United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Halstead Fire Salvage Project Environmental Assessment

Challis-Yankee Fork and Middle Fork Ranger Districts, Salmon-Challis National Forest, Custer County, Idaho

June 2017

For More Information Contact:

Jared Whitmer Challis-Yankee Fork District Ranger

311 N. Hwy 93 Challis, ID 83226

Phone: (208) 879-4100 Fax: (208) 879-4199

Front Page Photo: Halstead Fire building a column spreading to the north and east. Photograph

courtesy of the Halsted Fire Incident Management Team (2012).

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) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office

of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

i

Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................ i Tables .............................................................................................................................................. ii Figures ............................................................................................................................................ iii Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Proposed Project Location .................................................................................................... 1 Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District ...................................................................................... 1 Middle Fork Ranger District ................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposal ....................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2 - Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................ 5

2.1 Alternatives Considered, but Not Analyzed in Detail ........................................................... 5 Forest Restoration .................................................................................................................... 6 Retention of Trees Greater Than 16 inches diameter .............................................................. 6 Removal of Areas That Experience Low Fire Severity or None ............................................. 6 Low Impact Logging ............................................................................................................... 7 Changes between Scoping and this EA ................................................................................... 7

2.2 Proposed Action (Alternative 2) ........................................................................................... 7 2.3 No Action (Alternative 1) ................................................................................................... 23 2.4 Winter Logging (Alternative 3) .......................................................................................... 23 2.5 Design Features ................................................................................................................... 27 2.6 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 37

Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Down Woody Debris ............................................................................................................. 37 Noxious Weeds ...................................................................................................................... 37

Chapter 3 - Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives .............................. 37 3.1 Botany ................................................................................................................................. 38

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TES)......................................................... 38 Sensitive Species ................................................................................................................... 38 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................... 40 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 42

3.2 Climate Change ................................................................................................................... 42 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................... 42

3.3 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 43 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................... 43 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 43

3.4 Fire and Fuels ...................................................................................................................... 43 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................... 43 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 44

3.5 Fisheries .............................................................................................................................. 44 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TES)......................................................... 45 Sensitive Species ................................................................................................................... 45 Management Indicator Species .............................................................................................. 46 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 ............................. 46 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 46

3.6 Invasive ............................................................................................................................... 47 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................... 47 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 49

3.7 Hydrology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 49 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 50

ii

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................... 56 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 61

3.8 Range .................................................................................................................................. 61 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................... 64 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 65

3.9 Recreation and Visual Quality ............................................................................................ 66 Recreation and Roadless ........................................................................................................ 66 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 69 Visual Quality ........................................................................................................................ 69 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 72

3.10 Silviculture ........................................................................................................................ 72 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................... 75 Old-Growth ........................................................................................................................... 77 Whitebark pine ...................................................................................................................... 78 Consistency with the National Forest Management Act ....................................................... 79

3.11 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 82 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TES)......................................................... 82 Executive Order #13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds

............................................................................................................................................... 83 Executive Order #13443; Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation ....... 85 Species Listed as Management Indicator (MIS) .................................................................... 86 Terrestrial Species Listed as Sensitive by the Regional Forester .......................................... 88 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ... 91

3.12 Other Resources Concerns Eliminated From Detail Study ............................................... 91 Travel Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 91

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................. 91 Interdisciplinary Team Members: ......................................................................................... 91 Federal, State, and Local Agencies: ...................................................................................... 92 Tribes: .................................................................................................................................... 92 Individuals or Groups: ........................................................................................................... 92

References ..................................................................................................................................... 92 Appendix A – Catalog of Activities and Actions for Cumulative Effects Analysis...................... 95

Listing of Timber Sales and Treatments Prescription by Decade within Halstead Fire Salvage

Project Area from 1960’s – 2015 .............................................................................................. 99 Appendix B – Comments and Responses .................................................................................... 104 Finding of No Significant Impact ................................................................................................ 117

Context .................................................................................................................................... 117 Intensity ................................................................................................................................... 117

Tables Table 1 - Treatment Unit Designation Broken Out by District and Location ................................. 8 Table 2 - Prescriptions for harvest units ........................................................................................ 16 Table 3 - Summary of Proposed Acres, Miles of Re-opened Roads, and Temporary Roads........ 21 Table 4 – Listing of closed roads to be used administratively on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger

District and closure techniques post-harvest. ........................................................................ 22 Table 5 - Estimated Soil Disturbance Acres by District ................................................................ 22 Table 6 - Description of Identified Haul Routes by Location of Harvest ..................................... 23 Table 7 - Implementation Measures for Winter Logging Alternative 3 ........................................ 24 Table 8 - Action Alternative Design Features ............................................................................... 27

iii

Table 9 - Estimated Soil Disturbance Acres .................................................................................. 47 Table 10 - Recommended Filter Strip Comparison vs. Actual Distance to Stream Course .......... 53 Table 11 - Outputs for Sedimentation and Water Yield ................................................................ 54 Table 12 - Nutrient Loads from Watersheds for Different Alternatives ....................................... 55 Table 13 - Detrimental Soil Disturbance Estimates for Proposed Harvest Units .......................... 58 Table 14 - Recreational Impact Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................ 68 Table 15 - Visual Quality Objective Used to Give Direction to Vegetation Management Planning

............................................................................................................................................... 70 Table 16- Stand Characteristics Post-fire Halstead Fire Salvage Project ...................................... 73 Table 17 - Acres and Percent Climax Coniferous Forest Post Fire and Disturbance Events ........ 75 Table 18 - Percent Remaining Climax Coniferous Forest ............................................................. 77 Table 19 - Summary of Species with May Impact Determinations............................................... 89

Figures Figure 1 - Challis-Yankee Fork Proposed Treatment Area ............................................................. 2 Figure 2 - Middle Fork District Proposed Treatment Area ............................................................. 3 Figure 3 - Halstead Fire Salvage Project Area ................................................................................ 4 Figure 4 - Proposed Treatment Units .............................................................................................. 9 Figure 5 - Asher/Knapp Creek Units Map 1 ................................................................................. 10 Figure 6 - Asher Knapp Creek Units Map 2 .................................................................................. 11 Figure 7 - Kelly Valley Creek Units ........................................................................................... 12 Figure 8 - Noho Units .................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 9 - Halstead Burn Severity Map ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 10 - Dry Creek Road and Idaho pennycress occurrence locations on the Middle Fork

Ranger District of the Salmon-Challis National Forest ......................................................... 40 Figure 11 - No Action Alternative – Basin Creek Watershed Proposed Harvest Unit – Post-fire

vegetation recovery. .............................................................................................................. 50 Figure 12 - Action Alternatives – Basin Creek Watershed Proposed Harvest Units - Post-fire

vegetation recovery – initial harvest year 2015 ..................................................................... 50 Figure 13 - Moderate Burn Fire Severity - Halstead Fire Salvage Project 2014 ........................... 52 Figure 14 - Cape Horn allotment pastures ..................................................................................... 63 Figure 15 - Post-fire grass and forb regeneration, Cape Horn unit ............................................... 64 Figure 16 - Post fire remaining climax coniferous forest .............................................................. 75

Challis-Yankee and Middle Fork Ranger Districts, Salmon-Challis National Forest

Halstead Fire Salvage Project

Challis-Yankee Fork/Middle Fork Ranger District

Salmon-Challis National Forest

Custer County, Idaho

March 2017

Responsible Official: Jared R. Whitmer

Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger Districts

311 N. Hwy 93

Challis, ID 83226

Phone: (208) 879-4100

Fax: (208) 879-4199

ABSTRACT: The environmental assessment (EA) documents the analysis for the Halstead Fire

Salvage Project. Two action alternatives evaluated activities designed to achieve the projects

purpose and need.

This proposed project is subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subpart A and

B.

Eligibility to File Objections: Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously

submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project either during scoping or

other designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with § 218.5(a). Issues raised in

objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding

the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated opportunities.

Individual members of organizations must have submitted their own comments to meet the

requirements of eligibility as an individual, objections received on behalf of an organization are

considered as those of the organization only. If an objection is submitted on behalf of a number

of individuals or organizations, each individual or organization listed must meet the eligibility

requirement of having previously submitted comments on the project (§ 218.7). Names and

addresses of objectors will become part of the public record.

Contents of an Objection: Incorporation of documents by reference in the objection is

permitted only as provided for at § 218.8(b). Minimum content requirements of an objection are

identified in § 218.8(d) include

• Objector’s name and address with a telephone number if available; with signature or

other verification of authorship supplied upon request;

• Identification of the lead objector when multiple names are listed, along with verification

upon request;

• Name of project, name and title of the responsible official, national forest/ranger district

of project, and

• Sufficient narrative description of those aspects of the proposed project objected to,

specific issues related to the project, how environmental law, regulation, or policy would

be violated, and suggested remedies which would resolve the objection.

• Statement demonstrating the connection between prior specific written comments on this

project and the content of the objection, unless the objection issue arose after the

designated opportunity for comment.

Halsted Fire Salvage Project

2

Filing an Objection: The reviewing officer is the Forest Supervisor, Salmon-Challis National

Forest. Written objections, including any attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, email,

hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the reviewing officer at Objection Reviewing Officer,

Intermountain Region USFS, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 84401; or fax to 801-625-5277; or by

email to: [email protected] within 45 days following the publication

date of this legal notice in the newspaper of record. The office business hours for those

submitting hand delivered objections are: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a format such as an email message, pdf,

plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), and Word (.doc or .docx) to objections-intermtn-

[email protected] . It is the responsibility of objectors to ensure their objection is received

in a timely manner (§ 218.9). The publication date in The Challis Messenger, newspaper of

record, is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection of this project. Those

wishing to object to this proposed project should not rely upon dates or timeframe information

provided by any other source.

The EA, FONSI Draft Decision Notice, legal notice, and other information are available for

review at the Challis-Yankee and Middle Fork Ranger Districts and at the Forest’s web site at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=43556. Additional information regarding this proposed

project can be obtained from: David Morris, 311 N. Hwy 93, Challis, ID 83226, 208-879-4127,

[email protected].

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=43556


1

Chapter 1 - Introduction The Forest Service is proposing to salvage marketable timber, killed as the result of the Halstead

fire of 2012 and trees that have died post-fire from Douglas-fir beetle expansion triggered by

primary and secondary effects of the fire on approximately 1,241 acres. Other actions that would

take place include opening and closing four segments of road, totaling four miles in length in the

Noho drainage on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District. These actions are proposed to be

implemented on the Challis-Yankee Fork and Middle Fork Ranger Districts of the Salmon-Challis

National Forest (SCNF).

The Forest Service prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether

implementation of salvage harvesting of fire/Douglas-fir beetle killed trees and the opening and

closing of four segments of road 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). Per 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 218.7(a), this project is subject to

subparts A and B of 36 CFR 218. This EA has been prepared in accordance with the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508), the National

Forest Management Act, and the 1987 Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan (Forest Plan) as amended. For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action

and Alternatives section of this document.

1.1 Proposed Project Location The project area is located in two separate areas on two different adjoining ranger districts:

Challis-Yankee Fork and the Middle Fork of the Salmon-Challis National Forest. The project

areas only encompass a small portion of the western edge of the Halstead Fire that is readily

accessible by existing system roads Figure 3 - Halstead Fire Salvage Project Area and represents

approximately 53,233 acres. A verbal geographical description of the area can be found in the

project record Figure 3.

Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District

The Challis-Yankee Fork portion is located approximately four air miles north of Stanley, Idaho

in the Kelly and Noho Creek drainages in Basin Creek Management Area # 5 and a small area in

the Valley Creek drainage of the Valley Creek Management Area #4 as described in the Forest

Plan. Project area follows Forest Service Road #40085, 40328, 40031, and portions of 40290

(Figure 1 and eastern portion of Figure 2) encompassing 935 acres. Location is legally described

as sec. 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, T 11 N, R 13 E, sec. 18, T 11 N, R 14 E, and sec. 21 and 22 of T 12

N, R12 E, of the Boise Meridian.


2

Figure 1 - Challis-Yankee Fork Proposed Treatment Area

Middle Fork Ranger District

The Middle Fork portion is approximately fourteen air miles northwest of Stanley, Idaho in the

Kelly and Knapp Creek drainages which is encompass the Marsh Creek Management Area # 3

described in the Forest Plan. Project areas include sections paralleling Forest Service Road

40027, 40290, and road # 40293 encompassing 307 acres (See Figure 2). Location is legally

described as sec. 12, and 13, T 12 N, R 11 E, and, sec. 5, 6, 9, 15,16,17, and 21 T 12 N, R 12 E, of

the Boise Meridian.


3

Figure 2 - Middle Fork District Proposed Treatment Area


4

Figure 3 - Halstead Fire Salvage Project Area

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposal The Purpose of the Halstead Fire Salvage project is to recover, in a timely manner, marketable

dead trees killed by the fire and potentially those trees that will die in the near future as Douglas-


5

fir beetle population expansion is triggered as a result of the fire. Salvage operations would

contribute to short term timber supply and long term sustainability of timber on National Forest

System lands. Trees would be salvaged along existing and accessible roadways that are part of

the SCNF suitable timber base.

The Need for action is driven by Management Area direction or more specifically goals/desired

future conditions as defined by the Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Plan). According to the Forest Plan, one of these desired conditions is to manage suitable

timber land for production (IV-5, Forest Plan). Other needs include addressing safety issues

present by recently killed trees along public roadways, and meeting public demands for forest

products.

Merchantable timber is located within the fire area. However, due to expected decay rates of fire-

affected trees, timely harvest is essential to ensure some level of merchantability. Trees killed by

the fire or by subsequent beetle outbreak will lose a portion of their economic value each year

following the fire. Because of decay, volume decreases steadily over the next three years, with

much of the volume losing its value in 1 to 2 years following the fire as is currently being

observed in 2015. Larger trees and stands that experienced less intense or severe fire would

likely remain merchantable longer, but they would also lose economic value over time as

significant defects introduced by insect and disease agents develop.

Chapter 2 - Proposed Action and Alternatives This EA briefly describes the proposed action and other alternatives that meet the need for action.

The ID Team considered several suggestions for alternative development from respondents in

development of the proposed alternatives including:

Implementing guidance for timber harvesting units located within the Middle Fork

Salmon River subbasin titled “Special Management Provisions for the Selway,

Middle Fork Salmon, and South Fork Salmon Rivers”- PACFISH Biological

Opinion, 1998.

Implementation of PACFISH guidelines for layout of boundaries, construction, and

harvest activities for all proposed treatment units.

Avoiding known areas that are steep, sensitive, or landslide-prone as documented in

SCNF corporate GIS layers or identified post-fire as high fire severity (soil

hydrophobicity) by the Halstead Fire BAER team.

Implement a requirement of visiting all proposed treatment units to verify that units

are appropriate for harvest and conditions support harvest as outlined in the proposed

action.

Implementing a period of operation that will decrease effects to flammulated owls in

the Noho area an as well as other migratory and sensitive bird species.

2.1 Alternatives Considered, but Not Analyzed in Detail Other suggested alternatives were proposed and vetted by the Interdisciplinary Team from

respondents, but were not considered further because they did not meet the intent of the proposed

action or the need or were impractical. These include:

incorporating restoration work into the project


6

retain all trees > 16” diameter in all harvest units

eliminating areas that were designated as low fire severity or did not experience any

fire within the project area

low impact logging (helicopter or horses)

Forest Restoration

Forest Restoration is seen as symmetric to degradation: an undisturbed forest in a natural or

historical condition can be degraded, and a degraded forest can be restored to that natural or

historical condition (Stanturf, 2005). Implied restoration actions may include such activities as

planting of vegetation, decommissioning of roads, removal of cattle, streambank work, etc. To

include these activities in this EA analysis clouds the intent of the purpose and need to salvage

fire/Douglas-fir beetle killed trees within the SCNF suitable timber base. Mitigation measures

have been developed by the ID Team to address disturbance created by hauling and logging

operations. Where required, measures are specific to harvest units and haul routes or the activity

proposed.

Retention of Trees Greater Than 16 inches diameter

A proposal was brought forth by the public to leave any trees greater than 16 inches in diameter in

the project area. As the current project was scoped, the only action that was to occur was the

harvesting of all merchantable trees killed by the fire or by the subsequent Douglas-fir outbreak

post-fire. This proposal eliminated trees that were alive at the time of marking and those trees

that, due to the direct impacts of the fire, were so damaged they no longer are merchantable. .

Further limiting are ability to analyze specifically what the implication of removing this

component actually would be on suitable timber resource in the project area and may be counter

to desired conditions for these stands in the future, when clearly the Forest Plan directs us to

manage these timbered land for timber production.

Removal of Areas That Experience Low Fire Severity or None

Following a field trip with Idaho Conservation League in late summer of 2014, concerns were

brought up by the Idaho Conservation League to drop areas that experienced low fire severity or

those areas that were included in the project area that experienced no fire. Concerns are that these

areas did not meet the intent of the project to salvage dead trees. When the project area was

defined, a Forest Service parameter was to limit the action area exclusively to the fire perimeter,

in and around the No Ho drainage and a small portion due south of Kelly Creek proper. This self-

imposed boundary excluded all areas that experienced high fire severity, limiting the Forest

Service to areas that were moderate to low severity or none knowing that Douglas-fir beetle

population would likely expand from within the fire outward. This area was presented to the

public early in 2014 for comments. Since that time, observations have occurred across the project

area leading us to believe that expansion of Douglas-fir beetle might not be as active as

anticipated. Some areas immediately adjacent to the fire area are not dying as anticipated where

other areas not include in the proposed action are. Published work by the State and Private

Forestry Group (Lazarus & Bennett, 2011) states this not unusual for Douglas-fir beetle as it is

not as aggressive as other bark beetles when it comes to expansion mechanisms. With only two

summers, having passed since the fire the outcome of expansion of the Douglas-fir beetle may or

may not change from the observation made the summer of 2014. Keeping the small area defined

gives us an opportunity if Douglas-fir beetle make their presence known to address management

of them in the suitable timber in those areas. As such to eliminate additional areas based on


7

observations at a specific point in time and not at the point of marking does not meet the purpose

and need of the proposed project.

Low Impact Logging

As part of the Biological Opinion Recommendation for Snake River Steelhead one of the

recommendations is to use only low impact logging systems. Specifically mentioned in the

comment letter to use helicopters or horse during the logging operations. Though they do meet

the purpose and need the practicality of using either system would be in question. For helicopter

logging to actually precede value of wood needs to be enough to actually cover the operation.

When you combine this with availability of helicopters to conduct yarding operations and

distance to local saw mills there is a high potential for no bids, thus, no action which defeats the

purpose and need of the project. For horse logging the economics are doable, but the anticipated

volume of wood to remove within desired time frames seemed unachievable also not quite

meeting the purpose and need of the project.

The proposed action and following alternatives were considered:

Changes between Scoping and this EA

Based on scoping comments received the following change was made to the original proposal.

The new planned treatment area is 1,241 acres in size and is a reduction of proposed acres treated

from the original 1,425 acres scoped. This change is specific to those proposed treatment areas

within the Middle Fork of the Salmon River subbasin. This change by the ID Team was a result

of comments provide by the Idaho Conservation League that pointed out special requirements of

PACFISH, disclosed in the Biological Recommendations for Snake River Steelhead in the Middle

Fork of the Salmon River basin included in the appendix of the Biological Opinion. That

Biological Opinion provides the following recommendation where timber activities are planned

in the Middle Fork of the Salmon River subbasin (Idaho Conservation League, 2014):

No roads that are closed and revegetated would be used

No roads would be widened by increasing the cut and fill slope

Only existing open roads would be used

No new landings would be constructed1

Additionally after discussions with the IDT focused on the proposed harvest units closest in

proximity to Knapp Creek (Units 2 and 3), a determination was to place a 500 feet buffer strip

between the outside boundary and Knapp Creek.

2.2 Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Under the Alternative 2, salvage of fire impacted merchantable timber product would be

harvested on the Challis-Yankee Fork and Middle Fork Ranger Districts as shown in Figure 4 – 8

and Table 1. The harvest would include upwards of 1,241 acres along existing roads in areas

1 Constructed (ID Team interpretation) – to make area flat by blading off vegetation and stumps moving

soil to provide an area to deck and load harvest timber.


8

designated as suitable for timber production on the SCNF (Table 3 - Summary of Proposed Acres,

Miles of Re-opened Roads, and Temporary Roads) using ground base logging systems2.

Table 1 - Treatment Unit Designation Broken Out by District and Location

Unit Numbers Acres District Location

1 853 Challis-Yankee Fork Noho Creek Area

13 & 14 82 Challis-Yankee Fork Valley Creek Area

2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and

10

104 Middle Fork Asher/Knapp Creek

Area

11,12, and 15 202 Middle Fork Kelly/Dry Creek

Area

2 Ground base logging system uses tools that transports harvest logs by skidding, and forwarding to a

central location (landings) to be placed on a truck to be transport to mill or yard for processing. Tools for

the transport run the gamut from animals, tracker skidders, rubber tire skidders, clam bunk forwarders, and

or track forwarder. Ground base logging systems do not employ skyline cable or helicopters for movement

of logs.


9

Figure 4 - Proposed Treatment Units


10

Figure 5 - Asher/Knapp Creek Units Map 1


11

Figure 6 - Asher Knapp Creek Units Map 2

2

57

4

6

8

40027

40349

40290

40889

4034

4

Halstead Salvage Units

Streams

Roads

Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

Other Public Roads

Trails

Trails Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

Trails Open to Motorcycles Only, Yearlong

Trails Open to Motorcycles Only, Seasonal

Trails Open to Wheeled Vehicles Only < 50" in Width, Yearlong

Trails Open to Wheeled Vehicles Only < 50" or Less in Width, Seasonal

State Highways

Loon Creek IRA

Proposed Harvest Units

Forest Boundary

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

Date: 1/13/2016

2

57

4

6

8

40027

40349

40290

40889

4034

4

Halstead Salvage Units

Streams

Roads

Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

Roads Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

Other Public Roads

Trails

Trails Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal

Trails Open to Motorcycles Only, Yearlong

Trails Open to Motorcycles Only, Seasonal

Trails Open to Wheeled Vehicles Only < 50" in Width, Yearlong

Trails Open to Wheeled Vehicles Only < 50" or Less in Width, Seasonal

State Highways

Loon Creek IRA

Proposed Harvest Units

Forest Boundary

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

Date: 1/13/2016


12

Figure 7 - Kelly Valley Creek Units


13

Figure 8 - Noho Units

Activities would occur over a space of ten years on forested land that has been classified by the

Burned Area Evaluation Team (BAER) as low to moderately burned soil severity (soil

hydrophobicity). Harvest would not occur on areas designated as having high landslide potential

or areas that sustained high fire soil severity as mapped by the BAER and as shown in Figure 9.

Material removed would include saw timber, fuelwood, and post and pole.


14

Figure 9 - Halstead Burn Severity Map

Merchantable trees killed directly from the fire or trees that were weakened3 and suffered some

physical injury that may facilitate the expansion of Douglas-fir beetles, would be harvested across

the treatment areas also describe as sanitation. Additionally, felling of hazard trees outside of

treatment area boundaries that may impact haul routes on the Salmon-Challis National Forest

administer land will be allowed to occur to reduce safety risk to operations. Removal of these

trees is prohibited. This salvage would remove merchantable dead or damaged trees to the degree

that they have a high probability of dying within 1 to 3 years from implementation. To determine

the probability of dying, the use of published research recommendations that showing direct

correlation between level of bole scorching, burn depth of (charring4), and degree of crown

scorch in prediction of mortality would be used (Hood, Bentz, Gibson, Ryan, & DeNitto, 2007).

3 Weakened – to make or become weak or weaker , Weak - Lacking physical strength, energy, or vigor;

feeble (Source Free Dictionary.com) 4 Charred - To burn the surface of; scorch making it charcoal


15

In all cases however, when visible evidence (frass) of Douglas-fir beetle activity

circumnavigating the bole of individual merchantable Douglas-fir trees is present, trees would be

designated for harvest. Trees in the treatment areas that survived the fire and are still alive, do

not meet any of the “probability of dying” criteria, or have no evidence of beetle activity, would

be retained as well as any non-merchantable trees

Two summers have passed since the fire occurred. Mortality or imminent mortality from the

physical injuries associated with the fire has occurred across the project area. Douglas-fir beetle

activity has not stopped, nor is expected to stop in the near future. Prescriptive language for

identification of what trees would be remove is as shown in Table 2 - Prescriptions for harvest

units


16

Table 2 - Prescriptions for harvest units

Unit Number Cover Type Prescription

Unit 1 – 852

acres – Noho

area- Challis-

Yankee Fork

Ranger

District

90% Douglas-

fir, 10%

lodgepole pine

and subalpine

fir

Fire salvage harvest dead (fire or Douglas-fir beetles) merchantable Douglas-fir larger than 8”diameter at

breast height (dbh) and at least 66% sound. Dead Douglas-fir that does not meet these criteria will be

retained. Harvest operation language will allow felling of those remaining dead trees if needed for safety

reasons. Leaving those remaining tree not meeting merchant standards standing until they naturally fail and

fall in the distant future. In stands where lodgepole pine exists remove dead merchantable post and pole

materials along with dead merchantable lodgepole pine greater than 7” dbh and at least 66% sound. All

other lodgepole pine will be left as well as subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce if present. In areas that fire

had little impact (none to low severity) field evaluation will happen prior to marking existing trees to see if

at least 35% of the merchantable tree population have died as a result of Douglas-fir beetle. If this is not

true drop area from harvest. No live trees will be included in the harvest regardless of other disease or insect

agents.

Unit 2 – 31

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species

Fire salvage harvest dead merchantable lodgepole pine greater than 7” dbh and at least 66% sound. Include

pole material that is at least 4” in diameter and extends at least 17’ to a 3”top that does not show significant

fire charring into the wood and all post size material that stem is at least 66% sound. Harvest operation

language will allow felling non-merchantable dead trees if needed for safety reasons leaving all other dead

trees standing until they naturally fall in the distant future. Retain all other species and all live trees.

Landing will be located on same footprint as the previous landing location from seed tree cut occurring in

the late 80’s.

Unit 3 – 22

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species






Landing will be located on overgrown pullout on Forest Road 40027 that resides on southwest end of the

unit. Layout of harvest boundary will be ground truth with roadless layer to make sure that boundary does

not cross into Loon Creek IRA on west and north flank.

Unit 4 – 6

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species







17

Landing will be located in the open area (mid-point) of the harvest unit on its southern boundary

immediately adjacent to Forest road #40027.

Unit 5 – 30

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species






Landings will be located in the open areas on north boundary immediately adjacent to Forest road #40027 or

anywhere on the west edge along Forest road 40889 where openings exist.

Unit 6 – 6

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species






Landings will be located in the open areas on north boundary immediately adjacent to Forest road #40027 or

anywhere on the west edge along Forest road 40889 where openings exist. Layout of harvest boundary will

be ground truth with roadless layer to make sure that boundary does not cross into Loon Creek IRA on

northeast flank.

Unit 7 – 10

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

Districts

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species






Harvest material will be skidded down Forest Road #40027 to pre-existing landing in Unit 2.

Unit 8 – 2

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species






Landing will be located on southwest end of unit on southern boundary in opening adjacent to Forest Road

#40027. Layout of harvest boundary will be ground truth with roadless layer to make sure that boundary

does not cross into Loon Creek IRA in the southwest corner.


18

Unit 9 – 1

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species






Landing will be located at the mid-point opening on northern boundary adjacent to Forest Road #40027.

Layout of harvest boundary will be ground truth with roadless layer to make sure that boundary does not

cross into Loon Creek IRA on west flank.

Unit 10 – 3

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species






Landing will be located on overgrown pullout on Forest Road 40027 that resides on northwest end of the

unit and share with unit 3. Layout of harvest boundary will be ground truth with roadless layer to make sure

that boundary does not cross into Loon Creek IRA on southwest flank.

Unit 11 – 33

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

75% lodgepole

pine, 20%

other species






Landings will be progressively located on Forest road 40293 starting on northern end working south as road

is naturally closed due to encroachment. Landing piles will be stack on downhill side for later burning.

Layout of harvest boundary will be ground truth with roadless layer to make sure that boundary does not

cross into Loon Creek IRA on the west flank.

Unit 12 – 162

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

85% lodgepole

pine, 15%

other species





trees standing until they naturally fall in the distant future. Retain all other species and all live trees. For the

northern finger, landings will be located on west side of Forest Road #40293 in the dry meadow areas. For

the western finger border by Forest Road #40293 and Forest Road # 40290 landing will be located in the

pre-existing landing from late 1980’s post and pole sale along Forest Road # 40290. For the eastern finger


19

border on the south by Forest Road #40290 landings will be pre-existing landings created from earlier sales

in the late 70’s and 80’s.

Unit 13 – 13

acres –

Challis-

Yankee Fork

Ranger

District

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species






Landing will be placed in the opening created for the Power line Right of Way on southern edge of the

harvest boundary along Forest Road #40290.

Unit 14 – 69

acres –

Challis-

Yankee Fork

Ranger

District

95% lodgepole

pine 5% other

species (toe of

slope) uplands

80% Douglas-

fir and 20%

other species

On the southern end of unit 14 along Forest Road #40290, fire salvage harvest dead merchantable lodgepole

pine greater than 7” dbh and at least 66% sound. Include pole material that is at least 4” in diameter and

extends at least 17’ to a 3”top that does not show significant fire charring into the wood and all post size

material that stem is at least 66% sound. Harvest operation language will allow felling non-merchantable

dead trees if needed for safety reasons leaving all other dead trees standing until they naturally fall in the

distant future. Retain all other species and all live trees. Landing for this portion can occur in two locations,

along the power line Right or Way or immediately north of the Valley Creek Trailhead in the dry meadow

area along the harvest unit edge.

For the uplands where Douglas-fir is principle cover type the following fire salvage harvest dead (fire or

Douglas-fir beetles) merchantable Douglas-fir larger than 8”diameter at breast height (dbh) and at least 66%

sound. Dead Douglas-fir that does not meet these criteria will be retained. In stands where lodgepole pine

exists remove dead merchantable post and pole materials along with dead merchantable lodgepole pine

greater than 7” dbh and at least 66% sound. Harvest operation language will allow felling non-merchantable

dead trees if needed for safety reasons leaving all other dead trees standing until they naturally fall in the

distant future.

All other lodgepole pine will be left as well as subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce if present. In areas that

fire had little impact (none to low severity) evaluate prior to marking existing trees to see if at least 35% of

the merchantable tree population have died as a result of Douglas-fir beetle. If this is not true drop area

from harvest. No live trees will be included in the harvest regardless of other disease or insect agents.


20

Unit 15 – 7

acres – Middle

Fork Ranger

District

85% lodgepole

pine, 15%

other species






Landing will be located at southeast corner of the unit in the adjacent dry meadow along Forest Road

#40293.


21

Because of implementing the proposed action, there would be no changes to routes designated

under the SCNF Travel Management Plan Map, 2014. Proposed treatments would use current

open roads per the SCNF Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger

District and four segments of road that are existing on the ground, but shown as closed to

motorized use on the MVUM on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District. These closed routes

would be utilized for administrative use during the life of the project, but would not be open to

the public for motorized travel. In addition, harvest on this district would require up to .25 miles

of temporary road construction. Building of this road would take place under provisions of a

timber sale contract. Prior to closing out units and acceptance of those units, purchaser would be

required to obliterate, seed, and recontoured the .25 miles temporary roads to original slope

(Table 3 - Summary of Proposed Acres, Miles of Re-opened Roads, and Temporary Roads) and

return them into production and reclosed to original status the closed roads that were used

administratively.

On the Middle Fork Ranger District, only open roads as designated on the current MVUM for

SCNF would be used in compliance with PACFISH Biological Opinion recommendation for

Snake River steelhead for the Middle Fork of the Salmon River basin. Approximately twenty-

nine landings will be required to harvest these units, none will be constructed landings. The units

in the Middle Fork of the Salmon River are predominantly flat or have immediate adjacent flat

non-treed areas that can serve as landings without any construction requirements other than low

stumping of a few trees.

After harvest activities, four segments of roads, composing a total length of four miles would be

closed. Closing these segments would match the current SCNF MVUM on the Challis-Yankee

Fork Ranger District as shown in Table 4 – Listing of closed roads to be used administratively on

the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District. Temporary roads that have been constructed to

facilitate access to harvest units would be recontoured if on slope and ripped and seeded with

native seed mixes after use. Best management practices defined by the Interdisciplinary Team

and described in the Design Features Table for both Alternative 2 or 3 and displayed in Table 8 in

Chapter 2 would be implemented to minimize soil erosion and protect water quality in the

treatment units and on roads used during salvage activities. This would also reduce the spread of

noxious and invasive plants. PACFISH guidelines would be incorporated to protect Riparian

Habitat Conservation Areas for the harvest areas in the project area. No Idaho Inventoried

Roadless Area would be entered for harvesting.

Table 3 - Summary of Proposed Acres, Miles of Re-opened Roads, and Temporary Roads

Activity Challis-Yankee Fork

Ranger District

Middle Fork Ranger

District

Salvage Harvest Acres 935 307

Closed Roads Used For

Harvest

2.72 of 4 miles 0 miles

Temporary Roads 0.25 miles 0 miles


22

Table 4 – Listing of closed roads to be used administratively on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District and closure techniques post-harvest.

FS Road/Name Length in

miles

Post-harvest Closure

Methods

Responsibility

40084/Noho Spur #2 .6 Block entrance with

impassable tank trap

Purchaser

40081 Noho Spur #1 1 Block passage at turnaround

up on top of ridge with tank

trap placed at current tank

trap location

Purchaser

40440/Elkhorn 1.6 Block passage at flat spot

turnaround on top of ridge

where fence crossed the

road

Forest Service

40406/Joe’s Elkhorn .8 Block passage at current

location with tank trap

Purchaser

Ground based logging would create an estimated 66 acres of soil disturbance during harvest

operation activities. Disturbed soil areas including landings, skid trails, and temporary roads

would be ripped and seeded with recommended native seed mixes following completion of

activity. Following the burning of landing piles, the footprint of the burnt areas would also be

scarified and seeded by Forest Service. Estimated disturbance is summarized in Table 5 by each

District.

Table 5 - Estimated Soil Disturbance Acres by District

District Estimated Landing

Acres / #

Estimated Skid

Trails Acres/#

Temporary

Roads Acres

Challis-Yankee Fork 24 ac/51 landings 17.6 ac/187 trails .24

Middle Fork 14.5 ac/29 landings 8.7ac /117 trails 0

Slash retention would not exceed 7-13 tons per acre for long-term nutrient cycling. This is

consistent with Graham’s (USDA Forest Service, 1994) recommendations for the two timber

cover types (lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir) where the harvest activities would occur. In areas

that exceed 13 tons of residual slash, additional activities may be implemented to reduce slash to

acceptable levels through piling or jackpot burning. Due to current fuel loading conditions, the

areas that experienced moderate fire severity should not require future reduction in slash. In areas

that experienced low fire severity, there is an expectation that additional slash work may be

required after harvest. Post-harvest review would take place by timber/fuels staff to determine if

further work is required.

Three separate haul routes would be used dependent on location of harvest activities and are

shown in Table 6 all but one of roads associated with the haul routes are outside Inventoried

Roadless Area. Forest road #40027 an open road on the SCNF MVUM on the Middle Fork

Ranger District does bisect the Loon Creek Roadless area in four spots for .67 miles of its 4.068

mile length. Area of intersection include the following locations. First segment the largest, is just

north of junction with 40203 road as it travels under the powerline and turns parallel to Asher

Creek. Second segment is located just before units 8 and 9. Third segment is just past units 8 and

9 as it makes a corner across a small unnamed drainage. Last segment is located as road enters

into the trail head area for Knapp Creek trail. Segments are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

Duration of all activities will not exceed ten years.


23

Table 6 - Description of Identified Haul Routes by Location of Harvest

Harvest Location Route Miles

Knapp / Asher Creek (MFRD)

Units

FS #40027 to junction with

FS# 40203

4.07

FS#40203 northwest to

junction with FS#40008

2.25

FS#40008 turning west to

State Highway 21

.40

Kelly Creek/Valley Creek

(CYFRD/MFRD) Units

FS#40290 to junction with

FS#40293

1.17

FS#40293 southwest to

junction with FS#40203

4.31

FS#40203 south to State

Highway 21

2.61

Noho Creek (CYFRD) Units Junction of FS#40328 and

FS#101 east to FS#40085

1.51

FS#40085 north to junction

with FS#40328

3.62

FS#085 north to FS#40031 1.46

FS#40031 west to S.N.R.A.

boundary and road FS#60653

1.5

FS#60653 west to State

Highway 21

5.16

2.3 No Action (Alternative 1) Under the Alternative 1 no salvage of fire impacted timber would take place. Natural post fire

processes would continue.

2.4 Winter Logging (Alternative 3) Under Alternative 3 the same 1,241 acres and merchantable fire salvage timber could be

harvested across both districts using the same commercial timber sale contracts as described in

Alternative 2. Though all acres would be considered, a site visit would most likely eliminate

some of the area incapable of supporting winter ground base operations, primarily due to slope

considerations. The operational period would be limited to when the frozen ground layer reaches

a depth of six inches which has been shown to support the heaviest piece of logging equipment

(Stone, 2002). Determination of depth of frozen ground can be achieved by driving a

measurement rod with a sledgehammer into the ground until it breaks through the frozen layer.

Hauling would also cease when road conditions are no longer sufficiently frozen or when either

the Sawtooth National Recreation Area or the SCNF chooses to close them for spring thaw.

Duration of all activities would last up to ten years from date of implementation. The same road

systems would be used for hauling as in Alternative 2, with allowance for temporary road

construction during the unfrozen/dry periods. Closure of roads 40081, 40084, 40406, and 40440

would also have to occur when ground conditions are dry and unfrozen to be effective.

Designated haul routes would be the same as described in the Alternative 2. Portions of the haul

route segments would have to be shared with a groomed snowmobile trail from Stanley to

Lowman as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 due to nature of the topography and physical features


24

limiting the location of these segments off the roadbed. Physical features include tree cover,

seeps, springs, creeks, and adjacent slope.

Ground disturbance would be expected to occur on landings with the concentrated activity from

operations, and with the construction of the temporary roads on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger

District. After use, constructed temporary roads would be closed by re-contouring to slope and

then seeded with the recommended native seed mix being used in Alternative 2. Landing piles

would be burned by the Forest Service under prescriptive conditions as soon as material has dried

out sufficiently for complete combustion, and after acceptance of the timber sale closure by the

Forest Service. Typically, this occurs after a landing pile sits through one complete drying season

(summer). Impacted soil from the heat of burning the landings would then be scarified, fertilized,

and seeded with native seed mixes to reestablish ground cover as used in Alternative 2. Specific

measures would be implemented for harvest and snow plowing along haul routes as shown in

Table 7 - Implementation Measures for Winter Logging Alternative 3. Slash retention practices

would remain the same as Alternative 2.

Table 7 - Implementation Measures for Winter Logging Alternative 3

Activity Resource Benefit Description

Operations – Temporary

Road Construction

Fisheries, Soil/Hydrology Temporary roads needed for

harvest would be constructed

prior to winter onset when

ground is firm, dry and

visible.

Operations – Temporary

Snow Roads

Fisheries, Soil/Hydrology If needed, purchaser with

Sale Administrator approval

would predetermine locations

prior to winter onset.

Prohibition of use of these

roads would occur when

ground conditions are not

frozen.

Operations - Harvesting Wildlife Normal operation period for

wood work would be

December 15th through

March 15th. Operations and

cleanup can occur prior or

after if ground is sufficiently

dry or frozen to support

equipment.

Operations - Harvesting Fisheries, Soil/hydrology Harvest operations would not

occur until at least 6” of

mineral soil is frozen solid

which has been demonstrated

to support largest harvesting

equipment (Stone, 2002).

Depth can be determined by

pounding a metal measure

rod into the ground until it

breaks through the frozen

zone.


25

Operations - Landings Fisheries, Soil/Hydrology All landings would be either

plowed to remove snow or

packed with at least 12 inches

of snow at least 48 hours

prior to use. If already frozen

this is not required.

Operations – Skid Trails Fisheries, Soil/Hydrology All skid trails would be

treated the same as the

landings prior to use.

Hauling / Snow Plowing Fisheries, Soil/Hydrology Pre-haul maintenance of haul

routes would occur prior to

winter onset. Maintenance

would make sure that ditches

are clean and culverts are

marked and proper drainage

is established.

Hauling / Snow Plowing Fisheries, Soils/Hydrology Snow plowing shall leave at

least 4” of pack snow on all

roads. First plowing should

set for at least 24 hours prior

to hauling of any products.

Hauling /Snow Plowing Fisheries, Soils/Hydrology During plowing operations,

culverts should remain clear

of debris. All low spots

along the roadway would

have the berm pushed out and

maintained during all hauling

allowing drainage of water

off the road.

Hauling / Snow Plowing Recreation Posted warning signs would

be placed on all shared roads

that are part of the

snowmobile trail system.

Sufficient number of plowed

openings would be created

that allow snow machines to

exit and come back onto the

road where logging trucks

may be encountered. As a

rule plowed openings should

be placed approximately

every 500 feet.

Hauling / Snow Plowing Recreation No hauling would be allowed

on weekends, federal

holidays, or during

wintertime snowmobile or

dogsled scheduled events for

the Community of Stanley.


26

Hauling / Snow Plowing Recreation Roads would only be opened

to purchaser and over snow

machines as designated on

S.N.R.A and SCNF MVUM.

No other motorized vehicles

would be allowed. Signs

would be placed at entrances

to these routes notifying the

public.

Hauling / Snow Plowing Recreation Purchaser would work with

snow groomers to facilitate

hauling on share route

systems and potential safety

issues.

Hauling / Snow Plowing Fisheries, Soils/Hydrology Hauling would cease on

plowed roads when daytime

temperature exceed 32

degrees for more than five

days in a row.


27

2.5 Design Features

Table 8 - Action Alternative Design Features

Activity Resource Design Feature Alternatives 2 or 3

Pre-Sale Layout, Tractor

Logging Units

Fisheries PACFISH/INFISH guidelines for boundary

layout for all proposed treatment units would

strictly be followed as well as any construction

activities. These include:

No timber harvest or associated ground

disturbing activity would occur within

500 feet of Knapp Creek

300 feet of any other fish bearing

stream

or 150 feet from any permanently

flowing, non-fish bearing stream

Alternative 2 and 3

Pre-Sale Layout, Tractor

Logging Units

Fisheries PACFISH Biological recommendations for

Snake River Steelhead would be implemented

on the Middle Fork Salmon River basin

treatment units. Recommendations include:

No roads that are closed and

revegetated would be used

No roads would be widened by

increasing the cut and fill slope

Only existing open roads would be used

No new landings would be constructed

Alternative 2 and 3

Sale Preparation/Marking

Guides

Recreation/Visuals In units 11-15, unit boundaries would mark on

one side of the tree only, on the side facing

away from the main road (#40290 and #40293).

Alternative 2 and 3

Sale Preparation Noxious &

Invasive/Soils &

Hydrology/

Fisheries/Wildlife

Identify on Sale Area map all known locations

of noxious or invasive plants on haul routes

and/or locations of these plants in designated

sale area.

Alternative 2 and 3


28



Guidelines

Silviculture/Wildlife Only dead trees, excluding those trees with

visible nest, cavity, or those conifers that have

visible evidence of beetle attack would be

designated for harvest.

Alternative 2 and 3


Guidelines

Silviculture Inspect each individual tree before marking to

make sure it is merchantable, that it is dead, and

is hosting Douglas-fir bark beetle.

Alternative 2 and 3

Sale Preparation Recreation Identify on sale area map all facilities and

improvements. Include stump height provision

of 4 inches maximum for units 11-15 in the

timber sale contract. For all other units have a

maximum stump height of 12 inches.

Alternative 2 and 3

Sale Preparation Wildlife Maintain a minimum number of snags for

wildlife as stated in the Forest Plan (IV-8, (x)):

Timber land (1.0/acre), Aspen/Riparian

(3.0/acre), and around natural openings (4.0

/acre).

Alternative 2 and 3

Sale Preparation Wildlife Retain unmerchantable snags that do not pose a

safety hazard during operations.

Alternative 2 and 3

Sale Preparation Botany Protect all whitebark pine if discovered during

marking and identify with orange paint.

Alternative 2 and 3

Sale Preparation Wildlife/Migratory

Bird Treaty Act

Schedule operation periods in contract based on

following timelines

In moderate burn areas with limited live

canopy cover allow for operation period

to begin when ground conditions are

dry enough to support harvesting

without detrimental damage to soils and

no Forest sensitive birds are evident.

Low burn areas limit operation period

to after July 15th to protect fledglings

Alternative 2


29


Sale Preparation/Harvest

Operations

Wildlife If suspected nesting, denning, or calving of

Forest listed sensitive species is discovered,

zone wildlife biologists will be notified.

Biologists along with Sale Administrator and

timber staff will develop a course of action.

Action could include:

Change timing of operation

Changing proposed access routes, or

segments of proposed access routes, to

proposed project worksite

Re-location of operations of project

worksite to different location

Reconfiguration of proposed worksite

Dropping worksite until after fledgling

has occurred

Alternative 2 and 3


Operations

Sensitive Plants Prohibit all staging equipment or personnel on

the two known locations of Idaho pennycress in

the Dry Creek Road area adjacent to treatment

units 10, 11, or 12. Protect all discovered live

white bark pine trees.

Alternative 2 and 3


Operations

Silviculture If discovered during sale preparation or harvest

operation preserve all landline monuments

discovered

Alternative 2 and 3

Harvest Operations/Road

Maintenance

Sensitive Plants Restrict road grading, maintenance work to road

prism in the Dry Creek Road area.

Alternative 2 and 3

Harvest Operations Noxious and

Invasive

Select landing location free of noxious weeds.

Avoid driving, walking, skidding and/or hauling

through noxious weeds.

Alternative 2 except for known location

of noxious and invasive plants for

Alternative 3 for landings


Invasive

If surface material for roadways is required,

material shall come from an approved source pit

that is free of weeds.

Alternative 2


30



Invasive

Minimize size of burn piles to the extent

possible to minimize heat transfer to the soil,

minimize fire line construction, seed and

fertilize all skid trails and landings.

Alternative 2 and 3 for landings, for

skids trails this design feature is only

applicable to Alternative 2

Harvest Operations Silviculture/Soils Retain a minimum of 7 tons and maximum of

13 tons per acre of woody material across

harvest unit to be retained for long term site

productivity, and to provide habitat for small

animals.

Alternative 2 and 3

Harvest Operations Recreation/

Trailheads (Knapp-

Loon Creek, Valley

Creek, and Kelly

Creek

If impacted by logging activities restore to

original condition free of debris and repair any

damage. Keep trailheads open during operations

for public use.

Alternative 2 and 3

Harvest Operations Recreation and

Range

Individuals with permit activities (Outfitters &

Permittee’s) would be notified prior to

commencement of timber sale operations to

reduce potential conflict.

Alternative 2 and 3

Harvest Operations Recreation Roads that lead to or by trailhead would be kept

open to the public and clear of debris.

Alternative 2 and 3

Harvest

Operations/Temporary

Roads

Fisheries Construction of temporary roads on the Challis-

Yankee Fork Ranger District would follow

PACFISH direction for locations and

construction techniques

Alternative 2 and 3

Harvest

Operations/Landings and

Skid trails

Recreation Skid trails locations need to be approved in

advance and would be angled so as to not run

straight up and down the hill and not be visible

from main travel routes. Pivot trees that would

be damaged during skidding operations would

need to be approved in advance by Sale

Administrator if needed.

Alternative 2 and 3


31


Harvest

Operations/Landings

Recreation Locate landings and slash piles in interior of

cutting units whenever possible.

Alternative 2 and 3

Harvest Operations/Public

Safety

Recreation/ Safety Hauling restrictions would be imposed on

weekends for public safety. Specifically

hauling would be prohibited from Friday

midnight to Sunday at midnight. When

holidays occur on Mondays, the prohibition

would extend to Monday midnight. When

holidays occur mid-week days, the hauling

prohibition would span the period from

midnight to midnight of the day of the holiday.

Alternative 2 and 3, in addition if

Alternative 3 is selected than additional

days would be added prohibiting hauling

if the Community of Stanley is

sponsoring a winter time event

Harvest Operations / Public

Safety

Recreation Warning signs would be placed at critical road

intersections to alert the public to logging

activity in the vicinity.

Alternative 2 and 3

Harvest Operations/

Landings

Fisheries/ Hydrology In all cases, no landings would abut against

PACFISH designate buffers or be located on

unstable ground. All landings need to be pre-

approved prior to construction by the Sale

Administrator.

Alternative 2 and 3

Harvest Operations Hydrology/Soils/

Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

On all mechanical harvest units incorporate

applicable State of Idaho Best Management

Practices, IFPA (Idaho Department of Lands,

1998):

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Select for each harvesting operation the logging

method and type of equipment adapted to the

given slope, landscape, and soil properties in

order to minimize soil erosion.

Alternative 2 and 3


32



Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Ground based skidding shall not be conducted if

it would cause rutting, deep soil disturbance, or

accelerated erosion. On slopes, exceeding 45%

gradient, ground based skidding shall not be

conducted except with an approved variance.

No skidding would occur on slopes over

45% per Forest Plan. For Alternative 3

slope is a major consideration and would

need a hard look for those slopes

exceeding 35%


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Limit the grade of constructed skid trails on

geologically unstable, saturated, or highly

erodible or easily compacted soils to a

maximum of 30%.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

In accordance with appropriate silvicultural

prescriptions, skid trails shall be kept to the

minimum feasible width and number. Tractors

used for skidding shall be limited to the size

appropriate for the job.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Locate landings, skid trails on stable areas to

prevent the risk of material entering streams.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

All new or reconstructed landings and skid trails

shall be located on stable areas outside the

appropriate PACFISH buffers. Locate fire and

skid trails where side casting is held to a

minimum.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

To prevent landslides, fill material used in

landing construction shall be free of loose

stumps and excessive accumulations of slash.

On slopes where side casting is necessary,

landings shall be stabilized by use of seeding,

compaction, rip rapping, benching, mulching or

other suitable means.

Alternative 2 and 3


33



Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

For each landing, skid trail or fire lines, a

drainage system shall be provided and

maintained that would control the dispersal of

surface water to minimize erosion.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Stabilize skid trails and fire lines whenever they

are subject to erosion, by water barring, cross-

draining, outsloping, scarifying, seeding or

other suitable means. This work shall be kept

current to prevent erosion prior to fall and

spring runoff.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Reshape landings as needed to facilitate

drainage prior to fall and spring runoff. Stabilize

all landings by establishing ground cover or by

some other means within one year after

harvesting is completed.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Spacing distances for water bars on tractor skid

trails are:

Water bar spacing from IFPA

Gradient

(%)

Treatment

Units

0-10 200 feet

10-20 160 feet

20-30 110 feet

30-40 80 feet

40-50 60 feet

50-60 45 feet

Alternative 2


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Deposit waste material from construction or

maintenance of landings and skid and fire trails

in geologically stable locations outside of the

appropriate PACFISH buffers.

Alternative 2 and 3


34



Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

During and after forest operations, stream beds

and streamside vegetation shall be protected to

leave them in the most natural condition as

possible to maintain water quality and aquatic

habitat.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

No operations would be conducted along bogs,

swamps, wet meadows, springs, seeps, wet

draws or other sources where the presence of

water is indicated; protect soil and vegetation

from disturbance which would cause adverse

effects on water quality, quantity and wildlife

and aquatic habitat.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

The following SCNF Best Management

Practices would be implemented:

Materials to be used (equipment, erosion control

materials, vegetation) would be approved by the

contracting officer’s representative (COR) or

Sale Administrator.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

All harvest equipment used on the site would be

inspected prior to its arrival on the site. The

equipment must be 1) free of all noxious weed

plant material or seeds and aquatic invasive

species and 2) free of oil, fuel, or toxic leaks

that would wash off into water.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Leaks of motor oil and hydraulic fluid from

heavy equipment should be monitored and

controlled to prevent water contamination. Any

petroleum contamination shall be cleaned up

and disposed of properly.

Alternative 2 and 3


35



Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

No storage of fuel or toxicants is allowed in

RHCA’s. Fueling within RHCA’s are also

prohibited unless there are no other alternatives.

Refueling sites within RHCA’s must be

approved and implement a Spill Containment

Plan, part of which includes a spilled fuel

containment/catchment device.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Piles shall be limited to the smallest size

possible to limit the extent of soil heating. All

piles larger than 10 feet in diameter would be

scarified and seeded with native plant mix after

burning.

Alternative 2 and 3


Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive Species

Water sources used during pile burning would

follow the measures as stated in the

Programmatic Biological

Assessment/Biological Evaluation of the Effects

to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and

Sensitive Aquatic Species for the Programmatic

Wildfire Suppression on the SCNF, December

2010 (USDA Forest Service, 2010).

Alternative 2 and 3

Post-Harvest Operations Hydrology/Soils/

Fisheries /Noxious

& Invasive

Species/Wildlife

Revegetate disturbed soil in a manner that

optimizes plant establishment for that specific

site, unless ongoing disturbance at the site

would prevent noxious weed establishment or

spread. Monitor and re-treat as needed until site

is successfully vegetated according to project

standards. Replant and fertilize as soon as

practical and use local native seeding guideline

for detailed procedures and appropriate mix.

Alternative 2 and 3


36


Post-Harvest Noxious and

Invasive

Reduce noxious weed establishment in

obliteration/reclamation projects. Treat noxious

weeds in obliteration and reclamation projects

before roads are made impassable. Monitor and

retreat as necessary to establish vegetative

cover.

Alternative 2 and 3

Post-Harvest Operations Noxious and

Invasive

Use collection for sale area improvement

activities to control or prevent the encroachment

of weeds within the sale area.

Alternative 2 and 3

Post-Harvest Pile Burning Air Shed Before any pile burning consult the

Idaho/Montana air shed group for clearance

prior to lighting.

Alternative 2 and 3

Post- Harvest / Temporary

and Re-opened Roads

Watershed/

Fisheries/Wildlife/&

Recreation

Temporary roads would be closed prior to unit

acceptance. Closure techniques include re-

contouring to natural grade if on slop and

ripping and seeding with native seed mixes.

Closed Roads as shown on MVUM would be

closed as outline in Table 2.

Alternative 2 and 3


37

2.6 Monitoring Information gathered before, during, and after implementation of activities is used to determine

the effectiveness of the project’s design and associated mitigation measures. This establishes a

feedback mechanism so management can develop and employ adaptive management. Monitoring

is done at recurring intervals as a basis for Forest Plan implementation. Project effectiveness

monitoring is done by sampling specific projects at specific time intervals. Although there is no

specific management required monitoring associated with this proposed action, implementation

and effectiveness monitoring would include the following:

Soils

The use of prescribed Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to redistribute slash and seed over

skid trails, landings, and temporary roads to help prevent erosion would be checked by soils,

hydrology, timber, or fisheries personnel at a mid-point during the logging operations to verify if

BMP’s are being met. If BMP’s are not being met, corrections to management practices will be

implemented.

Down Woody Debris

Though we do not anticipate exceeding recommended minimum levels of 7 to 13 tons of slash per

acres as recommended by Graham for Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forest cover types in the

majority of the harvest area (USDA Forest Service, 1994), particular emphasis will be applied to

areas that experience low severity of fire. These areas would be checked by timber, fuels, or soil

personnel and further actions may be identified to achieve desire range of 7 to 13 tons per acre.

Noxious Weeds

Post-harvest all sites where soil is newly exposed such as created by temporary roads, skid trails,

landings, and pile burning sites would be visited and surveyed for noxious weeds occurrence by

zone weed specialists or timber personnel. Any newly discovered noxious weeds would be

treated immediately after.

In addition to the project-specific measures outlined above, programmatic monitoring associated

with each resource function (such as depth fine measurements downstream of proposed project to

determine long term trends) involved in the analysis of this project would be conducted as

prescribed within the annual work plans.

Chapter 3 - Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section describes the “affected environment” (baseline conditions) and the environmental

consequences (impacts) of the Proposed Action, Winter Logging, and the No Action Alternative

(defined in Chapter 2). Pursuant to direction found at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

1500.1(b) and 1500.4, the discussions presented here are summaries of the completed analyses

and form the scientific and analytical basis for the alternatives' comparison. Unless specifically

stated otherwise, the project record (40 CFR 1502.21) is incorporated by reference and contains

the detailed data, methodologies, analysis, references, and other technical documentation used in

the assessment.


38

The information outlined in this section was obtained from resource field studies of the area,

available information sources, and communication with relevant government agencies and

individuals with knowledge of the area. This section focuses on the environmental elements or

resources that are expected to be directly or indirectly and individually or cumulatively affected

by the Proposed Action.

The IDT identified a list of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions that might have

cumulative impacts in combination with the proposed action alternatives and are listed in

Appendix A – Catalog of Activities and Actions for Cumulative Effects Analysis. Each resource

specialists considered different mixes of these actions, depending on the cumulative effects

boundary for the resource area and resource affected. The spatial and temporal extent of effects

analysis is described for each resource. Reasonably foreseeable future activities considered under

cumulative effects analysis are those activities with direct and indirect effects that overlap in

space and time with the direct and indirect effects of the analyzed Alternatives, and include those

that would occur approximately 10 years from the onset of activities proposed under the action

Alternatives. Any activities which may occur beyond this time frame are considered highly

speculative and were not included for consideration of cumulative effects.

Activities identified by the IDT in the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area included: timber harvest,

other forest vegetation management, mining and mineral extraction, grazing, transportation

system construction and maintenance, developed and dispersed recreation, OHV use and

management, firewood gathering, fire suppression in the area, prescribed burning and fuel

reduction, noxious weed management, watershed/fisheries enhancements, and private land

activities (Halsted Fire Salvage Project Catalog of Activities and Actions for Cumulative Effects

Analysis).

3.1 Botany During the summer of 2014, the Halstead Fire Salvage Project action area (the analysis area) was

visited looking specifically for presence of plant species that are Threatened, Endangered,

Proposed, or listed as Sensitive plant species for the SCNF. A botany report was prepared to

analyze and display the biological effects of the proposed activities on all federally listed

(threatened, endangered, proposed) and Forest Service sensitive plants identified in the Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur

within the SCNF proposed Halstead Fire Salvage Project area.

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TES)

The SCNF does not have the potential, known occurrences or suitable habitat for any federally

listed endangered, threatened or candidate plant species. Because none of these plants or their

habitat is present, there are no effects for any of the alternatives and no further discussion is

required.

Sensitive Species

Twenty one species are listed as sensitive on the SCNF and are assessed in this document for

possible effects from the Halstead Fire Salvage Project. They include:

Lost River milkvetch

Lemhi milkvetch

Mesic (meadow) milkvetch

White Clouds milkvetch


39

Maritime sedge

Douglas’ biscuitroot

Rockcress draba

Stanley whitlow-grass

Guardian buckwheat

Welsh buckwheat

Challis crazyweed

Lemhi penstemon

Marsh’s bluegrass

Wavy-leaf thelypody

Idaho pennycress (aka Stanley thlaspi)

Sacajawea’s bitterroot

Pink agoseris

Flexible alpine collomia

Idaho range lichen

Whitebark pine

Prior to a field review for potential sensitive plants, a search was done of available information to

see if any of these plant’s normal range of occupation overlapped the project area or specific

habitat requirements were satisfied by the field conditions present in the project area. From this

review, several of the sensitive plants range or habitats requirements were not present in the

project area and eliminated from field surveys. These include:

Lost River milkvetch

Mesic milkvetch

Maritime sedges

Rockcress draba

Guardian buckwheat

Challis crazyweed

Marsh’s bluegrass

Flexible alpine collomia

Idaho range lichen

Lemhi milkvetch

White Clouds milkvetch

Douglas’s biscuitroot

Stanley whitlow-grass

Welsh’s buckwheat

Lemhi penstemon

Wavy-leaf thelypody

Salmon twin bladderpod

A field survey was conducted for the four remaining sensitive species within the project area.

The survey focused on potential suitable habitat within the proposed treatment units. The four

plant species are:

Idaho pennycress

Pink agoseris

Sacajawea’s bitterroot

Whitebark pine


40

Of the four, only Idaho pennycress was found during those visits adjacent to the action area at

two previous documented locations along Forest road #40290 (Idaho Fish and Game, 2011). An

effects analysis was prepared for this species as well as a biological evaluation determination.

Because the other three are not present, a “No Effect” determination was made for those species.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

For the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for botany, the analysis action area is limited to

proposed treatment area and areas immediately along proposed haul routes that can be used for

staging or landings.

Alternative 1

Implementing Alternative 1 would not result in any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to

sensitive plants because there are no proposed actions associated with this alternative.

Alternative 2 and 3

If Alternative 2 or 3 are implemented, the direct and indirect effects are the same except for the

timing of the work when sensitive plants may be actively growing. For both alternatives direct

mortality would not occur to any sensitive plant (cutting and thinning vegetation, soil disturbance,

or from trampling of vegetation by walking over the site), because sensitive plants are not present

in the proposed units. However, the two known locations of Idaho pennycress near Dry Creek

Road area, and immediately adjacent to some proposed units may be directly impacted with

associated activities such as road maintenance and equipment staging as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 - Dry Creek Road and Idaho pennycress occurrence locations on the Middle Fork Ranger District of the Salmon-Challis National Forest

Because of these known occurrences, adjacent areas have been recommended for avoidance as to

not have direct effects. Measures include avoiding road grading/maintenance outside of the


41

current road prism in the Dry Creek Road area and not using the occurrence locations for

equipment or personnel staging during project implementation for Alternatives 2 or 3.

Indirect effects for either alternative include the disruption of native seed banks through soil

alterations, increased erosion and sediment transport, and the colonization of non-native, invasive

plant species. Soil compaction, “dusting”, erosion, and sedimentation resulting from project

activities could indirectly impact Idaho pennycress. However, it is not expected that project

activities would result in soil compaction or sedimentation that would impact Idaho pennycress.

Vegetation removal or erosion can alter the surface hydrology in an area and affect plant

communities by reducing access to sheet flow during rain events.

Design features have been integrated into the proposed action to eliminate or minimize the

potential adverse indirect impacts from weeds and other unintended effects. A Forest approved

botanist may additionally ascertain possible risks to Forest Service Sensitive species during

project implementation as needed, and if avoidance or other mitigation measures may be needed

for plant occurrences. In addition, design criteria’s to protect other resources reduces the

potential for effects to sensitive plants and their habitat across the project area.

Determinations

Based on findings the following determinations were made for the one Sensitive Plant located in

the Halstead Fire Salvage Project.

Idaho pennycress – “May affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal

listing or loss of viability”.

There is the potential for minor adverse impacts to individual if present in areas used to support

treatment areas (such as roadside and equipment staging areas). The design criteria developed for

Forest Service sensitive plants was developed to ensure that species are protected from adverse

thresholds of impacts from the Halstead Fire Salvage Project that would lead to a trend for listing

as threatened or endangered.

Cumulative Effects

Since any potential for direct and indirect effects of the proposed action would be restricted to the

analysis area, the cumulative effect analysis area would be the analysis area for direct and indirect

effects. The potential for direct and indirect effects are limited to “dusting”, therefore cumulative

impacts are limited to “dusting”.

There are no past activities currently contributing to “dusting”.

Ongoing activities that could contribute cumulatively include public and administrative vehicle

travel along with maintenance activities not associated with this project. See Appendix A for

details on activities and actions.

There are not foreseeable future actions that would contribute to “dusting”.

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects and no cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2 and 3 in combination with ongoing activities could produce additional dust that

could impact plants. Alternative 3 is largely conducted during the winter season, but some

hauling and maintenance could be accomplished during dry periods. The overall impacts to

Idaho pennycress would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 as described above.


42

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

If either Alternative 2 or 3 are implemented with design features outlined in Chapter 2, both

alternatives would be compliant with the following plans (and associated policies)for botany

resources. These include:

Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1987

Endangered Species Act of 1973

3.2 Climate Change Recent findings from the U.S. Global Change Research program have found that temperature is

on the rise across the northwest, each decade ranging from +0.1 to +0.2 degree F/decade. This

increase in temperature has resulted in warmer and shorter winters (N.O.A.A., 2013). This

warming trend has led to more large scale fire and insect and disease outbreaks across the

forested northwest region (Mote, et al., 2014). The Halstead Fire and the preceding large scale

mountain pine beetle epidemic in the area can be linked to this trend. Other factors, however,

including density and structure of the forest had a key role in the resulting fire and epidemic.


For direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis for climate change the area is limited to the

project area.

Prior to the fire both live and dead trees acted as a carbon sink, storing upwards of 16% of

Greenhouse Gas Omission (GHC) through the photosynthesis process of converting carbon

dioxide to carbon (Russell, Woodall, Amato, Fraver, & Bradford, 2014). Post-fire this

dramatically changes due to the tree mortality caused by the fire. Dead trees no longer have the

ability to conduct photosynthesis and no longer can act as a sink for carbon through that

exchange. Carbon is stored until they either decompose or go through combustion. This is the

case for all the alternatives.

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, carbon would continue to be stored in dead trees until decomposition or

combustion occurred. Carbon dioxide exchange would occur in remaining living trees and any

other live vegetation.

Alternative 2 and 3

Removal of dead trees as proposed for Alternative 2 or 3 would not alter the amount of carbon

they store. Carbon is transferred into whatever product is being manufactured or until it either

decomposes or is incinerated. The preparation of the timber to be sold and the subsequent

removal of the tree would require use of fossil fuels to cut and haul the estimated 500 loads of

material releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is an increase in carbon dioxide

emission which is contributing to GHC that are facilitating climate change. Depending on

natural vegetation recovery this increase in emissions could be offset by new plants as they

actively grow and beginning exchange carbon dioxide in the project area, though reforestation is

not a proposed action. Quantitatively this change is too hard to measure due to unforeseen factors

including natural vegetation recovery or changes in harvest technology for Alternative 2 or 3.


43

Cumulative Effects

Since any potential for direct and indirect effects of the proposed action would be restricted to the

proposed harvest areas and haul routes, the cumulate effects analysis area would be restricted to

the same boundaries.

Past activities that have contributed to climate change in the analysis area include recreation,

mining, timber harvest, fire and fuels management, fuelwood gathering, and recreation. Past

activities that have contributed and are described in the existing condition stated above. See

Appendix A – Catalog of Activities and Actions for Cumulative Effects Analysis.

Cumulatively, Alternative 2 or 3 may contribute carbon dioxide gas to climate change conditions,

but other on-going and reasonably foreseeable activities including: recreation, mining, timber

harvest, and fire, and fuels management are also contributing. See Appendix A – Catalog of

Activities and Actions for Cumulative Effects Analysis

It is not possible to quantify the amount of carbon dioxide being introduced into atmosphere and

contributing to CHG from each of these activities separately. Exactly when carbon dioxide is

introduced into the atmosphere primarily through burning of fossil fuels and when these other

activities in the project area occur is unknown. This limitation makes it hard to quantify carbon

dioxide emission in the foreseeable future by these individual activities. Similar conclusion can

be made on how vegetation recovery will offset these emissions of carbon dioxide contributing to

CHG in the foreseeable future without knowing rates of recovery.

3.3 Cultural Resources


For cultural resources the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects was limited to proposed

treatment areas.

Alternative1

Field surveys are not required if no action is to take place.

Alternative 2 and 3

Field surveys were conducted across the project area. Findings from those surveys were “No

Effects” to cultural sites for this project as designed. Findings were submitted to State of Idaho

Heritage group and were concurred by SHIPO in a letter dated December 6, 2013, to the forest


As such there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects by implementing either Alternative 2

or 3 of the Halstead Fire Salvage Project to cultural resources. This project is compliant with

cultural resources.

3.4 Fire and Fuels


For fire and fuel direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis, the action area is the proposed

treatment area.


44

The effects of the Halstead Fire dramatically changed the fuel characteristics across most of the

project area by altering the fuel loading present. Depending on fire intensity, ground fuels that

were available for consumption have decreased. In some case, this reduction was dramatic. This

outcome and its direct effect on the landscape are present and would remain so if Alternative 1

were chosen.

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1 there are no actions, and therefore effects of fire on the landscape remain

unchanged.

Alternative 2 and 3

The Halstead Fire Salvage project proposes to salvage merchantable dead trees either killed by

the fire or those trees that subsequently died from Douglas-fir beetle attacks. Salvaging standing

dead trees as outlined in Alternatives 2 and 3 probably would not contribute excessive amounts of

fuel due to the lack of limbs and crowns present on these remaining standing dead trees. By

project design, a maximum acceptable fuel load of 13 tons per acre would be put in place. This

maximum covers those situations where salvage operations could create excess fuel and further

treatment may be required, though unlikely. This is important especially where the treatment

unit’s fall within the Wildland Urban Interface near Cape Horn Guard Station, along Forest

Service road # 40290, and in areas that received low intensity fire where crown masses are

expected to be somewhat intact. Determination of whether further fuels treatment will be

conducted by the Forest Service timber and fuels staff post-harvest. If there is a need to address

excess fuels, action would be taken to mitigate fuel loading by using methods such as prescriptive

burning or by jack pot piling material and burning.

Any new contribution of ground fuels created by salvage operations in the long term would

generally benefit soil productivity and provide much needed microsites for reestablishment of

vegetation across the landscape.

Cumulative Effects

As such, there are no real direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated from a fuel loading

perspective for Alternatives 2 and 3 within the proposed project treatment areas.


By implementing either Alternative 2 or 3 and enlisting design features as outlined in Chapter 2

of this document, the project would be compliant with existing rules and regulation as stated in:


Montana /Idaho Air shed Group

3.5 Fisheries Within the Halstead Fire Salvage analysis area, the proposed action would result in direct or

indirect effects to fish or fish habitat. Analysis indicated that the project has the potential to

affect fish or fish habitat in the following areas: the area within the units, area extending 300 feet


45

from the units, and the area extending 1,100 feet5 along the roads outside of the units where trees

may be harvested.


There are four Endangered Species Act listed fish species that occur on and adjacent to the

Salmon-Challis National (USDA Forest Service, 2014). These are:

Snake River Sockeye Salmon – Endangered (Federal Register 56 C.F.R.§ 58619)

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon - Threatened ( Federal Register 57 C.F.R.

§ 14653)

Snake River Steelhead – Threatened (Federal Register 62 C.F.R. § 43937)

Bull Trout – Threatened (Federal Register 63 C.F.R. § 31647) – SCNF Management

Indicator Species(MIS)

Of the four listed fish, Chinook, Steelhead, and bull trout occur in the Marsh Creek, Valley Creek

and Basin Creek watersheds. Sockeye use the main stem to access lakes in the Stanley Basin for

reproduction and are not in the proposed project area. The three listed fish that are present in

those drainages are not present in the defined analysis area for fisheries resource nor is there any

designated critical habitat in this same analysis area (Gamett & Bartel, 2011) (Gamett & Bartel,

2008).


Alternative 1

The lack of the four listed fish or designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes this

alternative from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on any of these fish species

listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed.

Alternative 2 and 3

The lack of the four listed fish or designated critical habitat within the analysis area precludes

these alternatives from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on any of these fish

species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed.

Determination

A Biological Assessment was completed for the four species, since there are no listed fish or

designated critical habitat present in the analysis area a determination of “No Effect” for either

fish or critical habitat has been made in a document signed February 24, 2015 and is posted to the

project record. A “No Effect” call requires no further consultation with the regulatory services.

Sensitive Species

There are two fish species listed as sensitive on and adjacent to the SCNF (Intermountain Region

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species – updated February 2013). These are:

Westslope cutthroat trout

Big Lost River mountain whitefish

5 This 1,100 feet area included an area 800 feet from the roads where harvest may occur plus an additional

300 feet where impacts from harvest may occur.


46

Of the two listed fish only westslope cutthroat trout occur in the Marsh Creek, Valley Creek, and

Basin Creek watersheds. Big Lost River mountain whitefish is limited to the Big Lost River

Basin and is not present in the analysis area. Even though westslope cutthroat trout are present in

the watersheds they are not present in the analysis area and a determination of “No Impact”

would be made for species for the action alternatives (Gamett & Bartel, 2008) (Gamett & Bartel,

2011).


Alternative 1

The lack of the two listed fish within the analysis area precludes this alternative from having any

direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on any of these fish species listed as Sensitive for SCNF.

Alternative 2 and 3

The lack of the two listed fish within the analysis area precludes these alternatives from having

any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on any of these fish species listed as Sensitive for

SCNF.

Determination

A Biological Evaluation was completed for westslope cutthroat trout the only fish species in the

area. Since, westslope cutthroat trout is not within the analysis area precludes the proposed

actions from having any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this species. Therefore, the

proposed action results in a determination of “No Impact” has been made in a document signed

February 24, 2015 and is posted to the project record for westslope cutthroat trout.

Management Indicator Species

The SCNF has identified four species as MIS. Bull trout is the only listed fish species and is

discussed in the TES fish section above.

A similar determination can be made for bull trout as a MIS species. The lack of bull trout within

the analysis area precluded Alternative 2 or 3 from affecting bull trout. Therefore, neither

alternative is expected to result in a downward trend for this species, nor have any direct, indirect,

or cumulative effects to the species.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires federal agencies to

evaluate the impact of actions authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect the

essential fish habitat of commercially harvested species.

Within the scope of this action, this includes Chinook salmon. Since neither Chinook salmon nor

Chinook salmon designated critical habitat occurs within the action area, Alternative 2 or 3 results

in a “Would not adversely affect” determination for Chinook Salmon Essential Fish Habitat.


With the design features that are listed in Chapter 2 of this environmental assessment the Halstead

Fire Salvage Project is compliant with the following plans, policies and laws for fisheries. These

include:


47


PACFISH/INFISH (Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

Amendments, 1995 and 1996)

Recommendation for Snake River Steelhead for the Middle Fork of the Salmon River

Basin


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 and Amendments

of 2006

3.6 Invasive The Halstead Fire Salvage Project activity area contains five known infestations of noxious

weeds compromising two species totaling .68 acres in the proposed project area. Species present

are spotted knapweed and Canada thistle. Of the five sites, two of the infestations are located

along Forest Road 40027 (Asher-Knapp Creek) on the Middle Fork Ranger District and the other

three are located along the Forest roads associated with the Noho area on the Challis-Yankee Fork

Ranger District. All of the known infestations are along roads. Those roads can serve as a vector

to spread. Known infestations have been treated in the past and are scheduled for re-treatment

and monitoring next fiscal year.

The ability to quantify potential affects to invasive noxious weeds from the implementation of the

action alternatives is a concern brought forward by the public. The measure of soil disturbance is

an appropriate indicator in that it is understandable, quantifiable and sensitive to change.

Detrimental soil disturbance is defined in Region 4 by soil displacement, soil compaction, soil

puddling and severely burned soil (USDA Forest Serive, 2011). Activities associated with the

proposed project that can cause soil disturbance are logging operations in the treatment units and

maintenance of the road system used for hauling.

The Halstead Fire Salvage Project estimates that there would be 66 acres of soil disturbance from

ground base logging operations if the proposed alternative is implemented. This soil disturbance

represents 5 % of the proposed treated area and is compromised by landings, skid trails, and

construction of temporary road shown in Table 9. In addition to estimated ground base logging

soil disturbance, 28 miles of roads would be maintained for hauling, adding to percent of soil

disturbance expected from the project. The level of maintenance required on the roads to

facilitate hauling would be the biggest factor in level of soil disturbance.

Table 9 - Estimated Soil Disturbance Acres

District

Estimated Landing

Acres/ Number of

landings

Estimated Skid

Trails Acres /

Number of trails

Temporary Roads

Acres

Challis-Yankee

Fork 24 ac / 51 landings 17.6 ac/187 trails .25

Middle Fork 14.5 ac / 29 landings 8.7ac / 117 trails 0


For the invasive specialists report the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis area is

limited to the proposed haul routes and treatment areas.


48

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1 there would be no timber harvest or connected activities. Thus, there would

be no effects to noxious weed management associated with the no action alternative. No ground

disturbing activities are proposed in the No Action Alternative. Hence, no direct detrimental soil

disturbance is expected to occur. Natural process from the existing condition post Halstead Fire

would continue to include spread of noxious weeds where seed is present. Integrated weed

management that is currently occurring on the SCNF would continue.

Alternative 2

If Alternative 2 is chosen timber harvest may encourage the establishment of denser, more robust

weed infestations in the project area and a long haul routes. This would occur because timber

harvest decreases canopy closure and exposes the soil surface to more sunlight, favoring noxious

weed species. Soil disturbance generated by logging equipment would create favorable

conditions for establishment and rapid spread of noxious weeds by providing fresh seed beds,

increased nutrient levels from microbial activity, and reduced competition from native plants

(Ferguson, Duncan, & and Snodgrass, 2003). Required road maintenance to make routes

acceptable for hauling, during all phases of operations would also contribute to the level of soil

disturbance, but is highly variable.

Alternative 3

If Alternative 3 is chosen for timber harvest the direct and indirect effects would be similar to the

Alternative 2. The notable difference between the two alternatives is that the extent of soil

disturbance would be less. Winter logging would occur while the ground is frozen and able to

support the weight of the heaviest equipment. Research shows that the winter harvest units had

significantly less detrimental soil disturbance (Reeves, Page-Dumroese, & Coleman, 2011).

Since there are many factors that contribute to the extent of soil disturbance, it is not possible to

quantify the exact acreage or percent of the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Since the direct and indirect effects are confined to the haul routes and the project area, the

cumulative effects analysis area would be the haul routes and the project area.

Past activities that have contributed the introduction and spread of noxious weeds in the analysis

area include recreation, mining, livestock grazing, fuels management, recreational activities, and

travel on road/trails. Past activities have contributed and are described in the existing condition

stated above. See Appendix A for details on activities and actions.

Cumulatively, Alternative 2 or 3 may contribute to the spread of noxious weeds within the project

area, but other on-going and reasonably foreseeable activities including: recreation, mining,

livestock grazing, fuels management, and implementation of the new travel plan are also

contributing. See Appendix A for details on activities and actions.

It is not possible to quantify the acres of noxious weeds introduced into and spread by each of

these activities separately. Exactly when and the mechanism by which each of the noxious weed

species in the project area arrived is unknown. Furthermore, once a noxious weed species is

introduced and established, it would have begun to spread by means of other indirect vectors (e.g.

wind, water, or wildlife species). The same is often true of current or reasonably foreseeable

future activities. Careful application of noxious weed prevention best management practices

reduces the risk of weed establishment and spread as planned for this project, but cannot


49

completely eliminate it. Complete annual inventories of all new or ongoing project areas are not

possible and new weed infestations may not be detected for several years.


If the project is implemented there are several weed prevention and best management practices

that would be implemented pre, during and post-harvest. These are described in the projects

noxious and invasive design features in Chapter 2. These practices are considered to be effective

in mitigating risks to noxious weed infestation and spread. Alternatives 2 and 3 are compliant

with all the laws (Executive Order #13112, Invasive Species), regulations, guidelines, and

policies associated with noxious weed management. With respect to invasive species, the

identified design feature ensures the quality of the human environment would not be impacted

either individually or cumulatively.

3.7 Hydrology and Soils Four concerns were raised during public and internal scoping related to implementation of the

Halstead Fire Salvage Project. Those concerns include:

If any stream was designate as 303(d) with state water quality standards and

maintenance of beneficial use, would this project be compliant?

What is the potential increase in erosion and sediment delivery to streams located

in the project area watersheds?

What is the potential change in timing and magnitude of water delivery if project

is implemented?

What would be the anticipated level of detrimental soil disturbance?

To answer these four questions a review was completed of stream courses located within the

Halstead Fire Salvage Project watersheds and have been listed by the State of Idaho. Findings

from the review disclosed that only a segment of Basin Creek was listed (East Basin Creek to

mouth). Listing was not 303(d), but 4c. 4c streams are by definition no longer qualify as 303(d),

but are not meeting the attainment of water quality standards due to non-pollutant source and no

longer qualify as 303(d) (Eniviornmental Protection Agency, 2007).

To derive conclusions about the four questions, the Soil and Water Tool (SWAT) a continuous

time simulation model of watershed response was used that was developed by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. The model using weather and geographic data and the assumptions

about natural vegetation recovery of 5% each year (Quayle, Brewer, & and Williams, 2005)

analyzed effects for four scenarios. The four scenarios are:

No Recovery -Day one after the fire occurred

Alternative 1 – Natural forest recovery of 5% each year begins and continues

without further disturbance event

Alternative 2 – Disturbance event from harvest activities occurs during the dry

period of the year typically summer

Alternative 3 – Disturbance event from harvest activities if they happen occur

during the winter months when ground is frozen

In a natural forest cover recovery progression of 5%, land types would move from barren to forest

as shown in Figure 11. Introducing harvest in 2015 for Alternative 2 or 3 and assuming that only


50

20% of the land would be treated at any given time, you can see there would be an abrupt change

as a result of that harvest from natural recovery progress as shown in Figure 12 back to early

vegetation of grasses and shrubs.

Figure 11 - No Action Alternative – Basin Creek Watershed Proposed Harvest Unit – Post-fire vegetation recovery.

Figure 12 - Action Alternatives – Basin Creek Watershed Proposed Harvest Units - Post-fire vegetation recovery – initial harvest year 2015

Findings

Modeling the four scenarios, outputs of sediment and water yield was generated (Table 11 -

Outputs for Sedimentation and Water Yield). For the three sub-watersheds (Marsh Creek, Upper

Valley Creek, and Basin Creek), the scenario No Recovery generates the most sediment and

water yields, meaning a forest ecosystem without natural vegetation regeneration after wildfire

may negatively impact the natural environment. Comparison among Alternative 1, 2, and 3,

illustrates that Alternative 2 would introduce more sediment and water yields to sub-watersheds

Barren

Shrub0

200

400

600

800

201220132014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

A

c

r

e

s

Year Post-fire

Barren

Grass

Shrub

Forest

Barren

Shrub0

100

200

300

400

500

A

c

r

e

s

Year Post-fire

Barren

Grass

Shrub

Forest


51

than Alternative 1 or 3 scenarios, which is proof that disturbing surface land layer with logging

machinery obviously increase soil transport and decrease runoff detention. When comparing this

same correlation specific to Alternative 1 and 3, outcomes show there is very little difference

between the two as it pertains to potential sediment and water yield to the sub-watersheds.

When we look at look at nutrient loads, specifically to nitrogen and phosphorous (Table 12 -

Nutrient Loads from Watersheds for Different Alternatives) similar results are observed between

the alternatives with Alternative 2 showing an increase from 0 to 5%, and Alternative 1 and 3

being the same.

Based on findings by the contractor the SCNF staff conducted a follow up particular to sediment

and movement within the project area. SCNF staff modeled using GIS and observed vegetative

recovery in the project area two growing season after the fire, the potential for sediment to move

from treatment area based on a white paper published in 1994 titled “Validation of Filter Strip

Effectiveness” (USDA Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest, 1994). SCNF staff

conducted post-harvest study on 66 filter strips of different width and slopes on five different

timber sales answering the question do filter strips provide effective barriers to sediment

movement. Parameters they looked out included slope, length of slope between perimeter and

stream course, vegetation cover, parent material, and width of filter strips. Width of the filter

strips were based on recommended distances for different parent material outlined in the Salmon

National Forest Plan. Of the 66 filter strips looked out, only three had observable soil movement.

Measurement taken of the three filter strips only shows that soil movement only extended 2 to 5

feet into the strip. Conclusion from that field validation was that filter strips are highly effective

in reducing sediment delivery to streams.

15 points were identified along the perimeter of the Noho project area. This area was chose for

the analysis because this area has the most slope and distance between proposed project and

streams. Distances to streams from that perimeter were measured and average slope calculated

based on elevation change. Vegetation cover was set at 20% for the analysis based on

observation during the 2014 field season of the dramatic flush of perennial grasses observed

across the project area Figure 13. For all of the 15 points distance between stream courses and

Noho project area perimeter exceeds recommended filter strips width as shown in Table 10 -

Recommended Filter Strip Comparison vs. Actual Distance to Stream Course.


52

Figure 13 - Moderate Burn Fire Severity - Halstead Fire Salvage Project 2014


53

Point ID

Distance to Stream

in Feet

Project Perimeter Elevation

Point of Entry to Stream

Elevation Slope %

Recommend Filter Strip Width in

Feet - 20% Cover

Distance Exceeds

Effective Filter Strip

Recommended

1 1600 7120 6440 42 185 Yes

2 900 6880 6600 31 175 Yes

3 750 6960 6680 37 185 Yes

4 313 7040 7000 13 165 Yes

5 202 7240 7240 0 140 Yes

6 675 6920 6560 53 200 Yes

7 500 6840 6720 24 170 Yes

8 480 7080 6920 33 175 Yes

9 600 7160 7000 27 175 Yes

10 1400 7320 7000 23 170 Yes

11 375 7430 7240 51 200 Yes

12 250 7160 7000 64 220 Yes

13 300 7000 6920 27 175 Yes

14 700 7000 6600 57 220 Yes

15 1200 6880 6440 37 185 Yes

Table 10 - Recommended Filter Strip Comparison vs. Actual Distance to Stream Course


54

Table 11 - Outputs for Sedimentation and Water Yield

Marsh Creek Subbasin No

Recovery Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 2 Alt 1/NR

Percent change

Alt 3/NR

Percent change

Alt 2/NR

Percent change

Upland Sediment Yield

(Mg/ha)

10.63 10.05 10.05 10.15 - 5.46% -5.46% -4.52%

Surface Runoff (mm) 44.04 43.93 43.94 44.02 - 0.025% -0.023% -0.05%

Total Water Yield (mm)

72.30 72.19 72.20 72.28 -0.015% -0.014% -0.003%

Upper Valley Creek No


Percent change

Alt 3/NR

Percent change

Alt 2/NR

Percent change

Upland Sediment Yield (Mg/ha) 11.83 11.73 11.73 11.75 -0.0085% -0.0085% -0.0068%

Surface Runoff (mm) 50.02 49.99 50.01 50.02 -0.0006% 0.0002% 0%

Total Water Yield (mm) 80.27 80.24 80.24 80.26 -0.0004% -0.0004% 0%


55

Basin Creek No


Percent change

Alt 3/NR

Percent change

Alt 2/NR

Percent change

Upland Sediment Yield (Mg/ha) 9.11 8.78 9.47 9.99 -0.0362% 3.95% 9.66%

Surface Runoff (mm) 28.87 28.78 28.92 29.00 -0.0031% 0.17% 0.45%

Total Water Yield (mm) 54.98 54.87 55.01 55.10 -0.002% 0.5% 0.22%

Table 12 - Nutrient Loads from Watersheds for Different Alternatives

Marsh Creek Alt 1/NR

Percent change

Alt 3/NR

Percent change

Alt 2/NR

Percent Change

Nitrogen (kg/yr) -0.004% -0.003% 3.4%

Phosphorus (kg/yr) -0.002% 0.001% 2.1%

Upper Valley Creek

Nitrogen (kg/yr) 0% 0% 0.2%

Phosphorus (kg/yr) -0.001% -0.001% 0.01%

Basin Creek

Nitrogen (kg/yr) -0.007% -0.001% 4.9%

Phosphorus (kg/yr) -0.007% 0% 5.1%


56


For hydrology and soils specialists report for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is limited to

the three watershed where activities are proposed with this project (Marsh Creek, Valley Creek,

and Basin Creek).

Alternative 1

Under the Alternative 1 no actions would take place. As such there would be no direct, indirect,

or cumulative effects from the action. Natural vegetation recovery would continue until another

disturbance event occurred. Potential nutrient loads from burn areas would diminish over time

and come to a baseline level. Forest canopy would grow, increasing infiltration and thereby

decreasing direct runoff and nutrient loss off of the watershed. Non fire related mortality will

continue from insect activity to live host trees. Loss of these trees would result in decreases in

interception and evapotranspiration. Reducing the ability to intercept and store rainfall/snow,

potentially changing snow accumulation, melt rates, and distribution of water.

Alternative 2

Based on findings from the model if Alternative 2 is chosen the following direct and indirect

effects occur with soil disturbance occurring during summer logging operations.

Modeled Percent change in nutrient loads to streams

In Alternative 2 all watershed nutrient loads will increase above No Recovery and Alternative 1

conditions. Increases are positive due to soil surface exposure from disturbance activities to

sunlight that facilitate the mineralization of nitrogen into nitrate a highly water soluble chemical

that can easily be translocate to streams. Phosphorous that is attached to exposed soil may move

through rainfall and snow melt that create overland flow of sediment. From the modeling,

nitrogen and phosphorous may increase upwards of 5% for the Basin Creek watershed. Similar

numbers are shown for Marsh and Valley Creek watersheds though less in percent increase.

Clearly, magnitude of percentage nutrient movement is a function of the level of disturbance as

demonstrated in the difference between the watersheds (Basin Creek at 5% to Valley Creek’s

.02% increase, Table 12).

Percent increase in erosion and sediment delivery to streams

In Alternative 2, potential for sediment delivery would increase when compared to Alternative 1.

This increase is associated with the level of disturbance that would occur in Alternative 2.

Sediment increases shown in Table 9 are, 1.21 Mg/ha for Basin Creek, 0.02 Mg/ha for Upper

Valley Creek, and 0.10 Mg/ha for Marsh Creek respectively. Magnitude of sediment increase is

reflection of potential disturbance acres in relationship to sub-watershed size with Basin Creek

having majority of potential disturbance area at 853 acres.

Though there is a measurable change of potential sediment delivery between Alternative 1 and 2

when modeling effectiveness of filter strip that is currently in place due to the current vegetation

recovery clearly the natural filter strip far exceeds recommendation and effectively impair

sediment movement to stream course.

To remove the product will require use of roads for hauling. Road maintenance and use can

exacerbated sediment delivery to adjacent streams as it becomes suspended. From GIS analysis

8.82 miles of roads are within the PACFish buffers of a total of 30.29 miles. These segments

have the most potential to further contributing fine sediments to important anadromous streams.

Most of these segments have been treated in the past to make changes to these road systems


57

reducing their ability to suspend fine material either by changing surface substrate or by applying

MgCl to bind the fine material together.

The effects of using these roads for hauling should not be measurably different from the existing

condition because of the small increase in traffic over the current use level. With restrictions of

limiting hauling to dry or frozen conditions the potential for increased stream sedimentation due

to hauling is very minimal. Potential effects would be as described in the section above to

RHCAs and to adjacent road vegetation. Maintenance including culvert cleaning would occur

prior to, during, and following harvest. There would be an increase in available fine sediments

from short term activity of hauling, but this sediment generated from these activities is not

expected to measurably increase turbidity or levels of fine sediment in Basin Creek, Marsh Creek,

or Valley Creek, or negatively impact downstream users.

Potential for changes in timing and magnitude of water yield

When modeling potential water yield, implementing Alternative 2 would be an increase from

Alternative 1. Numbers show that this increase could be an average of 0.11 mm of water from

Alternative 1 for the three watersheds, with a similar change in potential runoff. Similar

increases are observed from the predicted amount of runoff.

Detrimental soil disturbance

During a ground based harvest operation, the soil changes linked to the activities depend

primarily on factors such as soil moisture during harvest operations, soil organic matter content,

and soil textural class, axle weight of the load applied, tire size, and the number of machine

passes. Other factors like the site characteristics (inherent soil bulk density, forest type, soil

parent material, and slope) also play a major role in how soils react to harvest activities (Reeves

et al., 2012).

Existence of one or a combination of any, of the attributes listed below can indicate detrimental

soil conditions.

Compaction: a 15% increase in the natural bulk density.

Rutting: wheel ruts at least 2 inches (5 cm) deep in wet soils.

Displacement: removal of >1 inch (2.5 cm) of any surface horizon, usually the A

horizon, from a continuous area greater than 100 square feet (9.2 square meter).

Severely burned soil: physical and biological changes to the soil resulting from

high-intensity burns of long duration as described in the Burned-Area Emergency

Rehabilitation Handbook, FSH 2509.13 (USDA Forest Service, 1995).

Surface erosion: rills, gullies, pedestals, and soil deposition.

Soil mass movement: any soil mass movement caused by management activity.

Soil compaction and displacement at landing sites and on main skid trails are expected due to

equipment operations if Alternative 2 is implemented. Table 13 - Detrimental Soil Disturbance

Estimates for Proposed Harvest Units shows the calculation of detrimental soil disturbance as

estimated for this alternative. The total area with the potential for detrimental soil disturbance is

4.8 %. The assumption is the entire soil area that comes in contact with harvesting equipment is

detrimentally disturbed. In reality, the actual disturbance area would be less than the predicted

amount since only a small portion of the skid trails and landings are expected to be detrimentally

disturbed. The disturbed area would be rehabilitated following the completion of the harvest

activities. The detrimental disturbance in proposed units would remain below 15% as required by

guidance from the Intermountain Region.


58

Table 13 - Detrimental Soil Disturbance Estimates for Proposed Harvest Units

Management

Area

Uni

t

# of

Trail

s

Trail

Distance (ft.)

Skid

Trails

Acres

# of

Landings

Landing

Acres

Harvest

Acres

Disturbance

Acres

Disturbance

%

Basin Creek 1 176 500 16.16 44 22 852 38.16 4.5

Marsh Creek 2 8 400 0.59 2 1 30.88 1.59 5.1

Marsh Creek 3 8 250 0.37 2 1 21.69 1.37 6.3

Marsh Creek 4 4 200 0.15 1 0.5 6.08 0.65 10.6

Marsh Creek 5 16 100 0.29 4 2 30.56 2.29 7.5

Marsh Creek 6 4 250 0.18 1 0.5 5.56 0.68 12.3

Marsh Creek 7 4 300 0.22 1 0.5 9.7 0.72 7.4

Marsh Creek 8&9 1 250 0.05 1 0.5 2.24 0.55 24.4

Marsh Creek 10 1 300 0.06 1 0.5 2.61 0.56 21.3

Marsh Creek 11 16 350 1.03 4 2 32.86 3.03 9.2

Marsh Creek 12 500 6.17 0.57 10 5 162.3 5.57 3.4

Marsh Creek 13 3 600 0.33 4 0.5 13 0.83 6.4

Marsh Creek 15 5 300 0.28 2 1 7.31 1.28 17.4

Valley Creek 14 8 750 1.10 3 1.5 69.21 2.60 3.8

Totals

21.37 38.50 1246.00 59.87 4.8


59

Alternative 3

Based on findings from the model, if Alternative 3 is chosen the following direct and indirect

effects occur with soil disturbance during winter logging operations.

Modeled Percent change in nutrient loads to streams

Similar to the Alternative 2, activities of Alternative 3 and the treatments following harvest

operation have the potential to disrupt nutrient cycles and may accelerate nutrient loss via

streamflow. However, based on the model simulations it can be seen that Alternative 3 produces

the same or slightly lower nutrient loads (nitrogen and phosphorous) for all the watersheds (Table

12). This is compared to the land cover condition following the wildfire as, for example, in Basin

Creek nitrogen and phosphorous are decreased by .01%. This decrease is a function of level of

disturbance occurring with Alternative 3.

Percent increase in erosion and sediment delivery to streams

Sediment yields from Alternative 3 of 10.05 Mg/ha are lower than No Recovery (10.63 Mg/ha),

and are very close to the yields from Alternative 1 of 10.05 Mg/ha for Marsh Creek subbasin

(Table 11) and holds true for all watersheds in the analysis area. This result illustrates that with

proper selection on the season of logging operations and limitations to the size of the harvest area,

environmental impacts of wood harvest can be kept very close to the natural forest recovery

scenario without logging activity. Findings of filter strip effectiveness in Alternative 2 will also

apply to Alternative 3 for the chance of sediment delivery to stream courses.

To remove the product will require use of roads for hauling. Road maintenance and use can

exacerbated sediment delivery to adjacent streams as it becomes suspended. From GIS analysis

8.82 miles of roads are within the PACFish buffers of a total of 30.29 miles. These segments

have the most potential to further contributing fine sediments to important anadromous streams.

Under Alternative 3 activity would be limited to period of time when roads are frozen. Potential

for creation of fine sediments and dust would be very limited as the particles would be bound by

water. Hauling could create situations where sediment erosion could occur if surface melt of the

roads suspended into a liquid form that readily would flow off the frozen road surface with fine

sediment material trapped by this solution. By implementing the proposed design features for

winter hauling would further reduce the risk of sediment delivery.

Potential for changes in timing and magnitude of water yield

Similar to sediment yields, water outputs from Alternative 3 of 44.02 mm, is close to Alternative

1 yields of 43.93 mm in Marsh Creek watershed. This is an increase of .09 mm of water yield.

This relationship holds true for all watersheds in the analysis area and is very similar to results of

predicted sediment yields shown above.

Detrimental soil disturbance

Winter logging occurs while the ground is frozen and able to support the weight of the heaviest

equipment. Research shows that the winter harvest units had significantly less areal extent of

detrimental soil disturbance (Reeves, et. al., 2011). However, knowledge of local conditions as

well as operator tendencies are important in keeping soil disturbance levels below the mandated

15 % of areal extent in an activity area, especially during ground-based winter harvest operations.

As winter harvest conditions become sub-optimal (e.g., during snow melt) and the soil moisture

content increases, detrimental soil disturbance is more likely to occur and the areal extent of that

disturbance increases. It is imperative at this point that forest staff monitor conditions closely and


60

halt harvest operations until the site becomes less susceptible to high disturbance levels. The

calculations for detrimental soil disturbance assuming an open surface (not covered by heavy

snow or frozen land) are provided in Table 13. There is a maximum potential for 4.8 % of the

harvest areas to be detrimentally disturbed during winter logging based on this. However, due to

frozen ground, the soil disturbance is expected to be lower than that given in Table 13 to available

spawning gravels, drinking water, and level of water flow, though not to levels or new conditions

that would impair existing water resources.

Cumulative Effects for both Action Alternatives

Since any measurable direct and indirect effects would be confined to the Basin Creek, Valley

Creek, and Marsh Creek watersheds, the cumulative effects analysis would be the three

watersheds for nutrients, sediment, and water yield.

Past activities that could contribute to nutrients, sediment, and water yield and in some cases

continue to contribute. These include fire (including prescribed), timber harvest, road

construction and maintenance, recreational activities, insect and disease events, mining, grazing,

and private land activities. Many of these continue to contribute sediment and nutrients on the

landscape and are described in the existing condition above. Water yield is also described in the

existing condition. See Appendix A for details on activities and actions.

Ongoing activities that could continue to contribute nutrients, sediment, and water yield include

fire, timber harvest, road maintenance, recreational activities, mining, grazing, insect and disease,

and potentially private land activities. Rates of recovery and sediment, nutrients, and water yield

are described above. All managed ongoing activities on National Forest system lands have filter

strips and/or design features intended to eliminate or minimize sediment and nutrient delivery to

streams. Water yield fluctuates over time as canopy accumulates or is manipulated through

management actions or disturbance events such as insect, disease, and fire.

There is one foreseeable activity in the future. The Stanly Fire Collaborative submitted a

landscape area to the west of Highway 21 to the Chief of the Forest Service via the state

governor’s office to address Insect and Disease concerns that could impact the community of

Stanly in the event of another large scale wildfire. The Chief has accept the area, and if so

chooses the group and their National Forest partners, the designation allows for the use of Farm

Bill Categorical Exclusion to implement these treatments

Since Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects.

When the effect of the two action alternatives are combined with the past and future effects of

insects and disease over the next ten years across the three watersheds, there is the potential for

increased impacts to soil and water resources. The loss of more vegetation due to insects and

diseases will reduce interception and evapotranspiration and thereby reduce the detention storage

of rainfall water, and change the snow accumulation, melt rates, and distribution. Both

Alternative 2 and 3 as described above would generate sediment and nutrients on the landscape

and this in combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable future projects would increase

sediment and nutrients on the landscape. Water yield when considered with past, ongoing, and

foreseeable future could increase in the short term and is described above and as noted would

fluctuate over time in unpredictable ways as canopies increase naturally and disturbance takes

place and eventually come to a statist until another event happens. However, as describe in the

direct and indirect effects filter strips would prevent any measurable delivery of sediment to


61

streams and therefore this project would have no cumulative impacts of sedimentation or

nutrients to area streams.

Since detrimental disturbance in confined to the proposed harvest units within the project area,

the cumulative effects analysis area for detrimental disturbance is confined to the harvest units.

Past activities that have occurred in the analysis areas include past harvest. Past harvest occurred

in the 1970’s and concluded in the 1990’s and no longer contributes to detrimental disturbance

and would no longer be considered cumulative. An addition listing of timber sales names or other

silvicultural activities was include in Appendix A of this document. Listing also identifies what

structural stage the stand currently supports if activity was clear-cut. If the past activity falls

within the perimeter of the Halstead Fire that also is identified.

Past activities that have occurred in the analysis areas include harvest. Within the Challis-Yankee

Fork Ranger District, most of these activities occurred from early 60’s through the early80’s using

shelterwood prescriptions with some minor clearcuts where lodgepole was prevalent. These areas

prior to the fire were stocked and regeneration that was present was in sufficient quantity that

Forest Service was considering further activities to remove the overstory. Because the Middle

Fork area produce mostly round wood the primary prescription was small clear cuts, or seed tree

cuts. All of these areas are now fully stocked and supporting sapling sized forest. These areas in

general are sufficiently recovered and no longer serve as a source of sedimentation.

There is one foreseeable activity in the future that may have some impact on silvicultural

resources. The Stanly Fire Collaborative submitted a landscape area to the west of Highway 21

to the Chief of the Forest Service via the state governor’s office to address Insect and Disease

concerns that could impact the community of Stanly in the event of another large scale wildfire.

The Chief has accept the area, and if so chooses the group and their National Forest partners, the

designation allows for the use of Farm Bill Categorical Exclusion to implement these treatments.

If implemented whitebark pine and impacts to the species would need to occur within those

proposed treatment areas.


Based on findings from modeling potential effects to hydrology and soils resource, and by

implementing design features in place for the activities, Alternative 2 or 3 is compliant with the

following plans, policies and laws for hydrology and soil resources. These include:


State listing of Basin Creek and other streams in the project area

Clean Water Act of 1977

3.8 Range The Halstead Fire Salvage Project is divided into two distinct areas on the Middle Fork Ranger

District and the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District. The Cape Horn proposed harvest units

located on the Middle Fork Ranger District all fall within the Cape Horn Sheep and Goat

Allotment. The one large unit located on the project area of the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger

District lies between the Salmon River Breaks and the Stanley Basin Allotments, but is not

currently within a grazed allotment.


62

The Cape Horn Allotment is an 86,213 acre allotment located in the Upper Salmon River and

Upper Middle Fork Salmon River basins within the Valley Creek 5th Field HUC (5th Field HUC:

1706020104) and Marsh Creek 5th Field HUC (5th Field HUC: 1706020503). Within the Cape

Horn allotment 599 acres, less than 1/10th of a percent of the overall allotment, is proposed to be

logged for dead and dying timber. The proposed timber units are located within the Knapp, Dry,

and Valley Creek pastures (Figure 14).

Each treatment unit within the Cape Horn S&G allotment was visited in late June 2014. No units

showed any form of grazing from either 2013 or 2014. Evidence of deer and elk use in the Cape

Horn units (tracks, scat, and lightly grazed shrubs) was apparent in most places. Post-fire

regeneration of grasses, grass like plants, and forbs was high in most units (Figure 15).


63

Figure 14 - Cape Horn allotment pastures


64

Figure 15 - Post-fire grass and forb regeneration, Cape Horn unit

The regeneration shown in Figure 15 is common to all of the units in the Cape Horn allotment,

with some exhibiting shrub regeneration. The Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District treatment

area is more variable in terms of herbaceous regeneration. North-facing areas, especially those in

shallow bowls where soil is deeper show growth similar to Figure 15, but in areas where pre-fire

conditions maintained a closed canopy, timber stands remain largely unvegetated due to a lack of

a natural seed source.


For range analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effect the analysis are is limited to the one

grazing allotments that is active on the Middle Fork Ranger District. The Challis-Yankee Fork

District area is associated between two allotments, Salmon River Breaks a vacant allotment and

the Stanley Association allotment that no longer uses any of areas that are being proposed for

treatment.

Alternative 1

There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects for the Alternative 1 because there are no

proposed actions associated with this alternative.

Alternative 2 and 3

For both Alternative 2 and 3 the direct and indirect effects would be similar. The difference is the

timing of harvest where alternative 3 would occur during the winter months when sheep grazing

is not occurring on the Cape Horn Allotment.

Sheep tend to prefer upland grazing sites; they do not prefer wet or marshy grazing areas. They

are reluctant to penetrate dense vegetation higher than their line of vision. The Cape Horn

Allotment requires that sheep be herded; this provides a major advantage in that the herder can

control the amount of time spent grazing riparian areas and is made easier by the preference of


65

sheep for uplands and drier areas. All of the proposed timber units are in upland areas. Many of

the areas are now or would become inaccessible to sheep due to fallen timber. Removal of timber

in those locations would allow for continued access to preferred vegetation. In addition removal

of timber would allow for more available acreage of non-coniferous vegetation to grow in the

short-to-medium term, until trees reoccupy the sites and shade out herbaceous vegetation.

Indirect effects could include the disruption of native seed banks through soil alterations,

increased erosion and sediment transport, and the colonization of non-native, invasive plant

species. Soil compaction, “dusting” of live plants, erosion, and sedimentation resulting from

project activities could affect palatability and availability of forage in a few areas. Vegetation

removal or erosion can alter the surface hydrology in an area and affect plant communities by

reducing access to sheet flow during rain events.

Design features have been integrated into the Alternative 2 and 3 to eliminate or minimize the

potential adverse indirect impacts from weed and other unintended effects. In addition, design

criteria to protect other resources also reduce the potential for effects to native vegetation and soil

cover across the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Since any effects to grazing are limited to upland grazing of sheep in proposed harvest units and

haul routes, the cumulative effect analysis area would be the same.

Past harvest and wildfire have and in the case of wildfire continue to contribute effects to

changing plant regimes and available forage and is described in the existing condition.

Ongoing activities that could affect interactions with sheep bands include recreational activities,

fuelwood gathering, road maintenance, and administrative road use and would continue into the

future.

There is one foreseeable activity in the future within the analysis area for upland grazing. The

Stanly Fire Collaborative submitted a landscape area to the west of Highway 21 to the Chief of

the Forest Service via the state governor’s office to address Insect and Disease concerns that

could impact the community of Stanly in the event of another large scale wildfire. The Chief has

accept the area, and if so chooses the group and their National Forest partners, the designation

allows for the use of Farm Bill Categorical Exclusion to implement these treatments.

Alternative 1 and 3 would have no direct or indirect effects and therefore no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 in combination with ongoing activities could increase the amount of interaction

with resource activities in the analysis area and sheep bands. Although Alternative 2 in

combination with ongoing could increase interactions, grazing would continue at set levels and in

areas normally suitable for sheep.


Based on the analysis implementing either Alternative 2 or 3 would be compliant with all rules,

regulation, policies and plans for the Range resources.



66

3.9 Recreation and Visual Quality

Recreation and Roadless

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a framework for stratifying

and defining classes of outdoor recreation environments, activities, and experience opportunities.

This tool provides a means to take a close look at proposed specific activities and compare them

to Forest designated recreation opportunities. In the Halstead Fire Salvage Project, two classes of

ROS are designated, Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural.

A Semi-Primitive Motorized Area is characterized by a predominately natural or natural-

appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of recreation users is low, yet

there is often evidence of other users around. These areas are to be managed in such a way that

minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle in nature. Motorized use

is permitted. Proposed Units 1, 11, 15, and a small part of unit 12 are all within the Semi-

Primitive Motorized classification.

Roaded Natural Area is classified by predominantly natural-appearing environments with

moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the

natural environment. Interaction between users is low to moderate, but with evidence of other

users prevalent. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design

of facilities. Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and the majority of unit 12 are all within the Roaded

Natural classification.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

For recreation and roadless analysis the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis area is the

following. For recreation this is limited to haul routes, administrative sites or access to those

sites, immediate surrounding to the proposed treatment areas and Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum classification. For roadless analysis area is limited to effects to roadless characteristics

to the Loon Creek Idaho Roadless Area (IRA) immediately adjacent to the treatment units as well

as Forest Road #40027 – Asher/Knapp Creek road that bisects this IRA in four segments.

Alternative 1

Under the Alternative 1 there would be no timber salvage harvest activities occurring in the

project area; therefore there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to recreation.

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 timber salvage activities in the Asher, Knapp, Kelly and No Ho Creek areas

may directly impact recreation activities occurring in the immediate area. The timber harvest

activities may require temporary road and trail closures or limited access to the area to protect

public safety. In addition, the recreating public may choose to avoid areas during these

operations. These effects would be both temporary and short term. Public notification at

campgrounds, trailheads, on forest websites and in the local media would allow adequate notice

for those planning trips into the area to adjust their plans accordingly. The commercial outfitters

operating in the area during the harvest/thinning may also be directly impacted by limited access

or trail closures. Notifying the local outfitter prior to the timber salvage activities would reduce

any potential impacts.


67

Noise from heavy equipment and dust in the air during the harvest activities may have a direct

impact to the quality of the recreation experience within and adjacent to the project area by

temporarily reducing the air quality and tranquility of the area. Log truck traffic on FS roads

40027, 40350, 40889, 40293, 40291, 40328, and 40085 may directly impact recreationists by

creating more traffic, noise, and dust in the area.

There is potential for the harvesting and thinning operations to impact the Knapp-Loon Creek,

Valley Creek, and Kelly Creek Trailheads, which are all in close proximity to cutting units in the

proposed project. There is also the potential for impacting the Kelly Creek Pond, which is

located in the vicinity of Unit #1. This pond is currently de-watered. However, the Idaho

Department of Fish and Game intends to re-fill the pond in the near future, for use as a kid’s

fishing pond. The trailheads within the project area would continue to be maintained by the

Forest’s South Zone Recreation Program. Specific trailhead problems would be addressed as

needed based on conditions.

Alternative 3

If Alternative 3 is chosen, timber salvage activities in the Asher, Knapp, Kelly and No Ho Creek

areas may directly impact recreation activities occurring in the immediate area, especially the two

groomed snow machine trails that exist within the project area. Two sections of the proposed

haul route are in the same location as the groomed snow machine trail, and the log trucks would

have to share the same roads as the snow machine riders utilizing the groomed trail. This could

result in a safety hazard for users of the haul route/snow machine trail. Because of this, the

recreating public may choose to avoid areas during these operations. The Stanley area is a

destination for travelers in the winter wanting to ride the groomed trails. There are no other

groomed trails in the area where these recreationists can go if they choose not to use the project

area due to log truck traffic. These effects would occur for the 3-8 years during the sale duration.

An indirect effect of the sale may be a decrease in customers in the Stanley area that utilize the

groomed snow machine trails.

Cumulative Effects

Since any direct and indirect effect is limited to the project area, the cumulative effects analysis

area would be the same.

Past and ongoing activities that continue to contribute impacts to recreation are considered in

existing condition but include fire (including prescribed), timber harvest, road construction and

maintenance, insect and disease events, mining, grazing, and private land activities.






Bill Categorical Exclusion to implement these treatments.

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.

The ongoing land and recreational uses for Alternatives 2 and 3 shown in would continue within

the general area. The timber salvage activities with the associated short term increases in dust,

traffic, and noise could lead to some recreationists choosing not to utilize the proposed project


68

area. Recreational travel safety would be enhanced with the removal of potential hazard trees

along roadways in the project area. These effects would only be evident during timber salvage

activities for the duration of the project (3-8 years).

The ongoing land and recreational uses specific to Alternative 3 shown in Appendix A – Catalog

of Activities and Actions for Cumulative Effects Analysis would continue within the general area.

Snow machine users of the two groomed snow machine trails could be affected by the presence of

log trucks along several sections of the trail for 3-8 winters during the duration of the timber sale.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas are undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 acres that meet the

minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act and that were

inventoried during the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (Rare II) process,

subsequent assessments, Forest planning, and the Idaho Roadless Rule 36 CFR –Part 294 -

Subpart C (U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2008).

The Halstead Fire Salvage Project treatment areas are located adjacent to, but not within, the

149,629 acre Loon Creek IRA (06-908). This IRA is within the “Backcountry/Restoration”

management theme of the Idaho Roadless Rule.

The haul route on Forest road 40027 intersects the Loon Creek IRA in four segments for .67 miles

(approximately 1.9 acres), as such some of the harvested material from units 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and

10 would enter the roadless area. Forest road 40027 is an open route under the Salmon-Challis

National Travel Plan. The travel plan classification of this route would not change as a result of

the proposed project, and the route would remain open to the public before, during, and after

project operations.

Table 14 - Recreational Impact Comparison of Alternatives shows a comparison of the all

alternatives in regards to recreation.

Table 14 - Recreational Impact Comparison of Alternatives

Issue Indicator Measure Alternative 1:

No Action

Alternative 2:

Proposed Action

Alternative 3:

Winter logging

Loss of recreation

opportunity

Duration None Short term

displacements of visitors

during the timber

salvage activities over a

3-8 year period.

Log trucks would

have to utilize large

portions of two

groomed snow

machine routes in

order to remove logs

in areas where

alternate routes do

not exist for the

groom trail. This

may negatively

affect the recreation

of snow machine

users in this area.


69

Increased

trailhead

maintenance

Number of

trailheads

needing

maintenance

due to

salvage sale

activities

None 3 3

Impacts to Loon

Creek IRA

Acres &

Duration

None Short term impacts to

solitude and apparent

naturalness of IRA when

harvest material is

hauled out on .67 miles

(1.9 acres) of road

FS0027.

Short term impacts

to solitude and

apparent naturalness

of IRA when

harvest material is

hauled out on .67

miles (1.9 acres) of

road FS0027.

Alternative 1

If no action is taken, the proposed timber salvage activities would not occur within the project

area. Open system road would continue to be open, but there would be no hauling associated

with the timber salvage activities.

There also would not be any known cumulative effects by taking no action.

Alternative 2 and 3

If the proposed action is selected, there is some minor direct impacts to the Loon Creek

Inventoried Roadless Area from log truck traffic. These impacts relate to solitude and apparent

naturalness of the IRA. These impacts would be short term, and would cease with project

completion.



alternatives would be compliant with the following plans, policies and laws:


Idaho Roadless Rule - 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart C – Idaho Roadless Area Management

Visual Quality

Visual Management Systems

The Visual Management System provides measurable standards for general management

prescriptions, and allows management activities or other uses to occur (or continue to occur)

while safeguarding the scenic quality.

There are five visual quality objectives (VQO’s) that can be used to give direction to vegetation

management planning though only three apply to the project area (USDA Forest Service, 1980) as


70

shown in Table 15 - Visual Quality Objective Used to Give Direction to Vegetation Management

Planning.

Table 15 - Visual Quality Objective Used to Give Direction to Vegetation Management Planning

Visual Quality Objective Descriptions

(as defined above)

Description

Preservation Only ecological changes are

permitted. Does not apply within the

project area.

Retention Management activities are not

visually evident. Applies to units

#11, #12, #13, #14 and #15 within

the project area.

Partial Retention Management activities remain

visually subordinate. Applies to units

#2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and

#10 within the project area.

Modification Management activities are dominant,

but appear natural. Applies to unit #1

within the project area.

Maximum Modification Management activities are dominant,

but appear natural when seen in the

background. Does not apply within

the project area.

The project area is composed of pure stands of Douglas-fir, with fewer stands of mixed lodgepole

pine and subalpine fir that were burned with varying intensities by the Halstead Fire. The project

area has been plagued by Douglas-fir and mountain pine beetle outbreaks over the last decade,

resulting in the loss of the majority of trees over 5 inches in diameter (Lazarus, 2014).

Visual impacts of the Halstead fire can be observed ranging from 50-100% of the trees within the

project area depending on the scale one is looking out which has changed the scenic quality of the

forest from multiple points of perspectives including state highway 21. The forest setting has

changed from a shaded, closed-canopy forest to an open, warmer, fire-killed condition. Re-

establishing a forested condition with an appropriate scenic quality would take a considerable

amount of time.

The Forest Plan desired condition for the project area is to have a pleasing landscape and

character that consist of mosaic of different species, age classes, and successional stages while

meeting the visual quality objectives as outline in the project area. Because of the intensity of the

Halstead fire over the proposed project area, a return to the area’s current VQO’s classification

would take a long period of time.


71

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

For visual quality resources the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis area is limited to

line of sight observation from state highway 21, haul routes, and proposed treatment unit and the

classification with the areas they occur.

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, the proposed timber salvage activities would not occur. The approximately

1,200 acres of burned, dead and dying timber within the proposed project area would not be

harvested. The burned trees would fall over due to wind, weather, and rot over time. The scenic

quality would continue to fail to meet the VQO’s for the area.

Visual impacts or changes due to the Halstead Fire are currently noticeable throughout the project

area, as thousands of acres of forest were burned to varying degrees. Under Alternative 1, no

change is proposed. No planned past, present, or foreseeable future projects would cause any

change.

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2, there would be direct visual evidence of timber salvage operations in the

foreground. The removal of dead/dying trees that were burned in the Halstead fire, or those that

have been infested by mountain pine beetle or Douglas-fir beetle would be evident. This includes

landings, stumps, slash, track and tire prints of the harvesting equipment, and the imprint of skid

trails and temporary roads in the harvest units. From point of view of state highway 21 only Cape

Horn areas may be visible, but any actions occurring would not be evident because of the distance

or line of sight from the roadway.

An indirect effect of the salvage operations may be a decrease in the amount of time it takes to

regenerate the harvest units. The passage of the harvest equipment in each unit may scarify the

ground and speed regeneration in the lodgepole units (#2 - #15).

The Halstead Fire radically changed the visual quality of the project area from multiple

perspectives, as well as the surrounding forest, and as such this project would not further damage

the scenic quality. This Alternative may, in fact, improve the visual quality of the project area

over time. With Alternative 2, there would be some level of disturbance. In these disturbed areas

if tree seed is available they could take root in the exposed mineral bed and regenerate in a shorter

time period. These small areas of green tree seedlings in a sea of blackened trees may help the

overall visual quality of the project area.

Alternative 3

If Alternative 3 is implemented harvest operations would occur over snow or frozen ground,

limiting the short-term visual evidence of timber product removal. There would be no evidence

of tire tracks or skid trails, but landings would still be evident due to the concentrated use of those

areas. Stump height could also be higher, depending on snow depth at time of harvest. From

State Highway 21, evidence of activities could not be discerned.

An indirect effect of winter logging may result in slower tree regeneration, as the equipment

would be operating over snow and not causing ground disturbance. Lodgepole pine seedlings are

known to sprout quickly in areas that have had ground disturbing activities.

The Halstead Fire radically changed the visual quality of the project area, as well as the

surrounding forest, and as such this project would not further damage the scenic quality of the


72

proposed timber sale units. Alternative 3 would result in a minimal amount of short term visual

evidence of logging activities, since the over snow removal would not create skid trails.

Due to the severity of the fire, and the dry climate of central Idaho, it would take a considerable

length of time to restore the visual quality where the 2012 Halstead Fire burned. Alternative 2

may provide a faster regeneration timeframe due to the ground disturbing nature of the harvest

activities, while Alternative 3 would have less short term visual evidence of logging activities.

Cumulative Effects

Since any direct and indirect effect is limited to the project area, the cumulative effects analysis

area would be the same.

Past and ongoing activities that continue to contribute impacts to the visual landscape are

considered in existing condition but include fire (including prescribed), timber harvest, road

construction and maintenance, insect and disease events, mining, grazing, and private land

activities.






Bill Categorical Exclusion to implement these treatments. This area could potentially affect some

inventoried roadless areas.

.Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 in combination with past and ongoing activities would create further disturbance to

the visual landscape. Alternative 3 in combination with past and ongoing activities would create

further disturbance to the visual landscape, but due to winter operations the effects would be

considerably less and likely restricted to landings. Regardless the effect of Alternative

cumulatively would be an improved visual quality within project area over time from natural

regeneration and be consistent with VQOs.



alternatives would be compliant with the following plans, policies and laws knowing that visual

fire effects have dramatically altered the visual appearance in the project area.


3.10 Silviculture As in all wildfire, the severity and direct effects of the fire were mixed based on weather and fuel

source on the day the land mass it burned. From BAER, four categories of burn area soil

severities were defined within the Halstead Fire perimeter (See Figure 9). Though the reference

is to soil severity, a correlation can be made to damage to forest stands and tree mortality. The

four categories are: none (no mortality), light (0-30% mortality), moderate (30-70% mortality),

and high intensity (70% + mortality). Fire mortality in some cases was instantaneous and clearly

visible across the landscape, as in stand replacing crown fires. In other cases fire mortality


73

occurred over a short period of time (less than a year), in trees that appeared to survive, but later

died from fire injuries to the cambium or loss of crown. These individuals clearly became visible

by the end of the next growing season after the fire (2013).

In some cases where Douglas-fir bark beetles survive the fire or in the immediate area that didn’t

burn and were active within the Halstead Fire Salvage Project Area, the remaining few live host

trees within the perimeter of the fire became a favored target due to their weakened state, adding

to the level of mortality of trees that did survive but later died as an indirect result of the fire.

When the beetle’s food source was depleted within the fire, beetle populations moved from within

the fire perimeter to areas immediately adjacent where host trees are present. This expansion is

not new and has been demonstrated in other recent fires across the west (Lazarus & Bennett,

2011) and (Hood, Bentz, Gibson, Ryan, & DeNitto, 2007). This is the case particularly in the No

Ho and Kelly Creek area where the principal tree species is Douglas-fir. Observations since the

fire by timber staff and State and Private Forest entomologists visiting the area (Lazarus, 2014)

confirm this, particularly in Douglas-fir trees larger than 20 inches in diameter which is the

preferred host tree. Mountain pine beetle unlike Douglas-fir beetle populations had collapsed

prior to the fire and majority of its preferred host trees had already died in the previous epidemic.

Because only a limited number of favorable lodgepole pine host trees exist within the project area

populations have returned to endemic levels.

Post-fire timber inventory exams were conducted to document the effects the fire had on the

project area and what might be recoverable (Table 16- Stand Characteristics Post-fire Halstead

Fire Salvage Project). In the Knapp-Valley Creek area live basal area6/ac post-fire was reduced to

an average basal area of 18/ac, a reduction from basal area that ranged from 80-1607/ac prior to

the fire. In the case of density this can be related into a reduction in number of trees per acre

between 160-300 to 50 live trees per acre, or a potential to harvest 110 to 250 dead trees per acre

across the project area. For the Noho Creek area, similar results were found. Live basal area had

been reduced from 99-2008/ac to an average of 42/ac in the Douglas-fir cover types. There was a

similar change in the number of trees per acres as stated above in the Knapp-Valley Creek area

from as high as 300 trees per acre to 72 live trees per acre post-fire on average.

Table 16- Stand Characteristics Post-fire Halstead Fire Salvage Project

Cover

Type

# of trees

per acre

Age Basal

Area

Stand

Density

Index

Quadratic

Mean

Diameter

Total

cubic

feet per

acre

Lodgepole

pine

50 109 18 35 8.1 487

Douglas-

fir

72 154 42 76 10.3 837

6 Basal Area – the cross sectional area of all stems, including the bark measured at breast height (4.5 feet

above the ground) expressed per unit of land measure. 7 Existing stand conditions of the Lo-Elly Fuels Project prior to treatment and Halstead Fire in adjacent

lodgepole pine cover type. 8 Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project Silvicultural Report – existing conditions – dated

02/13/2013


74

Post fire stand information was also used to evaluate post-fire characteristics of the stands

comparing to old growth attributes as described in “Characteristics Of Old-Growth Forests in the

Intermountain Region” (USDA Forest Service, 1993) because of public interest. Though this not

a requirement of FLRMP. For a stand to have old growth characteristics, at minimum, three

factors have to be evaluated. Those factors are: diameter at breast height (dbh), trees per acre,

and stand age. By definition, Hamilton reported all three factors have to be present before the

stand is considered to have old growth characteristics. For lodgepole pine to qualify, these

forested stands require trees to be greater than or equal to 11 inches dbh, have more than or equal

to 25 trees per acre, and stand age is at least 140 years old. For Douglas-fir in the lower

productive sites to qualify, which is descriptive of the forested stands across the project area;

diameter needs to be greater or equal to 18 inches dbh, have more than 10 trees per acre, and be

over 200 years old. When the stand data was evaluated, clearly none of the proposed treatment

units now support old-growth characteristics though individual trees might have these attributes.

A post fire stand attribute that is required to be analyzed from the Forest Plan is number of

coniferous forest acres that support old growth dependent wildlife. This requirement is not

related to Hamilton in any way, shape, or form, but aligns with the Forest Plans definition of

climax forest and how this supports old growth wildlife habitat. This requirement states “within

each Management Area, provide and distribute a minimum of 10% of the acres of the conifer

timber stands as habitat for old-growth –dependent wildlife species” (IV-17 (j)). By the FLRMP

definition of old growth habitat is defined in the EIS as “Habitat for certain wildlife that is

characterized by over mature coniferous forest stands with large snags and decaying logs” (

(USDA Forest Service, 1987) page VII-23. Based on the definition there is no association with

Hamilton’s definition as outlined in Characteristics of Old-Growth Forest (USDA Forest Service,

1993) defined by tree size, age, or number of trees per acres.

In preparation of this standard for the FLRMP, the biologists assigned to this exercise prepared a

Plant Animal Community Association (PACA)9 layer of the entire Challis National Forest (EIS,

Section III-13). This layer portrays what they consider old growth wildlife dependent habitat for

the EIS process for the plan. The defined classification that describes this component was W-12

Climax Coniferous Forest. By doing this, the biologists were able to quantify acres available for

these wildlife species and establish a baseline for acceptable future actions. Using this layer and

by removing activities that would have alter structure since development of this map, examples

include significant mortality from fire or current and past harvest activities within the remaining

W-1210. Acres were calculated to see if 10% of these coniferous forest wildlife habitats still

remain on the landscape within these management areas. Findings from this exercise are shown

in Table 17 - Acres and Percent Climax Coniferous Forest Post Fire and Disturbance Events and

Figure 16 - Post fire remaining climax coniferous forest.

9 Plant Animal Community Association – A approach system that manages and organizes biological data,

extrapolated from the various ecosystems, into a framework which allows consideration of (1) all vertebrate

species and Threaten and Endangered plants in planning process, (2) species with management concerns ,

and (3) identification of habitats requiring special attention (EIS, Section III-13). 10 W-12 Climax Coniferous Forest: A closed canopy coniferous vegetative community characterized by late

climatic ecological succession (old growth). Litter layer dense, with little or no invasion or succession of

new growth. Frequency of annual and perennial vegetation suppressed. Soil characteristics, elevation,

topography, and precipitation play less of an important role in delineating the plant/animal association

(EIS, Section VII-26).


75

Table 17 - Acres and Percent Climax Coniferous Forest Post Fire and Disturbance Events

Management Area #3

Acres/ Percent Climax

Coniferous Forest

Management Area #4


Coniferous Forest

Management Area #5


Coniferous Forest

Acres of

Coniferous Forest

58,995 13,851 36,779

Pre Fire Climax

Forest

22,181 / 38% 7,683 / 55% 13,278 / 36%

Post Fire &

Disturbance

Events Climax

Forest

11,054 19% 2,839 / 20% 5,012 / 14%


For the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects the analysis area is limited to the

project area with exception of old growth wildlife dependent habitat which its limits are the three

Management Areas where treatment activities are proposed and discussed separately. The

baseline for analysis is current existing conditions which include all past and present activities.

For the silviculture report has been broken down into three topics, effects to current stand

proposed to be treated, effects to old-growth coniferous forest that supports old-growth dependent

Basin Creek

Valley Creek

Marsh Creek

Stanley

S21

S75

Legend

Management Area Boundaries

All Fires Pre 2015

Post Fir Remaining Climax Forest

Climax Coniferous Forest

SCNF_Admin_Boundaries

0 3.5 7 10.5 141.75Miles

Date: 12/21/2015Author: D. Morris

Halstead Fire Salvage Project - Climax Coniferous Forest - Post-Halstead Fire

Figure 16 - Post fire remaining climax coniferous forest


76

wildlife, and third subject is whitebark pine a candidate species for listed as Threatened and

Endangered and Forest Sensitive plant species.

Alternative 1

There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects with the Alternative 1, because there are no

actions. Natural processes would continue without intervention. Insect agents and disease would

follow natural paths in populations dependent on availability of host trees and required habitat.

Vegetation recovery would proceed as seed becomes available, is dispersed across the landscape

and takes hold.

Alternative 2 and 3

There are direct as well as indirect beneficial and adverse effects for either Alternative 2 or 3.

Residual dead trees would continue to lose value as decay agents move into the wood until the

point of removal, changing them from sawtimber, to post and poles, to firewood, to eventually

unusable. The number of potential snags available for others species created by fire mortality

would be reduced would be altered as the merchantable trees are removed. This directly impacts

avian species dependent on snags occupied by insects that provide a food source for them. Sub

merchantable and non-merchantable trees would remain along with live trees leaving more than

adequate number of residual snags and recruitment trees for the future. Douglas-fir trees that host

Douglas-fir beetle within the treatment units would be removed disrupting the populations in

those areas.

Felling of hazardous dead trees along haul routes and roadways adjacent to treatment units would

provide areas where risk to travelers and recreationists is greatly diminished though not

completely resolved.

For both action alternatives there would be some soil disturbance from ground base activities.

Level of soil disturbance is dependent on which alternative is chosen. Soil disturbance with

winter logging as designed would be considerably less as long as activities are restricted to frozen

ground requirements. For Alternative 2 the soil disturbance where tree seed source is available

would provide a necessary exposed mineral soil seed bed for regeneration. Where seed trees

source is not available no changes would occur. Lopping and scattering of harvest slash would

contribute roughness to soil surface in the treatment units and add a layer of protection from

rainfall impacts as well as snowmelt process. This additional debris would allow soils to better

retain available moisture and protection for other vegetation to become reestablished within the

units and decrease velocity of surface water flow.

Cumulative Effects

Past and ongoing activities that continue to contribute impacts to silviculture resource for this

project are considered in existing condition analysis and include, fire and fuel management,

recreation activities, past timber harvest, fuelwood gathering, road construction and maintenance,

insect and disease events, and grazing.








77

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 and 3 in combination with ongoing activities cumulatively could change fuelwood

gathering patterns within the project area, further limiting accessible and available wood to those

area that are not being treated. Public fuelwood gathering could further disrupt avian species in

these same areas that require snags for nesting, fledging, and foraging. With implementation of

Area D Farm Bill further stand structure could be changed in area that has not experience fire for

multiple decades. Exact acres and activities have yet to be proposed or implemented, so

quantifying what will actually occur is not possible.

Old-Growth

As stated above the stands that make up the treatment units do not support the three minimum

factors to be characterized as old-growth. Though this is true the Forest Plan does have a

requirement in section IV of the plan for maintaining habitat for old-growth wildlife dependent

species (USDA Forest Service, 1987).

Alternative 1

There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects with the Alternative 1, because there are no

actions. Natural processes would continue without intervention. Insect agents and disease would

follow natural paths in populations dependent on availability of host trees and required habitat.

Vegetation recovery would proceed as seed becomes available, is dispersed across the landscape

and takes hold. Old-growth coniferous forest wildlife habitat would fluctuate across the

management area due to these natural events.

Alternative 2 and 3

By implementing these treatments, coniferous forest structures that supported old-growth

dependent wildlife habitat that were not altered by the fire would be changed and no longer able

to support the necessary habitat required for these species. This would be a small reduction in the

Management Areas of areas that support these structures post-fire other disturbance activities that

have taken place. This change is shown in Table 18.

Table 18 - Percent Remaining Climax Coniferous Forest

Management Area #3


Coniferous Forest

Management Area #4


Coniferous Forest

Management Area #5


Coniferous Forest

Post Fire (Stand

Replacing) &

Disturbance

Events to Climax

Forest

11,054 19% 2,839 / 20% 5,012 / 14%

Proposed

Treatment

Acres11

306 / 18.22% 82 / 19.9% 853 / 11.31%

11 Proposed Treatments are within the Halstead Fire action area that received low to moderate fire severity

and mortality. Reduction in acres to climax coniferous forest is somewhat misleading because those acres

were accounted for in the fire and disturbance events.


78

This data shown above supports the conclusion that the requirement to maintain old growth

habitat for wildlife for forest stand per management area is still being met as required by the

Forest Plan, even with logging of 1,241 acres. Even with past, current harvest activities and large

scale fires occurring within these management areas.

Cumulative Effects

Since the direct and indirect effects analysis area is Management Areas (#3 Marsh Creek, #4

Valley Creek, and #5 Basin Creek, the cumulative impacts analysis is limited to these same three

MA’s.

Past and ongoing timber harvest activities are shown in Appendix A – Catalog of Activities and

Actions for Cumulative Effects Analysis that have an impact on potential Old Growth Dependent

Wildlife Species and make up the existing conditions.

There is one foreseeable activity in the future that may have some impact on this requirement for

Marsh Creek Management Area. The Stanly Fire Collaborative submitted a landscape area to the

west of Highway 21 to the Chief of the Forest Service via the State of Idaho Governor’s Office to

address Insect and Disease concerns that could impact the community of Stanly in the event of

another large scale wildfire. The Chief has accept the area, if the local collaborative so chooses

the designation allows them to analysis projects in this area using Section 603 of the Healthy

Forest Restoration Act as amended in section 8204 of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (Public law

113.79) a categorical exclusion to implement treatments in this area. Implementation of any of

final activities may further reduce climax coniferous forest for dependent old growth wildlife

coniferous habitat and will need to be evaluated.

Since there are no activities occurring for Alternative 1, therefore there are no direct, indirect, or

cumulative effects

Alternative 2 and 3 will harvest approximately 1,241 acres in the three MA’s. These acres

represent an addition loss ranging from 2% to less than 1%, still leaving plenty of old growth

wildlife habitat acres that exceed Forest Plan threshold of 10%. When these activities are

combined with future and foreseeable activities in the Marsh Creek Management Area the

percentage of land that is being maintained for Old Growth Dependent Wildlife will decrease if

the Stanley Fire Collaborative Projects area implemented. The level of activity associated with

the Collaborative projects will have to be part of the evaluation process when proposals are

flushed out to not impact this Forest Plan requirement, and if it does a specific project level Forest

Plan Amendment will have to take place.

Whitebark pine

Whitebark pine is a listed sensitive plant species for the SCNF and a candidate species for

protection under Endangered Species Act. In the 3.1 Botany section of this report a determination

was made that there would be “No Effect” to whitebark pine. While treatment units are not

within its normal range, individual trees may be present though none have been observed during

multiple site visits. Because there is a small chance of individual trees being present, a design

feature has been put in place to avoid removal of all discovered live whitebark pine and daylight

around them for 20 feet to reduce potential short term (20 years) competition from other tree

species. As such, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to whitebark pine from this

project.


79







If implemented whitebark pine and impacts to the species would need to occur within those

proposed treatment areas.

Consistency with the National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA; Public Law 94-588; 16 U.S.C. 1600) requires

specific findings to be made and documented when considering the implementation of certain

management practices. The action alternative is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan long

term goals and objectives listed on pages IV-1 through IV-10, and IV-34 through IV-35. This

section describes how the project was designed in conformance with the Forest Plan standards,

and incorporates appropriate land and resource management plan guidelines for desired timber

management conditions and outcomes in the Basin Creek, Marsh Creek, and Valley Creek

Management Areas (Land and Resource Management Plan, pages IV-11 through IV-34).

Forest Plan Management Area Direction

The project area is located in Management Area (MA) #3, #4, and #5 identified in the Land

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) of the Forest Plan. The Management Area Direction for

timber resources MA #3, #4, #5, and from the LRMP is to "manage the most productive and

accessible stands for timber production.” The Halstead Fire Salvage project is consistent with

this direction because it generally seeks to salvage harvest fire and Douglas-fir beetle attack trees.

Other NFMA Requirements

The action alternative is consistent with the following provisions of the National Forest

Management Act, for reasons described under each provision:

1. Suitability for Timber Production: No timber harvest, other than salvage sales or sales

to protect other multiple-use values, shall occur on lands not suited for timber

production (16 USC 1604(k)).

All activities involving timber harvest will occur on lands suitable for timber production as

required under 16 USC 1604(k).

2. Timber Harvest on National Forest Lands (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)): A Responsible Official

may authorize site-specific projects and activities to harvest timber on National Forest

System lands only where:

b. There is assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within five years after

final regeneration harvest (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(ii)).

Proposed treatment activities for Alternative 2 or 3 are not classified as a regeneration

harvest. Regeneration is not a requirement of salvage harvest, though plans are to evaluate

these areas five years after the harvest event to assess need for regeneration.

d. The harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the

greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iv)).


80

Either alternative would work for the product that is being harvest. Other harvest system

such as helicopter logging though practical, the value of fire salvage wood would more than

likely result in no bid without major subsidy. No bid is synonymous to no action which is

counter to the purpose and need of this proposal.

3. Clearcutting and Even-aged Management (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)): Insure that

clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to regenerate

an even-aged stand of timber will be used as a cutting method on National Forest System

lands only where:

a. For clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it

is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the

relevant land management plan (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(i)).

b. The interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary has been completed and

the potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic impacts

on each advertised sale area have been assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale

with the multiple use of the general area (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(ii)).

c. Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the

natural terrain (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iii)).

d. Cuts are carried out according to the maximum size limit requirements for areas to be

cut during one harvest operation, provided, that such limits shall not apply to the size

of areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect

and disease attack, or windstorm (FSM R1 supplement 2400-2001-2 2471.1, 16 USC

1604(g)(3)(F)(iv)).

e. Such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed,

fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber

resource (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(v)).

None of the activities included in the Halsted Fire Salvage project action alternative are

designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber, so this item is not applicable to the

Halstead Fire Salvage project.

Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives

Narratives in this section pertain to all National Forest System lands located within the

proclaimed Challis National Forest; this direction is referred to as Forest-wide standards and

guidelines. Forest-wide standards and guidelines directly pertaining to forest vegetation

management activities are provided in the timber section of the Forest Plan (part 4 [Timber],

pages IV-16 to IV-20) and listed below in bold font. Management Area direction (as summarized

above) may take precedence over Forest-wide direction.

4. Timber

a. Develop individual stand silvicultural prescriptions for all timber sales.

Standard Forest Service policies and procedures dictate that individual stand silvicultural

prescriptions will be prepared by a Certified Silviculturist for all timber sales, and this is

the expectation with respect to the Halstead Fire Salvage project.


81

c. Utilize logging residue, where feasible, to meet fuel wood demand. Coordinate fuel

wood access with timber sales.

Other than the desire to retain 13 tons of long term woody debris all residues created from

harvest will be available for use except for those areas not accessible by the SCNF

MVUM

e. Along arterial roads or within 300 feet of developed recreation sites utilize individual

tree selection and/or sanitation/salvage harvest.

The Halstead Fire Salvage project does not occur within 300 feet of any developed

recreation sites or improved trailheads.

f. Integrate appropriate forest pest management strategies into timber management.

The Halstead Fire Salvage project is design to deal with at least the Douglas-fir beetle in

the Noho area on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District in the define perimeter.

g. Limit tractor skidding to slopes less than 45 percent, except on short pitches where it

is determined to be environmentally acceptable by an interdisciplinary team.

Design features included in the action alternative demonstrate and ensure consistency with

this guideline for both Alternative 2 and 3.

i. Enhance timber species diversity and age structure within each Management Area.

Opportunity for diversify timber species and age structure within in the three MA’s is

limited with salvage operations.

j. Within each Management Area, provide and distribute a minimum of 10% of the

acres of the conifer timber stands as habitat for old-growth-dependent wildlife

species.

The old growth section above shows that a minimum of 10% of the acres of the conifer

timber stands as habitat for old-growth-dependent wildlife species would likely be

distributed within the MA’s following implementation of either of the action alternatives.

l. Maintain down materials for wildlife habitat: 2 to 4 tons per acre or 10 percent of the

slash treated by harvesting, whichever is the least.

At least 7-13 tons per acre will be retained for the proposed treatment units.

t. Follow Regional guide – Erosion Prevention and Control on Timber Sale Areas.

Design features have been put in place for both Alternative 2 and 3 that addresses erosion

prevention including seeding and scarifying landings and skid trails post-harvest to

reestablish vegetation in the shortest time possible.

w. Maintain landline monuments in and adjacent to timber sales.

Design feature is in place to maintain and landline monument if discovered during sale

preparation activities.


alternatives would be compliant with the following plans, policies and laws related to silviculture

resources.


82



3.11 Wildlife The wildlife analysis focuses on terrestrial species levels for the Halstead Fire Salvage Project.

Specifically, to those terrestrial species listed under the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act, and Executive Orders relative to the wildlife resource, as Management Indicator

Species by the SCNF, as Sensitive by the Forest Service to Region 4 and the SCNF, and the

flammulated owl, a species brought forward by Idaho Fish and Game. Numerous other species

ungulates, large predators, upland game birds, and small mammals other than the one associated

with disclosure above exist across the project area. The populations of these species are regulated

by Idaho Fish and Game. These were and still are viable after the Halstead Fire allowing for

regulated hunting where applicable. Because these populations are resilient and habitat

conditions are such that they are not a species of concern, these species do not warrant further

analysis.


There only two species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Custer

County, Idaho that have TES status. These species are Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Canada Lynx,

both are listed as Threatened. For both species, the project area and defined action area were

evaluated to see if they support required habitat or if populations exist. From the evaluation

process a determination finding was made in a Biological Assessment signed October 7, 2014.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

The Yellow-billed Cuckoo has specific riparian habitat requirements consisting of large

cottonwoods and willows galleries. The Halstead Fire Salvage Project area does not support

these specific habitat requirements nor is there any documentation of the species being present in

the action area. As such, the finding for this species is “No Effect” for the Biological Assessment

and further analysis is not required.

Canada Lynx

The SCNF has been designated unoccupied secondary Canada Lynx habitat with the record of

decision for the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Environmental Impact Statement

(USDA Forest Service, 2007). The USFWS agreed with that determination and subsequently

removed the Canada Lynx from the list of species covered under the Endangered Species Act for

the SCNF, even though still listed on their website for Custer County, Idaho as threatened. This

determination by USFWS was based on lack of species presences, lack of moist boreal forest

conditions associated with lynx habitat and lack of an abundant snowshoe hare population. As

such, the finding for this species for Alternative 2 or 3 is “No Effect” for the Biological

Assessment.

Wolverine

October 18, 2016 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife reopen the comment period for wolverine as a

proposed threatened species. Wolverine habitat is support within the project area. Several past

and ongoing research studies have capture individuals using the project area in the wintertime.

Wolverine preference of habitat is seasonal. In the summer, they occupy high elevation zones and

during the winter come down into the snow-covered areas. They typically avoid human

interaction.


83

Direct, indirect, and Cumulative Effects

For direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, the analysis is limited to the two Action areas.

For the No Action Alternative there would be no direct effects. The No Action Alternative will

not directly affect any wolverine. It will not alter any habitat of wolverine. It will have no direct,

indirect, or cumulative effects to wolverine. It is my determination that the No Action alternative

will have No Effect on the wolverine or its habitat in the long term.

The Proposed Action would impose a non-snow season operational period. During that time, it is

likely the wolverine would not be present in the Action areas, but would be present in higher

elevation whitebark pine/alpine areas away from both Action Area. This spatial separation would

avoid direct Page 25 of 43 disturbance and effects to wolverine. The Proposed Action alternative

will indirectly affect wolverine through alteration of the existing state of foraging, but not

reproductive, habitat that the species could potentially utilize year-round in Action Area 1. The

Proposed Action alternative will result in increased effects from human created presence and

disturbance during non-snow periods in both Action Area 1and 2. However, the scope and scale

of the proposed project. In relation to the scale of the subwatershed drainages that it is located in

and the scale of suitable habitat for this species across the Salmon-Challis National Forest, and

the lack of on-going and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area, precludes the

Preferred Alternative from resulting in any cumulative effects to the species.

The Winter Logging Alternative would employ a winter operational period. It is likely that

wolverine would be present in and utilizing the Action and surrounding areas. Direct disturbance

and effects to wolverine would have the potential to occur. The Winter Logging alternative will

indirectly affect wolverine through alteration of the existing state of foraging, but not

reproductive, habitat that the species could potentially utilize year-round in Action Area 1. The

Winter Logging alternative will result in increased effects from human created presence and

disturbance during the winter in both Action Area 1 and 2. However, the scope and scale of the

proposed project. In relation to the scale of the subwatershed drainages that it is located in and

the scale of suitable habitat for this species across the Salmon-Challis National Forest, and the

lack of on-going and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area, precludes the Winter

Logging Alternative from resulting in any cumulative effects to the species.

For Proposed Action and Winter Logging Alternative it is my determination of “May Affect”

wolverine and wolverine habitat in the short term, but it is “Not likely to Jeopardize the

Continued Existence of The Species or Result In Destruction or Adverse Modification of

Proposed Critical Habitat” in the long term.

Executive Order #13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds

Executive Order #13186 require the Forest Service to work in coordination with the USFWS to

design projects that conserve migratory birds and integrate bird conservation principles,

measures, and practices in order to avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts

to the migratory bird resources. To meet these requirements, project planning should identify

where unintentional take (bird mortality) reasonably attributed to Forest Service actions is likely

to occur, or is likely to have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations.

The Forest Plan Analysis of the Management Situation (USDA Forest Service, 1987) indicates

that 172 species of migratory birds occur on the forest. The Halstead Fire Salvage Project area is

primarily composed of coniferous forest with minor deciduous riparian cover types. The Forest


84

Plan analysis indicates 36 species of migratory birds use coniferous forest communities and 65

species of migratory birds use riparian communities, especially deciduous riparian. Conditions

have changed due to fire effects and tree mortality favoring some specie’s cavity nesting

requirements and impacting others.


For direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for wildlife the action area is the 3,365 acres

surrounding the No Ho area on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District and 4,300 acres that

surround the Asher, Knapp, Kelly, and Valley Creek drainages on the Middle Fork Ranger

District.

Alternative 1

Under the Alternative 1 there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to MBTA species as

there is no action.

Alternative 2

For Alternative 2 there would be direct effects to conifer forest structure with the removal of trees

that were altered by the fire event. Trees may be used by nesting and foraging migratory birds

and although nest trees and cavity trees would not be purposely cut, a cavity could be missed, and

as such could be cut during the operating activities. If a migratory bird species were present

during the operating period, a direct adverse impact to the species could occur in the form of (1)

the loss of nesting birds, nestlings or fledglings and (2) the avoidance of the area during the

construction work for periods of short duration (<6 hour time periods daily for two weeks or

less). This could result in an adverse direct effect to the species. The effect would be contingent

on the species being present and utilizing those trees cut under the proposal. Another direct effect

is the loss of availability of future cavity and nest trees. The cutting of partially-live and dead

conifer trees and snags would directly affect migratory bird habitat values and habitat

components. These effects would be minor and limited to individuals.

Alternative 2 would indirectly affect populations of other species that rely on these migratory bird

species for prey. This alternative would affect the available smaller acreages of suitable habitat

for prey species of migratory bird species. The cutting of partially-live and dead conifer trees and

snags would reduce the availability of this habitat for prey species of migratory birds and would

indirectly affect migratory bird habitat values and habitat components.

Cumulative Effects

Since the effects to MBTA species are restricted to the project area, the cumulative effects

analysis area would be the same.

Past activities that have effected vegetation include road construction and maintenance, grazing,

timber harvest, fire, and fuel wood cutting. Fire is the dominant influence on vegetation and

represents the past disturbance that continues to contribute to the existing condition.

Fuel wood is an ongoing activity that continues to contribute to vegetation conditions. Fuelwood

gathers typically cut in a random nature and are restricted to accessible roads. Fuelwood

gathering is restricted to dead trees and is under permit that prohibits harvest in RHCAs. The

permit restricts gathers to roads open on the MVUM and within 300 feet of those roads.

There are no foreseeable future activities that would be considered cumulative.


85

Alternative 2 would harvest most of the dead trees available and desirable to fuelwood gathers.

Regardless, Alternative 2 in combination with fuelwood gathering could result in cumulative

impacts by cutting additional snags, but as described above in combination to MBTA species

would be minor and limited to individuals.

Alternative 3

For the Alternative 3 some of the same direct and indirect effects could occur such as, loss of

future cavity and nesting trees and reduction of available habitat, but effects associated with

migratory birds presences would not occur for those avian species that have left the area due to

timing.

Cumulative Effects

When the direct and indirect effects are analyzed with past and present actions within the

cumulative effects analysis area, no additional cumulative effects are identified.

Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations, or Agency Directives

Both Alternative 2 and 3 comply with the direction of the MBTA with the proposed design feature

as outlined. The Act directs the Forest Service to “develop mitigation criteria in cooperation with

the FWS that minimizes the unintentional take of migratory birds where management actions may

have measurable negative effects on migratory birds.” Although impacts to migratory birds (both

adverse and beneficial) would be measurable within the action areas, the effects would not be

measurable beyond the action areas. Alternative 2 or 3 would not affect the viability of the

migratory bird resource at a Forest scale.

As such if either action alternatives are implemented with design feature in place, both would be

compliant with the direction of the MBTA.

Executive Order #13443; Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation

This executive order directs the Department of Agriculture “to facilitate the expansion and

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat”.

Specifically this Order directs agencies to:

Evaluate trends in hunting participation and implement actions that expand and enhance

hunting opportunities for the public.

Establish short and long term goals to conserve wildlife and manage wildlife habitats to

ensure healthy and productive populations of game animals in a manner that respects

state management authority over wildlife resources and values private property rights.

Seek the advice of State fish and wildlife agencies, and, as appropriate, consult with the

Sporting Conservation Council in regards to Federal activities to recognize and promote

the economic and recreational values of hunting and wildlife conservation.


For direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for wildlife the action area is the 3,365 acres

surrounding the No Ho area on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District and 4,300 acres that

surround the Asher, Knapp, Kelly, and Valley Creek drainages on the Middle Fork Ranger

District.


86

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to hunting opportunities,

and management of game species and their habitat, as there is no action.

Alternative 2 and 3

For both Alternative 2 and 3 minor impacts to game species are likely be associated with active

disturbance, causing animals to avoid these areas. This would not hinder the current strong, viable

populations of game species that exist in the area nor have any adverse impacts on hunter

opportunities that currently exist. As such, Alternative 2 and 3 are compliant with this Executive

Order # 13443.

Species Listed as Management Indicator (MIS)

For the SCNF three terrestrial species are listed as management indicators: Greater sage grouse,

Columbia spotted frog, and Pileated woodpecker ( (USDA Forest Service, 2004). Halstead Fire

Salvage Project area supports habitat for two of the three species. Greater sage grouse habitat is

not present in the project area and therefore would be no effects to the species if project is

implemented. Both Columbia spotted frog and Pileated woodpecker habitat is present in the

project area and effects are disclosed.


Columbia spotted frog

The Halstead Fires Salvage proposed project areas do not contain the necessary aquatic

requirement to support life cycle of Columbia spotted frog, though near and adjacent to some of

the treatment units this environment is well supported. For that reason an effects analysis was

completed.

Alternative 1

For Alternative 1 there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with this action

because no management actions are taken.

Alternative 2 and 3

For both Alternative 2 and 3 there are direct and indirect effects associated with the removal of

forest cover through harvest. The adverse impacts include mortality caused by equipment or

skidding trampling individuals that are moving through the units on the ground to other places

during operations period. Removal of trees through harvest that had provided canopy cover that

facilitated retention of forest moisture required for dispersal of the Columbia spotted frogs to

other areas would be alter and be a negative effect. These effects are considered to be minor

compared to the entire area of the Halstead fire.

Cumulative Effects

Since the effects to Columbia spotted frog are restricted to the project area, the cumulative effects




represents the past disturbance that continues to contribute to the existing condition. There are no

past activities that would overlap in time with skidding and the potential to trample individuals.


87

Fuel wood is an ongoing activity that continues to contribute to vegetation conditions and could

result in inadvertent trampling if individuals were present. Fuelwood gathers typically cut in a

random nature and are restricted to accessible roads. Fuelwood gathering is restricted to dead

trees and is under permit that prohibits harvest in RHCAs. The permit restricts gathers to roads

open on the MVUM and within 300 feet of those roads.

There are no foreseeable future activities that would be considered cumulative.


Since fuelwood gathering is restricted to snags, it would not affect canopy cover and result in

cumulative impacts. Alternative 2 in combination with fuelwood gathering could result in

cumulative impacts through trampling, however the potential for cumulative is limited due to

many of the snags favored by fuelwood gathers being harvested and would likely result in effects

similar to those described above. Additionally all proposed harvest would occur outside of

RHCAs.

When the direct and indirect effects are analyzed with past and present actions within the

cumulative effects analysis area, no additional cumulative effects are identified.


Both Alternative 2 and 3 comply with the Forest Plan and all known laws, regulations, and

agency directives. Because the species is also sensitive for the SCNF a biological evaluation

determination was completed for the two action alternatives. Determination was made that “may

impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing

or cause loss of viability to the populations species” for the Columbia spotted frog.

Pileated woodpecker

The Halstead Fire Salvage Project contains suitable habitat to support pileated woodpecker within

the proposed treatment units as they are mainly coniferous forest dependent.

Alternative 1

For the No Action Alternative there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with

this action because no management actions are taken.

Alternative 2 and 3

For both Alternative 2 and 3 the direct and indirect effects are the same. Direct effects are

primarily associated with the removal of trees that provide nesting and foraging habitat. Impacts

include loss of trees with cavities that could provide nesting opportunities, although this is not the

intention of Alternative 2 or 3. If species are present, these same cavity trees may be hosting

fledglings which the felling of could lead to mortality. Adults would tend to avoid the area

during the operations period if they were conducted for more than 6 hours daily for up to two

weeks. Indirect effects are similar to the direct effect with removal of trees. Removal of trees

could result in loss of habitat that potential pileated woodpecker prey species occupy. This loss

may impact habitat values and components essential to the species, but, the area involved would

be minor compared to the entire area of the Halstead Fire.

Cumulative Effects

Since the effects to pileated woodpecker are restricted to the project area, the cumulative effects



88



represents the past disturbance that continues to contribute to the existing condition.

Fuel wood is an ongoing activity that continues to contribute to vegetation conditions. Fuelwood

gathers typically cut in a random nature and are restricted to accessible roads. Fuelwood

gathering is restricted to dead trees and is under permit that prohibits harvest in RHCAs. The

permit restricts gathers to roads open on the MVUM and within 300 feet of those roads.

There are no foreseeable future activities that would be considered cumulative within the analysis

area.


Regardless, Alternative 2 in combination with fuelwood gathering could result in cumulative

impacts by cutting additional snags, however limited additional cumulative effects are identified.


Both Alternative 2 and 3 comply with the Forest Plan and all known laws, regulations, and

agency directives. Though a determination is not required because of the species status as only

MIS, the determination for both action alternatives would be “may impact individuals or habitat,

but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause loss of viability to the

populations species” for pileated woodpecker.

Terrestrial Species Listed as Sensitive by the Regional Forester

The Regional Forester has listed eighteen terrestrial wildlife species on the SCNF as Sensitive

(USDA Forest Service, 2014). Listing occurs by the Forest Service where population or habitat

concerns warrant a detail review of management actions occurring on National Forest land. The

three alternatives have the potential to impact both species and habitat for several of these

warranting evaluation and determination of effects. Terrestrial R4 species listed are:

Gray Wolf

Fisher

Townsend big-eared bat

Boreal owl

Three-toed woodpecker

Pygmy rabbit

Harlequin duck

Bald eagle

Bighorn sheep

Spotted bat

Great gray owl

Northern goshawk

Peregrine falcon

Greater sage grouse12

Common loon

Columbia spotted frog13

Flammulated Owl

12 Greater sage grouse is referenced in MIS section of this report. 13 Columbia spotted frog is referenced and analyzed in the MIS section of this report.


89

Of the eighteen species, ten of these species are either not present, specific habitat requirement

are not met, or post Halstead Fire the project area has been altered to the point that it no longer

provides adequate suitable habitat as needed for them in the project area. As such when

conducting analysis for the three alternatives, there are no effects to the population or habitat of

these ten species, warranting a determination of “No Impact” in the Biological Evaluation. A full

detail analysis can be found in the wildlife report prepared for this project that is located in the

project record. The ten species are:

Fisher

Bighorn sheep

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Spotted bat

Peregrine falcon

Pygmy rabbit

Greater sage grouse

Harlequin duck

Common loon

Bald eagle

The project and analysis area does support necessary habitat of the remaining eight species and

known observations by Idaho Fish and Game and Forest Service have occurred for all these

species at some point in time. Each was analyzed for effects from the three alternatives based on

habitat requirements and proposed design features for them. A determination along with a

rationale was made and documented in a Biological Evaluation for these species.

Alternative 1

For the remaining eight species when analyzing Alternative 1 there are no effects, as there would

be no actions and a determination of “No Impact” has been made.

Alternative 2 and 3

For Alternative 2 and 3, the remaining eight species were analyzed specific to each alternative.

Table 19 summarizes these terrestrial species habitat requirements and compares them to each

alternative. From that comparison, a determination was made and the rationale was documented

in a Biological Evaluation for the individual species. Further discussion of each individual

species requirement and rationale for the conclusion made can be found in the wildlife report in

the project record.

Table 19 - Summary of Species with May Impact Determinations

Terrestrial

SCNF

Sensitive

Species

Specific Habitat

Requirements

Habitat Present Determination for Alternative

2 or 3

Rationale

Gray wolf Habitat generalists -

Present in the area.

Yes – present in

the action areas.

For both Alternative 2 and 3 a

determination of “May impact,

but would not likely contribute

to a trend towards federal

listing or cause loss of viability

to the population or species”; impacts are associated with


90

displacement for the operation

period within the treatment

units.

Boreal owl Boreal forest, cavity

nesters in mixed

conifer, aspen,

Douglas-fir, and

spruce /fir forests.

Yes – observation

have made near

Knapp, Dry, and

Valley Creek area.






to the population or species”,

impacts are associated with

removal of trees that support

cavities available for nesting

and food source they rely on.

Great gray owl Late successional

Douglas-fir forest,

with herbaceous

understory, located

on more level land

adjacent to clearcuts

or large meadow

openings.

Yes – Knapp, Dry,

and Valley Creek

units have portions

adjacent to large

meadow openings

– observations

have been made in

the action areas.







this is due to the removal of

potential nesting trees in areas

that they normally could

occupy.

Flammulated

owl

Open forest

structure, containing

large diameter trees

and snags, pockets of

dense vegetation,

and a patchy grass or

shrub understory.

Yes – but no

observations have

been made in the

action areas.






to the population or species”, this is due to removal of cavity

nesting trees and food source

they rely on.

Northern

goshawk

Mature to over

mature forest with

canopy closures of

75-80% with small

openings.

Yes – but altered

by the effects of

the fire. Reported

observations have

occurred in the

action areas.







this is due to change in those

treatment units that may

support the necessary structure

post-fire, that would be altered

through the salvage operation.


91

Three-toed

woodpecker

Cavity nester in

dense coniferous

forests, including

subalpine fir,

Engelmann spruce,

and lodgepole pine.

Yes – habitat been

altered by effects

of the fire.

Reported

observations have

occurred in the

action areas.







salvage operation would

remove potential nesting trees

that may be being used and

food source they rely on.

Columbia

spotted frog

See MIS determinations.


Alternative 2 and 3 as described and their associated design features are compliant with all laws,

regulations, and agency directive or policies for terrestrial species.



Executive Order #13186

Executive Order #13446

3.12 Other Resources Concerns Eliminated From Detail Study

Travel Analysis

There is a concern that implementing the proposed action would result in changes to road

management in the project area. Road management of current open roads is not a component or

feature of Alternative 1.2, or 3. Since there is no proposed change National Forest system road

designations, as a result of implementation, a road analysis has been determined to not be needed

by the deciding official (FSH 7709.55, Section 230.2). General ongoing maintenance, such as

blading roads to keep them at present maintenance level would continue. Mitigations measures

are in place to address returning the opened closed roads back to their original travel plan status

prior to close out of harvest actions. All 0.25 miles of temporary roads would be

decommissioned.

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination The Forest Service consulted and had discussion with the following individuals, Federal, State,

Tribal, and local agencies during the development of this EA:

Interdisciplinary Team Members:

John Fowler – Fuels

Bart Gamett – Fisheries

Mike Steck – Wildlife

Michael Baker Jr. Inc.– Hydrology/Soil


92

Blaze Baker – Botany/Range

John Rose/ Patrick McDonald – Archeology

Wesley A Case – Silviculture/Old Growth

David R Morris – Interdisciplinary Team Leader/Climate Change

Karryl Krieger, Ken Rodgers - Planning

Federal, State, and Local Agencies:

Custer County Commissioners

Custer County Natural Resource Advisory Group

Idaho Parks and Recreation

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

USDA Forest Service, Sawtooth National Recreation Area

NOAA Fisheries

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Tribes:

Shoshone Bannock – Nathan Small, Chairman of the Shoshone Bannock Tribal Business

Council

Nez Perce – Silas C. Whitman, Chairman Nez Perce Executive Committee

Individuals or Groups:

Idaho Conservation League

Dennis Kowitz – SCNF Range Permittee

Gary Gadwa – President of Sawtooth Association and Stanley Snowmobile Trails

Grooming Committee

Dan Zortman – Sticks and Stones

Doug Pullin – Sticks and Stones

Ken Rodgers – Individual

Jon Marvel – Individual

In addition to the listed names and groups above, scoping and comment letters were mailed out

January 21, 2014, to 27 additional individuals/groups, state and local agencies and the

announcement was posted to the SCNF Projects website. On January 28, 2014 a public meeting

was held at the local district office to answer questions of the local community and interested

parties. Three interested parties attended that public meeting and provide verbal comments to the

forest regarding the project. On September 4, 2014, David Morris ID Team Leader met with

Danni Mazzotta, representative of Idaho Conservation League, and conducted a field visit of the

project area to answer questions. A similar site visit was conducted with Jon Marvel a interested

party on October 3, 2014.

References Eniviornmental Protection Agency. (2007). CATEGORY 4b – A REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE

TO TMDLs. Retrieved March 6, 2015, from EPA.gov:

http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/results/pdf/36monschein_wef07_paper7.pdf

Ferguson, L., Duncan, C., & and Snodgrass, K. (2003). Backcounty Road Maintenance and Weed

Management. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service Technology and Development

Program.


93

Gamett, B. L., & Bartel, J. A. (2008). The Status of Fishes on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger

District, Salmon-Challis National Forest. Salmon,ID: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Salmon-

Challis National Forest.

Gamett, B. L., & Bartel, J. A. (2011). The Status of Fishes on the Middle Fork Ranger District,

Salmon-Challis National Forest (2002-2008). Salmon, ID: U.S.D.A Forest Service,

Salmon-Challis National Forest.

Hood, S., Bentz, B., Gibson, K., Ryan, K., & DeNitto, G. (2007). RMRS-GTR-199 "Assessing

post-fire Douglas-fir mortality and Douglas-fir attacks in the northern Rock Mountains".

Missoula, MT: U.S.D.A Forest Service - Rocky Mounatin Research Station.

Idaho Conservation League. (2014, Feburary 18). Letter to District Rangers from Comments

Inbox for the Halstead Fire Salvage Proposal, On file with:Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger

District, HC 63 Box 1669. Challis, ID.

Idaho Department of Lands. (1998). Idaho Forest Practice Act - 20.02.01 - Section 30. Boise, ID:

State of Idaho.

Idaho Fish and Game. (2011). Conservation Data Center - GIS Data of Knonw Rare, Threatned,

and Endangered Plants and Animals - On file at Lost River Ranger Station, Mackay, ID.

Janetos, A., Hansen, D., Inouye, D., Kelly, B. P., & Myerson, B. (2008). The effects of climate

change on agriculture, land resources, and biodiversity in the United States. A report by

the Climate Change Science Program and Subcommiittee on Global Change Reaserch.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Jenkin, M. j., Runyon, J. B., Fettig, C. J., Page, W. G., & Bentz, B. J. (2014). Interaction Between

Mounatin Pine Beetle, Fires and Fuel. Forest Science (60) 3, pp. 489-591.

Lazarus, L. (2014). Boise Field Office - Trip Report - 2012-25 - "Evaluation of the Halstead Fire

Salvage Project. Boise, ID: U.S.D.A Forest Service - Rocky Mounatin Reaserch Station.

Lazarus, L., & Bennett, D. (2011). Boise Field Office-Project Report - Aerial Application of

MCH Flakes to Reduce Impacts from Douglas-fir Beetle on Bald Mounatin Ski Area in

2010. Boise, ID: U.S.D.A Forest Service - Rocky Mountain Resserch Station.

Mote, P., Snover, A., Capalbo, S., Glick , P., Littell, J., Raymondi, R., et al. (2014). Ch. 21

Northwest, Climate Change Impacts in the United States, The Third National Assessment.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global Change Reaserch Program.

N.O.A.A. (2013). Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate

Assessment, Part 6. Climate of the Nortwest U.S. - NOAA NESDIS Tech Report 142-6.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration.

Quayle, B., Brewer, K., & and Williams, K. (2005). MONITORING POST-FIRE VEGETATION

RECOVERY OF WILDLAND FIRE AREAS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES

USING MODIS DATA. Pecora 16 "Global Priorities in Land Remote Sensing". Souix

Falls, South Dakota: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.

Reeves, D., Page-Dumroese, D., & Coleman, M. (2011). Detrimental soil disturbance associated

with timber harvest sytems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Res. Paper,

RMRS-RP-89. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Reaserch Station.

Russell, M. B., Woodall, C. W., Amato, W. D., Fraver, S., & Bradford, J. B. (2014). Technical

Note: Linking climate change and downed woody debirs decompostion across forest of

the eastern United States. Biogeoscineces, 6417 -6425.

Schuldt, P. G. (2013, January 16). Determination of Roads Analysis/Travel Analysis needed -

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project - Letter to District Ranger. Salmon,

Idaho.

Stanturf, J. A. (2005). What is Forest Restoration? Restoration of boreal and temperate forests, p.

3-11. Boca Raton: CRC Press.


94

Stephenson, J. R., & Calcarone, G. M. (1999). GTR-PSW-172, Southern California mountains

and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. Albany, CA: U.S.D.A.

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Reaserch Station.

Stone, D. M. (2002). Logging Options to Minimize Soil Disturbance in the Northern Lake States.

Journal of Applied Forestry, 19(3):115-121.

U.S. Government Publishing Office. (2008, October 16). 36 CFR Part 294 - Subpart C - Idaho

Roadless Rule. Retrieved July 16, 2014, from Electronic Code of Regulation:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-

idx?SID=356dcbb21c5f945ec640cc0613a1e598&node=sp36.2.294.c&rgn=div6

USDA Forest Serive. (2011). FSM 2500-2011-1 - Soil Management. Washington, D.C.: USDA

Forest Service National Headquarters .

USDA Forest Service. ( 1994). Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of Rocky Mountains -

Res. Pap. INT-RP-477. Odgen, UT: Intermountain Reaserch Station.

USDA Forest Service. (1980). National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 2, Chapter 5:

"Timber" - Agriculture Handbook 559 - 223 pages. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest

Service.

USDA Forest Service. (1987). Anaylsis of the Management Situation - Final Enviornmental

Impact Statement for the Challis National Forest Land Land and Resource Management

Plan. Ogden, UT: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region.

USDA Forest Service. (1987). Land Resource Managment Plan for the Challis National Forest.

Ogden, UT: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region.

USDA Forest Service. (1993). Characterisitcs of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain

Region. Ogden, UT: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region.

USDA Forest Service. (1995). Forest Service Handbook 2509.13 - Burn-Area Emergency

Rehabilitaiton Handbook. Washington D.C.: USDA Forest Service .

USDA Forest Service. (2004). Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impacts for the

Proposed MIS Amendment to the Salmon National Forest and the Challis National

Forest Plans. Salmon, ID: U.S.D.A Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (2007). Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction - Enviornmental

Impact Statement. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Northern Rockies Region.

USDA Forest Service. (2010, December 22). Programatic for Wildfire Suppression on the

Salmon-Challis National Forest. Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation of the

Effects to Threaten, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Acquatic Species. Salmon, ID:

Salmon-Challis National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (2013). CoverTypes of the Salmon-Challis National Forest - GIS refernece

data stored in Coporate GIS dataset. Salmon, ID, USA.

USDA Forest Service. (2014, December 10). Intermountain Regional (R4) Threatened,

Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Speices - Updated 2013 - Known/Suspected

Distribution by Forest. Ogden, Utah, USA.

USDA Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest. (1994). Validation of Filter Strip

Effectiveness. Salmon, ID: Salmon-Challis National Forest.


95

Appendix A – Catalog of Activities and Actions for Cumulative Effects Analysis

Activities &

Actions

Past Present

(Ongoing)

Reasonable

Foreseeable

Timber Harvest

(1960 - 2015)

Inclusive of the

project area –see

listing below

1960’s – 412 acres

1970’s - 2,087 acres

1980’s - 808 acres

1990’s - 282 acres

2000’s - 984 acres

2010 -2015 – 529 acres

Currently there are

233 acres under

timber sale

contracts for fuel

reduction and 54

acres of roadside

hazard tree removal

under contract in

the project area.

Area D of Stanly

Fire Collaborative

(Farm Bill) to be

initiated in 2017 on

west side of

Highway 21 in the

Marsh Creek

watershed

Mining & Mineral

Materials

Late 1800’s early 1900’s

exploration for locatable

minerals and mining occur

across project area.

Several materials pits

located and used for State

Highway 21 construction

as well as forest service

road

One current plan of

operation located in

the Joe Gulch area.

Blind Summit

material pit

expansion by 5

acres to extend pit

life, active use and

extraction for local

needs in Stanley

and surrounding

area.

No known

additional pit

expansion or

locating planned in

the next 10 years.

Grazing Unregulated and regulated

(since 1906) grazing or

horses, cattle, and sheep

since early settlement of

area in 1870’s.

Authorized sheep

grazing in Marsh

Creek allotment in

Cape Horn area

managed by SCF.

Authorized cattle

grazing in No Ho

area in Stanley

Basin allotment

managed by

S.N.R.A.

Rangeland

development

maintenance of

fences and other

improvements

ongoing.

Continue

authorization of

grazing with

limited

maintenance of

development.

Resource Inventory

and Monitoring

Plant communities,

wildlife and fish habitat

populations, soil/water/air

resources, human uses,

etc.

Ongoing by

multiple agencies.

Continued activity

based on

information needs

and/or

requirements.


96

Activities &

Actions

Past Present

(Ongoing)

Reasonable

Foreseeable

Transportation

System Road/Trail

Construction, Use

Roads and trails to historic

mining districts, private

property, logging areas,

and recreation

site/trailheads/backcountry

areas

143.5 miles of

system and

authorized roads

(density .79

miles/miles

squared). 75.1

miles of system

trails. Emphases on

correcting

deficiencies on

litigated trail routes

and fire impacted

trails. Routine

maintenance of

main arterial roads,

trails as needed.

Continue

management of

designated routes

by use level.

Routine

maintenance of

main arterial roads

and trails as needed

or funded.

Special Uses Similar to present

activities in recent

decades.

Above ground

power line to

private and NF

administrative sites,

bike touring,

diversions and ditch

rights, big game

outfitting, and

special events “

Idaho Bowhunter

Jamboree”.

Continue use under

permit.

Dispersed

Recreation

Backcountry use,

horseback riding, fishing,

hunting, backpacking,

camping, sightseeing,

mountain biking, rock

hounding, sledding, ski

touring and telemarking,

snow machining, and

mushroom harvesting.

Activities ongoing,

current use

considered light.

Activities would

continue.

OHV Use&

Management

Limited regulation prior to

1987 Challis National

Forest Travel Plan except

for road closures and other

use restrictions controlled

by gates and/or physical

barriers

Motorcycling,

ATV, snow

machining and

4WD use on Forest

lands according to

Motor Vehicle Use

Map (MVUM,

2014).

MVUM would be

revisited on yearly

basis identifying

changes as needed

in OHV use.


97

Activities &

Actions

Past Present

(Ongoing)

Reasonable

Foreseeable

Fuelwood Gathering Fuelwood gathering on

National Forest lands

where accessible by

transportation system.

Continue use

dependent on

seasonal access and

other available

fuelwood sources in

proximity to

communities.

Supply would

diminish as

available fuelwood

is removed.

Continue use in

accessible areas.

Fire Suppression USFS has primary

responsibility of public for

fire suppression.

Numerous fires have

occurred in the project

area over the last 30 years,

including the 175,000 acre

Halstead Fire in 2012.

Current fire would

be managed

according to

strategies

determined through

application of

appropriate

management

response, and in

case of Wilderness,

the Frank Church

River of Not Return

Fire Management

Plan.

Wildland fires

would continue to

occur in the area

and suppression

efforts, as

appropriate, would

be made to control

those fires.

Suppression related

activities would

continue to be

rehabbed.

Prescribe Burning &

Fuels Reduction

Records of past activities

are limited. Prescribed

landscape burning has

occurred in the Basin

Creek drainage over a

period of the last ten year

in the NE Stanley

Wildland Interface.

Common practices on-site

evidence indicates jackpot

and pile burning of

logging and thinning slash

likely to occur.

Piles and jackpot

burning of thinning

slash, and fuelwood

and logging piles

ongoing. 80 acres

Highway 21 Road-

Right-Away tree

clearing enhancing

safety along

corridor.

Continue pile

burning as needed

by gathering of

firewood. Area D

of Stanly Fire

Collaborative

(Farm Bill) to be

initiated in 2017 on

west side of

Highway 21.


98

Activities &

Actions

Past Present

(Ongoing)

Reasonable

Foreseeable

Insects and Disease Endemic to epidemic level

of forest pest, disease,

depending on weather

cycles, forest stand

conditions, past harvest

and fire cycles. Known

epidemic of mountain pine

beetles around 1915.

Current activities

from Douglas-fir

beetle, western

spruce budworm,

western pine beetle,

and dwarf mistletoe

due to stand

density, age and

diversity, recent

post- fire

conditions. Project

area susceptible to

further outbreaks.

Continued

outbreaks and

cycles of pest and

diseased based on

forest health,

weather and post-

fire conditions.

Endemic levels

expected in areas

receiving

hazardous fuels

reduction

treatments.

Noxious Weeds

Management

Limited hand, mechanical,

chemical treatment since

1960’s.

Hand, mechanical,

chemical control

methods.

Continue integrated

management with

emphasis on

preventive

measures actions.

Wildlife, Fisheries

Habitat/Riparian &

Watershed

Enhancements

Fisheries enhancements of

7.5 miles of conversion of

road to trail. 0.5 miles

conversion of motorized

trail to non-motorized

trail. Installation of new

sheep bridge across Marsh

Creek with funneling

fence. Installation of fish

friendly diversion with

screens on Knapp Creek

Ongoing

maintenance

Continues ongoing

maintenance

State (IDFG)

Management of

Wildlife & Fish

Resources

Preserve, protect,

perpetuate & mange

“wildlife” resource that

are property of the state

Continued

management of

wildlife & fisheries

that are game and

non-game and

harvest according

to state regulation

Continued

management

Private Land Uses &

Activities

Surface stream flow

diversions; domestic water

use & pasture irrigation

for homeowner at Cape

Horn Ranch.

Timber harvest (2009), 15

acres clear cut adjacent to

power line right of way

removing hazardous trees

on private land.

Activities ongoing Activities ongoing


99

Activities &

Actions

Past Present

(Ongoing)

Reasonable

Foreseeable

Traditional Use-

American Indian

Tribes

Hunting, gathering and

other activities such as

landscape burning

Hunting of game

and fish, gathering

of natural

resources, and

religious practices

according to Tribal

customs on non-

ceded lands

provided for by

Treaty rights

Continue activity

according to Treaty

rights.

Listing of Timber Sales and Treatments Prescription by Decade within Halstead Fire Salvage Project Area from 1960’s – 2015

Decade Sale Name Acres Rx Prescription Management

Area

Fire

Impacted

1960’s Potato Mountain

(1966)

34.3 Seed Tree 5 Yes

No Ho (1967) 174.9 Shelterwood 5 Yes

Potato Hill (1968) 69.8

133.1

Seed Tree

Shelterwood

5 Yes

1970 Kelly Creek (1971) 44.3 Clearcut (sapling

poles)

3 No

Asher (1973) 32.8

543.4

Clearcut

Shelterwood

3 Yes

Blind Summit (1973) 305 Shelterwood 3 No

Camp Creek (1973) 5.4 Clearcut 3 Yes

Dry Creek (1973) 601.8 Shelterwood 3 Yes

Dry Creek LLP

(1973)

6 Clearcut (sapling

poles)

3 No


100


Area

Fire

Impacted

Dry Creek Poles

(1973)

7.5 Shelterwood 3 No

Blind Summit LP

(1976)

11.1

17.9

Clearcut (sapling

pole stage

Shelterwood

3 No

Dry Creek LPP(1976) 7.6 Clearcut (sapling

pole stage)

3 No

1970’s Weidman Poles

(1978)

5.7 Clearcut 5 Yes

Batista (1979) 10

31.9

Clearcut

Shelterwood

4 Yes

Joe’s Gulch (1979) 230.3

226

Individual Tree

Shelterwood

5 Partially

Yes

1980’s Elkhorn (1981) 244.9

382.2

Individual Tree

Shelterwood

5 No

Sawmill Creek (1983) 7.8

9.7

Individual Tree

Shelterwood

5 Yes

Unknown Post and

Pole (1985)

2.5

5.6

Clearcut

Shelterwood

3 Unknown

Beaver Creek Salvage

(1987)

6.3 Clearcut (sapling

stage)

3 Yes

Fuel Tank P&P (1987) 8.7 Clearcut (sapling

stage)

3 No

Asher Face (1988) 3.5 Shelterwood 3 Yes

Blind Summit (1988) 125.8 Shelterwood 3 No

Dry Creek Green

Fuelwood (1988)

3.9 Clearcut (sapling

stage)

3 No

Powerline (1988) 7.9 Clearcut (sapling

stage)

3 No


101


Area

Fire

Impacted

1990’s Post and Pole (1990) 2.1

2.9

Clearcut (sapling

stage)

Shelterwood

3 No

Post and Pole (1990) 6 Clearcut (sapling

stage)

3 No

Post and Pole (1992) 2 Clearcut (sapling

stage)

3 No

Camp Bradley (1993)

Timber Stand

Improvement

110.3

8.7

Thinning from

below for fuel

reduction

Seed Tree (sapling

stage)

3 No

Cape Horn Mistletoe

(1996)

31.9 Seed Tree 3 Yes

Cape Horn 97 (1997) 39.8 Seed Tree (sapling

stage)

3 No

1990’s Camp Bradley (1998)

Timber Stand

Improvement

13.6 Thinning from

below for fuel

reduction

3 No

Lower Horn (1998) –

Default partially

completed

42.3

22.8

Individual Tree

Shelterwood

5 Yes

2000’s NE Stanley Interface

(2007)

72.1

53.7

73.7

Individual Tree

Shelterwood

Seed Tree

5 Yes

Powerline R.O.W.

(2008) Improved

Right of Way from

threat of hazardous

trees falling on

infrastructure

73.9 Individual Tree

Removal – Dead

trees

3 &4 North

side of

powerline

Third Blind Boundary

(2009) (completed

2014)

145.3 Shaded Fuel Break 3 No


102


Area

Fire

Impacted

4th Blind Boundary

(2010)


5th Blind Boundary

(2010)


Camp Bradley

(2011)(completed

2014)


Dry Again

(2011)(completed

2015)

236 Shaded Fuel Break 3 No

Upper Marsh (2011)

(completed 2015)

323 Shaded Fuel Break 3 No

Cape Horn Ranch

(2011) all but 16 acres

lost in Halstead Fire

(completed 2012)

16 Shaded Fuel Break 3 Yes

Lo-elly (2013) Unit 5

(completed 2016)

50 Shaded Fuel Break 3

No

Marsh Creek

Roadside HTR (2013)

Hazardous Tree

Removal (completed

2014)

35 Individual Tree –

remove dead

lodgepole pine along

open system road

3 No

Dry Creek Roadside

HTR (2013)

Hazardous Tree

Removal (completed

2016)


remove dead


open system road

3 No


103


Area

Fire

Impacted

203-199 Roadside

HTR (2014)

Hazardous Tree

Removal (203

completed in 2015,

199 yet to start)


remove dead


open system road

3 No

Cape Horn TSI (2014) 79 Pre-Commercial

Thinning (reduce

stocking of saplings

in numerous old

clearcuts)

3 No


104

Appendix B – Comments and Responses COMMENTS/POTENTIAL ISSUES ARE CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO WHETHER THEY ARE:

1) RESOLVED BY FOREST PLAN Land Use Decisions

2) ADDRESSED THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST PLAN S&Gs and BMPs

3) ADDRESSED THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA

4) ADDRESSED DURING PROCESS OR ANALYSES ROUTINELY CONDUCTED BY ID TEAM

5) ADDRESSED THROUGH SPATIAL LOCATION OF ACTIVITIES DURING ALTERNATIVE DESIGN

6) USED TO DRIVE OR PARTIALLY DRIVE AN ALTERNATIVE, or

7) BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Nu

mb

er

Commenters Affected

Resource

Concerns / Potential Issues Categ

ory

Issue

Response to Comments

1 Idaho Conservation League

Fish It appears that the proposal is inconsistent with the PACFISH Biological Opinion-Special Management Provisions for Selway, Middle Fork Salmon, and South Fork Salmon rivers (1998).

3 & 6 The project was change to meet the PACFISH recommendation and is shown in Section 2.1 – Changes between Scoping and this EA. The Idaho Conservation League pointed out special requirements of the PACFISH Biological Opinion disclosed in “Biological Recommendation for Snake River Steelhead in the Middle Fork of the Salmon River basin”. Based on this requirement the IDT changed the proposed action and reduced treatment acres in that basin by 184 acres that was associated with the use of closed roads (page 7, EA). This decision brings the propose project in compliance with the open road discussion within that Biological Opinion. Design features were


105

adopted across the all treatment areas that further maintain PACFISH requirements as is stated in Section 2.5, pages 16-25 of the EA, bringing this project in compliance with the Forest Plan and Amendment #11 (Adoption of PACFISH to the Challis Forest Plan). Section 3.5 of the EA summarizes the effects to fish as required by ESA and discloses if there are any adverse effects to Snake River Steelhead and a determination was made. Based on the Fish Biologist review of project analysis area, and design features that are in place the biologists prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) and found that there is “No Effect” to Snake River Steelhead. BA was signed February 24, 2015 and can be found in the project record.


All Resources

Project fails to incorporate any restoration elements that could offset some of the negative impacts associated with post-fire salvage logging

7 Beyond the scope of project. Project was scoped to salvage fire killed or Douglas-fir beetle trees. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in Actions Alternatives described in Section 2.2, 2.4, and Section 2.5 of the EA to offset or minimize negative impacts from implementing either of these actions.


Hydrology and Fish

Moreover snags, logs and other woody debris play a critical role in mitigating post-fire erosion rates and facilitating recovery of the ecosystem. These structures trap run-off, reduce the impact of precipitation on mineral soil, create

3 & 4 Analysis were conducted and model to show effects of removal of salvage project over a particular time period in reference to movement of soil and vegetation recovery and were documented in the Hydrology/Soil Specialists Report is located in the project record. A summary of these findings can be


106

favorable microclimates for regeneration, and contribute nutrients to the soil. By removing them, natural rates of recovery would be slowed.

found in the EA in section 3.7, page 38 - 50. In addition specific design features were incorporated using Best Management Practices to further reduce the movement of sediment and are show in Section 2.5, pages 16-25 of the EA.


Hydrology and Fish

As part of our scoping comments on this project, we hereby incorporate Wildfire and Salvage Logging: Recommendations for Ecologically Sound Post-Fire Salvage Management and Other Post-Fire Treatments On Federal Lands in the West (Beschta et al, 1995) into our comments.

3 & 7 Beschta disclose this statement in the very beginning “The objective of this document is to propose guidelines concerning wildfires, salvage logging, and other post-fire treatments, particularly from an aquatics perspective, that maintain or improve the integrity of ecosystems and landscapes and maintaining the ecological processes that support sustainable resource extraction and utilization”. Beschta offers up several recommendations in the document which protect soils and preserve the capability of native to regenerate. Recommendations include; only use native seed if action are taken, don’t take action that would impede natural recovery of disturbed systems (no high fire severity areas), don’t conduct salvage logging in sensitive area. The IDT team incorporated these recommendations listed as part of the project and list them in Section 2.5, pages 16-25 or this EA.


107


Vegetation Salvage logging is being proposed within an area that has been subjected to natural disturbance, would the cumulative severity of these disturbances create unbalanced and "unhealthy" conditions for the local ecosystem?

7 Chapter 3 of this EA starting on page 26 discloses the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives on multiple resources to determine if the cumulative severity of the disturbance created an unbalanced and “unhealthy” condition for the local ecosystem.


Vegetation We encourage you to include BARC maps or other maps that illustrate severity of the fire in areas proposed for salvage logging and to discuss how and whether the project would influence future fire risk.

3 Fire Severity map (BARC) is included on page 9 of the EA. Implications of effect on future fire risk are disclosed in Section 3.4, pages 32 and 33 of the EA. A fire and fuels specialists report was prepare and spoke to future fire risk and resides in the project record.


Vegetation Where trees, especially larger diameter trees >16" DBH, exhibit scorch or fire damage, the Forest Service should carefully consider whether the trees may survive this damage. If tree mortality is uncertain, we encourage you to retain those trees.

4 How the Forest Service will identified potential tree mortality is disclosed on pages 9 and 10 of the EA implementing recommendations of (Hood, Bentz, Gibson, Ryan, & DeNitto, 2007), and further outlined in the Silviculture report that resides in the Project Record. The action alternative for this project clearly state if there is any uncertainty to future mortality the tree will remain on the landscape (page 10 of the EA) and by reference incorporated into the Winter Logging Alternative. Because of uncertainty a fixed point in time has been declared to determine mortality during the marking process.


108


Vegetation Given changing climate conditions the retention of larger diameter trees is particularly important, as these trees can serve as important legacy components and can provide useful direct and indirect contributions to the local ecosystem.

7 In Section 3.2 Climate Change, page 31 and 32 of the EA. Discloses the roles that live and dead trees play in carbon storage and exchange. Effects to climate change are clearly explained to the extent possible within the analysis area in the summary. Other contributions to climate change are well outside the scope of the proposed project and hard to quantify.


Vegetation We encourage you to retain trees in sufficient to promote long-term forest function, with a focus on large trees which provide important habitat for decades following mortality.

7 Level of retention of trees is based on desired conditions in the future. To make one component more important than another may not be desired condition. The current proposal will be retaining all live trees as well as all unmerchantable trees regardless of size page 9 and 10 of the Proposed Action Alternative and Winter Logging Alternative pages 12. In regards to snags, the Forest Plan clearly states number of snags required in upland areas (Forest Plan, Chapter IV (B)(4)(x), page 18) as well as requirements for old growth habitat retention per Management Areas (Forest Plan, Chapter IV (B)(4)(j), page 16).


Noxious and Invasive Weeds

We are also concerned that the proposed action would exacerbate the spread and establishment of noxious weeds through the logging units and along roads.

3 & 4 A noxious and invasive specialists report was prepared and resides in the project record to determine the effects and potential spread of noxious weed if the project was implemented. Design features in Section 2.5, pages 16-25 specific to this project were incorporated.


109



Monitor weeds and find adequate funds for weed treatments should be required and guaranteed.

7 Identification of know weed sources and future funding/monitoring of landings and skid trail for this project have been incorporated into the Design Features Section 2.5, pages 16-25 as part of this project is implemented.


Soils and Hydrology

Is salvage appropriate in areas dominated by fragile soils and steep slopes?

1, 2, & 3

As stated in the proposed action in Section 2.2 and incorporated in the Winter Logging Alternative Section 2.4 of the EA, parameters are in place to avoid areas that burned with high fire severity making them highly fragile and any area that have high landslide potential identified across the forest (page 8). Slope is a parameter of exclusion in the project design for this project and was set to 45%. The Forest Plan clearly states that ground base logging activities have to be less than 45% in slope (Chapter IV (B)(4)(g) and (s).


Soils and Fish

We suggest that any ground skidding be limited to slopes<35% and that direction from PACFISH Bi-Opinion is adhered to.

1,2,3,4,5, &6

See statements listed above 1 and 12.


Vegetation Reduce the extent and severity of salvage logging

4 & 6 Addressed in Chapter 2 and 3 of the EA.


110


Vegetation Increase the levels of retention across logged areas

4 & 6 Level of retention of trees is based on desired conditions in the future. To make one component more important than another may not be a desired condition. The current proposal as portrayed will retain all live trees as well as all unmerchantable trees regardless of size and is outlined on page 9 and 10 of the Proposed Action Alternative and incorporate into the Winter Logging Alternative pages 12-15. Retention of snags is governed by the Forest Plan. In the Forest Plan it clearly states number of snags required in upland areas (Forest Plan, Chapter IV (B)(4)(x), page 18) as well as requirements for old growth habitat retention (Forest Plan, Chapter IV(B)(4)(j), page 16).


Soils and Hydrology

Avoid areas with steep, sensitive or landslide-prone soils

4 & 6 Addressed in Chapter 2 of the EA and As stated in the proposed action in Section 2.2 and incorporated in the Winter Logging Alternative Section 2.4 of the EA parameters are in place to avoid areas that burned with high fire severity making them highly fragile and any area that has high landslide potential, page 8 of the EA. The Forest Plan clearly states that ground base logging activities have to be less than 45% in slope (Chapter IV (B)(4)(g) and (s).


111


Transportation

Avoid temporary road construction

4 & 6 Positon noted. For those area within the Middle Fork of the Salmon River basin project has been changed to exclude temporary roads and is clearly stated in Changes between Scoping and this EA located in Section 2.1, page 7 of the EA. For areas outside this basin the Proposed Action states that .25 miles of temporary road will be needed to harvest. .25 miles is maximum that will be allowed. Once harvest is complete, temporary road will be removed and return to original natural state by implementing specific design feature.


All Resources

Incorporate restoration and mitigation work into the proposed action to help meet Forest Plan objectives

7 Beyond the scope of project. Project was scoped to salvage fire killed or Douglas-fir beetle trees. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in Proposed Actions Alternatives describes in Section 2.2, 2.4, and Section 2.5 of the EA to offset or minimize negative impacts from implementing either of these actions.


Vegetation Retain large diameter trees >16" DBH.

4 & 6 Level of retention of trees is based on desired conditions in the future. To make one component more important than another may not be desired condition. The current proposal will be retaining all live trees as well as all unmerchantable trees regardless of size page 9 and 10 of the Proposed Action Alternative and incorporate into the Winter Logging Alternative pages 12-15. The Forest Plan clearly states number of snags required in


112

upland areas (Forest Plan, Chapter IV (B)(4)(x), page 18) as well as requirements for old growth habitat retention (Forest Plan, Chapter IV(B)(4)(j), page 16).


Wildlife and Fish

Would the project adversely affect sensitive fish and wildlife and their habitats?

4 Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations were prepared for all TES species and reside in the project record. Disclosure/determinations can be found in EA at following places:

Botany, BA page 27, BE page 29 and 31.

Fisheries, BA page 34, BE page 35.

Wildlife, BA page 66 and 67, BE 70, 71, 72 - 75.

Findings from those assessments are outlined in the EA in Section 3.1, 3.5, 3.10, and 3.11 within each pertinent resource. These resources look at potential impacts of this project on specific plant and animal species and made a determination.


Wildlife and Fish

In response to the scientific controversy surrounding the propriety of salvage logging, inconsistency with PACFISH, along with specific concerns, we feel that an EIS is warranted to analysis this project.

1 & 2 Several Factors are considered whether to prepare and Environmental Impact Statement or not (40 CFR § 1507.3). First is one normally required, is their uncertainty to significant impact. If there is uncertainty an Environmental Assessment will be prepared (40 CFR § 1508.9). If based on that assessment conducted with public (40 CFR § 1508.9 (a)(1), there is significant impacts (40 CFR § 1501.7) the agency will prepare a EIS. If the agency finds that there


113

are no significant impacts a finding of no significant impact will be prepared and made available to the public (40 CFR § 1506.6). This authority is vested and determination is vested with the Responsible Official (36 CFR 220.3)

22 Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation

Recreation The most eastern unit in the Asher Knapp area, might impact the Hay-Knapp Creek Trail #4032. The sale unit should be adjusted to protect this sale opportunity

5 Comment was noted. For impacts to all trails adjacent to or near the proposed treatment area a Recreation Specialists report was prepared addressing impacts and resides in project record. A summary of effects can be found in Section 3.9 on page 55 of the EA.

23 Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation

Visuals Several of the sale units might be within view of State Highway 21.Harvest units should be designed to minimize visual impact.

3 & 4 Visual Quality Objectives (VOQ’s) are listed for the project in the VOQ report that spoke to how the proposed treatment would impact and resides in the project record. A summary of findings of effects can be found in Section 3.9 starting on page 60 of the EA.

24 Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Wildlife Avoid potential negative effects to flammulated owl breeding populations, the Department recommends prohibiting ground disturbing activities between May 1 and July 31.

3 & 4 Impacts to flammulated owl and a determination to those effects can be found in the Wildlife specialists report located in the project record and summarized in section 3.11, page 74 of the EA.


Vegetation and Wildlife

To maximize healthy Douglas-fir stands and improve wildlife habitat the Department recommends retaining green, mature Douglas-fir trees in an open physiognomy that closely approximates the physical

7 Comment noted. Where possible due to the direct effects of the Halstead Fire retention of any live tree will remain as shown in the Section 2.2 and Section 2.4 of EA for the action alternatives.


114

structure of ponderosa pine forests with mature and/or old-growth attributes.


Vegetation and Wildlife

Harvest criteria should be developed to enhance wildlife habitat and forest health and not just to maximize the number of harvested trees. A good balance should create healthy forest, rejuvenated understory, and enhanced wildlife habitats.

7 Harvest criteria as proposed is to recover value from suitable timber base post fire and potential Douglas-fir beetle mortality. Wildlife concerns are noted and have been analyzed for effects. Design features have been incorporated to lessen effects to wildlife where appropriate.



Best Management Practices would be incorporated to reduce the spread of noxious and invasive plants. We recommend that this is a condition of any authorization the USFS may issue for timber harvest activities.

2,3, & 4 A noxious and invasive specialists report was prepared and resides in the project record to determine the effects and potential spread of noxious weed if the project was implemented and summarized in Section 3.6 of the EA. Design features in Section 2.5, pages 16-25 specific to this project were incorporated to prevent

28 Sawtooth National Recreation Area

Wildlife A wildlife issue would be the Blind Summit Road that is on the NRA which is about .5 miles. That goes through mapped lynx habitat and is not on our baseline for winter routes that we consulted on.

4 Section 3.11 speaks to Lynx habitat of the EA as well the BA/BE located in project record.


115


Recreation and Roads

The Kelley Creek Project Area overlaps the snowmobile groomed “Kelley Creek” trail. We have had some conflicts, including serious injuries, in the past with snowmobiling when the Cape Horn Road has been plowed. If winter salvage is to take place in either of these areas conversations with the Snowmobile Club would be critical.

3 Chapter 4 speaks of coordination with snowmobile groups in the EA.


Roads Road use within the Sawtooth NRA be more specifically considered and managed. In the past, severe road and resource damage has resulted from use during inappropriate periods (primarily wet periods), or from insufficient maintenance or drainage contingencies.

3 Chapter 2 and Section 2.5 in the EA address timing and use of roads.

31 Idaho Conservation League - 09/23/2014

Landings Concerns that landings such as those viewed in the Cape Horn area would cause significant sedimentation, erosion, hazard weeds.

3 Chapter 3 and the action alternatives address concerns in regards to landings, weeds, and sedimentation. Specific design features were developed by the IDT for the Halstead Project in the EA to address these concerns.


Roads I wouldn’t want to see blading our portion of any road. I also think the S-C should collect some surface rock replacement dollars in the timber contract and then in the timber sale accounting system we could get the money sent to our account.

3 Beyond the scope of the analysis project. Planned if project is implemented.


116


U Routes There are numerous routes in the project area that do not appear in the Travel Plan. Un-official routes need to be appropriately sign with closure signs, considered for decommissioning, and the development of additional routes (even temporary) should be avoided.

7 Travel Management is outside the scope of this project.


Lodgepole pine plantation

The FS should consider treating lodgepole pine plantations in the Kelly Creek drainage

7 Beyond the scope of the analysis project. Noted for future projects.

35 Gary Gadwa – President of Stanley Groomers

Snowmobile Trail

Personal communication about snowmobilers safety as well as how shared segments are plowed to allow both hauling and snowmobiling to coexist safely

3 Email message part of project record as well as shown in Chapter 4 of the EA.

36 Dan Zortman and Doug Pullin

Harvest For the project suggested methods to deal with the Douglas-fir beetle trees by cutting and removing before flight reducing chance of spread

3 Noted for potential design feature of operations.

37 Ken Rodgers Harvest For the project no specific comments

7


117

Finding of No Significant Impact As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the

definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have

reviewed and considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have

determined that Alternative 2, the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, the Winter Logging

Alternative would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a

result, no environmental impact statement would be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as

follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above.

Context For the proposed action and alternatives the context of the environmental effects is based on the

environmental analysis in this EA.

Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several geographic scales

(ie. local, regional, worldwide), and over short and long time frames. For site-specific actions,

significance usually depends upon localized effects, that in the world as a whole. This project is

limited in scope and duration. Depending on the resource issue being analyzed, the geographic

context of the analysis was either the immediate vicinity of the activity units, or the three

Management Areas #3- Marsh Creek, #4 –Valley Creek, and #5-Basin Creek, as defined in the

Challis Land Resource Management Plan. The temporal context was all past activities which

may have influenced existing vegetation, ongoing activities and effects, and reasonably

foreseeable future activities and effects approximately up to ten years in the future (see page 8 of

the EA).

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information

from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this

project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to

concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental

effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained

from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and

intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if

the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect would be beneficial.

Both beneficial and adverse impacts are addressed in Chapter 3 of the EA, particularly with

respect to adverse impacts from salvage logging in relationship to the Halstead Fire as well as

additional impacts the proposed alternative would create if implemented. Impacts from the

proposed action are not unique to this project. Previous fire salvage projects involving

similar activities have been found to have non-significant effects.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

The proposed actions are expected to have minor beneficial effects on public and safety by

effectively mitigating risks posed by snags falling on humans and/or across the road in the

activity units and haul routes. Although snags falling on roads and infrastructure are always

hazardous, the risks are particularly important during emergencies when effective ingress or


118

egress is critical or where large concentrations of recreational activities are being promoted

and fostered.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or

cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or

ecologically critical areas.

The proposed actions do not occur in a geographic area with unique characteristics that

include proximity to historic features, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic

rivers, or ecologically critical areas. Adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines,

timber sale administration, and management requirements stated in design criteria and

mitigation measures would ensure that these areas and associated resources, including critical

habitat for Snake River Steelhead, Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, and bull

trout and their associated critical habitat would be protected (See Section 2.5 -Design

Features, and Section 3.5 the Fisheries report).

The proposed treatment would not occur in any Roadless Areas. No new permanent roads

would be constructed, and because the project area is within the visual and noise corridor of

other existing roads, there would be little additional impact to the feeling of remoteness or

solitude within nearby Roadless areas (Section 3.9). In addition, there would be no long-term

disturbance to special features, or places, within the Roadless areas (Section 3.9).

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be

highly controversial.

The cause-and-effect relationships described in the analysis of environmental consequences

(Chapter 3 of the EA) are widely agreed upon and utilized in forest management, and based

upon the best possible selection of applicable, peer-reviewed, refereed scientific publications

described in the EA and associated specialist reports. Therefore, effects of this project are not

likely to be highly controversial.

The proposal to be implemented is similar in type and intensity to many other salvage

projects that have occurred in the recent past in the vicinity of the project area, and on many

National Forests in Idaho and the west. Based on similar projects, I do not expect the effects

of these actions on the quality of the human environment to be highly controversial.

Although this decision may not be acceptable to all, there is general public support for the

selected alternative to meet the identified purpose and need.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain

or involve unique or unknown risks.

The proposal to be implemented is very similar to past activities across the Salmon-Challis

National Forest and Intermountain Region, and its effects can be reasonably expected to be

similar. Chapter 3 of the EA discloses the existing condition of the area as well as the effects

of implementing the proposed action. Those expected effects do not include uncertain,

unique or unknown risks, nor do the resource technical reports and Biological

Assessments/Evaluations contained in the project record. The results of past similar activities

and projects (as reported in monitoring reports and applicable scientific literature) are

consistent with the cause-and-effect relationships that form the basis of the Halstead Fire

Salvage Project environmental analysis. Based upon my knowledge of past actions and

professional and technical knowledge and experience, I am confident that I understand the

effects of these activities on the human environment. There are no unique or unusual


119

characteristics about the area or selected alternative that would indicate a highly uncertain or

unknown risk to the human environment.

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with

significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

Approval of the proposed action is specific to the methods describe to salvage fire killed trees

in both of the proposed action alternatives. It is not directly or part of a larger connected action.

Should a new proposal for vegetation management within the project area be generated, then a

new analysis would be conducted. Therefore, this is not a decision in principle about future

considerations and is not likely to establish precedent for future actions with significant effects.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but

cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a

cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by

terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

The Affected Environment in Chapter 3 discloses the existing condition of key resources

including past actions. Chapter 3 also discloses likely cumulative effects: the direct and

indirect effects of the proposed action that overlap in space and time with any direct and

indirect effects of past, ongoing and other proposed projects in the three Management Areas

#3-Marsh Creek, #4-Valley Creek, and #5-Basin Creek as described in the Forest Plan.

Additionally, the Biological Assessments and Evaluations contained in the project file for

fish, wildlife, and plants conclude that the proposed action would have no adverse cumulative

effects or impacts upon threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species. Based on the

findings of this analysis, and considering the other factors of context and intensity described

in this document, I conclude that the activities included under the action alternatives are not

related to other actions with cumulatively significant impacts.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways,

structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical

resources.

The project activity units have been surveyed for cultural resources. The State of Idaho

Historic Preservation Office has concurred in a letter dated December 6, 2013, that this

project would not adversely affect any sites or objects that are listed or that are eligible for

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (Section 3.3).

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened

species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973.

The project record contains Biological Assessments (BA’s) for ESA Threatened, Endangered,

Proposed wildlife, aquatic, and plant species that may inhabit the area potentially affected by

the activities included under the Alternative 2 and 3. The design, location, and scope of the

project are such that it has the following determinations made for the following fish species

and critical habitat (Section 3.5 – Fisheries):

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon - Threatened ( Federal Register 57

C.F.R. § 14653) – “No Effect”

Snake River Steelhead – Threatened (Federal Register 62 C.F.R. § 43937) – “ No

Effect”


120

Bull Trout – Threatened (Federal Register 63 C.F.R. § 31647) – “No Effect”

The design, location, and scope of the project are such that is has the following determination

made for the following vertebrate species (Section 3.11):

Yellow billed Cuckoo – Threatened (Federal Register 79 C.F.R § 59992) - “No

Effect”

Canada Lynx – Threatened (Federal Register 65 C.F.R. § 16052 & Notice of

Remanded Determination of Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct

Population Segment of the Canada Lynx; Clarification of Findings; Final Rule –

Federal Register 68 C.F.R. § 40076) - “ No Effect”

Wolverine – Proposed (Federal Register 50 C.F.R. Part 17 § 71670 Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule for the North American Wolverine) –

May Affect, but not likely to Not likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence of The

Species or Result In Destruction or Adverse Modification of Proposed Critical

Habitat” in the long term.

There are no listed plants that are Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed on the Salmon-

Challis National Forest at this time (Section 3.1). Whitebark pine is currently listed as a

candidate species, but a change in status to ESA species has not occurred.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment.

Consistency findings contained in the EA and described in the Decision Notice show that the

action alternative meets all federal, state, and local laws and requirements. Listed below is

this determination of consistency to applicable laws or requirement by resource and where its

located in the EA:

Botany – Section 3.1

Cultural – Section 3.3

Fire and Fuels – Section 3.4

Fisheries – Section 3.5

Invasive - Section 3.6

Hydrology/Soils – Section 3.7

Range – Section 3.8

Recreation /Visual Quality - Section 3.9

Silviculture – Section 3.10

Wildlife – Section 3.11

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service...

Documents

Transcript of United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service...