Kreist Creek. Environmental Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Boundary County, Idaho May 2014

2

3 For More Information Contact: Kevin Knauth, District Ranger Idaho Panhandle National Forests Bonners Ferry Ranger District 6286 Main Street Bonners Ferry, ID Phone: Fax: *Photo Description: Image of a young forest stand of larch and western white pine in the fall with a forested hillside in the background. Photo taken by Shanna Kleinsmith. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

4

5 Contents Contents... i About the Project... 1 Where the Project is Located... 1 What is the Need for this Project?... 3 Proposed Action and Alternatives... 5 Details of the Proposed Action... 6 The Influence of Public Involvement on our Proposal... 9 Issues Are There Alternatives to our Proposal? Design Features and Mitigation Changes to the original proposal Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Cultural Resources Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 and Alternative Fire and Fuels Effects Common to All Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Hydrology Fisheries Noxious Weeds Rare Plants Recreation Scenic Quality Soils Vegetation Wildlife Other Resources List of Preparers References List of Tables Table 1. Proposed Vegetation Treatments for the Kreist Creek Project Table 2. Existing and Proposed Road Management (miles) Table 3. Proposed temporary road construction Table 4. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions for the Kreist Creek area of interest.. 23 Table 5. Fire behavior indicators for pre-treatment and post-treatment activities Table 6. Summary of fuels reduction activities by alternative Table 7. Equivalent Clearcut Areas (ECA), Rain on Snow acres, road mileage reduction and temporary road construction by sub-drainage under alternative Table 8. Productivity Retention under Region 1 and Forest Plan Standards for the Action Alternatives Table 9. Silvicultural Prescriptions Table 10. Minimum standards for old growth criteria i

6 Table 11. Wildlife Species not analyzed in detail Table 12. Wildlife species analyzed in detail List of Figures Figure 1. Kreist Creek Area of Interest... 2 Figure 2. Aspen sapling that has been browsed by big game species... 3 Figure 3. Forest Openings Greater Than 40 Acres Figure 4. Proposed action treatments Figure 5. Alternative 3 treatments Figure 6. Road 2540 at Placer Creek Figure 7. Old Growth Management Unit 27 Forest Structure (Alternative 2) Appendix A Best Management Practices/Soil and Water Conservation Practices Appendix B Management Indicator Species Appendix C Design Features Appendix D Treatment Units and Road Description Tables Appendix E Content Analysis of Public Comments Appendix F Consideration of Reference Material ii

7 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests About the Project We are proposing to treat vegetation on 2,130 acres in the Kreist Creek area of interest. These treatments include commercial timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, prescribed burning, and controlling noxious weed populations. We are also proposing to do road improvements. These actions would be implemented on National Forest System lands on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of the proposed activities may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of what we are proposing, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document. Where the Project is Located The Kreist Creek area of interest is located on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District in the upper northeastern corner of Boundary County, Idaho. It is bordered by Ruby Mountain to the northeast, Deer Ridge to the east, and the Moyie River to the south and west. The area of interest encompasses the Kreist Creek, Orser Creek, Snyder Creek, and Placer Creek drainages. The area of interest contains mixed ownership and is approximately 10,911 acres in size. About 9,269 acres are National Forest System lands, 1,502 acres are private land parcels, and the remaining 140 acres are owned by Hancock Timber Resource Group. The legal description for this area is: T64N, R2E, Sections 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36; T64N, R3E, Sections 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 30, 31, 32; T63N, R2E, Sections 1, 2, 11, 12; T64N, R3E, Sections 5, 6, 7, Boise Meridian. The area of interest is characterized by moderate and steep terrain. Vegetation within the area of interest has been shaped by natural forces such as wildfire, insects, and diseases, and also by human factors such as timber harvest and fire suppression. Based on local wildfire history data large, high severity fires burned a majority of the area of interest in the 1800 s and early1900 s. The fires burned severely, essentially clearing the landscape and allowing for the vast regeneration of lodgepole pine, which dominates the area today. The Boundary County Community Wildfire Protection Plan defines the Kreist Creek area of interest as being within the wildland urban interface. Lands within the area of interest have a long history of recreational use. They include a wide range of natural and developed settings within an hour of Bonners Ferry, Idaho as well as both Creston, and Cranbrook, BC. Recreational activities range from car camping, cabin rental, huckleberry picking, hunting and fishing, to horseback, motorcycle and mountain bike trail riding, white water rafting, and day hikes. 1

8 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Figure 1. Kreist Creek Area of Interest 2

9 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests What is the Need for this Project? This proposal is needed because forest stands within the Kreist Creek area of interest are declining in health and resiliency. Most of these forest stands are dominated by lodgepole pine that has reached maturity, which is about 120 to 160 years old in subalpine stands of northern Idaho (see the Vegetation Report, pp. 9-10). Mature lodgepole pine stands become increasingly susceptible to insect and disease. The Kreist Creek area of interest currently contains an estimated 2,100 acres that are dominated by mature lodgepole pine. These acres are considered either moderate or high hazard for mountain pine beetle attack (see the Vegetation Report, p. 15). In addition to an increased vulnerability to mountain pine beetle attack, over-mature lodgepole pine stands have a high susceptibility to windthrow which contributes to an increase in woody material on the ground and consequently an increase in fire hazard. Combined with increased mountain pine beetle activity, these factors could contribute to forest conditions that are vulnerable to a severe wildfire with the potential to spread to connected landscapes adjacent to the Kreist Creek area.. These weakened trees also cause a concern for safety on the heavily used forest roads and trails within the area of interest. There is a need to regenerate aspen stands within the Kreist Creek area of interest. Across the West, aspen stands are in a widespread state of decline that seems to be accelerating (see the Vegetation Report, p. 9). Aspen stands begin to deteriorate when large trees grow old in the absence of disturbance, especially fire, and begin to die and break off in windstorms. This creates gaps within the stand. Without the appropriate conditions, aspen will not sprout to replace the declining trees. Additionally, because of the lack of fire, aspen is often outcompeted and replaced by conifer tree species. Heavy browsing by big game species such as deer, elk, and moose also make it difficult for aspen to regenerate. Mixed conifer stands of Douglasfir, grand fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock characterize the remainder of the forest stands within the Kreist Creek area of interest. These tree species are Figure 2. Aspen sapling that has been browsed by big game species. Photo courtesy of Art Zack, shade tolerant, drought and fire intolerant, and are more prevalent on the landscape than they were historically. There is a need to reduce the area that these tree species dominate on the landscape and increase the area dominated by shade intolerant and fire and drought tolerant 3

10 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment species, such as western larch and western white pine. In addition, western larch and western white pine are less susceptible to insect and disease problems (see the Vegetation Report, p. 12). The Kreist Creek project is within the wildland-urban interface. The wildland-urban interface refers to an area where homes and other structures are near or among lands prone to wildland fires. There is a need to promote forest conditions that reduce fire hazard on National Forest System lands that are in close proximity to private land. There are locations where roads cross streams or come in close proximity to them within the Kreist Creek area of interest. Some of these locations contribute sediment to the stream system. There is a need to reduce these sediment sources by graveling over stream approaches and replacing undersized and damaged culverts. Moderate to high populations of some weed species are already present along roads within the area of interest. It is likely that current populations and new infestations would be allowed to expand without intervention. The presence of noxious weeds can reduce native plant biodiversity and species richness (USDA 1995). Therefore, there is a need to treat these weed infestations before they expand and establish new locations within the Kreist Creek area of interest. About 3,500 acres within the area of interest have been harvested in the last three decades. These harvest activities were mostly concentrated along Ruby Ridge and Deer Ridge and are visible from Highway 34 and other visually sensitive areas. Although the shape and size of these old units do not dominate the existing landscape character, there is still a need to blend the geometric shapes to have a more natural appearance. To address these needs, we have developed this proposal in coordination with a variety of stakeholders. The purpose for our proposal includes the following goals and actions we want to accomplish: 1. Maintain and improve forest landscape resiliency by providing for tree species, stocking levels, and landscape patterns that better resist insects and disease. Provide for tree species, stocking levels, and landscape patterns that reduce the risk of insect and disease occurrences. Reduce the acreage of moderate and high hazard mountain pine beetle stands Increase patch size of forest openings (seedling/sapling) Increase the acreage of stands where western white pine is a significant component Regenerate and expand aspen clones where they currently exist 2. Promote forest conditions that reduce fire hazard on National Forest System lands and aid fire suppression efforts to reduce the potential impacts of wildfire to private lands within and adjacent to the area of interest. Reduce surface fuels and crown densities to create a low-intensity and severity fire environment. Remove small trees in dry forest stands that were historically formed and maintained by fire. 4

11 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 3. Maintain and improve aquatic habitat. Repair or improve drainage along roads where interactions between roads and surface water exists. Improve fisheries passage through roads using natural channel design. 4. Contain or control existing noxious weed populations along road and trail systems in the Kreist Creek area of interest, and reduce the potential of new weed infestations into the area. Pre-treat weed populations along trails and roads (including haul routes, temporary roads, landings, unused roads, and roads proposed for storage or decommissioning) within the project planning area using accepted herbicides and weed management practices. Provide follow-up weed treatments (contractor/forest Service) in the area to keep existing weed populations and potential new weed invaders in check. 5. Examine the road and trail systems to determine long-term transportation and resource needs. 6. Maintain the scenic integrity and sustainability of areas adjacent to County road 34 to reflect healthy, resilient vegetation conditions. Create vegetation openings and patterns that emulate natural disturbance processes. Modify existing geometrically shaped openings to better mimic those created by natural disturbances. Increase the species diversity and age classes of existing vegetation. 7. Provide opportunities to utilize forest products and provide economic opportunity through restoration and road maintenance work. Direction from the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Forest Plan (1987) also guided the purpose and need for management action in the Kreist Creek area. This includes the following Forest Plan Management Areas: Management Area (MA)-1, which is managed by the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to provide for long-term growth and production of commercially valuable wood products. MA-2 - which is managed by the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to maintain and enhance identified grizzly bear habitat. It is classified as suitable for timber production and allows for timber production with timber harvest to improve or maintain grizzly bear habitat MA-4 which is managed by the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to provide winter forage to support existing and projected big game populations through scheduled timber harvest and permanent forage areas. MA-9 which is managed by the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to maintain and protect existing improvements, resource productivity potential and within minimum investments. Proposed Action and Alternatives We propose to treat 2,130 acres of forest stands within the Kreist Creek area of interest with commercial and non-commercial timber harvest and prescribed fire. The proposal for the Kreist Creek area of interest focuses on vegetation treatments aimed to improve forest health resiliency by modifying forest composition and structure and reducing 5

12 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment hazardous fuels, and maximizing opportunities to utilize forest products and provide economic opportunity. The proposed treatments are designed to mimic natural processes, and to trend the forests within the area of interest toward conditions historically created by natural disturbance. Treatments would reduce the severity and continuity of fuel conditions while leaving healthy, resilient forest stands. Details of the Proposed Action Within the area of interest, we would implement vegetation treatments on approximately 2,130 acres. The proposal involves different forms of mechanical and non-mechanical treatments. Mechanical treatment refers to the use of heavy equipment such as a tractor or skyline yarder. A map of these treatments is displayed in Figure 2, which can be found on page 17 of this document. A table that displays the treatments for individual units is located in appendix D to this document. Vegetation Treatments Regeneration treatments (1,177 acres) These treatments would utilize the following silvicultural prescriptions to regenerate stands with a high risk rating from insect attacks and high mortality rates: seed tree with reserves, shelterwood with reserves, and shelterwood-burn prescriptions. They are called regeneration treatments because they remove trees to allow for the regeneration of new ones. Group selection (360 acres) This treatment is an uneven-aged regeneration method in which trees are cut in small groups of one to three acres and new age classes are established. Commercial thinning would occur between the groups. Improvement cut treatments (24 acres) This treatment would thin-out dense stands by removing smaller, suppressed trees (ladder fuels) and those trees at risk of insect/disease attack. Tree species that have evolved with, and are adapted to fire, such as larch would be favored as leave trees across the landscape. Pre commercial thinning (362 acres) Pre commercial thinning would trend the timber stands towards historical species composition and stocking levels, generally leaving the largest trees available of the desired species mix. These stands were created from previous timber sales and are approximately years old and are not of a commercial size. Prescribed burning only (207 acres) One treatment unit would use prescribed burning without removing any commercial timber to regenerate aspen stands and reduce competition from conifers. Vegetation treatments involving commercial timber harvest would be accomplished using groundbased systems (approximately 852 acres), skyline yarding (approximately 586 acres), or helicopter yarding (approximately 123 acres). Regeneration, group selection, and improvement cut treatments all involve commercial timber harvest. Table 9 on page 60 of this document describes the silvicultural prescriptions for the vegetation treatments in more detail. The proposed vegetation treatments would meet the first goal of our purpose and need by improving ecosystem composition and structure and landscape diversity (Vegetation Report, p. 14). Reducing the amount of acres that are at a high risk for mountain pine beetle attack through commercial timber harvest would also contribute to meeting the first goal of the purpose and need. Vegetation treatments would promote forest conditions that reduce fire hazard, which 6

13 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests meets the second goal of the purpose and need. Our goal is to keep the scenery in the area of interest to appear as natural to the casual forest observer. To do this, we designed the vegetation treatments to mimic natural disturbance processes. This would contribute to the sixth goal of the purpose and need to maintain the scenic integrity by reducing the artificial appearance of commercial timber harvest. Precommercial thinning treatments would be accomplished by hand falling with chainsaws. Fuel Treatments Activity fuels (e.g. the woody material left after cutting trees) and pre-existing fuels would be treated through prescribed underburning (1,243 acres), machine piling (292), whole tree yarding (27 acres), a combination of whole-tree yarding and underburning (107 acres), or a combination of machine piling and underburning (99 acres). In pre-commercial thinning units, fuels would be either hand-piled and then burned or left to decay naturally over time. Refer to appendix D for a list of treatments by unit. The prescribed burning only treatment is proposed for 207 acres. The primary purpose of this prescribed burn is to enhance the opportunities for aspen regeneration. This would meet goal number one of our purpose and need by regenerating and expanding aspen clones where they currently exist in the area of interest. It would also meet goal number two by removing heavy vegetation and small trees that contribute to the intensity and spread rate of a wildfire. Burn patterns tend to result in irregular shaped openings and patches, which would help meet goal number six of our proposal to maintain the scenic integrity by creating vegetation patterns that emulate natural disturbance processes. Noxious Weed Treatments Noxious weed populations would be treated along roads and turnouts that are used for hauling timber. Treatment involves spraying the noxious weeds with chemicals approved in the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds EIS (1995). These treatments would take place both before and after harvest activities. Road segments identified for weed treatment and proposed for decommissioning or storage would be treated prior to decommissioning or closure (this includes temporary roads). The proposal would also provide follow-up weed treatments as needed. Treating noxious weed populations would meet the fourth goal of our purpose and need to contain or control existing noxious weed populations. Road Treatments Fuels consist of all the flammable material in a forest including: trees, underbrush, shrubs, cones, dead grasses, needles, leaves, and branches. They are arranged in one of three forms: surface, ladder or crown fuels. We propose to construct approximately 1.8 miles of new road to access units 5, 13, 10, 3a, 3c, 20, 22, 25, and 25a. These temporary roads would only be used for activities associated with this proposal and would be removed from the landscape after project activities are complete. Removing a temporary road involves ripping the road surface and recontouring it to fit with the surrounding landscape. Seeds from native plants and grasses would be used revegetate the land. To meet goal number three to maintain and improve aquatic habitat, we propose to reconstruct approximately 15 miles of system roads and conduct maintenance on approximately 17 miles of system roads. Road reconstruction is defined in this proposal as minor road improvements 7

14 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment beyond routine maintenance on existing road systems such as culvert replacement or removing well-established vegetation. Replacing culverts and removing vegetation and debris from cross drains and ditchlines would improve the drainage along roads and reduce sediment entering the stream system (Hydrology Report, p. 29). Routine road maintenance is defined as the ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain the road to the approved road management objective, including blading the road surface and brushing vegetation within the clearing limit. Road maintenance typically improves drainage and decreases erosion from water channeling down the road surface. Crushed rock that is needed for road work activities would come from the remaining stockpile at Robinson Lake or a commercial rock source. We formulated our proposal for the road treatments by completing a Travel Analysis Process during the planning stages of this project. The interdisciplinary team for the Kreist Creek project looked at each road in the proposed area of interest to identify needs and recommendations for road access, decommissioning, and long-term storage (see the travel analysis process report, project file). Identifying the long-term transportation needs for the Kreist Creek area of interest was important for meeting the fifth goal of the purpose and need for this project. Through the Travel Analysis Process, the interdisciplinary team of resource specialists determined that Forest Service Road 2517c was not needed to meet multiple resource objectives. Therefore, we propose to store the approximately half mile at the beginning of this road and decommission the one mile at the end of this road. Stored roads would not be regularly maintained so their drainage structures (culverts) would be removed to lower the risk of sediment entering the stream system. These actions would help us meet goal number three of this project, to maintain and improve aquatic habitat. Additionally, the Travel Analysis Process determined that 0.3 miles of Forest Service Road 211e would be changed to open seasonal. This means that this road would be restricted with a gate for part of the year. See Table 2 and Table 3 for more specific details on road treatments. The proposed road treatments would contribute to meeting the third goal of the purpose and need to maintain and improve aquatic habitat. Roads directly contribute to the disruption of hydrologic function and increased sediment delivery to streams (Hydrology Report, p. 8). Fish passage would be improved by fixing damaged culverts. In addition to the proposed activities, the Kreist Creek Project can help contribute to local economic growth. In 2012 the unemployment rate in Boundary County was 10 percent, according to the US Census Bureau. Although that number is down from 14 percent in 2010, it was still below the national average of 8 percent. In the Kreist Creek project area, we want to use the various forest products produced from this project to maintain and support natural resource related jobs thus strengthening the local economy. Doing so would help meet the seventh goal of the purpose and need for the Kreist Creek project. What will be decided? Based on the analysis presented in this environmental assessment, the Idaho Panhandle National Forests forest supervisor will determine whether the proposed project and alternatives could result in a significant impact. If there is a finding of no significant impact, the forest supervisor will select an alternative deciding: 8

15 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Whether to implement the proposed action and if so, the site-specific location of these treatments (on National Forest lands only); What specific design criteria or mitigation measures are needed; What specific project monitoring requirements are needed to assure design criteria and mitigation measures are implemented and effective; The decision will be based on how well the preferred alternative meets the purpose and need of the project, addresses public comments and issues, and how well the alternative complies with applicable state and federal laws, agency policy and Forest Plan direction. In February 2011, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell announced the selection of the KVRI proposal to restore forested lands in the Kootenai River watershed and create rural jobs. The selection of this proposal included significant Federal funding for the next decade from a new Federal program, the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Further information regarding this program can be found in the project file, and on the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho s website at The Influence of Public Involvement on our Proposal The purpose and need that was identified for the Kreist Creek project was developed by working closely with the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) group. KVRI is a community-based, collaborative effort in the Kootenai River Basin. The mission of the KVRI is to improve coordination of the local, state, federal and Tribal programs to restore and maintain social, cultural, economic, and natural resources (Kootenai Tribe of Idaho). In 2011 the KVRI worked with federal, state, local and non-governmental organizations to develop the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Proposal. The Kreist Creek project is part of the proposal (the proposal can be found in the project file). We have been working closely with the KVRI forestry sub-committee throughout the planning process for the Kreist Creek project. The stakeholders that formulate the forestry sub-committee represent diverse entities in the community, including but not limited to timber industry representatives, environmental communities, the general public, educators, recreational interests, fire management personnel, non-federal government entities, and other community leaders. By working together and finding common ground, we have been able to develop this proposal. The forestry subcommittee of the KVRI collaborative group has taken field trips and has engaged in numerous meetings to develop project objectives in a collaborative setting. Detailed meeting notes are posted on the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho website at The first time we presented our proposal to the public was by listing it in the Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Actions during the spring of On April 19, 2013, a more refined project proposal was provided to the public and Federal, State, and local agencies for review and comment. We received 11 responses from a variety of stakeholders interested in the Kreist Creek proposal. A list of comments and how we responded to the comments in our analysis is located in appendix E to this document. Included in responses to scoping were many references to research. All research was reviewed for its applicability (or lack thereof) to the Kreist Creek analysis. A discussion of why the research was used, or why it was not applicable to this project can be found in appendix F to this document. 9

16 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment A list of individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies that the Forest Service consulted during the development of this EA can be found in the project file. Issues Issues are concerns that actions we take could cause an undesirable effect on the environment. The interdisciplinary team developed a list of potential issues that were raised internally as well as externally from public comments. Most of the potential issues from public comments were addressed in our comment content analysis, which is located in appendix E to this document. Other potential issues led to the modification of our initial proposal. One potential issue was of sufficient concern to be considered an issue and led to the development of an alternative to our proposal. Some comments raised concerns about the amount of forest openings resulting from even-aged regeneration harvest treatments greater than 40 acres. Historically, stand-replacing fire was the primary ecosystem process that created forest openings and openings larger than 40 acres were common. Currently, active fire suppression results in most wildfires being controlled before they exceed 40 acres. Furthermore, even-aged regeneration silvicultural systems have replaced standreplacing fire as the primary mechanism for creating forest openings. In contrast to openings created historically through stand-replacing wildfire, openings created through timber harvest have been primarily less than 40 acres. The net result is a landscape that is more homogenous in terms of pattern and structure. This change could have profound effects on long-term ecosystem resiliency. The size of forest openings created by even-aged regeneration treatments in the Northern Region of the Forest Service is normally 40 acres or less. Forest Service policy requires a 60-day public review and Regional Forester approval prior to the creation of openings greater than 40 acres (FSM ). During our initial scoping we received a few public comments that raised concerns with forest openings greater than 40 acres and the potential effects to wildlife species, water quality, and scenic integrity. Our analysis will examine how the creation of forest openings greater than 40 acres is expected to affect certain resources within the Kreist Creek area of interest. Figure 3 displays the location and sizes of openings that would be created with the Kreist Creek proposed action. 10

17 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Figure 3. Forest Openings Greater Than 40 Acres 11

18 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Are There Alternatives to our Proposal? There are two alternatives to our proposed action. Alternative 3 examines the option of not creating forest openings larger than 40 acres. The details of this alternative are discussed in more detail below. We will also analyze the potential effects of not carrying out the proposal ( no action ) to provide context for our analysis of effects as well as how well we would achieve our objectives. The no action alternative is alternative 1. Alternative 1 No Action This alternative provides a baseline for comparison of environmental consequences of the proposed action to the existing condition. It is a management option that could be selected by the Responsible Official. Alternative 1 would maintain the Kreist Creek area of interest as it currently exists. None of the proposed vegetation treatments, roadwork (decommissioning, reconstruction, reconditioning, etc.), prescribed burning, or other treatments would be implemented. Forest stands would naturally thin themselves out as the competition for water and soil nutrients continues and natural fuels would continue to build up with continued fire suppression, leading to increased risk of stand replacing fire over time. Other ongoing activities such as fire suppression and routine road and trail maintenance would continue. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 2 is the proposed action as described previously. The proposed action would implement vegetation treatments on approximately 2,130 acres. The treatments include approximately 1,177 acres of even-aged regeneration treatments, 360 acres of group selection treatment, 24 acres of improvement cut, 362 acres of pre-commercial thinning, and 207 acres of prescribed burning only to regenerate aspen stands. A treatment unit description table is located in appendix D to this document. Silvicultural treatments involving commercial timber harvest would be accomplished using ground-based systems (approximately 840 acres), skyline yarding (approximately 622 acres), or helicopter yarding (approximately 99 acres). Non-commercial harvest (pre commercial thinning) would use masticating equipment (small excavator) or hand falling with chainsaws. In timber harvest units, activity fuels and pre-existing fuels would be treated through prescribed underburning (1,243 acres), machine piling (279), whole-tree yarding (27 acres), a combination of whole-tree yarding and underburning (120 acres), or a combination of machine piling and underburning (99 acres). In machine-piled units, only fuels (natural and activity) in excess of what is desired to meet resource objectives would be piled. In pre-commercial thinning units, fuels would be piled by hand. Alternative 3 No Forest Openings Larger Than 40 Acres Alternative 3 proposes similar vegetation treatments to the proposed action (alternative 2), but on fewer acres. This alternative was developed to address the concerns about the large forest openings that would occur with the proposed action. With this alternative, the regeneration treatments units would not exceed 40 acres in size. The primary difference between alternative 2 and alternative 3 is that alternative 3 would treat far less vegetation than alternative 3. Alternative 2 proposes to treat about 2,130 acres while alternative 3 proposes to treat about 1,343 acres. Because there would be fewer acres treated with 12

19 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests alternative 3, there would be less temporary road constructing and less road reconstruction. The details of alternative 3 are described below. Vegetation Treatments Alternative 3 would implement vegetation treatments on approximately 1,336 acres. This includes the following treatments: Regeneration treatments (348 acres) These treatments would utilize the following silvicultural prescriptions to regenerate stands with a high risk rating from insect attacks and high mortality rates: seed tree with reserves, shelterwood with reserves, and shelterwood-burn prescriptions. Group selection (402 acres) This treatment is an uneven-aged regeneration method in which trees are cut in small groups of one to three acres and new age classes are established. Commercial thinning would occur between the groups. Improvement cut treatments (24 acres) This treatment would thin-out dense stands by removing smaller, suppressed trees (ladder fuels) and those trees at risk of insect/disease attack. Tree species that have evolved with, and are adapted to fire, such as larch would be favored as leave trees across the landscape. Pre commercial thinning (362 acres) Pre commercial thinning would trend the timber stands towards historical species composition and stocking levels, generally leaving the largest trees available of the desired species mix. These stands were created from previous timber sales and are approximately years old and are not of a commercial size. Prescribed burning only (207 acres) One treatment unit would use prescribed burning without removing any commercial timber to regenerate aspen stands and reduce competition from conifers. Silvicultural treatments involving commercial timber harvest would be accomplished using ground-based systems (approximately 334 acres), skyline yarding (approximately 317 acres), or helicopter yarding (approximately 123 acres). Fuel Treatments Activity fuels and pre-existing fuels would be treated through prescribed underburning (618 acres), machine piling (122 acres), whole tree yarding (27 acres), a combination of whole-tree yarding and underburning (115 acres), or a combination of machine piling and underburning (99 acres). In machine-piled units, only fuels (natural and activity) in excess of what is desired to meet resource objectives would be piled. In pre-commercial thinning units, fuels would be either hand-piled and then burned or left to decay naturally over time. Refer to appendix D for detailed information by treatment units. The prescribed burning only treatment on 207 acres would also be implemented with alternative 3. The primary purpose of this prescribed burn is to enhance the opportunities for aspen regeneration. This would meet the first goal of our purpose and need by regenerating and expanding aspen clones where they currently exist in the area of interest. It would also meet the second goal by removing heavy vegetation and small trees that contribute to the intensity and spread rate of a wildfire. 13

20 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Noxious Weed Treatments Noxious weed populations would be treated along roads and turnouts that are used for hauling timber. Treatment involves spraying the noxious weeds with chemicals approved in the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds EIS (1995). These treatments would take place both before and after harvest activities. Road segments identified for weed treatment and proposed for decommissioning or storage would be treated prior to decommissioning or closure (this includes temporary roads). The proposal would also provide follow-up weed treatments as needed. Treating noxious weed populations would meet goal number four of our purpose and need to contain or control existing noxious weed populations. Road Treatments With alternative 3 we propose construct approximately 1.6 miles of new road to access units 5, 13, 10, 3a, 3c, 20, and 22. These temporary roads would only be used for activities associated with this alternative and would be decommissioned after project activities are complete. Alternative 3 also proposes to reconstruct approximately 13 miles of system roads and conduct maintenance on approximately 17 miles of system roads. Alternative 3 would close road 2517c as described with the proposed action. This includes storing the approximately half mile at the beginning of this road and decommissioning the one mile at the end of this road. Alternative 3 would also change 0.3 miles of Forest Service Road 211e to open seasonal. This means that this road would be restricted with a gate for part of the year. 14

21 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Table 1. Proposed Vegetation Treatments for the Kreist Creek Project Vegetation Treatment (acres) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Group Selection Seedtree with Reserves Shelterwood with Reserves Shelterwood-burn Improvement Cut Precommercial Thinning Prescribed Burn Total 0 2,130 1,343 Tree Removal Systems (acres) Tractor Skyline Helicopter Total 0 1, Fuels Treatments (acres) Underburn 0 1, Grapple Pile Underburn/grapple pile Whole tree yard/underburn Whole tree yard Total 0 1, Road Treatments (miles) Road Maintenance Road Reconstruction Table 2. Existing and Proposed Road Management (miles) Road Management Designation Existing Change Proposed Total Open yearlong (storage) *.90 (decommission) * Open seasonally (Nov 1-Oct 6) 9.0.3** 9.0 * Forest road 2517C **Forest road 211E

22 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Table 3. Proposed temporary road construction Temporary Road Number What does the road access? Alternative 2 Miles Alternative 3 Miles T1 Units 13 and 13a T2 Unit T3 Units 3a, 3c, and 3b T4 Unit 20 (Alternative 2 only).17 0 T5 Unit T6 Units 25 and 25a T7 Unit Total

23 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Figure 4. Proposed action treatments 17

24 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Figure 5. Alternative 3 treatments 18

25 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Design Features and Mitigation Design features are preventative measures that are planned as part of our proposal. The purpose of design features is to prevent adverse effects to the resources. Because there are many design features, they are discussed in appendix C to this document. Mitigation Mitigation measures are actions required to lessen unavoidable impacts resulting from implementation of a certain action. Mitigation measures are different from design features because their purpose is to reduce effects that are unavoidable. The effects analysis assumes the implementation of all the mitigation measures described below. 1. There is a concern that increased water yields from timber harvest in the Placer Creek drainage could cause further erosion and possibly road failure of Forest Service Road A section of Forest Service Road 2540 is within 20 feet of Placer Creek. This close contact has caused the road fill to erode into Placer Creek (see figure 6, below). Because there is no opportunity to relocate this road, and because protecting the native westslope cutthroat trout is paramount, the goal of this effort is to stabilize the road while minimizing sediment delivery to the stream. At each erosion point, a vegetative fascine would be constructed along the base of the slope adjacent to the stream. An angular rock buttress would be placed adjacent to the fascine and tied into the road prism. Root wads would be used to strengthen the stabilization efforts. Soil would be used to fill the voids between the rocks above the high water mark. Native plants would be planted in the soil pockets to revegetate the slope. The root wads would be obtained from live standing or trees that have been recently blown down within unit 22 or unit 36. Up to 25 root wads would come from trees that are approximately 14 to 18 inches diameter breast height. The angular rock would come from the talus slope on Forest Service Road 2509 near Spruce Creek. All stabilization work would be completed prior to selling any timber sale from the Kreist Creek project. We expect erosion of the fillslopes to be stopped with this mitigation. The estimated effectiveness for this treatment is moderate to high based on research and past monitoring (USDA 2005; NCHRP 2012; M. Jo Christenson, Restoration Biologist, personal communication 2014). The effectiveness of this mitigation would be monitored with photos and reports for three years following the mitigation as described in appendix A of the Hydrology Report. Figure 6. Road 2540 at Placer Creek. Notice that the road fill material is eroding into the creek. 19

26 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment 2. To mitigate for soil compaction in unit 25a, the main skid trails and all temporary roads would be decompacted. This includes placing slash on the contour of the roadbed for erosion prevention and to increase water infiltration. Temporary roads have the added requirement of recontouring to the original slope prior to seeding and slash placement. Any bare soils would be reseeded with an approved seed mix. The estimated effectiveness for this treatment is high; past monitoring has shown this to be an effective practice (see the Soils Report and project file). Further Opportunities Several opportunities in addition to the proposed action were identified by the interdisciplinary team. For various reasons, we aren t able to guarantee funding for these opportunities. When funding becomes available, the deciding official will make a decision on implementing these activities. The effects of these activities were still analyzed for potential effects. Treat weed populations along recreation trails and roads that are not used as haul routes for timber harvest. Also treat existing weed populations in the area of interest, including those areas outside of proposed vegetation treatments. Treatments may be a combination of herbicide treatments, biological controls, and mechanical removal, as described in the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 1995) and as directed in the Forest Service Best Management Practices for Chemical Use and the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Pesticide Discharge Management Plan. Apply a six inch gravel lift to road 2540 beginning one eighth of a mile south of the intersection of roads 2540 and 2541 and continuing northeast for approximately one mile to the intersection of roads 2540 and Replace two fish passage barrier culverts with aquatic organism passages on road One culvert is located where road 2540 crosses an unnamed spring creek. The other culvert is located at the intersection of 2540 and Changes to the original proposal Our proposal has changed slightly from what was described in the April 2013 public scoping letter. The changes are due to information that became available during the planning process. The changes are as follows: Dropped units 7, 7a, and 8 and portions of units 6 and 9 Unit 11 changed logging systems from skyline to helicopter Unit 21 changed prescription from group selection to shelterwood Unit 24 changed logging systems from skyline to tractor Unit 35 changed prescription from commercial thin to seed tree Unit 28 changed logging system from tractor to skyline Unit 33 changed logging system from skyline to tractor Two units were split to account for different logging systems (13 and 3a) Approximately 1.3 miles of temporary road construction was added Road maintenance increased from 12 miles to 17 miles Road reconstruction decreased from 23 miles to 15 miles 20

27 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Modifications to the original proposal are a common part of the planning process. More information becomes available through analysis and field reconnaissance. The majority of these changes were made after field visits indicated that modifications would be necessary for the treatments to be the most effective. The removal of units 7, 7a, 8 and the modification of units 6 and 9 were due to recommendations for post-fledgling family areas of an active goshawk territory. Goshawk home ranges contain a post-fledgling family area surrounding the nest site that is used by the family group from the time the young fledge until they are no longer dependent on the adults for food (Reynolds et al. 1992, Kennedy et al. 1994, Kennedy and Ward 2003). Research indicates that the post-fledgling family area of approximately 420 acres surrounding the nest stand should contain a more heterogeneous mix of forest age and structural components than the nest area itself (Reynolds et al. 1992). The original Kreist Creek proposal included timber harvest within the post-fledgling family area of an active goshawk nest in the Snyder Creek area that would have trended the post-fledgling family area away from the management recommendations. 21

28 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section describes the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives to the proposal on various resources of concern. It provides the necessary information to determine whether or not to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). Further analysis and conclusions about the potential effects are available in the report for each specific resource and other supporting documents cited in those reports. As noted previously, these documents are available online at: or in the project file located at the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. Forest Service regulations (36 CFR [f]) state: Cumulative effects analysis shall be carried out in accordance with 40 CFR and in accordance with The Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Memorandum on Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis dated June 24, The analysis of cumulative effects begins with consideration of the direct and indirect effects on the environment that are expected or likely to result from the alternative proposals for agency action. Agencies then look for present effects of past actions that are, in the judgment of the agency, relevant and useful because they have a significant cause-andeffect relationship with the direct and indirect effects of the proposal for agency action and its alternatives. CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR ) Analysis of cumulative effects presented in this section considered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on public and adjacent private lands. A list of these activities is presented in Table 4, below. Environmental effects for all resources are discussed below. Resources are presented in alphabetical order except for the discussion on fisheries, which is presented following the hydrology discussion to provide context for understanding the effects to fisheries. A list of references cited in this section can be found in the corresponding resource report. 22

29 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Table 4. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions for the Kreist Creek area of interest Action Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable National Forest timber harvest X X (*) X (**) Private industrial timber harvest Private land timber harvest Prescribed burning for site prep and fuels treatment Tree planting Public activities: firewood cutting, driving roads, camping, snowmobiling, hunting, hiking, motorized X X X trail use, berry picking Road construction X Road decommission X Road maintenance X X X Wildfires X Unknown Fire suppression X X X Trail maintenance X X X Pre-commercial timber stand improvement X Helispot maintenance brush clearing; tree removal X North Zone Roadside Salvage EA: Decision has been signed X Idaho Buckhorn Prescribed Burn X Private land development X X X Pipeline right-of-way maintenance X X X Railroad activities primarily maintenance X X X Mining activity Hall Mission to Drill X Mining activity placer mining in Placer Creek X (*) Ruby Copper, Northern Prairie, Mission Brush (**) Hellroaring Timber Sale X X X X Cultural Resources Alternative 1 (No Action) No direct, indirect or cumulative effects are expected with alternative 1. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 An inventory was conducted for this project and no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to cultural resources are expected with implementation of either of the action alternatives. No potentially significant effects were identified. By incorporating design features to buffer or avoid cultural resources, negative effects would be adequately mitigated (project file). 23

30 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Fire and Fuels Effects Common to All Alternatives Fuels would continue to accumulate in the project area with the continued growth and death of vegetation in areas that are not treated. The no action alternative would not address current fuel conditions and would not address fire behavior as fuels would continue to accumulate and increase the risk of extreme fire behavior. Both of the action alternatives would address fuel accumulation in the project area, although the proposed action would treat the greatest percentage of the landscape (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 14). Wildfires would continue to occur in the project area regardless of which alternative is chosen. Lightning is another source of ignition in the project area, and is a common occurrence in the Idaho Panhandle. Lightning is the cause of nearly 72 percent of fires on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District, whereas human caused fires account for 28 percent of fires. Based on the percentage of lightning fires in the area, it can be expected that lightning would remain as the greatest risk of ignition in the Kreist area (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 14). Regardless of the actions taken within the Kreist project area, wildfires would still occur. No matter the management actions implemented, we would not be fire proofing forests. The reasons we suppress fires are the same reasons management activities to modify vegetation are being proposed. Large-scale uncharacteristic and potentially severe fires are undesirable and a proactive measure to mitigate possible negative effects, and safety concerns to the public and firefighters, makes sense across this particular landscape (wildland urban-interface) (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 15). Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would result in no actions to reduce surface fuel loading, increase canopy base height, or reduce crown bulk density. As a result, this alternative would not lessen the potential for extreme fire behavior in the project area (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 16). The flame length potential with the no action alternative would see the flame lengths increase over time. As vegetation grows, dies and decays the fuel loading would increase and this would affect the potential flame length (Fire and Fuels Report, page 17). With no action there would be no reduction in the rate of spread on Forest Service lands near the identified as areas of concern, which include several types of values such as travel routes, railroad tracks, Forest Service developments, private property and homes. Over time the accumulation of fuels due to succession and the potential increase in crown fire activity would lead to faster moving fires thus place more of the values at risk in a shorter time period (Fire and Fuels Report, pp ). With no action, fuel buildup over time in the Kreist project area would most likely lead to an increased probability of a large, uncontrollable wildfire due to increased fire intensity associated with higher fuel loads, which would hamper fire suppression efforts. Along with changes in surface fuels, crown fuels would also change over time without management intervention (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 24). 24

31 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 The effects of alternatives 2 and 3 would produce a reduction in fuels which would result in a reduction in flame lengths, rate of spread and the potential for crown fire activity (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 26). Table 5 summarizes the effects each of the treatment types has on these indicators. Alternative 2 would be more effective at reducing these effects than alternative 3 due to treatment of more acres. Table 6 summarizes the total acres of fuel treatments by alternative. Table 5. Fire behavior indicators for pre-treatment and post-treatment activities. Treatment Type Fire Behavior Indicators by Fuel Treatment Surface Flame Length (ft) Rate of Spread (chains/hour) Crown Fire Activity* Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Seed Tree/Shelterwood / 3 1 Group Selection / 3 1 Prescribed Burn Only / 3 1 *Crown Fire Activity Codes: 1=Surface, 2=Passive, 3=Active Table 6. Summary of fuels reduction activities by alternative. Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Underburn Grapple Pile Underburn/Grapple Pile Underburn/WTY WTY Precommercial Thin Total Acres of Fuels Reduction Rate of spread of a surface fire is a basic measure used by initial attack firefighters and fire resource planners to predict the effectiveness of fire suppression strategies and tactics. Rate of spread on the landscape within the Kreist Creek area of interest is predicted to decrease with the implementation of either action alternative. The proposed action has the highest percentage reduction (53 percent as opposed to 50 percent with alternative 3) of rate of spread due to more treatment acres (Fire and Fuels Report, pp ). Reducing the risk of crown fire in the wildland-urban interface is a necessity to reduce risk of unwanted fire effects, such as the loss of human values (Graham 2004). Reducing the risk of crown fire requires that canopy bulk density be reduced, canopy base height be increased and surface fuels be reduced to decrease spread rate and intensity (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 22). With the action alternatives, the removal of fuels would help reduce the probability of a large, uncontrollable wildfire due to a decrease in fire intensity associated with lower fuel loads. Along with changes in surface fuels, crown fuels would be reduced through the removal of overstory trees (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 24). Pre-commercial thinning would remove small trees from densely-stocked stands. In the initial period following the treatment, fire risk would be elevated due to the slash left over from 25

32 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment thinning. Fires can be active in the slash and intermixed herbaceous material exhibiting higher rates of spread. However, tree density would be reduced by as much as 90 percent, limiting fire movement through the canopies of the remaining young trees (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 25). Empirical data from previously thinned stands across the north zone of the Idaho Panhandle National Forest indicates fire hazard from thinning slash is naturally mitigated after approximately 5 to 7 years following thinning. Fine fuels have long fallen and stems and branchwood have become incorporated into the ground and decomposition of this material has occurred. Following thinning and fuel reduction treatments, surface fire behavior would be decreased as compared to the pre-thinning units; after 5 to 7 years surface flame lengths would be consistent with the desired condition fuel model 8 (less than 2 feet). By treating the precommercial thin units an additional fire hazard reduction above the current condition would be realized because trees would be spaced farther apart (reduced CBD over time). As the remaining trees grow the canopy base heights increase. Potential spread rates and fire intensity would be further mitigated with design criteria that stagger the implementation of the pre-commercial thin units (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 25). Cumulative Effects In the Kreist Creek area of interest, past activities that contribute to cumulative effects are fire suppression, pre-commercial timber stand improvement, timber harvest on all ownerships, and prescribed burning. For this analysis, harvest includes related activities such as road building and tree planting. Public activities (i.e. huckleberry picking, hunting and firewood gathering) are not expected to have cumulative effects; a potential rise in human caused fires due to increased use following harvest is not likely to occur (based on other vegetation management activities across the district) (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 27). Reasonably foreseeable activities include the North Zone Roadside Salvage and the Idaho Buckhorn Prescribed Burn. The effects of these two projects would result in the reduction of fuels and add to the overall reduction in fuels in and around the Kreist Creek area of interest. There are no other reasonably foreseeable activities that would significantly influence the fire and fuels resource (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 27). Wildfires would continue to be suppressed in the Kreist Creek area which would lead to accumulation of fuel, and subsequent fuel treatments would be necessary to mitigate hazardous fuels (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 28). Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The action alternatives are consistent with direction in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 5100). In particular: to use fire in a safe, carefully planned and cost-effective manner, to alter fuel profiles so that public and firefighter safety is improved and communities, infrastructure and other values are less impacted from wildfire, to reduce future suppression costs and unwanted effects, and to achieve desired conditions and attain management objectives in the IPNF Forest Plan. The action alternatives are designed to help accomplish the goals of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (Strategy) by reducing hazardous fuels and improving suppression. The no action alternative does not address the other objectives of fire management (FSM 5140) or the goals of the Strategy (Fire and Fuels Report, p ). 26

33 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests The Forest Plan (Forest Plan, Chapter II, pages 10 and 38) identifies two standards regarding fire management and are listed below: Forest Plan Fire Management Standard #1 Fire protection and use standards are specified by management area. Cost effective fire protection programs will be developed to implement management direction based on on-site characteristics that effect fire occurrence, fire effects, fire management costs and fire caused changes in values. Forest Plan Fire Management Standard #2 The Fire Management Action Plan will be guided by the following Forest-wide standards: 1. Management area standards. 2. Human life and property will be protected. 3. Fire will be used to achieve management goals according to direction in management areas. Implementation guides will be prepared for prescribed fire projects and programs identified in Table 10 (Forest Plan Appendix F) using unplanned ignitions. 4. Management area standards will be used in Escaped Fire Situation Analyses as a basis for establishing resource priorities and values. 5. The appropriate suppression response for designated old-growth stands in all management areas except in wilderness will result in preventing the loss of old growth. Fire policy in relation to old growth within wilderness will be provided in specific management direction developed for each wilderness area. 6. Activity fuels will be treated to reduce their potential rate of spread and fire intensity so the planned initial attack organization can meet initial attack objectives. 7. Forest Fuel Management Fund expenditure priorities are: a. (1) Natural fuels that pose a threat to human life and property b. (2) Unfunded activity fuel projects c. (3) Areas where fuels/fire behavior is a threat to management area objectives The following is a description of how each alternative meets these Forest Plan standards. Forest Plan standards 2d and 2e relate to wildfire suppression policy and requirements that are outside the scope of this project, and therefore compliance with these standards is not described. This project does not determine Forest Fuel Management expenditure priorities, so compliance with standard 2g is not addressed. Alternative 1 (No Action) The no action alternative would not take any preventative measures to protect human life and property within the planning area from an uncontrolled wildfire. The continued succession of fuels and vegetation, and mortality from insects and disease, and the exclusion of fire would create areas where the trend in fire behavior characteristics, in time, would be inconsistent with the goals, objectives and standards established in the Forest Plan. No activity fuels would be created under the no action alternative, so there would be no need to treat activity fuels, which is consistent with the Forest Plan (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 32). 27

34 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The proposed action alternative would use prescribed fire to help meet the goals of the Management Areas within the project area, consistent with the Forest Plan. It would help develop cost effective fire programs by making substantial progress toward reducing potential intensities of wildfire in areas affected by past fire suppression. The proposed action treats the largest number of acres and would best meet the goals, objectives, and standards of the Forest Plan because it would reduce the severity of fire effects, the costs of potential wildfire, and fire-caused changes in values on the most acres (2130 acres total). Treatments under the proposed action alternative would begin to trend stands away from potential fire behavior that could threaten human life and property in and near the project area. The activity fuels created would be treated in a manner that is consistent with the standards of the Forest Plan (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 32). Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would use prescribed fire to help meet the goals of the management areas within the project area, consistent with the Forest Plan. It would help develop cost effective fire programs by making substantial progress toward reducing potential intensities of wildfire in areas affected by past fire suppression. In regards to the more area treated to restore and maintain stands toward historical species composition, the better the alternative meets the Forest Plan goals. Alternative 3 treats fewer acres and would meet the goals, objectives, and standards of the Forest Plan, but to a lesser degree than the proposed action alternative. It would reduce the severity of fire effects, the costs of potential wildfire, and fire-caused changes in values on fewer acres (1336 acres total). Treatments under alternative 3 would begin to trend stands away from potential fire behavior that could threaten human life and property in and near the project area. The activity fuels created would be treated in a manner that is consistent with the standards of the Forest Plan (Fire and Fuels Report, p. 32). Hydrology Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects The no action alternative analysis assumes that none of the activities associated with the Kreist Creek Project would take place. Because there would be no ground disturbance with the no action alternative, there would be no direct effects with this alternative. By not taking any actions, there is a possible increase in risk of disturbance from wildfire and there would be no reductions in sediment yields (Hydrology Report, p. 30). Under the no action alternative, there would be no timber removal or road work that could change existing equivalent clearcut area values, rain-on-snow risks or road densities. However, in the event of wildfire, then equivalent clearcut area values and rain-on-snow risks would increase amplifying water yield in the streams (Hydrology Report, p. 31). With the no action alternative, roads that are currently delivering sediment or those roads at risk of delivering sediment would remain unimproved because no road improvement would occur. Those road segments that are currently delivering sediment to the tributaries of the Moyie (e.g. the Placer Creek crossing on Road 2541) would not be improved and could continue to deliver sediment to the mainstem of Moyie Creek during periods of high streamflow (e.g. spring runoff). 28

35 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Also, with the threat of wildfire, sediment delivery to the streams would increase if an intense fire swept through the project area (Hydrology Report, pp 34-35). Stream channel equilibrium would not be adversely impacted by the selection of alternative 1 for Snyder Creek, Orser Creek, Feist Creek, and the East Moyie Face drainage. Stream channel equilibrium in Placer Creek could be adversely impacted because of the currently undersized culvert on Road 2541 and because of the chronic sediment source off of Road 2540 into Placer Creek. Furthermore, should a large scale intense wildfire occur, there could be adverse impacts to riparian areas and domestic water sources (Hydrology Report, pp ). Cumulative Effects for Alternative 1 The cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities created the current hydrologic conditions. The potential for cumulative effects was analyzed at the project level which includes all five of the smaller drainages and the area referred to as the East Moyie Face. Analysis at a larger scale (Moyie River) would likely result in the dilution of any effects. Considering all of the past and present activities, those activities that had the greatest effects on sediment delivery, water yield and stream channel equilibrium were historic timber harvesting, road construction, railroad construction, wildfire, and private land development. Research and field observations show that the single greatest impacts to the hydrology of the six primary watersheds within the project area have been roads and the railroad. Because road improvements would not be implemented, then sediment delivery to the streams would not be improved (Hydrology Report, pp ). Delaying harvest in overstocked timber stands could result in an increase in tree mortality and fuel build-up. Continued fuel loading would increase the risk of high intensity wildfires that could kill most of the vegetation in both upland and riparian areas. Increased runoff combined with a lack of vegetative cover to protect soils would lead to increased peak stream flows, excessive sediment delivery and consequent adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat (Hydrology Report, p. 38). Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans for Alternative 1 The no action alternative would comply with all of the following directives, laws and regulations: Idaho Panhandle National Forests Forest Plan, INFISH, Federal Clean Water Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and Executive Orders and (Hydrology Report, p. 39). Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects Water Yield Implementation of alternative 2 would result in increases in water yields in most of the affected drainages. This is based on the projected increases in Equivalent Clearcut Area values and treatments within the areas of elevated risk for rain on snow (Hydrology Report, p. 43). The large forest openings (over 40 acres) created with regeneration harvest treatments would contribute to the increase in water yields. Once treated, these areas would likely result in increased water yields because fewer trees would be taking up moisture and because fewer trees would result in more snow accumulation on the ground, rather than in the tree crowns. Based on research 29

36 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment (USDA 1974), it is anticipated that hydrologic recovery would be achieved after the stand reaches 25 to 30 years of age (based on tree heights and spacing) (Hydrology Report, p. 44). Though water yields would increase, it is not expected that most of the streams would be adversely affected for specific reasons. For example, Orser Creek is a watershed that does not connect to any other water body. Any water yield increases in Orser Creek would not adversely impact channel stability nor would it impact aquatic resources because field reviews showed the stream channel to be stable (Hydrology Report, p. 47). Kreist and Snyder Creeks all flow directly into the Moyie River. Water yield increases in these drainages would not destabilize the channels because the existing channels are well vegetated and stable enough to accommodate these projected increases in water yields. This information is based on field reviews in the area of interest that were completed in 2012 and 2013 (Hydrology Report, pp ). Implementation of the proposed activities in the Placer Creek drainage would result in short term water yield increases. There are 469 acres of proposed vegetation treatments in the Placer Creek drainage (including contiguous openings exceeding 40 acres). These treatments would result in a short term increase in water yield because of the extensive openings and resulting increase in Equivalent Clearcut Areas. Within the channel, the increase in water yields could mobilize existing sediments that would be deposited behind existing in-channel obstructions. The amount of increase in water yield would not adversely impact most of Placer Creek because the field reviews documented that the channel conditions are relatively stable. The only reach where the increase in water yields could prove problematic is the portion of Placer Creek that is immediately adjacent to Road In this 0.75 mile long reach, field observations noted several locations where existing streamflows are activating both large and small mass failures on both the road fill and the cut slope above the road. Because Road 2540 is failing in specific locations, and because we are concerned that increasing water yields could further destabilize the road fills, specific mitigation is proposed to stabilize eight locations where the road fill is failing into Placer Creek. The proposed mitigation includes placing angular rock and root wads in the failing road fill slope using heavy equipment, such as an excavator. Up to 25 root wads would be obtained from live standing or trees that have been recently blown down within unit 22 or unit 36. The root wads would come from trees that are approximately 14 to 18 inches diameter breast height. All slope stabilization work would be completed prior to timber harvesting in Placer Creek. This mitigation would stabilize the existing failing slopes from projected water yield increases and would prevent any further sediment delivery from Road 2540 into Placer Creek (Hydrology Report, pp. 42, 46-47). There would be no detectable increase in water yields in the Feist Creek or East Moyie Face drainages. In the Feist Creek drainage this is because there are only 52 acres of proposed vegetation treatment and in the East Moyie Face drainage the proposed treatments are spread out across the landscape (Hydrology Report, p. 47). Temporary road construction would occur in all drainages except for Orser. The proposed construction of 0.3 miles of temporary road within the Kreist Creek drainage would result in a short term increase in water yield. The increase in water yield would decrease after the road is removed post-harvest treatments. The channel capacities of Kreist Creek and road drainage systems associated with the drainage would not be exceeded. Field notes documented that the mainstem of Kreist Creek is relatively stable and the channel has ample large wood that provides channel integrity as well as sediment storage (Hydrology Report, p. 46). The proposed construction of 0.1 mile of temporary road within the Placer Creek drainage would not be detectable in terms of water yield (Hydrology Report, p. 46). The amount of increase in 30

37 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests water yield in Snyder Creek from the proposed 0.1 miles of temporary road construction would not adversely impact Snyder Creek (Hydrology Report, p. 47). The proposed road closure and decommissioning totals 1.3 miles and is located in the Kreist Creek drainage. These activities would not immediately affect water yields. However, over time, the re-establishment of vegetation along with the naturalization of slope hydrology would reduce overland runoff and increase infiltration capacities (Hydrology Report, p. 46). Proposed activities would result in in minimal, non-measurable increases in water yields in the Feist Creek Drainage and no detectable increase in the East Moyie Face drainage (Hydrology Report, p. 47). Table 7. Equivalent Clearcut Areas (ECA), Rain on Snow acres, road mileage reduction and temporary road construction by sub-drainage under alternative 2 Drainage Existing Equivalent Cleacut Area Alternative 2 ECA percentage after implementation Alternative 2 Treatment acres for Increased Risk for Rain On Snow Alternative 2 Road mileage reduction (decom. and storage) (miles) Alternative 2 temporary road construction (miles) Kreist 2% 16% Placer 5% 18% Snyder 1% 26% Orser 1% 30% Feist 7% 11% East Face Moyie 2% 7% Sediment Yield Since all timber harvest would include design features to protect soil and water, and no timber harvest activities would occur within riparian habitat conservation areas, sediment delivery from the vegetation treatments is considered negligible. Research studies and monitoring results conducted on the IPNF verify that when riparian habitat conservation areas are incorporated into timber sales, sediment delivery to stream channels is not measurable or is negligible (USDA Forest Service 2000, 1999; Belt et al. 1992; Reid and Hilton 1988). Given that in all instances, best management practices would be applied to the units, and riparian harvest treatments would not occur, it is highly doubtful that any sediment would move through the harvest units and only minimal sediment would be generated from the burn only units and during road removal/improvement efforts (Hydrology Report, p. 50). Total sediment yields from the implementation of alternative 2 would be 54 tons/yr, averaged over 20 years. Because of the distance to any of the drainages from the harvesting as well as numerous in-channel, overland obstructions, best management practices and riparian habitat conservation area buffers, it is anticipated that only a very small fraction of the sediment could ever be delivered to any water body. (Hydrology Report, p. 49) In the short-term, the proposed road construction and road removal work associated with alternative 2 would result in minor increases in sediment yield. In the long-term, there would be a net reduction in sediment delivery to all affected project area streams because of the road and 31

38 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment stream crossing improvements. Overall, any increases in sediment yield under alternative 2 would be minimal and short term with the incorporation of the design criteria (Hydrology Report, p. 50). The proposed road decommissioning and storage may result in additional sediment delivery to the channels, though the amount of increase would be minimal with application of best management practices. Incidental sediment delivery may occur during the six miles of road improvement,1.3 miles road removal work and 0.3 miles of temporary road construction that is planned for the Kreist Creek drainage. About 1.5 miles of road proposed for reconstruction and about 0.45 miles of road proposed for removal are identified as being located on land types that are moderately to highly sensitive to disturbance. All of the 0.3 miles of temporary road construction in the Kreist watershed is located on stable soils. In summary sediment delivery to Kreist Creek under alternative 2 would be short-term and minimal (Hydrology Report, p. 50). There would be a short-term increase in sediment delivery to Placer Creek during the initial road maintenance and reconstruction improvements and temporary road construction. About 2.1 miles of the proposed 8.5 miles of maintenance/ reconstruction work is located on moderately to highly sensitive soils. All of the proposed temporary road construction in the Placer drainage is located on stable soils. However, implementation of alternative 2 would result in a long-term net reduction of sediment delivery to Placer Creek because of the proposed 8.5 miles of road improvements (Hydrology Report, p. 50). One existing source of increased sediment delivery to Placer Creek is the road fill between Road 2540 and Placer Creek. Field observations documented that the road fill is currently failing. The likely cause of the fill failures is a blend of inherent instability and that Placer Creek is eroding the toe of the road fill slope. With an increase in water yield in Placer Creek, there is an increased risk that the road fill between Placer Creek and Road 2540 could be further eroded and deliver sediment to Placer Creek. Because of this increased risk of sediment delivery to Placer Creek, specific mitigation is planned to stabilize the existing slope failures contributing sediment to Placer Creek. With the proposed mitigation along Road 2540 and project specific design criteria and best management practices, the implementation of the proposed road activities would not increase sediment delivery to Placer Creek (Hydrology Report, p. 50). Within the Snyder Creek drainage, incidental sediment delivery may occur during the 2.2 miles of road improvement work and 0.05 mile of temporary road construction. About 0.2 mile of the proposed road improvement work is located on moderately to highly sensitive land types. All but about 60 feet of the proposed 0.05 miles of temporary road work is located on stable soils. With the use of best management practices, sediment delivery to Snyder Creek under alternative 2 would be short-term and minimal (Hydrology Report, p. 51). Within the Feist Creek drainage, a little over one mile of road is proposed for reconstruction that could introduce short term localized increases in sediment to small tributaries of Feist Creek. About 0.14 miles of road reconstruction are located on moderately sensitive soils. All of the proposed 0.22 miles of temporary road construction in the Feist drainage is located on stable soils. Sediment delivery to Feist Creek under Alternative 2 is predicted to be short-term and minimal due to the use of best management practices and design features (Hydrology Report, pp ). In the East Moyie Face drainage, the proposed 2.7 miles of road improvement would occur well away from live water, with the exception of a few small culvert crossings. Standard best management practices would be applied to reduce incidental sediment delivery. All of the proposed 1.1 miles of temporary road construction in the East Moyie drainage is located on stable 32

39 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests soils. Sediment delivery to the Moyie from the implementation of alternative 2 is predicted to be non-existent (Hydrology Report, p. 52). Stream dynamics/equilibrium Field observations documented that Placer Creek and the area referred to as the East Face of the Moyie River are hydrologically compromised, whereas, the Orser, Feist, Snyder, and Kreist Creeks are hydrologically stable. The proposed harvest, burning and road treatments are not expected to increase water or sediment yield enough to affect the channel equilibrium in any of the affected drainages. There are no mechanical treatments proposed within any of the riparian habitat conservation areas. The incorporation of BMPs and protection zones would prevent any adverse impacts to all domestic water sources within the Kreist Creek Project area (Hydrology Report, p. 52). Cumulative Effects for Alternative 2 The cumulative effects analysis examines the combination of direct and indirect effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities throughout the watershed (Hydrology Report, p. 27). This discussion is premised on the cumulative effects discussion presented under the no-action alternative and is continued with the potential direct and indirect effects should alternative 2 be implemented. Cumulatively, there would be some short-term isolated increases in sediment yield and water yield with the implementation of alternative 2. Based on the recent field investigations, modeling results, and prescribed BMPS, it is anticipated that the affected streams would accommodate the potential increases of both water and sediment without adversely impacting stream channel equilibrium (Hydrology Report, p. 54). Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Water yield The implementation of alternative 3 would result in little to no increases in water yield for the affected drainages Water yield increases with alternative 3 would be less than with alternative 2, mostly because there would be no openings exceeding 40 acres (Hydrology Report, p. 55). Sediment Yield Overall the impact of the alternative 3 on sediment yield would be less than the impacts with alternative 2. There is no proposed timber harvesting within any riparian habitat conservation areas and thus there would be no direct or indirect delivery of sediment to any streams associated with the timber harvesting (Hydrology Report, p. 57). Total sediment yield from the implementation of alternative 3 is estimated to be 27.7 tons/year, averaged over 20 years. Because of the distance to any of the drainages from the harvesting as well as numerous inchannel and overland obstructions, it is anticipated that only a very small fraction of the sediment could ever be delivered to any water body (Hydrology Report, p. 58). Stream Dynamics/equilibrium The proposed harvest, burning and road treatments are not expected to increase water and/or sediment yield enough to affect the channel equilibrium in any of the affected drainages. The proposed road improvement work would reduce current sediment delivery at several crossings within the Kreist Creek area of interest. The incorporation of BMPs and protection zones would 33

40 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment prevent any potential impacts to domestic water sources within the Kreist Creek area of interest (Hydrology Report, p. 60). Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis examines the combination of direct and indirect effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities throughout the watershed (Hydrology Report, p. 27). This discussion is premised on the cumulative effects discussion presented under the no action alternative and is continued with the potential direct and indirect effects should alternative 3 be implemented. Like alternative 2, implementation of alternative 3 would cumulatively result in some short-term isolated increases in sediment yield and water yield. However, there would be long-term reductions in sediment delivery where roads are improved or removed. Based on the recent field investigations, modeling results and prescribed BMPS, it is anticipated that the affected streams would accommodate the potential increases of both water and sediment without resulting in adverse impacts (Hydrology Report, pp ). Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans for Alternatives 2 and 3 Both action alternatives meet the requirements of the IPNF Forest Plan for water resources and fisheries. Alternative 2 and alternative 3 also meet the requirements for fisheries resources in the Forest Plan, as amended by the Inland Native Fish Strategy. This includes meeting State water quality standards (Hydrology Report, pp ). The proposed action alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan because adequate riparian buffers are provided and there are no anticipated long term adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on aquatic habitat. All activities are in compliance with the guidelines in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (Hydrology Report, pp ). Alternative 2 and alternative 3 meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the State of Idaho Implementation. Implementation of either action alternative would maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the streams in the project area, in adherence with 33 U.S.C The action alternatives are also compliant with the Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act, and Executive Orders 11988, 11990, 11988, and (Hydrology Report, p. 64). Fisheries Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects No treatments would occur under alternative 1. Aquatic conditions with regard to fish habitat and fish distribution would remain the same (Fisheries Report, p. 18). Indirectly, implementing alternative 1 would lead to increasing amounts of fuel on the ground which increases the risk of a high intensity fire. If a fire were to occur in the area of interest, the likelihood that it would have negative impacts to the fisheries resource and burn a larger percentage of each watershed area is greater under the no action alternative (Fisheries Report, p. 18). Also, problems with existing roads would not be corrected and issues like road drainage, undersized culverts, and unchecked drainage ditches running into streams with no buffer would persist and possibly become worse (Fisheries Report, p. 19). 34

41 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would not have any direct effects on aquatic conditions. Since there would be no quantifiable effects from this alternative, there would be no cumulative effects (Fisheries Report, p. 20). Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 Alternatives 2 and 3 are very similar in silvicultural prescriptions, but differ in the amount of acres treated. Effects from silvicultural treatment are expected to be less with alternative 3 and only slightly greater with alternative 2 (Fisheries Report, pp ). Alternative 2 would result in forest openings larger than 40 acres in size through a mix of even-aged and two aged management systems. In general, it is expected that changes to fish habitat would be minor due to the use of RHCA buffers (Fisheries Report, pp ). Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of either alternative 2 or alternative 3 would result in the net reduction of fuels on the ground, ladder fuels, and increase the percentage of fire resistant tree species (Fisheries Report, p. 26). Lessening the risk of an intense wildfire would improve the chance that riparian forests would persist following future fires and continue to serve as buffers to thermal input from solar radiation. No direct effects to water temperatures would occur as a result of implementation of either action alternative and the indirect effect would be the maintenance of suitable water temperatures for native westslope cutthroat trout (Fisheries Report, p. 27). It is highly doubtful that any sediment would move through the harvest units and only minimal sediment would be generated from the burn only units. This is because in all instances best management practices would be applied to the units and there would be no treatments within riparian areas. Additionally, spot rocking over culverts passing fish-bearing streams, applying Inland Native Fish Strategy buffers, implementing best management practices in all units, and pursuing opportunities to upgrade undersized culverts would ensure that there is a net reduction in sediment addition to streams and direct and indirect effects to fisheries would be negligible (Fisheries Report, p. 27). There are no direct or indirect effects expected to stream habitat complexity in any of the drainages within the area of interest. This is primarily because existing channel conditions are either relatively stable or on an improving trend (Fisheries Report, pp ). By requiring buffers within harvest units no changes to riparian zone function are expected. In unit 37, prescribed burning would be allowed to back into the RHCA buffer of Orser Creek to stimulate aspen regeneration and improve existing conditions and resilience. A study on prescribed fire and the effects to riparian zones (Arkle et al., 2012) revealed that effects to stream habitat, periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and fish were negligible. The prescribed burn would also encourage vigorous growth of riparian vegetation which, for long term health, would improve stream channel conditions such as sediment buffering and thermal cover (Fisheries Report, pp ). Fish habitat may be redistributed with the associated increases in water yield in Placer Creek, Snyder Creek, and Kreist Creek. These changes in channel complexity lead to adjustments in fish abundance and migration to and from feeding, resting, and spawning areas. The changes to habitat fragmentation are not expected to be widespread nor outside of the range of natural 35

42 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment variability. These changes are expected to be localized in nature and not affect the overall distribution of fish across their natural range (Fisheries Report, pp ). Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis examines the combination of direct and indirect effects of the proposed actions as well as all past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities listed and discussed on pages 16 through 18 of the Fisheries Report. Short term, temporary increases in sediment may occur from road maintenance activity or culvert replacement. However, the potential for sediment generated from these activities reaching a live stream is low due to the use of BMP s, INFS, and Design Criteria. BMP s would be implemented with each action to reduce impacts to fisheries resources. The long term benefit from road improvement projects would outweigh short term impacts. Water temperatures may increase slightly from prescribed burning in the riparian area of Orser Creek but gradual returns to natural fluctuations in temperature are expected with the regeneration of riparian vegetation following treatment. Adherence with INFS guidelines would insure that changes to riparian zone function and water temperature are negligible. Indirect effects with regard to stream habitat complexity and woody debris could manifest as changes to pool volume, pool frequency, and cover from woody debris. Increases in water yield would mobilize sediment and woody debris leading to changes in habitat parameters such as pool volume, depth, and frequency. Although habitat complexity can change, it is not likely there would be a cumulative effect of a net reduction in fish habitat (Fisheries Report, p. 30). Timber harvest has occurred in the past in the cumulative effects analysis area and has likely affected fisheries resources in the project area. Timber harvest is expected to continue on adjacent private timber lands and the greatest concern associated with these harvest activities would be the effects of sedimentation, increased stream temperatures, and potential decreased aquatic habitat complexity on the fisheries resource, especially if timber harvest occurs in riparian areas (Fisheries Report, p. 30). Railroad activities will continue to operate through the project area regardless of the proposed action. Barriers to fish passage will persist on Feist, Kreist, and Snyder Creeks thus precluding migration from the Moyie River to these tributaries. Barriers to fish passage effect fish population resiliency to disturbances in the Moyie River system when displaced fish are not able to access suitable habitat elsewhere. Vegetation clearing along the railroad right-of-way reduces streamside habitat and shelter for resident westslope cutthroat trout (Fisheries Report, p. 30). Private land development in the cumulative effects analysis area includes home site development, road building, timber management on smaller land tracts, agriculture, and livestock grazing. These human-induced disturbances tend to lead to increased runoff through clearing of land and hardening of surfaces, reduced vegetation upland and streamside, and increases in sediment transport and water temperatures (Fisheries Report, pp ). Implementation of either action alternative would improve watershed resiliency to disturbances such as fire, drought, insect and disease outbreaks, floods, and landslides. The expectations for fisheries resources are maintenance of overall existing conditions, with minor changes as a result in increase in water yield in some streams in the short term and a beneficial trend with regard to all issue indicators projected into the future (Fisheries Report, p. 31). 36

43 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans All alternatives meet the requirements of the IPNF Forest Plan for fisheries resource standards, as amended by the Inland Native Fish Strategy (Fisheries Report, pp ). Fry Emergence Amendment to the Forest Plan On June 2, 2005, the Forest Supervisor for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests signed a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact that amended the Forest Plan to modify or remove objectives, standards and monitoring requirements pertaining to fry emergence success (IPNF 2005). The amendment was implemented because the fry emergence objectives, standards and monitoring requirements that were in the IPNF Forest Plan did not contribute as well as INFS objectives, standards, guidelines and monitoring direction towards meeting the goals of providing sufficient habitat in support of maintaining diverse and viable populations of fish species across the forest. In addition, because of the limited application of the fry emergence models and their unreliability, and the inability to determine fry emergence success in the field due to high variability affected by multiple natural and human-caused factors, the Forest Service was not able to state with any degree of certainty whether measures for fry emergence success were accurate or precise (Fisheries Report, pp ). All alternatives comply with the Inland Native Fish Strategy and the Clean Water Act (Fisheries Report, pp. 21, 30-31). All alternatives meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Effects determinations on bull trout will be provided in a Biological Assessment (Fisheries Report, pp. 21 and 31). Fish species that may be affected by the project (westslope cutthroat trout) are well distributed across the Forest. Westslope cutthroat trout are found in100 percent of 4th code HUC watersheds (large watersheds such as the Priest River, Kootenai River, and St. Joe River) on the IPNF. Therefore, based on the distribution of species across the Forest, the lack of connectivity between large watersheds, the limited cumulative effects area, and the negligible short term effects on this species and their habitat, the Kreist Creek Project would not affect viability of any threatened, endangered, sensitive, or MIS fish species on the IPNF (Fisheries Report, p. 31). All alternatives are consistent with Executive Orders and for floodplain and wetland protection, and Executive Order for protection of recreational fisheries (Fisheries Report, pp. 21 and 31). Noxious Weeds Documented weed species in the project area include spotted knapweed, Canada thistle, bull thistle, orange hawkweed, meadow hawkweed, goatweed, oxeye daisy, dalmation toadflax, and common tansy (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 2). Isolated populations of some of these species occur in riparian areas, particularly common tansy. The primary noxious weed populations, especially of knapweed, goatweed, thistle, hawkweeds, and daisy are associated with existing roads, including county-maintained and National Forest System (NFS) roads. Weed infestation along road corridors is scattered and occurs at moderate levels within the project area, however heavier infestations occur along FSR 2517A and 2517B. In addition, scattered weed populations considered to be low/light infestations, occur along a few trail systems within the project area, and moderate weed infestations, particularly of meadow 37

44 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment hawkweed and goatweed, also occur along the lower two miles of Trail 32, west of where it intersects with Trail 205. Overall weed infestation levels on National Forest System lands, outside of road and trail corridors, are very low to low (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 2). Effects Specific to Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, there would be no change from current management activities on NFS lands in the project area. Noxious weed management would continue to occur as the Bonners Ferry RD Noxious Weed Control environmental impact statement allows, which for the Kreist Creek project area is very limited. As a result, some existing weed infestations would continue to be rotationally treated; however, heavy infestations, particularly along FSR 2517A and 2517B would remain. Although some limited weeds would be treated resulting in some direct effects to weed populations, the lack of comprehensive weed management throughout the area would indirectly allow weed populations to continue to expand, as well as potentially allow new invaders to become established within the project area (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 9). Because there would be no new road construction, timber harvest or underburning, there would likely be no significant changes to forest canopy cover or significant soil disturbance. Therefore, there would be no direct impacts to noxious weeds. The short-term risk of weed spread would not change from current levels, and the majority of the weed spread or expansion would continue to occur adjacent to existing roads and trails. Indirectly however, the continued increase in fuel loading resulting from no action could increase the long-term risk of weed introduction and spread in the context of a higher risk of stand-replacing fires (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 9). Cumulative Effects In the short term, the no action alternative would contribute a very low level of cumulative effects to the risk of weed spread. Existing weed infestations would likely continue to expand primarily adjacent to road and trail corridors, because without timber harvest or burning activities to reduce adjacent forest canopy cover and/or produce soil disturbance weeds will likely not have suitable habitat to spread elsewhere. Over the long term, implementation of the no action alternative would further increase the risk of widespread stand-replacing fires. Should such a fire occur, it would likely cause existing infestations to spread to previously un-infested areas. It would also provide the disturbance that would allow dormant weed seeds in the soil to germinate. However, the occurrence and intensity of a future wildfire in the project area is difficult to predict (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 10). Past wildfire suppression in the project area has increased the risk of severe, stand-replacing fires. Implementation of the no action alternative would not address these accumulated fuels in the project area. The risk of widespread stand-replacing fires would be higher under this alternative than under the action alternatives. There would, therefore, be a higher risk of widespread vegetation and/or soil disturbance, which would cause an increased risk of weed introduction and spread across the project area (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 10). Noxious weed treatment and monitoring would continue to follow guidelines and priorities established in the Bonners Ferry RD Noxious Weeds Control Project EIS (USDA Forest Service 1995). Therefore, weed treatment or management within the Kreist Creek project area would be limited (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 10). 38

45 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Although the acreage of proposed activities varies between alternative, the potential for direct and indirect effects are similar between the two alternatives. Because both alternative 2 and alternative 3 include timber harvest, fuels treatment, road reconstruction, maintenance, improvements, and/or road decommissioning, there is a greater shortterm risk of weed introduction and spread than with the alternative 1 (no action) (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 16). The risk of spread of existing weed infestations from project activities would vary based on the proximity of a weed seed source to areas of disturbance. The highest risk of weed spread would likely be associated with regeneration (even-aged) silvicultural treatments, ground-based logging systems, and new road construction. Moderate risk of weed spread would likely be associated with skyline type harvest systems, thinning (uneven-aged) silvicultural treatments, and road maintenance, improvement, reconstruction, or decommissioning activities. Very low to low risk of weed spread might be associated with pre-commercial thinning activities. Project design features would reduce but would not eliminate those risks (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 16). Preventive seeding (using source-identified, site-appropriate, locally-adapted, native and desired non-native species) for disturbed sites (such as landings and roads proposed for decommissioning) would also reduce but not eliminate the risk of introduction of new weed invaders. Contract requirements to clean off-road harvest and road construction equipment prior to entry into the sale area would also reduce but would not eliminate the risk of introduction of weeds. Monitoring and treatment of new weed infestations discovered on NFS lands would further reduce the risk that any new weed infestations would become established. The risk of establishment of new weed invaders to the project area is expected to be low with implementation of the required design features (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 16). The risk of weed spread in areas proposed for underburning would vary for different plant communities. Those dry areas where shrub species are predicted to dominate may be at lower risk, while dry grass and forb-dominated communities may be at higher risk for weed invasion, depending on the season and severity of the burn in each community type. Typically our moistforest and cold-forest habitats within the majority of the Kreist project area would be shrubdominated for 5-25 years following a fire disturbance. Therefore, the risk of weed spread following underburning is highest for the first 1-5 years following the disturbance, while canopy coverage (comprised of shrubs and trees) re-establishes. Following that period of time, as shrub and tree cover increases the risk of weed spread and new weed introduction into the treatment areas slowly declines (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 16). Cumulative Effects Over the long term, the loss of tree canopy cover from implementing the proposed activities is considered temporary. As tree canopy closes, those areas proposed for harvest and/or underburning would have decreased susceptibility to noxious weed infestation and spread. This process could take years. In areas with a higher shrub component, recovery of the shrub canopy layer would be much quicker (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 16). Past wildfire suppression in the project area has increased the risk of severe stand-replacing fires. The proposed treatments under alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the current fuel loading, thereby 39

46 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment reducing the risk of widespread wildfire disturbance conducive to weed establishment and spread. There may be a lower risk of widespread, severe disturbance of vegetation, soil and tree canopy than under the no action alternative (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 17). Design features to reduce the risk of weed spread from project activities would reduce the risk that weeds may become established in the project area (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 17). When combined with all of the past, current and reasonably foreseeable activities, overall cumulative effects of alternatives 2 and 3 with regard to noxious weeds are expected to be low for new weed invaders and moderate for existing infestations of spotted knapweed, thistles, common tansy, oxeye daisy, meadow hawkweed and goatweed, based on their current infestation levels within and adjacent to the project area (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 18). Regulatory Consistency Forest Plan direction is to "provide moderate control actions to prevent new weed species from becoming established". Although the no action alternative meets Forest Plan direction by not creating disturbance conducive to new noxious weed invasions or spread of existing weed populations, the no action alternative does not do anything to address the lack of weed management in the project area in order to prevent new and potential weed invaders from becoming established (Noxious Weeds Report, pp ). Executive Order #13112 defines [noxious weed] control as appropriate, eradicating, suppressing, reducing, or managing invasive species populations, preventing spread of invasive species from areas where they are present, and taking steps such as restoration of native species and habitats to reduce the effects of invasive species and to prevent further infestations (E.O , Section 1B). The no action alternative does not address E.O (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 11). Alternatives 2 and 3 meet Forest Plan direction by providing moderate control actions through project design, as required by the Forest Plan, to prevent new weed species from becoming established (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 18). Noxious weed management within the Kreist Creek area of interest under either alternative 2 (the proposed action) or alternative 3, as directed by federal and state laws and the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weed Control Project FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1995), meets full compliance with the Federal Policy of Noxious Weed Management (P.L ), the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Idaho Code 24 Chapter 22, and Executive Order The Bonners Ferry Ranger District is currently implementing a weed management plan across the district (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 19). Because NEPA regulations require Federal agencies to "Integrate the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency practice so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively" (40 CFR Sec ), the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weed Control Project FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1995) was designed to coordinate and implement all pertinent federal and state laws and procedures concurrently. Therefore, the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weed Control Project and both action alternatives under the Kreist Creek project comply with NEPA Regulation 40 CFR (Noxious Weeds Report, p. 19). 40

47 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Rare Plants Threatened and Endangered Plant Species There are no known occurrences of federally listed threatened or endangered plant species on Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) lands, although suitable habitat for some threatened species is expected to occur on the Forest. The US Fish and Wildlife Service currently lists no Threatened plant species as suspected to occur in Boundary County in Idaho, in which the Kreist project area occurs (Rare Plants Report, p. 4). Field botanical surveys are routinely conducted for projects on the Kaniksu portion of the IPNF in potentially suitable habitats for water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) and Spalding s catchfly (Silene spaldingii), both of which are federally listed Threatened species, and no occurrences of either species have been documented to date. Activity areas in the Kreist Creek project area were field surveyed in 2012 and 2013, and no potentially suitable habitat for, or occurrences of, threatened or endangered plants were found (Rare Plants Report, p. 4). Sensitive Species and Forest Species of Concern Sensitive species are determined by the Regional Forester as those species for which population viability is a concern, as indicated by a current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or habitat capability that would reduce the species' existing distribution. Fifty-six sensitive species are known or suspected to occur in the Kaniksu portion of the IPNF, and suitable habitat for some of these sensitive species occurs within the Kreist project area (Rare Plants Report, p. 4). During botanical surveys, one new occurrence of sensitive plant species was identified within the project area. That population was within a planned activity area, so the area around the sensitive plant population would be buffered and excluded from the proposed project activities (Rare Plants Report, p. 3). Although no additional rare plants were found during surveys, potentially suitable habitat for some rare plants does exist within the proposed activity areas. In particular, potentially habitat for rare plants within the dry forest, moist forest, and cold forest habitat guilds was identified during surveys; however, most of the proposed treatment areas are within currently unsuitable habitat for rare plants of any kind. No aquatic, peatland, deciduous riparian, wet forest, or subalpine habitat for rare plants was located within any proposed activity areas (Rare Plants Report, pp. 3-4). In addition, some Forest species of concern (FSOC) which have suitable habitat within the project area are addressed in the rare plant analysis. A Forest species of concern is generally not at risk on a rangewide, regionwide, or state level, but may be imperiled within a planning area, such as a National Forest. While biological evaluations are not required to address FSOC plants, these species are addressed in effects analyses to provide for maintenance of populations as directed in NFMA. During botanical surveys, no Forest Species of Concern were identified within the project area; however, potentially suitable dry forest habitat was found within proposed activity areas which could support pine broomrape (Orobanche pinorum.) A list of sensitive species and Forest species of concern, as well as a detailed analysis can be located in the Rare Plants Report in the project file (Rare Plants Report, p. 4-5). Effects Determinations For a specific effects determination for each action, as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities, please see the Rare Plants report in the project file. 41

48 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Threatened and Endangered Species No endangered plant species are suspected to occur in the IPNF, and no threatened plant species are suspected to occur in Boundary County (USDI 2011). Furthermore, activity areas in the Kreist project were field surveyed in 2012 and 2013, and no occurrences of threatened or endangered plants were found. Furthermore, no habitat for threatened or endangered plants was found. Therefore, this project would produce no direct or indirect effects to any federally listed plant species (Rare Plants Report, p. 15). Because no direct or indirect effects would occur to any federally listed species, there would be no cumulative effects to populations or suitable habitat for federally listed species from implementation of any of the three alternatives (Rare Plants Report, p. 15). Effects Specific to Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Sensitive Plants and Forest Species of Concern Management activities would not change from current levels, and current vegetation trends would be expected to continue. Because there would be no new road construction, timber harvest or underburning, there would be the potential for very low direct impacts to rare plants or their habitat (Rare Plants Report, p. 15). Indirectly, the continued increase in forest fuel loading could pose a threat to suitable rare plant habitat in the context of a higher risk of stand replacing fires. Such fires could extirpate the documented occurrences and/or undetected rare moonworts and other rare plants in the project area, particularly those associated with the moist forest and cold forest habitats. Habitat suitability for rare moonworts may be reduced if fire intensity is sufficient to destroy soil mycorrhizae on which these species depend (Allen 1991). In addition, oceanspray, the preferred host plant for pine broomrape, could be at least temporarily reduced in cover by a high-intensity fire (Crane and Fischer 1986) (Rare Plants Report, p. 15). Cumulative Effects Sensitive Plants and Forest Species of Concern When combined with the following past, current and ongoing activities and events, no action has potential cumulative effects to rare plants that differ from those of Alternatives 2 and 3. All other cumulative effects of this alternative are discussed above under Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (Rare Plants Report, p. 15). Past Activities and Events Past wildfire suppression in the project area has increased the risk of severe stand-replacing fires. Implementation of no action would not address the accumulated forest fuels in the project area (Rare Plants Report, p. 15). 42

49 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Current and Ongoing Activities Ongoing wildfire suppression in the project area would increase the probability of severe standreplacing fires. Implementation of no action would contribute to the continued accumulation of forest fuels in the project area (Rare Plants Report, p. 16). Determination of Cumulative Effects Resulting from Alternative 1 (No Action) Sensitive Plants and Forest Species of Concern When combined with the effects of past and ongoing fire suppression, implementation of no action would further increase the risk of severe stand replacing fires. Should such a fire occur, it may impact populations and/or reduce habitat suitability for rare moonworts, ground pine, sitka clubmoss, and pine broomrape, at least temporarily. No action could result in low, moderate, or high cumulative effects to these species and/or habitats which could support dry forest-, moist forest-, or cold forest-dependent rare plants, depending on where a fire occurs and the severity or intensity of the fire. However, the occurrence and intensity of a future wildfire in suitable habitat for these species would be difficult to predict (Rare Plants Report, p. 16). Effects Common to Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 & 3) With implementation of either of these action alternatives, some amount of timber harvest, underburning, and road maintenance/reconstruction/decommissioning would occur. Although the acreage for proposed activities varies between alternatives, the potential for direct and indirect effects are similar between the two alternatives (except that spatially alternative 2 would treat approximately 794 more acres of forest stands than alternative 3). Because timber harvest often results in significant changes to canopy cover, as well as the potential for soil disturbance (both issue indicators for rare plants), those impacts are described. In addition, some opportunities were identified which, as funding is available, could be implemented with either action alternative (Rare Plants Report, p. 16). Direct and Indirect Effects Sensitive Plants and Forest Species of Concern There is no aquatic, subalpine, or wet forest guild habitat in or adjacent to proposed treatment units or proposed road locations for either action alternative. Because these guilds would not incur ground disturbance or changes in canopy coverage, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to these habitat guilds or species of these guilds under either alternative (Rare Plants Report, p. 16). Although there are some microsites of peatland and deciduous riparian rare plant habitat adjacent to the project area, no proposed treatment areas in either action alternative contain such habitat. Because these guilds would not incur ground disturbance or changes to canopy coverage, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to these habitat guilds or species that occur within these guilds under either alternative (Rare Plants Report, p. 16). Most of the moist forest habitat identified in the coarse filter assessment and during surveys tended to have only marginally suitable potential to support rare plants (specifically Botrychium spp.). One new occurrence of moonwort was identified within proposed treatment areas, resulting in modification to that proposed treatment, in order to adequately protect the newly-located population. No other occurrences of moist forest habitat rare plant species were found within proposed treatment areas. However, even where thorough floristic surveys were conducted, 43

50 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment undetected individual rare plants and/or suitable moist forest habitat may be directly impacted by project activities. Ground-based harvest, cable-yarding (to a limited extent), and road improvement or maintenance activities can all cause soil disturbance which could directly affect rare plant individuals or indirectly affect soil mycorrhizae in suitable habitat for rare moonworts. Therefore, the risk of direct effects to rare plants within the moist forest habitat guild, as a result of implementing Alternatives 2 or 3, are predicted to be low to moderate (Rare Plants Report, pp ). Indirectly, there could also be a risk of prescribed fire impacting suitable habitat for rare moonworts and other moist forest-dependent rare plant species. The extent of risk would depend on many factors, including timing of the burn, phenology of the plant species involved and occurrence of abnormally wet or droughty conditions at the time of the burn (Rare Plants Report, p. 17). Based on the best available knowledge, the risk of indirect impacts to rare plants in the moist forest guild, such as undetected rare moonwort individuals, from prescribed fire under Alternatives 2 or 3 would be very low (Rare Plants Report, p. 17). Dry forest habitat, which is moderately-suitable habitat for pine broomrape, occurs within both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Although this area was surveyed intensively for dry forest guild rare plants, no populations of pine broomrape (Orobanche pinorum) were found (Rare Plants Report, p. 17). Following fifty or more years of fire suppression, stands in dry forest habitats are now more densely stocked and have greater canopy closure, increasing the probability of severe, standreplacing fires that could reduce the availability of suitable habitat for rare plants, both in terms of canopy removal and adverse soil and ground-layer effects (Lichthardt 2003). The proposed action in either Alternative 2 or 3 would, to some degree, trend the treated areas toward historical conditions would reduce the risk of large, stand-replacing fires. Therefore, the risk of direct effects to rare plants within the dry forest habitat guild, as a result of implementing Alternatives 2 or 3, is predicted to be low (Rare Plants Report, pp ). Cold forest habitat, which is moderately-suitable habitat for ground pine and sitka clubmoss, occurs within both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Although this area was surveyed intensively for cold forest guild rare plants, no populations of rare plants within the cold forest habitat guild were found (Rare Plants Report, p. 18). The proposed activities within habitat suitable for cold forest habitat guild rare plants are somewhat consistent with natural disturbance regimes in the lodgepole pine/spruce habitats that support rare species within these guilds. Stand structure and landscape pattern in regions where cold forest plant species occurs in Idaho have historically been determined by fire. The last large, mixed severity fire in the project area occurred in the 1930s. However, following fifty or more years of fire suppression, stands in these cold forest habitats may have missed one or more intermediate ground fire cycles and are now more densely stocked and have greater canopy closure than typically occurred historically. Those factors increase the probability of more severe, stand-replacing fires that could reduce the availability of suitable habitat, both in terms of canopy removal and adverse soil and ground-layer effects (Lichthardt 2003.) However, the proposed action would, to some degree, begin to trend the treated areas toward historical conditions and would reduce the risk of large, stand-replacing fires in the future (Rare Plants Report, p. 18). 44

51 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Based on the best available knowledge, the risk of direct or indirect impacts to rare plants in the cold forest habitat guild, as a result of implementing the Kreist project, are predicted to be low to moderate (Rare Plants Report, p. 18). Cumulative Effects Sensitive Species and Forest Species of Concern The following past activities and events, current and ongoing activities, and reasonably foreseeable actions result in the same cumulative effects when combined with either of the action alternatives. Past Activities and Events Past wildfires, mining, timber harvest on National Forest System (NFS) lands, as well as road and trail construction or maintenance may have affected rare plants and/or rare plant habitat through ground and vegetation disturbance and canopy removal. Few floristic surveys were conducted on NFS lands before 1990, so the extent of, and an effect on, rare plant populations of older projects is unknown. Timber harvest on National Forest lands after 1990 occurred with protections for rare plants (Rare Plants Report, p. 18). Past wildfire suppression in the project area may have increased the risk of severe stand-replacing fires. The proposed treatments would reduce the current fuel loading, thereby reducing the risk of stand-replacing fires (Rare Plants Report, p. 18). Timber harvest and residential development on private lands likely affected rare plants and suitable rare plants habitat, although the extent of such effects is unknown (Rare Plants Report, p. 18). Current and Ongoing Activities Road, trail and heli-spot maintenance, as well as noxious weed treatment activities associated with roads would occur in areas with low suitability as rare plant habitat. Therefore, no cumulative effects to rare plants or suitable habitat are expected to occur (Rare Plants Report, p. 19). While wildfire suppression would continue in order to protect adjacent private property values, water quality and other resource values, the proposed treatments in either action alternative would increase the ability to safely use prescribed fire, periodically reduce forest fuel loads, and would increase the ability to suppress unwanted wildfires. Alternative 2 would reduce forest fuels by treating approximately 2,130 acres of NFS lands within the project area; Alternative 3 would reduce forest fuels by treating approximately 1,336 acres of NFS lands within the project area. When combined with either action alternative, ongoing wildfire suppression would decrease the probability of severe stand-replacing fires. There would therefore be a lower risk of severe fire effects to occurrences of and/or suitable habitat for sensitive ground pine, moonworts, and Forest species of concern pine broomrape than under no action (Rare Plants Report, p. 19). Timber harvest and residential development on private lands may continue to impact rare plants and suitable rare plant habitat, but the effects of such activities are unknown (Rare Plants Report, p. 19). 45

52 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Noxious weed treatment and monitoring would follow guidelines established in the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds Control Project EIS (USDA 1995), as well as those designed in the Kreist project proposal, opportunities, and design features/mitigation measures. Effects to rare plant species were analyzed in the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds Control EIS regarding treatments along specified roads. Effects to rare plant species as a result of the noxious weed control design features and mitigation measures proposed as part of this project would have similar results. Any proposed herbicide spraying for noxious weed control would be localized to severely-infested areas or adjacent to existing or newly-constructed roads. Any biological control agent release would be limited to specific predators for the weed species intended. Severely infested noxious weed areas and areas impacted by roads are considered as low suitability habitat for rare plants. No suitable habitat for rare plants would be impacted in the long-term. Furthermore, control or containment of noxious weeds has an indirect effect on rare plants by preventing noxious weed spread into otherwise suitable rare plant habitats. Therefore, although herbicide use for the control of noxious weeds has the potential to directly affect individual plants, cumulative impacts to rare plant species would be very low to low (Rare Plants Report, p. 19). Determination of Cumulative Effects Common to both Action Alternatives Sensitive Plants and Forest Species of Concern When combined with and considering the above past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have very low to low cumulative effects (i.e. no measurable effects) to rare plants and/or suitable habitat within the dry forest habitat guilds and low to moderate cumulative effects (i.e. individual plants or habitat may be impacted, but would not result in a loss of population viability) to rare plants and/or suitable habitat within the moist forest and cold forest habitat guilds. Proposed treatment areas within the different forest habitats vary in size (or spatial extent) between alternatives; however, impacts would be similar. No cumulative impacts to rare plants or habitat in the wet forest, deciduous riparian, aquatic, peatland, or subalpine habitat guilds would occur, because these habitats would not incur either direct or indirect effects from either of these action alternatives (Rare Plants Report, p. 19). Regulatory Compliance A Forest Plan management goal is to manage habitat to maintain populations of identified sensitive species of animals and plants (Forest Plan, II-1). A Forest Plan standard for sensitive species is to manage the habitat of species listed in the Regional Sensitive Species List to prevent further declines in populations which could lead to federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (Forest Plan, II-28). This standard meets the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, Section 6(g)(3)(B), by providing for diversity of plant communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area (Rare Plants Report, p. 20). The Forest Plan also identifies the need to determine the status and distribution of threatened, endangered and rare (sensitive) plants on the IPNF (Forest Plan, II-18). Both alternatives would meet Forest Plan direction and provide for the viability of populations (Rare Plants Report, p. 20). A conservation assessment for sensitive moonworts in the IPNF has been prepared (Evans and Associates 2005). A conservation strategy for sensitive moonworts in the IPNF is being prepared (Rare Plants Report, p. 20). 46

53 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests At the project level, and in accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) and NFMA Section 6(g)(3)(E)(ii), suitable habitat has been identified and surveyed and the appropriate level of analysis conducted. All documented rare plant occurrences and their contiguous habitat would be buffered from all project activities under the action alternative. Protection measures for the documented moonwort occurrences are consistent with the most current scientific literature (Rare Plants Report, p. 20). There are no federally listed threatened or endangered species suspected to occur in Boundary County, Idaho (USDI 2009). Therefore, the project is consistent with the Endangered Species Act (1973) as amended (Rare Plants Report, p. 20). Recreation Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to recreation related resources and existing recreation opportunities would not change. Recreation activities such as driving for pleasure, hunting, camping, hiking, gathering forest products including berries, firewood, mushrooms, etc. would continue. Public motorized trail access would not change with this project and the ROS classes would not change (Recreation Report, p. 10). Effects Specific to Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would create a greater disturbance over a broader area than alternative 3. More openings would be visible across the landscape and along major travel ways. However, the disturbance would generally be short term (Recreation Report, p. 13). Harvest activities in units 15 and 18 near Road 2517 could easily damage trail junctions with the road. Because the trail curves and switchbacks in close proximity to the road on both sides, dragging timber across the trail could damage the trail to the point of necessary reconstruction. In addition, lands surrounding the trail would be very open both above and below the road, tempting people to create cut-off trails. Design features such as trail buffers and equipment avoidance would serve to protect the trail (Recreation Report, p. 13). Unit 36 has potential to damage the trail junction of Trail#205 and Trail #350. Lands surrounding the junction are generally rock and bear grass meadows. Design features would protect these trails by keeping harvest activities away from the junction (Recreation Report, p. 13). Large openings between the trail and the road or between roads may encourage more illegal motorized use. Illegal ATV use already occurs around Deer Ridge lookout and in other areas throughout the planning area. Visual screening and trail buffers would help to discourage illegal motorized use (Recreation Report, pp. 13 and 14). Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The recreational experience would be diminished to some degree for the length of the proposed activities. An increase in sights and sounds of work activities in addition to truck traffic may disturb the generally quiet and remote character of the lands in the analysis area. Dispersed camping sites may not be as available as is typical. Roadside activities such as berry picking and 47

54 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment firewood gathering may be interrupted temporarily. Temporary trail closures would be necessary for both alternatives (Recreation Report, p. 10). The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is a system for defining the types of outdoor recreation opportunities the public might desire as well as identifying the portion of opportunities a given area provides. Although changes would be less striking in alternative 3, both alternatives would permanently change physical Recreation Opportunity Spectrum settings to eliminate remaining Semi-Primitive lands and redefine them as Roaded Natural or Roaded Modified lands. Action alternatives in this project would create modifications that are readily noticeable from all major travel routes. Long range vistas developed by harvest activities from within the area of interest may bring rural sights and sounds closer to the recreational user (Recreation Report, p. 10). With no new permanent roads being added, minimal road improvements, and no facility upgrades there would not be a change is Recreation Opportunity Setting setting to a more developed level (Recreation Report, p. 10). Temporary road construction would not adversely affect the recreation experience in either alternative (Recreation Report, p. 12). There would be no new trails or trail segments developed as part of this project. Nor would any trail mileage be diminished. The existing type of trail use would remain as it is presently. Trail recreational experiences would be modified as a result of harvest activities (Recreation Report, p. 11). Activities in units 3, 3a and 3b all have the potential to adversely affect trail #35. Unit 3 poses the greatest risk in that tractor skidding on trail switchbacks and steep side slopes could cause damage to the tread such that trail re-establishment would be improbable. Activities in unit 3 also have the potential to adversely affect Ruby Trailhead. Logging system design and project layout would help avoid safety and recreation concerns during the length of the activities. With care, unit 3a could avoid the trail location and would have little impact except for visual effect to trail users. Debris along the trail route would be visually unattractive and a potential hazard to trail users. However, design features would minimize this effect by pulling logging slash away from the trail after operations are complete. Harvesting in Units 3,3a and 3b would necessitate closing both trails #35 and #205 for the length of the activity. That closure could greatly impact recreational users depending upon the season of work. Design features would schedule the timing of project activities to keep at least one open mainline trail each season (Recreation Report, pp. 11 and 14). There are trail structures on Trails #35 and #205 in the Orser Creek area. Should prescribed burns succeed in that area, trail structures would need protection. Trail closures would be necessary for both trails during burn activities. It is unlikely that there would be any real affect to the trail network as a result of the burn (Recreation Report, p. 12). Trails traverse units 35 and 25a in alternative 2, and unit 35 in alternative 3. Design features would protect or re-establish trail tread in both alternatives (Recreation Report, p. 12). Between the Meadow Creek road and Forest Road 2517, proposed silvicultural treatments cover the entire length of trail #35. Alternative 3 offers some relief from modification near road 2517, yet both alternatives largely change the recreational experience for Trail #35. Visual modifications would dominate. Design features to protect trail tread would minimize the distress to motorcyclists and mountain bikers. However, Pacific Northwest Trail hikers who have just left the Northwest Scenic area may find the changes unappealing and inconsistent with expectations. 48

55 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests The changes would be permanent, although the visual affect would soften over time (Recreation Report, p. 12). There would be no increase or decrease in the number of developed sites within the area of interest (Recreation Report, p. 11). Neither action alternative affects Moyie River access or the dispersed sites along the river (Recreation Report, p. 13). Sights and sounds of harvest activities would be apparent from Sinclair Lake, Moyie Crossings and Snyder Guard Station. The duration and strength of these disruptions would vary location to location. Visual and audible disruptions would be occasional and would not continue for the length of harvest activities. For the most part, harvest activities would be distant and non-intrusive from developed sites. The social setting for developed sites would return to present conditions as harvest activities end (Recreation Report, p. 11). Vegetation and landscape characteristics would screen most sights and sounds of management activities (Recreation Report, p. 10). Developed sites may experience disruption due to increased truck and vehicle traffic. This increase could pose a hazard to visitors who are unaccustomed to driving Forest roads (Recreation Report, p. 11). Design features would use signs to warn users of the increase in traffic (Recreation Report, p. 15). The proposed activities for this project include closing Forest Road #2517UR with a berm. Currently there is a dispersed campsite on this road. The campsite would continue to be useable; a road berm would eliminate illegal ATV and full size vehicle use and would help protect Trail #350 (Recreation Report, p. 12). The silvicultural prescription for unit 2 would create an opening substantial enough that it would invite users to create a non-system cutoff ATV or motorcycle trail to Trail #35 Visual screening and trail buffers would help to discourage illegal motorized use (Recreation Report, pp. 12 and 14). Regulatory Compliance All proposed activities meet Forest Plan standards for recreation (Recreation Report, p. 11). Scenic Quality Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects With no harvest activity planned to occur under alternative 1 (no-action) there would be no direct or short-term affects to the scenic condition of the area. The openings in forest cover that are visible as a result of past forest management would continue to recover tree growth, and overtime would recover unnatural appearing openings. Processes affecting forest dynamics would continue, including continuing insect and disease related mortality which would appear as individual and groups of dead trees scattered across the landscape. While for some, this may have a negative impact on the scenic quality of the area; these are considered natural processes the resource area would continue to meet assigned Visual Quality Objectives (Scenic Quality Report, p. 6). Alternative 1 would not change the landscape character of the geographic area encompassed within the Moyie River valley and its tributaries (Scenic Quality Report, p. 7). 49

56 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Pre-commercial Thinning In both alternatives 2 and 3 the activities outlined for pre-commercial thinning would retain the majority of canopy cover within those harvest units and would there have no effect on the scenic quality of the area of interest (Scenic Quality Report, pp. 7). Fuels Treatment Under-burning within pre-commercial thinning areas would have no effect on scenic resources. Burning within harvest units would have some visual effect depending on the amount of retention vegetation affected (Scenic Quality Report, pp. 7). Transportation System New road construction includes 7 temporary roads, only one of which would be visible from the highway. This temporary road accesses unit 25 and is found in both alternative 2 and 3. This road may be slightly visible from County Road 34 and the Moyie River, but would meet the Partial Retention VQO for this area since it would not remain subordinate to the existing landscape character. Reconstruction, storage, and decommissioning of existing roads, while having some minor evidence of disturbance in the short term, would have no visual impacts in the long term (Scenic Quality Report, p. 7). Weed Treatment There would be some minor effects from discoloration of plant materials treated with herbicide in the short term, but it would have no significant negative effect on the scenic resource and may in fact have a positive effect as more native species return to areas that have been treated for non-native invasive species (Scenic Quality Report, pp. 7). Alternative 2 Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects The Kreist Creek area of interest is located within the foreground, middleground and background viewsheds of the Moyie River, Meadow Creek Campground, County Road 34, several trails, the Snyder Guard Station rental cabin, the Deer Ridge rental lookout and several private residences. Although not included in the IPNF Forest Plan, the area is also visible from the Queen Mountain Trailhead near Queen Mountain Lake on the west side of the Moyie River canyon. All of the proposed units would be visible from one or more of the viewpoints found within and surrounding the area of interest. There is only one harvest unit that falls within the foreground viewing zone and which has a VQO of Retention. Unit 3b is group selection using tractor harvesting methods. With the proposed canopy cover retention, the harvest activities in this unit would not be evident from the road and therefore the unit would meet the Forest Plan VQO of Retention (Scenic Quality Report, p. 8). Burn-only unit 37 is located along the Orser Creek drainage and would appear as a naturally occurring opening after treatment as no harvesting is scheduled prior to or subsequent to the burning activities (Scenic Quality Report, p. 8). The most open view of the area of interest is from County Road 34 running basically north and south from Sinclair Lake to the Moyie River Bridge. Within this area the Moyie River is mostly screened by vegetation so views of the area of interest are limited. There are a number of private residences in this area and the Snyder Guard Station. The remaining 16 units, 2, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25, 25a, 27 and 35 are located along the ridgetop area parallel to the highway corridor. These units are proposed mostly for seedtree harvesting with planned canopy retention between 5 and 14 percent. They are arranged so that the harvest occurs along the ridgetop in a 50

57 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests way that is similar to a natural fire occurrence. With design measures of edge treatment, thinning in adjacent pre-commercial thinning units, measures to soften skyline corridors and retention of randomly located tree groups, this harvesting can be viewed together and would emulate a natural fire or insect and disease occurrence. While these units would be visible from viewpoints throughout the area of interest they would be designed to emulate a naturally occurring opening which would meet the criteria for Partial Retention from the Highway corridor and Modification from the trail corridors (Scenic Quality Report, p. 9). In alternative 2, trails cross nine harvest units including 2, 3, 3a, 9, 15, 18, 26, 34, 35, and 36. Trail #35 passes through units 18, 15, 2, 3b and 3. Within units 3 and 3b there would not be a significant change in the character of the area, given the harvest prescription of group selection. Within units 2, 15 and 18 the prescription is seedtree harvest and would leave 5 to 15 percent of the canopy. These areas are relatively open now due to the dominance of lodgepole but would be more open than they currently are. Since most harvest in the central portion of the area of interest is within timber stands where the current coniferous cover is thin, the changes would not be as evident as it would be in a heavily stocked area. The change, while evident, should not dominant the existing landscape character (Scenic Quality Report, p. 9). While the harvest activities would be visible from County Road 34 and other visually sensitive areas, the use of scenic quality design measures would reduce the visual impact of the harvest and the long term visual impact of the activities would be natural appearing, emulating the results of natural fire patterns found within the region. These design measures would be utilized so that all units meet the existing visual quality objectives of Retention, Partial Retention and Modification in the foreground, middleground and background viewing zones. Long term effects of the activities would be an improvement within the existing coniferous forest canopy with the removal of the aging lodgepole pine areas, which would promote improved forest resiliency and health. Cumulative Effects Currently several past harvest units are slightly visible in the central portions of the area of interest and are viewed from County Road 34, the Moyie River, Meadow Creek Campground, trails within the area of interest and other background viewing areas. The units currently visible have regenerated to the point where they would no longer appear as openings within the next 10 years. The proposal would blend existing units with the proposed units, emulating the appearance of areas that have undergone changes through the natural processes of fire and insect and disease. Thinning is proposed for this previously harvested area, designed to blend into the proposed harvest areas so that unnatural geometric openings are not created. Given the aspect and growing history of the area, the openings created by this proposal would no long appear as openings within years, but should appear as an area that has experienced the natural process of wild fire rather than man-made openings (Scenic Quality Report, p. 10). Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects As in alternative 2, there is only one harvest unit that falls within the foreground viewing zone and which has a VQO of Retention. Unit 3 is group selection using tractor harvesting methods. With the proposed canopy cover retention, the harvest activities in this unit would not be evident from the road and therefore the unit would meet the Forest Plan VQO of Retention (Scenic Quality Report, p. 11). 51

58 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment While the harvest activities would be visible from Highway 34 and other visually sensitive areas, the use of scenic quality design measures would reduce the visual impact of the harvest and the long term visual impact of the activities would be natural appearing, emulating the results of natural fire patterns found within the region. These design measures would be utilized so that all units meet the existing visual quality objectives of Retention, Partial Retention and Modification in the foreground, middleground and background viewing zones. Long term effects of the activities would be an improvement within the existing coniferous forest canopy with the removal of the aging lodgepole pine areas, which would promote improved forest resiliency and health (Scenic Quality Report, p. 12). Cumulative Effects As in alternative 2, several past harvest units are slightly visible in the central portions of the area of interest and can be viewed from County Road 34, the Moyie River, Meadow Creek Campground, trails within the area of interest and other background viewing areas. Within the next 10 years, the units that are currently visible will have regenerated to the point where they would no longer appear as openings. The proposal would blend existing units with the proposed units, emulating the appearance of areas that have undergone changes through the natural processes of fire and insect and disease. Given the aspect and growing history of the area, the openings created by this proposal would no long appear as openings within years, but would appear as an area that has experienced the natural process of wild fire rather than manmade openings (Scenic Quality Report, pp ). Regulatory Compliance Given the design measures outlined for all visible units, alternative 2 would meet the Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives found in the IPNF Forest Plan Appendix D (Scenic Quality Report, p. 11). Given the design measures outlined for all visible units, alternative 3 would meet the Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives found in the IPNF Forest Plan Appendix D (Scenic Quality Report, p. 13). Soils Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects Because no activities are proposed under this alternative, no new management induced detrimental direct and indirect impacts would occur in the Kreist Creek Project Area. There would be no additional compaction or displacement beyond the currently existing levels. Those levels would continue to lessen over time. Nutrients would continue to cycle, build up at current rates, and not be subject to removal due to harvest and fuel treatment activities (Soils Report, p. 17). Fuel buildup would continue and could contribute to the risk of high-intensity wildfires. The introduction of weeds and unwanted flora following a fire could lead to higher competition between less desirable and native vegetation. Weeds can increase erosion, reduce soil moisture, and deplete nutrient levels (DiTomaso 2000). Because the roots of many noxious weeds are deeper than native grasses, they also contribute less organic matter near the soil surface (Soils Report, pp ). 52

59 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Cumulative Effects No additional effects to soils would take place as no harvest and no fuel treatments would be added. With no new activities, no new management induced detrimental cumulative impacts would occur in the project area (Soils Report, p. 18). Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 Alternative 2 and 3 are discussed together to reduce redundancy because they share similarities. The effects of alternative 3 would be equal to or less than that of alternative 2. The main difference between the alternatives is that the treatment areas in alternative 3 would be reduced by approximately 790 acres from alternative 2 (Soils Report, p. 21). Direct and Indirect Effects Timber harvest activities for alternative 2 and alternative 3 have the potential to cause both direct and indirect effects to soil. Examples of direct effects would be detrimental soil disturbance, such as compaction and displacement. Indirect effects would be reductions in productivity (Soils Report, p. 22). The level of soil disturbance increase depends primarily on the amount or lack of existing skid trails. Activity units that have had little prior disturbance would show a greater incremental increase in potential detrimental disturbance than those units that contain a network of already existing skid trails. Existing skid trails would be used for the proposed harvest whenever possible. Proposed skyline units that were previously yarded with the same logging system have little to no additional impacts because existing corridors would generally be reused (EA, p. 22). Full productivity potential would be maintained on at least 85 percent of the activity area under the Regional soil quality standards and 80 percent under the Forest Plan Standards in every activity area after all activities, including mitigation, are complete. All units in alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to meet R1 soil quality standards and Forest Plan standards upon completion of all activities, including mitigation (Soils Report, p. 21). Alternative 2 would meet Region 1 soil quality standards for 99 percent of the units prior to any mitigation. Unit 25a would require mitigation to reach compliance. Mitigation would also occur in unit 25 as it shares a temporary road with 25a. All proposed temporary roads would be obliterated once harvest activities have concluded. Alternative 3 meets Regional standards in 100 percent of units prior to mitigation. Regardless of this, all temporary roads would apply the design features in appendix C to this document. Both alternatives would meet Forest plan standards in 100 percent of the units prior to mitigation (Soils Report, p. 21). Tables Soil-11 and Soil-12 on pages 24 through 27 of the Soils report summarize the existing soil conditions and potential impacts for each treatment unit. Table 8. Productivity Retention under Region 1 and Forest Plan Standards for the Action Alternatives Region 1 Forest Plan Acres Area (%) Acres Area (%) Alternative Alternative As specified in the design features related to soil, coarse woody debris would be maintained and/or elevated to recommended levels in all units so that preservation of ecological function 53

60 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment would be expected. Using Regional guidance for coarse woody debris retention would also comply with the Forest Plan Standard to maintain sufficient microorganism populations for site productivity. Design features, including nutrient management recommendations, would ensure compliance with the standards to maintain sufficient nutrient capital (Soils Report, p. 22). Harvest activities are not expected to reduce soil organic matter within the proposed units. Harvest activities may actually increase organics that would contribute to the surface layer through harvest breakage and slash left on-site during the over-wintering period (Soils Report, p. 30). Temporary road construction activities would cause soil compaction, displacement, and effects to site productivity on approximately 3.6 and 2.4 acres under alternative 2 and 3. No temporary road construction is proposed on high mass failure potential soils for either alternative. All temporary roads would be obliterated upon completion of activities in the units. This would include decompaction of the running surface and recontouring which would begin to restore site productivity. Road obliteration and soil restoration would contribute to a reduction in compaction, thus improving infiltration and reducing surface runoff (Soils Report, p. 28). Road reconstruction does not have the same effect that initial road building does because equipment would utilize an existing prism. It is not anticipated that equipment will leave the prism at any time during reconstruction. This is the case for road maintenance as well. No further soil disturbance is expected (Soils Report, p. 28). Ground disturbance could promote bare soils and encourage invasive plants to establish new infestations or expand their existing range of occupation. The reduction of noxious weeds within the project area boundary would have long-term positive effects on the soil resource. Soil stability and productivity would be greatly improved and the expectant return of native vegetation would reduce the erosion potential along roadsides, riparian areas, and openings. A decrease in noxious weeds would likely lead to long term declines in sediment by promoting native vegetation and restoring surface protection to lessen erosion potential (Soils Report, p. 29). Harvest activities are proposed in landtypes rated with low surface erosion potential on 87 and 84 percent of the proposed activity areas in alternative 2 and 3, respectively. There are no acres in either alternative that rate as high for surface erosion. Design features would provide protection for all soils in activity areas during timber harvest. Subsurface soils are not expected to become exposed during the harvest (Soils Report, p. 31). Approximately 5 and 1 percent, in alternative 2 and 3 respectively, of the proposed treatment acres are on areas with high mass failure potential. Areas rated as high are generally located in small areas of the units near the edges. The exception to this is unit 9, which is entirely made up of soils with high mass failure potential. While these areas have been rated as having a high mass failure potential, no evidence of mass failure was found in these units during field work. All units with this rating are proposed for skyline harvest with an underburn. These activities methods are consistent with recommendations for harvesting on these landtypes. Skyline harvest of these units is not expected to produce detrimental effects beyond the small amount of disturbance that typically results from these operations. In addition to that, current design features and buffers for riparian areas would also help preserve soil stability. No temporary roads are planned on soils rated high for mass failure potential (Soils Report, p. 31). 54

61 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Cumulative Effects The soils evaluation differs from most other resource evaluations because it is limited to the unit boundaries in most cases. Many other resources are evaluated on a larger cumulative effects area. Because of this, there are many present and reasonably foreseeable activities that are not considered for the soils cumulative effects analysis because they do not occur within unit boundaries (Soils Report, p. 32). The cumulative result of alternative 2, when timber harvest and fuels treatments are combined, is that full productivity will be retained on approximately 1,647 acres under the Regional standards and 1,631 acres under the Forest Plan (Table 8) of National Forest System land in the Kreist Creek area of interest. This is approximately 93 percent of the proposed activity area under the Regional standard and 92 percent under the Forest Plan. Under alternatives 2 and 3, all proposed units are expected to meet Regional and Forest Plan requirements after harvest, site-prep and mitigation activities are concluded (Table 8; Soils Report, pp ). With alternative 3 approximately 921 acres (93 percent) under the Regional Standard and 910 acres (93 percent) under the Forest Plan (Table Soil-10) would retain full productivity (Soils Report, p. 32). Effects of Wildfire with All Alternatives Given the absence of fire over numerous decades and increased fuel loads in most parts of the project area, the chance of a wildfire occurring could be enhanced if an ignition starts in an untreated area during extreme dry weather conditions. The proposed vegetation treatment in the project area would not necessarily prevent wildfires from occurring, but would increase the ability to suppress such a fire should ignition occur in treated areas (Soils Report, p. 33). If a wildfire occurred in the Kreist Creek area of interest, consequent resource damage from mechanized suppression activities and burn severity could range from negligible to severe, depending on location, size, severity of burn, and subsequent administrative activities. They are impossible to predict at this time, but minimum impact suppression tactics would be used to manage fires. Wildfire is unpredictable in many ways, but the effects of a severe wildfire on the soil resource can be reduced greatly by implementing vegetation management treatments (Soils Report, p. 34). Regulatory Consistency Forest Plan The proposed activities would comply with Forest Plan Standards for maintaining soil productivity. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would comply with Forest Plan Standard #1 because all proposed activity areas would be at or below soil quality limits for disturbance and would maintain the acceptable productivity potential for managed vegetation. The proposed activities have the potential to disturb approximately 139 acres with alternative 2; and 71 acres with alternative 3. Proposed activities would result in detrimental soil disturbance in less than 20 percent of the activity areas following activities and mitigations (Soils Report, p. 34). Alternative 1 would not comply with Forest Plan Standard #2. Currently, three of the treatment units lack sufficient CWD to meet the recommendations in Graham, et al (Design features, Soils Report, p. 18). Alternatives 2 and 3 would comply with Forest Plan Standard #2 because logging slash from tree limbs and un-merchantable pieces would remain within all harvest units to overwinter before fuels treatments occurred. Coarse woody debris in units that currently have reduced amounts would be increased by following design features (Soils Report, pp ). 55

62 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Alternative 1 would comply with Forest Plan Standard #3 to provide for sufficient nutrient capital. Since no harvest activities would occur with alternative 1, there would be no whole tree logging. Alternatives 2 and 3 would comply with Forest Plan Standard #3. In units 3a, 13, and 35, where yarding of tops and limbs would be used, provisions to maintain sufficient nutrient capital would be accomplished by various methods depending on harvest prescription. Following design features for burning would help prevent the units from going below the recommended levels (Soils Report, p. 35). Region 1 Soil Quality Standards All alternatives would comply with Region 1 soil quality standards. All units are expected to be at or below the standard of 15 percent DSD after mitigation. Only unit 25a would be above DSD limits following activities, but would meet the standard after mitigation. The numbers used to determine the effect of mitigation were generated from coefficients derived through soil monitoring done on the IPNF (Soils Report, p. 35). All alternatives would comply with the Regional standard to maintain organic matter layer thickness as appropriate for local conditions because the currently satisfactory levels of local organic matter would be maintained. It is expected that design features would maintain the organic matter at sufficient levels during harvest and fuels treatments (Soils Report, p. 35). Alternative 1 would not comply with the portion of the R1 Standards that applies to maintaining large woody debris at recommended volumes (Graham and others 1994) in each proposed activity area. Currently, three of the treatment units lack sufficient CWD to meet the recommendations in Table Soil-9. Alternatives 2 and 3 would comply with Forest Plan Standard #2 because logging slash from tree limbs and un-merchantable pieces would remain within all harvest units that already contain satisfactory CWD levels. Coarse woody debris levels in those units that currently contain reduced amounts would be increased by retaining logging residue after harvest activities are completed (Soils Report, p. 36). National Forest Management Act (NFMA) All alternatives are in compliance with NFMA. As previously discussed under the Forest Plan standards and Region 1 soil quality standards, neither soil, slope, nor other watershed conditions related to the soil resource would be irreversibly damaged through implementation of any of the proposed alternatives (Soils Report, p. 36). Vegetation Forest Composition Alternative 1 No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1, which proposes no vegetation treatment, would maintain the existing condition and current trends of the forest stands. The existing condition includes a continued decrease in the percent composition of western white pine, western larch and ponderosa pine (Vegetation Report, p. 11). 56

63 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests In lodgepole pine forests species composition would trend toward dominance of Douglas-fir, grand-fir, cedar, hemlock, and subalpine fir (Smith and Fischer 1997) as mature lodgepole succumbs to pine beetle and other natural disturbances such as wind (Vegetation Report, p. 11). In mixed conifer stands there would be a continued decrease in the percent composition of western white pine, western larch and ponderosa pine and an increase in species such as Douglasfir and grand fir that are more susceptible to insect and disease problems than pine and larch. Western white pine would continue to succumb to blister rust. Both white pine and western larch would fail to regenerate without forest openings and they would eventually become less significant components of these stands. This shift in stand composition to more shade-tolerant species, predominantly grand fir, Douglas-fir and hemlock, would also increase the risk and extent of loss from fire. In summary, the direct and indirect effects of alternative 1 would be a continued reduction in the percentage of long-lived seral species across the landscape and an increase in the percentage of shade tolerant species on all forest types (Vegetation Report, p. 12). Alternatives 2 and 3 Action Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects The action alternatives would increase the percentage of long-lived seral species (i.e., ponderosa pine, western larch, and white pine) across the landscape and decrease the percentage of shortlived species like Douglas-fir, grand fir, and lodgepole pine, however, each alternative would accomplish this by varying degrees. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase the percentage of the landscape where white pine is the dominant species by 49 percent and 19 percent, western larch by 42 percent and 13 percent, and ponderosa pine by 86 percent and 39 percent, respectively. In total, alternative 2 would restore more than 1,100 acres to long-lived seral species and alternative 3 would restore more than 420 acres. Alternative 2 would restore aspen on 235 acres and alternative 3 would restore aspen on 90 acres (Vegetation Report, p. 12). Cumulative Effects Continued fire suppression would have the greatest impact on forest composition. In the absence of fire forest composition would continue to trend toward climax species (i.e., Douglas-fir, grand fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, and subalpine fir) and away from long-lived seral species (i.e., western larch, ponderosa pine, and western white pine) that are typically more resistant to insects and disease (Vegetation Report, p. 14). Forest Structure Alternative 1 No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Currently, mature size class account for more than 40 percent of the total forest structures on the Kreist Creek landscape. In the short-term (less than 10 years), these forest structures are expected to continue to dominate the landscape. There would be no change in the IPNF s old growth allocation in the short-term. In the absence of large-scale landscape disturbances (i.e., fire, insects, disease, or timber harvest) that interrupt natural succession the amount of mature and old growth forests would increase in the long-term (50+ years). However, given the dynamic nature of ecosystems, stand densities and natural fuels are expected to increase vertically (standing live 57

64 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment and dead trees) and horizontally (dead trees on the forest floor), which would increase the likelihood of landscape disturbance events such as fire, insects, or disease over time. Certainly, these types of processes played a major role in shaping the Kreist Creek landscape and the Kootenai River sub-basin. Large-scale disturbances would be the major factors that affect changes in forest structure in the absence of active forest management (Vegetation Report, p. 14). Because mountain pine beetle outbreaks usually develop in mature to over mature forests, especially in lodgepole pine, large reserves of these forests pose a constant hazard in areas climatically favorable for the mountain pine beetle (Gibson 2006). Even-aged stands of mature lodgepole pine would continue to increase in susceptibility to mountain pine beetle irruptions causing high mortality. After lodgepole declines, in the absence of fire, mature stands are dominated by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. ). In dry and moist forest types where lodgepole currently dominates, but would continue to decline to mountain pine beetle and senescence, other species such Douglas-fir, grand fir, cedar, and hemlock would be released, or regenerate. However, lodgepole pine mortality produces heavy dead and downed fuels that would dry readily under an open canopy increasing the potential for severe fire (Smith and Fischer 1997), which perpetuates lodgepole pine dominance (Vegetation Report, p. 14). Alternatives 2 and 3 Action Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects Both action alternatives include silvicultural prescriptions (Table 9) that would improve ecosystem composition and structure and landscape diversity, which would meet the stated purpose and need. However, the degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need varies. The primary difference between the two alternatives is the approach that would be used to manage mature lodgepole pine forests and reduce the amount of mountain pine beetle hazard in the project area. Alternative 2 would not limit the size of even-aged regeneration harvesting focused in lodgepole stands, whereas Alternative 3 would limit even-aged regeneration harvests to 40 acres or less (Vegetation Report, pp ). Based on methodology developed by Randall and Tensmeyer (2000) the project area currently contains an estimated 2,100 acres that are considered either moderate or high hazard for mountain pine beetle attack. Alternative 2 would treat nearly 400 acres of high hazard stands and additional 190-plus acres of moderate hazard stands. Total hazard reduction for Alternative 2 would equal an estimated 27 percent of the total high hazard stands in the project area and 32 percent of the moderate hazard stands (Vegetation Report, p. 15). Alternative 3 would also treat the mountain pine beetle hazard in the project area. Alternative 3 would treat 190 acres of high hazard and 35 acres moderate hazard, which equates to 13 percent and 6 percent of the high and moderate hazard acreage (Vegetation Report, p. 15). However, Alternative 2, which would create forest openings greater than 40 acres through evenaged and two-aged regeneration harvests, would more effectively treat the mountain pine beetle hazard on a stand-by-stand basis as the size of treatment units in this alternative would not be arbitrarily constrained. Constrained by a 40-acre limitation, Alternative 3 would leave portions of high and moderate hazard lodgepole stands untreated (Vegetation Report, p. 15). Reducing the mountain pine beetle hazard through regeneration harvesting would increase the acreage of early successional forests in Old Growth Management Unit 27 under both action alternatives. Implementation of these harvest prescriptions would create forest openings that 58

65 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests would be reforested with long-lived seral species such as white pine, larch, Engelmann spruce, and ponderosa pine (Vegetation Report, p. 15). Given the mixed-severity fires that formed the Kootenai River sub-basin landscape the estimated historic range of forested openings was quite variable at 15 to 50 percent (USDA Forest Service 2000b). Even-aged regeneration harvesting proposed under alternative 2 would increase landscape structural diversity by increasing forest openings 105 percent from a little more than 1,400 acres to more than 2,900 acres; or from 20 percent of the old growth management unit to 32 percent. Fischer et al (2006) suggest increased landscape heterogeneity is one of the keys to ecosystem resilience. Additionally, the average patch size of forest openings would increase from about 42 acres to 88 acres. Alternative 3 would increase the total forested openings to about 2,180 acres, or to about 24 percent of the old growth management unit. Alternative 3 would increase the total acreage of forest openings, but would not measurably change the patch size. Compared to the estimated Kootenai River sub-basin levels, alternative 2 would move forested openings to the middle of the range while Alternative 3 would maintain forest openings closer to the lower end of the range. Alternative 2 would maintain mature forests near the upper end of the estimated historic range, while alternative 3 would maintain mature forests above the sub-basin range. Both alternatives would maintain an abundance of stands on the landscape that would have the potential to become old growth in the future. Neither alternative would change the current Forest Plan old growth allocation. Both action Alternatives include 24 acres of improvement cutting (intermediate harvests). Improvement cutting would improve structure and composition of the residual stand through maintenance of the largest and most vigorous trees available. A diversity of tree species would be retained, although the primary objective would be retention of long-lived seral species (i.e., western larch, ponderosa pine, and white pine) (Vegetation Report, p. 15). Both action Alternatives include 360 acres of group selection. These group selection treatments would improve structure and composition of the residual stand through maintenance of the largest and most vigorous trees available (Vegetation Report, p. 18). Both action alternatives would treat approximately 25 acres of allocated dry forest old growth. Prescriptions would be designed to maintain the integrity of this old growth type (Vegetation Report, p. 18). Treatments in an old growth larch and ponderosa pine stand on the Lolo National Forest in the late 1990 s reduced basal area about 16 percent from 144 to 121 square feet per acre using the least intensive treatment, compared to the most intensive treatment that reduced basal area by about 48 percent from 145 to 76 square feet. Prior to treatment, increment borings showed growth rates slowing in old growth trees and several old pines succumbed to beetle attacks (Vegetation Report, p. 18). Results three years later showed old growth trees had increased sap flow, higher foliar nitrogen content, and higher foliage production (Sala and Calloway 2001), indicating improved tree vigor and increased resistance to insects and disease. Similar research supports these findings (Vegetation Report, p. 18). The proposed prescriptions in dry forest old growth would be designed to maintain residual densities similar to those described in these studies. Considerable within stand variability would be desirable. Based on data taken from similar prescriptions on the District it is estimated that the average size tree harvested would be less than 11 inches DBH and that 95 percent of the trees would be less than 14 inches DBH (USDA 2007). Douglas-fir, grand fir, and lodgepole pine would be the primary species selected for cutting (Vegetation Report, p. 18). Pre-commercial thinning would occur under both action alternatives. These treatments would be designed to reduce stocking in treated stands, but not necessarily for an immediate financial 59

66 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment return. In particular, young western larch stands respond rapidly and substantially to early (generally, before age 15) thinning, and there are nearly always enough conifer species present to develop a diversified stand. Early thinning should be the rule in this cover type as it prevents height suppression found in heavily overstocked stands, effectively concentrates diameter growth on the featured trees, and retains crowns on the shade-intolerant larch. Furthermore, thinning reduces overall water, consumption increases understory vegetation, and keeps the stand in a vigorous condition so that it is better able to recuperate after insect attacks. Thinning stands 40- to 50-years old and older in the larch cover type is less effective than early thinning. At this age, the more tolerant species (e.g., Douglas-fir and grand fir) are better able to capitalize on the increased growing space than western larch or lodgepole pine. Because larch crowns are so intolerant of shade, they are substantially shortened in heavily overstocked stands, and they respond more slowly than their associates that retain fuller crowns (Schmidt 1978). Both alternatives include 362 acres of pre-commercial thinning (Vegetation Report, pp ). 60

67 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests Table 9. Silvicultural Prescriptions Silvicultural Prescription Seed Tree w/ Reserves Shelterwood w/ Reserves Shelterwood w/ Reserves/Underburn Group Selection Improvement Cut Pre-commercial Thin Rx Burn Definition An even-aged regeneration or harvest method that removes trees except those needed for the purposes of seed production. Prepares the seed bed and creates a new age class in an exposed microenvironment in one entry. Additional live trees would be retained for reasons other than regeneration Same as above with different Tree Retention objectives for visuals and wildlife screening) A regeneration harvest method that removes trees except those needed for regeneration and sufficient residual trees needed to meet other resource objectives. Prepares the seed bed and creates a new age class in a moderated microenvironment. This is both the establishment and the final removal harvest since the overwood trees (those needed for regeneration) and the reserves will be retained to create a two- aged stand. Same as Shelterwood w/ Reserves, but integrated with Rx burn where logging systems preclude feasible timber harvest operations (e.g., slope limitations and external yarding distance) An uneven-aged regeneration method in which trees are cut in small groups of 1-3 acres and new age classes are established. Commercial thinning would occur between the groups. Multiple entries would ultimately result in an uneven-aged stand of 3 or more age classes. An intermediate harvest which removes the less desirable trees of any species in a stand of poles or larger trees, primarily to improve the composition and quality The cutting of trees not for immediate financial return but to reduce stocking. Manipulation of a site by prescribed burning to enhance the success of natural regeneration in the case the goal is to enhance the opportunities for aspen regeneration Tree Retention Regeneration Species Residual PCC Alt 2 Alt 3 1 <10 TPA WP, WL, ES 5-10% <10 TPA plus ¼-3 acres clumps WP, WL, ES 10-20% TPA WP, WL, PP 20-30% TPA in harvest areas; variable retention in Rx burn only areas 50 TPA average (10-20 TPA in openings; TPA in thinning matrix) WP, WL, ES (harvest areas); mixed subalpine species (Rx burn areas) 20-30% (harvest); 20-50% (burn) PP, WL 25-55% TPA WL, DF, C TPA NA 10-20% Variable Aspen 10-50% Even-aged regeneration harvesting limited to less than 40 acres 61

68 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Regulatory Consistency Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with Forest Plan timber standard 4 (II-32), which states that reforestation will normally feature seral tree species, with a mixture of species usually present. Silvicultural practices will promote stand structure and species mix which will reduce susceptibility to insect and disease damage (Vegetation Report, p. 14). Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with timber management objectives of the Forest Plan, which states, Timber management activities will be the primary process used to minimize the hazards of insects and disease and will be accomplished primarily by maintaining stand vigor and diversity of communities and tree species (Vegetation Report, p. 22). Old Growth Each old growth stand in the project area was reviewed was measured against the Green and others ( errata corrected 12/2011) standards for the appropriate old growth type code. Table 6 describes the minimum criteria, used as a screening device, to select stands that may be suitable for management as old growth in the Kreist Creek project area. The stands that meet these criteria are part of the project file. All alternatives comply with the following IPNF old growth standards (Vegetation Report, pp ). Forest Type Table 10. Minimum standards for old growth criteria. TPA Large Tree Size (dbh) Age of Large Trees (years) Basal Area (ft2/acre)) Douglas-fir 8 21 > 150 years 40 Grand Fir > 150 years 80 Cedar and Hemlock > 150 years 120 Subalpine fir > 150 years 80 Standard 10(a) This standard incorporates the definitions of old growth developed by the Regional Old Growth Task Force, documented in Green and others (2011), Old Growth Forest Types of the Northern Region. USDA, Forest Service, Northern Region. The allocated old growth within the Kreist Creek project area meets the old growth definitions included in Green and others (2011). The Kreist Creek project complies with Forest Plan standard 10 (a). Standard 10(b) This standard calls for maintaining at least 10 percent of the forested portion of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests as old growth. The forest plan identified 2,310,000 forested-acres on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Therefore, the Forest Plan standard requires maintaining 231,000 acres of old growth on the forest. Based on two independent inventories and monitoring tools (FIA and IPNF stand level inventory) the IPNF is maintaining approximately 12 percent allocated old growth on its forested acres. Based on the IPNF Forest Plan Monitoring Report 68,085 acres (17.3 percent) on Bonners Ferry Ranger District are allocated for old growth management. The IPNF is in compliance with Forest Plan standard 10 (b). Standard 10 (c) For distribution purposes, the Forest Plan directs Districts to select and maintain at least 5 percent of the forested portion of those old-growth units that have 5 percent or more old growth. The Kreist Creek project area intersects OGMU 27, which totals approximately 9,170 forested acres, and contains 454 acres (5 percent) of old growth that meets the Green and others (2011) criteria. The Forest Plan allocation in the Kreist Creek project area includes 403 acres of 62

69 Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests old growth and another 51 acres of potential old growth. Old growth stands included in the Forest Plan allocation have field-verified exams (project file). Standard 10 (d) Existing old growth stands may be harvested when there is more than 5 percent old growth in an old-growth management unit, and the Forest total is more than 10 percent. The action alternatives include entry into allocated dry site old growth (Unit 22). The long-term silvicultural objective in these stands would favor maintenance of existing old growth character and continued development of additional age classes, preferably ponderosa pine and western larch, which would eventually meet old growth characteristics. Neither action alternative would target removal of trees that meet old growth criteria. Therefore, all alternatives would maintain the current old growth allocation in OGMU27, complying with Forest Plan standard 10 (d). Standard 10(e) At the Forest level, old growth stands should reflect the approximate distribution of habitat type series found on the IPNF. Based on the IPNF Forest Plan Monitoring report (USDA 2011), old growth on the IPNF does reflect this distribution. In the project area, OGMU 27 consists of predominantly western hemlock (42 percent) and subalpine fir (30 percent) old growth. This is not surprising given nearly two-thirds of the OGMU is comprised of these forest types. Douglas-fir (17 percent) western red cedar (11 percent), comprise the remaining old growth types. The old growth allocation in the Kreist Creek is comprised of a diversity of habitat type series and the project complies with Forest Plan standard 10 (e). Standard 10 (f) The Forest Plan also has standards for size of old growth stands (Forest Plan II- 29). Preference is to have at least one stand per OGMU over 300 acres and stands should be at least 25 acres. Preference should be given to a contiguous stand; however, the stand may be subdivided into stands of 100 acres or larger if the stands are within one mile. This old growth review showed that OGMU 27 contains one old growth patch that is 283 acres (Figure 11) in the upper Kreist Creek basin, however, this patch of old growth is contained within a large matrix of mature forest providing the long-term opportunity for an old growth patch larger than 300 acres. All old growth stands are larger than 25 acres. Therefore, OGMU 27 would still meet old growth standard 10(c), which calls for maintenance of 5 percent old growth in each OGMU, if available. The Kreist Creek project complies with Forest Plan standard 10 (f) with respect to size of old growth stands. Standard 10 (g) This standard states that roads should be planned to avoid old-growth management stands to maintain unit size. No road building through old growth would occur under any action alternative. The Kreist Creek project complies with Forest Plan standard 10 (g). Standard 10 (h) Existing grazing allotments will be honored, however, a long-term objective should be to minimize or exclude domestic grazing within old-growth stands. New allotments in old-growth stands will not be allowed. There are no grazing allotments in the Kreist Creek project area, and consequently, no allotments in old growth. Furthermore, no new allotments are planned for the area. The Kreist Creek project complies with Forest Plan standard 10 (h). Standard 10 (i) Goals for lands to be managed as old growth within those lands suitable for timber production are identified in the management area prescriptions. Only Management Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 have specific Forest Plan old growth goals. The IPNF Forest Plan Monitoring report (p.97) shows those goals by management area, and what we have currently allocated for old growth. Current old growth allocations meet and far exceed these Forest Plan goals. 63

70 Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Figure 7. Old Growth Management Unit 27 Forest Structure (Alternative 2). 64