United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2010 East Fork Meadow Creek Environmental Assessment Bonners Ferry Ranger District Idaho Panhandle National Forests
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Data Accuracy The US Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification.
East Fork Meadow of Creek Environmental Assessment USDA Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests Bonners Ferry Ranger District Boundary County, Idaho The East Fork of Meadow Creek Project was initiated in the fall of 2008 when the Boundary County Commissioners and the Beeline Water Association asked the Forest Service to explore ways to protect the long term quality of the drinking water originating in the Meadow Creek headwaters, the only source of surface drinking water for the Beeline Water Association. The Forest Service prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) Forest Plan and other relevant laws and regulations. This EA discloses the foreseeable environmental effects of the East Fork of Meadow Creek proposal for determining whether or not to prepare an environmental impact statement. The documents cited in this EA can be obtained from the Bonners Ferry Ranger District office in Bonners Ferry, Idaho or from the Idaho Panhandle National Forests website (http://fs.usda.gov/goto/ipnf/projects). This EA is not a decision document. The EA summarizes the environmental consequences of the alternatives. The deciding officer (IPNF, Forest Supervisor) will select an alternative based on information in this document; how well the preferred alternative meets the purpose and need of the project; public comments and issues; and how well the alternative complies with applicable state and federal laws, agency policy and Forest Plan direction. The East Fork Meadow Creek Project is located in the central portion of the Bonners Ferry Ranger District in Boundary County, Idaho. The area includes Sections (or portions of) 13, 24 and 36 in T64N, R1E; Sections 19-21, 28-32, T63N, R2E; Sections 6-8, and 28, T63N, R2E of the Boise Meridian. The project area boundary encompasses approximately 7,800 acres in the upper Meadow Creek watershed stretching from Wall Creek to the east, and Rock Creek to the west. Approximately 7,220 acres are National Forest lands and 640 acres are privately owned. Policy Direction and Legal Framework Several federal laws and executive orders guide project-specific planning and environmental analysis on federal lands. While most pertain to all federal lands, some of the laws are specific to Idaho. References to these laws and orders, as well as disclosures and findings required by them, can be found in Appendix B and in the project file. NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL The existing and desired conditions in the project area summarized below are followed by the specific needs for the project. Existing Condition Much of the project area burned over with wild fires in 1889 and 1926. Subsequent forest succession led to development of densely stocked mixed conifer stands. Investment of time and money were spent in the 1980 s pre-commercially thinning approximately 700 acres in the project area. These treatments were effective in maintaining healthy vigorous stands featuring western larch. However, a considerable portion of the project area was not thinned, mechanically or through fire, and these stands are now overstocked and losing vigor. Additionally, some of the area was salvage logged and replanted with ponderosa pine from an unknown seed source after the 1926 fire. While well intentioned by forest managers of that era, they did not know that the ponderosa pine seedlings they planted in the burned areas were not genetically adapted to the local environment and would start to die out by age 50. 1
Figure 1. Project Area Vicinity Map 2
Desired Condition The desired conditions of the East Fork of Meadow Creek Project Area would include forest stands that are adapted to the local environment, resilient to disturbances such as insect outbreaks, diseases, and fires. The vegetation communities in the project area would be diverse, vigorous stands of mixed species including western white pine, native ponderosa pine and western larch. The area would have a sufficient amount of coarse woody debris to sustain soil biotic processes and provide wildlife habitat. In general, the coarse woody debris accumulations would be at levels that would not contribute to widespread probability of a high-severity fire. Public Involvement During the fall of 2008, the Boundary County Commissioners asked the Forest Service if there were anything that could be done on the federal lands in the vicinity of the Meadow Creek watershed that would reduce the risk of unwanted forest fires and associated damages to water quality. The headwaters of Meadow Creek provide drinking water for the Beeline Water Association which manages the drinking water for over 100 households. Their intention is to maintain a high quality water source over the long term. On May 15, 2009, the Bonners Ferry District mailed out a scoping notice to members of the public including adjacent landowners, local government offices, environmental groups and other interested individuals. The scoping letter described the proposed activities, invited interested parties on a field trip, and solicited feedback on the project. On May 26, the Bonners Ferry Ranger District hosted a field trip to view the project area and gather ideas addressing the proposed action. Attending the field trip were members of the Beeline Water Board, Boundary County Commissioners and members of the Forest Service interdisciplinary team (IDT). During the field trip, the group discussed the fire history in the area, the risk of road failures after a fire, and looked at examples of before and after thinning treatments. The discussion also focused on the local Myrtle Creek Fire of 2003 and the damages it caused to the City of Bonners Ferry water system, a situation that the Beeline Water Association is intending to avoid. On May 29, 2009 a Notice for Comment was published in the newspaper of record (the Coeur d Alene Press). Several comment letters were received and used to identify issues and develop alternatives to the proposed action. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need (project goals) for the East Fork of Meadow Creek project area are to: 1. Maintain and improve the overall forest health and resilience. 2. Reduce the risk of unwanted fires in the watershed. 3. Reduce the risk of sediment reaching the stream systems. These goals would be met through the following actions: Favor the development and continual maintenance of open-grown stands featuring long-lived seral species (i.e. western larch, ponderosa pine and white pine), which will reduce the stand vulnerability to insects, diseases and severe fires. Maintain stand structures associated with low crown fire potential in previously thinned stands. Regenerate the off-site ponderosa pine stands with species that are better adapted to the site conditions. Reduce the high-risk lodgepole pine component in stands where this species is currently susceptible to mountain pine beetle infestations. Improve the health and vigor of aspen stands that are declining in health due to competition from conifers. Maintain and improve the aquatic ecosystems (both watershed and fisheries) by creating a 3
Issues comprehensive transportation system and upgrading the drainage systems. Decommission or store any surplus roads and trails that are eroding and potentially degrading the drinking water quality. These issues were identified through the scoping process, both internally and externally as described above in the Public Involvement section. The issues were used to develop the action alternatives. Vegetation Principle Issue Forest Composition Forest Structure Table 1. Issues and Indicators for Vegetation Principle Issue Indicators Acres trended towards restoration of long-lived seral species; i.e., ponderosa pine, western larch and western white pine. Acres trended towards restoration of historic forest structures. Historically, forest structures provided a diversity of species and stocking levels that could better resist insects, disease, and wildfire. Fire and Fuels Fire Intensity (Flame Lengths (ft.) based on fuel characteristics and fuel loadings (tons/acre) Torching Index (windspeed (mph) necessary to intitiate torching to the overstory trees) Crowning Index (windspeed (mph) to sustain a crowning fire) Hydrology and Fisheries Table 2. Principal Issues and Indicators for Aquatics Principal Aquatics Issue Principal Issue Indicators The effects of harvesting and resulting canopy openings on water yield increases, sediment delivery to streams, and the loss of aquatic habitat throughout the Fern, Meadow, and East Fork Meadow watersheds. The effects of road construction, decommissioning, and maintenance activities on sediment delivery to streams and aquatic habitat throughout the Fern, Meadow, and East Fork Meadow watersheds. The effect of timber harvesting on mass failure potential areas within the project area. Percent change in the magnitude, intensity and duration of water yield from the existing condition. Percent change in the magnitude, intensity, and duration of sediment delivery to waterbodies within the project area. Total estimated sediment delivered over the duration of the project to waterbodies within the project area. Percent change in the magnitude of sediment yields from the existing condition. Change in road densities on sensitive landtypes. Change or improvement to the miles of roads within riparian areas. Change in the miles of proposed decommissioned roads and the benefits associated with road decommissioning. Risk of mass failure potential and the resulting effects on increases in soil erosion and sediment delivery. ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY Burn Only Alternative The interdisciplinary team developed and considered an alternative that would use prescribed burning, in lieu of timber harvest, to accomplish goals identified in the Purpose and Need. Two methods were considered to accomplish this, both of which introduced fire back into these stands. 4
The first one involved prescribed burning the stands, without any site preparation work, at temperatures hot enough to kill the majority of the seedling and sapling sized trees and about a quarter of the pole and sawlog sized trees. For a burn like this to be effective the weather and fuel conditions would have to be very dry. The second method would have included some felling of the unwanted trees, followed up with prescribed burning. This could be done under moister conditions than the first method, however, with the acres involved and the proximity to private lands, this would still be very risky. Both of these methods, regardless of success rates, would produce smoke well in excess of any of the timber harvest alternatives, would risk losing the entire organic layer, which is relatively shallow on the south-facing dry-site stands, and would forgo the opportunity to utilize wood products (e.g., lumber, pulp, and biomass energy) and provide economic stimulus. Without a source of revenue, it is unlikely that we would receive funding for these activities based on budget projections. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from detailed study. Helicopter Use with No Road Construction Alternative Several scoping responses from the public expressed interest in the Forest Service exploring an alternative for this project that did not include road construction. In the proposed units that are currently non accessible, they suggested using a helicopter to yard the trees back to the current road system. While helicopter yarding is sometimes a feasible option in certain stand types, in this case, the trees to be cut and yarded to the nearest road system are generally small in diameter which makes the payloads uneconomical. There is no access for ground equipment to economically pre-bunch the trees for yarding or to pile the ladder fuels and slash. For these reasons, the alternative was dropped from further analysis. ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION Implementation of this alternative would defer all treatment activities at this time. None of the proposed silvicultural treatments, roadwork (decommissioning, reconstruction, reconditioning, etc.), prescribed burning, or other mechanical treatments would be implemented to restore vegetative composition and structure, improve wildlife habitat, or maintain hydrologic function. 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 proposes vegetation treatments that would restore forest composition and structure through a combination of silvicultural and prescribed burning treatments on approximately 1,520 acres (see Table 3). Even aged silvicultural prescriptions (e.g., seed tree and shelterwood), designed to regenerate long-lived seral species (e.g., western larch and white pine), would treat approximately 110 acres. Intermediate treatments (commercial thin/sanitation salvage and improvement cuts) would be accomplished on approximately 1,410 acres. All treatments would be designed to improve the overall health and vigor of the treated stands. They would feature maintenance of the largest and most vigorous trees available, but long-lived seral species would be favored. Approximately 1,250 acres would be harvested using ground based systems (tractor), approximately 118 acres would be harvested using skyline systems, and approximately 152 acres would be accomplished with helicopter yarding. To improve the health and vigor of aspen clones where they exist, the silvicultural prescriptions would be designed to thin within and around the clones to reduce the competition from encroaching conifers. The aspen clones vary from approximately 1/5 of an acre to 3 acres in size and are interspersed in Units 1, 2, 4, 13, 18, 31, 32, 33, and 69 (refer to the Vegetation Report for more information). Activity fuels (slash) would be treated using one or a combination of the following methods: prescribed fire, mechanical grapple piling followed by pile burning, and whole-tree yarding. Approximately nine miles of existing, but overgrown and nearly impassable roads would be reconstructed to improve access to the treatment locations. Of those nine miles, approximately 5.3 miles would be stored following project completion. Approximately 3.1 miles of new roads would be constructed. Following 5
project completion, 0.5 miles of the new road construction would be stored and tracked in the Infra 1 database. Approximately 19 miles of roads would be decommissioned. Alternative 2 also proposes to reroute the existing motorized FS Trail 32, and would reconstruct 1 mile of existing road (currently brushedin) to trail specifications. The new location would not be located on any sensitive landtypes, is over 1000 feet from any stream, and would incorporate appropriate BMPs. Additionally, approximately 0.8 miles of Forest Service Road (FSR) 2499AUB would be converted to off-highway vehicle (OHV) trail. Alternative 2 includes entry into 49 acres of allocated dry forest old growth. This includes 40 acres of potential old growth (TSMRS code 11) in units 8 and 9, and nine acres of existing old growth (TSMRS code 9) in unit 10. For more detailed information regarding treatments in allocated old growth, refer to the Vegetation Report. 1 Infra is a Forest Service web-based database that enables forests to manage, report, and inventory their land units and its constructed features. 6
UNIT ACRES Table 3. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Unit Summary Fuel Equipment Treatment Silvicultural Treatment PCC Before Treatment PCC After Treatment 1 89 CT T WT-GP 70-80 40-60 2 137 CT T WT-GP 70-90 40-60 3 241 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 4 148 CT T WT-GP 70-90 50-60 6 25 ST/r T UB 70-80 10-20 7 20 CT S WT-UB 70-80 50-60 8 27 CT T WT-GP 70-80 50-60 9 152 CT H UB 70-80 50-60 10 12 IC S UB 60-80 50-60 11 47 CT S WT-UB 70-80 50-60 12 42 CT T WT-UB 60-80 50-60 13 39 CT T WT-UB 70-80 50-60 14 2 ST T UB 50-60 10-20 15 122 CT T WT-UB 50-60 40-50 17 38 ST/r T UB 30-40 10-20 18 6 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 20 22 CT T WT-UB 60-70 50-60 21 20 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 25 4 SW/r T UB 80-90 30-40 31 85 CT T WT-GP 40-70 40-60 32 19 SW/r T UB 40-60 20-40 33 18 SW/r T UB 40-60 20-40 34 5 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 35 2 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 36 10 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 37 74 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 61 6 ST/r S UB 60-70 10-20 69 40 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 80 33 CT S WT-UB 70-80 50-60 81 5 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 82 4 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 83 25 CT T WT-GP 60-70 50-60 1,520 Rx = Silvicultural prescription WT = Whole-Tree Yarding PCC = Percent canopy closure CT = Commercial Thin IC = Improvement Cut S = Skyline UB = Underburn GP = Grapple pile SW/r = Shelterwood with reserves ST/r = Seed Tree with reserves H = Helicopter T = Tractor 7
Figure 2. Alternative 2 8
ALTERNATIVE 3 In response to public scoping comments, Alternative 3 was designed as a modification of Alternative 2 in order to specifically address road and access issues. To accomplish the purpose and need, Alternative 3 would utilize existing access routes and would not construct new roads. The same vegetation restoration treatments would be applied, but on fewer acres with approximately 76 acres of even aged silvicultural prescriptions and approximately 616 acres of intermediate treatments (see Table 4). Total vegetation treatments would be approximately 685 acres. To improve the health and vigor of aspen clones where they exist, the silvicultural prescriptions would be designed to thin within in and around the clones to reduce the competition from encroaching conifers. The aspen clones vary from approximately 1/5 of an acre to 3 acres in size and are interspersed in Units 1, 4, and 13. Fuels would be addressed with the same treatments proposed with Alternative 2: prescribed burning, mechanical grapple piling followed by pile burning, whole tree yarding, or a combination of these treatments. Approximately 7.3 miles of roads would be reconstructed to access treatment units. Of the 7.3 miles that would be reconstructed, approximately 5 miles would be stored following project completion and tracked in the Infra database. Alternative 3 would also decommission approximately 17 miles of road. Approximately 0.8 miles of Forest Service Road (FSR) 2499AUB would be converted to OHV trail. No new roads or trails would be constructed with this alternative. Alternative 3 includes entry into approximately 40 acres of allocated dry forest old growth. This includes 31 acres of potential old growth (TSMRS code 11) in unit 9, and 9 acres of existing old growth (TSMRS code 9) in unit 10. For more detailed information regarding treatments in allocated old growth, refer to the Vegetation Report. Table 4. Alternative 3 Unit Summary UNIT ACRES Silvicultural Prescription Harvest Method Fuel Treatment PCC Before Treatment PCC After Treatment 1 89 CT T WT-GP 70-80 40-60 4 148 CT T WT-GP 70-90 50-60 6 25 ST T UB 70-80 10-20 7 20 CT S WT-UB 70-80 50-60 9 75 CT H UB 70-80 50-60 10 12 IC S UB 60-80 50-60 11 47 CT S WT-UB 70-80 50-60 12 42 CT T WT-UB 60-80 50-60 13 39 CT T WT-UB 70-80 50-60 14 3 ST T UB 50-60 10-20 15 122 CT T WT-UB 50-60 40-50 17 38 ST T UB 30-40 10-20 20 22 CT T WT-UB 60-70 50-60 25 4 SW T UB 80-90 30-40 61 6 ST S UB 60-70 10-20 692 Rx = Silvicultural prescription WT = Whole-Tree Yarding PCC = Percent canopy closure CT = Commercial Thin IC = Improvement Cut S = Skyline UB = Underburn GP = Grapple pile SW/r = Shelterwood with reserves ST / r= Seed Tree with reserves H = Helicopter T = Tractor 9
Figure 3. Alternative 3 10
Table 5 provides a summary description and comparison of the proposed vegetation treatments and road work for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Table 5. Alternative Summary Treatment Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Even-Aged Treatments Shelterwood with Reserves Seed Tree with Reserves Intermediate Treatments Commercial Thin/Sanitation Salvage Improvement Cut 0 0 1400 10 600 10 Total Acres Harvested 0 1520 685 Logging System Tractor 0 1250 530 Helicopter 0 120 85 Skyline 0 150 75 Fuels Treatment Underburn Grapple Pile 0 0 600 920 445 240 Total Acres Fuels Treatments 0 1520 685 Total Miles or Improvements Decommissioning 0 19.0 17.1 Storage 0 5.8 4.9 Construction 0 3.1 0 Reconstruction 0 8.9 7.3 0 0 40 70 5 70 Definitions of Silviculture Prescriptions Seed Tree with Reserves Designed to regenerate and maintain a stand with two age classes by removing most trees except for a small number of widely dispersed trees that will be retained for seed production and to produce a new age class. Large diameter western larch and white pine will be retained in the overstory where they exist. No future overstory removals would be conducted. Shelterwood with Reserves Designed to create two-storied stands featuring retention of largediameter ponderosa pine, western larch and white pine in the overstory and regeneration of these same species in the understory. No future overstory removals would be conducted. Commercial Thin/Sanitation Salvage Treatments would reduce stand density by removing smaller trees from the lower crown classes and favoring the development of the biggest and best quality trees to improve the health and vigor of the residual stands. Sanitation would occur in areas where small pockets (generally less than three acres) of insect and disease occur. Improvement Cut Treatments would be designed to remove less desirable trees to improve the composition and quality of the residual stand. 11
Design Features and Monitoring The following specific criteria must be applied during project implementation if either action alternative is selected. These requirements also apply to all activities associated with this project. The purpose of these measures is to completely avoid, or to the fullest extent possible, minimize the potential for adverse effects to the resources discussed below. The effects analysis assumes their implementation. 1. Air Quality a. All prescribed burning activities, during any time of the year, are regulated by the Idaho State Department of Environmental Quality, which issues burning closures when necessary to protect air quality. The Forest Service cooperates with the State by requesting approval to burn through the Montana/Idaho Airshed Management System in compliance with the Idaho State Implementation Plan. b. Burning would only occur when weather and air conditions are favorable for smoke dispersal. No burning would be initiated during times when air quality restrictions are in place. Estimated Effectiveness High. Boundary County is in Airshed 11 of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group the coordinated operations of this group being critical in accomplishing land management objectives while minimizing cumulative impacts of smoke from prescribed fire activities conducted by its members. The Bonners Ferry Ranger District strictly complies with the procedures coordinated by the Airshed Group. 2. Cultural Resources Cultural resources (including any newly encountered historic or pre-historic cultural sites) including buildings, trails, mining or logging camps and chutes, and properties would be protected by avoiding, buffering, or mitigating impacts to the sites. This includes caves, sinkholes, vertical shafts, and related features protected by the Federal Cave Resources Act of 1988. Site specific measures for known cultural resource sites will be incorporated into special provision C6.24# or required by the cultural resources report. The decision to avoid, protect or mitigate impacts to these sites would be in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Estimated Effectiveness High. Contract provisions for protection of cultural resources are utilized in all contracts and have been effective in protecting cultural resources. (2000 Forest Plan Monitoring Report, Summary of Findings, page 2). 3. Water and Fish Aquatic Environment a. All activities will meet or exceed guidelines described in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (Forest Service Manual 2509.22). These Best Management Practices (BMPs) are discussed in Appendix A to this document. Following these BMPs will meet the water quality protection elements of the Idaho Forest Practices Act. b. All Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFS) standards and guidelines that apply to activities in the East Fork Meadow Creek Project would be utilized (Fisheries Report). This project would utilize the standard widths described for the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) listed below in Table 6. Table 6. Standard RHCA Widths INFS Category Description RHCA Width 1 Fish bearing streams 300 from either side of channel 2 Permanent, flowing, non-fish 150 from either side of channel bearing stream, wetlands >1 acre 4 Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams Wetlands <1 acre Landslide prone areas 12 75 from either side of channel (100 priority watersheds)
Estimated Effectiveness Moderate to High. Research has evaluated the effectiveness of BMPs (Seyedbahgeri 1996 2, USDA Forest Service Monitoring Reports 2002 and 2004). The researchers found that properly implemented BMPs are moderately to highly effective at preventing resource damages. 4. Fuels a. Excess activity fuels would be treated in order to minimize the risk of high intensity, high severity fire occurrence. Proposed fuel treatments include whole-tree yarding, mechanical grapple piling followed by pile burning, prescribed burning, or a combination of all three. Landing piles will be chipped for biomass utilization where feasible. b. Prescribed burning would be conducted as established in Forest Service Manual 5142 Prescribed Fire Management. A site-specific burn plan would be prepared for each area to be burned to meet specific objectives. Burning would only occur when weather, fuel conditions, and available resources are at levels specified in the prescribed burn plan. 5. Noxious Weeds A number of preventative measures would be taken to reduce the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread in accordance with the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds EIS and in the Weeds Report. Measures Include: a. All off-road logging and construction equipment would be cleaned prior to entering the project area to remove dirt, plant parts, and material that may carry weed seeds. A provision would be included in the sale contract. b. Mulching agents, such as hay or straw, would be certified weed free. c. Newly constructed or reconstructed roads, skids trails, landings or other areas of heavy soil disturbance (including some road maintenance activities on existing roads), would be seeded with the appropriate IPNF, certified weed-free seed mix and fertilized as necessary. d. Monitoring for new infestations would occur throughout the project area. Estimated Effectiveness Moderate to High. These measures are accepted weed prevention practices developed by public land management agencies and university cooperative extension offices and promoted by weed management organizations across the nation (DiTomaso 2000; Drlik et al. 1998; Sheley et al. 2002; USDA FS 2001a). 6. Rare Plants a. All documented rare plant occurrences would be protected from project activities by site-specific buffers established by a qualified botanist. b. Microsites of highly suitable rare plants habitat that occur within proposed treatment units, including seeps, springs and other seasonally or perennially wet areas, would be protected from all project activities by site-specific buffers established by a qualified botanist. c. Any changes to the proposed action that may occur during layout would be reviewed by a qualified botanist, and rare plant surveys would be conducted as necessary prior to project implementation. Newly documented occurrences would be evaluated, with specific protection measures implemented to protect population viability. Such measures could include the following: Dropping units from harvest activity; Modifying unit boundaries to provide adequate buffers around documented occurrences, as determined by a qualified botanist and based on topography, extent of contiguous suitable habitat for documented occurrences and the type of treatment proposed; Modifying harvest methods, fuels treatment or logging systems to protect rare plants and 2 A complete list of references cited can be found in the individual resource reports or the project file 13
7. Recreation their habitats; and/or Implementing, if necessary, Timber Sale Contract provisions B6.24, Protection Measures Needed for Plants, Animals, Cultural Resources, and Cave Resources; C6.24#- Site Specific Special Protection Measures; and B8.33, Contract Suspension and Modification. a. Schedule all activities (cutting, hauling, etc.) during the week to provide safer driving conditions on the main haul roads. Roads should be well maintained, in particular to the Trail #32 trail head to allow easy passage with 2 wheel drive vehicles. The new trail head should be clearly defined and be large enough to accommodate 4 vehicles, 2 of which have trailers. b. Post informational signs at trailheads to help forest visitors understand the treatments. c. Identify trails/roads open to ATV/motorcycle use throughout the project area. Utilize roads and abandoned roads to make networks where possible. Develop connecting trail spurs if possible to make a logical network. d. Implement area closures to cross-country motorized use on treated lands adjacent to open roads that could be accessed by off road motor vehicles. Estimated Effectiveness High. Timber sale contract provisions have proven effective in controlling timing of operations and protecting improvements (e.g., trails, campground facilities, outbuildings, etc.). Similar design features have been successful with protecting and maintaining recreational resources when implemented on other vegetation management projects on the District. 8. Road Construction, Reconstruction and Maintenance A road package will be included with the timber sale contract for road improvement, reconstruction, and maintenance. The site-specific BMP criteria listed in Appendix A must be applied during project implementation. Estimated Effectiveness High to Moderate. See the discussion on Best Management Practices (Appendix A) for more information. 9. Soils To reduce the impacts to soils and soil productivity, the proposed action would utilize Soil and Conservation Practices as described in the Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCP) Handbook (FSH 2509.22) and Appendix A. This handbook and appendix outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) that protect the soil resources at a higher level than do existing Idaho Forest Practices rules and regulations, thereby incorporating all Idaho state standards. The following practices are designed to minimize the detrimental impacts of soil compaction, displacement, severe burning, and nutrient and organic matter depletion on long-term soil productivity. The use of these practices would insure that the soil quality standards listed in the Forest Plan and Regional Soil Quality Standards would be met. Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to soil and sediment processes also apply and are outlined in Features Designed to Protect Water and Fish Aquatic Environment and Appendix A-BMPs. a. Fine organic matter and large woody debris would be retained on the ground for sustained nutrient recycling in harvest units, consistent with Graham et al. (1994). Downed woody retention levels will be maintained as recommended by Graham et al. (1994). Special attention to meet coarse woody debris levels would be given to Unit 20 which is currently low in three quarters of the activity area. The following recommendations would be used in prescriptions: 14
Table 7. Recommended retention levels for coarse woody debris.* Site Conditions Coarse Woody Debris Drier to dry end of moist sites Moist sites *(Graham et al. 1994) 15 7-14 tons/acre 17-33 tons/acre Estimated Effectiveness High. Based on research (Graham et al. 1994, Brown et al. 2003) and Forest Plan Monitoring Reports (USDA FS 1998, 1999a, and 2000), effectiveness is high when guidelines are used; implementation has been moderately successful. b. The latest soil nutrient management recommendations from the Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrient Cooperative (IFTNC) and Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) would be applied as appropriate to all activity areas. Table 8. Recommended retention time for slash.* Harvest Time Recommended Slash Retention Time Winter 9 to 15 months (15 for potassium) Spring 6 to 12 months (12 for potassium) Summer 9 months *(Jain and Graham 2009) c. Slash will be left to allow nutrients to return into the soil until fuel reduction treatments occur. Regeneration harvest Units 6, 14, 17, 25, 32, 33, and 61 would not be whole tree yarded and would overwinter slash based on the recommended retention time (Table 8). Elevated accumulations of down wood and thick duff layers exist throughout the project area along with underlying rock types that are rated as primarily moderate in regards to nutrient management. This, along with the retention of a 50 to 60% canopy closure after harvest, would allow for whole-tree yarding in commercial thin units only. Refer to Design Feature 10 Timber Harvesting for a list of units that would provide the opportunity for whole-tree yarding. Additional grapple-piling as needed and burning would be permitted as long as recommended slash retention times are followed so that adequate current and future nutrient needs would be met. Estimated Effectiveness Moderate to high. These practices are based on research and Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Cooperative recommendations (Baker 1989; Barber and Van Lear 1984; Edmonds 1987; Garrison and Moore 1998; Garrison-Johnston et al. 2007; Jain and Graham 2009; Laskowski et al. 1995; Moore et al. 2004; Palviainen et al. 2004). d. Prescribed burning and pile burning would occur only when the upper surface inch of mineral soil has a moisture content of 25% by weight, or when duff moisture exceeds 60%, or when other monitoring or modeling indicates that soil productivity will be protected. When prescribed fire is utilized, post-burn conditions would result in no more than 25 to 30 percent bare soils (excluding natural conditions) within an activity area (burn unit). On sensitive soils or slopes at or greater than 40%, no more than 20% of bare soils (excluding natural conditions) would be exposed within the activity area. The desired prescribed fire outcome includes retention of organic matter (generally not much less than ¼ of an inch) that protects the soil from rain splash impacts, erosion, a decrease in soil moisture holding capacity, and increased solar surface heating, especially on south-facing slopes. Estimated Effectiveness High. This practice is effective in retaining decomposing forest floor litter and organic matter to retain nutrients and soil productivity potential (Niehoff 1985; Niehoff 2002; USDA FS 2001a, 2002, and 2003; S-13). e. Existing skid trails and roads within units and slash mats would be used whenever available to
reduce impacts from harvest, site preparation and fuel treatment activities. Incorporation of slash mats is expected in all regeneration units. Main skid trail spacing would average 100 feet or greater in tractor units, except where the trails converge to landings and as terrain dictates otherwise. All other trails would be spaced at maximum reaching distance. Operation of mechanical equipment is limited to slopes under 40% with the exception of Unit 6 which will be winter logged (see Mitigation). Skid trail and landing locations would be approved by the Forest Service prior to harvesting and would be rehabilitated as necessary to assure that normal drainage patterns are maintained. Excavated trails would be approved by a sale administrator prior to construction, kept to a minimum, and obliterated following use. There would be no equipment on the high banks above the cut slopes of roads. Additional care should be taken in Units 15 and 20 due to a reduced availability of slash and existing disturbance so that some larger material remains based on recommendations in Table 7 above. Estimated Effectiveness Moderate to high. Forest Plan monitoring and research (Eliasson and Wästerlund. 2007, Han 2006; McDonald and Seixas 1997; Niehoff 2002; USDA FS 2001a, 2002 and 2003) indicates little to no soil disturbance if equipment is operated on a slash mat. Additional monitoring (USDA FS 1998, 1999a, 2000, and 2001a) indicate little to no detrimental soil compaction and displacement with these requirements. These guidelines exceed the requirement of the Idaho Forest Practices Act and meet the Forest and Regional Soil Quality Standard by limiting disturbance to less than 15% of the activity area (Niehoff 2002; Adams 1997). f. Unit 6 will be mandatory winter logged (see Mitigation section below). This unit and any other potential activity area to be harvested in the winter will use one or more of the following requirements depending on current site conditions: Operate on a 24-inch snow layer or 18 inches of settled snow. Operate when the ground is frozen to a depth of 3 inches. Restrict equipment operation to main skid trails or where adequate slash matting exists. Suspend operations under wet or thawing conditions. Estimated Effectiveness High. Past Forest Plan monitoring reports and literature (USDA FS 2001a, 2002, and 2003; Flatten 2003; Philipek 1985) indicate little to no detrimental soil compaction and displacement with these requirements. g. The leading end of logs will be suspended during skyline yarding. No yarding across designated RHCA s would occur with this project. Estimated Effectiveness High. The intent is to reduce the potential detrimental soil impacts of displacement and compaction. Past Forest Plan monitoring (Niehoff 2002; USDA FS 2004) indicates low amounts of soil compaction and displacement with skyline yarding systems. h. Any ground-based piling of slash (grapple-piling) would operate on slopes under 40%, would utilize existing trails, and operate on slash mats wherever possible. Burn piles should be small and numerous rather than large and few. The forest floor and associated duff and litter layer is to be left undisturbed and removal of surplus woody material for fuel reduction or biomass utilization is limited to suspended material. No soil wood or partially buried woody material will be disturbed or removed. Estimated Effectiveness Moderate to high. Past Forest Plan monitoring reports and literature (USDA FS 1998, 1999a, 2000 and 2001a) indicate little to no detrimental soil compaction and displacement with these requirements. These guidelines exceed the requirement of the Idaho Forest Practices Act and meet the Forest and Regional Soil Quality Standard by limiting disturbance to less than 15% of the activity area (Niehoff 2002; Adams 1997). 16
i. Existing roads will be utilized as landings where appropriate in order to maintain current soil compaction levels. All landings on anything other than existing or newly constructed system roads will be rehabilitated and covered with residual slash (within guidelines provided by Graham et al. 1994 for coarse-woody debris by habitat type), and seeded upon completion of the sale. Estimated Effectiveness High. Locating landings on existing classified National Forest system roads that are considered designated lands eliminates additional impacts to activity units. BMPs are very effective in reducing nonpoint source pollution from silvicultural activities (Lynch and Corbett 1998 and 1999). 10. Timber Harvesting A variety of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter yarding systems are proposed. The systems chosen were based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to resource protection, economics, and current and future access needs. Any on-site changes in logging systems would be made to protect resources. Both action alternatives include whole-tree yarding; however, operations would be conducted such that evenly distributed coarse woody material greater than 3 diameter in quantities listed in Table 9 would be retained. Removing limbs and tops prior to skidding or yarding or returning them to the area after skidding or yarding may be required in order to meet the minimum requirement. Table 9. Whole-Tree Yarding Unit Alt2 Alt3 Tons/Acre Grand Total 1 88 88 17-33 88 2 137 0 17-33 137 3 241 0 17-33 241 4 148 148 17-33 148 7 20 20 17-33 20 8 27 0 17-33 27 11 47 47 7-13 47 12 42 42 7-13 42 13 39 39 17-33 39 15 122 122 7-13 122 18 6 0 17-33 6 20 22 22 7-13 22 21 20 0 17-33 20 31 85 0 17-33 85 34 5 0 17-33 5 35 2 0 17-33 2 36 10 0 17-33 10 37 74 0 17-33 74 69 40 0 17-33 40 80 33 0 17-33 33 81 5 0 17-33 5 82 4 0 17-33 4 83 25 0 17-33 25 Total 1241 528 A Forest Service representative on all logging operations would conduct a pre-operational meeting. Special conditions of the work would thereby be established in advance (Garten 1991). The purpose of this measure is to make sure that resource protection objectives are clearly communicated and understood by all parties responsible for project implementation. 17
Estimated Effectiveness (all items) High. Timber Sale Contract provisions for these resources have been effective in protecting natural resources. 11. Vegetation a. Weed and release, precommercial thinning, or slashing treatments would be used in specific units to manage stocking levels of existing regeneration. All slash would be removed from road ditch lines. b. Where they currently exist in the overstory, the most vigorous ponderosa pine, white pine, western larch, and Engelmann spruce would be maintained in treated stands. Where regeneration harvests are prescribed these species would be restored through planting or natural regeneration. Estimated Effectiveness High. Timber sale and service contracts provide the necessary administrative control to insure these features are met. 12. Visual and Scenic Quality Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) would be met through implementation of the following: a. To achieve the partial retention VQO in Units 7, 10 and 11 under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, skyline and/or harvesting equipment corridors would need to avoid being visible as straight line openings. To achieve this, treatments would ensure that residual canopy closures immediately adjacent to the corridors are at the most open spacing, or irregularly arranged so unnatural straight lines are not visible on the hillside. b. Units 6, 13, 15, 10, 11, 20 and 25 under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are considered to be visually sensitive. Harvest treatments in these units would be designed to open the canopy up enough to eliminate any vertical straight line features that would result from tractor and skyline corridors created on moderate to steep slopes in closed-canopy conditions. Sale administration would avoid locating skid trails in harvest areas that may run through dense clumps of residual trees, when possible. Estimated Effectiveness High. IPNF Forest Plan visual monitoring of past timber harvests has consistently shown success in maintaining VQOs when the design criteria described above are applied. The proposed harvest treatments should blend in nicely with the existing openings and rock outcroppings that are located adjacent to and above the treatment area. 13. Wildlife a. Wildlife Tree Retention Snags and live tree replacements will be retained where opportunities exist in treatment units at levels recommended by scientific literature based on recent studies (Bull et al. 1997). Retention objectives are consistent with recent published data that suggests that populations of cavity nesters were viable in stands of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests that contained about four snags per acre (Bull et al. 1997). The East Fork Meadow project will strive to maintain more than the minimum number of snags because silvicultural prescriptions would feature retention of existing snags and large-diameter live trees, especially ponderosa pine and western larch, which can be managed as future replacement snags. While retention objectives are accounted for on a treatment level scale, some snags would be represented on every 10 acres of treatment, in clusters or clumps where feasible, to promote good distribution of snags. Selection of snags and live tree replacements would emphasize practices that assure the highest probability for long-term retention (Bull et al. 1997). The high hazard snags and snags in the advanced stages of decay would not be used to meet retention objectives (Intermountain Forest and Industry Association 1995). Retention practices would focus on ponderosa pine, western larch, Douglas-fir and western red cedar trees, especially veteran or relic ponderosa pine and western larch trees. Trees killed by root disease should be avoided, where possible, to meet retention objectives because of their rapid deteriorate/fall-down rate. 1) Retain all merchantable snags greater than 14 inches in diameter, to the maximum extent 18
possible. Retain smaller snags if they do not contribute to excessive understory congestion, and retention is consistent with unit management objectives. Large snags that are felled for safety reasons should remain on site to provide for wildlife habitat and long-term site productivity. 2) Also, retain selected large Douglas-firs to achieve desired stand conditions, as described further in Dry Forest Ecosystems below. Table 10. Snag Retention Vegetation Response Unit Cool Douglas-fir, warm grand fir types on gentle slopes Cool Douglas-fir, warm grand fir types on steep slopes Cool, wet, and dry spruce, grand fir, hemlock and subalpine fir Low elevation cedar, hemlock High elevation spruce, subalpine fir, lodgepole Snags/Acre 4 > 20 dbh 6-12 total, with 2-4 > 20 dbh 6-12 total, with 2 > 20 dbh 12 total, with 4 > 20 dbh 5-10 total > 10 dbh Slash would be pulled back from veteran or relic ponderosa pine and western larch live trees and snags to protect them from the adverse effects of prescribed burning. Grapple piling would be considered to treat fuels on moderate slopes where residual snags would be at risk from broadcast burning. Estimated Effectiveness Moderate. This measure would be implemented using project layout, contract provisions, compliance monitoring and fuels treatment, and would have a moderate chance of avoiding and/or reducing adverse effects on snag dependent wildlife. It would not be the intent of this project to willfully remove the high hazard snags, and snags in the advanced stages of decay ( soft snags). Some of these soft snags would survive and remain standing during the life of the project. Due to Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) guidelines, most contractors will remove snags deemed to pose a safety risk to ground crews. Consequently, commercial thinning prescriptions will generally result in higher levels of snag retention than even-aged regeneration harvest units, since portions of units will be left untreated and contractor exposure to hazardous snags subsequently reduced. In addition, the hard snags preferred by the District for their ability to remain longer on the landscape are less likely to be felled as hazards than softer snags. Past monitoring has demonstrated that tree harvesting and subsequent burning removes a large portion of existing snags, especially the soft snags. However, through the strategic placement of leave patches or clumps, snags within these areas will be protected. In addition, prescribed underburning will recruit new snags by fire-killing residual green trees. There would be no problem meeting and exceeding live tree replacement criteria in that vegetative prescriptions are designed to leave ample green trees scattered in patches and individually (regeneration cutting), and uniformly (selective cutting) across treatment areas. Consequently, this measure should provide more than the minimum number of snags and live tree replacements. b. Dry Forest Ecosystems Because there are fewer ponderosa pine trees in the northern Rocky Mountains than were there historically, it is necessary to retain selected large Douglas-fir trees in addition to the large ponderosa pine trees to achieve suitable habitat conditions for species associated with the drier habitats (e.g. flammulated owls, white-breasted nuthatch, Cassin s finch). For stands associated with the dry forest ecosystem, design harvest prescriptions to maintain the persistence of a mature ponderosa pine/douglas-fir community by: Retaining an overstory canopy closure of 35-65 percent. Achieving a relatively open landscape of ponderosa pine/douglas-fir that is structurally complex as opposed to a landscape that is structurally simple. Design for non-uniform spacing of trees (moderate within stand variability) with patchy microhabitats of understory 19