PIPESTONE TIMBER SALE AND RESTORATION PROJECT RECORD OF DECISION

Transcription

1 PIPESTONE TIMBER SALE AND RESTORATION PROJECT RECORD OF DECISION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MY DECISION... 2 II. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA... 3 III. OVERVIEW OF OUR ANALYSIS AND DECISION PROCESS... 4 IV. FOREST PLAN DIRECTION AND THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THIS ACTIVITY... 4 V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS AND ISSUES... 5 VI. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES... 7 VII. SPECIFICS OF THE SELECTED ACTION ALTERNATIVE 4-MODIFIED VIII. RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION Consistency with Forest Plan Goals, Objectives, and Standards The Relationship to Environmental Issues and Public Comments IX. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAW, REGULATION, AND AGENCY POLICY National Forest Management Act The Clean Water Act and State Water Quality Standards The Endangered Species Act National Historic Preservation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and Native American Grave Protection Act Government to Government Relations Environmental Justice Migratory Bird Treaty Act Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System Roads Policy X. APPEAL PROVISIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION Literature Cited APPENDICES: A. Best Management Practices B. Selected Alternative Activity Maps Page 1

2 PIPESTONE TIMBER SALE AND RESTORATION PROJECT RECORD OF DECISION USDA Forest Service, Region One Libby Ranger District Kootenai National Forest Lincoln County, Montana I. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MY DECISION This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my selection of management activities for the Pipestone Project Area. I have decided to implement Alternative 4 as presented in the DEIS, with some minor modifications. Maps displaying the activities in the selected alternative are located in Appendix B. With this Record of Decision, I am authorizing: Timber harvest treatments on approximately 843 acres to reduce insect and disease conditions, stand densities, and trend toward more resilient and sustainable forest conditions. This action responds to two aspects of the Purpose and Need statement: to improve forest health, and contribute to a sustained yield of timber (Pipestone DEIS p. 1-2, 1-3). Approximately 70% of the acres will be treated through an intermediate silvicultural prescription and 30% through regeneration harvest. Specific silvicultural prescriptions, logging systems, fuels treatments, and reforestation practices are included in Table 7. Some commercial and non-commercial harvest, including post and pole removal, is included. Prescribed burning over approximately 3,901 acres to reduce the amount of stagnant, tolerant understory species, recycle nutrients, stimulate browse for wildlife forage, and create growing space for large overstory trees. This action responds to the improve forest health aspect of the Purpose and Need statement (Pipestone DEIS p. 1-2). Approximately 1,115 acres of this prescribed burning will be implemented in the Gold Hill West #176 Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). No burning is proposed in designated or undesignated old growth or replacement old growth. Approximately 99 miles of road decommissioning, as defined in the DEIS, Chapter 2, pages (see Table 7). This work responds to the purpose and need to improve watershed and fisheries habitat in water quality limited stream segments. Decommissioning would be implemented over a five-year period with approximately 20 miles of road being completed annually. This work will be funded and implemented over the course of several years. Improvements on 148 miles of road to meet best management practices (BMP s), including road blading, brushing, ditch cleaning, ditch relief, culvert repair and replacement and subgrade reinforcement. This action responds to the purpose and need to improve watershed health and fisheries habitat (DEIS p. 1-3). Private land access, including easements to Plum Timber Company and private individual landowners as described in the DEIS on page New road construction necessary would be 0.57 mile. This action responds to the purpose and need to maintain a safe, efficient, and economical road system that provides for both public and private access and resource protection (DEIS p. 1-4). Road and access management changes for miles of road (DEIS p to 2-31), which respond to the purpose and need to improve wildlife habitat security, improve watershed health and fisheries habitat and to maintain a safe, efficient, and economical road system that provides for both public and private access and resource protection (DEIS p. 1-3,4). See Table 6. Recreation access via a new snowmobile trail, approximately 2 miles in length, connecting the 17-mile road with the East Fork of Pipe road, outside of designated lynx habitat. This trail will be approximately 12 feet wide and will be groomed. Design features and mitigations to protect resource values. Expansion of some gravel pits and reclamation of other gravel pits. Clearing of the road right of way on Pipe road. Cavity habitat creation through inoculation of replacement snags. Seedling protection. Page 2

3 Hyrdroseeding of Bobtail Face road 6144B. A project-specific amendment to allow non-compliance with visual quality objectives (VQO S) in unit F4. A project-specific amendment to modify the Forest Plan open road density standard for MA 12, big game summer range in five timber compartments during project activities, and in three timber compartments after the project is completed (DEIS p and 2-17). See Table 1 for detailed information. As the responsible official for these projects, I am making site-specific decisions. This is not a general management plan for the area as would be found in a Forest Plan. The decisions I am making here do not preclude the need for future decisions to help meet the desired conditions for the Pipestone Project Area. Additional projects may be necessary to achieve Forest Plan goals and portions of the desired condition not met by this decision. After appropriate analysis and public involvement, separate decisions could be issued on actions not included in this decision. Previous, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities were identified and included in the cumulative effects analyses presented in the DEIS and documented in the project file. II. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA The project is located on the Libby Ranger District of the Kootenai National Forest, Region One. The project area corresponds with the Pipe and Bobtail watersheds and is 81,303 acres in size. Of that total area, 68,067 acres are National Forest System lands, and 13,236 acres are owned by Plum Timber Company, the State of Montana, and various private landowners. Subwatersheds include East Fork of Pipe, Shafer, Noisy, Doak, Blue and Rice. The legal location of the proposal includes all or parts of T34N, R32W, Section 39; T34N, R31W, Sections 11, 14, 15, 21-36; T34N, R30W Section 1; T33N, R32W, Sections 1, 12, 23-25, 36; T33N, R31W, Sections 1-36; T33N, R30W, Sections 18-20, 29-33; T32N, R32W, Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36; T32N, R31W, Sections 1-36; T32N, R30W, Sections 5-10, 15-21, 29-32; T31N, R31W, Sections 1-22, 29, 30; T31N, R30W, Sections 4-9, 17, 18; Principal Montana Meridian, Lincoln County, Montana. This area is presently very popular for recreational activities, including fishing, hunting, snowmobiling, offhighway vehicle (OHV) use, skiing, camping, berry picking, pleasure driving and hiking. The project area includes the Turner Mountain Ski Area, which is a popular downhill ski area with a chair lift. Portions of three Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) are included in the project area: Gold Hill West IRA #176, Roderick IRA #684 and the Zulu IRA #166. No management activities are proposed in the Roderick IRA or the Zulu IRA. Prescribed burning is prescribed in the Gold Hill West IRA. The upper two-thirds of the assessment area has cool-moist to cool-dry habitat conditions favoring lodgepole pine. Most of the lodgepole pine stands here today have resulted from turn of the century stand replacement fires. The lower one-third of the drainage has much drier habitat types with a mix of western larch, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Historically, much of the vegetation in this area was controlled by periodic underburns, which resulted in widely spaced ponderosa pine or mixed ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir forest. Wildfire suppression has resulted in a higher percentage of Douglas-fir than was historically the case. The area has been the scene of human activity since prehistoric times, beginning approximately 9,100 years ago. Early American Indians used fire to clear trails and create browse for wildlife. Homesteading and associated timber harvest began in the early 1890 s. By 1960, harvest and associated road building increased rapidly throughout the assessment area. The area supports populations of elk, white-tailed and mule deer, moose, black bear, and mountain lions. Portions of the project area fall within the Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, one of six recovery areas for grizzly bear identified by the USFWS. A portion of the project area is also within an area identified as outside the grizzly bear recovery area, but having grizzly bear use. This area is known as the grizzly outside recovery area. The Pipestone Project Area contains suitable habitat for lynx and contains portions of two lynx analysis units (LAU s). Additional wildlife species protected under the Endangered Species Act that are found or pass through the project area include the gray wolf and bald eagle. Portions of Bobtail are listed by the State of Montana as a Water Quality Limited Segment due to flow Page 3

4 alteration, siltation and habitat alteration. Pipe has been designated as a priority watershed for the protection of bull trout, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Management activities proposed for Bobtail are restricted to road decommissioning and storage, and two partial harvest units. These activities will have no measurable increase in peak flows in Bobtail (DEIS Chapter 3, page 38, FEIS page 47-54). Activities on Plum lands in Bobtail will result in peak flow increases. Management activities are proposed in the Pipe watershed. Effects of these activities are displayed in the watershed/fisheries III. OVERVIEW OF OUR ANALYSIS AND DECISION PROCESS National Forest Planning takes place at several levels. These include national, regional, forest, and project levels. The Pipestone EIS is a project-level analysis. Its scope is limited to addressing the issues and possible environmental consequences of the project. It does not attempt to address decisions made at higher level. However, it does implement direction provided at those higher levels. Decisions made in the Pipestone EIS do not preclude the need for future decisions to help meet the desired conditions in the project area. The Kootenai Forest Plan (USDA 1987) provides the primary management direction for my decision. The Kootenai Forest Plan identifies goals and management standards for the Kootenai National Forest as a whole and for 23 subdivisions of the Forest, referred to as Management Areas. In general, the goals and standards of the Forest Plan require me to balance a variety of resources and interests in managing these lands (e.g. maintaining or enhancing wildlife and fisheries habitat and providing a sustained yield of timber). Specific Management Area (MA) direction from the Forest Plan further guides project development and location of activities in different areas. MAs affected by this project are displayed in the DEIS on pages 3-1 to 3-3, and in the alternative descriptions in Chapter 2 of the DEIS. Within varying limits these MAs allow a wide variety of management activities including prescribed burning, timber harvest, watershed improvement, and road access and management. The Forest Plan provides MA-specific goals and standards on pages III-43 through III-118. Several Regional and National directives give broad direction to National Forest management. These include the Northern Region Overview (USDA Forest Service 1999) and the National Fire Plan. In addition, the Upper Columbia River Basin Assessment (USDA Forest Service/USDI BLM 1997) also contains scientific information that pertains to the project area. All of these assessments and direction have identified a need to restore vegetative conditions to reduce the risks from fire, insect, and disease. The Northern Region Overview focuses on priorities within northern Idaho and Montana for restoring ecosystem health and availability of recreation opportunities (USDA Forest Service 1999). The Overview concludes that there are multiple concerns in the Northwest Zone of the Region and that this subregion holds the greatest opportunity for vegetation treatments and restoration with timber sales. From a social and economic standpoint, using timber harvest for ecological restoration would be a benefit to many communities that still have a strong economic dependency, more so than other zones in the Region (USDA Forest Service 1999). Timber management fits well with the forest types in northwestern Montana and can be used to provide openings to restore larch, white pine, and ponderosa pine, reduce fire risk and maintain upland grass and shrub communities. The National Fire Plan provides direction for managing the National Forests to reduce the number and intensity of wildfires by reducing wildland and urban interface fuels. This project specifically responds to the National Fire Plan by proposing prescribed fire to reduce the amount of stagnant, tolerant understory species, recycle nutrients, stimulate browse for wildlife forage, and create growing space for large diameter overstory trees (DEIS page 2-33). IV. FOREST PLAN DIRECTION AND THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THIS ACTIVITY Management Area (MA) direction from the Forest Plan is an essential consideration in project development. Much of the timber harvest proposed was designed to benefit wildlife forage in MA 11 (Big Game Winter Range) and MA 12 (Big Game Summer Range) and to improve vegetative conditions. The Forest identified several reasons for proposing management activities in the project area. These are based on a combination of factors including resource conditions, Forest Plan direction, the National Fire Plan and the Page 4

5 Northern Region Overview. An assessment of current trends in relation to past conditions identified in the Pipestone Landscape Assessment led to development of five purpose and need for action statements. These purpose statements capture the goals envisioned in the Forest Plan and address the opportunities identified in the landscape assessment. These statements answer the fundamental question: Why are you proposing these projects? In response, we are doing these things to: Improve Forest Health: In drier habitat types, there is a need to reduce overall tree density, creating conditions more suitable to low intensity underburns and reduce susceptibility to bark beetles. In moist habitat types, there is a need to treat mature stands that are currently slowing in growth, are overstocked, and/or are approaching an age where they are susceptible to a high level of mortality due to various insects and disease. In areas where lodgepole pine stands are approaching maturity relative to historic fire cycles, there is a need to convert some of these stands to a younger mix of western larch, lodgepole pine, and western white pine, before these stands become susceptible to mountain pine beetle. In areas where Douglas-fir is the major midstory and overstory component, stands have been identified as having a moderate to high hazard rating for potential infestation by the Douglas-fir bark beetle. Improve Watershed Health and Fisheries Habitat: Bobtail is listed by the State of Montana as a water quality limited segment due to flow alteration, siltation, and habitat alteration. Pipe is listed as a priority watershed for protection and preservation of bull trout, a threatened species, and other native fish species (Montana State DEQ 2000 Waterbodies list). There is a need to improve watershed health and fisheries habitat, to provide for stable stream channels, productive habitat for aquatic species, and water quality that meets or exceeds State of Montana water quality goals. Contribute to a Sustained Yield of Timber: There is a need to supply wood products to contribute to the support of that segment of the local and regional economy dependent on timber products. This purpose and need incorporates the Northern Region Overview by implementing vegetation treatments and restoration with timber sales. From a social and economic standpoint, there is a need to use timber harvest for ecological restoration to benefit communities that still have a strong economic dependency (Northern Region Overview p. 9). Improve Wildlife Habitat Security: There is a need to increase wildlife habitat security to provide stable populations of big game species, and to conserve and recover populations of threatened and endangered species. Maintain a Safe, Efficient, and Economical Road System that Provides for Both Public Safety and Private Access and Resource Protection: There is a need to decommission unneeded roads in order to improve watershed quality, to improve fish habitat and to reduce maintenance costs. On roads needed for forest management and public access, there is a need to improve best management practices (BMP s) and safety conditions. There is also a need to grant access to private lands consistent with the provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). On the basis of these purpose and need statements, we developed a proposed action, which we presented to the public and asked them to comment on. See Section V below. See Section VIII for further discussion on the purpose and need. V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS AND ISSUES 1. Summary of Public Involvement Activities Public involvement for the proposed Pipestone Project has been extensive. Documentation for this process is located in the project file. The following is a chronology of activities. A complete record of public involvement efforts and public comment, including specific dates, are available in the project file. In March of 1997, the district asked the public for input on how National Forest Lands within the Pipestone Project Area should be managed during the landscape assessment phase of the project. Many responses were received, demonstrating the importance of the Pipestone Area to the local public. Comments focused on roads and access, the desire to maintain recreational opportunities, concerns for water quality and fisheries, concerns about wildlife ranging from not enough to too much, comments supporting removal of Page 5

6 dead and dying trees, reduction of noxious weeds, and protection of old growth forest. Other subjects included land exchanges, urban interface fuel reduction, treaty and tribal rights, heritage resources, private property rights, multiple use, human use, trails, and visual quality. In August of 1997, after preparation of a public involvement plan for the project, the District sent out a newsletter summarizing public responses to the landscape assessment request for input. At this time, the District also began a series of newsletters to the public, entitled The Pipestone Post. This newsletter established a dialogue with interested people, and responses continued with the mailing of each newsletter. In addition, several open houses and meetings with various user groups also occurred. In July 1999 a new public involvement plan was prepared to guide the public involvement process for preparation of the EIS. On December 16, 1999, an official Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register. Scoping of the proposed action began with a letter to interested parties in December of 1999 (see project file). In May of 2002, a notice of DEIS availability was published in the Federal Register. Letters giving notice of availability were mailed to the project mailing list, and legal ads appeared in local newspapers and the newspaper of record. Seven comment letters were received on the DEIS. A BA (copy in project file) was sent to USFWS for determination of concurrence April 5, On March 4, 2004, through informal consultation, the USFWS concurred that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the threatened gray wolf, grizzly bear or bull trout. On September 8, 2003 and March 4, 2004, through formal consultation the USFWS issued a biological opinion that the Pipestone project is within recommended guidelines of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS), and is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Canada lynx. No incidental take is expected as a result of the proposed action, and no terms or conditions were applied. 2. Issues Raised During the Public Involvement Process The following summary of key issues, presented in Chapter 2 of the DEIS, were areas the public or ID team felt represented an unsolved conflict with the Proposed Action (Alternative B). Issue #1 Big Game Habitat: Concerns were expressed that timber harvest activities may increase opening sizes and could have an adverse impact on habitat effectiveness, cover forage ratios and security habitat. Project activities would increase open road densities (ORD s) that could displace big game and reduce security habitat. Issue #2 Native Trout Habitat: Concerns were expressed that the timber harvest activities may increase equivalent clearcut area (ECA) acres and peak flows. These increases could impact stream stability and other riparian management objectives (RMO s) and indirectly impact native trout (bull and westslope cutthroat) populations. Issue #3 Visual Quality: Concerns were expressed that some of the timber harvest activities with regeneration silviculture prescriptions would occur in areas that are highly visible to the public. These openings could reduce the visual quality in the project area. Issue #4 Access Management: Concerns were raised that the proposed access changes would reduce the amount of open road in the analysis area. Fewer roads would then be open for public access for recreation and other activities. 3. Comments and the Final EIS The comments received on the Pipestone Timber Sale and Restoration Project DEIS did not disclose any new Page 6

7 issues or a need for substantial new analysis. However, internal issues and recent changes in standards for grizzly bears occurring outside the recovery zone have lead to revised analysis and additional mitigation measures being applied to the selected alternative. Therefore, I have determined that it is sufficient and appropriate to issue the Response to Comments and Errata as the final documentation for the Pipestone Timber Sale and Restoration Project [40 CFR (c)]. VI. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES In deciding which management practices to implement, I considered three "action" alternatives and the "no action alternative. The alternatives proposed represent the best options available to meet the overall purpose and need while addressing the complex resource conditions and issues identified. These four alternatives provided a range of alternatives to consider which sharply defined the issues. In addition, several alternatives were considered but not studied in detail including: 1. The original Proposed Action, 2. The no clearcutting alternative, 3. A no road decommissioning alternative, 4. A no access change alternative, 5. An alternative that met Forest Plan open road density (ORD) standards. Alternatives not studied in detail are discussed on pages of the DEIS. The following discussion summarizes the alternatives considered in detail. Chapter 2 of the DEIS contains a complete description of the alternatives and process used to identify them. ALTERNATIVE 1, NO ACTION Purpose/Design: There would be no commercial tree harvest, hazard fuel reduction, road decommissioning, or other associated resource projects. This alternative provides a baseline to compare environmental effects and the amount and rate of change for other alternatives. The following ecological and social trends are some of the assumptions upon which the no action alternative and the effects analysis are based: Encroachment of Douglas-fir and grand fir would continue in the dry habitat types in the Pipestone area; encroachment of various conifer species would continue to encroach the natural forest openings in the Gold Hill area. Shrub and grass species in various forest stands would continue to decline in value as browse for big game. In general, total fuel loads, including ladder fuels, would continue to increase. Forested stands in both dry and mesic vegetation types would remain at stocking levels higher than historic conditions. These stands would remain at risk to forest pathogens such as root disease and bark beetles. Large areas of even aged lodgepole pine stands (for example Shafer ) would approach and soon exceed the age at which stands become susceptible to mountain pine beetle. The existing transportation network would continue to provide a mix of open and closed roads for public recreation and forest management. The road network would maintain existing levels of wildlife security. The high density of roads in the project area, in combination with existing sources of road instability, would continue to have adverse impacts on native fisheries. ALTERNATIVE 3, MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION Purpose/Design: The modified proposed action was designed to implement projects that meet the purpose and need for action as described in Chapter 1. The alternative was designed to meet the purpose and need to improve forest health in dry habitat types by reducing overall tree density, creating conditions more suitable to low intensity underburns. In moist habitat types, including lodgepole pine, the alternative treats mature stands that are approaching an age that is susceptible to various insects and disease. The alternative was designed to contribute to a sustained yield of timber by producing approximately 5.3 MMBF of forest products. The alternative was designed to meet the purpose and need to improve wildlife security by lowering open road Page 7

8 densities; and to improve watershed health and fisheries habitat by lowering total road densities. This alternative also maintains a safe, efficient and economical road system that provides for both public and private access and resource protection by including projects that access private lands, improve recreational access, increase safety on Pipe road, and improves drainage and surface condition on high use forest roads. Specific Features: This alternative includes projects that would promote forest health, implement watershed restoration, and manage the transportation network. The prescribed burning, road decommissioning, and other associated resource projects are common to all alternatives, as described later in this chapter. The primary difference between all action alternatives is the amount and method of commercial timber harvest. The timber harvest proposed in Alternative 3 is described below (Table 1). A description of the silviculture treatments that are designed to move vegetation conditions to desired condition follows. Total volume harvested by this alternative is 5.3 million board feet (MMBF). Table 1 Commercial Timber Harvest for Alternative 3 UNIT # ACRES SILVICULTURE TREATMENT ACTIVITY FUEL TREATMENT Mgmt. Area **** Page 8 Logging System A1 (15)76 Imp Cut/Group 11 Tractor Spot grapple pile Select/PCT* A2 22 Free Thin Yard tops 11 Tractor D27b 17 OSR**/ 11 Tractor Yard tops Improvement Cut D28 32 Overstory Removal Lop 11 Tractor D30 30 Free Thin Yard tops, Underburn 11 Tractor D32 20 Improvement Cut Yard tops, Underburn 11 Tractor D33 8 Shelterwood 11 Skyline Underburn w/reserves D34 8 Improvement Cut Yard tops, Underburn 16 Tractor/Skyline D36 (19)89 Group Select Yard tops 11 Helicopter D37 (15)76 Imp Cut***/Group Yard tops/spot 11 Tractor Select/PCT grapple pile D40 26 Imp Cut/ Special 11 Tractor Hand pile Product D41 (16)79 Imp Cut/Group 11 Tractor Spot grapple pile Select/PCT D42 6 Free Thin Yard tops 11 Tractor E1 50 Improvement Cut Yard tops 16 Tractor E3 24 Free Thin Yard tops 16 Tractor E4 57 Improvement Cut Yard tops 11 Tractor/Skyline E7 13 Feather Yard tops 18 Tractor/Skyline E8 31 Free Thin Yard tops 11 Tractor E10 11 Improvement Cut Yard tops 16 Tractor E11 13 Improvement Cut Grapple Pile/Yard 11 Tractor tops F2 16 Seedtree 17 Tractor Underburn w/reserves F3 22 Shelterwood 18 Tractor Underburn w/reserves F4 19 Shelterwood 17 Skyline Underburn w/reserves F6 12 Seedtree w/reserves Underburn 15 Tractor F7 24 Seedtree w/reserves Underburn 15 Tractor

9 UNIT # ACRES SILVICULTURE TREATMENT ACTIVITY FUEL TREATMENT Mgmt. Area **** Logging System F8 49 Improvement Cut Yard tops 17 Tractor F9 37 Free Thin Yard tops 11 Tractor H2 12 Clearcut 15 Skyline Broadcast Burn w/reserves H3 20 Clearcut 12 Skyline Broadcast Burn w/reserves H4 25 Clearcut w/reserves Grapple pile 15 Tractor H4A 8 Clearcut w/reserves Grapple pile 18 Tractor H4B 37 Clearcut w/reserves Grapple pile 15 Tractor H4C 30 Salvage Yard tops 12 Tractor H4D 15 Clearcut 15 Skyline Broadcast Burn w/reserves H5 4 Clearcut 15 Skyline Broadcast Burn w/reserves H6 28 Clearcut 12 Skyline Broadcast Burn w/reserves H7 9 Feather Yard tops 12 Skyline H8 20 Clearcut w/reserves Grapple pile 12 Tractor H9 12 Feather Yard tops 15 Tractor H10 6 Feather Yard tops 18 Tractor H11 16 Feather Yard tops 15 Tractor H12 11 Overstory Removal Lop 16 Tractor H13 8 Feather Yard tops 18 Tractor I1 13 Seedtree w/reserves Underburn 15 Tractor I2 22 Seedtree w/reserves Grapple pile 15 Tractor I3 24 Seedtree w/reserves Grapple pile 15 Tractor I5 15 Overstory Removal Lop 17 Tractor K3 16 Seedtree w/reserves Underburn 12 Tractor K4 7 Clearcut w/reserves Broadcast Burn 12 Tractor K5 12 Salvage Yard tops 6 Tractor K7 4 Salvage Yard tops 17 Tractor K10 29 Improvement Cut/Salvage Yard tops 17 Tractor K11 4 Improvement Cut/Salvage Yard tops 17 Tractor K12 5 Salvage Grapple pile 6 Tractor L2 5 Special Product Lop/Pile 15 Tractor L3 5 Special Product Lop/Pile 15 Tractor L4 15 Special Product Lop/Pile 15 Tractor L12 14 Salvage Yard tops 12 L19 14 Salvage Yard tops 15 Tractor Tractor L20 33 Salvage Yard tops 15 Tractor L22 2 Salvage Yard tops 12 Tractor Total 1,112 Page 9

10 *PCT Precommercial Thin ***IMP Improvement Cut **OSR Overstory Removal **** MA descriptions are in chapter 3 Improvement Cut (Improvement cut/salvage): Many of the improvement treatments are located in stands of moderately dry Douglas-fir types (please see the DEIS vegetation section of Chapter 3 for more information on the ecological classification of stand types). These moderately dry Douglas-fir types will be opened up to square feet of basal area. An improvement cut would remove primarily the smaller, understory Douglas-fir leaving the healthier ponderosa pine, larch, and Douglas-fir. Following treatment, there may be pockets of openings (25-40 basal area) within these units, but these more open areas will not exceed 25% of the unit. Some of these units also contain mortality from Douglas-fir beetle that would be salvaged. During implementation, unit boundaries may be slightly modified where this treatment is not viable due to harvest economics or lack of adequate numbers of acceptable quality leave trees. Activity fuel treatment would be accomplished through yarding of tops in most units. Some units would require some spot grapple piling. Prescribed fire to reduce natural fuels is planned for some of these units, but would be deferred if there is unacceptable risk of killing more than 10-15% of the leave trees, either through the fire directly or by stressing the trees and increasing the risk of Douglas-fir beetle attack. All tractor harvest units would have designated trails to facilitate removal of designated material while minimizing damage to the residual trees. Skyline systems would be required on units with slopes greater than 35-40% (table 2.1) to minimize damage to leave trees. The purpose of the treatment is to reduce the overall tree density and natural fuel buildup and to increase the percentage of ponderosa pine and larch on these sites. Some improvement and salvage type cutting is also proposed in the lodgepole types to remove dead lodgepole pine and to thin the remaining green lodgepole pine. Free Thin: These prescriptions are similar to an improvement harvest. It is proposed on moderately warm and moderately dry habitat types and in young stands (75 years). Harvest would reduce the basal area to the low end of the historic range (80 ft sq) in these vegetation types, but it would improve species composition by removing Douglas-fir. Ponderosa pine and larch would be strongly favored as leave trees. Thinning is primarily from below, however, with a free thin prescription all levels of the canopy could be removed. Activity fuel treatment would be accomplished through yarding of tops in most units. Improvement Cut/Group Selection/Precommercial Thinning: The purpose of this treatment is to reduce density and natural fuels and to restore ponderosa pine and larch on these sites. These units are generally located on moderately dry Douglas-fir types. These units would be opened up to square feet of basal area. Ponderosa pine and larch would be strongly favored as leave trees. Small openings (approximately ½ to 2 acres) would be created. These regeneration openings would retain an estimated basal area of midlate seral over wood to function as stand structure, seed, relic overstory trees, and future snags. Within these openings, ponderosa pine and larch would be favored for leave where they exist. In the absence of pine and larch, the larger, most vigorous Douglas-fir would be retained. These openings may include up to 30% of the harvest unit. Activity fuel treatment would be accomplished through yarding of tops in all units. Post reforestation prescribed fire (burning of piles) would not be programmed for several years after regeneration activities to ensure the survival of desired intolerant species. All tractor harvest units would have designated trails to facilitate removal of designated material while minimizing damage to the residual trees. Planting of approximately 200 ponderosa pine and/or western larch trees per acre is planned within the openings in these units to restore these species to these sites. These seedlings would be netted to protect them from big game browsing. Following harvest, precommercial thinning would occur in pockets of sapling size trees to improve residual tree growth and stability, and favor intolerant species as well as reduce fuel loading in the long term. Overstory Removal: The intent of this treatment is to reduce overstory stocking to allow the understory to be released, particularly favoring stands with a vigorous understory of pine and larch. Following overstory removal, the understory vegetation would be precommercially thinned. Units I5 and H12 contain an excess amount of larch in the overstory that could be removed to allow the understory more growing space. The overstory is no Page 10

11 longer needed for shelter of existing regeneration, structure, or visual needs. Approximately half of the overstory trees would be removed. Improvement Cut/Overstory Removal: The intent of this treatment is to improve viewing along Pipe road by removing the understory and midstory lodgepole pine and leaving other species such as larch, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Shelterwood Harvest: The purpose of the treatment is to restore ponderosa pine and larch, and improve stand health and vigor on these sites. Approximately feet of basal area of larch, Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine would be retained for seed, structure and shade. Harvest would create regeneration openings. Planting of approximately 250 ponderosa pine and western larch is planned to restore these species on these sites. These seedlings would need to be netted to protect them from big game browsing. Activity fuel treatment would be accomplished through both prescribed fire and yarding of tops. Salvage: Salvage of dead lodgepole pine and subalpine fir are proposed in this treatment. The purpose of the treatment is to utilize the dead and dying material before it becomes unmerchantable. Only dead and dying trees would be removed in these units. Seedtree with Reserves: The purpose of the treatment is to restore western white pine and larch, and improve stand health and vigor. Approximately basal area of larch would be retained for seed and structure. Planting of approximately 350 western white pine and larch is planned to restore these species on these sites. Activity fuel treatment would be accomplished through underburning. Clearcut with Reserves: The purpose of the treatment is to restore western white pine and larch, and improve stand health and vigor on these sites. Another intent is to start treating these susceptible lodgepole pine types in the Shafer drainage, before a potential landscape Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic occurs. These units are located within moist lodgepole dominant stands. The units with this prescription (H4, H4a, H4b, H4c, H4d, H5, H6, H8) were established as a result of landscape level fires in the 1910s and 1920s. They are approaching the size and age when Mountain Pine Beetle infestation is likely. A clearcut with reserves is prescribed because these stands generally lack suitable Douglas-fir, larch, or ponderosa pine seed trees. Small diameter trees with a species composition of 90% lodgepole pine dominate the stands. Reserve trees would be left in islands and stringers to mimic fire patterns. The prescribed size and location on the landscape is also an attempt to mimic stand-replacing fires and create larger patch sizes. Regeneration openings would be created. Planting of approximately 350 western white pine and larch is planned to restore these species to these sites. Activity fuel treatment would be accomplished through broadcast burning. Feather: The intent of this thinning is to improve the visual quality of existing clearcuts. Thinning adjacent to clearcuts would soften the edges and emulate historic mosaic fire patterns. Special Products: These lodgepole units would be thinned from below and the products utilized as post and poles or other small diameter lodgepole products. Rejuvenation of Aspen Stands: Either cutting to encourage sprouting or planting of aspen is proposed in several areas of unit E1 (map in project file). These areas are generally mesic sites, approximately 5 acres in size. Salvage of Douglas-fir Bark Beetle Mortality: A Douglas-fir bark beetle infestation has created small pockets of dead trees across the southern portion of the analysis area and generally across the dry habitat types on the district (for more information on Douglas fir bark beetle activity please see project file). Generally, beetle activity occurs in dry habitat types with a high percentage of overstory Douglas fir trees. Mortality typically occurs in large diameter (13 + dbh) Douglas-fir, in pockets 1-2 acres in size. Because the beetle does not attack ponderosa pine, and rarely kills Douglas-fir of smaller diameter classes, there are generally adequate residual trees to maintain stocking objectives. The majority of Douglas-fir mortality has been incorporated into other harvest units utilizing the silviculture prescriptions described above. However, because the beetle outbreak is ongoing, district foresters have also identified stands where beetle mortality is likely to occur based on stand characteristics and current population Page 11

12 trends and activity. Salvage is proposed in these stands with 'high' potential for Douglas-fir bark beetle. The high potential stands contain a basal area of more than 30 square feet of Douglas-fir greater than 13" dbh, overall stand densities greater than 130 square feet, and average age greater than 100 years. High-risk stands were delineated adjacent to known beetle infestations. Table 2 displays the stands where Douglas-fir salvage is proposed. A total of 554 acres has been identified as potential for bark beetle salvage, based on predicted mortality approximately 172 acres (or 30%) of the potential stands would be salvage harvested. Only dead trees would be harvested. Live trees would not be harvested. Environmental impacts of the proposed salvage have been analyzed based on the foreseeable beetle activity and the sideboards developed for resource protection, described below. Table 2 Proposed Salvage in Douglas-fir Bark Beetle Activity Areas. BEETLE UNIT # ACRES MANAGEMENT AREA (MA) , , , ,16, , , Total Acres 554* *A total of 554 acres have been identified with high potential for salvage, based on predicted mortality, 30% or 172 acres, would be salvage harvested. It is not expected that the Douglas-fir bark beetle would kill every tree. However, exact estimates of mortality are difficult to predict because of unpredictable weather events. Based on a review of applicable research (please see vegetation references in FEIS), recent experience in north Idaho, and on the Libby District in the McSwede area, a reasonable estimate is that Douglas-fir mortality will occur in approximately 30% of the stands (172 acres) identified with high risk potential. Within infested stands, mortality would not exceed more than 50% of the overstory Douglas-fir. On average, approximately 16 trees per acre (8 mbf) would be killed. If this amount of mortality occurred, then approximately 1.4 MMBF would be available for salvage harvest. In order to analyze the environmental impacts of salvage in these stands, a set of sideboards or criteria was developed. All salvage would be conducted within these sideboards. Based on current trends, salvage opportunities that are outside of the sideboards are not foreseeable. Salvage Sideboards: Areas of salvage that would result in regeneration openings greater than 5 acres would be beyond the scope of this analysis and would not occur. Based on current research and experience with Douglas-fir bark beetle, district foresters estimate that pockets of mortality would not exceed five acres in size Page 12

13 and that mortality would not exceed more than 50% of the basal area of Douglas-fir greater than 13 dbh, or on average 30% of the total stand overstory. As described above, there would generally be adequate residual trees to maintain stocking objectives. Areas of salvage between 2 and 5 acres would be regenerated if there were not sufficient green residual trees to meet minimum stocking levels. Additional sideboards by resource area are outlined below: 1. Wildlife snags would be left at levels that meet forest plan standards. Forest Plan Standards are to maintain 40% potential cavity habitat. 2. Soil moisture would be required to be 18% or below, or the ground must be frozen or covered with 2 feet of snow. Skidding would be allowed on ground of 30% slope or less. 3. Salvage harvest would utilize the existing road system. No temporary roads would be required. 4. Salvage harvest would not occur in MA 13, designated old growth, or within RHCA buffers. 5. Where pockets of dead trees are 2 acres or less, activity fuels would be reduced by lopping. Grapple piling would occur in areas with salvage of 2-5 acres. Connected Actions: As described in Chapter 1 of the DEIS, a connected action may be required in order to implement the proposed action. In Alternative 3, road construction is a necessary connected action in order to implement the timber harvest. Temporary Road Construction: Temporary road construction is proposed to access units E1, F4 and H3. All roads are approximately ¼ mile in length. Following timber harvest, activity fuel reduction and regeneration activities, these roads would be decommissioned (ripped, seeded and recontoured). Permanent Road Construction: Permanent road construction is proposed to access units H4A, H4B. This road would be.68 miles in length. This road would replace the last ¾ miles of FR 754. This new road is proposed as a permanent road because the existing road (FR 754) has poor surface drainage and existing slumps that make it unsuitable for log truck traffic. This last ¾ mile of FR 754 is proposed for decommissioning (see road decommissioning proposed action below). Gravel pit development, related to BMP work, is a connected action common to all action alternatives. Forest Plan Amendments: Alternative 3 would include a project specific amendment for removal of movement corridors and hiding cover and visual quality objectives and a project-specific amendment for open road densities (ORD s). This alternative would remove hiding cover and movement corridors that result in openings greater than 40 acres in MA12 (please see Chapter 3 wildlife section for more information on hiding cover and openings). The Forest Plan Standard for opening sizes in MA 12 is to maintain movement corridors of at least two site distances between openings (Forest Plan, p. III-49, Wildlife and Fish Standards #7). Alternative 3 would create two openings that do not meet this standard. One opening would be 93 acres in size, the other 49 acres (please see Table 4.50, Chapter 4 of the DEIS for more information on opening sizes). These openings are the result of harvest in units H4d, H4d, H5, H6, H7, H8 and H13. This alternative would create four openings that would not meet visual quality objectives (VQO s). Units that would not meet VQO s include F2, F4, H6 and H8 (please also see Table 4.28, Chapter 4 of the DEIS). Visual quality standards are defined by each management area in the Forest Plan. For example, the visual quality standard for MA 15 is maximum modification (Kootenai Forest Plan, p. III- 64, Recreation standard #4, for more information on visual quality standards please see Chapter 3 and the scenic resource section of the DEIS). The alternative also includes a project-specific amendment to modify the Forest Plan open road density standards. Forest Plan Standard for ORD in MA 12 is 0.75 miles/square mile. Current open road density in MA12 does not meet Forest Plan Standards in several compartments. Although ORD would decrease as result of project implementation (table 4.53, chapter 4), ORD would remain above standards. The project-specific amendment would allow the following (Table 3) open road densities for activity periods (during activity periods) and post-project conditions (following project implementation). Page 13

14 Table 3 Open Road Densities by Timber Compartment (TC) in MA 12 TC 503 TC 504 TC 508 TC 512 TC 513 Existing ORD Activity Period ORD Post-project ORD In compartment 503, the project-specific amendment would allow activity ORD s to increase to 1.36 miles/square mile. Design features have been identified to minimize the activity period ORD (please see activity ORD plan in the Wildlife Specialist Report in the project file and the Road Access Changes in Table 12 below). Without these design features activity ORD would have been 1.52 miles/square mile. Due to the high recreation use open roads, there were no other identified opportunities to minimize activity ORD s in this compartment (please see alternatives considered but not in detail). In compartment 504, the project-specific amendment would allow activity ORD s to increase to 1.01 miles/square mile. Due to the high recreation use open roads, there were no identified opportunities to minimize activity ORD s in this compartment (please see alternatives considered but not in detail). In compartment 508, the project-specific amendment would allow activity ORD s to increase to 1.34 miles/square mile. Design features have been identified to minimize the activity period ORD (please see activity ORD plan in the Wildlife Specialist Report and Road Access Changes in Table 12 below). Without these design features activity ORD would have been 1.47 miles/square mile. Due to the high recreation use open roads, there were no other identified opportunities to minimize activity ORD s in this compartment (please see alternatives considered but not in detail). In compartment 512, the project-specific amendment would allow activity ORD s to increase to 1.45 miles/square mile. This increase is the result of granting access to Plum Timber Company (PCTC) (T32N, R31W, Section 19, Bobtail ). During periods of road construction and harvest on private land, ORD s would exceed Forest Plan Standards. ORD s would exceed standards because an existing cost share road would be opened for access (FR 4614). This road is currently restricted year long from motor vehicle use. Design features have been identified to minimize the activity period ORD when PCTC is active (please see activity ORD plan in the Wildlife Specialist Report and Road Access Changes in Table 12 below). Without these design features activity ORD would have been 2.53 miles/square mile. Due to the high recreation use open roads, there were no other identified opportunities to minimize activity ORD s in this compartment (please see alternatives considered but not in detail). In compartment 513, the project-specific amendment would allow ORD s to increase to 4.55 miles/square mile. Activity ORD would not increase. This high open road density is the result of a very small portion (70 acres) of MA 12 in this compartment. One high-use recreation access road occurs in this MA. This road was considered for closure, but not in detail (please see alternatives considered but not in detail). Regional Forester s Approval: This alternative would create one regeneration opening greater than 40 acres, requiring the Regional Forester s review and approval. Harvest units H5, H6 and H8 would create a 57-acre regeneration opening. The need and rationale for this opening are described in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and the Vegetation Specialist Report in the project file. ALTERNATIVE 4, THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Purpose/Design: Alternative 4 was designed to meet the purpose and need for action but, at the same time, address the visual quality and big game habitat (specifically opening size and movement corridors) issues. This alternative modifies the silviculture prescription for the proposed units in Shafer and drops other units where harvest would remove movement corridors and create opening over 40 acres. Consequently, Alternative 4 minimizes opening size within big game and lynx habitat in Shafer, drops units (I1, I2 and I3) within a big game movement corridor in the West Pipe Area, and drops units (D33, D34, E4, E10 and F2) that remove Page 14