United States Department of Agriculture

Honey Badger Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Service May 2021 Idaho Panhandle National Forests Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District

2

For More Information Contact: District Ranger Dan Scaife (dan.scaife@usda.gov)

Project Leader Kerry Arneson (kerry.arneson@usda.gov)

Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District 2502 East Sherman Avenue

Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814

Telephone: (208) 664-2318 Fax: (208) 769-3062

During the COVID-19 situation, our offices are operating virtually, which means most employees are teleworking. To protect the health and safety of our employees and customers, we are not scheduling face-to-face meetings at our offices.

However, continuing our service to you during this time is very important. If you need more information about this project, please send an email to the district ranger and/or team leader identified above or call the office telephone number and leave a voicemail, we will return your call as soon as possible. The voicemail inboxes will be checked regularly during business hours (Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.)

We appreciate your patience and understanding as we all work together to minimize the impacts during this difficult time.

We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from being readable by computer assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with any of part of this document, please contact us using the information provided above.

Cover photo: A view of Hayden Lake from the Chilco Mountain Area. A completed harvest unit in the Deerfoot project area is visible in the lower right side of the photo.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, disability, age, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.), should contact the Agency (State or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider.

Page i

Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Need for Action .............................................................................................................................. 5 3. Public Engagement ......................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Early Activities to Engage the Public ....................................................................................... 7 3.2 Public Scoping .......................................................................................................................... 9

4. Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................ 10 4.1 Overview of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 10 4.2 No Action ............................................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 11

5. Effects of the Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 19 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 19 5.2 Forest Health and Resiliency .................................................................................................. 23 5.3 Wildfire Intensity .................................................................................................................... 36 5.4 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................... 45 5.5 Sustainable Recreation Trails ................................................................................................. 50 5.6 Economic Feasibility and Contributions ................................................................................ 53 5.7 Scenic Quality......................................................................................................................... 56

6. Legal Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 62 6.1 Forest Plan .............................................................................................................................. 62 6.2 National Forest Management Act ........................................................................................... 62 6.3 National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy ....................................................... 63 6.4 Clean Air Act .......................................................................................................................... 63 6.5 Endangered Species Act ......................................................................................................... 64 6.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 ......................................................... 66 6.7 Clean Water Act and Idaho State Water Quality Standards ................................................... 66 6.8 Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act .................................................................................... 67 6.9 Executive Order 11988 (Protection of Floodplains) ............................................................... 67 6.10 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands)................................................................. 67 6.11 Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) ........................................................................... 67 6.12 National Historic Preservation Act ....................................................................................... 68 6.13 American Indian Religious Freedom Act/Executive Order 13175 ....................................... 68 6.14 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) .................................................................. 68

7. Draft Finding of No Significant Impact ........................................................................................ 69 8. Agencies or Persons Consulted .................................................................................................... 70

Federal, State, and County ............................................................................................................ 70 Tribal Coordination ...................................................................................................................... 70 Organizations ................................................................................................................................ 70

Page ii

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of proposed vegetation management activities. ..................................................... 11 Table 2. Summary of road work associated with proposed vegetation/fuels activities. ...................... 12 Table 3. Summary of proposed aquatic restoration. ............................................................................ 12 Table 4. Issues analyzed in detail and disclosed in the Honey Badger Environmental Assessment. .. 20 Table 5. Resource indicators and measures for summarizing effects to forest health and resiliency. . 24 Table 6. Tree species and their assignment as shade intolerant or shade-tolerant conifer. .................. 25 Table 7. Acres of common stand examination by prescription type for proposed activities that would

involve cutting of trees. ................................................................................................................ 27 Table 8. Summary comparison of effects to forest health and resiliency. ........................................... 28 Table 9. Current and estimated (post-treatment) acres in the project area, by forest cover dominance

group. ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 10. Current and estimated (post-treatment) forest cover patch metrics in the project area, by

dominance group. ......................................................................................................................... 30 Table 11. Existing and estimated (post-treatment) acres of forest structure within the Honey Badger

Project Area by size class and biophysical settings. .................................................................... 33 Table 12. Existing and estimated (proposed action) patch metrics for size classes. ............................ 34 Table 13. Existing and proposed distribution of patches consisting of seedling/sapling size classes. 34 Table 14. Resource indicators and measures for assessing fire/fuel effects. ....................................... 38 Table 15. Summary comparison of effects to wildfire intensity. ......................................................... 42 Table 16. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to aquatic resources...................... 45 Table 17. Watersheds and proposed activities relevant to the Honey Badger water quality analysis. 47 Table 18. Summary comparison of effects to aquatic resources in the Honey Badger project area. ... 48 Table 19. Resource indicators and measures for assessing project level effects to recreation. ........... 50 Table 20. Summary comparison of effects to recreation infrastructure and experience. ..................... 51 Table 21. Changes to miles of trail available by use in the project area. ............................................. 51 Table 22. Resource indicators and measures for assessing economic effects. ..................................... 53 Table 23. Estimated economic return per MMBF of timber harvested. .............................................. 54 Table 24. Estimated economic return of the proposed action over the life of the project. .................. 55 Table 25: Summary comparison of effects to scenic integrity. ............................................................ 60

List of Figures Figure 1: Honey Badger project area vicinity map. ............................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Existing and estimated post-treatment proportion (percent) of the Honey Badger project area

in each forest cover (dominance) group. ...................................................................................... 30 Figure 3. Existing, estimated post-treatment, and desired proportion (percent) of the Honey Badger

project area in each forest structure (size) class for all biophysical settings. ............................... 33 Figure 4. Existing, estimated post-treatment, and desired proportion (percent) of the Honey Badger

project area in each forest structure (size) class for the warm/dry biophysical setting. ............... 33 Figure 5. Existing, estimated post-treatment, and desired proportion (percent) of the Honey Badger

project area in each forest structure (size) class for warm moist biophysical settings. ................ 34 Figure 6. Passive crown fire behavior or torching (left) and active crown fire behavior (right). ........ 40 Figure 7. Percent of the Honey Badger project area in each flame length class, by alternative. ......... 44 Figure 8: Map showing the Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trail, rivers, and

lakes and scenic integrity objectives germane to the Honey Badger project. .............................. 57 Figure 9: Key Observation Points (KOP) at, on, or along Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest,

routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes providing views of the Honey Badger Project. .................. 59

Introduction

Page 3

1. Introduction The Forest Service has proposed management activities on National Forest System lands in an area of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF or the Forest) managed by the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District (the District). The 52,600-acre Honey Badger project area (Figure 1), named for two mountains in the general area, is located within Kootenai County, east of the communities of Athol, Hayden, Dalton Gardens, and Coeur d’Alene. Legal description of the project area includes portions of T53N-R2W; T52N-R3W; T52N-R2W; T51N-R3W; T51N-R2W; T50N-R3W; T50N-R2W; Boise Meridian.

In 2016, using a collaborative planning approach that included members of local governments, tribal representatives, and collaborative groups, the Forest identified high-priority planning areas for vegetation and fuel management (Integrated Vegetation and Fuels Management 5-10 Year Action Plan). The Honey Badger area was identified as one of those priority landscapes because a combination of root disease, blister rust, historic selective harvest, and other environmental factors has reduced the diversity of the forest overstory and made the landscape less resistant to insects, diseases, and drought. As described in Section 2, the continued loss of more fire-tolerant species such as ponderosa pine and western larch has led to forests that are less resilient to fire, with an increased probability of crown fires that would likely be more expensive and more difficult (and dangerous) to suppress. With most of the project area within the wildland urban interface, significant infrastructure would be at risk, including homes, a powerline, and electronic communication sites.

The 2015 IPNF Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) designated lands in the area as General Forest (management area or MA6), with the exception of Canfield Mountain Recreation Area, which is designated as Primary Recreation (MA7). General forest lands have roads, trails, and structures, as well as signs of past and ongoing activities to manage forest vegetation; they also provide a variety of recreation opportunities, with a higher density of motorized routes than in other management areas. The Forest Plan (page 17) provides a more detailed description of the MA6 designation and associated management area direction. Most of the wildland urban interface on the IPNF occurs within MA6. Forest resiliency goals and objectives in MA6 are met primarily through active management where feasible, and include direction for the sale of timber, which contributes to income and employment in local counties (see Forest Plan forest-wide goal FW-GOAL-TBR-01, page 39, and MA-6 specific standard MA6-STD-TBR-01, page 72, as examples); past management activities are noticeable in MA6.(U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015)

In close proximity to Coeur d’Alene and other communities, the project area is a short drive from surrounding counties and the Spokane area, providing unique recreational benefits to both local residents and visitors from out of the area. The area is well known for trails that provide opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, mountain bikes, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-highway vehicles (OHVs), and full-sized vehicles. Recreation use in the Canfield Mountain area is relatively high, with frequent interaction between visitors of all user groups. In primary recreation areas such as Canfield Mountain, timber harvest is not scheduled to contribute to the allowable sale quantity for the Forest, but timber harvest is allowed to maintain or restore the resource values of the recreational area.

This environmental assessment (EA) implements management direction described in the Forest Plan and describes the project-specific need for management action in the Honey Badger project area, the activities proposed to respond to those needs, and the analysis of effects related to relevant environmental and social issues consistent with 40 CFR 1500-1508. It is a concise public document that serves to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding that the action will have no significant impact on the human environment. Supporting documentation is located in the project file, as identified by document number (for example, PF Doc-SOIL-001 includes more detailed information on soil resources related to the project). A large-scale map and other documents are available on the Honey Badger Project website (https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=56220). Relevant forestwide (FW) and management area (MA) components of the Forest Plan were evaluated and are discussed

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 4

throughout the project documentation, including goals (GOAL), desired conditions (DC), and objectives (OBJ). This EA tiers heavily to the 2013 Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which documents analysis of the four alternatives developed for programmatic management of the IPNF, including the alternative selected for implementation through the Forest Plan (Alternative B Modified)(U. S. Department of Agriculture 2013).

Figure 1: Honey Badger project area vicinity map.

Need for Action

Page 5

2. Need for Action An evaluation of existing conditions in the Honey Badger project area compared to desired conditions described in the Forest Plan indicate a need to:

• Establish and maintain healthy and resilient forest stand structure and species composition

• Reduce the potential for high intensity wildfire while promoting desirable fire behavior characteristics and fuel conditions

• Contribute economic benefit to local communities and the general public

• Develop, restore and maintain a sustainable network of recreation trails

• Maintain or improve hydrologic connectivity, water quality and aquatic species habitat

Each of these needs are described below in greater detail.

There is a need to establish and maintain resilient forest stand structure and species composition – more healthy western larch, western white pine, and ponderosa pine.

Forest conditions throughout the Honey Badger project area are very different from desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. A combination of root disease, blister rust, historic selective harvest, and other environmental factors has reduced the diversity of the overstory and made the landscape less resistant to insects, diseases, and drought, with predicted higher flame lengths and increased fire intensity in the event of a wildfire.

The desired condition is a forest dominated by western white pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and whitebark pine, which are a more disease-tolerant species that have a better chance of surviving progressive losses from root disease. Unfortunately, these species are not as abundant as desired in the project area. Instead, stands in the area are comprised of grand fir, Douglas-fir and western hemlock, which are more to root disease. As trees die, gaps will allow for natural regeneration of the same root disease-susceptible species already present on a given site. Stand productivity, average tree age and tree heights slowly decline over time because of these conditions. Areas already declining from root disease will continue to be the most prone to continued opening of the stand through a combination of root disease and wind-throw.

A forest health evaluation was conducted in 2018 and root diseases were found to be widespread across the project area, the effects of which range from scattered mortality to large root disease centers spanning several acres, with variable amounts of canopy thinning. Root disease hazard ratings indicate the relative likelihood that root diseases are common throughout the project and are causing significant impact to susceptible species. According to the 2018 evaluation, over 4,000 acres of the Honey Badger project area are estimated to have a high root disease hazard. Although not all acres designated as high hazard will have root disease, those designated as high hazard have the greatest tendency for severe root disease to occur on the ground and for significant losses to occur. The proportion of the Honey Badger project area rated to have moderate root disease hazard was nearly 81 percent (over 40,200 acres), with the potential for root disease to be a significant agent of change in the near future within the project area. Insect infestations have also been identified in the project area and include the fir engraver, Douglas-fir beetle, and mountain pine beetle, which could further degrade current vegetation conditions if active management is not applied.

In mixed conifer stands such as these, regeneration harvest followed by planting with desired species such as western larch, western white pine, ponderosa pine and, where appropriate, lodgepole pine would lessen future stand decline due to root diseases and insects, and create a mosaic of size and age classes that are more resilient to insect and disease agents and fire mortality over time. Effects to vegetation as a result of the proposed activities are described in Section 5.2.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 6

There is a need to reduce the potential for high-intensity wildfire while promoting desirable fire behavior characteristics and fuel conditions to provide safer conditions for firefighters and the public.

Healthy forested ecosystems are less vulnerable to extreme large-scale wildfires that can alter ecosystems and threaten public health and safety. The Forest Plan includes direction to reduce hazardous fuels within the wildland urban interface and to manage forest vegetation in these areas in an effort to reduce the risk of large wildfires. The continued loss of more fire-tolerant species such as ponderosa pine and western larch has led to forests that are less resilient to fire, with an increased probability of crown fires, due to a relatively high stand density, that would likely be more expensive and more difficult to suppress, and increase exposure to relatively more hazardous conditions for fire fighters and the public. The need to address these conditions is especially important because approximately 85% of the project area is within the Kootenai County wildland urban interface, with significant infrastructure that would be at risk, including homes, overhead powerlines, and electronic communication sites.

In addition to the proposed timber harvest, which would primarily help to reduce ladder fuels, prescribed landscape burning is proposed on dry sites where burning is most responsive and can be used as an effective tool to improve ecological conditions. Prescribed burning, in both harvested and unharvested areas, would help return fire to the landscape, maintain or enhance forest resiliency, manage wildlife habitat, and complement work that is already approved and being implemented with recent projects in the area such as the Deerfoot and Kootenai Fuels Reduction projects.

The combination of proposed prescribed burning and timber harvesting would help reduce flame lengths and lower fire intensity, resulting in the type of fire behavior that can be more easily managed, with safer conditions for firefighters and the public. Improved conditions associated with the proposed activities for managing fuel conditions and wildfire intensity are described in Section 5.3.

There is a need to contribute to local economies.

The Forest Plan addresses community stability in describing the desired conditions for the economic and social environment (FW-DC-SES-02 and FW-DC-SES-03). Communities surrounding the Forest have important social and economic ties to National Forest System lands. In addition to providing the necessary infrastructure for accomplishing restoration goals, objectives and desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan, forest products resulting from management activities on National Forest System lands contribute to the local and regional economy and to the sustainability of the local forest products industry. The forest products industry provides the tool necessary for managing towards the ecological conditions described in the Forest Plan. Economic contributions and feasibility associated with proposed activities are described in Section 5.6.

There is a need to develop, restore and maintain a sustainable network of recreation trails.

Outdoor recreation is the fastest growing use within national forests and grasslands. Based on population growth in the area and a desire by the public to be outdoors (Forest Plan FEIS, pages 434, 633), the amount of public use in the Honey Badger project area has substantially increased in recent years, especially within the Canfield Mountain recreation area. The area is well known for trails that provide opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, mountain bikes, dirt bikes, ATVs, OHVs, and full-sized vehicles.

Some trail segments and recreational resources in the project area were not designed for the types and amount of uses occurring and cannot sustain those continued uses over the long-term. Trail sustainability is related to the capability of the trail surface to support currently planned and future uses with minimal impact to the natural systems of the area. Sustainable trails must be carefully located and designed to accommodate existing and future uses for a given trail type. Conditions that help with trail sustainability include locating the trail on the contour or cross slope, avoiding trails that run down the fall line, avoiding steep slopes, ensuring proper

Public Engagement

Page 7

drainage, and minimizing stream crossings, as examples. Effects related to proposed trail management activities are described in Section 5.7.

There is a need to reduce sediment delivery to streams from the road and trail networks and to restore aquatic organism passage.

Because of past watershed restoration activities in the area, i.e. Deerfoot and Bottom Canyon projects, there is less need and opportunity for watershed improvements to address sediment delivery than originally anticipated during initial project development. Unmanaged recreation and the existing road network in the project area are the primary contributing factors to watershed health conditions. The Forest Service monitors and addresses unauthorized access as it is discovered. Management of unauthorized or pioneered routes is an ongoing effort across the District under implementation of the Travel Management Plan for the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District. Activities proposed to develop a more sustainable trail system would help reduce unauthorized off-trail activity and associated sediment delivery.

Some of the roads and trails in the project area need maintenance or surface work and drainage improvements in localized areas to reduce the amount of sediment entering streams. Road reconstruction and typical road maintenance would occur on existing national forest system roads to support proposed vegetation management activities. One stream crossing, a culvert on an open motorized road (Forest Road 437), has been identified as a barrier to aquatic organism passage; it is proposed that the culvert be replaced with a structure that allows aquatic organism passage. Roads that are currently closed or abandoned and not needed for future management are proposed for decommissioning or long-term storage, as described in the proposed action (Section 4.3). Effects to water quality as a result of proposed activities are described in Section 5.8.

3. Public Engagement 3.1 Early Activities to Engage the Public The Honey Badger project is important to a diverse number of stakeholders having a full spectrum of different values, perspectives, and interests. Early in the project development process, the District initiated open and ongoing communication with stakeholders that could be interested in or affected by the proposed activities. The intent of this early communication was to:

• increase public awareness, interest, and engagement • identify preliminary issues • discuss development of the proposed action • seek ideas for resolving specific concerns related to recreation uses

Interested members of the public were contacted through news releases, emails, telephone calls, and social media. Discussions occurred on a regular basis as part of ongoing relationships with the Panhandle Forest Collaborative and the Trails Working Group (consisting of representatives from a variety of trail user groups – both nonmotorized and motorized). District Ranger Dan Scaife introduced the project to the Coeur d’Alene Tribe at the Government to Government consultation meeting in Plummer, Idaho in June 2017, and continued to update the Tribe throughout the process. Project team members attended meetings of at least eight local, county and state organizations for the purpose of introducing or providing updates on the project area and developing proposal.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 8

Multiple field trips to the area were also conducted:

• On July 28, 2017, District Ranger Dan Scaife, team members, and other IPNF staff conducted a field trip to the area. Participants included representatives of the Panhandle Forest Collaborative subgroup, congressional staffers, and Geoff Harvey, President of the Hayden Lake Watershed Association.

• A June 26, 2019, field trip had 15 attendees (in addition to Forest Service staff). The group included representatives from Panhandle Forest Collaborative, American Forest Resource Council, Vaagen Bros. Lumber, Stimson Lumber, Boise Cascade, Idaho Department of Lands, The Lands Council, National Forest Foundation, and the offices of Senator Crapo, Senator Risch, and Congressman Fulcher, as well as individuals.

• On September 6, 2019, Ranger Scaife visited the area with Geoff Harvey, President of the Hayden Lake Watershed Association.

From August 27-29, 2019, open house meetings were held in Athol, Hayden, and Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to share information and answer questions about the Honey Badger project. The public was notified of the open house meetings through a news release distributed via email to newspaper, television, radio, and online media throughout Idaho and parts of eastern Washington and western Montana (79 recipients). The news release information was also posted to social media (USFS IPNF Facebook/Twitter) and shared with visitors at the IPNF booth at the North Idaho State Fair (project info cards and the August briefing paper were also available). In addition, invitations were extended through telephone calls, emails, and meetings with interested individuals and local organizations in the weeks preceding the open house meetings. An article on the proposed project ran in the Coeur d’Alene Press on August 23, 2019.

A total of approximately 80 people attended the three open house meetings (Athol – 18, Hayden – 35, Coeur d’Alene – 23; some attendees did not sign in). The open house meetings provided attendees with printed information and an opportunity to discuss the proposed project with District Ranger Dan Scaife, Deputy Forest Supervisor Kim Pierson, and project team members representing forest health, fire and fuels, recreation, scenery, wildlife, hydrology, and fisheries resources.

The overwhelming majority of discussions were supportive. The predominant topic of interest was related to recreation, including management and maintenance of existing motorized trails, potential new trail opportunities, and user conflicts. Many people stated that they understood the need to improve forest health conditions through active vegetation management, as well as the need for fuel reduction and protection from catastrophic wildfire. One individual was supportive of the need for prescribed burning but had strong concerns with impacts of smoke in the Hayden Lake basin, stating logging residue should be chipped rather than burned. In regard to potential effects to scenery, some people supported the need for forest management and felt that activities could be designed to reduce effects to scenery. Some were concerned with the appearance of harvested areas adjacent to private lands. It was also suggested that harvest could help open some viewpoints from trails in the area. There were few questions about wildlife habitat in the area, and those were primarily related to the effect on public motorized access.

Following the meetings, display materials and maps were made available to the public on the Honey Badger Project website (“Pre-Scoping” tab).

Public Engagement

Page 9

Stakeholders involved early in project development included:

• American Forest Resource Council • Avista Corp. • Boise Cascade • Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce • Coeur d’Alene Office of the Mayor • Coeur d’Alene Tribe • Four County (4-C) Natural Resource Committee • Hayden Lake Watershed Association • Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement District • Idaho Department of Fish and Game • Idaho Department of Lands • Idaho Forest Group • Kootenai County Board of Commissioners

• Kootenai County Natural Resource Advisory Board • Kootenai County Office of Emergency Management • National Forest Foundation • Office of Congressman Fulcher • Office of Senator Risch • Office of Senator Crapo • Panhandle Backcountry Horseman • Panhandle Forest Collaborative • Panhandle Trail Riders Association • Stimson Lumber • The Lands Council • IPNF Trails Working Group • Vaagen Bros. Lumber

3.2 Public Scoping Information about proposed activities was shared with stakeholders and the general public on March 30, 2020, with an invitation to share their concerns and questions about the proposal by April 30, 2020. An overview of the project, maps, and other documents were posted to the Honey Badger Project website (“Scoping” tab). During the 30-day comment period, 109 responses were submitted through the project website; these individual letters can be viewed in the public reading room on the project website. An additional dozen comments emailed to the project leader after April 30 are part of the project record. Some individuals submitted more than one response, and several used the same brief paragraph to share their concerns regarding recreation trails in the area.

The overwhelming majority of comments concerned trails (ranging from general statements indicating a desire that opportunities be maintained in the area, to specific trail recommendations). Most made recommendations for their preferred trail use, i.e. nonmotorized, ORV, over 50-inch, or single track. A few commented on the activities proposed to address forest health and fire risk; most acknowledging the need for the project, while offering recommendations to mitigate effects of those treatments to protect other environmental components, such as scenery, wildlife, and water quality. One person was adamantly against the project as a whole.

The project team reviewed all comments received throughout the process, looking for any substantive changes needed to the proposed activities, any new issues to consider during the analysis, and any alternatives to the proposed action. No new issues or new alternatives were identified for analysis, and public comments did not result in any substantial changes to proposed vegetation or fuels management. However, public comments were used extensively in identifying specific changes to the trail system in an effort to respond to the needs and desires of the highly diverse recreating public while making substantial progress toward a sustainable trail system. The proposed action description and maps reflect the activities and changes to the trail system considering public comments and work with the Trails Working Group.

Not all recommended changes were carried into the proposed action. as they may have been contrary to implementing direction in the Forest Plan, not within the scope of the proposed action, would cause other resource concerns, or had legal access issues. One recommendation from the Trails Working Group concerned development of one or more trails that would provide an obstacle-course type of trail for vehicles more than 50 inches in width on roads 2337 and 2339 specifically. After visiting similar trails off forest and discussing potential design of such a trail, the Forest Service determined that additional information and design would be needed, and that there may be better locations for this type of trail elsewhere on the District; also, because obstacle-based trails would be new to the Forest, involvement by the Forest Supervisor and staff would be

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 10

beneficial. Because this could not be resolved within the timeline of the Honey Badger project, the recommendation was not carried into the proposed action. However, discussions with the Trails Working Group will continue, and if a trail proposal is developed, it would be addressed under a public involvement and environmental analysis process separate from the Honey Badger project.

Past and present management efforts, comments received during public engagement, and discussions around project development identified a need to address resource concerns associated with the area associated with Forest Road 437, in the lower Hayden Creek drainage. Many people voiced an interest in keeping a free public shooting area, and it was hoped that discussions with local groups and residents would help identify specific actions that could address the problems occurring in the area. Based on the public input and internal discussions, it was determined that a longer term travel and recreation management plan for the area would be necessary, given the type of access and amount of public and administrative use and no clear solution to address the complex recreational issues. The level of planning that will be necessary to address these issues was considered to be beyond the scope of the proposed activities and will take substantially more public engagement and time to develop a plan for addressing the complex social issues associated with the road and type of recreational use occurring; extensive target shooting, littering, and unauthorized motorized use.

Brad Smith, North Idaho Director of the Idaho Conservation League, recommended that the Forest Service consider applying concepts of “ecological forestry” proposed by Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin (2009); and Tom Partin, Oregon/Washington/Panhandle Consultant for the American Forest Resource Council) encouraged the Forest Service to consider two documents (McCauley et al. 2019) and (Gray et al. 2015) related to carbon sequestration associated with forest management. These references were all thoroughly considered as documented in PF Doc. VEG-026. A more detailed synopsis of comments received during scoping and disposition of how comments were used is provided in the project file (PF Doc. SC-122) and project website (Honey Badger Project, “Analysis” tab).

Comments concerning sequestration and/or climate change were received from Tom Partin (American Forest Resource Council) and one individual. Carbon sequestration is addressed in PF Doc. VEG-016. Mr. Partin encouraged the Forest Service to consider two references regarding carbon sequestration associated with forest management; consideration of the recommended references is documented in PF Doc. VEG-026.

4. Proposed Action and Alternatives 4.1 Overview of Alternatives The project interdisciplinary team analyzed in detail two scenarios: continuing current management in the area (no action) and implementing the proposed activities (the proposed action). No additional alternatives to the proposed action were analyzed because there were no issues left unresolved. Development of the alternatives is consistent with regulations identified by the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1502.14).

A map of proposed activities is attached to the electronic version of this document and is provided on the project webpage (Honey Badger Project, (“Analysis” tab). A printed copy of the map can be obtained by contacting the district office (contact information is provided on the inside cover of this document).

4.2 No Action The no-action alternative provides a comparative analysis of the effects of the action alternative relative to desired conditions in the Forest Plan with a premise that ecosystems continue to change in the absence of active management. Under this scenario, none of the activities associated with the proposed action would take

Proposed Action and Alternatives Description

Page 11

place and direction in the Forest Plan would go unimplemented. However, the no-action alternative would not preclude activities already approved in this area or activities planned as separate projects. For example, fire suppression, road maintenance, and recreation use would continue. Precommercial thinning and natural fuels burning approved through earlier projects would still occur as planned. A list of ongoing activities that would continue regardless of which alternative the responsible official chooses is provided in the project files (PF Doc. PD-013, PD-018).

4.3 Proposed Action

Summary of Proposed Activities The following tables summarize the activities that would occur under the proposed action. Commercial harvest would result in an over 400,000 merchantable cubic feet (approximately 200 million board feet) of timber volume. If approved, harvest and associated activities would be accomplished through multiple timber sales that would occur over an estimated period of about ten years, with the first sale projected to occur in 2023. Reforestation efforts would be initiated within five years of final harvest, to the extent possible and as required by the National Forest Management Act (Title 16, Chapter 36 (g)(3)(E)(ii)).

Road work would occur before, during and/or after sale activities to facilitate timber harvest and other project activities. For example, roads identified for timber haul may require maintenance to ensure they are in condition to assure safety and resource protection before haul begins. New road construction would occur as needed in each particular sale area. Decommissioning of temporary roads would occur after completion of activities.

Trail improvements, reconstruction, construction and associated activities could begin soon after approval, depending on funding availability and priority. Some activities would be accomplished through contracts, while others may be accomplished through cooperative efforts between the Forest Service and trail user groups.

Further description of silviculture prescriptions is provided below in the subsection labeled “Harvest Methods.” A large-scale proposed action map and other documents providing additional information are available on the project website: Honey Badger Project. Detailed descriptions are provided on unit cards in the project file (PF Doc. PD-016).

No activities are proposed under the no-action alternative.

Table 1. Summary of proposed vegetation management activities. Silviculture Prescription Estimated Acres

Clearcut with leave trees 5,200 Seedtree with leave trees 1,700 Shelterwood with reserves 5,000 Commercial thin 350

Total acres commercial harvest 12,250 Natural fuels burning (without timber harvest) 5,500

Total acres noncommercial vegetation treatments 5,500 Total estimated acres of vegetation treatments 17,750

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 12

Table 2. Summary of road work associated with proposed vegetation/fuels activities. Activity Estimated Miles

Permanent/system road construction (to be stored after project is complete) 35 Heavy reconstruction on undesignated roads that still have a discernable road prism; analyzed as new construction

15

Temporary/nonsystem road construction (to be decommissioned after project is complete)

10

Convert nonsystem to system 35 System road reconstruction/reconditioning 195

Table 3. Summary of proposed aquatic restoration. Activity Estimated Miles

Existing system roads to be decommissioned 5 Existing system roads to be used then put in long-term storage 95 Approximate miles of non-system roads to be decommissioned1 10 1 Approximately 95 additional miles of nonsystem roads were verified as being decommissioned on the ground and simply need the status corrected in the road database.

Activities to Improve Forest Health and Resiliency Vegetation Treatments

Harvest Methods Initially, approximately 21,000 acres of the project area were considered for vegetation treatments. After an estimated 9,000 acres of areas identified with rocky or unstable soils, wet areas, designated old growth, high priority viewsheds, such as Canfield Mountain, and other environmental or management concerns were removed from future consideration, there are approximately 12,000 acres of commercial timber harvest and tree planting being proposed. Nearly all of the harvest would use even-aged silvicultural systems, including clearcut with reserves, seedtree and shelterwood systems; approximately two percent would be commercially thinned. Even-age systems are proposed to meet objectives of the Forest Plan and because the extent and severity of root disease, insect and storm damages preclude other management options. Removal of harvested trees would be done with a variety of logging systems . Skyline cable yarding, skyline swing with tractor, and log forwarder and tethered logging could be used, as well as a small amount of helicopter yarding, if economically feasible. The logging system(s) used for each individual sale will depend upon economic and logistical feasibility and actual site conditions.

The Proposed Action Map (available on the Honey Badger Project website) displays unit locations and prescriptions. These may change slightly based on actual site conditions during layout. Proposed harvest would predominantly include these three even-aged regeneration harvest methods:

• Stand Clearcut with leave trees: An even-aged regeneration or harvest method that removes most trees in the stand producing an exposed microclimate for the development of a new age class in one entry. A minor (less than approximately 10% of full stocking) live component is retained for reasons other than regeneration. The residual overstory component would be retained over the rotation of the new stand to provide for snag recruitment, course woody debris recruitment, within-stand structural heterogeneity, and other resource values.

• Seed Tree with leave trees: An even-aged regeneration method in which a new age class is developed from seeds that germinate in fully exposed micro-environments after removal of the previous stand and from artificial regeneration. This regeneration method involves the cutting of all trees except for a small number of widely dispersed trees retained for seed production and to produce a new age class in fully exposed microenvironment. A minor (less than approximately 10% of full

Proposed Action and Alternatives Description

Page 13

stocking) live component is retained for reasons other than regeneration. The residual overstory component would be retained over the rotation of the new stand under this proposal to provide for snag recruitment, course woody debris recruitment, within stand structural heterogeneity, and other resource values.

• Shelterwood with reserves: An even-aged regeneration method in which a new age class develops beneath the moderated micro-environment provided by the residual overstory trees. Cutting may be done uniformly throughout the stand (uniform shelterwood), in groups or patches (group shelterwood), or in strips (strip shelterwood). The residual overstory component (at least approximately 10% of full stocking) would be retained over the rotation of the new stand under this proposal in order to provide for snag recruitment, course woody debris recruitment, within stand structural heterogeneity, and other resource values. Site preparation and hazardous fuels reduction activities are permitted to occur throughout the entire treatment area unless otherwise specified.

In areas where these three methods were used, precommercial thinning and/or pruning of the planted regeneration would occur as needed over time to ensure that the desired species survive to maturity through the intense competition that will occur on these growing sites throughout the first 20-30 years of stand development and in line with the proposed silvicultural prescription(s).

Prescribed fire is also considered an even-aged regeneration treatment because the intent of the burning is to prepare the affected sites for planting of an even-aged stand of early seral conifers. In addition to site preparation with prescribed fire, future reforestation and precommercial thinning of these stands may also be used to meet the silvicultural prescriptions outlined in this project and associated analysis.

In addition to the even-aged harvests, a small amount of commercial thinning would occur (approximately two percent of the total vegetation treatments). Commercial thinning is an intermediate harvest with the objective of reducing stand density primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, and other resource objectives. Treatment can prevent potential mortality while producing merchantable material. Thinning is intended to maintain a healthy, fully stocked stand of trees and therefore does not initiate a need for regeneration.

Retention The silvicultural systems under the proposed action incorporate long-term retention of shelter trees, seed trees and other reserved trees (also referred to as “reserves,” green tree retention, or dispersed variable retention) to provide within-stand structure while creating conditions that facilitate the successful establishment of shade-intolerant early seral species. The result would be stands that classify as seedling/sapling structure but still have larger diameter, often mature or “relic” trees in the overstory. Dispersed retention within the harvested portions of clearcut, seedtree and shelterwood harvests would focus on the retention of healthy western larch, western white pine, ponderosa pine, western redcedar, hardwoods, and large-old individual trees of all species, helping to trend toward Forest Plan desired conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01, FW-DC-VEG-05, FW-DC-VEG-07, and others).

In the short term, reserved trees provide seed to the site as well as some shade and wind reduction. Reserved trees can also provide screening of the effects of road construction. In the long term, reserved trees contribute to vertical and horizontal heterogeneity within the stand and provide valuable wildlife habitat as perches, nest trees, foraging trees, and eventually large snags and/or large down logs. For these reasons, regeneration systems that incorporate reserves more closely mimic the effects of mixed severity or high-severity fires than most other regeneration methods. The combinations of harvesting and retention described above are also described as dispersed variable retention ((Mitchell and Beese 2002, Schnepf 2006)).

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 14

In all even-aged regeneration harvest units, tree retention is designed to comply with forest-wide guidelines FW-GDL-VEG-04 and FW-GDL-VEG-05. The proposed vegetation treatments would help move forested ecosystems within the area toward improved health and increased resiliency to disturbances such as fire, insects, diseases, and drought. Proposed vegetation management and fuels reduction activities would complement the benefits of similar activities that were approved and are being implemented under the Deerfoot Project, which overlaps a portion of the Honey Badger project area. Additional discussion of tree retention is provided in the project file (PF Doc. VEG-027).

Over-40 Acre Openings The Forest Service is required to disclose to the public if management activities would result in openings that are larger than 40 acres in size as required by the National Forest Management Act (Title 16, Chapter 36 (g)(3)(F)(iv)), and to seek Regional Forester approval for the large openings (FW-STD-TBR-02).

The proposed action would create large openings because nearly all of the timber harvest would be done through even-aged harvest methods, which are appropriate based on existing forest conditions and goals, objectives, and desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. The extent and severity of damages caused by root disease, insects and windstorms preclude successful application of other options. The large, irregularly shaped openings adhere to several of the Forest Plan’s desired conditions and could help provide:

• Better interior habitat in the long term for some wildlife species, including migratory birds, western toad, Townsend’s big-eared bat, big game, and grizzly bear (FW-DC-WL-09, FW-DC-WL-14)

• A landscape-scale fuels management strategy with effective barriers to interrupt crown fire spread across the landscape

• A range of patch sizes across the landscape that have a diversity of successional stages, densities, and compositions (FW-DC-VEG-05)

• A combination of forage and cover opportunities for wildlife (FW-DC-WL-19)

• More acres of western larch, ponderosa pine, and western white pine restoration (FW-DC-VEG-01)

• Better economic feasibility, by concentrating management within Management Area 6.

As part of the project planning, the Forest Supervisor will seek Regional Forester approval for even-aged regeneration openings that would exceed 40 acres (PF Doc. VEG-013). Description of the large openings is provided in Section 5.2 Forest Health and Resiliency, with supporting information in the project file (PF Doc. VEG-009 and VEG-010).

Reforestation Reforestation is necessary to meet forest plan desired conditions, goals and objectives, and is legally required by the National Forest Management Act (Title 16, Chapter 36 (g)(3)(E)(ii)). Planting would be designed to meet requirements to adequately restock the lands within five years after final harvest (FW-STD-TBR-03). After harvest and site preparation activities are completed in the regeneration harvest units, blister rust-resistant white pine, western larch and/or ponderosa pine would be planted in combinations appropriate for individual stands. Western red cedar, ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce and hardwoods may be included in the planting mix where appropriate. Reforesting with native tree species would hasten and enhance the overall recovery process, meet restoration objectives, and trend the pattern of forest vegetation toward desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. Natural conifer regeneration from onsite seed sources typically includes white pine, larch, ponderosa pine, grand fir, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, cedar and western hemlock, contributing to the initial species composition of regenerated sites. Naturally regenerated hardwood trees, shrubs and numerous forbs and grasses will also be found throughout the regenerated sites. Where pocket gopher populations cause severe damage to seedlings, gopher abatement activities would occur.

Proposed Action and Alternatives Description

Page 15

Fuels Reduction In lands within the wildland urban interface and near communities, a continued policy of heavy fire suppression will require that mechanical treatment methods be used to reduce hazardous fuels and trend the vegetation toward desired conditions (Forest Plan FEIS, page 147). Prescribed burning has been used as a tool to treat fuels, improve habitat, and reduce wildland fire risk for the past several decades. In addition, treatments on National Forest System lands in the wildland urban interface often adjoin other land ownerships where additional fuel treatments may be occurring; the result is a larger area where hazards would be reduced.

In addition to the proposed timber harvest, which would primarily help to reduce ladder fuels, prescribed burning is proposed on dry sites where burning is most responsive and can be used as an effective tool to manage for ecological conditions and create fuel breaks (as displayed on the Honey Badger Proposed Action Map on the Honey Badger Project website. While no timber harvest is proposed within designated old growth, prescribed burning may occur on some dry sites where old growth is present. Prescribed burning, in both harvested and unharvested areas, would help return fire to the landscape, maintain or enhance forest resilience, improve wildlife habitat, and would complement work that is already approved and being implemented under the Deerfoot and Kootenai Fuels Reduction projects.

Underburning and broadcast burning in harvest units would reduce fuels resulting from harvest activities as well as those fuels that were naturally present, including litter, down wood, brush, and small trees. Underburning consumes surface fuels such as grass, pine straw, and down woody fuel, reduces ladder fuels from brush, small conifers and lower branches of larger conifers, and improves the visuals of harvest units by softening unit edges. Slashing of small trees and brush may also occur prior to underburning, to reduce the risk of torching of large trees and to increase growing space for reforestation efforts. Underburning is proposed in harvest areas where the majority of the retained overstory is intended to survive site preparation and hazard reduction burning and in units that are too steep to machine pile or masticate. Broadcast burning is proposed in harvest areas where the majority of the retained overstory trees are not intended to live following site preparation and hazard reduction activities.

Leave tree protection (clearing vegetation and slash around individual leave trees) may occur in some units to protect specific residual trees, such as white pine and larch, during underburning. Mastication, machine piling, and yarding tops would be used for fuel treatment and site preparation for planting in place of underburning where sufficient fire tolerant species are not present.

Mastication and machine piling would be limited to locations where slopes are appropriate for mechanized equipment on less than 40% slopes as described in the Forest Plan (FW-GDL-SOIL-01). Mastication rearranges the fuel load by using a machine to chip/grind the material on site. With an articulating head, the machine can grind small trees up to about 15 feet in height into small chips. These chips are typically left in place to decompose and maintain or enhance soil nutrient cycling. The benefit to fuel reduction is the removal of ladder fuels and rearrangement of the surface fuel layer from one that is loosely packed into a more compact surface fuel layer that will produce lower flame lengths and decrease spread rates. The increase in surface fuel loading can have the effect of increased severity that diminishes as the chips decompose.

Yarding of tops to landing areas, would permit the removal of the unmerchantable tops of commercial timber to be taken to the landing where it would be disposed of in the landing piles created as a result. This reduces the total fuel loading within the affected harvest area and would decrease the potential severity of subsequent prescribed burning and may facilitate the survival of retained overstory leave trees during prescribed burning operations. Fireline would be constructed when necessary to contain future prescribed burns for site preparation and reforestation efforts. Topographic and vegetative features of the landscape may also be used for containment of prescribed fires when possible.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 16

Despite the numerous benefits prescribed fires provide, it is recognized that planned fires and smoke can affect forest visitors and local communities. Understanding air quality regulations and coordination with smoke management agencies, such as Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, is crucial to success whenever prescribed fires are conducted. Site-specific burn plans are prepared for prescribed fires that identify (prescribe) the best conditions under which vegetation will burn to obtain the best results and minimize impacts to the public. Burn plans have specific prescriptions in order to implement prescribed fire safely and responsibly and consider environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, wind, moisture of the vegetation, and conditions for the dispersal of smoke. Prescribed fire specialists compare conditions on the ground to those outlined in burn plans before deciding whether to burn on a given day.

Road Work A transportation analysis process TAP (PF Doc. TRAN-008) was used to evaluate the current transportation system and plan for long-term transportation needs for the safe and efficient travel for administration, public use, and protection of resources in the Honey Badger project area. The project interdisciplinary team used the information and recommendations from the TAP to identify the road work needed to support management activities for the proposed action (displayed on the Honey Badger Proposed Action Map, available on the Honey Badger Project website. Roads are necessary to access units safely, efficiently, and economically while protecting other forest resources. Road-related activities may include maintenance, reconditioning or reconstruction of existing system roads, construction of permanent or temporary roads, installation of closure devices, and/or chemical treatment of noxious weeds. General activities would include clearing existing trees and vegetation to improve sight distance, blading and shaping the road to improve the road surface, excavating and constructing cut and fill slopes and compacting road surface, cut and fill slopes, cleaning ditches and maintaining, improving, or installing drainage features. The extent and scope of these activities would depend on actual site conditions found in the area. Only the road improvements needed to complete the proposed action would be implemented; if a unit is dropped from the project, the associated road work would be dropped as well.

New road construction is proposed where the existing transportation system is insufficient to access areas proposed for vegetation management. Permanent road construction is necessary to provide access for vehicles and equipment to harvest units for long-term management of forest stands. Road width may vary but in general new roads would have an average running surface of approximately 15 feet, with additional widening for turnouts and curves. these new roads are not being added as open-motorized routes for the public and would be stored after the project is completed. Roads proposed for storage have been identified as needed for long-term forest management, but do not have any foreseeable use anticipated in the next 20 years.

While existing roads and landings would be used wherever feasible, implementation of the proposed action would also require building non-system (temporary) roads that provide access treatment units. Construction of temporary roads would be similar to but less complex than new road construction and would be limited to the extent necessary for safe operation and travel. Temporary roads and landings would be generally located on dry ridgetops and designed to standards appropriate for the intended timber hauling while considering safety, cost of transportation, and potential to impact resources, in compliance with 16 USC 1608(b) and (c), and to make progress toward achieving forest-wide desired conditions (FW-DC-AR-07). Temporary roads would be decommissioned after the project is completed. Drainage features would be constructed and maintained to the extent necessary to protect resources for the temporary life of the road. At the completion of their intended use, the temporary roads would be decompacted and recontoured to the approximate shape of the surrounding terrain and seeded or covered with debris to prevent erosion and accelerate resource recovery.

Proposed Action and Alternatives Description

Page 17

Activities to Improve Water Quality Roads identified in the Transportation Analysis Process that are currently affecting watershed conditions and roads not needed for long-term forest management are proposed for decommissioning to reduce sediment delivery to the aquatic ecosystem. Additionally, non-system roads identified as no longer needed for management activities that are hydrologically stable and have established vegetation on the road prism are considered as decommissioned. The goal of decommissioning roads is to reduce erosion, restore site productivity, eliminate the potential of a road-related failure, reduce the potential for noxious weed infestations, and re-establish natural water infiltration and drainage patterns. Roads proposed for storage have been identified as needed for more long-term forest management, but do not have any foreseeable use anticipated in the next 20 years as described above. Road construction, reconstruction and maintenance activities (described in the Road Work section) would also help to reduce or prevent sediment from entering the aquatic ecosystem.

Aquatic organisms move about in streams to find food and shelter, and to avoid predators. Poorly designed or unmaintained stream crossings, e.g. culverts, bridges, or low water crossings can impede or block fish passage, with impacts to both individual fish who may no longer be able to meet these basic needs for survival and to the population dynamics as a whole. One barrier to aquatic organism passage at a stream crossing (culvert) on Road 437 would be replaced to accommodate aquatic organism passage and increase distribution of aquatic species in the project area (refer to the Honey Badger Proposed Action Map, available on the Honey Badger Project website. These efforts meet or help achieve Forest Plan direction (e.g. FW-OBJ-AQH-03, GOAL-AQS-01, and FW-DC-AR-07).

Activities to Improve Sustainable Recreation Trails The amount of public use in the Honey Badger project area has substantially increased in recent years, especially within the Canfield Mountain recreation area. The project area is well known for trails that provide opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, mountain bikes, dirt bikes, ATVs, OHVs, and full-sized vehicles.

The overall goal of managing the trails system in Honey Badger is to increase the social, economic, environmental, and logistic sustainability of the trails. Trail sustainability is related to the capability of the trail surface to support currently planned and future uses with minimal impact to the natural systems of the area. Sustainable trails must be carefully located and designed to accommodate existing and future uses while only allowing appropriate uses. Conditions that help with trail sustainability include, for example, locating the trail on the contour or cross slope, avoiding trails that run down the fall line, avoiding steep slopes, ensuring proper drainage, and minimizing stream crossings. Proposed trail-related activities include reroutes, reconstruction, new construction, and decommissioning. Future improvements are proposed to parking areas and trailheads to support the modified trail system.

Some trail segments and recreational resources in the project area were not designed for the types and amount of uses occurring and cannot sustain those continued uses. In identifying the potential changes that could occur to the trail system, the project interdisciplinary team worked with members of the Panhandle Forest Collaborative and the Trails Working Group, which consists of representatives from a variety of trail user groups, both nonmotorized (hiking, horseback, mountain bike) and motorized (dirt bike, ATV, OHV, and full-size vehicles). Discussions with these groups identified a variety of trail work to improve long-term sustainability of trails; including rerouting, rehabilitation, development of loop trails, and decommissioning of unauthorized trails that are causing degradation of natural resources.

Wherever feasible, trails are proposed for reconstruction or realignment to address poor resource or design conditions. Where the trails are in poor condition due to their location, decommissioning is proposed. In some cases, a new trail segment may be proposed to accommodate different use or access. There are opportunities to develop loop trails for expanded recreation opportunities and to decommission both system and user-

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 18

created, non-system trails that are causing resource degradation. Both actions would help achieve forestwide desired conditions and meet goals and objectives for access and recreation (Forest Plan Access and Recreation section beginning on page 33 and Management Area 7 (Canfield) section beginning on page 73).

Several single-track routes, as well as the increasingly extensive user-created routes, on Canfield Mountain currently have poor conditions, such as erosion issues, trail braiding, and in muddy areas. These conditions contribute sediment to streams, reduce user safety, and are not sustainable. To improve user experience, reduce conflicts with other uses, and increase sustainability, several trails will be improved and/or have the use designation changed to provide a loop opportunity for motorized wheeled vehicles, 50 inches or less in width (< 50”). Proposed activities include the conversion of some trails on the southern portion of the Canfield system to better allow access for maintenance and emergency services. This change will also increase the access for < 50” trails for the recreating public, reduce “cherry-stem” or dead-end trails on the system, and will help to spread use across a greater area.

Implementation of the proposed activities may vary slightly based on actual site conditions, in order to best meet the sustainability objectives for a given trail while considering potential impacts of activities on other resource. Proposed repair of trail sections, moving the location of trails with chronic conditions, and reducing the user-created routes that are damaging to resources would help achieve forest-wide desired conditions and meet goals and objectives for access and recreation, as well as improvements for other resources such as water quality and wildlife.

Design Criteria During project development, activities were designed to meet project objectives while minimizing or avoiding adverse effects. Additional site-specific design criteria (PF Doc. PD-014) have been identified to be applied through prescriptions, layout, and/or contract clauses during project implementation, based on Forest Plan direction and policy, best management practices, best available science, site-specific evaluations, and public concerns.

Application of design criteria and best management practices are addressed during implementation of vegetation management projects or they were included in the initial design of the project and future layout of harvest units as well as the subsequent contract(s) administered by a certified Timber Sale Administrator and considered standard operating procedures. During sale layout, marking crews follow the proposed action maps, design criteria, and harvest prescriptions identified by the project interdisciplinary team and authorized by the responsible official in the project decision notice. Minor adjustments may be made and documented as necessary based on localized site conditions. Most standard operating procedures and design features associated with the vegetation management activities are applied through project development and administration of the timber sale contract, which can include both standard and site-specific provisions and standard specifications for road construction and maintenance associated with the road package of the sale. Specific design features would be implemented through unit-specific prescriptions and/or marking guidelines.

Best management practices are standard operating practices, techniques, or measures determined to be the most effective, practicable means of protecting soil and aquatic resources. Contract provisions that are requirements in timber sales are the mechanism by which best management practices are implemented during project activities. Section 208 of the Clean Water Act authorizes and encourages state and local management of nonpoint pollution sources, which include forest practices. Streams in the project area are listed as not meeting beneficial uses primarily for temperature, habitat, and sediment in Fernan Creek although EPA approved Total Maximum Daily Load criteria have not been established for these segments. Forest Plan direction is designed to protect or improve aquatic resource conditions (see Forest Plan direction for soil and aquatic resources beginning on page 22). This project also incorporates best management practices as laid out in the R1/R4 Soil and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.22) to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

Effects of the Alternatives - Introduction

Page 19

Idaho Department of Lands has the authority to administer the Idaho Forest Practices Act (Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code) and the responsibility to ensure compliance with state best management practices to control nonpoint sources of pollutants. Rules pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act and application of best management practices are found at IDAPA 20.02.01 (Idaho Forestry Best Management Practices Field Guide: Using BMPs to Protect Water Quality).

Mitigation Measures Mitigation is a mechanism that can be used in several ways to reduce environmental impacts and achieve environmentally preferred outcomes. One form of mitigation is to compensate for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR 1508.20(e)). No mitigation measures are needed under the proposed action because project design and site-specific design features limit anticipated impacts to within the general effects described throughout the Forest Plan and meet all legal requirements. Forest Plan direction was used during the design of the project or would be applied during implementation for the protection of resources where applicable.

Monitoring Monitoring is the process of periodically and systematically gathering and analyzing data to understand trends over time. The Forest Plan (Chapter 5) describes the monitoring program that will provide feedback for the forest planning cycle by testing assumptions, tracking relevant conditions over time, measuring management effectiveness, and evaluating effects of management practices. Project and activity monitoring may be used to gather information for the plan monitoring program if it will provide relevant information to inform adaptive management (Forest Plan, page 99).

During implementation of the proposed action, activities performed under contract (such as timber harvest and road work) are monitored by a contracting officer’s representative to ensure activities are implemented as designed. Some aspects of the project, such as regeneration, are monitored for several years after implementation to ensure objectives are met. In addition, project interdisciplinary team members would periodically review implementation of activities as a whole during field trips and follow-up meetings.

Specific to the Honey Badger project, monitoring would occur if tether-based harvest systems are approved in specific units as described briefly under Soils (Issues Not Addressed in the Environmental Assessment) and in the Soils Analysis (PF Doc. SOIL-001). After implementation, all units where tethered systems were applied would be monitored in order to evaluate and document actual soil disturbance, to develop site- specific disturbance data for these new systems, and to validate the conclusions made by the literature review in the context of local soil and environmental characteristics. This monitoring would at a minimum use the methods described for Forest Plan soils monitoring (Forest Plan, Chapter 5, page 103).

5. Effects of the Alternatives 5.1 Introduction Overview of Effects Analysis This section summarizes and compares the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the no action and proposed action alternatives (including all identified design criteria). Spatial and temporal boundaries set the limits for selecting the actions most likely to contribute to cumulative effects (FSH 1909.15, 15.2). In order to have cumulative effects, the effects of past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities must overlap in space and time; therefore, each resource may have a different set of relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions associated with it. The Forest Plan FEIS (Appendix A) discusses past, present, and reasonably foreseeable programmatic actions that have affected or could affect the various resources in

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 20

the Idaho Panhandle National Forest; there is additional discussion of cumulative effects within the various resource area sections of chapter 3 of the FEIS. Information about relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects and/or activities specific to the Honey Badger project area, including a summary of past vegetation and fuels management activities, is provided in the project files (PF Doc. PD-010, PD-011, PD-013 and PD-018).

Issues Discussed in the Environmental Assessment Table 4 briefly describes the issues that have been analyzed to determine the potential for significance and warrant detailed discussion in this document. These issues are appropriate to analyze in detail because the impacts of the proposed action related to these issues may indicate potential significance or the ability to meet the need of the project. Analysis was based on a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views and, if applicable, the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk.

Table 4. Issues analyzed in detail and disclosed in the Honey Badger Environmental Assessment. Issue Rationale for Analysis

Forest health and resiliency

Vegetation management activities are proposed to help improve health and increased resiliency to disturbances such as fire, insects, diseases, and drought, responding to Forest Plan goals, objectives, and desired conditions (GOAL-VEG-01, FW-DC-VEG-01, FW-DC-VEG-02, FW-DC-VEG-06, FW-DC-TBR-02, FW-DC-TBR-03, MA6-DC-VEG-01, MA6-DC-TBR-01, and FW-OBJ-VEG-01). Proposed activities include commercial timber harvest that would result in openings larger than 40 acres.

Wildfire intensity

In addition to improving forest health and resiliency, prescribed burning activities are proposed to help reduce flame lengths and lower fire intensity, resulting in the type of fire behavior that can be more easily controlled or suppressed, with safer conditions for firefighters and the public (FW-DC-FIRE-01, FW-DC-FIRE-02, FW-OBJ-FIRE-01).

Water quality Road work activities (such as road maintenance and reconstruction) are proposed to help improve water quality by decreasing erosion and sediment delivery to streams (FW-GOAL-WTR-01, FW-GOAL-RIP-01, FW-DC-WTR-01, FW-DC-WTR-02, FW-DC-WTR-03, FW-DC-RIP-01 through FW-DC-RIP-05, FW-OBJ-WTR-01, and FW-OBJ-WTR-02).

Sustainable recreation trails

Activities are proposed to develop, restore and maintain recreation trails, improving the sustainability of the trail system (GOAL-AR-01, FW-DC-AR-04 through FW-DC-AR-06). Analysis is needed to describe the anticipated effects of proposed activities toward improving trail conditions and the combined effects of all proposed activities on the experience of trail users in the area.

Scenic quality No activities are proposed specifically related to scenic quality. However, trees removed through proposed regeneration harvests and new road construction would open the tree canopy, altering the scenic integrity of the landscape in the short and medium term. Analysis is needed to describe the visibility of activities and to address consistency with the mapped scenic integrity objective (FW-GDL-AR-01).

Economic feasibility and contributions

Activities proposed to address forest health would support jobs and income while creating products for use, both nationally and locally (GOAL-TBR-01, GOAL-SES-01, FW-DC-TBR-01, FW-DC-SES-01, FW-DC-SES-02, FW-DC-SES-03, and FW-OBJ-TBR-01).

Issues Not Discussed in Detail in the Environmental Assessment Several other issues have been analyzed or considered to determine the potential for significance, but do not warrant detailed discussion in this EA because the impacts of the proposed action related to these issues are minimal or not relevant to the proposal or project area, or are already addressed in separate documentation. Supporting information is provided in the project files.

Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to

Effects of the Alternatives - Introduction

Page 21

jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. The Honey Badger project analysis tiers to the Forest Plan FEIS, which provides direction for management of threatened, endangered and candidate species. The Forest Plan FEIS discussed status and conditions for federally listed plants (pages 122-134), fish (pages 179-193), and wildlife (pages 214-216), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed Biological Opinions for these species.

Biological assessments for the project have been completed and concluded there would be “no effect” to federally listed species due to the location of activities and known occurrences. The proposed action would not adversely affect the viability of any threatened, endangered or candidate species, because no threatened or endangered plant (PF Doc. BOT-001) or fish (PF Doc. HYDRO-001) species are known to occur in the project area. There are no anticipated effects to wildlife species as disclosed in the Wildlife analysis (PF Doc. W-028).

Sensitive Species Sensitive species are administratively designated by the regional forester (FSM 2670.5) and managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act (Forest Plan FEIS, page 294). The Forest Plan provides direction for management of sensitive species. The Forest Plan FEIS discussed status and conditions for sensitive plants (pages 124-134), fish (182-209), and wildlife (pages 210-411). The Forest Plan FEIS analysis of potential effects discusses habitat needs and effects of key stressors, including timber harvest, road construction and motorized access, prescribed burning, and the potential influence of various strategies and approaches to management of the Idaho Panhandle National Forest.

Biological evaluations have been completed for plants (PF Doc. BOT-001), fish (PF Doc. HYDRO-001), and wildlife (PF Doc. W-028). Based on habitat requirements and/or distribution, there would be no impact to sensitive plant or fish species associated with the Honey Badger project area. Based on habitat requirements and/or distribution, or project design and/or implementation criteria, there would be no impact to most sensitive wildlife species associated with the Honey Badger project area. Project activities may impact other wildlife species or their habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (PF Doc. W-028).

Old Growth The Forest Plan addresses old growth as part of the forest structure discussion (Forest Plan pages 11-21; FEIS, pages 75-83). Approximately 1,900 acres (4.5% of the project area) meet or exceed the minimum quantifiable old growth criteria or have been designated as recruitment potential old growth due to old growth characteristics and the expectation that they will reach old growth in the near future (PF Doc. VEG-008;(Green et al. 1992)). Of these, approximately 700 acres are designated as recruitment potential for old growth. The stands that comprise the remainder of the large size class currently do not meet minimum old growth criteria. Discussion of existing old growth conditions and trends is provided in the project files (PF Doc. VEG-008).

Proposed vegetation management activities were designed to comply with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for old growth, including FW-STD-VEG-01, FW-GDL-VEG-01, and FW-GDL-VEG-02 (PF Doc. PD-001). Under the proposed action, no stand-replacing vegetation management activities would occur in stands that currently meet minimum old growth criteria or stands that are designated as recruitment potential old growth; therefore, the vegetation management activities would not directly impact the status of existing old growth stands. Prescribed burning activities are proposed on approximately 265 acres of dry habitat old growth to improve stand structure and resilience in accordance with the Forest Plan (FW-GDL-VEG-01) and dry site restoration techniques (Graham et al. 2004, Jain and Graham 2005). Fuel treatments would not alter old growth characteristics since only trees smaller than 10-inches diameter would be cut, and the treatments would reduce fire hazard in old growth stands and the wildland-urban interface. Prescribed burning activities

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 22

would also be implemented in several old growth stands to maintain ponderosa pine dominance by killing ingrowth of Douglas-fir and grand fir to reduce stand densities and improve fire resilience.

Indirectly, the resilience of existing old growth stands to future fire disturbances would improve. Proposed vegetation management activities create more heterogeneous fuel conditions, potentially reducing fire spread across the landscape and into old growth stands from the adjacent stands. In the case of dry-site stands receiving fuel treatments, the reduction of ladder fuels and stand densities would reduce potential fire intensity and tree mortality within the stands in the future.

Road management activities would not affect old growth. Existing roads through some old growth stands would be used as haul routes, some of which would need to be brought up to haul standards, but no new roads would be built in old growth stands and motorized access into old growth stands would not change.

Soils There is an extensive framework in place for the evaluation and determination of soil condition. For this analysis, soils were evaluated in the context of the Forest Plan guidelines for soils and the Regional Soil Quality Standards. The analysis determined the proposed activities would not have a significant effect on soil productivity or stability because activities would not occur in areas where mass failure is likely to occur; unit design and implementation criteria (PF Doc. PD-014) would limit the amount of detrimental soil disturbance to be within the 15% threshold set by the regional soil quality standards, and adherence to forest-wide guidelines maintaining a recommended amount of coarse woody debris after project implementation would result in minimal impacts to long-term soil productivity and ecological function (PF Doc. SOIL-001).

The practice of tethered logging was not prevalent during development of the Forest Plan, so this logging technology was not considered when writing guidelines for soils. Specifically, FW-SOIL-GDL-01 was created with untethered heavy machinery in mind and is in place to prevent excessive soil disturbance that is created on steep slopes due to the loss of traction and stability of heavy equipment. Attaching a tether to heavy machinery for steep slope harvesting is intended to increase the operability, stability, and safety of the equipment. Both initial research and local observations indicates that using a tethered assist may be successful at minimizing soil disturbance on steep slopes, therefore it is reasonable to believe that application of this harvest method would help meet the intent of FW-SOIL-GDL-01.

Any unit that is considered for tethered harvest would be evaluated by a soil scientist to verify that there is opportunity for success in meeting the regional soil quality standards based on site-specific conditions. After implementation, all units where tethered systems were applied would be monitored to evaluate and document actual disturbance to develop site-specific disturbance data for these new systems, and to validate the conclusions made by the literature review in the context of local soil and environmental characteristics. For additional information, refer to PF Doc. SOIL-001.

Cultural Resources No direct, indirect or cumulative effects to cultural resources are expected with implementation of the proposed action. As required by Section 106 of the NHPA, an appropriate survey was conducted. Cultural properties were located, and activities have been designed to protect known cultural sites. Any further discovery of cultural sites would be inventoried and protected if found to be of cultural significance, and a decision would be made to avoid, protect or mitigate effects to those sites in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Consultation with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office is ongoing.

Effects of the Alternatives – Forest Health and Resiliency

Page 23

Carbon Sequestration and Climate Change A carbon analysis is provided in the project files (PF Doc. VEG-016), and briefly summarized here. Forests are in continual flux, emitting carbon into the atmosphere, removing carbon from the atmosphere, and storing carbon as biomass (sequestration). Carbon sequestration was programmatically analyzed in the Forest Plan FEIS (Forest Vegetation, in particular pages 91, 113-115). The Idaho Panhandle National Forest acts as a carbon sink, sequestering more carbon over time than is lost through natural and human disturbance. Forest Plan objectives include shifting species composition towards more resilient early seral species and increasing structural heterogeneity by increasing the proportions of smaller size classes.

Management activities designed to further these objectives would shift disturbance processes towards mid-scale disturbances such as harvests (short duration, high severity) and prescribed burns (short duration, low severity). The resulting increase in landscape heterogeneity and more disturbance-resilient composition would reduce potential for large-scale carbon-releasing disturbances by managing fuel loadings and connectivity to limit potential wildfire spread, reducing densities to increase drought resilience, and increasing diversity to reduce susceptibility to insect outbreaks. Additionally, regenerating stands with early seral species would enable increased carbon sequestration rates over longer periods of time than maintaining the existing stands could.

Under the proposed action, the affected forests will remain forests, not converted to other land uses, and long-term services and benefits will be maintained. Meaningful and relevant conclusions on the effects of a relatively minor land management action (such as the Honey Badger project) on global greenhouse emissions or global climate change is neither possible nor warranted. Therefore, this issue is not addressed further in this environmental assessment.

5.2 Forest Health and Resiliency

Introduction

The Forest Plan FEIS included an assessment of forest vegetation (FEIS, pages 49-121) and fire and fuels management (FEIS, pages 145-155). The FEIS provides a comprehensive discussion on the potential productivity of the land, natural diversity of the relevant ecosystems, and the processes that sustain productivity and diversity. Historic and desired vegetation conditions are described, as well as the effects of disturbances, including but not limited to wildfire, timber harvest, prescribed burning, insects and pathogens (FEIS, pages 58-63).

As documented in the Record of Decision (page 12) for the Forest Plan, Alternative B Modified was selected for implementation, in part, because it emphasizes restoration of vegetation and watersheds to improve resistance and resiliency to disturbance. The Forest Plan directs management for forest composition, structure, patterns and processes to trend toward stands that exhibit resistance and resiliency to natural and human-caused disturbances and stressors (particularly FW-DC-VEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-07, FW-DC-VEG-11).

As described in Section 2 of this environmental assessment, vegetation and fuels conditions in the Honey Badger project area are highly departed from Forest Plan desired conditions even though much of the project area is located within the wildland urban interface just east of Coeur d’Alene and Hayden (PF Doc. VEG-01). A lack of recent stand-replacing disturbance and increased small-scale disturbance have contributed to the area’s loss of early seral species, high rates of pathogen and insect damage and mortality, and homogeneous swaths of mature, declining timber. These conditions have drastically reduced productivity and forest biodiversity and have created hazardous fuel conditions that threaten the communities of Coeur d’Alene and Hayden, as well as the Hayden Lake and Fernan Lake watersheds. These factors make the Honey Badger project area a priority landscape for vegetation management activities.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 24

This analysis tiers to the Forest Plan FEIS in its entirety and specifically pages 49-121, which address the vegetation analysis. This analysis does not revisit the information presented in the Forest Plan and focuses only on potential effects on vegetation associated with implementing the proposed activities in the Honey Badger project area. The detailed vegetation effects analysis and associated maps are in the project file, and provide additional description of historic influences, current conditions, and effects modeling in the Honey Badger project area.

Methodology

Issue Indicators and Measures Ecosystems are healthy when their components and processes are functioning properly. A healthy and resilient forest ecosystem will include resilient species composition, structures, landscape arrangement and growth as well as meet the objectives for multiple resources in the project area such as fuels, wildlife, recreation, aquatics, etc.

Indicators and measures for assessing effects to forest health and resiliency are discussed below and displayed in Table 5. The proposed action is designed to contribute to achievement of goals, objectives and desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. Therefore, the forest health resource indicators are directly relatable to many desired conditions, guidelines and standards described in the Forest Plan, as noted.

Table 5. Resource indicators and measures for summarizing effects to forest health and resiliency. Resource Element

Resource Indicator Measures

Forest Cover Types

Representation of early seral species across the landscape

Acres, proportion (percent), and patch metrics of forest cover dominance types

Forest Structure

Diversity of size classes across the landscape

Acres, proportion (percent), and patch metrics of structure classes

Opening Size Management-created openings larger than 40 acres

Number of new openings exceeding 40 acres and the number of management-created openings by opening size class

The Forest Plan FEIS describes the forest condition, including composition, structure and function (FEIS, pages 66-87). Additional information on existing forest cover and forest structure (including old growth) in the Honey Badger project area is provided in the Forest Vegetation analysis project files.

The Honey Badger project area is comprised of warm/dry and warm/moist habitat types; Forest Plan FEIS discussions of forest cover types and forest structure address both of these biophysical settings. Warm/dry habitat types comprise 22 percent of the project area and generally have higher departure from historic conditions, increasing their susceptibility to disturbances such as fire, insects, and disease and therefore the social and economic importance for management. Warm/moist habitat types comprise 77 percent of the project area and are generally the most viable sites for timber management and restoration of white pine and larch.

Early seral species and forest cover types: The Forest Plan addresses forest composition, cover types and dominance groups (Forest Plan pages 11-21; FEIS, pages 66-72). A primary forestwide goal is to increase the proportion of western white pine, ponderosa pine and western larch across the landscape (FW-OBJ-VEG-01). This indicator is measured by the acres and proportion of dominance groups at the project area scale under each alternative. Table 6 lists the species found in the project area and to which mixed group they are assigned (adapted from (Barber et al. 2011). In the Honey Badger project area, the most common species currently found in the shade-intolerant mix are Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine with all other intolerant species occurring with less prevalence. The most common species found in the shade-tolerant mix are grand fir and western hemlock with all other species occurring with less prevalence.

Effects of the Alternatives – Forest Health and Resiliency

Page 25

Table 6. Tree species and their assignment as shade intolerant or shade-tolerant conifer. Tree Type Assignment Species Common Name Shade-intolerant conifer Douglas-fir

Lodgepole pine Ponderosa pine Western larch

Western white pine Englemann spruce

Shade-tolerant conifer Grand fir Mountain hemlock

Pacific yew Subalpine fir

Western hemlock Western red cedar

Stands classified as shade-tolerant conifer mix were incorporated into the grand fir, cedar, and western hemlock mix because, in the Honey Badger project area, stands classified with shade-tolerant conifer mix are comprised primarily of grand fir and western hemlock. The shade-intolerant conifer mix was not incorporated into any other species group because the Forest Plan acknowledges many of the shade intolerant conifer species independently and the mixed stands could not be clearly divided for classification as one particular species dominance.

In application, newly regenerating conifer stands initiated with tree planting, either after harvest or after prescribed burning, are dominated by a mix of early seral species with varying levels of mid to late seral species included. The Forest Plan (pages 11-21) describes single early seral species dominance groups and does not include a species mix for the early seral conifer species in any of the biophysical settings. In this analysis, potential future dominance types in stands proposed for regeneration are reported using the shade intolerant conifer mix dominance type. Personal observations of existing regeneration in previous even-aged regeneration harvests within the project area indicate that planting with a mixture of white pine, larch and ponderosa pine has been successful and has resulted in stands classified as shade intolerant conifer mix but dominated by the these three species in combination. Therefore, shade-intolerant conifer mix is utilized in this analysis to track trends in the combined acreage for these three focal conifer species. For this analysis, an upward trend in shade intolerant conifer mix is considered a trend toward desired conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01, FW-DC-VEG-06, FW-DC-VEG-11).

Forest structure: The Forest Plan addresses forest structure (Forest Plan pages 11-21; FEIS, pages 73-75). Forest structure is the horizontal and vertical distribution of components of a forest stand including height, diameter, crown layers, and stems of trees, shrubs, herbaceous understory, snags, and down woody debris. Forest structure has been homogenized over the project area and within individual stands by large-scale selective harvests and contemporary fire suppression and successional stand development that occurs naturally as a result of and in the absence of these disturbances. Activities are proposed to help trend toward the desired forest structure (FW-DC-VEG-02, FW-DC-VEG-05, FW-DC-VEG-11).

This indicator is measured in acres of forest structure class at the project area scale, as discussed in terms of landscape arrangement with a measure of patch size in acres. Four size classes are used to provide a consistent comparison with the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, page 15; FEIS, pages 73-75). The size classes are measured in diameter at breast height (diameter), with the following general correlation to age classes:

Size Class Diameter Age Class

Seedling/sapling 0-5 inches 0-35 years Small 5-10 inches 35-60 years Medium 10-15 inches 60-100 years Large >15 inches >100 years

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 26

Openings larger than 40 acres: The Forest Service is required to disclose to the public if individual harvest openings created by even-aged silvicultural practices are proposed that would exceed 40 acres, and to seek Regional Forester approval for the large openings (FW-STD-TBR-02). Harvest activities proposed in the Honey Badger project area would result in openings larger than 40 acres. Indicators include the number of new openings exceeding 40 acres and the number of management-created openings by opening size class. Additional documentation and discussion of factors associated with the need to allow openings to exceed 40 acres is available in the project record (PF Doc. VEG-013).

Models and Information Sources Several models were used to assess existing vegetation conditions and compare effects of the proposed activities to those that would occur if no action is taken.

• ArcMap, a geographic information system, was used to analyze existing conditions and compare alternatives (PF Doc. VEG-15). Acreage totals may vary slightly from one summary table to another due to differences in rounding.

• Region 1 Existing Vegetation Mapping Program (VMap) data was merged and cross-referenced with field-sampled vegetation data and mapped to support mid- and base-level analysis and planning (PF Doc. VEG-07)

• Field sampled vegetation data (FSVeg), also known as stand examination data, has been collected in portions of the area since 2010 (PF Doc. VEG-004, PF Doc. VEG-005) and was used to support silvicultural diagnosis information (PF Doc. VEG-011 and PF Doc. PD-016).

• Biophysical setting classifications were derived from FSVegSpatial and VMap (PF Doc. VEG-007).

• The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) model used Common Stand Exam data input into FSVeg to estimate a number of variables for the Honey Badger analysis, including stand level species composition, size classes and fire/fuels parameters (PF Doc. VEG-011). The FVS analysis for the Honey Badger project area predicted forest stand dynamics through time given variable management regimes and including inputs from root disease, forest pest, and fire/fuel extensions (PF Doc. VEG-006).

• The Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) database hosts the past, present and planned future activities (PF Doc. VEG-014). FACTS activity acre figures represent acres of the specified activity, not necessarily stand acres. Some stands may have had multiple activities or harvests.

Various other silvicultural, ecology, fire/fuels and insect and disease references were used to develop this analysis as cited in the list of references at the end of this analysis and in the project file (PF Doc. VEG-020.)

Spatial and Temporal Contexts The spatial analysis area used to develop existing vegetative conditions and to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects to forest vegetation includes the Honey Badger Project Area because it has a similar suite of resource concerns due to its location in the wildland urban interface, encompasses complete watersheds, and is large enough to assess effects to forest vegetation at both mid-scale landscape and fine scale (stand). Analyzing at a larger landscape scale does not occur because it would result in dilution of effects to a point where they would be so slight as to be unmeasurable and not reflect the true effects of implementing the proposed action.

The temporal scale of the analysis is approximately 80-90 years. Effects to vegetation can be modeled for longer time frames, but confidence in the modeled outputs decline substantially beyond 100 years primarily due to accumulation of assumptions and unknowns. Unknowns may include occurrences of insect outbreaks, fires, natural regeneration densities and compositions, and storms. Because these are unknowns, assumptions

Effects of the Alternatives – Forest Health and Resiliency

Page 27

must be made about whether they occur or not, their magnitude and severity if they occur, and other factors. As simulation lengths increase, the burden of assumptions and unknowns increase, reducing the certainty or reliability of modeled results over time, especially with changing climate and shifting disturbance regimes. Therefore, modeling is limited to the approximate timeframes required to regenerate mature timber and to effectively consider desired conditions throughout the stand development process.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information Approximately 17 percent of the project area vegetation data was classified using field sampled vegetation data (stand examination data). The stand examination data is of good quality and only includes common stand exams conducted since 2010. However, it is possible that unknown damages may have occurred within the stands since the exams were completed. Mortality and damages occurring within examined stands would increase the inaccuracy of the examinations.

There are no recent stand examinations recorded on approximately 83% of the acreage in the project area; the Region 1 Vegetation Mapping Program was used to characterize existing conditions on those acres.

Of the proposed commercial harvest acreage, 26 percent was directly examined following protocols established in the Region One Common Stand Examination Field Guide (Table 7). All the proposed commercial harvests were visited by foresters collecting brief walk-through site-specific observations of existing stand conditions were recorded as well as silvicultural diagnoses. Existing condition observations associated with the walk-through examinations include limited measurements and do not meet the statistical requirements of a stand examination, but they do provide direct observations of definable areas at a known point in time. These observations and associated diagnoses are available in the project file (PF Doc. VEG-005 and PD-016).

Table 7. Acres of common stand examination by prescription type for proposed activities that would involve cutting of trees.

Prescription Total Acres Proposed

Overlapping Stand Exam Acreage

Percent of Treatment Acreage Directly Represented

Clearcut 5,157 1,305 25

Seed-tree cut 1,662 552 33

Shelterwood 5,052 962 19

Commercial thin 360 64 18

Total 12,231 2,884 24

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 28

Effects to Forest Health and Resiliency

Table 8. Summary comparison of effects to forest health and resiliency. Element / Indicator

No Action Proposed Action

Forest cover types: Representation of early seral species across the landscape

Western white pine and western larch forest cover types would remain well below desired conditions. Some existing Douglas-fir stands would transition to the grand fir forest cover type due to ongoing insect and disease related mortality and the transition from early or mid-seral stage to late seral stage associated with grand fir habitat types. This could cause the Douglas-fir cover type to fall below desired conditions while the grand fir/cedar/western hemlock mix would increase even further above the desired conditions.

Activities would result in a substantial increase in the acreage of western larch, western white pine, and ponderosa pine dominance types that are currently below the desired range, while reducing the grand fir and western hemlock dominance types which currently exceed the desired range of conditions. Patch sizes of the larch, white pine and ponderosa pine dominance types would increase, which is consistent with Forest Plan management direction. The newly regenerated stands would be comprised primarily of a mixture of shade intolerant early seral species both from planted and naturally occurring regeneration.

Forest structure: Diversity of size classes across the landscape

As stands continue to grow over the next 10-20 years, the acreage of seedling/sapling size and small size classes would decrease, remaining well below desired conditions. The medium size class would decrease in acreage but likely remain within the range of desired conditions. Acreage of the large size class would continue to greatly exceed the maximum of the desired condition.

Vegetation management activities would increase the proportion of seedling/sapling classes to within desired ranges; small size classes would be generally unaffected; and medium and large size classes would decrease to within or just below desired ranges. This proposed action would trend the project area toward desired conditions that emulate historic distribution of forest size classes and patch sizes created by historic disturbance regimes, restoring the shifting mosaic of forest structure and increasing forest resilience to future disturbances.

Opening size: Management-created openings larger than 40 acres

No new openings would be created because no vegetation management activities would occur.

Proposed even-aged harvests would result in up to 61 openings larger than 40 acres, some hundreds of acres in size. Based on current forest conditions, the even-aged harvest methods are needed to trend stands in the project area toward desired conditions.

Effects to Forest Cover No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no proposed activities to change forest cover types. The disparity between existing and desired conditions would continue and could increase if no action is taken (Table 9,Figure 2). Western white pine and western larch forest cover types would remain well below desired conditions. Some of the existing stands classified as Douglas-fir would transition to the grand fir forest cover type due to ongoing insect and disease related mortality and the transition from early or mid-seral stage to late seral stage associated with grand fir habitat types (Cooper et al. 1991). This could cause the Douglas-fir cover type to fall below desired conditions while the grand fir/cedar/western hemlock mix would increase even further above the desired conditions.

Proposed Action Alternative

Under the proposed action, vegetation management activities would result in a substantial increase in the acreage of western larch, western white pine, and ponderosa pine, and shade-intolerant conifer mix dominance types that are currently below the desired range, while reducing the grand fir and western hemlock dominance types which currently exceed the desired range of conditions.

Effects of the Alternatives – Forest Health and Resiliency

Page 29

The amount of shade-tolerant species (primarily grand fir and western hemlock) would decrease by more than 5,300 acres, and Douglas-fir cover types would decrease by about 3,600 acres as a result of vegetation management activities. The post-harvest cover type for all of the regeneration harvest acres are classified as a shade-intolerant conifer mix cover type because the regenerated areas would be planted primarily with combinations of western white pine, western larch, and ponderosa pine. Therefore, the shade-intolerant conifer mix is the only cover type that would increase under the proposed action (some of the acreage was already classified as shade-intolerant conifer mix but was generally dominated by Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine). In addition, Douglas-fir, western larch, and lodgepole pine will commonly contribute natural regeneration following harvest, so the shade-intolerant conifer mix classification is a more accurate depiction of the diverse post-harvest conifer composition.

The proposed action would effectively begin to move the amount of white pine, western larch, and ponderosa pine dominance within the Honey Badger project area towards the desired conditions (Figure 2). While the proposed action will shift forest cover types in the desired direction it will not fully achieve the desired conditions in and of itself because the shift of species composition over the last century has been more significant in scale than can be feasibly restored in one activity entry.

Table 9. Current and estimated (post-treatment) acres in the project area, by forest cover dominance group. Dominance group Current Acres

(No Action) Estimated

Acres (Proposed

Action)

Current %

(No Action)

Estimated % (Proposed

Action)

Desired Range

(%)

Douglas-fir 15,121 11,601 36 28 12-25

Grand fir/cedar/western hemlock mix 12,314 6,962 23 17 6-12 Lodgepole pine 80 76 0.2 0.2 3-5 Subalpine fir mix 14 14 0 0 10-20 Ponderosa pine 610 556 1.4 1.3 5-10 Western larch 0 0 0 0 10-21 Western red cedar 119 0.3 0.2 6-12 Western white pine 32 32 0.1 0.1 20-39 Shade-intolerant mix 11,230 20,367 27 48 --1

1 The desired range for the shade-intolerant mix cover type is not defined by the Forest Plan but includes white pine, western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine. Currently most of the Honey Badger project area’s intolerant mix is dominated by Douglas-fir, but proposed regeneration harvesting would establish an intolerant mix dominated by white pine, western larch, and ponderosa pine, thus promoting mixed stands as opposed to cover types dominated by single species.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 30

Figure 2. Existing and estimated post-treatment proportion (percent) of the Honey Badger project area in each forest cover (dominance) group.

Proposed vegetation management activities would also trend towards desired conditions for patch sizes of the larch, white pine and ponderosa pine dominance types (Table 10) which is consistent with IPNF Forest Plan management direction. The newly regenerated stands would be comprised primarily of a mixture of shade intolerant early seral species both from planted and naturally occurring regeneration.

The combined effects of white pine blister rust, fire suppression, and past harvesting patterns have led to scattered small patches of seedling/sapling stands of white pine and larch derived from regeneration harvests completed since the 1980s. The vegetation management activities under the proposed action would connect some of these dispersed patches of shade intolerant and long-lived early seral species wherever the proposed activities share boundaries with the existing patches and establish new stands with the same cover type.

Table 10. Current and estimated (post-treatment) forest cover patch metrics in the project area, by dominance group.

Dominance Type Current # of

patches No

Action

Estimated # of patches Proposed

Action

Current mean

patch size (acres)

No Action

Estimated mean patch size (acres) Proposed

Action

Current maximum patch

size (acres) No Action

Estimated maximum patch

size (acres) Proposed Action

Douglas-fir 373 610 41 19.0 1,499 801

Grand fir/cedar/ western hemlock mix

300 687 41 10.1 1,058 790

Lodgepole pine 5 4 16 19.0 43 43

Subalpine fir mix 1 1 14 14.0 14 14

Ponderosa pine 56 59 11 9.4 67 65

Western larch 0 -- 0 -- 0 --

Western white pine

7 7 5 4.6 17 17

Shade-intolerant mix

477 318 23.5 64.0 1,045 2,720

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

DF GF/C/WH mix LP SAF mix PP WL WP Shade-int mix

perc

ent

Forest Cover - Dominance Groups

No Action Proposed Action Desired Range

Effects of the Alternatives – Forest Health and Resiliency

Page 31

The combined effects of white pine blister rust, fire suppression, and past harvesting patterns have led to scattered small patches of seedling/sapling stands of white pine and larch derived from regeneration harvests completed since the 1980s. Cumulatively, the vegetation management activities under the proposed action would connect some of these dispersed patches of shade intolerant and long-lived early seral species wherever the proposed activities share boundaries with the existing patches and establish new stands with the same cover type. Further description of how past activities have influenced current forest conditions (including cover types) is provided in PF Doc. VEG-027 (page 23).

Forest Structure

No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no proposed activities to change forest structure, so conditions in the Honey Badger project area would not trend toward desired conditions. Currently, all size classes are outside the desired range of conditions except the medium size class on warm/moist sites. In all biophysical settings, current proportions of the seedling/sapling and small classes are well below their desired ranges (Figure 3). As stands continue to grow over the next 10-20 years, the acreage of seedling/sapling size and small size classes would decrease, remaining well below desired conditions.

On drier settings, the medium and large size classes exceed the desired ranges. On warm/moist sites the medium size class is just within the lower margin of the desired range and the large size class is well above the desired range. The medium size class would decrease in acreage but would likely remain within the range of desired conditions. Much of the medium size class would transition into the large size class, but some of the stands in the large size class may regress to the medium size class due to mortality caused by root diseases and insects in Douglas-fir and grand fir. Acreage of the large size class would continue to greatly exceed the maximum of the desired condition.

Proposed Action Alternative Under the proposed action, vegetation management activities would increase the proportion of seedling/sapling classes to within desired ranges; small size classes would be generally unaffected; and medium and large size classes would decrease to within or just below desired ranges. The proposed harvesting activities would trend forest size classes towards the desired conditions within the Honey Badger Project Area that emulate historic distributions of forest size classes and patch sizes as were created by historic disturbance regimes, restoring the shifting mosaic of forest structure and increasing forest resilience to future disturbances (Table 9, Figure 2, Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5).

On both warm/dry and warm/moist settings the seedling/sapling size class would increase in acreage substantially; currently this size class comprises 1% of the acreage in the Honey Badger project area, but proposed regeneration activities would move it to 29% of the area, which is at the upper end of forestwide desired range of conditions. In the case of the warm/moist settings, the percentage of seedling/sapling would increase to 34% and potentially exceed the desired range. However, there is no way to increase the small size classes in the short-term; this is acceptable because of the short transition period from seedling/sapling to small size classes, especially since harvest activities will likely be spaced out over 8-10 years. The small size class would decline only slightly; most of the acreage in the small size class is regeneration from harvests in the past 20-40 years and is valuable for its contribution to this size class. Acreages of small size class proposed for harvest consist primarily of regressing forests where the overstory has died, leaving small shade-tolerant tree species in the understory.

The large and medium size classes would both decrease in acreage. The large size class would be reduced to approximately 50%, within the range of desired conditions for warm/dry and warm/moist settings. The medium size class would be reduced to just within the range of desired conditions for warm/dry sites and

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 32

would be reduced to below the desired range on warm/moist settings. On warm/moist settings especially, size class regression has been occurring due to extensive root disease mortality, and these medium size classes are often most severely diseased and were therefore assigned regeneration harvest despite the current proportion of the medium size class at the low end of its range.

Proposed vegetation management activities would also trend forest structure patch sizes toward the desired conditions. The desired conditions for the project include patch sizes ranging from 20-200 acres on warm/dry settings with small openings common within larger patches, and from 100-300 acres on warm/moist settings, with larger patches on steep terrain (Forest Plan, page 18). The proposed activities would create more large patches in the seedling/sapling size classes (Table 12, Table 13); many of these would be within the ranges of patch sizes desired by the Forest Plan. The small size class would not change substantially as a direct or immediate result of the proposed action. The number of patches of the large and medium size classes would decrease, as would their mean and maximum patch sizes.

The spatial data used to estimate changes in the numbers of patches and size of patches resulting from the implementation of the proposed action does not include all of the unharvested retention prescribed by treatment type. The currently identified and proposed retention primarily includes easily identifiable water drainage features, buffer strips retained to protect adjacent old growth, and acreage that is likely unfeasible to harvest due to terrain features that inhibit harvesting logistics. However, to meet the desired quantities of unharvested retention described in the general treatment descriptions, up to 2,400 more acres may be identified for unharvested aggregate retention. The spatial arrangement of this unharvested retention acreage would be determined during the layout of the proposed harvest activities on a site by site basis.

Therefore, results of the patch analysis over-estimate the harvested area and under-estimate the quantity of unharvested retention. Application of the additional unharvested retention as the proposed activities are implemented could increase the number of patches and would decrease the maximum patch size and the mean patch size in the seedling/sapling class. Some of the patches larger than 40 acres would be smaller and the largest patches may be split into multiple patches as the remainder of the unharvested retention patches are identified in accordance with the proposed prescriptions during implementation. The large and medium size class mean and maximum patch sizes would increase slightly because many of the unharvested retention patches would remain connected to stands classified as medium or large outside the proposed activity areas.

For example, Table 12 indicates that the largest seedling/sapling patch would potentially be 1,230 acres. However, retention areas identified during layout would likely reduce this patch size. If some of the aggregated retention bisects the harvested area, then the opening may be functionally split into multiple smaller acreages. At this time very little of the unharvested retention is accounted for in digital data for the associated treatment blocks. While some portions of the retention can now be laid out digitally using high-resolution LiDAR imagery, which has sufficient detail to identify some water features, rock outcrops, and past soil slumps, many locations where retention is desired still must be identified on the site, such as isolated seeps or moist soils, patches of legacy trees or desirable broadleaved species, or other features. Additionally, much of the retention will be associated with logging system feasibility considerations which are still more effectively determined by personnel in the field, in concert with vegetation characteristics, rather than solely from geospatial mapping exercises that can be completed in the office.

Effects of the Alternatives – Forest Health and Resiliency

Page 33

Table 11. Existing and estimated (post-treatment) acres of forest structure within the Honey Badger Project Area by size class and biophysical settings.

All Settings: No Action

(acres)

All Settings: Proposed Action

(acres)

Warm/Dry Setting:

No Action (acres)

Warm/Dry Setting:

Proposed Action

Warm/Moist Setting:

No Action

Warm/Moist Setting:

Proposed Action

Seedling/sapling 317 12,164 100 1,366 209 10,769 Small 1,107 1,055 298 282 739 703 Medium 6,388 5,260 2,082 1,843 4,096 3,219 Large 31,589 21,129 5,713 4,751 25,526 16,037

Figure 3. Existing, estimated post-treatment, and desired proportion (percent) of the Honey Badger project area in each forest structure (size) class for all biophysical settings.

Figure 4. Existing, estimated post-treatment, and desired proportion (percent) of the Honey Badger project area in each forest structure (size) class for the warm/dry biophysical setting.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Seedling/Sapling Small Medium Large

perc

ent o

f all

setti

ngs

Size Class Distribution - All Biophysical Settings

No Action Proposed Action Desired Range

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Seedling/Sapling Small Medium Large

perc

ent o

f war

m/d

ry s

ettin

g

Size Class Distribution - Warm/Dry Biophysical Setting

No Action Proposed Action Desired Range

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 34

Figure 5. Existing, estimated post-treatment, and desired proportion (percent) of the Honey Badger project area in each forest structure (size) class for warm moist biophysical settings.

Table 12. Existing and estimated (proposed action) patch metrics for size classes. Size

Class Existing

# of patches

(No Action)

Estimated # of

patches (Proposed

Action)

Existing mean patch size

acres (No Action)

Estimated mean patch size acres (Proposed

Action)

Existing maximum patch

size acres (No Action)

Estimated maximum patch

size acres (Proposed

Action) Seedling/Sapling

49 125 6.5 97.3 35 1,230

Small 225 234 4.9 4.5 33 33

Medium 648 782 9.9 6.7 136 132

Large 664 1,427 47.6 14.8 5,077 2,235

Table 13. Existing and proposed distribution of patches consisting of seedling/sapling size classes. Patch Size (acres) Existing Frequency (No Action) Estimated Frequency (Proposed Action)

<10 37 31 10-20 6 11 20-40 5 24

40-100 0 27 100-200 0 17 200-400 0 10 400-600 0 2

600-1000 0 2 >1000 0 1

None of the proposed vegetation management activities would cause measurable direct or indirect effects to old growth. They are not expected to add measurably to the cumulative effects of white pine blister rust or selective harvests and salvage activities which have had the greatest effect on the species composition and quantity of existing old growth. Further description of how past activities have influenced current forest conditions (including forest structure and old growth) is provided in PF Doc. VEG-027 (page 37).

0102030405060708090

0102030405060708090

Seedling/Sapling Small Medium Large

perc

ent o

f war

m/m

oist

set

ting

Size Class Distribution - Warm/Moist Biophysical Setting

No Action Proposed Action Desired Range

Effects of the Alternatives – Forest Health and Resiliency

Page 35

Over 40 Acre Openings

No-Action Alternative There are relatively few existing openings in the Honey Badger project area, and none exceed 40 acres. Past regeneration harvests have (for the most part) been restocked to the degree that they are no longer openings or will do so within the next 10 years. Under the no-action alternative, there would be no new openings created because no vegetation management activities would occur.

Proposed Action Alternative The proposed action would create large openings because nearly all of the timber harvest would be done through even-aged harvest methods, which are appropriate based on existing forest conditions (Section 4, Proposed Action). This is necessary to achieve Forest Plan desired conditions for patch sizes of 100-300 acres on warm/moist settings, with larger patches on steep terrain, or patch sizes of 20-200 acres on warm/dry settings that include openings within larger patches (FW-DC-VEG-11; Forest Plan Table 2, page 18).

Under the proposed action, timber harvest would result in approximately 60 openings larger than 40 acres as displayed on the Proposed Openings map (PF Doc. VEG-010). Additional information about anticipated openings is provided in the forest vegetation analysis (PF Doc. VEG-009).

Although Forest Service policy (FSM 2471.1) directs land managers to normally limit the size of harvest openings created by even-aged harvesting methods to 40 acres or less, exceptions to the 40-acre opening limitation are allowable with Regional Forester approval (PF Doc. VEG-013). The openings proposed generally exceed 40 acres because the scale of insect and disease related mortality that has been and is being observed in the project area occurs at a scale greatly exceeding 40 acres. The proposed harvesting is directly associated with addressing the needs of stands that are moderately or severely affected by persistent diseases, in large part, because of historic conversion from shade intolerant conifer dominance to shade tolerant conifer dominance as described in the existing condition section above.

Opening sizes are calculated for entire polygons as proposed for harvest, which maximize proposed area so that foresters have the flexibility to lay out the units in the field in accordance with logistical constraints and other resource values so that they can choose ideal locations for aggregate retention patches. Thus, the exact acreages of the openings are not known at this time and may be reduce by as much as 20 percent during implementation as logistical constraints and retention patches are located and accounted for more accurately.

The final shape and arrangement of aggregated retention patches would be determined by fine scale, site-specific conditions that guide layout of the retention patches as described in the proposed harvest prescriptions. Exclusion of aggregate retention acreage will reduce opening sizes or often divide harvested portions of the treatment units into multiple parts, reducing contiguous acreages of openings.

Cumulatively, there are relatively few existing openings, and none that exceed 40 acres, because past regeneration harvests have (for the most part) restocked with forest to the degree that they are no longer openings (or will do so within the next 10 years). The proposed action would begin to reverse the pattern of extensive intermediate harvests and minimal regeneration harvests and reverse the trend towards declining patch sizes. Further description of how past activities have influenced current forest conditions (including openings) is provided in PF Doc. VEG-027 (page 40).

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 36

5.3 Wildfire Intensity

Introduction The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the IPNF Revised Land Management Plan (USDA-FS 2015) included an assessment of fire hazard (FEIS, pages 109-111) and fire and fuels management (FEIS, pages 145-155). The FEIS provides a comprehensive discussion on the historical and current role that fire has had on the IPNF, the types of wildfires that historically occurred on the IPNF, and the ecological and environmental effects from fire suppression. Maps and other information about past wildfires that occurred in the Honey Badger project area are provided in the project files.

As documented in the Record of Decision (page 15) for the revised Plan, Alternative B Modified was selected for implementation, in part, because it emphasizes hazardous fuel reduction (particularly in the wildland urban interface) and the use of prescribed fire (planned ignitions) to reduce the risk of large scale stand-replacement wildfires. The Forest Plan directs management for the reduction of reduce hazardous fuels, particularly within the wildland urban interface, and to manage forest vegetation in these areas in an effort to reduce the risk of large scale stand-replacement wildfires while maintaining public and firefighter safety, which is the top priority in all fire management activities (FW-DC-FIRE-01) (FW-OBJ-VEG-01, FW-GDL-VEG-01, FW-GDL-VEG-02, FW-GDL-VEG-08, FW-DC-FIRE-01, FW-DC-FIRE-02, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FW-OBJ-FIRE-01, MA6-GDL-FIRE-01). The wildland urban interface is the area where structures and other human improvements intermingle with wildland or vegetation fuels; this is where wildfires pose the greatest risk to people due to the proximity of flammable vegetation.

Desired fire behavior is characterized by low-intensity surface fires with limited crown fire potential. Healthy, thriving ecosystems are less vulnerable to extreme large-scale wildfires that can alter ecosystems and threaten public health and safety. Current forest health concerns, fuel loading at all layers, and continuity of fuels across the landscape has led to an increased probability of crown fires. In the Honey Badger project area, field reconnaissance verified forest health concerns contributing to fire hazard and suppression concerns. The continued loss of fire-tolerant species such as ponderosa pine and western larch has led to forests that are less resilient to fire, meaning that they could experience more pronounced fire effects and an increased amount of mortality associated with a wildfire. As documented in (Keane and Crawley), the changes in fuels characteristics include an increase in shade-tolerant species, decrease in fire-tolerant species, increased vertical stand structure, increased canopy closure, increased vertical ladder fuels, greater biomass, greater fire intensities and severities, and increased insect and disease epidemics. The presence of multi-layered (or continuous) canopies and dense crowns in the project area increase the chance of crown fires that are difficult to control. Fires in these conditions would be more expensive and more dangerous to suppress.

The need to address these conditions is especially important because approximately 86% of the Honey Badger project area is within the wildland urban interface, with significant infrastructure that would be at risk, including homes, a powerline, and electronic communication sites. With a greater number of people living and recreating in wildland urban interface areas, there is a greater probability of more human-caused ignitions that could have effects on the forest vegetation (FEIS, page 121). Activities are proposed to create an environment that is safer for the public and firefighters, complementing other projects (such as the ongoing Kootenai Fuels Reduction project) designed to protect the greater Coeur d’Alene area.

This analysis tiers to the Forest Plan FEIS in its entirety and specifically pages 145-155, which address the Fire and Fuels Management analysis, and pages 109-111, which address the assessment of fire hazard. This analysis does not revisit the information presented in the Forest Plan and focuses only on potential effects to forest fuels and the resulting fire behavior characteristics as a result of implementing the proposed activities in the Honey Badger project area.

Effects of the Alternatives – Wildfire Intensity

Page 37

Methodology

Issue Indicators and Measures The overall goals for fire and fuels management are to reduce fuels for the protection of public and firefighter safety. These goals are attained by creating forest conditions which result in slower rates of fire spread, shorter flame lengths, and a lower risk of crown fire. The Forest Plan objectives include the need for forest resilience (FW-OBJ-VEG-01). In terms of fire management, this means fire-tolerant and resilient vegetation stands where wildfires burn in the surface fuels with low flame lengths and limited crown fire potential such that life and property can be protected.

Fire behavior is related to fuel characteristics, including the loading (amount) and the arrangement (both vertical and horizontal). Fuel loading is made up of small woody debris and coarse woody debris. Small woody debris are three inches and less in diameter and include fine fuels such as twigs, small branches, live and dead brush and grasses, cones and needles. Coarse-woody debris is standing dead and down trees and branches larger than three inches in diameter and is an important component of a healthy ecosystem.

There are three different kinds of fuel arrangements: surface, ladder and crown fuels. The fuels in all layers contribute to the potential extreme fire behavior and the resulting environment, affecting public and fire fighter safety. Each strata of fuels influence fire behavior indicators assessed for this project area.

Observations of past fire behavior shows that small woody material less than three inches in diameter has the most substantial influence on fire behavior (such as spread rates and fire intensity) and can be estimated using broadly accepted fire behavior models (Brown et al. 2003). However, large woody fuels can contribute to large fire development and high fire severity. The greater the fuel loading of this large material (and dependent on the size and decay rate), the greater the influence on fire severity. This effect is generally due to smoldering and persistent burn periods (Brown et al. 2003).

Field data indicates fuel loading for the project is highly variable and dependent on pockets of deteriorated forest structure due to poor forest health conditions. Fuel loading measurements were used to verify loading consistent with fuel model descriptions to ensure ground conditions mimic modeled conditions (PF Doc. FF-007). There are 13 fire behavior fuel models, developed by Rothermel (1972) and Albini (1976) as described in Anderson (1982), which describe forest fuel conditions(Rothermel 1972, Albini 1976). These are used to estimate potential fire behavior based on their physical description of the fuel loading, fuel bed depth, and fuel moisture at which fire will not spread. These original 13 fire behavior fuel models are used to model fire behavior during the “severe period of the fire season when wildfires pose greater control problems and impact on land resources”(Anderson 1982).

In addition to these 13 models, 40 dynamic fuel models were more recently developed (Scott and Burgan 2005) that are not limited to use in the severe part of the fire season. The addition of the 40 models increased the number of fuel models for forest litter and litter with grass or shrub understory. Predicted surface fire behavior drives crown fire models, so increased precision in surface fire intensity prediction will lead to increased precision in crown fire behavior prediction and hazard assessment (Scott and Burgan 2005). Since the 40 new models provide more specific fuels characteristics, they were used to describe the surface fuels for this project.

Based on analysis of collected data, there are primarily two dominant fire behavior fuel models (GS2 and TU5) currently present in the Honey Badger project area (PF Doc. FF-003). Fuel model TU5 is a very high load timber shrub model. The primary carrier of fire in this fuel model is heavy forest litter with a shrub or small tree understory. TU5 is characterized by moderate spread rates and moderate flame lengths. The fuel model GS2 is a moderate load, grass-shrub model. GS2 is characterized by high spread rates and the flame

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 38

lengths are moderate. The primary carrier of fire in GS2 is a combination of grass and shrubs (Scott and Burgan 2005). These fuel models were used in fire behavior modeling for the fire and fuels analysis.

Prescribed fire can effectively alter potential fire behavior by influencing multiple fuel characteristics ((Graham et al. 2004), page 24)), including:

• Reducing the loading of fine fuels, duff, large woody fuels, rotten material, shrubs and other live surface fuels, which together with compactness and continuity change the fuel energy stored on the site and potential spread rate and intensity.

• Reducing horizontal fuel continuity (shrub, low vegetation, woody fuel strata), which disrupts growth of surface fires, limits buildup of intensity, and reduces spot fire ignition probability.

• Increasing compactness of surface fuel components, which retards combustion rates.

This analysis addressed the resulting fire behavior characteristics under extreme conditions (97th percentile) after reducing fuels through timber harvest and prescribed burning in the Honey Badger project area. Kootenai Fuels reduction units were included in the modeling as project is ongoing, modifying fuels and fire behavior across Honey Bader project area. Changes in fire behavior characteristics are assessed by changes in surface flame lengths, crown fire activity, and integrated fire hazard. The project file contains information related to other fire and fuel characteristics examined at the stand and landscape levels, such as rate of spread, fireline intensity, heat per unit area, fuel model, canopy cover, and stand height (PF Doc. FF-001, FF-002, FF-003, FF-004, FF-005).

Table 14. Resource indicators and measures for assessing fire/fuel effects. Resource Indicator Measure

Surface flame lengths Percent of landscape in each flame length class considering fuel loading and arrangement

Crown fire activity Percent of the project area exhibiting potential for crown fire considering canopy base height and canopy bulk density

Integrated fire hazard lowest to highest hazard ratings

Surface Flame Lengths The amount and arrangement of surface fuels are directly related to flame lengths, which affect fire suppression tactics in the event of a wildfire. For example, flame lengths less than four feet can be effectively and safely attacked using ground crews (hand crews) constructing direct fire line, while flame lengths greater than four feet will likely have to be attacked using dozers, engines, and retardant aircraft ((National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2006). As surface flame lengths increase the likelihood fire will transition into crowns increases. Activities that reduce fuels (especially surface fuels) decrease the chances that a surface fire would be able to ignite ladder fuels and canopy fuels (Graham et al. 2004). Fire behavior at the landscape level is represented by modeling the percent of the project area in each flame length class (PF Doc. FF-002). Stand level fire behavior can be found in PF Doc. FF-001 and FF-005.

Crown Fire Activity A crown fire occurs in elevated canopy fuels; that is, it spreads among the trees through the branches (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Crown fires present problems to suppression resources due to high rates of spread, increased long distance spotting and increased radiated heat. Large flame lengths require larger corresponding safety zones. Crown fire activity/type was measured at the stand scale using existing and predicted post-treatment conditions for canopy base height and canopy bulk density (PF Doc. FF-001). Crown fire activity at landscape scale was completed using IFTDSS Landscape Fire Behavior Compare (PF Doc. FF-002).

Effects of the Alternatives – Wildfire Intensity

Page 39

Canopy base height is the lowest height above the ground where there is enough canopy fuel to transition a fire from the surface fuels on the ground into the tree crowns (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Therefore, canopy base heights are a critical factor in determining crown fire potential. Treatments to reduce fire hazard should focus on removing some or all the ladder fuels and other vegetation that contributes to a low canopy base height, especially where reducing crown fire initiation is a priority (Agee and Skinner 2005). Canopy base heights in the Honey Badger project area were determined through LANDFIRE data within IFTDSS and verified across the project area from on-site observations (PF Doc. FF-007). An estimated 95% of the landscape has a canopy base height of 5 feet or less; average canopy base height for the landscape was found to be less than 3 feet.

Canopy bulk density is the mass of available fuel per unit of canopy volume measured as kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3). It is a bulk property of a stand, not an individual tree (Scott and Reinhardt 2001)(Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Canopy bulk density is an important crown characteristic needed to predict crown fire spread, but it is a difficult characteristic to measure in the field (Keane et al. 2005). Canopy bulk densities were estimated using LANDFIRE National data within IFTSDSS. During model runs canopy bulk density were reduced by .05 kg/m3 within treatment areas to reflect effects harvest has on canopy fuels. Canopy bulk density estimates were not conducted during field reconnaissance, only observations of stands ability to support crown fire. The lower the canopy bulk density, the lower the potential for active crown fire. The current canopy bulk density in the Honey Badger project area ranges from 0.05 to 0.40 kg/m3 with the majority between .05 and .25 kg/m3. Active crown fire is more likely at lower critical spread rates with canopy bulk density levels above 0.05 kg/m3 (Scott and Reinhardt 2001).

There are three types of crown fire: active, passive and independent. Active crown fire (also called a running or continuous crown fire) is one in which the entire surface and canopy fuel complex is on fire, but the crowning phase remains dependent on heat from the surface fuels for continued spread. Active crown fires are characterized by a solid wall of flame extending from the fuel bed surface on the ground through the top of the canopy (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Passive crown fire (also called torching or candling) is when single trees or groups of trees torch out, but solid flame is not consistently maintained in the canopy (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Independent crown fire is on that burns in canopy fuels without the aid of a supporting surface fire. These type of crown fires are rare and short lived (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). The focus of this analysis is the active and passive crown fire types.

Crown fire or torching situation depends on the ability of fire to transition from the surface fuels into crowns through the ladder fuels. A torching situation is generally defined as one where tree crowns of large trees are ignited by the flames of a surface fire or flames from burning crowns of small trees that reach the larger trees (Figure 6). As surface flame lengths increase, the probability of fire transitioning into the crowns is increased.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 40

Figure 6. Passive crown fire behavior or torching (left) and active crown fire behavior (right).

Integrated Fire Hazard

Integrated hazard is a term unique to the Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS) model and is based on the combination of burn probability and conditional flame length into a single characteristic that can be mapped. Hazard is quantified and categorized in IFTDSS using the Landscape Burn Probability (LBP) model which considers the probability of a fire occurring and the intensity that fire would produce under extreme conditions (extreme 97th percentile) (PF Doc. FF-004)

The Forest Plan describes a large percentage of the total forested acres on the IPNF as having a high, very high, or extreme fire hazard (Forest Plan FEIS 109-110). Current wildfire hazard within Honey Badger project was determined from numerous sources, including but not limited to Forest Service wildfire hazard data, fire regime condition class information, and Idaho Department of Lands fire hazard risk information (2018). Based on wildfire hazard data, fire hazard risk assessments, and other sources, the Honey Badger project area is considered to be of high/very high fire hazard, as displayed on the project integrated wildfire hazard map (PF Doc. FF-012).

All of the fuel characteristics (fuel type, fuel loading, canopy base height, and canopy bulk density) interact to affect fire behavior. Desired fuel characteristics for this project are those that contribute to surface fire behavior rather than torching and active crown fire behavior. Less intense, desired surface fire behavior generally occurs when surface fuels are light, there are minimal ladder fuels, and overstory crowns are spaced to minimize fire spread from tree to tree. For this to occur, fuel loadings would typically be lower, canopy base height higher (ladder fuels), and canopy bulk density lower, and the result would be a different fuel type.

Integrated fire hazard is represented by modeling the percent of the project area with the middle to highest hazard. Maps and other fire hazard information is provided in the project files (PF Doc. FF-011, FF-012, FF-013).

Effects of the Alternatives – Wildfire Intensity

Page 41

Models and Information Sources

Models The Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS) was used to model fire behavior and identify integrated fire hazard for the Honey Badger project area. IFTDSS is a web-based application that integrates many common fire behavior and fire effects models (including LANDFIRE, Behave Plus and others) and enables users to develop fuels planning scenarios and export the results.

LANDFIRE is a program that delivers vegetation, fuel, disturbance, and fire regimes geospatial data products for the entire nation. Methods are based on peer-reviewed science from multiple fields. LANDFIRE provides data such as canopy bulk density which is difficult to measure in the field, fuel model data, and canopy base height. The data is then imported into ArcMap and is also available for use in fire modeling programs. LANDFIRE data was used to examine fuel model variance within Honey Badger project area over time.

The Behave Plus fire modeling system is a program that is a collection of models that describes fire behavior, fire effects, and the fire environment. Behave Plus was used to model fire behavior at the stand level using fuel models from existing condition and proposed activities, considering both fuel and weather conditions (extreme 97th percentile conditions) to create fire behavior variables (surface flame length, surface rate of spread, and crown fire type).

Information Sources Several sources of information were used to assess the existing conditions in the Honey Badger Project Area, including fire history, fire access, vegetation records, and field data. The fire history (PF Doc. FF-014) of the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District has been recorded and mapped by the Forest Service since its inception, including polygons of fires larger than five acres in size since 1894, as well as fire ignitions since 1986. Records of fire ignitions include the year, size, location, and cause of each fire reported (PF Doc. FF-008). Fire ignitions generally represent much smaller fires, so they are recorded on the fire history map only as points rather than polygons. As displayed on the Honey Badger fire history map(PF Doc. FF-014), significant large fires occurred in the Honey Badger project area in 1894 (6,586 acres), 1910 (2,445 acres), and 1927 (1,042 acres). Historic photos within project areas from 1935 display evidence of large-scale wildfire predating 1894 records. (PF Doc. FF-008).

Access for fire management was considered during the transportation analysis process conducted early in project development. Any activities that affect road management (such as road construction and road decommissioning) have been analyzed to determine potential effects to fire management. This analysis also considered existing vegetation conditions and anticipated effects from vegetation management activities under the proposed action (see Section 5.2).

Field data was collected on fuel characteristics at the Honey Badger project area. Stands were visited by fuels technicians and information was collected on the stand characteristics through notes and photos. Data was also collected on fuel loading, fuel composition, fuel model type and fire suppression concerns in the project area. Sampling areas were selected based on covering a range of elevation, aspects and cover types within proposed action harvest and prescribed fire treatments.

Two different data collection methods were used. One method used was the photoload sampling technique (Keane and Dickinson 2007). This method involves making visual estimates of fuel loading from a detailed sampling protocol. With the determination of fuel loading, fire behavior characteristics can be estimated, such as surface fire behavior. Fuel loading was used to verify fuel models. The second method consisted of walking through proposed treatment while noting observations of fuel conditions and taking photo points. No formal measurement of fuel loading was conducted. Information for both methods were recorded on data sheets which are available in the project file. (PF Doc. FF-007).

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 42

Spatial and Temporal Contexts The fire/fuels analysis is completed at different scales. Stand-level fire behavior indicators are used to portray the direct, local effects of vegetative treatments on fire and fuel characteristics and are reported at the stand level. Existing condition fuel models and stand condition are used to predict surface fire behavior to compare against proposed action conditions. Following a proposed treatment, vegetative condition and fuel structure will be altered creating a new fuel model and stand characteristics. These stand-level effects are a snapshot in time with limitations contained within the models. Landscape level fire behavior indicators were modeled one year following treatment, including using prescribed fire to follow harvest treatments. See PF Doc. FF-006 for model assumptions and limitations.

The cumulative effects area used for the fire/fuels analysis is the same as the project area boundary because this boundary follows major ridgelines or stream bottoms which are topographical features that could act as a barrier to wildland fire. Activities that are relevant to the cumulative effects analysis for the fire/fuels resource are those that modify fuels and vegetation or have the potential to affect fires and fire behavior across the project area. Timber harvest, landscape burning and current ongoing fuels reduction (Kootenai Fuels project) affect stand structure, species composition and fuel loading and thus are relevant to the wildfire intensity analysis. Fire management activities such as prescribed burning and wildfire suppression, as well as past wildfires are also important in assessing cumulative effects. Past and present road construction can be a barrier to fire spread and therefore is also relevant in this analysis. Recreational use in the project area is heavy, especially the Canfield Mountain recreation area; heavier use increases the risk of human-caused fires. The fire history map displays multiple human-caused ignitions in the Canfield Mountain Area, specifically 91 human ignitions from 1986-2019 within project area (Honey Badger fire history map, PF Doc. FF-014). Additionally, there is significant risk of human caused wildfires originating on private lands and spreading onto federally protected lands.

Effects to Wildfire Intensity

Table 15. Summary comparison of effects to wildfire intensity. Indicator No Action Proposed Action

Fuel treatments No timber harvest or prescribed burning would occur under this project. With vegetative growth and mortality over time, the trend would be toward heavier fuel loading.

Vegetation treatments (timber harvest and natural fuels burning) would occur on a total 17,820 acres, substantially reducing surface, ladder and crown fuels.

Predicted trends in surface flame lengths

An estimated 86% of the project area would exhibit flame lengths greater than 4 feet during summer burning conditions (Figure 2).

The percentage of the landscape with flame lengths greater than 4 feet would be reduced to 55% (Figure 2).

Predicted potential for crown fire activity

No improvement. An estimated 87% of the project area would exhibit potential for crown fire.

Substantial improvement. The percentage of the project area exhibiting potential for crown fire would be reduced to 55%.

Integrated fire hazard Approximately 69% of the project area would be of middle to highest hazard.

Approximately 33% of the project area would be of middle to highest hazard.

No Action Alternative Direct effects to anticipated wildfire intensity would be absent under the no-action alternative because no activities are proposed to change vegetation or fuel conditions. The continued loss of species such as ponderosa pine and western larch would continue to lead to forests that are less resilient to fire, meaning that they could experience more pronounced fire effects and an increased amount of mortality associated with a wildfire.

Effects of the Alternatives – Wildfire Intensity

Page 43

With vegetative growth and mortality over time, the trend would be toward heavier fuel loading which in turn have a greater potential for higher surface flame lengths, more torching and active crown fire behavior into the future relative to the action alternative. Most of the project area (86%) would exhibit flame lengths greater than 4 feet during summer burning conditions (Figure 7).

The presence of multi-layered (or continuous) canopies and dense crowns in the project area increase the chance of crown fires that are difficult to control. Canopy base height would remain at 3 feet or less, and canopy bulk density would remain at higher levels as canopy biomass would increase with time. The potential for extreme fire activity (crown fire) would not be reduced in the project area. An estimated 87% of the project area would exhibit potential for crown fire.

The percent of the area identified as middle to highest integrated hazard would be at 69 percent. With greater wildfire intensities, fire behavior characteristics could be such that fires resist control or containment putting public and firefighter safety at greater risk. There would be no progress toward meeting forest plan desired conditions in the project area – no reduction in potential fire behavior to improve public and fire fighter safety, no increase in the use of fire to trend vegetation toward a resilient landscape, and no contribution to fuel treatment objectives on national forest system lands (PF Doc. PD-001).

Proposed Action Alternative Harvest and prescribed burning activities would alter the fuels environment at all levels by reducing overall fuel loading, reducing ladder fuels (increasing canopy base height), reducing canopy bulk density, and increasing the spacing of canopy fuels. Harvest units would result in a short-term increase in surface fuels and fire behavior until slash is treated. Piles at landings are typically burned in the fall after summer logging; slash within a unit is typically treated the following spring or fall (one year later). Post-harvest treatments such as prescribed burning and harvest timing would be used to reduce the risk associated with slash within Honey Badger project area.

Fuel treatments would decrease surface, ladder, and crown fuels such that lower surface flame lengths (Figure 7) would be expected to prevent fire from reaching the canopy through torching (Cochrane et al. 2012). If torching into the canopy did occur, spacing between tree crowns would make spread from tree to tree unlikely. Following an initial mechanical treatment, using prescribed fire is considered one of the best methods to reduce surface fuels and modify fire behavior (Graham et al. 1999).

Large scale stand-replacing wildfires are becoming more and more common, often transitioning from forest directly into communities. Larger patches and high homogeneity tend to foster more continuous crown and surface fuels, which can then burn in large fires (Keane et al. 2002). Fire behavior and severity depend on fuel properties like fuel continuity (Graham et al. 2004). Large landscape-scale treatments have the greatest potential for disrupting wildfire growth and movement. Treatment scale and scope must meet the need of the current fire environment.

In a study of actual wildfire behavior, Finney et al (2005) noted that fire severity decreased more in larger treatment units as compared to smaller ones and decreased more as one went from untreated areas further into areas that had been treated(Finney et al. 2005). Small and scattered fuels treatments are less effective at fragmenting fuel loads across a landscape and may be overwhelmed by intense fires burning in adjacent areas (Agee and Skinner 2005). Graham et al (2004) concluded that treating small or isolated stands without addressing the broader landscape will most likely be ineffective in reducing wildfire extent and severity.

Under the proposed action, approximately 76% of the proposed landscape (fuels) burning and 65% of the proposed vegetation treatments would occur within the wildland urban interface. The proposed regeneration harvests would create large openings (greater than 40 acres in size) within project area, resulting in a mosaic pattern where fuel continuity and extreme fire behavior is reduced.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 44

The proposed action would result in a decrease in potential acres of crown fire, thereby decreasing the severity of fires, with the most noticeable reduction in stand-replacing fires versus mixed and low-severity fires. Canopy base height would increase on treated areas to 20 feet and higher. Canopy bulk density would decrease on treated acres. The percentage of the project area exhibiting potential for crown fire would be reduced to 55%.

Overall, wildfire hazard would be reduced across the project area. As displayed on the Integrated Hazard maps (PF Doc. FF-012, FF-013), the percent of the area identified as middle to highest integrated hazard would decrease from 69 percent to 33 percent.

With lighter fuel loading, the combination of prescribed burning and timber harvesting would help reduce flame lengths and lower fire intensity, resulting in the type of fire behavior that can be more easily managed, with safer conditions for firefighters and the public, helping to accomplish restoration goals, objectives, and desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan. Prescribed burning (in both harvested and unharvested areas) would also help meet the Forest Plan desired condition to return fire to the landscape, maintain or enhance forest resilience, and help manage wildlife habitat, as described on the Forest Plan worksheet (PF Doc. PD-001).

Past and current vegetation management activities have altered fuel characteristics and the resulting fire environment, as would activities proposed in the Honey Badger project area. Vegetation treatments that reduce fuels will not stop or prevent wildfires from spreading ((Finney and Cohen)). However, by modifying fuels utilizing prescribed burning and timber harvesting, wildfire flame lengths and intensity is lowered within treatment areas. Therefore, the combined effects of recent and ongoing vegetation management (for example, the Deerfoot and Kootenai Fuels Reduction projects, as well as fuel reduction activities conducted by Kootenai County on adjacent private lands) in combination with effects of vegetation management under the Honey Badger project would result in fire behavior that can be more easily managed, with safer conditions for firefighters and the public, helping to accomplish restoration goals, objectives, and desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan.

Figure 7. Percent of the Honey Badger project area in each flame length class, by alternative.

1

12

13

33

13

12

9

7

25

16

39

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

No Action

Proposed Action

Percent of project area in each flame length class 0-1 foot >1-4 feet >4-8 feet >8-11 feet >11-25 feet >25 feet

Effects of the Alternatives – Water Quality

Page 45

5.4 Water Quality

Introduction The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the IPNF Revised Land Management Plan included an assessment of Watershed, Riparian, Aquatic Habitat and Aquatic Species (FEIS, Chapter 3, pages 156-209) with a comprehensive discussion of existing conditions for watersheds and species. The FEIS also documented the analysis of effects to these resources from roads, vegetation management, recreation, and fire and fuels management (pages 198-206).

This analysis tiers to the Forest Plan FEIS in its entirety and specifically pages 198-206, which address effects of the revised Plan. This analysis does not revisit the information presented in the Forest Plan and focuses only on potential effects on hydrologic and fisheries resources associated with implementing the proposed activities in the Honey Badger project.

Methodology The objective of the analysis is to disclose the potential effects on aquatic resources as a result of implementing, or not implementing, proposed activities in the Honey Badger project area. The analysis of effects was based upon scientific modeling, field reviews, literature and office reviews.

Issue Indicators and Measures The following table lists the resource indicators and measures for the hydrology analysis.

Table 16. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to aquatic resources. Issue Indicators/Measures

Sediment delivery Qualitative discussion on the estimated change in sediment delivery to project area streams

Water temperature Qualitative discussion on how water temperature may be affected by changes in streamside vegetation and sediment delivery

Fish and fish habitat

Qualitative discussion how changes in sediment delivery and water temperature may affect fish and their habitat

Sediment delivery and water temperature were chosen as indicators not only as a way to show effects of the alternatives pertaining to the objective, but also as a way to illustrate project compliance with the Clean Water Act and Idaho State water quality laws, as discussed in the Regulatory Framework and Compliance section.

Literature and Office Review Background and supporting information for this report was gathered from Forest Service fish and hydrology files, geographic information system data, historical records, aerial photographs, and published and unpublished scientific literature. Research for this project included discussions with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). Their website (https://mapcase.deq.idaho.gov/wq2020/default.html) provides access to locational (GIS) data mapping and information reported to the EPA for 305(b) and 303(d) under the federal Clean Water Act. Mapping is based on Idaho’s 2018/2020 Integrated Report. Also, a transportation analysis process (PF Doc.TRAN-008) was completed that assessed the current transportation system and provided recommendations for long-term road management objectives within the project area.

Field Reviews Numerous site visits and field trips occurred within the analysis and project areas. Observations made during these trips added to current knowledge of the area. Roads and streams within the project area were surveyed during the 2017-2019 field seasons by the project hydrologist, fish biologist and trained biological technicians. Road surveys were conducted over 170 miles of open, administrative, and decommissioned roads

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 46

to collect the necessary data for the road modeling as well as assess for erosional hazards and risks to aquatic ecosystems. Existing stream conditions were used to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed actions on the stream environment and utilized historic and current data from recent USFS surveys.

Models and Information Sources Scientific models are used in this analysis as representations of different project area conditions so that predicted effects of the action alternatives can be compared with the current condition. There are many scientific models available; the following models used were chosen based upon best available science and the data available. Further detail of the models can be found in the project record as well as at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/.

Sediment Delivery Forest Service Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) online interface tools were used to compare sediment delivery from physical disturbance such as harvesting, roads, and prescribed burning. The WEPP model is a physically based soil erosion model that provides estimates of soil erosion and sediment yield considering site-specific information about soil texture, climate, ground cover, and topographic settings (Elliot et al. 2000). The WEPP models were the appropriate choice for use in this analysis because after being launched two decades ago, they have been continually refined, improved, and expanded upon (Miller 2014, (Elliot 2004).

Roads that tend to have the greatest direct effect on stream channels and fish habitat are those that are closest to stream channels or frequently intersect streams, and on soils and slopes where sediment is readily produced and delivered to fish habitats. For the project area analysis, roads located within 300 feet of a channel were modeled for sediment delivery. Brushed-in administrative roads not containing culverts were not included in the modeling due to their highly vegetated state, lack of active erosion processes documented during field reviews, no channel crossings, and being located more than 300 feet from live water. Research conducted on the IPNF indicates that thick duff, vegetation, and moss layers found on brushed-in roads protects the surface from erosion (Foltz et al. 2009). There are additional roads located in the spatial bounds of the project (see Spatial and Temporal Context, below), but these were not included in the analysis because it is expected that there would be no change in the sediment contribution under either the no-action or proposed action alternatives, and would therefore not provide information that would be helpful to the decision maker.

Water Temperature Elevated stream temperatures can result from both natural and human-caused events. Land management (human activity) can increase stream temperatures by removing vegetation along streambanks, which reduces the amount of shade over the water thereby increasing the amount of solar radiation reaching the stream. Stream temperature can also be elevated by excessive sedimentation (i.e., build-up of boulders, rocks, gravel, sand, dirt, and silt), which results in a stream becoming wider and shallower, making it harder to shade and easier to heat. Sediment is a natural part of a stream system, but land management activities such as road building and timber removal can increase the amount of sediment entering a stream, delivering higher amounts of sediment than the stream can handle.

Fisheries The fisheries analysis utilized the road and unit cards (PF Doc. PD-015 and PD-016), forest plan spreadsheet (PF Doc. PD-001), hydrology analysis described above) and district files (for historical information). The effects to fish and their habitat are described based on changes in sediment delivery and water temperature.

Effects of the Alternatives – Water Quality

Page 47

Spatial and Temporal Contexts

Spatial Context The aquatics analysis area includes relevant sixth-level hydrologic unit code (HUC) subwatersheds (hereafter referred to as watersheds). The Honey Badger project occurs within nine watersheds (Table 17); however, the bulk (77 percent) of the project is located within just four watersheds: Sage Creek, Hayden Creek, Yellowbanks Creek-Hayden Lake, and Fernan Lake. The other five watersheds have a small amount of proposed activity acres (timber harvest, thinning, burning, and fuels treatments) and minimal road work in each, which is negligible compared with the size of the watersheds. As designed, applying best management practices and direction of the Inland Native Fish Strategy, effects in the other five watersheds would be negligible and will not be discussed further.

Effects at the project area level were also considered because it helps identify localized effects that might be missed at the watershed scale or to determine project effects when data was not available at the watershed scale.

Table 17. Watersheds and proposed activities relevant to the Honey Badger water quality analysis. Watershed Area (acres) Proposed timber/

fuels activities (acres)

Proposed timber/ fuels activities

(% of the watershed) Sage Creek 38,362 3,671 10 Hayden Creek 17,985 7,837 44 Yellowbanks Creek – Hayden Lake 23,193 3,687 16 Fernan Lake 20,844 1,471 7

Temporal Context Past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the activity area and within the watersheds were considered for the cumulative effects. Ground-disturbing projects older than 1960 were not included, partly because more reliable record keeping started after 1960, and partly because effects diminish over time and the effects of timber harvest activities that occurred prior to that year would currently have minimal effects on water quality. Cumulative effects were considered out fifteen years from implementation to allow all project-related activities such as timber harvest, road work, and tree planting to be completed. This timeframe was selected because the probability of erosion decreases several years after disturbance as vegetation recovers (Elliot 2004).

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 48

Effects to Aquatics

Summary Comparison of Effects

Table 18. Summary comparison of effects to aquatic resources in the Honey Badger project area. Resource Indicator

No Action Proposed Action

Sediment delivery

There would be no proposed activities, therefore there would be no effects to current sediment delivery. Total sediment delivery modeled in the four relevant watersheds is approximately 1,130,000 pounds per year. Natural processes would drive decreases in sediment delivery, which would be offset by chronic delivery from roads and episodic pulses as culverts fail.

Road maintenance, storage and decommissioning would address sediment delivery related issues. Total sediment delivery modeled in the four relevant watersheds would be approximately 363,500 pounds per year. During and shortly after disturbance of road prisms there would be a short-term increase in sediment delivery, however over the long-term these activities would decrease the amount of delivered sediment, consistent with Forest Plan guidelines (FW-GDL-WTR-01, FW-GDL-WTR-02).

Water temperature

There would be no proposed activities, therefore there would be no effect to current water temperatures. Over the long-term, riparian roads not open to public motorized use would revegetate and slowly provide shade which would help decrease water temperature.

No timber harvest would occur within riparian areas. Activities would address sediment delivery as addressed above, thus water temperature is expected to be maintained or improve as sediment delivery decreases, trending toward desired conditions (FW-DC-AQH-05).

Fish and fish habitat

There would be no proposed activities, therefore there would be no effects to fish and their habitat. Natural processes overlain with road derived sediment and riparian vegetation condition would drive the quality of fish habitat.

Over the long-term the decrease in sediment delivery and improved riparian condition would maintain or increase the quality of fish habitat, trending toward desired conditions (FW-DC-AQS-01). This would also meet direction under the Inland Native Fish Strategy (FW-STD-RIP-03).

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative would not result in any new agency actions and therefore no effects from the Honey Badger Project to actively affect water quality and watershed function beyond existing conditions. Current activities such as dispersed recreation and motorized vehicle use would continue to affect water quality and watershed function. Sediment contributions from roads would remain unchanged from the existing condition. Regular road maintenance activities would continue to repair areas that compromise human health and safety or preclude administrative use. On roads not open to public motorized use, and therefore not regularly maintained, chronic sediment inputs to the creeks would continue unabated in the short and long term. Episodic sediment inputs from culvert failures would possibly increase in the future as more and more of the culverts on administrative roads are plugged by debris, get damaged from storms, and fall into general disrepair from lack of maintenance.

Delaying harvest in overstocked timber stands could result in an increase in tree mortality and fuel build-up in the long term. Continued fuel loading would increase the risk of high intensity wildfires that could kill most of the overstory vegetation in both upland and riparian areas.(Spigel and Robichaud 2007) report that post-fire erosion from watersheds can range from 0.1 to 38 tons per hectare per year depending on fire intensity, terrain, and climate. Increased runoff combined with a lack of vegetative cover to protect soils following a fire would lead to excessive short-term sediment delivery and consequent adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitats.

The no action alternative would not include timber harvests to manipulate forest conditions, fuel treatments or road decommissioning; thus, no new direct or indirect effects to project area floodplains would occur.

Effects of the Alternatives – Water Quality

Page 49

Implementation of this no action alternative would result in the slowest recovery rate of water temperatures in the project area. Shade within the riparian corridors would begin to move towards natural conditions, but at a rate slower than the proposed action, due to no road decommissioning within the riparian zone. Plant vigor and composition in the riparian zone would be expected to increase and contribute more shade as these areas recover from past treatments. The rate of progression and anticipated temperature changes would be slow and vary in time depending on the existing condition of the watershed including soils, vegetation, continuing activities, and intensity of past activities.

This alternative does not treat roads through maintenance, storage, or decommissioning. Not treating riparian roads affects riparian vegetation, channel width and sediment levels, which can affect water temperature. Not treating riparian roads would slow or locally prevent stream channels from progressively adjusting their form and function towards natural conditions, which in turn would slow stream temperature decreases. Not treating road/stream crossings increases the risk of structure failure and erosion of road material. This lack of road treatments meaning this alternative would have a higher likelihood of negatively affecting streams and water temperature than the proposed action. Fish habitat would slowly improve in quality as sediment delivery decreases, leading to complex stream habitats, riparian vegetation increases in vigor, leading to decreased water temperature, increased overhead shading and terrestrial inputs to streams.

With no direct or indirect effects from activity there would be no cumulative effect to aquatic resources.

In conclusion, the no-action alternative would not harvest timber, apply fuel treatments or decommission roads. No effects would occur to water temperature and improvements over existing conditions would rely on natural recovery. As streams moved towards more natural form and function, shade levels would increase and sediment levels would decrease; the overall watershed health and quality of fish habitat would increase. This alternative provides the slowest rate of recovery.

Proposed Action Alternative The effects of roads, timber harvest and prescribed fire are described on pages 198-202 of the Forest Plan FEIS. These effects are anticipated to occur within the project area because the proposed actions were designed to be compliant with the forest plan. Unpaved roads are typically the most common source of sediment to streams on National Forest System lands; roads in riparian areas create a loss of vegetation which influences water temperature and these two effects contribute to decreased habitat quality for fish.

Under implementation of the proposed action, the total miles of roads within the project area would decrease due to decommissioning (Table 3); none of the routes proposed for decommissioning are currently open to public motorized use. Decommissioning and storing roads would reduce sediment delivery to streams at a faster rate than relying on natural processes which are tempered by chronic and episodic delivery of road derived sediment. Water temperature conditions would improve over the next 20 years as shade in the riparian corridor increases. Old harvest units and riparian stands would mature, and administrative riparian roads would become overgrown which creates more shade thus lowering water temperatures.

The combination of effects of the proposed action with past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities would result in an overall net decrease in long-term sediment delivery to project area streams as a result of road maintenance, storage, and decommissioning. There may be a short-term negative effect (2-3 years) but over the long-term the proposed action and evaluated effects (reduced overall sediment delivery, decreased water temperature, increased shading of streams, and reduced risk of high intensity high severity fire) are anticipated to improve conditions for streams and fish habitat. These anticipated trends are consistent with effects described in the Forest Plan FEIS (pages 22, 197), and with desired conditions, objectives and goals for watersheds and aquatic habitat described in the Forest Plan (PF Doc. PD-001).

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 50

5.5 Sustainable Recreation Trails

Introduction The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the IPNF Revised Land Management Plan (USDA-FS 2015) included an assessment of recreation (FEIS, Chapter 3, pages 419-453), with a comprehensive discussion of trail objectives, conditions, use, management, and recreation setting. The FEIS also documented the analysis of effects to access and recreation from vegetation management, and fire and fuels management (pages 449-451).

As documented in the Record of Decision (page 12) for the revised Plan, Alternative B Modified was selected for implementation, in part, because it emphasizes maintaining diverse, high-quality outdoor recreation opportunities as well as a road and trail system that provides access to the IPNF.

Located in the mountains just east or southeast of the communities of Bayview, Hayden, Dalton, Coeur d’Alene, and others, the Honey Badger project area is in an urban influence setting. Most visits to the area are day visits, and existing trails are popular for a wide variety of uses. The project area encompasses the 1,835-acre Canfield Mountain Primary Recreation Area, well known for trails that provide opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, mountain bikes, dirt bikes, ATVs, OHVs, and full-sized vehicles. Currently, about half of the 38 miles of single-track trails in the Canfield area need minor to major rerouting, rehabilitation, or heavy maintenance for long-term sustainability of these motorized trails. Within the Canfield area are opportunities to develop loop trails for expanded recreation opportunities and to decommission both system and user-created non-system trails that are causing resource degradation. Both actions would help achieve forestwide desired conditions and meet goals and objectives for access and recreation.

This analysis tiers to the Forest Plan FEIS in its entirety and specifically pages 419-453, which address the Access and Recreation analysis. This analysis does not revisit the information presented in the Forest Plan and focuses only on potential effects on recreation associated with implementing the proposed activities in the Honey Badger project area.

Methodology

Issue Indicators and Measures

Table 19. Resource indicators and measures for assessing project level effects to recreation. Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure

Recreation infrastructure and opportunities

Proposed timber harvest and associated activities may affect site conditions and opportunities for developed and dispersed recreation and activities.

Miles of recreation roads and trails and locations of recreation sites affected by project activities, particularly timber harvest, road construction, road decommissioning, and log hauling.

Recreation quality and user experience

Operations on and adjacent to open roads and trails and near developed sites may affect recreation quality and user experience.

Qualitative assessment of the extent to which recreation infrastructure, character, user satisfaction, and range of recreation opportunities are affected by project activities.

Models and Information Sources Determination of existing conditions of and effects to recreation infrastructure, activities and opportunities are derived from Geographic Information System (GIS) databases of road and trail mileages, trail and facilities inventories and maintenance work, observations pre- and post-fire and from field season to field season by recreation specialists and other technical personnel, and contact with recreation user groups and individuals.

Effects of the Alternatives – Sustainable Recreation Trails

Page 51

A map of the trail system under the proposed action (PF Doc. REC-001) is provided on the Honey Badger Project website, with specific trail information in the project file (PF Doc. REC-002).

Spatial and Temporal Contexts The analysis area for recreation resources follows the project area boundary. Effects to recreation from activities proposed under the project are described as short term (within approximately 5 years of project completion), mid-term (approximately 5-20 years after project initiation) and long term (more than 20 years after project initiation).

Effects to Trails Infrastructure and Experience

Summary Comparison of Effects This section discloses the environmental impacts of the proposed action.

Table 20. Summary comparison of effects to recreation infrastructure and experience. Indicator No Action Proposed Action

Recreation infrastructure and opportunities: Proposed timber harvest and associated activities may affect site conditions and opportunities for developed and dispersed recreation and activities.

There would be no proposed activities, therefore there would be no direct effects to current recreation infrastructure or opportunities. However, over the long term, continued erosion and disrepair of trails would cause decrease in trail quality, possibly forcing closures of heavily used and high demand trails. Access to trails and available opportunities could therefore be substantially reduced.

The work to be completed under the proposed action would effectively bring the recreation trails within the project area up to agency standards through repairs, maintenance, and realignments, increasing their sustainability and ease of upkeep. Following the project and over the long term, trail systems within the project area would be better able to handle the current and predicted increased use by having better quality trails, with more loop opportunities, and increased miles of trail for multiple user types.

Recreation quality and user experience: Operations on and adjacent to open roads and trails and near developed sites may affect recreation quality and user experience.

There would be no proposed activities, therefore there would be no direct effects to recreation quality and user experience. However, over the long term, continued erosion and disrepair of trails would cause a decrease in the usability of many trails to a point that they would be unrideable for the majority of the recreating public and possibly pose unnecessary safety risks. Opportunities for semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized experiences would be significantly decreased.

The proposed action would effectively increase the overall quality of the trails themselves and their interconnectivity and navigation and ease of use of the trails system by increasing protected single and multiple-use loops and updating informational and navigational signs. Following the project and over the long term, trail systems within the project area would better be able to handle larger numbers of recreators, increasing opportunities for semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized experiences, reducing user conflicts by allowing more users to spread out over the system on trails more suited to their activity.

Table 21. Changes to miles of trail available by use in the project area. Recreation Use No Action Proposed Action Net Change

Nonmotorized (estimated miles) 6 18 +12 Single track motorized (miles) 46 47 +1 Less than 50 inches wide motorized (miles) 29 41 +12

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects No-Action Alternative No changes to trails would occur under the no-action alternative, therefore there would be no immediate impacts to recreation infrastructure or user experience associated with the proposed action. There would be no

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 52

change in the trail miles available to nonmotorized or motorized uses. Over the long term, trail congestion and conflicts between uses would continue and likely increase over time. With limited funding and staffing, maintenance would continue to difficult. With increased use and no improvement in maintenance levels, the quality of trails would continue to decrease, likely leading to an increase in illegally pioneered routes and the negative impacts to resources associated with those routes.

No vegetation or fuels management activities would occur, so there would continue to be a decline in forest health and an increased risk of catastrophic fire (see Sections 5.2 and 5.3 in this environmental assessment). Increased wildfire intensity could create a more visible and long-lasting change to the recreation setting and cause a shift in recreation use (Forest Plan FEIS, page 451).

Proposed Action Alternative As displayed in Table 21, the proposed combination of trail construction, reconstruction, decommissioning and redesignation would result in increase in mileage available to each of the user groups, ranging from one mile (single-track motorized) to 12 miles (nonmotorized and less than 50 inches wide). Work under the proposed action would increase total miles of accessible trails within the project area by adding new trails while removing trails sections that are effectively non-sustainable or inaccessible. Non-sustainable trails and trail sections would be replaced with minor reroutes and potentially sustainable sections would be repaired and maintained. Cherry-stemmed trails would be looped or extended and connected to new or existing trails to allow users more opportunities to have continuous route to travel rather than having to go out and back. Trails would be routed and organized to provide nested loops. Additionally, trail signage would be completely updated and installed to aid recreators in planning and finding their way through the newly improved trail system, as well as aiding emergency first responders.

In the high-use Canfield Mountain trail system, approximately12 new miles of non-motorized trails would be added away from new and existing motorized trails, providing new, non-motorized recreation opportunities, and reducing conflicts between use groups. Twelve new miles of <50” motorized trails would be added to the current 35 miles to eliminate numerous cherry-stemmed trails, provide access from the new Jungleberry Landing trailhead, and to provide a new <50” vehicle loop that encompasses the entire Canfield Trail system. This loop would also be utilized by trail maintenance and emergency crews to maintain the system.

Lastly, single-track trails in the project area would increase overall by one mile to 47 miles total. While not a large increase overall, the sustainability and access of entire single-track motorized trail system on Canfield would be addressed. The proposed action would allow an opportunity to eliminate trails that are non-sustainable and would allow potentially sustainable trails to be repaired to increase their quality, sustainability, and would help provide long-term access to the recreating public. In addition, approximately two new miles of single-track motorized trail would be installed to connect Hells Canyon Trail #243 to Forest Service Road #406 to provide a new loop opportunity.

As described in the Forest Plan FEIS (page 449), timber harvest has the potential to affect recreation experiences and opportunities in several ways. Short-term effects may include increased noise and dust levels; the sight of landscapes altered by differing types of harvesting; the presence of slash piles, burned areas, and road constructed for timber sales; and conflicts with logging trucks on roads used by other drivers or by bicyclists. Users may be temporarily displaced to other locations because of log truck traffic, helicopter operations, and noise from chainsaws or other equipment. Winter hauling of logs is neither proposed nor prohibited; if that were to occur, recreation could be affected by the removal of snow for winter log hauling from roads frequented by snowmobilers, cross-country skiers, and snowshoers. In addition to these effects, large openings resulting from even-aged timber harvest would increase sight distance for recreationists in the area, and help keep trail surfaces dry, making them easier to maintain and more sustainable over the long term.

Effects of the Alternatives – Economic Feasibility and Contributions

Page 53

Effects of fuels reduction activities would be similar to those for vegetation management (Forest Plan FEIS, page 451). The combination of timber harvest and fuels reduction would reduce hazardous fuels and improve resilience to fire, which would move forested stands towards more characteristic fire severity (see Sections 5.2 and 5.3 in this environmental assessment). Improving forest health and reducing severity of potential wildfires would continue to provide a setting with a variety of recreation opportunities as described by the Forest Plan.

The amount of public motorized road access would not change. Roads constructed for long-term forest management would be for administrative use only, and proposed road decommissioning is generally comprised of several old, short road stubs in stream bottoms, not currently open to public motorized use. For additional discussion of project transportation planning, refer to the proposed action description (Section 4).

The cumulative impacts of the proposed action would increase the long-term sustainability of the district’s recreation trail program both in and out of the project area due to less demands on budget and personnel used to maintain the trails repaired under this project. Increased sustainability gained in this project will protect the trails from unnecessary damage and reduce needed maintenance at both current and increased use levels as population and use continues to grow.

5.6 Economic Feasibility and Contributions

Introduction Management of natural resources has the potential to affect local economies by contributing income and supporting employment in surrounding communities. In addition, national forest system resource sales and other land contracts generate revenues that can be returned to the Federal treasury or used to fund additional land and forest improvements targeting ecosystems, watersheds, and forest health.

While the Honey Badger project was initiated to address forest health and wildfire risk concerns and not primarily for economic benefit, the Forest Plan identifies goals, desired conditions, and objectives related to the importance of providing a sustainable level of timber products for current and future generations, and contributing to an economically viable forest products industry (GOAL-TBR-01, GOAL-SES-01, FW-DC-TBR-01, FW-DC-SES-01, FW-DC-SES-02, FW-DC-SES-03, and FW-OBJ-TBR-01). Forest management activities would contribute to the local economy and to the sustainability of the local forest products industry, helping to accomplish restoration goals, objectives, and desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan.

Methodology Issue Indicators and Measures

Table 22. Resource indicators and measures for assessing economic effects. Indicator Measure

Economic impact Estimated jobs and income supported, and revenue to local economies Economic feasibility Likelihood that harvested timber would be likely to sell, and that sufficient funds would be

generated through timber sales and other funding sources to implement restoration activities

Models and Information Sources The Forest Plan FEIS included an assessment of contributions to employment and income (FEIS, pages 625-631) under each alternative considered. As documented in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the revised Plan, Alternative B Modified was selected for implementation, in part, because it would contribute to economic and social needs of people, cultures, and communities, with an increase in jobs and income helping to maximize the net benefit to the public. This analysis tiers to the Forest Plan FEIS Appendix B in its entirety and

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 54

specifically pages B-45 through B-49, which address the economic analysis process and values placed on non-consumptive items such as recreation opportunities, community stability, cultural resources, habitats, and populations. This economic analysis does not revisit the information presented in the Forest Plan and focuses only on potential economic return and economic feasibility associated with implementing the proposed activities in the Honey Badger project area.

Economic impact: The analysis of economic impact measures the effects primarily by employment and income supported within the economy of the geographic area most affected by the project. The extent to which the proposed action would contribute economically to local communities in terms of jobs, income, and revenue depends largely upon revenues and costs.

Annual economic outlook reports for the forest products industry in Idaho are produced by the University of Idaho and the University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER). These reports use economic data from the Forest Industries Data Collection System and the Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) model to quantify growth, trends, and changes in the Forest Products Industry. Findings from these reports were used in this analysis to estimate the anticipated economic returns of the proposed activities within the analysis area, quantified by the amount of employment or revenue that results from every 1 million board feet (MMBF) of timber harvested. The information in Table 23 is from Idaho’s Forest Products Industry Current Conditions and 2016 Forecast (Cook et al. 2016).

Table 23. Estimated economic return per MMBF of timber harvested. Economic Return Jobs per million board feet (MMBF)

Forest products industry jobs created or sustained 20 jobs per 1 MMBF Revenue to communities through wages and salaries $667,000 per 1 MMBF Revenue to communities through sales of goods and services $3,850,000 per 1 MMBF

Economic feasibility: When identifying potential treatment areas, consideration is given to project feasibility, that is, whether harvested timber would be expected to sell, given current market conditions. Market conditions fluctuate over time, and availability of funding to support restoration activities may come from a number of sources. Feasibility generally considers appraised value and present net value of the project, which are based on timber volume and implementation costs.

This economic feasibility analysis is not required nor intended to be a comprehensive analysis that incorporates monetary expressions of all known market and non-market benefits and costs. Economic feasibility can be reasonably predicted based on recent data and market trends (PF Doc. ECON-03, ECON-04, ECON-05, ECON-06, ECON-07, ECON-08, ECON-09).

Spatial and Temporal Context The Honey Badger project is located on the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District of the IPNF, within Kootenai County, Idaho. Five counties (Shoshone, Kootenai, Bonner, Boundary, and Benewah) were identified in the analysis as the appropriate multi-county area to include in the economic analysis because they are the counties that have the potential to be economically affected by this project. Socioeconomic information about each of these counties is provided in the project file (PF Doc. ECON-001).

Timber harvest and restoration activities associated with the project would begin in approximately 2023 and would likely last about 7 to 10 years. Reforestation would be completed after harvest activities and may take three to five years to accomplish.

Effects of the Alternatives – Economic Feasibility and Contributions

Page 55

Effects to Economic Feasibility and Contributions

Summary Comparison of Effects With no forest restoration activities and no associated sale of timber, the no action alternative would not contribute to the economy of local communities. In contrast, the proposed action would be expected to have a positive effect on communities by supporting jobs and income for local communities.

No-Action Alternative The no-action alternative has no costs associated with implementation, since it would not harvest timber, reduce fuels, implement best management practices on haul routes, improve trail sustainability, or take other restorative actions and, therefore, incurs no financial costs. It would also produce no revenue and would not contribute to the local economy through jobs or income. Insect and disease mortality would continue to spread, further decreasing recoverable economic timber value; the decline in timber harvest from National Forest System lands could potentially impact wood product employment and associated indirect and induced employment.

Based on the above, the no-action alternative would not respond to Forest Plan components applicable to economic contributions to community stability (GOAL-TBR-01, GOAL-SES-01, FW-DC-TBR-01, FW-DC-SES-01, FW-DC-SES-02, FW-DC-SES-03, and FW-OBJ-TBR-01).

Proposed Action Alternative Through commercial timber sales and other contracts, activities proposed to address forest health would support jobs and income while creating products for use, both nationally and locally (GOAL-TBR-01, GOAL-SES-01, FW-DC-TBR-01, FW-DC-SES-01, FW-DC-SES-02, FW-DC-SES-03, and FW-OBJ-TBR-01). Based on the anticipated timber volume, the proposed action would be expected to support multiple (possibly 5-7) timber sales implemented over a period of about 7 to 10 years beginning in 2023, as well as implementing the proposed restoration activities. Reforestation would be completed after harvest activities and may take three to five years to accomplish.

Using the findings of Cook et al, referenced in Table 23, the potential economic returns from implementing the proposed action can be predicted based on the estimated volume of the proposed timber sale (Table 24). Since the work would occur over time, the estimated impacts of jobs and revenue would be spread out over the life of the project. These may not be new jobs or sources of income, but rather jobs and income that are supported by this project.

Table 24. Estimated economic return of the proposed action over the life of the project. No Action Proposed Action

Estimated volume (million board feet – mmbf) 0 204 Estimated forest products industry jobs supported 0 4,080 Estimated revenue to communities through wages/salaries $0 $136,068,000 Estimated revenue to communities through sale of goods and services $0 $785,400,000

In addition to jobs and income, timber sales would generate receipts to fund restoration work. Additional funding is available through stewardship contracts, grants, partnerships, and other programs, such as the Great American Outdoors Act, Land and Water Conservation Fund, and challenge cost-share programs. Contracts associated with other proposed activities (to reduce wildfire risk, improve water quality, make trails more sustainable, and improve roads) could also benefit the local economy. Timber products would be available for use both nationally and locally. Based on anticipated timber volume, market trends, and anticipated funding sources, there is a reasonable degree of certainty that this project would be economically feasible and have a positive effect on communities.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 56

When the economic impacts of other recent and ongoing vegetation management projects (such as Bottom Canyon, Deerfoot, and Kootenai Fuels Reduction) are considered in combination with the Honey Badger project, there would be a positive economic benefit within the multi-county area for about the next ten years. This would help to sustain social and economic systems as described in Forest Plan desired conditions FW-DC-SES-01, FW-DC-SES-02, and FW-DC-SES-03 (PF Doc. PD-001).

5.7 Scenic Quality

Introduction This analysis tiers to the Forest Plan FEIS in its entirety and in particular pages 440-441 and 448-449, which address the scenery analysis. The Forest Plan EIS analysis of potential effects focused on quality of the visitor experience as represented by scenic integrity objectives and the potential influence of various strategies and approaches to management of the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, including effects of roads, timber harvest, prescribed fire, and recreation (Forest Plan FEIS, pages 449-453). The FEIS describes the need for site-specific project analysis to determine Forest Plan compliance and any necessary design criteria or mitigation measures. The Forest Plan directs that management activities should be consistent with the mapped scenic integrity objective (FW-GDL-AR-01, MA6-GDL-AR-05, and MA7-GDL-AR-05) so that scenic resources complement the recreation settings and experiences while reflecting healthy and sustainable ecosystem conditions (FW-DC-AR-02).

This analysis does not revisit the information presented in the Forest Plan and focuses only on potential effects on scenery associated with implementing the proposed activities in the Honey Badger project area. Other information about scenery in the Honey Badger project area is provided in the project files as noted.

Methodology

Issue Indicators and Measures The resource indicator used to measure effects to scenic resources is scenic integrity, measured qualitatively in terms of scenic integrity levels. These levels represent the “degree of intactness and wholeness of the Landscape Character” (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995), page 7) in relation to both the existing and desired scenic integrity. Furthermore, the use of scenic integrity as an indicator of change facilitates comparison with SIOs (identified as guidelines in the Forest Plan) to determine compliance of the project. The Forest Plan (page 124) defines each of the scenic integrity levels as follows:

Very High – Landscape is intact with changes resulting primarily through natural processes and disturbance regimes.

High – Management activities are unnoticed and the landscape character appears unaltered.

Moderate – Management activities are noticeable but are subordinate to the landscape character. The landscape character appears slightly altered.

Low – Management activities are evident and sometimes dominate the landscape but are designed to blend with surroundings by repeating line, form, color, and texture of valued landscape character attributes. The landscape appears altered.

Scenic integrity objectives within the project area range from high to low. The high-level scenic integrity objective level occurs along the eastern portion of the project area, including Spades Mountain and Forest Trails 14 and 802, as well as in the vicinity of Fernan Road, Canfield Mountain, and Hayden Lake. Most of the project area is comprised of the moderate level scenic integrity objective, with a minor amount of low level scenic integrity objective throughout (Figure 8).

Effects of the Alternatives – Scenic Quality

Page 57

Figure 8: Map showing the Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trail, rivers, and lakes and scenic integrity objectives germane to the Honey Badger project.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 58

Models and Information Sources Management activities such as timber harvesting and road construction/reconstruction can affect scenic resources by creating changes in the form, line, color, or texture in a given viewing area. The degree of visual impacts resulting from these actions depends on the interaction of elements in relation to the viewer, such as the surrounding landscape, slope, aspect, and frequency and duration of the view.

The Scenery Management System as described in Agriculture Handbook No. 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, was adopted by the IPNFs with the Forest Plan. Its’ principles and terminology were used to evaluate the proposed Honey Badger project. The Scenery Management System represents the best available science for achieving high quality scenery as an outcome of National Forest management practices.

The IPNF Implementation Guide for Scenery Management: Understanding the how, what, and when of implementation under the 2015 IPNF Forest Plan (DRAFT) provided further direction on the application of the Scenery Management System within the context of the Forest Plan, and includes mapping of necessary Scenery Management System components, including Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes and scenic integrity objectives (mapped at the forestwide scale)(Helfen 2016).

Information on the existing condition of scenic resources was collected through review of existing information and field visits during summer 2019 and early 2020. For analysis, field reconnaissance photographs, together with project contour maps, were used to determine visibility of the proposed activities from key observation points, and determinations were made regarding the need for project design criteria and whether the scenic integrity objectives would be met under the proposed action. Key observation points (Figure 9) offer views of the project area as well as from the surrounding area and were used to measure the effects of the proposed Honey Badger project. They include: Interstate 90, U.S. Highway 95, Forest Road 268 (Fernan Road), West Canfield Butte, City of Coeur d’Alene, City of Hayden, Hayden Lake, Lancaster Road, Spades Mountain, Forest Trail 14, and Forest Trail 802. These are all identified in the Forest Plan as Concern Level 1 routes and sites.

Other Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, and rivers and lakes are located in the surrounding area and/or offer views of the project area but are not considered in the analysis. This is because they may offer views of the project area that are similar in nature to those listed above or views from these viewing platforms are obscured by topography. These include the cities of Rathdrum and Post Falls, Idaho, State Highways 53 and 54, English Point Trails, County Roads 205-KO2 (English Point Road) and 3090-K (Hayden Lake Road), East Canfield Butte, Nettleton Gulch, Little North Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River, Forest Roads 612, Forest Trails 37, 234, and 6001, and Bunco Parking Area.

Additional description of methodology, description of the affected environment, and photos of the project area from key observation points are provided in the project file for Scenery.

Effects of the Alternatives – Scenic Quality

Page 59

Figure 9: Key Observation Points (KOP) at, on, or along Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes providing views of the Honey Badger Project.

Spatial and Temporal Contexts For scenic resources, the spatial context of the effects analysis is the project area and includes all areas of harvest, prescribed burning, and other activity units, landings and processing areas (including slash disposal areas), and road construction/reconstruction, and any other areas where ground-disturbing activities have the potential to impact scenic resources.

With regard to temporal context for direct and indirect effects to scenic resources, short-term refers to the first 10-year period following completion of implementation of timber harvest, slash disposal, prescribed burning, planting, road construction, and other activities proposed under this project. This period of time is associated

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 60

with the greatest visible impact to scenic resources resulting from tree removal, ground disturbance, road construction. Short term is also associated with recovery of grasses and shrubs and early growth and regeneration (seedling- to sapling-sized) of the overstory. Medium-term refers to that period between 10- and 30-years following completion of project activities. This period is associated with continuing regeneration of the overstory as it transitions from sapling to immature forest. Long-term refers to the period of time beyond 30 years as the forest vegetation continues to mature.

For cumulative effects analysis, the spatial context is the visible area within which the effects of the proposed action and the identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are, or are expected to be, visible at the same time. The temporal context for the cumulative effects analysis is the same as the direct and indirect effects analysis.

Effects to Scenic Integrity Table 25: Summary comparison of effects to scenic integrity.

Indicator No Action Proposed Action Meet Forest Plan scenic integrity objectives

Would not meet scenic integrity objectives in the long term and does not move project area toward Forest Plan desired conditions for scenic resources. Long term reduction in natural diversity and associated form, color, texture, and variety.

Effects of vegetation management treatments would be evident and/or would dominate views from the key observation points and from locations at identified Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes in the short and medium term. Vegetation management prescriptions would result in long term increase in natural diversity and associated form, color, and texture variety. Landscape burning would have similar effects resulting from introduction of fire into this landscape. Long term beneficial effect when compared to taking no action.

No Action Alternative No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to scenic resources would result from selection of the no-action alternative, because no activities are proposed. Under this alternative, natural processes would carry on as openings in the tree canopy from past management activities continue to recover with tree growth, and over time would fill in manmade openings, obscuring the effects of at least some past activities, including road construction. It is expected that existing unnatural-appearing, hard-edged openings, and exposed road cut and fill slopes would remain evident for another 10-15 years.

The current trend of declining overstory of western larch, western white pine, and ponderosa pine would continue, with an increase in the shade-tolerant understory of fir species, cedar, and hemlock (Section 5.2 – Forest Health and Resiliency). This would increase the areas that are dominated by the even, finely textured forest cover, which would be evident in middle ground and background viewing distances. In the foreground viewing distance from the surrounding areas, views would more consistently be of medium-size class trees as larger trees are killed, with a dense understory of shade-tolerant species that will limit visual penetration into the stands. This loss of vegetative diversity is reflected visually as diminished texture and color contrasts resulting from the crowding of larger trees such as ponderosa pine, changing color of larch needles in the fall season, as well as the texture and seasonal color of aspen and other hardwoods. Contrast and interest associated with color and texture would be reduced in all viewing distances.

Over the long term, the reduction of natural diversity and loss of variety in color and texture would not move the project area toward the forest-wide desired condition for scenic resources in which “scenic resources of the IPNF… reflect healthy and sustainable ecosystem conditions” (FW-DC-AR-02).

Effects of the Alternatives – Scenic Quality

Page 61

Proposed Action Alternative Although implementation of the proposed vegetation management activities would result in short-term and medium term effects as viewed from the key observation points and other locations such as Interstate 90, US Highway 95, City of Coeur d’Alene, City of Hayden, Hayden Lake, Chilco Mountain, and South Chilco Mountain, in the long term these effects would in part be minimized by implementation of project design criteria.

The activities associated with the vegetation management prescriptions are intended to move conditions toward those desired conditions for vegetation as described in the forest plan (see the Forest Health and Resiliency Report for more information). As vegetation is a primary element of scenery in the forested environment, these activities will have an impact on the scenery resource. However, as these harvested areas regenerate, the forest composition and structure will become more resilient and sustainable in the long term. As this occurs, scenery will also begin to move toward the desired conditions described in the forest plan, that “scenic resources of the IPNF…reflect healthy and sustainable ecosystem conditions” (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015, p 34).New system road construction has some of the highest potential to affect scenery, introducing line, color and form contrasts that may be visible in all viewing distances and most viewing positions (above, below, or level with the road). These effects result primarily from the excavation and embankment (cut and fill) necessary to construct the road. This ground-disturbing activity can create areas where subsoils are exposed that may be a different color than that of the surrounding area soils and/or vegetation. This contrast has the potential to dominate the landscape character by catching and holding viewers’ attention.

When roads are constructed on gentle topography and viewed from below or level with the road, the effects of construction are not as noticeable. However, when roads are constructed on moderate to steep ground and viewed from below or level with the road, the effects of cut and/or fill slopes can be highly noticeable. Such is the situation with much of the new construction proposed to access units in the northern portion of the project area, on Bernard Peak, Chilco Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, and Cedar Mountain, as seen from US Highway 95, and in unit 180 as seen from Hayden Lake. The new roads would be carefully located and designed, retaining vegetation to screen them from view from the identified key observation points. Road segments may also be recontoured to reduce the extent of the visual effects.

Openings that exceed 40 acres in size would allow treatment unit boundaries to follow existing vegetation patterns and breaks resulting in a more natural-appearing opening as seen from those viewing positions above the units (i.e., key observation points 9, 10, 12, 17, 18). In contrast, treating smaller units (but the same amount of area) can result in units which appear to “float” on the landscape with contrasts of line and form depending on the needed road network required to access these units. The proposed action includes elements that will help to blend these larger openings and attain a natural appearance through aggregated and dispersed retention. Over time, the larger openings would reduce existing insect, disease, and fuels hazards on a broader scale, bringing higher percentages to within the historic range of variability, and move stands toward desired conditions for vegetation described in the forest plan (see Forest Health and Resiliency analysis, PF Doc. VEG-027).

Long-term effects would be positive as the landscape moves toward desired conditions for scenic resources. The visible effects of activities may dominate the viewshed in the short and/or medium term as described in the analysis until ground vegetation has recovered and harvested stands have regenerated to the point where the effects of management activities are either subordinate to the landscape character or are no longer evident. Effects of harvest activities would be reduced by the recovery of brush and groundcover, as well as tree regeneration that obscure the effects of harvest operations. There would be increased variety in tree species (including long-lived, early seral species such as western white pine and larch) consistent with natural patterns and diversity. The overall physical appearance and cultural context of the landscape that gives the project area its identity and ‘sense of place’ would not be changed in the long term by the proposed action.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 62

The overriding image of the area and its surroundings as being spacious and encompassing scenic variety would be maintained. These changes would not be of large enough scale or of long enough duration to influence the existing landscape character. Implementation of design criteria for scenic resources would reduce impacts and over time treated areas would blend with the surrounding area as they move toward desired condition for scenic resources (FW-DC-AR-02).

Overall, the visible effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities represent a scenic integrity level of Low to Moderate, meaning that deviations are visible and range from dominating the viewshed to remaining subordinate to the landscape character. In some cases, the effects are not evident to forest visitors, representing a High scenic integrity level. When considered in combination with the effects of the proposed action, the cumulative effects would meet the scenic integrity objectives identified in the Forest Plan (PF Doc. PD-001).

6. Legal Requirements 6.1 Forest Plan Subject to valid existing rights, all projects and activities authorized by the Forest Service must be consistent with the applicable forest plan components (16 USC 1604(i)) as described at 36 CFR 219.15 of the 2012 Planning Rule.

The project interdisciplinary team considered all components of the Forest Plan, as documented in the Forest Plan Worksheet (PF Doc. PD-001). The proposed action, in general, would make progress toward relevant goals and desired conditions; and was found to be consistent with relevant objectives, standards and guidelines.

In contrast, the no action alternative would not make progress toward relevant goals and desired conditions and would not be consistent with several components as described in the Forest Plan worksheet (PF Doc. PD-001). For example, in the absence of fire or active management, most of the changes in species composition over time would be in the opposite direction from what is desired (Forest Plan FEIS pages 103-104), and would not be responsive to the issue of fire risk in the wildland urban interface and the need to reduce hazardous fuels as one of the measures to help protect communities (Forest Plan FEIS page 151).

6.2 National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that all projects must be consistent with specific applicable NFMA requirements (requirements not applicable to this project are not addressed):

Maintaining diversity (16 USC 1604[g][3][B]): The proposed action is designed to be implemented to have no significant impact to any species and would maintain the diversity of populations or species. Biological Assessments have been conducted and concluded there would be “No Effect” to threatened or endangered species and their habitat due to the location and design of activities, and the application of best management practices (BMPs).

Soil, slope or other watershed conditions (16 USC 1604[g][3][E][i] and protection for streams and other bodies of water (16 USC 1604[g][3][E][iii]): The design of activities under the proposed action includes features designed specifically to protect water, soils, and fisheries, including use of best management practices and other criteria for road reconstruction and maintenance. There would be no irreversible damage to soil, slope, or other watershed conditions. All appropriate BMPs would be used to protect soil and watershed conditions.

Legal Requirements

Page 63

Restocking and vegetation manipulation (16 USC 1604[g][3][E][ii]): Technology and professional knowledge does exist to ensure that lands are adequately restocked within five years after final harvest. Site-specific silvicultural prescriptions use locally adapted methods that have proven to regenerate trees within five years. All harvest units are in areas capable of regeneration success and timber production based on an on-the-ground, site-by-site assessment as part of the diagnosis process. Effects on residual trees and adjacent stands have been considered (see Forest Vegetation).

Economic factors (16 USC 1604[g][3][E][iv]): Economic factors were considered, and the proposed action would have economic value associated with timber volume (see Economics). The level of timber harvest is important not only in providing jobs in the timber industry, but also through indirect and induced impacts on other business sectors as well. The proposed action may bring the local economy some increased relative stability during the life of the project and contribute to the gross receipts to the counties. However, selection of an alternative for implementation will be based not only for the economic benefits, but also because of the progress that would be made in ecosystem restoration and increasing forest resiliency.

Clearcutting and even-aged management (16 USC 1604[g][3][F]): All treatments are silviculturally appropriate and are within the timber and vegetation practices outlined in the Forest Plan. Land managers normally must limit the size of areas treated by even-aged silvicultural methods to 40 acres or less. Openings may be larger than 40 acres when necessary to help achieve desired ecological conditions on an individual timber sale basis after 60 days public notice and review by the regional forester (36 CFR 219.11(d)(4)). The proposed action will comply with this standard following completion of public notification and pending approval from the Regional Forester (FW-STD-TBR-02).

Temporary roadways (16 USC 1608[b]) and standards of roadway construction (16 USC 1608[c]): All new road construction would be completed using best management practices to protect soil and aquatic resources. At the completion of their intended use, temporary roads would be decompacted, recontoured to the approximately shape of the surrounding terrain, and seeded or covered with debris to prevent erosion and accelerate hydrologic and vegetative recovery.

6.3 National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy The National Strategy: The Final Phase of the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (‘Strategy’) was published in 2014 and represents the culmination of a collaborative effort by Federal, state, local and tribal governments, non-governmental partners, and public stakeholders. . The Strategy says that addressing wildfire is not simply a fire management, fire operations, or wildland-urban interface problem – it is a larger, more complex land management and societal issue. The vision for the next century is to “Safely and effectively extinguish fire, when needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as a Nation, live with wildland fire.” Three primary factors have been identified to achieve this vision: Restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes, creating fire-adapted communities, and responding to wildfires.

The proposed action responds to the Strategy by restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes and using fire to manage our natural resources. The no-action alternative would not respond to guidance from the Forest Service Manual, Forest Plan, or National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.

6.4 Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act (Section 110) requires states to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPS) which identifies how the State will attain and maintain national air quality standards. The Forest Plan FEIS (pages 412-417) considered effects to air quality. The Idaho Panhandle National Forests is a member of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group, which is composed of members who conduct a major amount of prescribed burning and the regulatory and health agencies that regulate this burning. The intent of the Airshed Group is to minimize or

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 64

prevent smoke impacts while using fire to accomplish land management objectives and/or fuel hazard reduction. The monitoring unit of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group coordinates burning and smoke emissions to minimize smoke accumulation and provides smoke dispersion forecasts and air quality monitoring support for burners in the Airshed Group. As directed by the Forest Plan (FW-DC-AQ-01, FW-GDL-AQ-01), the District strictly complies with these coordination procedures and has had no air quality violations. Proven protocols are in place which assure compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements regarding air quality.

6.5 Endangered Species Act Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. The Honey Badger project analysis tiers to the Forest Plan, which provides direction for management of threatened, endangered and candidate species; the FEIS discussed status and conditions for federally listed plants (pages 122-134), fish (pages 179-193), and wildlife (pages 214-216), which addressed federally listed species as summarized below.

Biological Assessments have been conducted and concluded there would be “no effect” to federally listed species and their habitat due to the location and design of activities, and the application of best management practices.

Plants U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently lists two plant species as threatened for the IPNFs: Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii). The Forest Plan FEIS considered both species (pages 122-134). Water howellia is associated with shallow, vernal freshwater pools of wetlands, edges of larger ponds, and hydrologically active or abandoned river oxbows. Spalding’s catchfly occurs chiefly in dry grassland habitats and grassland inclusions in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forest. Field botanical surveys for these species have been conducted in potentially suitable habitat on the IPNFs; to date, no occurrences have been documented. Field botanical surveys were also conducted in areas of proposed activities within the Honey Badger project area; no occurrences of or suitable habitat for either of the threatened species were observed. Based on the lack of suitable habitat and lack of occurrences, there would be no effect to federally listed plants from activities proposed in the Honey Badger project area.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed whitebark pine (Pinus albicauis) as a candidate for federal listing. Given this status, the Regional Forester designated whitebark pine as a sensitive species, and the Forest Plan FEIS considered it as a sensitive species (page 119). In December 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the species as species under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Federal Register). Whitebark pine is associated with alpine and subalpine habitat. There is a small amount of sub-alpine habitat in the project area; however, no activities are proposed in this habitat. Due to the lack of activities in the limited habitat in the project area, there would be no effect to this candidate species. For further information, refer to the biological assessment for plants (PF Doc. BOT-001).

Fish The Forest Plan FEIS considered aquatic habitat and species (pages 176-209). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as threatened and the Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) as endangered (Forest Plan FEIS pages 179-182, 188-190).

Bull trout: The Forest Plan FEIS describes historic and current bull trout habitat and distribution (pages 179-182). Effects of forest management activities were considered, concluding that as protection measures outlined in the 1998 Inland Native Fish Strategy Biological Opinion continue to be implemented, populations

Legal Requirements

Page 65

of species (including bull trout) will continue to remain stable or increase in population size and distribution (Forest Plan FEIS page 194). Forestwide objectives, standards, and guidelines in conjunction with implementation of riparian habitat conservation areas under the Inland Native Fish Strategy would protect watershed health and aquatic habitats from vegetation management activities (Forest Plan FEIS page 195).

Kootenai River white sturgeon: As described in the Forest Plan FEIS (page 189), the white sturgeon is native to the Kootenai River drainage of Montana, Idaho, and British Columbia, and has been geographically isolated from the lower Columbia River stocks by Bonnington Falls (i.e., Cora Linn Dam) near Nelson, British Columbia. White sturgeon migrates freely throughout the Kootenai River but is uncommon upstream of Bonners Ferry, Idaho. There are no published reports of sturgeon using lateral tributaries in Idaho or Montana. The Kootenai River drainage is outside of the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District. Due to the lack of habitat and occurrence in the project area, there would be no effect to this species.

For further information, refer to the biological assessment for fish (PF Doc. HYDRO-001).

Wildlife The Forest Plan FEIS discussed status and conditions for federally listed wildlife (pages 214-216).

Lynx: The Forest Plan FEIS considered Canada lynx (pages 220-243). Lynx occur in mesic coniferous forests that have cold, snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hare. On the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, lynx habitat generally occurs above 4,000 feet in subalpine fir forests or cedar/hemlock types when in association with subalpine fir and spruce habitat types. Habitat analysis for lynx is based on the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, which was incorporated into the Forest Plan (USDA 2007, USDA 2015). Most of the objectives, standards and guidelines listed in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction for the maintenance of lynx habitat and populations apply only to lynx habitat within lynx analysis units. Lynx analysis units were re-mapped in 2008 and documentation of that process can be found in the biological assessment for the Forest Plan. Re-mapping did not identify any designated lynx analysis units on the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District, and there is no lynx critical habitat identified on the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District (USDI 2009b). In 2007, research surveys did collect hair samples that were identified as lynx and thought to be transient due to lack of habitat. Based on the lack of suitable habitat, lack of occurrences, and compliance with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, there would be no effect on lynx habitat or the species and no effect on lynx critical habitat.

Grizzly: The Forest Plan FEIS considered grizzly bears (pages 243-267). Grizzly bears are habitat generalists, using a variety of habitats including the coniferous forests of northwest Montana and North Idaho. Habitat is generally dictated by food availability and distribution, as well as security from human disturbance and mortality. Grizzly bears are identified as threatened species in the lower 48 states. There are six recovery ecosystems for grizzly bears in the lower 48 states. Two of those recovery zones overlap the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, neither of which overlap the Coeur d'Alene River Ranger District. The project area is located mainly within the wildland-urban interface, is outside any grizzly bear recovery zone or critical habitat and contains a low amount of secure grizzly bear habitat due to the presence of motorized routes throughout the area and proximity to developed or non-Forest Service lands. There is a minimal probability of occurrence of grizzly bears on the Coeur d'Alene River Ranger District and no records of their presence were found immediately within the project area. Based on the low amount of secure habitat, lack of occurrence and high amounts of motorized routes and human activity in the area, there would be no effect on grizzly habitat or the species and no effect on grizzly bear critical habitat. For further analysis and discussion please see the detailed Biological Assessment.

Caribou: The Forest Plan FEIS considered woodland caribou (pages 267-289), which are identified as endangered on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. The only known population in the lower 48 states is in the Selkirk Mountains. The Selkirk woodland caribou recovery area includes portions of the Colville

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 66

National Forest in Washington, the extreme northeast corner of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, the Idaho Department of Lands, and a portion in British Columbia, Canada. The Selkirk Mountains and caribou recovery area do not overlap the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District. Based on the lack of suitable habitat and lack of occurrence in the project area there would be no effect on caribou.

For further information, refer to the biological assessment for wildlife (PF Doc. W-028).

6.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Executive Order 13186 directs federal agencies that take actions that either directly or indirectly effect migratory birds to develop a Memorandum of Understanding and to work with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and other federal agencies to promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. The Executive Order also requires that effects of federal actions on migratory birds are addressed as part of the environmental analysis process.

The Forest Plan FEIS (pages 211, 377-389) addressed the current status and potential effects to migratory birds as a result of management activities. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest is within the Partners in Flight Montana Conservation Plan, providing conservation strategies that categorize and analyze important migratory bird habitat and species (page 380). The use of these plans supports the goal of maintaining long-term sustainability of migratory bird species and their habitats as specified by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186.

The activities proposed in the project area fit within those analyzed for the Forest Plan FEIS (PF Doc. PD-001). Vegetation conditions would be maintained or improved for migratory birds and their habitat in the long-term, at the very least by creating a more resilient landscape.

6.7 Clean Water Act and Idaho State Water Quality Standards The Clean Water Act (CWA) directs Federal agencies (e.g. the Forest Service) to meet federal, state, interstate and local substantive as well as procedural requirements respecting control and abatement of pollution in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is delegated authority for control of water pollution under the CWA and administers that authority through the Idaho Environmental Protection and Health Act (Title 39, Ch. 1, Idaho Code), the Idaho Water Quality Act (Title 39, Ch. 36, Idaho Code), and water quality standards under the authority of the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA 58.01.02).

Sections 208 and 319 of the CWA recognized the need for control strategies for nonpoint source pollution. DEQ is the lead agency for implementation of its Idaho Nonpoint Source Management Plan under the authority of Section 319 of the CWA, and Idaho Department of Lands has the authority to administer the Idaho Forest Practices Act (Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code) and the responsibility to ensure compliance with best management practices (BMPs) to control nonpoint sources of pollutants. Rules pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act and application of BMPs are found at IDAPA 20.02.01. BMPs are practices, techniques, or measures that are determined to be a cost effective and practicable means of preventing or reducing pollutants generated from nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (Idaho Code 39-3602.(3)).

The Forest Service has the statutory authority to regulate, permit, and enforce land use activities on its lands that affect water quality and is responsible for implementing nonpoint source pollution controls and meet Idaho Water Quality Standards. To comply with State Water Quality Standards, the Forest Service is required to apply water quality practices in State Forest Practices Regulations, where applicable, reasonable land, soil,

Legal Requirements

Page 67

and water conservation practices, or specialized BMPs. These practices are designed with consideration of geology, land type, soil type, erosion hazard, climate, cumulative effects, and other factors in order to fully protect and maintain soil, water, and water-related beneficial uses, and to prevent or reduce nonpoint source pollution. To provide environmental protection and improvement emphasis for water and soil resources and water-related beneficial uses, the National Nonpoint Source Policy (EPA 1984), the Forest Service Nonpoint Water Quality Strategy (USFS 1985), and the USDA nonpoint source water conservation practices were recognized as the primary control mechanisms for nonpoint sources of pollution on National Forest System lands. This perspective is supported by the EPA in their guidance Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards (EPA 1987). The Idaho Panhandle National Forest utilizes direction in the Region 1/Region 4 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (Forest Service Manual 2509.22) to apply its nonpoint source strategy and BMPs for ground disturbing activities. Following these BMPs would meet the water quality protection elements of the Idaho Forest Practices Act.

The Honey Badger project is meeting the Clean Water Act and Idaho State water quality standards by utilizing applicable BMP’s and adhering to the relevant TMDLs by reducing sediment delivery to project area streams and by increasing riparian shading.

6.8 Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act The Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act requires that the stream channels of the state and their environment be protected against alteration for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat, aquatic life, recreation, aesthetic beauty and water quality. The Stream Channel Protection Act requires a stream channel alteration permit from Idaho Department of Water Resources before any work that would alter the stream channel may begin. Any stream channel alteration associated with culvert replacement and upgrades, bank stabilization, habitat installation, or other activities under the proposed action would undergo the appropriate permitting process prior to work being conducted.

6.9 Executive Order 11988 (Protection of Floodplains) This executive order directs federal agencies to take action on Federal lands to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. This project meets EO 11990 because there is no proposed development within floodplains.

6.10 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) This executive order directs federal agencies to provide leadership and shall take no action to minimize the destructions, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities for conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. This project meets EO 11990 because no activities are proposed in wetlands.

6.11 Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) Invasive species are non-native plants that do not have their origin in a local area. Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999 was enacted to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause.

This project tiers to the Forest Plan FEIS consideration of non-native invasive plants, which identified the existing condition of invasive species and assessed the risks and effects of invasive plant introduction (FEIS, pages 135-144). The overall IPNF strategy is to contain invasive species (noxious weeds) in currently infested areas and to prevent the spread of weeds to susceptible but generally uninfested areas (FW-DC-VEG-10, FW-OBJ-VEG-02). The noxious weeds management strategy for the Coeur d'Alene River Ranger District is

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 68

outlined in the "Noxious Weeds Final Environmental Impact Statement” (IPNF 2000) and follows the general IPNF strategy. All weed treatments on the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District are conducted according to the guidelines contained in the EIS.

Under either alternative, existing infestations of certain weed species may continue to increase on Federal lands within the project area and adjacent private lands. Activities under the proposed action would minimize (but not eliminate) the risk of weed spread by application of design criteria (Appendix A).

6.12 National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act is intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites. Among other things, the act requires federal agencies to evaluate the impact of all federally funded or permitted projects on historic properties and sites. The Forest Plan FEIS (pages 529- 540) considered effects to cultural resources as a result of activities such as those proposed in the Honey Badger project area. All known cultural resource sites would be protected under any alternative, as provided for in the Programmatic Agreement between the IPNF, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer. No direct, indirect or cumulative effects to cultural resources are expected with implementation of the proposed action. As required by Section 106 of the NHPA, an appropriate survey has been conducted of cultural properties located within the area of potential effect and Idaho State Historic Preservation Office has been consulted. Any discovery of cultural resource sites would be inventoried and protected if found to be of cultural significance, and a decision would be made to avoid, protect or mitigate effects to those sites in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

6.13 American Indian Religious Freedom Act/Executive Order 13175 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 requires that federal agencies consider the impacts of their projects on the free exercise of traditional Indian religions. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), November 6, 2000 directs Federal agencies to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, etc.

The Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho has reserved rights through executive order on a limited section of the Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District (Forest Plan FEIS, page 635). As described in Section 3 (Public Engagement), District Ranger Dan Scaife introduced the project to the Coeur d’Alene Tribe in June 2017 at the Government to Government consultation meeting in Plummer, Idaho, with an open invitation to visit the area and discuss any questions or concerns. Representatives of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe were contacted during scoping to identify any cultural concerns or culturally significant sites associated with the Honey Badger project area. Ranger Scaife continues to update the Tribe throughout the proposal development and analysis. Supporting information is provided in the project files (Public Engagement).

6.14 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) Executive Order 12898 requires that all federal actions consider the potential of disproportionate effects on minority and low-income populations in the local region; that is, that they do not bear a greater burden of environmental harms and risks than the general population as a result of Forest Service programs and policies. The principals of environmental justice require agencies to address the equity and fairness implications associated with Federal land management actions. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (1997) states “minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50% or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.”

Agencies or Persons Consulted

Page 69

Data for the five counties in the affected area (Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai and Shoshone) shows that the total share of all minority and low-income populations each represented less than 15% of the population within each county and the combined county affected area (PF Doc. ECON-001). Thus, U.S. Census data suggest minority populations within the analysis area do not meet the CEQ’s Environmental Justice criterion.

There were no public comments raised regarding environmental justice considerations, and no disproportional impacts to minority or low-income populations were identified during scoping or any other portion of public engagement during the course of this analysis.

7. Draft Finding of No Significant Impact The responsible official is required to evaluate the effects of the project relative to the evaluation of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1501.6). The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects of the proposed action using relevant scientific information, knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits, and engagement with interested members of the public, and has made the (draft) determination that the proposed action would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, as explained below.

The effects analysis is found in this environmental assessment (Section 5) and is supported by the project record. This environmental assessment is tiered (40 CFR 1501.11) to the Forest Plan Record of Decision and incorporates by reference the Forest Plan and Forest Plan FEIS, which analyzed and disclosed effects of potential Forest management at a larger programmatic scale.

Implementing the proposed activities would result in both beneficial effects and have direct impacts to resources in the Honey Badger project area but would not have significant impacts in either the short or long term. For example, in addition to directly affecting vegetation, activities proposed to improve forest resilience would result in large openings, the effects of which would be visible from several key observation points until the vegetation (grasses, shrubs, and trees) gradually grew in. Despite being designed to minimize impacts, the openings would be evident for several years, while the benefits to forest resiliency would be long term (Section 5.3 and Section 5.7). Prescribed burning to reduce hazardous fuels and improve resiliency to fire, especially in the wildland urban interface, would produce smoke during burning activities. However, the smoke produced by prescribed burning would be of short duration and strictly comply with coordination procedures to assure compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements regarding air quality (Section 6.4), whereas smoke produced from a wildfire can last substantially longer and result in poor air quality, significantly impacting public health.

The activities proposed in the Honey Badger project area are similar to others completed on the IPNF and are within the range of effects anticipated in the Forest Plan FEIS(U. S. Department of Agriculture 2013). Due to careful project design that incorporates protective measures (Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices, and site-specific design criteria), the possible negative effects are relatively minor and of short duration and are not significant.

The proposed action poses limited health and safety hazards to Forest Service employees, special use permittees, and the general public. Activities causing these limited effects to public health and safety would not all take place at the same time, and none are unusual or unique to this project. Potential hazards to the general public would be relatively short term in duration, and include smoke from prescribed fire, increased traffic on roads within and leading to the project area, hazards in the vicinity of logging operations, and dust from increased use of unpaved Forest roads.

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 70

Beneficial effects to public health and safety would be long term, and include reduced wildfire risk, as well as improved road and trail safety. The proposed action would reduce the potential fire hazard and subsequently increase firefighter, forest worker, and public safety in the event of a future wildland fire in the area (Section 5.3). Approximately 76% of the proposed landscape (fuels) burning and 65% of the proposed vegetation treatments would occur within the WUI. The approved activities are governed by standard public health and safety guidelines, Forest Service direction, and other applicable laws and guidelines. Features designed to protect public health and safety (such as dust abatement, road signing, temporary closures for public safety, and road maintenance activities) would be included in project implementation contracts.

The Honey Badger project would be in compliance with Forest Plan and other laws, regulations, and policies as described in this environmental assessment (Section 6) and the forest plan worksheet (PF Doc. PD-001) and would not have significant effects on resources or the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

8. Agencies or Persons Consulted Federal, State, and County U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Idaho Department of Fish and Game Idaho Department of Lands Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Idaho State Historic Preservation Office Four-county (4C) Natural Resources Committee Kootenai Board of County Commissioners Kootenai County Office of Emergency Management/Local Emergency Planning Committee Kootenai County Natural Resources Advisory Board

Tribal Coordination The IPNF recognizes rights and responsibilities with federally recognized Indian Tribes. As described in Section 3 and Section 6.13, District Ranger Dan Scaife introduced the project to the Coeur d’Alene Tribe in June 2017 at the Government to Government consultation meeting in Plummer, Idaho, with an open invitation to visit the area and discuss any questions or concerns. Representatives of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe were contacted during scoping to identify any cultural concerns or culturally significant sites associated with the Honey Badger project area. Ranger Scaife continues to update the Tribe throughout the proposal development and analysis. Supporting information is provided in the project files (Public Engagement).

Organizations Panhandle Forest Collaborative is a group comprised of conservation, recreation, timber, community, and state agency representatives. The group focuses on issues on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, primarily within the Sandpoint, Priest Lake and Coeur d'Alene River Ranger Districts. By building communication and connectivity between on-going local community efforts and the county, state and federal agencies, the Panhandle Forest Collaborative works as a group to provide consensus recommendations on projects and forest plans which address the collaborative's shared goals. With experience and knowledge of the collaborative process and structure, the National Forest Foundation provides skilled facilitation for the Panhandle Forest Collaborative.

Agencies or Persons Consulted

Page 71

The Collaborative does not have the capacity to be deeply involved on every project, so they usually identify a limited number of specific projects on which to focus while staying informed about other forest proposals.

The Honey Badger project is one that they have focused on since the area was identified as a priority for treatment. Forest Service representatives have provided periodic updates to the group beginning in January 2017, throughout project development and analysis, and will continue to do so into implementation and beyond. A subgroup of the collaborative has participated in meetings and field trips to the project area. In addition, several of the group’s members are on the project mail list and receive all mailings associated with the project.

The Trails Working Group was established in partnership with the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to increase public and partner involvement in the maintenance and improvement of shared recreation trails. The group’s members represent hikers, horseback riders, and a variety of motorized recreation, and were essential in identifying current and desired trail uses, resource condition associated with trail use, and potential solutions to ongoing trail issues.

Other organizations consulted on the Honey Badger project include:

• American Forest Resource Council • Coeur d’Alene Office of the Mayor • Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce • Congressional staffers from the offices of Senator Crapo, Senator Risch, and Congressman Fulcher • Hayden Lake Watershed Association • Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement District • Panhandle Backcountry Horsemen • Panhandle Trail Riders Association • The Lands Council

For supporting information, refer to Section 3 and the project files (Public Engagement).

Honey Badger Project - Environmental Assessment

Page 72

References Cited

Agee, J. K., and C. N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211:83-96.

Albini, F. A. 1976. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. Gen. Tech. Rpt. GTR-INT-30, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.

Anderson, H. E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-122, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Ogden, UT.

Barber, J., R. Bush, and D. Berglund. 2011. The Region 1 existing vegetation classification system and its relationship to Region 1 inventory data and map products. Report Numbered Report 11-10.

Brown, J. K., E. D. Reinhardt, and K. A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody debris: Managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-105, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Cochrane, M. A., C. J. Moran, M. C. Wimberly, A. D. Baer, M. A. Finney, K. L. Beckendorf, J. Eidenshink, and Z. Zhu. 2012. Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21.

Cook, P. S., T. A. Morgan, S. W. Hayes, C. B. Sorensen, E. Simmons, and D. R. Becker. 2016. Idaho's forest products industry current conditions and 2016 forecast. Station Bulletin 103, University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources and the University of Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Moscow, ID.

Cooper, S. V., K. E. Neiman, and D. W. Roberts. 1991. Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: A second approximation. Revised edition. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-236, U.S. Department of Agriculture,, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Elliot, W. J. 2004. Wepp internet interfaces for forest erosion prediction. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40:299-309.

Elliot, W. J., D. E. Hall, and D. L. Scheele. 2000. WEPP Interface for Disturbed Forest and Range Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. in U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and the San Dimas Technology and Development Center.

Finney, M. A., and J. D. Cohen. 2003. Expectation and evaluation of fuel management objectives. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 16-18 April 2003.

Finney, M. A., C. W. McHugh, and I. C. Grenfell. 2005. Stand- and landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona wildfires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:1714-1722.

Foltz, R. B., N. S. Copeland, and W. J. Elliot. 2009. Reopening abandoned forest roads in northern Idaho, USA: quantification of runoff, sediment concentration, infiltration, and interrill erosion parameters. Journal of Environmental Management 90:2542-2550.

Graham, R. T., A. E. Harvey, T. B. Jain, and J. R. Tonn. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463, U.S. Department of Agriculture,, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Graham, R. T., S. McCaffrey, and T. B. Jain, (tech. eds.). 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120, U.S. Department of Agriculture,, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO.

Gray, A. N., T. R. Whittier, and M. Harmon. 2015. Carbon stocks and accumulation rates in Pacific Northwest forests: role of stand age, plant community, and productivity. Ecosphere 7(1):19.

Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, and B. Naumann. 1992. Old-growth forest types of the Northern Region. Report R-1 SES 4/92.

Helfen, M. 2016. IPNF implementation guide for scenery management: Understanding the how, what and when of implementation under 2015 IPNF, forest plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Coeur d'Alene, ID.

Agencies or Persons Consulted

Page 73

Jain, T. B., and R. T. Graham. 2005. Restoring dry and moist forests of the inland northwestern U.S. Pages 463-480 in J. A. Stranhauf, and P. Madsen, editors. Restoration of boreal and temperate forests. CRC Press, New York.

Keane, R. E., and L. J. Dickinson. 2007. The photoload sampling technique: Estimating surface fuel loadings from downward-looking photographs of synthetic fuelbeds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-190, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Keane, R. E., E. D. Reinhardt, J. Scott, K. Gray, and J. Reardon. 2005. Estimating forest canopy bulk density using six indirect methods. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:724-739.

Keane, R. E., K. C. Ryan, T. T. Veblen, C. D. Allen, J. Logan, and B. Hawkes. 2002. Cascading effects of fire exclusion in Rocky Mountain ecosystems: A literature review. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RMRS-GTR-91, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Keane, R. M., and M. J. Crawley. 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:164-170.

McCauley, L. A., M. Robles, T. Woolley, R. M. Marshall, A. Kretchun, and D. F. Gori. 2019. Large-scale forest restoration stabilizes carbon under climate change in southwest United States. Ecological Applications 0:1-14.

Mitchell, S. J., and W. J. Beese. 2002. The retention system: reconciling variable retention with the principles of silvicultural systems. The Forestry Chronicle 78:397-403.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2006. NWCG fireline handbook appendix B: Fire behavior. PMS 410-2, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID.

Rothermel, R. C. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Report INT-115. Schnepf, C. 2006. Variable Retention Harvesting? Forest Management. Scott, J. H., and R. E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: A comprehensive set for use with

Rothermel's surface fire spread model. Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Scott, J. H., and E. D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. Report Research Paper RMRS-RP-29.

Spigel, K. M., and P. R. Robichaud. 2007. First-year post-fire erosion rates in Bitterroot National Forest, Montana. Hydrological Processes 21.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plan Idaho Panhandle National Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula, MT.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A handbook for scenery management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mt. Shasta, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Land management plan 2015 revison: Idaho Panhandle National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.