Halfway Malin Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Halfway Malin Project Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests St. Joe Ranger District September 2017

2 For More Information Contact: Ben Timchak St. Joe Ranger District 222 S. 7th Street, Suite 1 St. Maries, ID In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Note: The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Geographic information system (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. If a map contains contours, these contours were generated and filtered using the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) files. Any contours generated from DEMs using a scale of less than 1:100,000 will lead to less reliable results and should only be used for display purposes. For more information contact the St. Joe Ranger District at 222 S. 7th Street Suite 1, St. Maries, Idaho, 83861; (208) Reported mileages and acreages are estimates and may vary depending on how they are rounded and what models and equations they are used for or result from.

3 Contents Introduction...1 Project Location and Background Information...1 Decision...1 Vegetation Treatments...4 Road System Changes...8 Measures to Avoid and Minimize Adverse Effect...9 Monitoring Activities...9 Public Involvement...9 Alternatives Considered...10 Decision Rationale...10 Achieving the Purpose and Need...10 Public Concerns...11 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations...14 Finding of No Significant Impact...19 Conclusion...29 Pre-decisional Administrative Review (Objection) Process...29 List of Tables Table 1. Selected alternative summary...5 Table 2. Entente Creek area, existing and selected road prescriptions...9 Table 3. Documentation of Forest Plan consistency...15 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Halfway Malin Project...2 Figure 2. Additional elk security area...3 Figure 3. Map of the selected alternative: vegetation treatments...6 Figure 4. Map of the selected alternative: road system change...7 i

4

5 Introduction In April of 2017, an interdisciplinary team of Forest Service employees completed the Halfway Malin Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The Environmental Assessment was made available for public review and comment. This decision notice and finding of no significant impact describes my decision to proceed with this project and my conclusion that the environmental impacts will not be significant. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. The Halfway Malin Environmental Assessment and supporting resource reports are incorporated by reference into this decision notice and finding of no significant impact. Those documents are available for download from the Idaho Panhandle National Forests website at: Project Location and Background Information The Halfway Malin Project area is located on National Forest System lands on the St. Joe Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests within Shoshone County, Idaho. The project is located in T45N, R7E, Boise Meridian north of Forest Highway 50 and the St. Joe River, about 10 miles east of Avery, Idaho. Management activities will occur within and near the Malin Creek, Tin Can Creek, Bottle Creek, and Entente Creek drainages. See figure 1 for a map of the project area. Decision I selected alternative B for implementation. My rationale for selecting this alternative is described later in this notice. Alternative B includes vegetation management activities and road management activities. Vegetation management activities include 835 acres of timber harvest with slash treatments and tree planting followed by gopher baiting, white pine pruning, and non-commercial thinning; and 480 acres of prescribed burning to improve wildlife browse. Road management activities include constructing 7 miles of system roads and 0.8 miles of temporary roads, reconstructing 4.5 miles of existing roads, removing a culvert, decommissioning and storing 6 miles of roads or road segments, and installing gates on selected roads in the Entente Creek area and prohibiting motorized use on those roads. A summary of these actions is presented below along with citations for where additional information may be found in the Environmental Assessment. 1

6 Figure 1. Location of the Halfway Malin Project 2

7 Figure 2. Additional elk security area 3

8 Vegetation Treatments See figure 3 and table 1. Timber Harvest The selected alternative includes timber harvests using clearcuts with reserves, removing the majority of the trees that are less resilient to disturbances (such as grand fir, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine) which will remove most of the overstory trees. This prescription is designed to encourage the growth and regeneration of white pine and larch. Treated areas will appear open with an average of 5 to 10 live or dead trees per acre in irregular groups. In skyline units leave trees will be closer together toward the bottom slope of units, becoming more widely spaced, with fewer leave trees, toward the top slope of units. The reserve trees left on site will be comprised of western white pine, western larch, large Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine where they currently exist. Other existing tree species will also be left to obtain the needed snag recruitment trees for wildlife and soil productivity. Leave trees will provide some seed, future snags, some ground shading, wildlife habitat, and coarse woody debris for soil productivity. The leave trees will also help feather the edges to make the openings appear less defined. On terrain steeper than 40 percent slope, skyline yarding will be used. On slopes under 40 percent slope, tractor skidding and track-line machine-yarding will be utilized. Slash Treatment and Site Preparation for Tree Planting After timber harvest slash will be treated to reduce fuel loads and prepare sites for planting as necessary. Prescribed broadcast burns will be used on the steeper units that would be skyline or track-line machineyarded. On the ground-based units slash will be grapple piled then the piles will be burned. Tops will be left in units 1A, 3, 4, 32A, and 33A to ensure adequate woody debris is left on site to protect soils. Tops will be yarded in the other units. Where fire-susceptible trees (smaller trees with thinner bark) are left in areas where larger trees with thicker bark are not available, there is a potential for them to be killed during prescribed fire operations. This is acceptable because the trees will provide snags and future coarse woody debris. This was recognized in the early stages of the planning process, so more leave trees will be left on the lower parts of the broadcast burn units where they will be less vulnerable because heat and fire will be less intense lower on the slopes during broadcast burning. Tree Regeneration (Planting and Gopher Control) A mix of western larch and rust-resistant white pine will be planted. Ponderosa pine may be planted on the drier sites, but regeneration success will be limited with ponderosa because elk prefer ponderosa pine seedlings as browse. Should the stocking of the stand fall below the standards during the 5-year period after planting, the units would be re-planted to meet standards. Pocket gophers may be one reason stocking levels could fall below regional standards. Experience has shown that pocket gophers have an affinity for the roots of western white pine and ponderosa pine seedlings. Therefore, during the 1 st, 3 rd, and 5 th year of stocking surveys on all units, the activities of pocket gophers would be closely tracked to determine their overall impact on seedling survival. Should these surveys demonstrate that pocket gophers have killed 30 percent or more of the planted seedlings, gopher baiting would be initiated in the stand. Care would be taken to ensure that non-target species are not affected by implementing design features for gopher control. 4

9 Pruning and Thinning Western white pine will be monitored for infections of white pine blister rust 10 years after planting. If monitoring indicates a need, white pine trees will be pruned to protect them from blister rust infections. Then 10 to 20 years after planting, stands will be evaluated for non-commercial thinning in an effort to optimize individual tree growth and promote long-lived, early-seral species. Pruning and thinning could be done in one or two entries, depending on the growth of the trees, incidence of blister rust infection, and funding. Prescribed Burning to Improve Forage for Wildlife In order to increase the quality and quantity of browse for wildlife we will burn 480 acres of brush fields where few conifer trees exist in and near the St. Joe River corridor. These are areas the Idaho Department of Fish and Game identified as moderate- to high-value elk summer and winter range, and the St. Joe Wild and Scenic River Development and Management Plan encourages the use of prescribed fire to improve browse along the south faces in the river corridor (Environmental Assessment, page ). The optimal time of year to burn and the most appropriate method of ignition will be identified depending on the specific attributes of each burn unit. Vegetation in some units will respond best with aerial ignition during spring, while others will be best managed with ground ignition in autumn. Vegetation type, topography, cost of ignition, holding, and patrol will be considered when determining the most appropriate management option for using prescribed fire to meet management objectives. Table 1. Selected alternative summary Treatment/Activity Selected Alternative Silvicultural Prescription: Clearcut with reserves (acres) 834 Track line/ground-based skidding (acres) 106 Skyline yarding (acres) 728 Estimated Timber Volume (million board feet) 18 Yard tops (acres) 502 Grapple pile and burn (acres) 80 Broadcast burning (acres) 755 Prescribed burn to improve wildlife browse (acres) 481 Total vegetation treatments (acres) 1,316 System road construction (miles) 7 Temporary road construction (miles) 0.8 Road re-construction (miles) 4.5 Road closures in Entente Creek area (miles) 9.2 Road management changes (storage and decommissioning miles) 6 Note: All figures are approximations, and acreages are rounded to the nearest whole number. 5

10 Figure 3. Map of the selected alternative: vegetation treatments 6

11 Figure 4. Map of the selected alternative: road system change 7

12 Road System Changes See figure 4 and table 1. Road Construction In order to facilitate timber harvest activities in the project area we will build 7 miles of new system roads and 0.8 miles of temporary road. Designed system roads will be built using best management practices for sustainable roads. Temporary gates will be installed to prevent public motorized use of the roads. After replanting is complete in the harvest units, the newly constructed system roads will be stored for future administrative use. Storage methods include removing one cross-drain culvert, re-contouring sections to stabilize them so that no maintenance is required, re-contouring the front ends to prevent motorized access, and scarifying and seeding the road bed. Temporary roads will be decommissioned after use. This includes recontouring to the natural slope and revegetating. Road Reconstruction In order to facilitate timber harvest activities in the project area we will reconstruct and gate roads that would be stored or remain gated after planting. Road 1270 was stored some time ago, and three culverts will need to be reinstalled. Two sections of road 1279 will be widened. Reconstruction on other roads will consist of general pre-haul road maintenance (such as brushing, blading, ditch cleaning, minor slump repair) using best management practices. Storage and Decommissioning of Existing Roads We will store or decommission roads or road segments in the Malin Creek, Tin Can Creek, and Bottle Creek drainages of the project area. These roads are currently not open to public use. A travel analysis process (project file: T-1) identified the following road management changes for the project area, and I have decided to implement them: Road 1264A: from gated to stored (0.8 mile) Road 1265A: from blocked/barricaded to stored (1.4 miles) Road 1279A: from gated to decommissioned (0.1 mile) Road 1279G: gated to decommissioned (0.16 mile) Road 1415: from gated to stored (3.4 miles) Road 50J: removing culvert at the end of the road, but maintain the beginning of this short spur. We propose to remove one culvert in the Bottle Creek drainage, located north of the Forest Highway 50 crossing of Bottle Creek. Removing the culvert and re-contouring the location is proposed to mimic natural stream channel characteristics and reduce the risk of sediment delivery into the St. Joe River. Elk Security Road Closures I have decided to create new elk security areas by closing selected roads to public motorized use in the Entente Creek drainage to compensate for elk security that will be lost as a result of openings in the proposed harvest units. The proposed openings will reduce elk security for approximately 10 to 15 years, until the regenerated trees grow enough to provide adequate cover. Gates will be installed to close the roads listed in table 2, and the motor vehicle use map would reflect these changes the next time it is updated. 8

13 The Entente Creek drainage and the Halfway Malin Project area are both in Elk Management Unit 7-2. The roads will be available for administrative use and could be accessed for road maintenance until the proposed openings recover sufficiently to provide elk security. The proposed action will result in a net gain of 874 acres of elk security in Elk Management Unit 7-2 as a result of the road closures in Entente Creek, fully compensating for the loss of elk security from the proposed timber harvest. Table 2. Entente Creek area, existing and selected road prescriptions Current Road Prescription Existing Miles (per segment) Road Number Change Description Change (Miles) Open Closed, gated, no public motorized access 2.2 Open A Closed, gated, no public motorized access 0.8 Open AC Closed, gated, no public motorized access 0.2 OHV Closed, gated, no public motorized access 3.7 OHV Closed, gated, no public motorized access 0.6 OHV Closed, gated, no public motorized access 1.7 Total Proposed Change 9.2 Measures to Avoid and Minimize Adverse Effect My decision includes all the measures described in the Environmental Assessment (pages 5 7, 14 25) to avoid and minimize adverse effects. These measures are based on 2015 Forest Plan direction and policy, best available science, monitoring, and site-specific evaluations and are standard operating procedures for our activities. We apply them during project implementation through silvicultural prescriptions, unit layout, marking guides, cruise plans, and contracts. Monitoring Activities My decision to select alternative B includes incorporating all of the monitoring activities that are included in the Environmental Assessment (pages 25 26). Public Involvement Please see pages 7 8 of the Environmental Assessment for a discussion of the public involvement efforts that lead to the development of the proposed action and alternatives. On May 10, 2017, the Environmental Assessment was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period. I received seven letters from interested parties. The interdisciplinary team conducted a thorough analysis of the comments and prepared responses to each one (see the Idaho Panhandle National Forests website and the project file document PI-75). Based on a review of the comments I concluded that there were no new substantive issues raised that might necessitate adding another alternative. 9

14 Alternatives Considered The interdisciplinary team evaluated a total of 13 alternatives. Ten of these alternatives were eliminated from detailed study for the reasons given on Environmental Assessment pages The following three alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Environmental Assessment. Alternative A is the no-action alternative. Existing approved management of the Halfway Malin Project area would continue, and none of the activities proposed for this project would occur. Including this alternative shows what may happen in the project area with no additional management. Page 8 of the Environmental Assessment provides additional information on this alternative. Alternative B is the alternative that I have selected to implement. As discussed in detail in the Environmental Assessment, this alternative was designed to meet the purpose and need (Environmental Assessment, pages 1 5). It treats as much area as possible at this time while minimizing adverse effects; so additional entries for timber harvest would not be needed in the near future, and the roads would remain stored for a long period. Alternative C was specifically designed to respond to concerns about (1) the effects of large openings and (2) the effects of road construction. Alternative C would have timber harvest openings no bigger than 40 acres, and it would have less road construction. Additional information is presented in the Environmental Assessment on pages 8 9. Decision Rationale My decision was based on the information in the Environmental Assessment, the supporting project file, and public comments received. I evaluated the alternatives based on how well each would achieve the purpose and need for the project and address public concerns. Achieving the Purpose and Need The purpose and need for the Halfway Malin Project was developed by considering the difference between the Forest Plan s desired conditions for the project area with that of the existing resource conditions in the project area as described in more detail in the Environmental Assessment (pages 1 5). In summary, the purpose and need for the Halfway Malin Project includes the following: Improve vegetation resiliency Contribute to a sustainable level of timber products Improve forage for big game Improve aquatic conditions in Bottle Creek Maintain elk security Restore natural conditions of roads that are not needed and reduce road maintenance costs Alternative A (no action) would not achieve the project objectives noted above, nor would it respond to the underlying resource needs that were identified within the project area. Alternatives B and C would each meet the project objectives to varying degrees. Alternative B would better meet the purpose and need of promoting forest conditions that maintain and improve forest resiliency by converting 528 more acres to tree species that have higher resilience to 10

15 disturbances and by creating larger patches of younger trees (Environmental Assessment, pages 29, 31 32, 34). A Forest Plan desired condition is to have larger forest patches that are dominated by trees in the seedling/sapling size class (Forest Plan, page 13). Alternative B would increase patch size by 18 percent with a corresponding increase of 19 percent in early-seral successional forest structures (Environmental Assessment, page 34). Alternative C would decrease patch size by 3 percent (Environmental Assessment, page 29) and would increase stand initiation (early seral) acres by 7 percent (Environmental Assessment, page 35). By harvesting more forest products (11 million board feet more than alternative C), alternative B would be more responsive to needs to contribute to a sustainable level of timber products, an economically viable forest products industry, and the social and economic well-being of local communities than alternative C (Environmental Assessment,, page 4, 147). Both action alternatives comply with Forest Plan requirements for maintaining existing levels of elk security. Alternative C would provide approximately 390 more acres of elk security than alternative B, because fewer acres of elk security would be lost from timber harvest with alternative C, and both alternatives would add 1,488 acres of elk security in the Entente area. Both action alternatives more than compensate for the elk security loss resulting from the proposed timber harvest (Environmental Assessment, page 58). Both action alternatives would respond more or less equally to improving forage for big game browse (Environmental Assessment, page 57) with the prescribed burns in brush fields and timber harvest. The timber harvest would increase the amount of forage habitat but not directly proportionate to the amount of area treated. Optimal elk foraging habitat lies within 100 yards of cover areas, so any cleared habitat beyond 100 yards from cover will provide limited forage habitat for elk. Although alternative B will create more open habitat than alternative C, it will create some but not proportionately more, forage habitat than alternative C. The action alternatives would also respond more or less equally to improving aquatic conditions in Bottle Creek (Environmental Assessment, pages 77 78, 97, 109, , 119, 123, ) and changing the road system to meet resource objectives (Environmental Assessment, pages 52, 57 59, 97, 110, 111, 123). Public Concerns I also considered the input I received from the public during scoping and the legal comment period. Some people expressed opposition to timber harvest, specifically clearcuts. I also received comments concerning the amount of road construction and the resulting effects. Timber Harvest and Clearcuts I received letters expressing concerns that timber harvest, and clearcuts in particular, could affect a variety of resources. On the other hand, I received input from people who understand the conditions in the project area and support my decision to use clearcuts as a management tool. I understand that some people do not like clearcuts and do not want timber harvest on national forests. Clearcuts are not my first choice for addressing forest resiliency issues on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests; however, in this case, with the site-specific conditions in the project area, the prescription makes the most sense for getting these areas onto a trajectory that will result in resilient, healthy forests in the future. Clearcutting is the optimal method for treating these areas because of the site-specific conditions including extensive ongoing root disease with root disease susceptible tree species and mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine stands. 11

16 I had well-trained and very experienced professional experts evaluate the conditions in the Halfway Malin Project area. Every one of them came to the conclusion that short of walking away from this area and not dealing with the needs for management, regeneration harvests are the best option to address the insect and disease problems. I do not want to walk away from this opportunity to improve forest vegetation conditions. We propose timber harvest on a small portion of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, and this is an important location to address forest resilience problems. As part of that planning process, we are leaving areas untreated in order to minimize or avoid environmental impacts (Environmental Assessment, pages 5 7), and we are leaving trees within the clearcut areas to provide snags for wildlife and future coarse woody debris for soils. Forest Service forest health and protection specialists noted root disease in every stand they visited during their assessment of the project area and pine beetles in the lodgepole stands. They concluded that anything other than regeneration harvest in the Douglas-fir, grand fir, and lodgepole pine stands would result in conditions where susceptible trees remaining would continue to experience mortality. They added that the end result of a do-nothing approach or thinning would likely perpetuate multi-aged canopies of mostly root-disease susceptible species, and in some locations, create brush fields (project file: FV-7 and FV-8). Two certified silvicultural experts did the initial evaluation and recommendations for treatment, and their report also recommends regeneration harvest. They rejected intermediate treatments due to the prevalence of root diseases and the dominance of susceptible species, as well as the substantial component of lodgepole pine which will continue to experience mortality from the mountain pine beetle because it is about 100 years old and very susceptible to beetle attack. An intermediate harvest would exacerbate root disease effects, lead to heavy blowdown and fuel accumulations, and encourage advanced regeneration of grand fir and Douglas-fir. There is too little western larch, white pine, and ponderosa pine for improvement cuts, so stands would remain dominated by disease/insect and fire susceptible species, which would not meet the desired condition (project file: FV-10, pages 9 11). We considered seed tree harvests and shelterwood harvest, but the proposed treatment units do not have enough existing larch or white pine to supply a seed source for seed tree prescriptions, so there are not enough of the desirable species for a shelterwood prescription which requires more leave trees (Silviculture Report, page 30). If we were to leave additional trees for shelter trees, they would be the species that are susceptible to root diseases, so if the leave trees do not succumb to root disease, beetle attack, or wind, their growth would be reduced from the root disease before their outright loss through mortality (project file: FV-8). This would add hazardous fuels, detract from the economic feasibility of the project, and not provide added benefits. The scenery analysis concludes that the proposed activities will have effects on the scenic resource of the project area; however, the selected alternative will meet the Forest Plan scenic integrity objectives, which were developed to provide aesthetically pleasing surroundings (Environmental Assessment, page 135). The clearcut with reserves treatment units will not be visible from the St. Joe River, Forest Highway 50, or the campgrounds in the river corridor. The project was adjusted to reduce visual effects from Trail 197, and we developed project design features to help the harvest units blend into the surrounding landscape (Environmental Assessment, page 22). The National Forest Management Act (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iv)) and Forest Service policy (FSM ) require openings created by regeneration or even-aged timber harvest to be no larger than 40 acres, unless otherwise approved by the regional office. The Northern Region approved the implementation of treatments following the signature of the decision notice (project file: FV-23). 12

17 Alternative B results in larger forest patch sizes. The average existing patch size for seedling/sapling size trees in the project area does not meet Idaho Panhandle National Forests desired conditions to have an increase in the size of forest patches dominated by trees in the seedling/sapling size class (FW-DC-VEG- 02, FW-DC-VEG-05). Alternative B does the best job increasing the average size of forest patches dominated by trees in the seedling/sapling size class. Alternative C would reduce the average patch size by adding a series of smaller patches to the landscape (Environmental Assessment, page 29, 34). Alternative C has openings that are not larger than 40 acres. I did not select alternative C because it leaves too many acres of root disease and insect infested areas untreated (Environmental Assessment, pages 35 36) which would result in stand conditions that would continue to decline and create more fuel for wildfire and more falling snags which are a hazard for firefighters (Environmental Assessment, page 43). Alternative B was developed to minimize impacts, and I do not want to leave areas untreated that we would need to go back to in the near future when stand conditions have deteriorated to the extent that treatments might not be economical; and therefore, not feasible to implement. An alternative with less timber harvest or smaller units would not address areas with root disease and insect infestations before they deteriorate further, and it is likely that at some point in the near future we would want to treat additional stands in the area. This would necessitate opening stored roads and possibly constructing additional roads, resulting in more continual disturbance to wildlife in the project area than will occur under alternative B. With alternative B we will be able to store the road system and leave the area relatively undisturbed for decades. The timber harvest proposed in alternative C reduces elk security less than alternative B because it maintains more forest cover in a current elk security area by treating fewer acres. However, both action alternatives result in an overall increase in the acres of elk security in Elk Management Unit 7-2 (Environmental Assessment, pages 57 59). In the longer term, alternative B would provide more continual security for wildlife after roads are stored because we would not have the need to re-enter the area for timber harvest. Road Construction People expressed concerns that the proposed road construction may reduce wildlife habitat, take land out of production, increase sediment, and increase the spread of weeds. I considered other alternatives with less road construction. Alternative C would require less road construction than the proposed action, and the no-action alternative includes no road construction. Both of these alternatives were given detailed study. I considered other alternatives with less system road construction and eliminated them from detailed study for various reasons (Environmental Assessment, page 27 28). The proposed road construction would occur on lands designated as Management Area 6 in the forest plan. This management area consists of relatively large areas with roads as well as sign of past and ongoing activities designed to actively manage the forest vegetation (Forest Plan, page 71). Helicopter logging is not economically viable at this time, and it would not provide access for treating slash and planting (Environmental Assessment, page 6). The team spent extensive field time considering options to minimize the amount of road construction needed to access the proposed treatment units (project file: T-12). If road construction were to be reduced, I would also have to reduce the amount of timber harvest because the project area has no other areas to replace the proposed units. During the development of the proposed action we eliminated many areas from consideration for treatment (Environmental Assessment, pages 5 7), and as I discussed previously, I do not want to leave more areas untreated in the project area. 13

18 I considered the effects of road construction during project development. In order to minimize the intersection of roads and streams, we designed the selected alternative to avoid timber harvest in areas that would require construction of extensive mid-slope or lower road systems for conventional logging systems. New roads needed to facilitate the timber harvest would be located on the upper half of slopes with no live stream crossings. Timber harvest with conventional logging systems would not be feasible on lower parts of the hillsides without additional road construction that would require stream crossings; therefore, those areas lower on the slopes are not included in the proposed treatment areas (Environmental Assessment, page 6; project file: PD-10). I am foregoing treatment in those areas. We considered an alternative to treat additional areas that have root disease; however, this would have required road construction through an old-growth stand, or roughly 1 mile of road on very steep slopes on the Eagle Creek side of the ridge between Malin Creek and Eagle Creek. We designed the proposed action to avoid building roads though old growth or on extremely steep slopes, so this area and the road construction needed to access it are not included in the selected alternative (Environmental Assessment, page 6). Road construction would not occur on areas with high mass failure potential (Environmental Assessment, page 64), and would occur on landtypes with a low rating for subsurface erosion potential (Environmental Assessment, pages 65, 72). None of the road construction would be on landtypes with high sensitivity ratings, and the majority (6.6 miles) would be on landtypes with low sensitivity ratings (Environmental Assessment, page 65, 81). Design features incorporated in my decision limit the potential for sediment deliver to streams (Environmental Assessment, pages 79, 94, 96, 100, 107). I considered sediment resulting from road construction (Environmental Assessment, pages 94 97, 100, 102, ) and effects to aquatic habitat (Environmental Assessment, page 122, ) and concluded that most of the small amount of estimated sediment from road construction would be produced in the Malin Creek Drainage and would be undetectable in Malin Creek. I recognize the potential for roads to serve as vectors in the spread of noxious weeds (Environmental Assessment, pages , ). The selected alternative includes measures, recognized as best management practices, to reduce the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread (Environmental Assessment, pages 18 19), and weed control is scheduled to continue on existing roads (Environmental Assessment, page 135). Additional discussion of the effects of road construction is given in the Environmental Assessment (pages 43, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 63, 126, 129, , 142, and ) and in the response to comments on the Environmental Assessment (project file: PI-75 Response to Comments #1-2, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-6). Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations Each resource report provides a section on how this project is consistent with the laws and regulations relevant to that resource. After reviewing each report and the Environmental Assessment, I find my decision to implement alternative B complies with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. National Forest Management Act (NFMA) This project does not require any Forest Plan amendments. Project activities are consistent with the Forest Plan for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (2015) and project-specific activities described in the NFMA (16 USC 1604 (i)). 14

19 Forest Plan Consistency Based on a review of the project record, I find that this project complies with 36 CFR and the 2015 Forest Plan forestwide and management area direction in the form of goals, desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, and standards (Forest Plan, pages 2 4). Alternative B makes progress toward goals and desired conditions without affecting progress toward or maintenance of other desired conditions. It will contribute to objectives and will not prevent the attainment of other objectives. The project is designed in accordance with all applicable Forest Plan guidelines, and it is consistent with all standards. Specifics for consistency with Forest Plan components (i.e., goals, desired conditions, objectives, guidelines and standards) are covered in the record as documented in the table below. Resource reports are available online at: Table 3. Documentation of Forest Plan consistency Environmental Assessment Resource Pages Resource Report Pages Project File Documents Forest Vegetation, Old Growth 29, 34, , tables ~ Fire and Fuels, Air Quality 37, ~ Wildlife , 24, 28, 33, B1, B2 ~ Soils 62 63, 71, , 16, 19 ~ Hydrology 77, 78, 107 1, 2, 4, 5, 31, 32, 38 W-1, W-2, W-2A, W-2B, W-3 Fisheries F-41 Rare Plants ~ Noxious Weeds ~ Scenery 136 3, 4, 7, 10, 11 ~ Recreation REC-1 Cultural Resources 15 4 ~ Carbon Cycling and Storage No forest plan requirements n/a n/a Wild and Scenic River ~ REC-1 Other NFMA Consistency Requirements 1. No timber harvest, other than salvage sales or sales to protect other multiple-use values, shall occur on lands not suited for timber production (16 USC 1604(k)). Timber harvest will occur on sites identified as suitable for timber production (Forest Vegetation report, pages 6, 7, 27, 29, 32). 2. A responsible official may authorize site-specific projects and activities to harvest timber on National Forest System lands only where: a. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(i)). The selected alternative will ensure that soil, water, and watershed resources will be protected (Environmental Assessment, Soils section, pages 62, and Hydrology section, pages 77, , ), as well as those respective reports for details. With the incorporation of design 15

20 features that have been shown to be effective, the selected alternative will meet all applicable soil quality standards and guidelines. Stream channels and watersheds would continue to function properly, be maintained, or be somewhat improved. b. There is assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within 5 years after final regeneration harvest (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(ii)). I have assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within 5 years after the final regeneration harvest. Project file documents FV-1 and FV-2 display the results of recent reforestation efforts and demonstrate our ability to regenerate the stands in the project area proposed for regeneration harvest within 5 years (Forest Vegetation report, pages 14, 28). c. Protection is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iii)). The timber harvest will not adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat. Stream channels and watersheds would continue to function properly, be maintained, or be somewhat improved (Environmental Assessment, page 77). The combination of continued hydrologic function and removal of a culvert would accelerate the rate of meeting or moving towards desired conditions for aquatic habitat (Environmental Assessment, page 111). d. The harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iv)). The selected timber harvest is governed by objectives to improve forest resilience, not strictly economics, although we need to ensure the project is economically viable in order to implement it. See the Economics section in the Environmental Assessment (pages ). I considered other options that would have produced more timber outputs, but they were not considered in detail in order to address resource concerns (Environmental Assessment, pages 5 7, 27). 3. Clearcutting and Even-aged Management (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)): Insure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber will be used as a cutting method on National Forest System lands only where: a. For clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(i)). I considered other prescriptions, but we determined that clearcutting is the optimal method for treating these stands due to the site conditions. With the extensive root disease and prevalence of tree species that are susceptible to root disease, thinning is not a good option (Environmental Assessment, pages 3, 10, 28). We considered seed tree harvests, but there are not enough seed trees of the desired species to provide seed (Environmental Assessment, page 10), and the same applies for shelterwood harvests (project file: PI-75 Response to Comments page 4). See the previous discussion of public concerns with clearcuts. b. The interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary has been completed and the potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic impacts on each advertised sale area have been assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale with the multiple use of the general area (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(ii)). 16

21 Potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic impacts have been assessed in detail and are summarized in the Environmental Assessment and documented in more detail in the resource reports. The timber harvest is consistent with the multiple use of the general area described in the Forest Plan for Management Area 6 and other forestwide components. c. Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iii)). The selected alternative would meet the Forest Plan scenic integrity objectives, which were developed to provide aesthetically pleasing surroundings (Environmental Assessment, page 136). Design features are intended to minimize contrasts resulting from the treatments. These features include attention to size and shape and feathering of leave trees, as well as location of the units (Environmental Assessment, pages 22, 140). d. Cuts are carried out according to the maximum size limit requirements for areas to be cut during one harvest operation, provided, that such limits shall not apply to the size of areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm (FSM R1 supplement , 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iv)). The Northern Region approved the implementation of treatments following the signature of the decision notice (project file: FV-23). e. Such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber resource (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(v)). Cuts will be carried out in a manner that will protect soil (Environmental Assessment, pages 62, 69 77), watershed (Environmental Assessment, pages 77, , ), fish (Environmental Assessment, pages 111, ), wildlife (Environmental Assessment, pages 51 62), recreation (Environmental Assessment, page 142, ), esthetic resources (Environmental Assessment, pages 136, ), and the regeneration of the timber resource (Environmental Assessment, page 33 34; Forest Vegetation report, pages 14, 28). 4. Stands of trees are harvested according to requirements for culmination of mean annual increment of growth (16 USC 1604(m)). The regeneration harvest of even-aged stands of trees is limited to stands that generally have reached the culmination of mean annual increment of growth. Plan components may allow for exceptions, only if such harvest is consistent with the other plan components of the land management plan. The project meets this requirement (NFMA report, project file: FV-10 pages 9 10; Forest Vegetation report, page 28), and the timber harvest is consistent with other Forest Plan components. See previous discussion on Forest Plan consistency. Some of the stands proposed for regeneration harvests have not yet met culmination of mean annual increment. Inclusion of these stands is intended to increase the amount of seedling/sapling size class and western white pine/western larch forest types while decreasing the grand fir/hemlock forest type and small/medium size classes. This would trend these measures of forest resilience on the landscape within the project area toward the desired conditions according to the Forest Plan. These stands are currently stocked primarily with grand fir and lesser quantities of later-seral species and lodgepole pine. Current species compositions in combination with the documented root disease activities give these stands elevated probability of early culmination. The grand fir and Douglas-fir have already 17

22 begun to decline due to root disease infections. Other stands to be harvested have reached culmination (project file: FV-10). 5. Construction of temporary roadways in connection with timber contracts, and other permits or leases: NFMA also requires that roads are planned and designed to reestablish vegetation cover on the disturbed areas within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years unless the road is determined necessary as a permanent addition to the National Forest Transportation System (16 USC 1604, Sec. 8). Temporary roads would be decommissioned after use, including recontouring to the natural slope and revegetating (Environmental Assessment, pages 7, 13, 28). 6. Standards of roadway construction: NFMA requires that the necessity of roads be documented and that road construction be designed to standards appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and impacts on land and resources (16 USC 1608). A travel analysis process was used to identify the condition of and provide management recommendations for each road system in the project area (project file: T-1). I have determined that the project cannot be implemented without road construction because the project area has no other areas to replace the proposed units, and helicopter logging is not economically feasible at this time (Environmental Assessment, pages 6, 13, 27 28). The roads will be designed to standards for the appropriate use and will be built using best management practices for sustainable roads (Environmental Assessment, page 13, 28). Clean Water Act, Including State of Idaho Implementation The selected alternative is consistent with the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C because risks to beneficial uses would be reduced (Environmental Assessment, page 78 and Hydrology Report, pages 1 5). Idaho Forest Practices Act Soil and water conservation practices that meet or exceed requirements of the Idaho Forest Practices Act will be applied for all proposed activities, and all activities will comply with guidelines in the soil and water conservation handbook. See the Environmental Assessment (page 79) and Hydrology report (page 5) for details. Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act The selected alternative will be consistent with the requirements of this act because the only in-stream work would be improvements or restoration including culvert upgrades or removal. See the Environmental Assessment, (page 79 80) and Hydrology report (page 6) for details. Executive Orders and This project proposes no development within wetlands or floodplains, and the effects analysis shows there would be no downstream adverse effects that could modify wetlands or floodplains; therefore, the selected alternative is consistent with these executive orders. See the Environmental Assessment (page 78) and Hydrology report (pages 2 3) for details. Executive Order Recreational Fishing The selected alternative complies with Executive Order as amended by Executive Order because it will not cause a reduction in the potential of the recreational fishery (Environmental Assessment, page 112 and Fisheries report, page 28). 18

23 Clean Air Act The Idaho Panhandle National Forests is a member of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group, which is composed of members who conduct a major amount of prescribed burning and the regulatory and health agencies that regulate this burning. The prescribed burning associated with my selected alternative will be monitored and controlled by airshed regulations to avoid individual or cumulative violations of air quality standards and therefore, is in compliance with the Clear Air Act (Environmental Assessment, page 147; Fire and Fuels Resource report, page 15, 17). Endangered Species Act The selected alternative is consistent with the Endangered Species Act and would have no effect on endangered species or their critical habitat (Environmental Assessment, pages 49, , 126; Wildlife report, page 13 and appendix C). Migratory Bird Treaty Act The selected alternative complies with this act because it complies with the memorandum of understanding by considering the potential effects to sensitive bird species and their habitat at the project level (Environmental Assessment, page 49; Wildlife report, pages 2 3). National Historic Preservation Act As described in the Environmental Assessment (page 150), the Heritage Resources report (pages 1, 6) and in item 9 in the Finding of No Significant Impact section below, the selected alternative complies with this act. Executive Order Environmental Justice Act The selected alternative will not disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. There were no public comments raised regarding environmental justice considerations, and no disproportional impacts to minority or low-income populations were identified during scoping or any other portion of public involvement during the course of this analysis. Therefore the selected alternative complies with this order. Executive Order Invasive Species The selected alternative will meet this order because it includes provisions for minimizing weed introduction and spread, and we would continue to control State-listed noxious weeds in the project area (Environmental Assessment, page 130, 131, ; Invasive Plants report, page 14). Finding of No Significant Impact Based upon my review of the Environmental Assessment and supporting documentation, I have determined this project (the selected alternative, alternative B) is not a major Federal action and will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As described below, my finding is based on considering both the context in which the impacts will occur as well as the intensity of effects. As a result of this finding, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared for this project. Context When considering whether environmental impacts are significant, the Council on Environmental Quality requires that the action be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the 19