized and infinitesimal in relation to the role the world s forests play in ameliorating climate change and indistinguishable from the effects of not taking the action. Nevertheless, in response and deference to those who commented, effects of the proposal on carbon cycling and storage are discussed below. Regional, continental, and global factors related to forest s influence on global climate change are also briefly discussed to provide context for understanding the nature of these local effects. The top three anthropogenic (human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (from ) are: fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and agriculture (IPCC 2007, p. 36). Land use change, primarily the conversion of forests to other land uses (deforestation) is the second leading source of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally (Denman et al. 2007, p. 512). Loss of tropical forests of South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia is the largest source of landuse change emissions (Denman et al. 2007, pg. 518; Houghton 2005). Unlike other forest regions that are a net source of carbon to the atmosphere, U.S. forests are a strong net carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than they emit (Houghton 2003; US EPA 2010, p. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 81

88 Boulder Creek Restoration Project 7-14; Heath et al. 2011). For the period 2000 to 2008, U.S. forests sequestered (removed from the atmosphere, net) approximately teragrams (Tg) of carbon dioxide per year, with harvested wood products sequestering an additional 101 Tg per year (Heath et al. 2011) 8. Our National Forests accounted for approximately 30 percent of that net annual sequestration. National Forests contribute approximately 3 Tg carbon dioxide to the total stored in harvested wood products compared to about 92 Tg from harvest on private lands. Within the U.S., land use conversion from forest to other uses (primarily for development or agriculture) are identified as the primary human activities exerting negative pressure on the carbon sink that currently exists in this country s forests (McKinley et al. 2011; Ryan et al. 2010; Conant et al. 2007). This proposal does not fall within, and it is distinguishable from any of these primary contributors of global greenhouse gas emissions, nor is similar to the primary human activities exerting negative pressure on the carbon sink that currently exists in U.S. forests, namely land use conversion. The affected forests would remain forests, not converted to other land uses, and longterm forest services and benefits would be maintained. Table 27. Carbon cycling indicators and measures Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Carbon sequestration / emission Pounds of Carbon Effects to Carbon Cycling 1 teragram (Tg) = approximately 2.2 billion pounds Summary: Under alternative 1, there would be no direct human-induced emissions of carbon into the atmosphere. Forest stands would likely continue as carbon sinks until the next disturbance event (fire, wind, insect infestation, etc.) occurs. Alternatives 2 and 3 would improve the resilience of the vegetation in the project area to future climatic stressors and disturbances. Improving the forest composition and structure in the project area would facilitate carbon uptake because the forest stands would tend to be healthy, have the appropriate species composition, and the trees would have room to grow and fix carbon through photosynthesis. In the short-term, alternatives 2 and 3 would remove and release some carbon currently stored within treatment area biomass through harvest of live and dead trees and other fuel reduction activities, including prescribed burning. Additionally, motorized equipment used during any of the proposed activities will emit greenhouse gasses. The BCRP would affect only a tiny percentage of the forest carbon stocks of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, and an infinitesimal amount of the total forest carbon stocks of the United States. 8 1 teragram (Tg) = approximately 2.2 billion pounds 82 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

89 BCRP Environmental Assessment Supporting Information Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 The long-term ability of these forests to persist as a net carbon sink is uncertain (Galik and Jackson 2009). Drought stress, forest fires, insect outbreaks and other disturbances may substantially reduce existing carbon stock (Galik and Jackson 2009). Climate change threatens to amplify risks to forest carbon stocks by increasing the frequency, size, and severity of these disturbances (Dale, et al. 2001; Barton 2002; Breashears and Allen 2002; Westerling and Bryant 2008; Running 2006; Littell, et al. 2009; Boisvenue and Running 2010). Recent research indicates that these risks may be particularly acute for forests of the Northern Rockies (Boisvenue and Running 2010). Increases in the severity of disturbances, combined with projected climatic changes, may limit post-disturbance forest regeneration, shift forests to non-forested vegetation, and possibly convert large areas from an existing carbon sink to a carbon source (Barton 2002; Savage and Mast 2005; Allen 2007; Strom and Fulé 2007; Kurz et al. 2008a; Kurz et al. 2008b; Galik and Jackson 2009). Leaving areas of forest densely stocked, as in the no action alternative, maintains an elevated risk of carbon loss due to disturbance. Thinning, prescribed fire, and other management actions are often suggested as climate change adaptation actions because they may increase forest resilience to these multiple stresses, and thus increase the likelihood of sustaining forest carbon benefits in the long-term (Millar et al. 2007; Joyce et al. 2008; Ryan et al. 2008b). The no action alternative foregoes such climate change adaptation actions. Alternatives 2 and 3 The proposed stand vegetation and fuel reduction treatments would reduce existing carbon stocks and temporarily reduce net carbon sequestration rates within treated stands, in some areas possibly enough that for the short term the stands would emit more carbon than they are sequestering. These stands would remain a source of carbon to the atmosphere (or weakened sink) until carbon uptake by new and remaining trees again exceeds the emissions from decomposing dead organic material. As stands continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase then gradually decline, but remain positive (Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004). Carbon stocks would continue to accumulate, although at a declining rate, until impacted by future disturbances. As discussed elsewhere, the risk of some high mortality disturbance events is greater under the no action alternative. To the extent the proposed actions reduce the risk or delay the event of future stand replacing disturbance events, potential emissions from those events are equally reduced or forestalled. Sustaining forest productivity and other multiple-use goods and services requires that land managers balance multiple objectives. The long-term ability of forests to sequester carbon depends in part on their resilience to multiple stresses, including increasing probability of drought stress, high severity fires, and large scale insect outbreaks associated with projected climate change. Management actions, such as those proposed with this project that maintains the vigor and long-term productivity of forests and reduce the likelihood of high severity fires and insect outbreaks can maintain the capacity of the forest to sequester carbon in the long-term. Thus, even though some management actions may in the near-term reduce total carbon stored below current levels, in the long-term they maintain the overall capacity of these stands to sequester carbon, while also contributing other multiple-use goods and services (Reinhardt and Holsinger 2010). Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 83

90 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Cumulative Effects Neither the No Action alternative or the Proposed Action would have a discernable impact on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or global warming, considering the limited changes in both rate and timing of carbon flux predicted within these few affected forest acres and the global scale of the atmospheric greenhouse gas pool and the multitude of natural events and human activities globally contributing to that pool. Although not a statutorily defined purpose of National Forest System management, forests do provide a valuable ecosystem service by removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in biomass (Galik and Jackson 2009). As stated above, U.S. forests are a strong net carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than they emit (Houghton 2003; US EPA 2010, p. 7-14; Heath et al. 2011). For the period 2000 to 2008, U.S. forests sequestered (removed from the atmosphere, net) approximately teragrams of carbon dioxide per year, with harvested wood products sequestering an additional 101 teragrams per year (Heath, et al. 2011). Our National Forests accounted for approximately 30 percent of that net annual sequestration. National Forests contribute approximately 3 Tg carbon dioxide to the total stored in harvested wood products compared to about 92 Tg from harvest on private lands. The BCRP would affect only a tiny percentage of the forest carbon stocks of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, and an infinitesimal amount of the total forest carbon stocks of the United States. Within the U.S., land use conversions from forest to other uses (primarily for development or agriculture) are identified as the primary human activities exerting negative pressure on the carbon sink that currently exists in this country s forests (McKinley et al. 2011; Ryan et al. 2010; Conant et al. 2007). The affected forest lands in this proposal would remain forests, not converted to other land uses, and long-term forest services and benefits would be maintained. 84 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

91 BCRP Environmental Assessment Agencies and Persons Consulted The Interdisciplinary Team The following individuals contributed to the analysis and preparation of this environmental assessment: Brown, Samantha - Silviculturist Costich-Thompson, Jennifer Botanist Glaza, Brandon Hydrologist Hanson, Anita Appraisal Specialist Hart, Patricia Recreation Specialist Hixson, Luke Sale Preparation Specialist Elliott, Tom GIS Specialist Wright, Doug Landscape Architect Cobb, David Planning Knauth, Kevin District Ranger Lyndaker, Brett Wildlife Biologist Neils, Chandra - Soil Scientist Varcoe, Matt - Engineering Nishek, Doug Interdisciplinary Team Leader Bigelow, Beth - Archeologist Petesch, Steven - Recreation Specialist Anderson, Jennifer - Fire and Fuels Specialist Stash, Sean Fisheries Biologist Wiebe, Matt Timber Sale Administrator Kleinsmith, Shanna Writer/editor Federal, State, and Local Agencies; Tribes; and Others: Various staff members of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests consulted the following individuals, organizations, and Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment: Alliance for the Wild Rockies American Forest Resource Council Associated Logging Contractors Avista Corp. Blue Sky Broadcasting Back Country Horsemen Bonner County Commissioners Bonners Ferry Herald Boundary County Commissioners Boundary County Translator Board Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation Cow Creek Water Association Fodge Pulp Hancock Forest Management Idaho Conservation League Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Section Idaho Department of Fish and Game Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality Idaho Department of Lands Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Idaho Forest Group Idaho Veneer Company Idaho Women in Timber Kalispel Tribe of Indians Kootenai Environmental Alliance Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative Local Landowners / Mining Claims (10) Natural Resource Conservation Service North Idaho Post & Pole Northern Lights, Inc. Office of Senator Crapo Office of Senator Risch Paradise Valley Water Association Ponderay Valley Fibre Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 85

92 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Priest Community Forest Connection Selkirk Conservation Alliance State of Idaho Military Division, Public Safety and Communications The Lands Council Union Pacific Railroad U.S. EPA Region 10U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Vaagen Brothers Wild Lands Defense 2 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

93 References need to be updated Agee, James K., and Skinner, Carl N Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211: Baker, T.G., G.M. Will, and G.R. Oliver Nutrient release from silvicultural slash: leaching and decomposition of Pinus radiata needles. For. Ecol. and Mgmt, 27: Belt, G., J. O Laughlin, and T. Merrill Design of forest riparian buffer strips for the protection of water quality: analysis of scientific literature. Idaho forest, wildlife and range policy analysis group. Rep. no. 8. Bosch, R., J. Hewlett A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J. of Hydrology. 55: Brewer, L.T., R. Bush, J.E. Canfield, and A.R. Dohmen Northern Goshawk Northern Region Overview, Key Findings and Project Considerations. USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT. 57 pp. Chamberlin, T., R. Harr, F. Everest Timber Harvesting, Silviculture, and Watershed Processes. In: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American fisheries society special publication19: Cobb, Jill Influences of shade on controlling maximum stream temperatures. Humboldt State University. Masters Thesis. Cohen, Jack D Wildland-Urban Fire A Different Approach. Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Cooley, Patrick; Dickerson, Gary; Maffei, Tom; Novak, Lis Scenic Resource Mitigation Menu & Design Considerations for Vegetation Treatments. [Unpublished] Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 8 p. Drlik, T.; I. Woo and S. Swiadon, editors Integrated vegetation management guide. Bio- Integral Resource Center. Berkeley, California. 16 pp. Evans, David and Associates Conservation assessment of eleven sensitive moonworts (Ophioglossaceae; Botrychium subgenus Botrychium) on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Spokane, Washington. Finney, M.A., Cohen, J.D., Expectation and evaluation of fuel management objectives. In: USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Pages Finney, Mark A., McHugh, Charles W., and Grenfell, Isaac C., Stand- and landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona wildfires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35: Fischer, J. D. B Lindenmayer, and A. D. Manning Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology 2006; 4(2): Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 3

94 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgenson, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn and D.S. Page-Dumroese Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. Research paper INT-RP-477. Graham, Russell T., Harvey, Alan E., Jain, Theresa B., Tonn, Jonalea R The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p. Graham, Russell T.; McCaffrey, Sarah; Jain, Theresa B., tech. eds Scientific basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p. Available online at: Grant, G., S. Lewis, F. Swanson, J. Cissel, J. McDonnell Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-760 USDA Forest Service. Gravelle and Link Influence of timber harvesting on headwater peak stream temperatures of a northern Idaho watershed. Forest Science 53(2) Harms, D.R Black bear management in Yosemite National Park. In Bears Their Biology and Management. A selection of papers from the Fourth International Conference on Bear Research and Management. Volume 4, Kalispell, MT. Harvey, A.E., P.F. Hessburg, J.W. Byler, G.I. McDonald, J.C. Weatherby, and B.E. Wickman Health Declines in Western Interior Forests: Symptoms and Solutions. Symposium Proceedings of Ecosystem Management in Western Interior Forests. May 3-5, 1994, Spokane, WA; Washington State University, Cooperative Extension. Helms, John A The Dictionary of Forestry. The Society of American Foresters. 210 p. Hessburg, P.F. and J.K. Agee An environmental narrative of Inland Northwest United States forests, Forest Ecology and Management. 178(2003) Hubbard R., W. Shepperd, and L. Joyce Climate Change and Silviculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Integrated Report. Available online at: Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Taskforce Report. 7 pp. Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin (ICBEMP). Available online at: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, City of Bonners Ferry, and Boundary County Lower Kootenai Valley River Watershed Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Proposal. Available online at: 4 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

95 Boulder Creek Restoration Project al pdf Krauskopf, P., J. Rex, D. Maloney, P. Tschaplinski Water temperature and shade response to salvage harvesting in mountain pine beetle affected small streams in the Central Interior of British Columbia. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin. Vol.13/No.2 Maj, M Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): Assessment of monitoring and management in the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 32 pp. Reid and Hilton Buffering the Buffer. Paper presented at the conference on coastal watersheds: the Caspar Creek story. Reinhardt, Elizabeth D., Keane, Robert E., Calkin, David E., and Jack D. Cohen Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 256: Scott, Joe H.; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p. Seyedbagheri, K Idaho Forestry Best Management Practices: Compilation of Research on Their Effectiveness. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-339. Ogden UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 89 p. Sheley, Roger; Mark Manoukian and Gerald Marks Preventing noxious weed invasion. MONTGUIDE MT AG 8/2002. Montana State University Extension Service. Bozeman, MT. 3pp. Smith, J.K, and W.C. Fischer Fire Ecology of Forest Habitat Types of Northern Idaho. General Technical Report. INT-GTR-363. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Stednick, J Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of Hydrology. 176: Sullivan, T.P., D.S. Sullivan, P.M.F. Lindgren and D.B. Ransome If we build habitat, will they come? Woody debris structures and conservation of forest mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 93(6): Pettit, N.E., and R. J. Naiman Fire in the riparian zone: characteristics and ecological consequences. Ecosystems 10: Poff, Roger J Effects of Silvicultural Practices and Wildfire on Productivity of Forest Soils. project file Document. p Quigley, T. M.; and S.J. Arbelbide (eds.) An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 310 p. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 5

96 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Sullivan, T.P., D.S. Sullivan, P.M.F. Lindgren and D.B. Ransome If we build habitat, will they come? Woody debris structures and conservation of forest mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 93(6): USDA Forest Service National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter: The Visual Management System. Agric. Handbook Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 47 p. USDA Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. FSH R1/R4 5/88. USDA Forest Service Bonners Ferry Ranger District Noxious Weed Control Project Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Bonners Ferry Ranger District. Available at the district office. USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment: Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Coeur d'alene, ID. USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agric. Handbook Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 246 p. USDA Forest Service Northern Region (Region 1) Soil Quality Standards R1 Suppl p. USDA Forest Service. 2000a. North Zone Geographic Assessment (Draft): Historic Vegetation Data. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region, Idaho Panhandle Forests. March USDA Forest Service 2000b. Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Forest Plan. Monitoring and evaluation report. USDA Forest Service Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. Version 1.0. Available online at USDA Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests Forest Plan Monitoring Reports 2007, 2008 and Supervisor s Office. Coeur d Alene, ID. 150 pp. USDA Forest Service IPNF Monitoring Report. (Available from the Idaho Panhandle National Forests headquarters office, Coeur d Alene, ID). USDA Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests Pesticide Discharge Management Plan. Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Coeur d'alene, ID. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, MT. 181 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Final Rule to Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; Establishment of Two Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves; Final and Proposed Rules. Federal Register 68: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on the Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear 6 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

97 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Recovery Zones on the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, and Lolo National Forests. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Field Office Kalispell, Montana and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Idaho Field Office Spokane, Washington. 227 pp. Wakkinen, W. L. and W. F. Kasworm Demographics and population trends of grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems of British Columbia, Idaho, Montana and Washington. Ursus Workshop Supplement. 15(1): Young, Richard P Fire as a vegetation management tool in rangelands of the Intermountain Region. In: Monsen, Stephen B; Shaw, Nancy, compilers. Managing Intermountain rangelands - improvement of range and wildlife habitats: Proceedings; 1981 September 15-17; Twin Falls, ID; 1982 June 22-24; Elko, NV. General Technical Report INT-157. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. pp In: Fire Effects Information System, species profile for oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), online database at Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 7

98 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Appendix A Maps For a detailed look at the following maps, please visit the IPNF website and look for the Boulder Creek Restoration Project (BCRP) under the Analysis section at: 8 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

99 Boulder Creek Restoration Project Map 1. Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) and the BCRP Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 9

100

101 Map 2. Alternative 2 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 11

102 Map 3. Alternative Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

103 Map 4. Existing Transportation System Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 13

104 Map 5. Alternative 2 and 3 Proposed Transportation system 14 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

105 Map 6 Alternative 2 - location of old growth and whitebark pine stands. Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 15