Project - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/... · Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service April 2014

Environmental Assessment


Lost River Ranger District, Salmon-Challis National Forest Custer and Lemhi County, Idaho

T12N, R25E, S.1, 2; T12N, R26E, S. 5-8; T13N, R25E, S. 25, 36; T13N, R26E, S. 30, 31, Boise Meridian

For information, contact: David MorrisH/C 63 Box 1669, Challis, ID 83226

208-879-4127 http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=37108

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=37108


USDA FOREST SERVICE MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. USDA NON-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.”


Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Document Structure ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................................... 4

Insect and Disease ....................................................................................................................... 4

Watershed Concerns ........................................................................................................................ 8

Forest Plan Compliance ................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................. 9

Mechanical Treatments .................................................................................................................... 9

Roads.............................................................................................................................................. 11

Slash Treatment ............................................................................................................................. 11

1.5 Decision Framework .................................................................................................................... 13

1.6 Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................... 13

1.7 Issues/Concerns............................................................................................................................ 14

2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................... 14

Alternatives Not Considered .......................................................................................................... 14

2.1 Process Used to Develop the Proposed Activity .......................................................................... 16

2.2 Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 17

Alternatives 1: The No Action (with Wildfire) ............................................................................. 17

Alternative 2: The Proposed Action .............................................................................................. 17

2.3 Design Features ............................................................................................................................ 26

2.4 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................... 35

Soils................................................................................................................................................ 35

Down Woody Debris ..................................................................................................................... 35

Noxious Weeds .............................................................................................................................. 35

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSQUENCES ......................................................................................... 35

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 35

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Analysis ........................................................................ 36

Analysis of Failing to Implement the Proposed Action ................................................................. 36

3.2 Resource Conditions and Proposed Action Effects ..................................................................... 37

3.2.1 Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................ 37

3.2.2 Soils, Hydrology and Watershed Resources ......................................................................... 41

3.2.3 Wildlife Species and Habitat ................................................................................................ 49


3.2.4 Vegetation Resources ............................................................................................................ 71

3.2.5 Recreation and Roadless Resources...................................................................................... 83

3.2.6 Scenery Resources ................................................................................................................ 85

3.2.7 Botany Resource ................................................................................................................... 88

3.2.8 Range Resource .................................................................................................................. 101

3.2.9 Fisheries Resource .............................................................................................................. 103

3.2.10 Invasive Plants .................................................................................................................. 106

3.2.11 Climate Change ................................................................................................................. 109

3.2.12 Other Resource Concerns Eliminated From Detail Study ................................................ 110

4.0 Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................................. 111

Interdisciplinary Team Members: ................................................................................................ 111

Federal, State, and Local Agencies .............................................................................................. 111

Tribes ........................................................................................................................................... 111

5.0 References Cited ........................................................................................................................ 111

APPENDIX A –DECISION DIAGRAM AND ANSWERS BY DECIDING OFFICAL TO

DETERMINE RELEVANCE TO USING HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT

AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................................... 114

Decision Diagram 1 ......................................................................................................................... 114

Decision Diagram 2 ......................................................................................................................... 117

APPENDIX B – CONCERNS AND INDICATORS FOR NEPA ANALYSIS........................................ 119

Fire and Fuels ............................................................................................................................... 119

Soils, Hydrology and Watershed Resources ................................................................................ 119

Wildlife Species and Habitat ....................................................................................................... 119

Vegetation Resources................................................................................................................... 120

Recreation / Visual Resources ..................................................................................................... 120

Botany Resource .......................................................................................................................... 120

Range Resource ........................................................................................................................... 121

Fisheries Resource ....................................................................................................................... 121

Noxious Weeds ............................................................................................................................ 121

APPENDIX C – List of Past, Ongoing, and Foreseeable Future Activities Associated with the Project

Area Used in the Cumulative Effects Analysis .................................................................................... 122

APPENDIX D – SCOPING COMMENTS ANALYSIS .................................................................... 124

Idaho Conservation League – February 6, 2012 .............................................................................. 124

Custer County Commissioners - January 12, 2012 .......................................................................... 127

Idaho Parks and Recreation - February 6, 2012 ............................................................................... 127


Dick Artley –January 6, 2012 & October 8, 2012 ........................................................................... 127

Alliance for the Wild Rockies – December 5, 2012 ........................................................................ 128

Alliance for Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystem Council –December 5, 2012............................. 140

Western Watershed Project –July 25, 2012 ..................................................................................... 141

Tables Table 1 - Summary of mortality by tree species and insect or disease agents in the Sawmill Canyon

drainage from 2003- 2011 from Forest Health Protection Aerial Detection Flights ............................... 7

Table 2 - Description of proposed vegetation treatments in Sawmill Canyon ...................................... 19 Table 3 - Proposed road decommissioning in Sawmill Canyon ............................................................ 24 Table 4 - Design features by activity and resources .............................................................................. 27

Table 5 - Fire risk to life and property across the landscape ................................................................. 38 Table 6 - Fire behavior outputs from direct model in Behave Plus for summer normal (50th percentile),

drought (90th percentile), and severe drought (97th percentile) for treatment units for a fuel model 10

................................................................................................................................................................ 39

Table 7 - Fire behavior outputs for direct model in Behave Plus for summer normal (50th percentile),

drought (90th percentile), and severe drought (97th percentile) for post treatment .............................. 40

Table 8 - Watershed risk rating for Sawmill Canyon HFRA project .................................................... 44 Table 9 - Summary of the analysis or effects for terrestrial Sensitive vertebrate species ..................... 59 Table 10 - Stand attributes grouped by silvicultural treatment for the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation

Management Project .............................................................................................................................. 73 Table 11 - Measures and indicators associated with the old growth-related issue for analysis for the

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project ................................................................................ 80

Table 12 - Comparison of alternatives for recreation and roadless resources ....................................... 85

Table 13 - Visual effects of proposed six silvicultural treatments over time ........................................ 86 Table 14 - List of sensitive plants, their habitat requirements, occurrence, presence or absence, and

determination of effects to these plants in the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project ....... 90 Table 15 - Infested acres of noxious weeds within the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management

Project action area ................................................................................................................................ 107

Table 16 - Acres of noxious weeds with treatment units on the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation

Management Project ............................................................................................................................ 107 Table 17 - Comparison of the alternatives for noxious weeds in the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation

Management Project ............................................................................................................................ 109

Figures

Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 - Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project Area ........................................................ 5 Figure 3 - Unit 2CTAR, Conifer encroachment into aspen stand in Sawmill Canyon near Quigley

Creek – Photo by M. Fowler .................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 - Unit 2S, lodgepole pine mortality as a result of mountain pine beetle. Photo by D. Morris .. 6 Figure 5 - Unit 1CTAR, western spruce budworm defoliation damage of Douglas-fir. Photo by M.

Fowler ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 6 - Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Proposed Project ............................................... 12 Figure 7 - Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project Proposed Road Work ............................ 25


Figure 8 - Photograph evidence of a live wolverine captured at bait station in Sawmill Canyon-

Photograph by Mike Foster .................................................................................................................... 56

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and

regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative

environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The

document is organized into four parts:

Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the

purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose

and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the

proposal and how the public responded.

Description and comparison of Alternatives (if multiple), including the Proposed Action:

This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well

as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were

developed based on issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also

includes possible design features. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the

environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Environmental Consequences: This section describes the likely environmental effects of

implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by

resource areas. These resource area summaries do not provide an elaborate discussion of

the affected environment but rather focus on why the effects of the proposed action upon

them are insignificant and how the proposed action, including the design features,

minimize adverse effects.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies

consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses

presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be

found in the project planning record located at the Lost River Ranger District Office in Mackay,

ID.

1.2 Background The proposed project addresses current resource issues as a result of multiple insect

epidemics that are occurring in the Sawmill Canyon area. Much of western North America in

Canada, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho are experiencing

major outbreaks of mountain pine beetle. In south-central Idaho, populations of the mountain

pine beetle have been at epidemic levels since 2000, including Sawmill Canyon of the Little

Lost River area. Expected tree mortality resulting from the mountain pine beetle is as high as

90% for all lodgepole, whitebark, and limber pine over 5” diameter at breast height (dbh).

In addition to mountain pine beetle outbreak, the western spruce budworm (a tree defoliator)

has also reached epidemic levels, causing heavy defoliation in Engelmann spruce, subalpine


fir, and Douglas-fir on the Salmon-Challis National Forest (SCNF). Forest entomologists

from the State and Private Forestry Branch have reported that this repeated defoliation could

last upwards of five to ten years, and in some cases up to 25 years. In Sawmill Canyon, much

of the area is composed of mixed conifer stands and has experienced heavy defoliation.

Though western spruce budworm typically does not kill trees, the stress imparted from

repeated defoliation often weakens the trees enough to allow expansion and population

increases of bark beetles such as the Douglas-fir beetle, which is also present in the area.

Sawmill Canyon is centrally located on the southwestern slopes of the Lemhi Mountain

Range as displayed in Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map. The area is accessed by Highway 22

from the Little Lost River or Pahsimeroi Valley. The area encompasses the headwaters of the

Little Lost River. Elevation range from 6,800 feet on the valley bottoms to over 10,800 feet

on the ridge tops. Glacial cirque basins and lakes are found on the surrounding ridges,

giving way to gentle timbered or sagebrush and grass slopes adjacent to the river.

Predominant vegetation includes sagebrush and grass communities, lodgepole pine, Douglas-

fir, subalpine fir, and mountain mahogany. Aspen can be found throughout the area, although

it is infrequently a majority tree species. The canyon drainage is comprised of approximately

57,942 acres.

Primary uses of the area include livestock grazing, timber harvest, big game hunting, and

recreational activities. The project area receives a large amount of visitation during the

summer months into the fall from the recreating public, principally from the eastern Idaho

area. Sawmill Canyon provides opportunities for dispersed and non-dispersed camping,

fishing, hunting, prospecting, fuelwood gathering, and miles of ATV trails for the public to

enjoy. Sawmill Canyon also has two private inholdings, one licensed outfitter, and three

administrative sites (Timber and Mill Creek Campground and Fairview Guard Station) with

numerous trailheads located in the drainage. Motorized access in and out of Sawmill

Canyon is limited to Forest Service Road #40101.


Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map

Hw

y 93

Hw

y 9

3

Hw

y 7

5

Hw

y 21

Hw

y 7

5

Arco

Mackay

Salmon

Stanley

Challis

Project Location

Major Roads

Salmon Challis National Forest

Area of Interest

Date: 4/7/2013

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation ManagementMap 1 - Vicinity


1.3 Purpose and Need for Action The need for this project is threefold: 1) current stand conditions densities are overstocked

and stagnant, which has contributed to factor two; 2) the area is experiencing an insect and

disease epidemic that has greatly increased mortality of all conifers and is expected to

continue until food resources are depleted or environmental conditions occur that leads to

population collapse; and 3) the current size and scope of aspen stands in the area are

declining due to conifer encroachment.

The purpose of the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation project is to modify forest structure, density,

and species composition to reduce susceptibility of conifer trees to wildfire and insect

disturbances, and improve tree vigor of both conifer trees and aspen clones, with a preference

for aspen where conifer competition exists.

Insect and Disease The project area, see Figure 2, is composed of several mixed conifer and aspen stands broken

by areas of sagebrush/grass.


Figure 2 - Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project Area

Legend

Roads

Proposed Treatment Units

Management Area 22 - Sawmill Canyon

Salmon-Challis Administrative Boundaries

1:126,720

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project Area


The project area is located approximately 35 air miles North by Northwest of Mackay, Idaho,

in Sawmill Canyon, the headwaters of the Little Lost River in T12N, R25E, S.1, 2; T12N,

R26E, S. 5-8; T13N, R25E, S. 25, 36; T13N, R26E, S. 30, 31, Boise Meridian, Custer and

Lemhi County, Idaho

In a 2010 field visit, the Forest Health Protection (FHP) group of State and Private Forestry

described the current stand conditions throughout the project area as poor (Lazarus, 2010).

The stands are described as overstocked and no longer growing vigorously, and thus are

highly susceptible to large outbreaks of insect pests. FHP characterized the conifer stands of

Sawmill Canyon as composed predominantly of stagnant mature Douglas-fir, sub-alpine fir,

Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine. Aspen stands in the drainage were also noted as

declining rapidly due to conifer encroachment, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 - Unit 2CTAR, Conifer encroachment into aspen stand in Sawmill Canyon

near Quigley Creek – Photo by M. Fowler

The project area is currently experiencing and hosting epidemic outbreaks of mountain pine

beetle and western spruce budworm. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks have resulted in high

levels of mortality in lodgepole, whitebark and limber pine, and will continue until available

food reserves are diminished (trees smaller than 5” dbh) as is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - Unit 2S, lodgepole pine mortality as a result of mountain pine beetle. Photo

by D. Morris


Western spruce budworm defoliation of Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir

started approximately four years ago in the Sawmill Canyon area and is continuing to present

day as is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 - Unit 1CTAR, western spruce budworm defoliation damage of Douglas-fir.

Photo by M. Fowler

Annual flights by FHP have monitored the progressive infestation and defoliation with aerial

detection surveys in Sawmill Canyon and have documented mortality by tree species, damage

agent, and acres. Table 1 shows the progression/decline of outbreaks starting in 2003 through

2011 from these aerial detection flights (USDA Forest Service, 2012).

Table 1 - Summary of mortality by tree species and insect or disease agents in the

Sawmill Canyon drainage from 2003- 2011 from Forest Health Protection Aerial

Detection Flights

Acres affected by agent

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Acres

AGENT/HOST Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

subalpine fir

armillaria

balsam beetle 1,139 2,911 952 1,022 127 229 27 137 0 6,544

Douglas-fir

beetle 350 251 22 10 12 84 0 0 0 729

mountain pine

beetle 29 28 122 1,693 1,420 12,794 9,899 9,063 35,048

Western spruce

budworm 1,627 35 0 3,412 86 4,301 9,461

Number of dead trees by agent

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total #

of

Trees AGENT/HOST

# of

Trees

# of

Trees

# of

Trees

# of

Trees

# of

Trees

# of

Trees

# of

Trees

# of

Trees

# of

Trees

subalpine fir

armillaria

balsam beetle 2,611 9,480 387 2,093 255 675 60 413 0 15,974

Douglas-fir

beetle 675 505 45 20 25 170 0 0 0 1440

mountain pine

beetle 0 58 130 280 6,758 3,791 108,908 40,199 11,240 171,364

From those surveys, FHP entomologists anticipate that forest insect and disease in this area

will continue for many more years. As a result of high levels of repeated defoliation, other

concerns have come to light, as mature Douglas-fir in their weakened state are succumbing to

secondary infestation agents such as the Douglas-fir beetle (DFB).


Watershed Concerns The Upper Sawmill Creek subwatershed has been identified by the Salmon-Challis National

Forest as a Class II (functioning at risk) subwatershed using the Forest Service Watershed

Condition Classification. Class II functioning at risk determination was based on three

conditions; loss of ecosystem health caused by a widespread beetle epidemic, introduced non-

native fish species threatening native bull trout populations, and heavy recreation pressure

including need for trail maintenance and OHV use management. As a result of this

determination, Upper Sawmill was chosen as a priority for watershed restoration work in

2012 and 2013. The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project includes restoration

activities previously identified for the Sawmill Creek watershed. Little Lost River is also a

listed 303(d) stream by the state of Idaho and has been identified to provide beneficial uses

for: primary contact recreation, industrial water supply, wildlife habitat and aesthetics, cold

water biota, and salmonoid spawning. The area has been designated for full fire suppression

by the fire staff of the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Large, stand-replacing fires have

occurred in the past, including the 6,246 acre Little Lost Fire in 1988 and the Warm Creek

Fire that burned 6,393 acres of which half was in the Little Lost River watershed.

Forest Plan Compliance The Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plant (FLRMP, “Forest Plan”)

sets forth the general direction for managing the land and resources of the Challis portions of

the Salmon-Challis National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 1987). This EA tiers to the

Record of Decision for USDA –Forest Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement for

Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, signed June 3, 1987. By

addressing the three components identified in the Purpose and Need section above, the

proposed activities contribute towards achievement of the goals outlined above of restoring

and sustaining Nation’s forests and grasslands and the Challis FLRMP.

The Forest Plan goal for timber resource in the Challis National Forest portion is to meet the

needs of the local dependent mills (Timber Goal #1, FLRMP IV-5) with an objective of

managing approximately 100,000 acres of the suitable timber base for timber production

(Objective 1, FLRMP IV-5). The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Project responds to the

impacts being caused by the ongoing and anticipated near future insect epidemics in the Lost

River drainage using Healthy Forest Restoration Act authorities to manage those lands that

are part of the suitable timber base. It would accomplish this goal through commercial timber

sales and service contracts that would modify stand structure, thereby increasing forest

resistance and resiliency to insect activity.

The FLRMP provides desired future condition, management area emphasis, and management

area direction for 25 different Management Areas. The project area is within Sawmill

Canyon Management Area (Management Area #22). The desired future condition for

Sawmill Canyon is as follows:

The management area will provide a mix of resource activities and opportunities

primarily within the resources of wildlife, range, timber, minerals, and dispersed

recreation (IV-173). The management prescription for timber in the area is as

follows: Manage suitable lands for timber production. Emphasize management of

the most productive and accessible stands (IV-174).


This Sawmill project addresses the need for improvements identified in the desired future

condition by making forest density and structural conditions more conducive to tree growth

and resistant and resilient to insect and fire damage (Forest Plan page IV-16, 4(a)). Structure,

density, and fuel loading would be improved by selectively thinning undesired live trees, and

a salvage treatment of live and recently-killed trees. The Forest Plan also contains

management direction that encourages direct management of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine

to accomplish resource objectives, such as resistance and resiliency to insect epidemics

(Forest Plan pages IV-177).

1.4 Proposed Action The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need of this project is as

follows and is displayed in Figure 6.

Mechanical Treatments

The proposed action is expected to modify the existing forest structure to increase forest

resistance and resilience to the current insect epidemic by changing density, structure, and

potential ladder and surface fuels, while also re-establishing aspen cohorts in the drainage on

approximately 420 acres. Activities include pre-commercial and commercial thinning of

stands addressing large scale mortality as a result of insect and disease activity.

Tractor based logging systems using timber sale contract(s) on over 326 acres would be used

to thin live trees and to remove dead and those trees that show visible evidence of disease or

attack by insect agents from the stands of mixed conifers. Tree density after thinning in the

treatments units would be 15 feet to 25 feet between stems (150-175 trees/acre) with volume

removals roughly estimated to be 3,500 hundred cubic feet (CCF). Where aspen is present, all

encroaching conifers within 100 feet of live aspens will be removed to promote aspen

regeneration. All commercial treatments will favor large tree retention as well as snags to the

extent possible.

After harvest, timber stand improvement1 (TSI) treatments would be applied to pockets of

thick understory and remaining trees that act as potential ladder fuels. Of the approximate 420

acres to be treated, 94 acres are lodgepole pine plantations that will be thinned to a 15 feet by

15 feet spacing and pruned to 6 feet from ground surface using service contract or forest

employees, which will decrease potential for crown fire and transition of ground fire to a

crown fire.

No tree cutting, sale, or removal would occur in Inventoried Idaho Roadless Areas (Lemhi

Range IRA # 06-093). INFISH guidelines will be followed for all units. No treatments are

proposed in “Old Growth” stands. No mature (7” + diameter at breast height (dbh))

whitebark/limber pine would be removed unless it’s already dead from mountain pine beetle

attacks. Contract provision for protection of residuals will be put in place to protect to the

extent possible all less than 7” dbh whitebark/limber pine live trees across treatment units.

Treatments are listed below and grouped by silviculture prescription:

1 Timber Stand Improvement by definition is to improve the quality of a forest stand by removing or

deadening undesirable species to achieve desired stocking and species composition. TSI practices

include applying herbicides, burning, girdling, or cutting.


1. Thinning2 -

a. Commercial Thinning3 – composed of two units 1CT & 2CT for 29 acres.

Thin the residual stand to a 15 to 25 foot stem spacing leaving a target of 150

trees to 175 trees per acre. Clump residual trees in groups of 2 to 7 trees with

a 5 to 10 feet crown spacing where possible to create a mosaic of spacing

across the unit. Favor large tree retention to the extent possible as well as

snags. Following harvest, treat understory residuals by removing damaged,

diseased, and suppressed seedling and saplings.

b. Pre-commercial thinning4, – composed of 18 units A,B,C,D,E, F,G,H,I,

J,K,L,M,N, O,P,Q, and R for total of 94 acres. Thinned lodgepole pine

plantation to a 15 by 15 feet spacing. Prune limbs of residual trees up to six

feet above ground level or to a height no more than half the tree crown if tree

is less than 12 feet tall.

c. Commercial Thinning with Aspen Release – composed of two units 1AR and

2AR for 77 acres. Overall prescription is the same as the commercial thin as

stated above in (a) with the following exception, where aspen is present,

remove all conifers from 100 feet of live aspen to promote regeneration.

Following harvest a fence that allows free passage of wildlife approximately

13,900 feet long will be constructed to protect aspen regeneration from

livestock grazing.

2. Group Selection5 – Two units are slated for group selection cut, 3P and 1 GS for a

total of 33 acres. Both units are primarily made up of material less than 7” and

greater than 3“diameter at breast height often referred to as post and poles used

primarily for fence construction. Unit 3P will be sold commercially (advertised and

bid competitively), material to be removed includes all lodgepole pine post and poles

and mature dead lodgepole pine trees. Area encompassing 1 GS will be opened to

personal use post and pole gathering for a period of five years or less. The time

period in which the unit would be open to public gathering is dependent on how

much material is available after each collection season. Early each year the Forest

Service will survey area to see if objectives have been accomplished, and whether

units should continue to be open for the next season. All mature live trees (7.0” dbh

and larger) would be retained in both units. Following harvest, residual seedlings and

saplings that have been damaged during harvest activities, suppressed, or diseased

will be dropped using chainsaws releasing the healthy seedlings and saplings.

3. Overstory Removal6 - Mature overstory trees will be removed across 106 acres,

allowing residual understory to release. Material that may make a post and pole will

be sold also. Mature trees that have no commercial value as a result of defects will

2 Thinning is defined as - A cultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve

growth, enhance forest health, or to recover potential mortality 3 Commercial Thinning is defined as – A thinning that does yield trees of commercial value.

4 Pre-Commercial Thinning is defined as - A thinning that does not yield trees of commercial value, usually

designed to reduce stocking in order to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees. 5 Group Selection is defined as - A method of regenerating uneven-aged stands in which trees are removed,

and new age classes are established, in small groups. 6 Overstory Removal is defined as -The cutting of trees comprising an upper canopy layer in order to release

trees to other vegetation in an understory.


be retained as future snags. Following harvest, the unit will be thinned to a 15 by 15

feet spacing releasing the residual understory for next cycle of harvest.

4. Sanitation7/Salvage

8 – Four units are identified for sanitation/salvage harvest

activity: 1S, 2S, 3S, and 7S. The proposed treatment would remove trees killed by

bark beetles (Douglas-fir and mountain pine beetle) or trees infected with mistletoe

or other disease agents across 81 acres. Remaining trees would be spaced on a 15 to

25 feet stem spacing leaving approximately 150 to 175 trees per acre. Preferential

leave trees would be the healthiest and largest in diameter to provide future seed.

Post-harvest weeding and release of residual stand may be implemented where

needed. Unit 6S has an aspen component. All conifers will be removed within 100

feet of live aspen stands promoting future aspen regeneration.

Roads No new construction of permanent roads would occur. Harvest activities will require re-

opening four closed road prisms and building 0.7 miles of temporary road for access.

Following harvest activities, the four reopened roads and temporary roads will be

decommissioned, with appropriate measures taken as needed to prevent motorized access,

reduce potential road runoff erosion, and impacts to streams. In addition, ten segments of

roads prisms (4.6 miles) that are no longer needed for future harvest activities will be

permanently decommissioned after harvest as well the removal of two culverts on Red Rock

Creek.

Slash Treatment Approximately 7 to 13 tons per acre of slash would be retained within the mechanical

treatment units in order to maintain soil organic material and long-term site productivity as

recommended by Graham and others for these forest types (USDA Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station, September, 1994). Harvested trees would be whole-tree

yarded and the slash piled and burned at landings. Skid trails and landings would be covered

with slash to reduce erosion. In pre-commercial units, which currently have limited organic

material, felled trees, would be limbed and scattered, providing this needed material.

Anticipated average fuel loadings would be less than 10 tons/acre following completion of

harvest activities.

7 Salvage – The removal of dead trees being damaged or dying due to injurious agents other than

competition, to recover value that otherwise be lost. 8 Sanitation – The removal of trees to improve stand health by stopping or reducing actual or

anticipated spread of insect and diseases (see Stand Improvement)


Figure 6 - Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Proposed Project

1 OSR

P

1S

2S

2AR

G7S

3P

L

1GS

O

A

E

Q

1CT

B

J

2CT

M

1AR

3S

I

C

K

H

R

F

N

D

1

87

56

31

30

2

12

25

36

32

29

11

1718

1314

28

35

24

33

4

26

1923

9

Ma

in F

ork

Tim

ber C

reek

Iron C

reek

Saw

mill C

reek

Quigley Creek

Redrock Creek

Jack

son Creek

Moonshin

e C

reek

Slide Creek

Hawley Creek

Sm

ithie

Cre

ek

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management - Map 2 - Project Area

Treatment Units

Streams

Roads Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong

Trails

9 Trails Open to Motorcycles Only, Yearlong

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

Timber Creek Campground

Date: 8/23/20130 10.5

Miles


1.5 Decision Framework Based on the analyses in this Environmental Analysis, the District Ranger will decide

whether or not to modify forest structure and fuel loading in response to ongoing and

anticipated forested insect and disease outbreaks, as proposed within the project area in

accordance with the HFRA and the Forest Plan goals, objectives, and desired future

conditions. In the decision, District Ranger Diane Weaver will answer the following

questions based on the environmental analysis:

1. Will the proposed action proceed as proposed, or not at all? If it proceeds:

2. What mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will the Forest Service

apply?

1.6 Public Involvement

To date the public and affected agencies have been invited to participate in the project in the

following ways:

Public involvement was initiated by listing the project in the Salmon-Challis National

Forest quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions for first quarter (October through

December) 2011. This list identifies new projects and the planning stage of ongoing

projects. The list includes a contact person for each project and describes how

interested members of the public may comment or receive information about the

project.

This scoping notice identified that the project would be analyzed using an

Environmental Analysis under the authorities granted by the Healthy Forest

Restoration Act.

On October 7, 2011 the project was presented to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe during

a government to government meeting.

On December 7, 2011 a description of project was presented to the Custer County

Natural Resource Commission soliciting early comments.

On December 29, 2011 a notice describing the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation

Management Project and inviting public comment was published in the Challis

Messenger and also in the Arco Advertiser newspapers.

On January 4, 2012 a scoping letter describing the project and inviting comment was

sent to various agencies, organizations, and member of the public that had responded

during scoping efforts for other recent, similar projects on the Lost River Ranger

District. The recipients of this letter included Nathan Small, Chairman, Shoshone-

Bannock Tribe, and McCoy Oatman, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribe.

On January 5th, 2012 the Forest Service held a public meeting at the Lost River

Ranger District office in Mackay, Idaho. The purpose of the meeting was to provide

background and project area information, present the proposed action, and discuss

any issues, concerns or opportunities that should be addressed in the project analysis.

Notice of this meeting was advertised in the two local newspapers on December 29th,

2011.

Using the comments from the public and other agencies, the interdisciplinary team developed

a list of issues to address, which are described in the Issues/Concerns section below.


1.7 Issues/Concerns Forest Service directives provide for the identification of issues to be analyzed in-depth (40

CFR 1501.7). Issues serve to highlight effects, unresolved conflicts, or unintended

consequences that may occur from the proposed action and alternatives, giving opportunities

to reduce adverse effects, and/or develop alternatives that reduce or eliminate those effects,

conflicts, or concerns. This allows for comparison of effects for the decision maker and

public to understand. Issues are best identified during scoping early in the process to help set

the scope of the actions, alternatives, and effects to consider; but, due to the iterative nature

of the NEPA process, additional issues may come to light at any time.

A list of resource concerns identified during project planning, preliminary evaluation and

public involvement were identified for the purposes of environmental analysis, impact

disclosure and comparison of alternatives. Concerns brought up during internal scoping,

public scoping conducted in January 2012 and at the community meeting, have been similar

to those raised for other recent projects across the South Zone of the Salmon-Challis National

Forest. They have included: tree cutting; need for management for insects and diseases;

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species; applicability of using HFRA authorities; old-

growth; Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas; landslide hazard, sediment levels; winter

logging; noxious and invasive weeds; road and travel management; and visuals.

These concerns were discussed by the ID team and are addressed in the specialist’s reports.

None of the issues/concerns indicated “the presence of unresolved conflicts over the

use of available resources that would require development of an alternative to the Proposed

Action. In some cases, concerns identified during scoping led to the modification of the

proposed action, and/or the addition of specific mitigation measures prior to detailed analysis

by resource specialists. Examples include, but are not limited to, the identification of

concerns associated with mechanical treatment in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas,

which led to the withdrawal of proposed treatment in these areas or modification of the

treatment areas. Additionally, concerns over recreational use within the project area and

possible conflicts with logging operations and harvest visuals led to the adoption of

mitigation measures requiring adequate signage, modifying boundaries, and timing of

hauling, all of which are described in Chapter 2.

2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Sawmill Canyon

Vegetation project. Under HFRA Title 1, Section 102 (4), Threats to Ecosystem Components

or Forest or Rangeland Resources, analyses must describe the proposed action, a no-action

alternative, and an additional alternative, if one is proposed during scoping or the

collaborative process that meets the purpose and need of the project.

Alternatives Not Considered

All major concerns identified during scoping are described in the Issues/Concerns section

above, and/or analyzed with effects results reported in Chapter 3 under the proposed action.

During the scoping processes, five additional action alternatives were proposed from public

scoping: helicopter harvest systems only, winter harvest, no harvest of trees within units

infested with noxious or invasive weeds, mixture of treatment methods including prescribed

fire, free selection thinning, keeping retention areas that would create a diverse forest, and a


no-new-roads alternative. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) discussed at length all five

alternatives to determine whether they could meet the objectives of the project and thus be

suitable for detailed environmental analysis.

Helicopter Logging

The helicopter logging alternative: the team agreed the project objectives could potentially be

met with this system of harvest, if economically feasible. Helicopter logging would result in

lower potential for soil disturbance within the activity units, addressing a concern by the

public. On the other hand, the alternative would also require large landing zones and sorting

areas, which would add extensive soil disturbance in sensitive valley-bottom areas. When the

ID team compared helicopter-yarding systems to ground based systems that included planned

design features, ground-based systems would likely result in fewer detrimental soil, water,

and habitat effects across the project analysis area. From an operational standpoint, individual

tree and/or thin-from-below prescriptions of small diameter trees such as those included

under the action alternative are typically very difficult, if not impossible to achieve using

helicopter yarding methods. Finally, the helicopter-based alternative was not chosen for

detailed analysis because it would render the management activities exorbitantly expensive,

and not economically feasible, due to existing log prices, haul costs, and helicopter operating

costs. Thus, this alternative was dropped from consideration and not analyzed any further.

Winter Logging

The winter logging alternative: the team agreed that it was feasible and would decrease

potential disturbance in the treatment areas and provide excellent protection from disturbance

and reduce potential delivery of sediment across the mechanical treatment areas. Forest

Hydrologists and Engineers expressed a concern regarding possible effects of snow plowing

and spring runoff on unhardened road surfaces (FS road #40101) and potential sediment

delivery off that road surface to a listed 303d stream. Recent observation from similar roads

on the forest suggest or indicates plowing tends to channelize spring runoff down the road

down cutting into the road surface, delivering more sediment off the road surface, thus, this

alternative was dropped from consideration and not analyzed any further.

Noxious Weeds

The suggested Alternative prohibiting logging of units with existing noxious weeds: the ID

team agreed that the proposed activities have the potential to spread existing weeds to other

areas throughout the units and perhaps beyond. Implementing specific mitigation measures

including pre, during, and post-harvest treatment and monitoring of weeds, seeding of all

disturbed areas, and implementing standard timber sale contract provision for inspection of

all harvesting equipment prior to entry on the forest would effectively minimize the potential

spread of noxious weeds. These measures are included in the Proposed Action; thus, this

alternative was dropped from consideration and not analyzed any further.

Mix Treatments for more diverse forests

The suggested Alternative using a mixture of treatments to achieve a more diverse forest with

multiple age classes and structures is inconsistent with entomologist’s recommendation to

address current insect and disease effects that are occurring in the proposed treatment units at

this time. Such treatments as suggested could lead to perpetuation of current and future insect

activity in the Sawmill area when the goal is to provide some resiliency to the treated stand


from current infestation which proposed Alternative addresses. Thus, this alternative was

dropped from consideration and not analyzed any further.

No New Roads

The suggested Alternative prohibiting new roads: the ID Team considered whether other

treatments methods could provide the same desired results in those areas that need road

access and still meet the intent of the project. The team did not feel this was possible, and that

some roads were required. The reasons included: prescribed broadcast burning would give

variable results and not completely meet the purpose and need, prescribed broadcast burning

could exacerbate the current Douglas-fir beetle populations to epidemic levels (Lazarus

2010), visuals for units along main routes would not meet Forest guidelines or their

designations, and if no roads were allowed (which for this project re-open roads are

considered temporary and would be closed again post-harvest or decommissioned), only pre-

commercial units would be left for treatment, which would not address the purpose and need

of this proposed Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project. Therefore, only the

proposed action Alternative and the no-action Alternative (with 50 % high lethal severity fire)

are included in the environmental analysis.

All other major concerns were identified as a result of scoping and described in the Issues

section above, and/or analyzed with effects results reported in chapter 3 under the proposed

action. A complete listing of scoping comments can be found in Appendix B and team’s

analysis of those comments categorizing them as either potential issues or alternative.

2.1 Process Used to Develop the Proposed Activity For the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management project, an Interdisciplinary Team was

convened to address the existing condition and consider how best to meet the purpose and

need listed in Section 1.3. The final proposed action was developed through a series of

resource evaluations, field visits, IDT meetings, and public involvement. The scoping

process described above revealed no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of

available resources that would suggest the need for an additional Alternative that might also

meet the project Purpose and Need. The Code of Federal Regulations and Forest Service

Handbook 1909.15, Ch. 41.22 provides guidance for analysis of the action and any alternative

with an Environmental Assessment:

When there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available

resources (NEPA, section 102(2)(E)), the EA need only analyze the proposed action and proceed without consideration of additional alternatives (36 CFR

220.7(b)(2)(i)). Although HFRA authorities are not required to describe the effects of the proposed action and

other alternatives, a decision by the line officer was made to pursue the HFRA processes after

internal and external scoping was completed and verification that the proposed project met

the criteria “covered” or “authorized” by the HFRA. To be covered or authorized by the

HFRA, the project must meet one of the four tests (areas) as outlined in the Interim Field

Guide (USDA Forest Service and DOI Bureau of Land Management, 2004). The four areas

where HFRA may be appropriate include: is project in a Wildland Urban Interface, is project

in a Municipal Watershed; does project contain Threatened or Endangered Species; or is

project area impacted by insect and disease. The process to arrive at this decision is outlined


in the Decision Diagrams 1 and 2 of the field guide. The deciding official answers decision

points until an end point is reached clearly identifying if project meets or does not meet,

“covered” or “authorized” HFRA projects. The Sawmill project does meet the Insect and

Disease test described in the Interim Field Guide, based on current conditions in the Sawmill

area. This conclusion is based on deciding official answering the decision points. A full

discussion can be found on how the line officer came to this conclusion, which can be found

in Appendix A.

Furthermore, the proposed action is consistent with goals, objectives, and implementation

strategies in the Custer County Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Mitigation Plan which fulfills

the requirement for collaboration, a key component of allowing the agency to use HFRA

authorities.

2.2 Alternatives

Alternatives 1: The No Action (with Wildfire) Under HFRA, Title 1, Section 102 (4), for Threats to Ecosystem, a No-Action alternative is

required. The No Action alternative, as HFRA states, “…should evaluate the effects of

failing to implement the project.” This evaluation should allow an assessment of the short

and long-term effects of failing to implement the project in the event the court is asked to

consider requests for an injunction.” In this context, changes in forest structure in the project

area have significantly increased the potential for uncharacteristic fire behavior. A landscape

scale, stand-replacing wildland fire during summer drought and extreme weather conditions

with lethal fire severity to 50 percent of forested and riparian ecosystems is a plausible event

as a consequence of not implementing hazardous fuels reduction activities. This is the

context for which “No Action with Wildfire” is evaluated for the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation

Management HFRA project.

Alternative 2: The Proposed Action The following treatments to address current insect and disease epidemic and associated

opportunities have been identified by the Forest Service for this project.

Mechanical Treatment The proposed action is expected to change current stand structure to make those stands more

resilient to current insect epidemic by changing density, structure, and potential ladder fuels,

and surface fuels while also reestablishing aspen in the drainage on 420 acres. Activities

include pre-commercial and commercial thinning of stands addressing large scale mortality as

a result of insect and disease activity using sanitation and salvage harvest activities. Tractor

based logging systems using timber sale contract(s) on over 326 acres would be used to thin

live trees and to remove dead and dying trees from the stands of mixed conifers. Tree density

after thinning in the treatments units would be 15 feet to 25 feet between stems (150-175

trees/acre) with volume removals roughly estimated to be 3,500 hundred cubic feet (CCF).

When aspen is present all encroaching conifers within live aspens will be removed to

promote regeneration. After harvest, timber stand improvement (TSI) treatments would be

applied to pockets of thick understory and remaining trees that act as ladder fuels. Of the 450

acres to be treated, 94 acres are lodgepole pine plantations that will be thinned to 15 feet by

15 feet spacing and pruned to 6 feet above ground surface which will decrease potential for

crown fire and the transition of ground fire to a crown fire. No tree cutting, sale or removal


would occur in Idaho Roadless Areas (Lemhi Range IRA #06-093). INFISH guidelines will

be followed for all mechanical harvest units. No treatments are planned in Intermountain

Region defined “Old Growth” stands. A detailed summary of proposed vegetation treatment

by silviculture treatment is described in Table 2 - Description of proposed vegetation

treatments in Sawmill Canyon and shown in Figure 6.


Table 2 - Description of proposed vegetation treatments in Sawmill Canyon

Treatment Number of Units (Acres)

Unit Designation

Treatment Summary

Pre-Commercial

Thinning

18 (94 acres)

Units A-R

Reduce tree stocking to allow selected residual trees to grow more vigorously.

Residual stand will be spaced 15 feet by 15 feet leaving approximately 200 trees

per acre. Remove lower limbs of residual trees to 6’ from ground surface or if tree

is less than 12 feet tall only half the limbs will be removed (example 11 feet tree,

only remove bottom 5 feet). Lop and scatter dropped trees. Retain 7 to 13 tons of

slash/acre for long-term site productivity. If activity exceeds 13 tons/acre a follow

up treatment will be implemented to address excess. No activities would occur

within the RHCA’s as defined by INFISH which are 300 feet for fish bearing

streams, 150 feet for non-fish bearing streams, or within 100 feet of spring, lakes,

or wet areas. Implement recreation specialist’s no cut tree buffer recommendations

along travel corridors. Treatment will be limited to chainsaw only. All

whitebark/limber pine saplings or mature trees will be left if discovered during

thinning activity.

Commercial Thinning

with Aspen Release

2 (77 acres)

Units 1AR and 2AR

Reduce tree stocking to allow selected residual trees to grow vigorously which will

improve tree resistance to disturbance agents. Where live aspen cohorts exist, all

conifers within 100 feet will be removed. Between the live aspen stands residual

leave trees will be marked with variable tree spacing. Trees will be left in “clumps’

of 2 to 7 trees with 15 feet bole spacing or 5 to 10 feet crown spacing. Distance

between clumps will be variable from 30 to 50 feet with an objective to retain

approximately 150 to 175 trees per acre across the treatment units. Post-harvest

weeding and release of residual stand may be implemented where needed. All

large non-marketable, “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees (large diameter trees with crowns

that are fading and flattening, and have visible evidence of interior heart rot) will be

left. In addition, where available, 5 to10 large diameter Douglas-fir greater than

18” dbh will also be left and become part of the residual component. All snags that

do not pose a safety hazard during logging operations would be retained in the

stand. Place landings where practical adjacent to aspen clones to promote


disturbance and regeneration. Implement whole tree yarding to minimize visuals

impacts. Angle temporary roads away from main road to reduce visual impacts.

Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines and employ no cut

buffers along travel corridors as recommended by recreation specialists. The

treatment will require the following construction activities:

The construction of 1,100’ of temporary roads into interior landings

The opening of 1,200’ of currently closed road

The construction of 20,125’ of skid trails

The construction of five 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings

The construction of 17,500’ of jack pole fence to deter livestock use of

aspen regeneration in Unit 1AR and 2AR

Placement of educational interpretive sign across from Timber Creek

campground explaining what treatment methods is being employed to

address insect agents in Sawmill Canyon.

The following post-harvest activities will occur:

Post-harvest treatments for noxious weeds for a period of up to five years

after sale closure

Post-harvest treatments to cut damaged and diseased conifers

Once activities are completed all landings, roads, and skid trails will be ripped and

seeded.

Commercial Thinning 2 (29 acres)

1CT and 2CT

Reduce tree stocking to allow selected residual trees to grow vigorously which will

improve tree resistance to disturbance agents. Residual trees will be left in

“clumps’ of 2 to 7 trees with 15 feet bole spacing or 5 to 10 feet crown spacing.

Distance between clumps will be variable from 30 to 50 feet with an objective to

retain approximately 150 to 175 trees per acre across the treatment units. All large

non-marketable, “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees will be left. In addition, where

available, 5 to 10 large diameter Douglas-fir greater than 18” dbh will also be left

and become part of the residual component. All snags that do not pose a safety

hazard during logging operation would be retained in the stand. This treatment will

create a single story stand of the healthiest and largest diameter trees. Layout of

unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines. The treatment will require the

following construction activities:




The construction of two 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings



after sale closure



seeded.

Overstory Removal 1 (106 acres)

1 OSR

Remove the large mature overstory trees and release the understory. All large non-

marketable, “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees will be left. All snags that do not pose a

safety hazard during logging operation would be retained in the stand. Following

harvest, the residual conifer stand would have a 15’ by 15’ spacing resulting in

leaving 150 to 175 trees per acre. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH

guidelines. The treatment will require the following construction activities:



The construction of six 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings



after sale closure



seeded.

Sanitation/Salvage 5 (81 acres)

1S, 2S, 3S, and 7S

Remove trees killed by bark beetles (Douglas-fir beetle and mountain pine beetle)

or trees infected with mistletoe or other diseases agents. Remaining trees will be

spaced on a 15 to 25 feet stem spacing leaving approximately 150 to 175 trees per

acre. Preferential leave trees would be healthiest and largest in diameter to provide

future seed. All large diameter nonmarketable “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees will be

retained. Five to ten greater than 18”dbh trees (green or dead) will be retained per

acre. Layout of unit boundaries will meet all INFISH guidelines. The treatment will


require the following construction activities:

The re-opening and subsequent closing of the closed un-numbered road off

the Red Rock Road for 300’ and the construction of 2,500’ of temporary

road in place of Trail 4337

The construction of 2,250’ of temporary road

The construction of 18,800’ of skid trail

The construction of eight 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings

The re-contouring of 100’ of existing constructed temporary road in place

of Trail 4337and the re-contouring of 600’ of an un-numbered road off of

road #40458 leading to Unit 7S once the logging is completed

The re-contouring of 2,250’ of temporary road once logging is completed



after sale closure



seeded.

Group Selection 2 (33 acres)

1GS and 3P

Remove all live/dead post and pole material and all dead lodgepole pine trees while

retaining live non post and pole size trees. End results would be clumps of mature

trees intermixed with saplings that do not meet post and pole standards. Designated

material for removal will be strictly lodgepole pine; all other tree species will be

retained. For 1GS this unit will be offered for personal use post and pole gathering

until all the easily retrieved material is removed, lasting approximately 5 years

maximum. After this time period the timber staff will evaluate remaining material,

and if needed, offer up remaining material to commercial purchaser to finish up.

For 3P this unit will be offered as a commercial sale. Layout of unit boundaries

will meet all INFISH guidelines and employ no cut buffers along travel corridors as

recommended by recreation specialists. The treatment will require the following

construction activities:

The construction of 5,700’ of temporary road (3,300’ of temporary road

over Trail #4109 and 2,400’ over the un-numbered road that exits road

#40458 leading into Unit (1GS)


The construction of 7,200’ of skid trail

The construction of two 100’ by 100’ clearings for landings

The re-closing of Trail #4109 back to the original trailhead once logging is

completed

The ripping and seeding of non-slope portions of the un-numbered road

leading into 1GS and 7S post-harvest



after sale closure



seeded.


Roads No new construction of permanent roads would occur for this proposed project. Harvest

activities will require re-opening four closed road prisms and building 0.7 miles of temporary

road for access. Following harvest activities, the four reopened roads will be returned to their

original state as well as the temporary roads that are needed for access. In addition, ten

segments of roads representing approximately five miles that are no longer needed for future

harvest activities will be decommissioned as well as the removal of two culverts on Red Rock

Creek as shown in Table 3 - Proposed road decommissioning in Sawmill Canyon and Figure

7 - Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project Proposed Road Work. Haul travel

routes would occur over the Red Rock Road #40460, Camp Creek Road #40104, Timber

Creek Road #40105, and Sawmill Canyon Road #40101. Pre-haul, haul and post-haul

maintenance on haul routes would be conducted, including surface blading, slough removal,

tree limbing, culvert and ditch cleaning.

Table 3 - Proposed road decommissioning in Sawmill Canyon

Route Name Decommissioning Technique Miles

40455 Rip and Seed .31

40456 Rip and Seed .16

40457 Block Entrance .26

40458 Full Bench Obliteration .82

40459-A Remove culvert, obliterate first section of road .19

40459-A Rip and Seed .10

40460 Remove culvert, obliterate first section of road .48

40460-B Rip and Seed .39

40470 Located in Unit 1OSR, rip and seed .15

Trail Road that goes through A and O, obliterate first 100’ .59

Trail/Start 40459 Obliterate the first 100’ .44

Unknown 1 Road that goes through Unit B, Rip and seed, if vegetated

leave as is

.28

Unknown 2 Rip and seed, obliterate first 150’ .42


Figure 7 - Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project Proposed Road Work

Slash Treatments Approximately 7 to 13 tons per acre of slash would be retained within the timber sale

treatment units in order to maintain soil organic material and long-term site productivity as

40

45

5

40457

40458

40460-B

40460

40459-A

40459Unk 1

40470

4104

Unk 2

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project Proposed Road Work

Legend

Timber Creek Campground

Perennial Streams

Proposed Road Work

Road Status as Designated

Temporary Roads/Close

Decommission

Re-close to Trail

Proposed Treatment Units

1:40,000


recommend for Douglas-fir and lodgepole forest types (USDA Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station, September, 1994). The slash created during mechanical thinning in excess

of these amounts would be treated either by piling and burning at the landing or at other

locations where machine or hand piles were created within the units. Approximately 7 to 13

tons per acre of slash will be retained within the pre-commercial thinning units as well to

provide additional soil organic material by limbing and scattering fell trees. No additional

treatment to dispose of excess slash is required on the pre-commercial units because of

current existing fuel loading.

Project Schedule and Duration: Implementation is expected to begin in the late summer of 2014 and potentially extend up to

eight years. Operations period normally will be limited to July 15th thru November 30

th with

only one exception in Units 1S and 2S. The proposed operating period will be from June 15th

thru November 1st. Different proposed working operations for Units 1S and 2S is to facilitate

temporary road construction, log the units, and bed the temporary road back to original

contour in one operating period prior to the onset of wet winter period which normally starts

around November 1st. If any harvest or service contract work occurs outside this time period,

the resource specialists will be re-consulted to determine potential effects. No winter

harvesting is planned. Contractor camping privileges would be permitted within or adjacent

to the project area.

2.3 Design Features In response to public comments and internal scoping on the proposal, mitigation measures

were developed to ease some of the potential impacts the various treatments may cause.

During the development phase of the project, various design measures were incorporated to

address specific resource needs and opportunities, lessen potential impacts and to avoid

potential resource damage. Measures include using Best Management Practices, regular

operational procedures, and other measures developed through resource specialists input and

Interdisciplinary Team interactions. General standards and guidelines within Challis National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (FLRMP) for Management Area #22, Sawmill

Canyon, are not specifically repeated here. Some design features are pertinent to all units

where some are specific to a silviculture treatment or harvest unit. Table 4 breaks down the

design features by resource and ties it back to proposed action.


Table 4 - Design features by activity and resources

Activities Resource Design Feature

Pre-Sale Layout ,

Tractor Logging and

Pre-Commercial Units

Fisheries INFISH guidelines for boundaries

layout for all proposed treatment units

will strictly be followed as well as any

construction activities.

Pre-Sale Layout ,

Tractor Logging

Units

Recreation/Visuals No tree cutting buffers along major

travel routes will be employed for the

following units during boundary

layout: Unit 1AR buffer from main

road of 150 feet, Unit 2AR buffer from

main road of 30 feet, and Unit 3P

buffer along trail of 30feet.

Layout, Pre-

Commercial Thinning

Units

Recreation/Visuals No tree cutting buffers along major

travel routes will be employed for the

following pre-commercial units during

boundary layout: Units J and K – 15

feet, Units C, N, and F- 30 feet, Units

D and E - 60 feet.

Marking Guideline R4 Sensitive Plants All live whitebark/limber pine trees

greater than 7” dbh will be marked or

designated for retention in all proposed

units

Marking Guidelines Wildlife For Units 1AR, 2AR, 1CT, 2CT, 1S,

2S, 3S, and 7S, all large non-

marketable, “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees

(large diameter trees with crowns that

are fading and have visible evidence of

heart rot) will be marked as leave. In

addition, 5 to10 larger diameter

Douglas-fir trees greater than 18” dbh

will also be left and become part of the

residual stand. For 1 OSR large non-

marketable trees (observed defects

making log cull) will be marked as

leave. For Units 1GS and 3P only post

and pole material and dead lodgepole

pine trees will be removed. All live

mature trees will be retained.

Sale Preparation Recreation Identify on Sale area map all facilities

and improvements. Units 1AR, 2AR

and 3P of the Timber Sale Contract

will require whole tree yarding to

reduce short term visual effects,

provision RO CT6.42# - Skidding and

Yarding. Include stump height

provision of 12” maximum.

Sale Preparation Noxious & Invasive / Identify on Sale area map all known


Soils & Hydrology/

Fisheries/Wildlife

locations of noxious or invasive plants

on haul routes and/or locations of these

plants in designated sale area. Include

provision RO CT 6.601# - Erosion

Control Weeding to seed, scarify, and

fertilize skid trails, temp roads, and

landings to expedite re-establishment

of vegetation to prevent spread of

noxious weeds and reduce erosion.

Sale Preparation Wildlife/Fisheries/

Hydrology

Units 1S, and 2S requires 2,250 feet of

temporary road, include order of

operation contract provision RO

CT6.310# - Cutting Schedule and RO

CT6.312# - Sale Operation

Restrictions allowing only one

operating season from June 15th to

November 1st,

allowing operator to

construct temporary road, remove

product, and close temporary road

prior to winter onset.

Sale Preparation Wildlife All other mechanical harvest units

incorporate a July 15th to November

30th, normal operating period. RO

CT6.312# - Sale Operation

Restrictions.

Sale Preparation R4 Sensitive Plants Use contract provision WO CT6.32#-

Protection of Reserve Trees to protect

mature whitebark/limber pine in all

mechanical treatment units.

Pre-Harvest

Operations

Noxious & Invasive Implement BT 6.35 which requires all

“Off road equipment to be inspected

for noxious weeds prior to entry onto

the forest and commencement of

operations.”

Pre-Harvest

Operations

Fisheries/Hydrology Prior to starting operation in 1GS and

7S straw wattles or silt fence will be

installed on stream side from

beginning of section FS road 40458 to

junction with unknown road #2 as it

turns up the hill to catch sediment.

Harvest Operations Recreation and Range Individuals with permit activities

(outfitters & Permittee’s) will be

notified prior to commencement of

timber sale operations to reduce

potential conflicts.

Harvest

Operations/Temporary

Roads

Fisheries Construction of temporary roads will

follow INFISH direction for locations

and construction techniques.

Harvest Operations/

Temporary Road

Fisheries Temporary road placement through

units 1S and 2S will not butt up


Construction against 300 feet Timber Creek RHCA

boundary

Harvest Operations/

Temporary Road

Construction

Recreation Temporary road placement into units

1AR and 2AR will be located at an

angle away from Forest Roads #40101

and #40104 to reduce visual effects.

Harvest Operations /

Landings and Skid

trails

Recreation Units 1AR, 2AR, and 3P that are

immediately adjacent to travel route

and landings will be placed inside

cutting units to reduce visual effects.

Skid trails locations need to be

approved in advance and will be

angled so as to not be run straight up

and down the hill and not visible from

travel routes.

Harvest Operation/

Public Safety

Recreation/Safety Hauling restrictions would be imposed

on weekends for public safety.

Specifically hauling would be

prohibited from Friday midnight to

Sunday midnight. When holidays

occur on Mondays, the prohibition

would extend to Monday midnight.

When holidays occur mid-week days,

the hauling prohibition would span the

period from midnight to midnight of

the day of the holiday.

Harvest Operations/

Public Safety

Recreation Warning signs would be placed at

critical road intersections to alert the

general public to logging activity in the

vicinity. On motorized trail # 4109

opened for harvesting Unit 3P signing

will be placed at junction with FS road

#40104 and at the temporary closure

on southern end for the duration of

harvest.

Harvest Operations /

Maintaining Motor

Vehicle Use

Restrictions

Recreation On motorized trail # 4109 the trailhead

entrance will be moved slightly past

Unit 3P on the south end. A barrier

will be placed across the road that only

allows access to continue on through

for 50 inch or less all-terrain vehicles

as currently designated on the Motor

Vehicle Use Map. When harvest is

completed, the trailhead north entrance

with Junction of Forest Service Road

#40104 will be returned to pre-harvest

state as well as removing the

temporary barrier on south end.

Harvest Operations/

Trail Access

Recreation Trails # 4109 and # 4076 would be

cleaned of logging debris during


operations to maintain trail access and

then returned to their original width

once harvest activities are complete.

Harvest

Operations/Landings

Wildlife In all units with aspen components,

placement of landings shall be on edge

of aspen stand to facilitate disturbance

needed for regeneration of aspen

cohorts.

Harvest Operations/

Landings

Fisheries/ Hydrology In all cases will no landings abut

against INFISH designate buffers or be

located on unstable ground. All

landings need to be pre-approved prior

to construction by Sale Administrator.

Harvest Operations Hydrology/ Soils/

Fisheries / Noxious &

Invasive Species

On all mechanical harvest units

incorporate the following State of

Idaho Best Management Practices.

Select for each harvesting

operation the logging method

and type of equipment adapted

to the given slope, landscape

and soil properties in order to

minimize soil erosion.

(IDAPA 20.02.01.030.03)

Ground based skidding shall

not be conducted if it will

cause rutting, deep soil

disturbance, or accelerated

erosion. On slopes exceeding

forty-five percent (45%)

gradient, ground based

skidding shall not be

conducted except with an

approved variance. (IDAPA

20.02.01.30.03a)

Limit the grade of constructed

skid trails on geologically

unstable, saturated, or highly

erodible or easily compacted

soils to a maximum of thirty

percent (30%). (IDAPA

20.02.01.30.03b)

In accordance with appropriate

silvicultural prescriptions, skid

trails shall be kept to the

minimum feasible width and

number. Tractors used for

skidding shall be limited to the

size appropriate for the job.

(IDAPA 20.02.01.30.03c)


Locate landings, skid trails on

stable areas to prevent the risk

of material entering streams.

(IDAPA 20.02.01.30.04)

All new or reconstructed

landings and skid trails shall

be located on stable areas

outside the appropriate

INFISH buffers. Locate fire

and skid trails where side

casting is held to a minimum.

(IDAPA 20.02.01.30.04a)

To prevent landslides, fill

material used in landing

construction shall be free of

loose stumps and excessive

accumulations of slash. On

slopes where side casting is

necessary, landings shall be

stabilized by use of seeding,

compaction, rip rapping,

benching, mulching or other

suitable means. (IDAPA

20.02.01.30.04c)

For each landing, skid trail or

fire lines, a drainage system

shall be provided and

maintained that will control

the dispersal of surface water

to minimize erosion. (IDAPA

20.02.01.30.05c)

Stabilize skid trails and fire

lines whenever they are

subject to erosion, by water

barring, cross draining,

outsloping, scarifying, seeding

or other suitable means. This

work shall be kept current to

prevent erosion prior to fall

and spring runoff. (IDAPA

20.02.01.30.05a)

Reshape landings as needed to

facilitate drainage prior to fall

and spring runoff. Stabilize all

landings by establishing

ground cover or by some other

means within one (1) year

after harvesting is completed.

(IDAPA 20.02.01.30.05b)

Spacing distances for water


bars on tractor skid trails are:

Water bar spacing.

Gradient

(%)

Sedimentary

& Quartzite

Unit 1AR,

1CT, 1OSR,

3P, & 1GS

Volcanic

Units –

2AR,

2CT,1S,

2S,3S &

7S

0-10 200 feet 80 feet

10-20 160 feet 70 feet

20-30 110 feet 55 feet

30-40 80 feet 40 feet

40-50 60 feet 35 feet

50-60 45 feet --

Deposit waste material from

construction or maintenance of

landings and skid and fire

trails in geologically stable

locations outside of the

appropriate INFISH buffers.

(IDAPA 20.02.01.30.06c)

During and after forest

operations, stream beds and

streamside vegetation shall be

protected to leave them in the

most natural condition as

possible to maintain water

quality and aquatic habitat.

(IDAPA 20.02.01.30.07)

No operations would be

conducted along bogs,

swamps, wet meadows,

springs, seeps, wet draws or

other sources where the

presence of water is indicated;

protect soil and vegetation

from disturbance which would

cause adverse effects on water

quality, quantity and wildlife

and aquatic habitat. (IDAPA

20.02.01.30.07c)

Materials to be used

(equipment, erosion control

materials, vegetation) will be

approved by the Contracting

Officer’s Representative

(COR) or Sale Administrator.

All harvest equipment used on

the site will be inspected prior


to its arrival on the site. The

equipment must be 1) free of

all noxious weeds and aquatic

invasive and 2) free of oil,

fuel, or toxic leaks that would

wash off into water. No storage of fuel or toxicants

is allowed in RHCA’s.

Fueling activities with

RHCA’s are also prohibited

unless there are no other

alternatives. Refueling sites

with RHCA’s must be

approved and implement a

Spill Containment Plan, part

of which includes a spilled

fuel containment/catchment

device. Leaks of motor oil and

hydraulic fluid from heavy

equipment should be

monitored and controlled to

prevent water contamination.

Any petroleum contamination

shall be cleaned up and

disposed of properly. Piles shall be limited to the

smallest size possible to limit

the extent of soil heating. All

piles larger than 10 feet in

diameter will be scarified and

seeded with native plant mix. Water sources used during pile

burning would follow the

measures as stated in the

Programmatic Biological

Assessment/Biological

Evaluation of the Effects to

Threatened, Endangered,

Proposed, and Sensitive

Aquatic Species for the

Wildfire Suppression on the

Salmon-Challis National

Forest, December 2010

(USDA Forest Service, 2010). Harvest Operations Wildlife Retain all snags that do not pose a

safety hazard during logging

operations in all mechanical units

except 1GS and 3P

Harvest Operations R4 Sensitive Plants / As approved by sale administrator,


Seedling & Saplings skid trails would be located to

minimize damage to whitebark pine

and other seedlings and saplings.

Post- Harvest or

Timber Sale Closure

Noxious and

Invasive/Fisheries/Soils &

Hydrology/ Wildlife

All disturbed areas will be seeded with

a native plant mix. If soils are

compacted sites will also be scarified

then seeded.

Post-

Harvest/Temporary

and Re-opened Roads

Watershed/Fisheries/

Wildlife/ & Recreation

Temporary and re-opened roads will

be closed prior to unit acceptance.

Closure techniques will vary based on

road location, previous road use

designation and slope, and may include

full bench obliteration to closure of

first 100 feet of road. Other techniques

include berm redistribution, ripping,

seeding, and scattering slash on

disturbed ground. Specific techniques

have been outlined in Table 3,

Proposed Road Decommissioning.

Post-Harvest or Prior

to Timber Sale

Closure

Recreation/Trails Trails #4109 and #4076: prior to

closure and acceptance of Timber Sale

Contract will be closed and returned to

original width.

Post-Harvest Recreation Interpretative sign will be placed

across from entrance to Timber Creek

Campground explaining the proposed

vegetation management project.

Post- Harvest Wildlife/Range/Recreation Units 1 and 2AR will be fenced off

with a fence that allows free passage of

wildlife to protect aspen regeneration.

Where visible from main travel routes

materials used for the fence will be

either a jack or rail, or log worm fence

to blend in with natural setting.

Remaining fence will be standard 4

wires.

Post-Harvest Noxious & Invasive All disturbed areas will be surveyed

for noxious weeds and treated for up to

five years after timber sale closure.

Post-Harvest Pile

Burning

Air Shed Before any pile burning consult the

Idaho/Montana air shed group for prior

authorization before lighting.

Culvert Removal on

Red Rock Creek

Fisheries and Hydrology When performing these functions

utilized guidance from 2011

Programmatic BA (Programmatic

Biological Assessment for

Restoration Activities at Stream

Crossings Affecting the Habitat of

ESA-listed Fish Species on

National Forests and Bureau of


Land Management Public Lands in

Idaho, November 5, 2011) and the

associated BO for this kind activity

(NMFS, June 4, 2012 and USFWS,

June12, 2012) .

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

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

establishes a feedback mechanism so management can develop and employ adaptive

management. Monitoring is done at recurring intervals as a basis for Forest Plan

implementation. Project effectiveness monitoring is done by sampling specific projects at

specific time intervals. Although there is no specific management required monitoring

associated with this proposed action, implementation and effectiveness monitoring would

include the following:

Soils The use of prescribed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to redistribute slash over skid

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

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

verify if BMP’s are being met. If BMP’s are not being met, corrections to management

practices will be implemented.

Down Woody Debris The amount of debris left in the mechanical treatment units needs to meet recommended

minimum levels of 7 to 13 tons per acre as recommended by Graham for Douglas-fir and

lodgepole pine forest cover types and would be checked by timber, fuels, or soils personnel.

Noxious Weeds Sites where soil is newly exposed such as on construction of temporary roads, skid trails,

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

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

treated.

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

associated with each resource function (such as depth fine measurements downstream of

proposed project to determine long term trends) involved in the analysis of this project would

be conducted as prescribed within annual work plans.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSQUENCES

3.1 Introduction Chapter 1 provides a brief description of the current condition of forest vegetation and why

existing conditions have created a need for change as described in the proposed project. This


chapter will describe the current condition for specific resource areas, and provide a summary

of the analysis of the effects and conclusions drawn if the alternative described in chapter 2

were to be implemented. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects are the scientific and

analytic basis for the comparison of the effects of implementing the proposed action in

relation to not doing so. The full versions of these specialist reports are available in the

project analysis file at the District office in Mackay, Idaho.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Analysis There are three types of effects that must be considered during a NEPA analysis: direct,

indirect and cumulative. Direct effects are changes in a biophysical condition occurring

relatively close in time and space to the triggering action. Indirect effects are those changes

occurring at a later time or at a greater distance from the triggering action. Cumulative effects

are defined in the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations as the “impact on the

environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions…” (40 CFR 1508.7). CEQ has interpreted

this regulation as referring only to the cumulative impact of the direct and indirect effects of

the proposed action and its alternatives when added to the aggregate effects of past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable future actions (CEQ Memorandum to the Heads of Federal

Agencies regarding Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects

Analysis, June 24, 2005, page 2). Direct and indirect effects of the proposed activities can

either mitigate/compensate for other activity effects, or can be additive.

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

cumulative impacts in combination with the proposed action and are listed in Appendix C.

Each resource specialist considered different mixes of these actions, depending on the

cumulative effects boundary for the resource area and the resource affected. The spatial and

temporal extent of effects analysis is described for each resource. Reasonably foreseeable

future activities considered under cumulative effects analysis are those activities with direct

and indirect effects that overlap in space and time with the direct and indirect effects of the

analyzed Alternatives, and include those that would occur approximately 8 years from the

onset of activities proposed under the action Alternative. Any activities which may occur

beyond this time frame are considered highly speculative and were not included for

consideration of cumulative effects.

Activities identified by the IDT in the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area included; timber

harvest and other forested vegetation management, mining and mineral extraction, grazing,

transportation system construction and maintenance, developed and dispersed recreation,

OHV use and management, firewood gathering, fire suppression in the area, prescribed

burning and fuels reduction, noxious weed management, watershed/fisheries enhancements,

and private land activities (Sawmill Canyon Vegetation HFRA Project Catalog of Activities

and Actions for Cumulative Effects Analysis).

Analysis of Failing to Implement the Proposed Action When there are no unresolved conflicts concerning effects of the Proposed Action (NEPA,

section 102(2)(E)), the EA need only analyze the proposed action and proceed without

consideration of additional alternatives (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(i)). Nonetheless, the EA may

document consideration of a no-action alternative through the effects analysis by contrasting

the impacts of the proposed action…with the current condition and expected future condition

if the proposed action were not implemented (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(ii)).


Under the HFRA, for all authorized projects in all other areas other than wildland-urban-

interface and near a community at risk Title 1, Section 102 (4), the environmental analysis

must include the proposed action, a no-action alternative, and an additional alternative if one

is proposed during scoping or the collaborative processes. HFRA also states that while

agencies are not expected to fully develop a no action alternative, they should evaluate the

effects of failing to implement the project. This evaluation should allow an assessment of the

short and long-term effects of failing to implement the project in the event the court is asked

to consider requests for an injunction. As described in Chapter 2, no other alternatives were

proposed that met the objectives of the project, were operationally or economically feasible,

and/or mitigated possible adverse effects and addressed unresolved conflicts over alternative

uses of available resources in ways not already addressed by the proposed action alternative.

Changes in forest structure and effects of insect epidemics in the project area have greatly

increased the potential for uncharacteristic fire behavior. A landscape scale, stand-replacing

wildland fire during summer drought and extreme weather conditions with lethal fire severity

to 50 percent of forested and riparian ecosystems is a plausible event as a consequence of not

implementing treatment activities. This is the context for which “no action with wildfire” was

evaluated for the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management HFRA project. The possible

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of failing to implement the proposed action and

experience a landscape-scale, stand-replacing wildfire is also included in the effects analysis

presented below.

3.2 Resource Conditions and Proposed Action Effects The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Project was reviewed and analyzed by an Interdisciplinary

Team of resource specialists. Those included in the reviews were an Archeologist, District

Ranger, Engineer, Range Specialists, Botanist, Entomologist, Fisheries Biologist, Fuels,

Presale Forester, Natural Resource Specialist (Recreation), Soils and Hydrology,

Silviculturist, and Wildlife Biologist. The objective of specialist review and analysis was to

analyze in detail the affected environment, the effects of the proposed action on the affected

environment, and any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects of other

actions overlapping in space and time with those of the proposed action. Furthermore,

specialists contrasted the impacts of the proposed action and any alternative(s) with the

current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented.

This EA identifies and summarizes the effects analyses contained within the specialist

reports.

3.2.1 Fire and Fuels The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management project area was reviewed in the field by the

Salmon-Challis National Forest Fuels group. The field reviews were used to verify habitat

types, fuel loadings, tree composition, and to verify Fire Regime Condition Classes9 (FRCC)

9 Fire Regime Condition Classes by definition is the classification of the amount of departure

from historical natural fire regime and includes three condition classes for each of the five

fire regimes. This departure results in the change to one (or more) of the following ecological

components: vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age,

canopy closure, and mosaic patterns); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern;

and other associated disturbances (e.g. insect and disease, tree or shrub mortality, grazing,


observed in the field in relationship to the corporate layer FRCC layer that was developed

with Dr. Wendell Hann and the Fire Science Lab in Missoula, Montana for the Salmon-

Challis National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 2013).

FRCC GIS layer was compared to stand exam data collected for the project and appears to be

accurate at the landscape of this project. Findings for the project area are approximately 83

percent of the landscape is in high departure (FRCC 3) and the remainder is in moderated

departure (FRCC 2). There are no treatment units in this project that are low departure

(FRCC 1). By definition, any area that is in FRCC 3 indicates the risk of losing key

ecosystem components across the landscape is high and fire frequencies have departed from

natural frequencies over multiple intervals. In the case of a wildfire, dramatic changes will

occur to fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Areas represented by FRCC 2

indicate the risk of losing key ecosystem components across the landscape is moderate, as are

the other attributes of the landscape.

The indices that were measured to make comparison between No Action Alternative and

Proposed Action Alternative are: percent of acres of high and moderated risk for stands

receiving treatment; predict fire occurrence surface vs. crown; and fire rate of spread in

chains and disclosed in the effects section below. Date information was modeled to determine

outcomes in the event of a wildfire for both no action alternative and the proposed action

alternative.

1. No Action a) Direct and Indirect Effects

Since there would be no agency actions, there would be no direct or indirect effects

associated with the no action alternative until an agent of change disrupts the vegetation in

the project area. No high risk (FRCC 3) acres would be treated and fuel loadings would

continue to increase as is shown in Table 5. Eventually a chance ignition would lead to a high

intensity, severe wildfire moving across the landscape as happened in 1988 in the adjacent

drainage. Table 5 - Fire risk to life and property across the landscape

Alternative Acres of

High Risk

Treated

Flame

Length

(ft)

Rate of

Spread

(surface

fire in

chains per

hour)

Spotting

Distance

(miles)

Fire

Type

No action

No Wildfire

0

0

0

0

None

No Action

With

Wildfire

Up to

25,000

8-14 25-47 .6 Active

Crown Fire

and drought). There are no wildland vegetation and fuel conditions or wildland fire situations

that do not fit within one of the three classes.


Proposed

Action

353 2-3 3 .1 Surface Fire

Six silviculture types of treatment are proposed for this project; under the no action

alternative all treatment units with the exception of pre-commercial thinning units on a

chance ignition would experience either a passive to active crown fire. Factor in Drought

(90th

percentile) or Severe Drought (97th percentile), all units would experience a passive to

active crown fire as shown in Table 6.

Table 6 - Fire behavior outputs from direct model in Behave Plus for summer normal

(50th percentile), drought (90th percentile), and severe drought (97th percentile) for

treatment units for a fuel model 10

Treatment Type Rate of spread

(chains/hour) 50th,

90th, & 97

th

percentile

Crowing Index

(mph) 50th, 90

th, &

97th percentile

Fire Type for 50th, 90

th, &

97th percentile

50 90 97 50 90 97 50 90 97

Group Selection 7 20 25 39 31 29 Passive

Crown

Fire

Passive

Crown

Fire

Active

Crown

Fire

Overstory Removal 12 30 46 70 63 51 Passive

Crown

Fire

Passive

Crown

Fire

Passive

Crown

Fire

Sanitation/Salvage 11 37 47 13 10 9 Active

Crown

Fire

Active

Crown

Fire

Active

Crown

Fire

Commercial Thin w@

Aspen Release

11 30 38 10 7 6 Active

Crown

Fire

Active

Crown

Fire

Active

Crown

Fire

Commercial Thin 9 28 35 43 34 31 Passive

Crown

Fire

Passive

Crown

Fire

Active

Crown

Fire

Pre-commercial Thin 8 21 26 22 17 15 Surface

Fire

Active

Crown

Fire

Wind

Driven

Active

Crown

Fire

Wind

Driven

The average trees/acre across the project area is over 800, which is more than 4 times what

scientists say historically were found on the land. Without action, the Sawmill drainage will

continue to move away from desired future conditions, with increased fuel loading, ladder

fuels, and stand densities. Without action, the present condition of the timbered portions of

the drainage is primed to create another, even larger than, the 1988 Little Lost Wildfire that

burned over 6,246 acres in the upper reaches of Sawmill Canyon.

2. Proposed Action

a) Direct and Indirect Effects If the proposed action is implemented the treatment units would be modified by reduction in

trees/acre, stand structure, stand mortality, fuel loadings, and crown heights from current

conditions. These entire factors lessen the risk of loss to wildfire as to rate of spread, flame


length and intensity, making them manageable for direct attack as all model fire types would

be a surface fire even at the severe drought conditions which is a contrast to current

conditions predicted outcome Table 7.

Table 7 - Fire behavior outputs for direct model in Behave Plus for summer normal

(50th percentile), drought (90th percentile), and severe drought (97th percentile) for

post treatment

Treatment Type Rate of spread

(chains/hour)

50th, 90

th, & 97

th

percentile

Crowing Index

(mph) 50th, 90

th,

& 97th percentile

Fire Type for 50th, 90

th, &

97th percentile

50 90 97 50 90 97 50 90 97

Group Selection 3 7 8 44 35 32 Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Overstory Removal 3 7 8 70 56 51 Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Sanitation/Salvage 3 7 8 26 20 19 Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Commercial Thin

w@ Aspen Release

3 7 8 10 7 6 Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Commercial Thin 3 7 8 43 34 31 Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Pre-commercial Thin 3 7 8 22 17 15 Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Surface

Fire

Rates of spread for a wildfire at the 50

th percentile weather conditions would drop from 7 to

12 chains per hour presently to 3 chains per hour after treatment in each of the six units. At

the 97th percentile weather conditions, they would drop from 25 to 47 chains per hour to 8

chains per hour which is less than 1/4 of the rate presently.

Flame lengths for a wildfire at the 50th percentile weather conditions would drop from 4 to7

foot to 1 to 2 foot flame lengths after treatment in each of the six units. At the 97th percentile

weather conditions, they would drop from 8 to 14 foot flame length to 2 foot flame lengths.

Four foot flame lengths are considered the maximum length at which hand crews can no

longer take direct attack on a fire. The treatments would allow initial attack forces to directly

attack a wildfire after treatment.

Treatments would improve forest health by reducing overstocked timbered stands, modifying

forest structure, reducing ladder and dead and down fuels, and regenerating aspen.

b) Cumulative Effects

Ongoing and proposed activities that could affect fire and fuels critical components include

tree mortality associated with insects and disease; mining activities; timber harvesting;

firewood cutting and noxious weed treatments.

Mining - Beginning in the 1890's and continuing to the early 1990's, Sawmill Canyon

contained localized mining activities. Mining activity in the canyon primarily consisted of

shaft mines in the eastern portion of the watershed. Recreational mining does not appear to


be an issue in the Little Lost River drainage and there are currently no active mining claims.

Therefore, mining is not likely to affect timber, fire, and fuels activities.

Timber Harvesting - Timber harvesting can be good for fire and fuels components if the slash

is treated post harvesting. In the past, some timber has been sold salvaging dead trees from

the 6,246 acre Little Lost Wildfire of 1988. Most of the burn has regenerated at this time and

could act as a natural fuel break or where the regeneration is thick, fire would burn holes in

the young timber.

Noxious Weed Treatments – A mitigation measure is included for the project for

contractors entering the treatment units to clean their vehicles prior to entering the Forest to

try and eliminate introduction of noxious weeds into the area. The project area and adjacent

areas will be inventoried for noxious weeds and any areas found will be treated prior to

implementation and project personnel including partners and/or contractors made aware of

locations, if known or found.

Fire Suppression – Sawmill Canyon area has been designated by the Salmon-Challis National

Forest staff for full fire suppression due to its one way ingress and egress. Current and future

insect and disease mortality will add both ground and aerial fuels to current existing fuel

loadings, creating safety conditions that would prohibit direct attack. The proposed action

would counter some of the insect and disease problems that are developing on the project area

and provide a reduction in risk of wildfire effects related to insect and diseases.

3.2.2 Soils, Hydrology and Watershed Resources The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management project area was reviewed in the field by the

Salmon-Challis National Forest Hydrologist group. The field reviews were used to verify

detrimental soil disturbance, effective ground cover, coarse wood debris, soil compaction and

assess the hydrologic, physical and biological conditions of the soils in the treatment units.

Field reviews also collected information to verify current stream conditions by taking

measurements of depth fines and comparing them to past measurement as well as bank

stability and composition, and conducted an aquatic zone analysis rating. Data collected was

then modeled to determine potential effects to soils, hydrology and watershed resources of

the project.

The indices that were measured include: compliance with state water quality standards and

maintenance of beneficial uses, probability of erosion and sediment delivery to streams,

potential for changes in timing and magnitude of water yield, percent detrimental soil

disturbance, and cumulative effects watershed risk rating combining existing condition,

watershed sensitivity and degree of management as a comparison of the potential to

experience adverse effects to water resources. Effects are listed below.

1. No Action

a) Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct effects associated with No Action Alternative because the

consequences of not treating fuels would likely occur at a later time. Indirect effects of the No

Action Alternative relate to the unnatural build-up of fuels in the project area. The probable

long-term consequence of not treating fuels is a large scale, high intensity wildfire.

Predicting actual long-term effects from a major fire is difficult due to variability in location


of fire and fuel types. The worst case scenario would concentrate a major wildfire in the

Upper Sawmill subwatershed, in heavy timber, and remove the majority of vegetation which

would create hydrophobic soil conditions in areas with heavy fuel accumulation. Appreciable

changes in slope stability, runoff, and sediment delivery are likely to occur following a large

scale, high intensity wildfire.

Compliance with State Water Quality Standards and Maintenance of Beneficial’s

Uses

The direct water quality effects of wildfire are usually associated with burned material or air

dropped retardant entering a water body and potentially elevating water temperature and/or

nutrient levels. The indirect effects include possible decreases in interception and infiltration,

with possible increases in surface and mass erosion, nutrient loading, and sedimentation. Fire

that includes significant amounts of high burn severity can greatly increase erosion rates.

Elevated turbidity (suspended sediment) could also degrade water quality. Erosion and

sedimentation rates due to wildfire typically recover to normal levels in 3 years for low

severity fires, and 7 to 14 years for moderate and high severity fires, respectively (Robichaud,

Beyers, & Neary, 2000).

In watersheds where fire suppression and succession have allowed forests to reach mature

stages, water yields may approach a minimum level and decrease the amount of water

available for irrigation. However, continued fire suppression may result in fuel buildups that

could result in catastrophic fires that could ultimately impact channels through post-fire flood

flows (Farnes, 2000).

Post-fire changes in streamflow regime could result due to changes in snow

accumulation/melt patterns and evapotranspiration. Increased streamflow could result in short-term increases in the amount of water available for irrigation. Modeled Probability of Erosion and Sediment Delivery Wildfires burn indiscriminately without regards to mitigation normally associated with

prescribed burning including buffer strips, fuel loadings and burn severity. Wildfires usually

burn late in the summer when relative humidity is low and fuel moistures are at their lowest

points, even in the riparian areas. Because the buffer strips burn under these extreme

conditions, there will be a greater chance for the eroded materials to enter stream courses.

The potential for adverse impacts to soil and water resources is greatest on landforms that

have high inherent erosion hazard in combination with a high fire risk. In the event of a large

scale fire, effects would not be confined to the treatment units or the project area, and the

magnitude of effects could result in detrimental impacts to the Little Lost River.

Changes in streamflow regime due to changes in snow accumulation/melt patterns and

evapotranspiration can also result. The significance of effects may vary as a function of

parameters including but not limited to fire intensity/duration, soil characteristics,

precipitation patterns, vegetative cover types, slope, and aspect. Any discussion addressing

the effects of fire will relate to changes in slope and/or channel stability. In watersheds where

fire suppression and succession has allowed forests to reach mature stages, water yields may

approach a minimum level. However continued fire suppression may result in fuel buildups


that could result in catastrophic fires that could ultimately impact channels through post-fire

flood flows (Farnes, 2000).

Observations from the Clear Creek Fire of 2000 show that stream substrate sediment levels

greatly increased over pre-fire conditions. Pre-fire data consisted of eight years of McNeil

core sampling information, which identifies levels of fine materials (less than 0.64 cm in

diameter) within spawning gravels. Pre-fire monitoring identified an average of 19 percent

fines at depth. During the summer following the fire, a high intensity storm event carried

fines from the burned hill slopes into Clear Creek, elevating levels of fines to 83 percent. Follow up monitoring during July of 2002 indicated that substrate sediment levels at depth

had recovered to 24 percent. A second high intensity storm event later that year once again

increased depth fines to 83 percent. In 2003 the site became immeasurable due to a much

larger event that inundated the site with sediment and rerouted the channel. Potential for changes in timing and magnitude of water yield

If the No Action alternative is selected, the project area Equivalent Clearcut Acres (ECA)

would continue to decrease as stands mature to 30-years of age and older. In the

subwatersheds where fire suppression and vegetative succession have allowed forests to reach

mature stages, water yields (baseflows and peakflows) may approach a minimum level.

Continued fire suppression may result in fuel buildups that could result in catastrophic fires

and ultimately impact channels due to post-fire flood flows and sediment delivery (Farnes,

2000).

There is potential for a large increase in ECA in the event of large scale, stand-replacing fire

in the project area. Post-wildfire increases in ECA could result in changes in the magnitude

and timing of spring-early summer peakflows, and late summer-fall baseflows. Increases in

the magnitude and duration of peakflows could result in channel morphology changes and

streambank erosion. Decreased baseflows could result in low flow fish migration barriers

and increased water temperatures.

In the wildfire scenario described in the No-Action alternative it is expected that 50% of the

forested ecosystems would incur a lethal fire severity and increase the ECA from less than

5% to over half of the subwatershed.

High severity fires are of particular concern because of the loss of protective cover and fire-

induced soil water repellency can induce severe flooding and erosion even after moderate rain

events. In most cases, the decline in soil water repellency and vegetative regrowth means that

these large increases in runoff and erosion diminish quite rapidly. Most long-term studies

show no detectable increase in erosion by about the fourth year after burning.

Analysis of Haul Routes

There would be no direct effects because no hauling will occur. In the event of a wildfire

some routes would be opened with bulldozers and receive moderate to heavy traffic during

fire suppression activities. Fire suppression activities have the potential to increase the road

and drainage density and contribute to stream sedimentation. It is not possible to quantify

these effects without knowledge of the fires location, size, and suppression tactics.


Detrimental Disturbance

With no ground disturbing activities proposed in the No Action alternative any detrimental

disturbances that have occurred as a result of past forest management activities are expected

to recover through natural processes. Disturbed sites will return to pre disturbance conditions

by means of freeze thaw cycles, translocation, and organic matter accumulation and

vegetation establishment.


A watershed risk rating based on watershed relief, road density, channel stability, and ECA was used to calculate the current cumulative effects for hydrologic and aquatic resources in

each project subwatershed Table 8.

The No Action Alternative proposes no treatment and would not cumulatively impact

watershed function. Under the No Action Alternative scenario considering a large wildfire

event, the risk of cumulative impacts becomes much higher. When the effects of the No

Action Wildfire scenario are combined with the past and foreseeable future effects of insects

and disease, there is potential for increased impacts to soil and water resources. The loss of

vegetation from insects and disease can reduce evapotranspiration and interception, which

lessens detainment and storage of rainfall and changes snow distribution, accumulation, and

melt rates. The risk of effects from wildfire can be amplified by the high rates of mortality

resulting from mountain pine beetle epidemic. Heat pulse to the soil would likely be greater

due to the greater accumulation of fuels. With the increased tree mortality there would be a

higher risk of crown fire making a greater burn area extent more likely, amplifying the

hydrologic effects.

Table 8 - Watershed risk rating for Sawmill Canyon HFRA project

No Action

Current

Condition

No Action

Wildfire

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Subwatershed Risk Rating Risk Rating Risk Rating

Upper Sawmill Low

basin relief <30%

road density

1.6mi/mi2

ECA <5%

High

basin relief

<30%

road density

1.6mi/mi2

ECA >50%

Low

basin relief <30%

road density

1.4mi/mi2

ECA <5%

2. Proposed Action

a) Direct and Indirect Effects

Compliance with State Water Quality Standards and Maintenance of Beneficial’s

Uses

The proposed activities have the potential to disrupt nutrient cycles and may accelerate

dissolved nutrient leaching and loss via streamflow. It also has the opportunity to increase

soil erosion via ground disturbance adding sediment loads to streams. By implementing Best


Management Practices and using INFISH buffers along mechanical harvest units, both

potential soil erosion and/or nutrient loss from harvest sites to stream source would be

effectively trapped in the filter strips, thus maintaining the state water quality standard,

temperature, and downstream beneficial uses set for the Little Lost River.

Modeled Probability of Erosion and Sediment Delivery

The proposed activities have the potential to increase the probability of erosion and sediment

delivery to streams. Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model was used to

estimate predicted probability of erosion and sediment delivery from treatment units. WEPP

model uses buffer, soil types, average slope, percent ground cover, and climate data to predict

the probability of erosion and sediment yield occurring within the first year following

treatment (Details can be found in specialists report on file at district office). Findings from

this analysis predict the average probability of sediments reaching a stream channel the first

year following a disturbance would be less than 3%, with values ranging from 0-6%

probability. Given the unit layout and design criteria (INFISH buffers) of the proposed

activities, there is a high probability of success for minimizing erosion and retaining or

capturing any sediment before it can enter streams.

Potential for changes in timing and magnitude of water yield

The proposed action includes the removal of forest cover and has the potential to decrease

interception and transpiration, and increase annual water yields. The potential for changes in

timing of increases in runoff due to the proposed activities is important because of the

potential impact on water supplies, sediment transport capacity, bank erosion, and aquatic

ecosystems. In snow-dominated environments like Upper Sawmill, nearly all of the increases

in runoff would occur in early spring. Forest harvest reduces summer evapotranspiration and

increases the amount of soil moisture carryover. Less snowmelt is needed for soil moisture

recharge, so more of the early season melt is converted into runoff. The reduction in forest

canopy also increases the amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface of the snowpack

and the transfer of advective heat, and these changes increase the amount of solar radiation

that reaches the surface of the snowpack and the transfer of advective heat, and these changes

increase the rate of snowmelt and may slightly accelerate the timing of peak runoff. Some

change in timing is expected from both the beetle epidemic and proposed activities, however

effects will be minimal based on the silviculture prescription and design of this project. The

increases in annual water yield following forest harvest are usually assumed to be

proportional to the amount of forest cover removed, but at least 10 to 20 percent of the trees

must be removed to produce a statistically detectible effect. In areas where the annual

precipitation is less than 18 to 20 inches, removal of the forest canopy is unlikely to

significantly increase water yields. In drier areas, the decrease in interception and

transpiration is generally offset by the increase in soil evaporation, and there is no net change

in runoff as long as there is no change in the underlying runoff process. No measurable

increase in runoff can be expected from thinning operations that remove less than 15 percent

of the forest cover or in areas with less than 18 inches of annual precipitation. Since

evapotranspiration rapidly recovers with vegetative regrowth in partially thinned areas, any

increase in runoff due to thinning operations is likely to persist for no more than five to ten

years. The Sawmill HFRA Project area has an average annual precipitation of 19 inches and

will treat less than five percent of the forested area in the subwatershed. There is not


expected to be any detectable change in streamflow in the Upper Sawmill subwatershed as a

result of the proposed activities.

The ECA in Upper Sawmill peaked in 1987 with about 18% of the subwatershed in a

hydrologically immature condition. Currently more than 95% of the subwatersheds

encompassing the project area are in a mature condition. The ECA in Upper Sawmill would

remain below five percent if the proposed action is implemented.

Analysis of Haul Routes

Runoff can detach and transport the fine material available on native material road surfaces;

without vehicle traffic, the sediment concentration in the road decreases over time. However,

vehicle traffic, especially heavy trucks, can crush surface aggregate material and this

generates more fine particles that are available for transport by runoff. In addition, the

pressure of vehicular tires on saturated road aggregate can force fine particles from below the

surface to move to the surface. Higher use also is associated with more frequent maintenance

operations, and grading increases the amount of available sediment and road erosion rates.

Haul routes and their proximity to streams are variable throughout the project area. Airborne

delivery of fine sediment to streams would vary depending on many factors including the

proximity to a stream, slope, vegetative cover, prevailing wind and season. Research by

Randy Foltz, UDSA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry sciences

Laboratory, Moscow, ID, and others has shown that if road blading is reduced, sediment that

reaches streams is reduced.

Fines generated from increased road activity are generally airborne and fall out adjacent to

the road and accumulate on the leaves of nearby vegetation. Typically dust settles quickly and

is not transported far from the road. Dust and fine sediment are transported from the

vegetation and incorporated into the forest floor during precipitation events. Typically

airborne particles will only reach streams if they settle directly on the water surface. Sediment

generated from hauling and road maintenance are not expected to measurably increase

turbidity or levels of fine sediment in the Upper Sawmill Project area or negatively impact

downstream beneficial uses.

On low-use forest roads, vegetation is allowed to grow on the running surface to reducing

road-generated sediment. These “brushed-in” roads generally have sediment production rates

that are a tenth of the rates for bare roads with traffic. Access for timber management

activities will likely require that these brushed-in roads be reopened by scraping the

vegetation off the running surface and to some degree, the cut and fill slopes. The opening

and use of these roads have the potential to increase erosion and sediment delivery during the

time they are open for the project. Any increases will quickly diminish after use is

discontinued and the road is restored to a closed condition. Similar to road closure activities,

road obliteration has the potential for a spike in sediment production that decreases rapidly

after the activity ends and vegetation becomes established.

For roads immediately adjacent to a stream, much of the road-generated sediment is delivered

directly to streams. However, when a sufficient forest buffer is located between the road and

the stream, much of the sediment may be captured and deposited on the forest floor. In

addition to road location, road-stream connectivity can be increased because the concentrated


runoff from roads can increase the drainage density. The proposed activities would

decommission and re-vegetate 4.6 miles of road, eliminating them as sources of sediment and

removing the potential for flow capture and alteration of the drainage density.

In addition to roads used for the proposed action, unauthorized routes that are not needed for

public access or administrative use would be decommissioned to improve watershed

conditions. Surveys were conducted on these unauthorized routes to identify problem areas,

develop closure prescriptions, and prioritize routes for closure. Generally speaking,

decommissioning roads by re-contouring to establish original drainage would be the

preferential treatment, however, in most cases, the roads identified for decommissioning are

well vegetated and closed to traffic. In these cases, a less disturbing method of

decommissioning by treating only the entrance may be preferred.

Detrimental Disturbance

Detrimental disturbance effects depend on a combination of factors such as: existing ground

cover, soil texture, timing of operations, equipment used, skill of the equipment operator, the

amount of wood to be removed, and sale administration. Forest Plan disturbance guidelines

are evaluated after the completion of all management activities including mitigation

measures, such as, ripping skid trails and landings, redistributing berm and slash onto roads

and skid trails, redistributing soil and slash on fire lines, and installing water bars. Harvest

intensity also affects the amount of soil disturbance. Even though 15 percent of a stand may

be impacted by skid trails and landings, not all areas that are impacted are detrimentally

disturbed. Thinning within proposed vegetation treatment units is designed to avoid

detrimental soil impacts. This goal is achieved by implementing mitigation and design

features as Best Management Practices and Soil and Water Conservation Practices. The

design features and management practices would minimize the extent of compaction, rutting,

puddling, and displacement.

Tractor Harvest Soil compaction and displacement at landing sites and on main skid trails are expected due to

equipment operations. Soil displacement is expected to be small and localized and may occur

where logs are lifted from the forest floor or at landings. Detrimental effects can be long-

lasting. However, the impacts of compaction depend largely on site conditions affecting air

and water balance in the rooting zone (Powers, Sanchez, Scott, & Page-Dumroese, 2004),

(Paige-Dumroese, et al., 2006). Compaction is not expected to be an issue in these units due

to the high rock fragment content and sandy loam soil texture. In addition, areas that do

become compacted or displaced would be rehabilitated by scarifying or ripping the soil to

restore proper water infiltration, redistributing displaced topsoil, seeding with native species,

and constructing waterbars. Plant root expansion, freeze/thaw cycles, and rodent activities

will continue to rework the soil to improve soil structure.

Small, localized areas may have reduced soil productivity in the first 10 years following

harvest as vegetation becomes re-established and organic layers rebuild. Areas of reduced

productivity include skid trails, landings, and firelines. However, rehabilitation is prescribed

to limit the severity of soil damage or its aerial extent.


Loss of groundcover and organic matter at landing sites and on main skid trails is expected

due to equipment operations. However, the Proposed Action is designed to leave a variety of

organic matter on site. Vegetation and organic matter protects the soil surface from raindrop

impact, dissipates energy of overland flow, binds soil particles together, and dampens soil

temperature extremes and daily fluxes. Studies have found that 60% effective ground cover

reduced sediment movement substantially and 30% ground cover reduced erosion by half

compared to bare soil (Robichaud, Beyers, & Neary, 2000). Logging slash will add to

effective ground cover until fine logging slash decomposes over several decades (Clayton,

1981). Any increase in groundcover and/or fine logging slash through harvest may be offset

by fuel treatments. Fuel treatments may reduce the amount of organic matter and

groundcover in the short term (0-5 years after treatment) through the use of fire and slash pile

burning. In the long-term (greater than 5 years) re-growth of vegetation and needle drop

would provide groundcover and leaf and litter material for conversion into soil organic

matter.

Pre-Commercial Thinning

Pre-commercial thinning activities would not impact the soil resource. All work would be

accomplished with hand tools (chainsaws) so there would be no increases in soil compaction

or other detrimental changes in soil physical properties.

Pile Burning Pile burning would occur where hand or machine piles remain after treatment and biomass

utilization. It is not anticipated to have large adverse effects to soil productivity. Burning of

large slash piles may sterilize the underlying soil because heat is retained in the pile. This

could cause small, localized areas of soil sterilization, reduced water infiltration, and lost

groundcover.

Total Soil Resource Commitment No new permanent road construction, permanent landings, or permanent skid trails that

would convert productive sites to a condition of total soil resource commitment are planned

as part of the proposed action. With this alternative approximately 4.6 miles of roads would

be decommissioned. By decommissioning roads the total amount of total soil resource

commitment will be reduced. By Decommissioning 4.6 miles of road approximately 24.7

acres of national forest system land will be returned to production.


Other on-going, past and proposed activities that could affect soil and water resources

include, timber sales, insects and disease, special uses, mining, wildfires, firewood cutting,

and noxious weed treatments.

A watershed risk rating based on watershed relief, road density, channel stability, and ECA

was used to calculate the current cumulative effects for hydrologic and aquatic resources in

each project subwatershed. The Upper Sawmill subwatershed would see a slight increase in

ECA over a period of time. The increase would be from 3 to 4% at its peak and would be

under the threshold that we would expect to see measurable change in flow. Road densities


would be reduced from 1.6 miles per miles2 to 1.4 miles per miles

2 improving watershed

condition. The overall cumulative risk rating would remain the same however the resiliency

of the watershed would be improved by protecting it from wildfire and reestablishing a more

natural fire regime. The net result is a reduced watershed risk rating and an improved

condition in the watershed.

When the effects of the Proposed Action Alternative are combined with the past and

foreseeable future effects of insects and disease there is potential for an increased risk of

hydrological effects of removing large stands of trees from a watershed. The loss of

vegetation from insects and disease can reduce evapotranspiration and interception, which

lessens detainment and storage of rainfall and changes snow distribution, accumulation, and

melt rates.

Roads can alter the drainage density, and the timing and synchrony of streamflow and

snowmelt runoff, resulting in an increase in the number and/or magnitude of peakflow events.

The Proposed Alternative would reduce current road densities.

The present level of firewood cutting would have no effect on water resources. Public

pioneering of roads to gather firewood could affect water resources depending on the extent

and location of pioneered roads.

Noxious weed treatments have the potential to affect water quality by killing streamside

vegetation and reducing the effectiveness of the filter strips. If procedures found in the

Programmatic Biological Assessment: Effects of 2002 Herbicide Treatment of Noxious Weeds

on Lands Administered by the Salmon-Challis National Forest (USFS 2002) are followed, no

increased adverse effects to water quality are expected under the Proposed Action Alternative.

3.2.3 Wildlife Species and Habitat The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project was field reviewed by the Salmon-

Challis National Forest Wildlife Biologist to determine effects to Forest Management

Indicators Species (MIS), Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) terrestrial animals,

and to determine compliance with Executive Order #13186 and Migratory Bird Treaty Act,

and Executive Order # 13443 “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation”

relevant to wildlife resource. A wildlife report was prepared that also serves as the Biological

Assessment for TES species and can be found in the project folder located at the District

Office. Other wildlife species do occur in the area. During the scoping process none of these

wildlife species were brought forward for further analysis, thus only TES and MIS species are

analyzed in detail.

Determination of effects to wildlife species is based on changes to habitat (vegetation

communities) that support these species. By comparing changes to vegetation communities

with each alternative, direct, indirect, and cumulative effect can be determined for individual

wildlife species requiring detailed analysis. In the general action area there are 18 vegetation

communities represented. Comparing the same 18 vegetation communities as composed in

the treatment units, a percentage of change based on acres can be determined. This percent

change (acres) leads to determination of change of habitat for individual wildlife species, thus

potential effects.


Executive Order #13186 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Executive Order #13186 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) requires the Forest

Service to work in coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to design projects

that conserve migratory birds and integrate bird conservation principles, measures, and

practices into Forest Service activities in order to avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable,

adverse impacts to the migratory bird resources. To meet these requirements, project

planning should identify where unintentional take (bird mortality) reasonably attributed to

Forest Service actions is likely to occur, or is likely to have a measurable negative effect on

migratory bird populations.

The Challis Forest Plan Analysis of the Management Situation (USDA Forest Service, 1987)

indicates that 172 species of migratory birds occur on the forest. The action area is composed

mainly of coniferous forest (6,563 acres) with smaller areas of sage/grass lands (232 acres)

and deciduous riparian communities (132 acres). The Forest Plan analysis indicates 65 species of migratory birds use riparian communities, especially deciduous riparian, and 26

species use coniferous forest communities.

1. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative habitat that supports these 172 migratory bird species would

be drastically altered. A fire event will result in direct adverse, indirect adverse and indirect

beneficial effects to the migratory bird resource. These effects are dependent on the intensity

of the fire, the vegetative community affected, and the time associated with establishment of

pre-fire stand conditions. These effects will have both short and long term impacts on the

migratory bird resource. Within the Sawmill Canyon watershed these impacts will be

measurable. Given the small size of the affected area compared to available habitat across

the Salmon-Challis National Forest, these effects will not affect species viability at a Forest

scale.

Adverse direct effects include:

Loss of individuals, especially nestlings or fledglings, associated with the fire

Immediate loss of a limited and important habitat component to many migratory bird

species

These effects would directly, adversely affect the local population of migratory birds.

Although this loss of species would likely be measurable within the Sawmill Canyon

watershed, this effect would not affect species population viability at a Forest scale.

Indirect adverse effects would be attributed to the habitat changes associated with the fire

event and includes:

3 to 15 year loss of nesting, brooding habitat within the herbaceous/shrub

communities

Loss of mature aspen trees would adversely affect cavity nesters and reduce foraging

and roosting habitat within the riparian zones for at least 40 years

Loss of habitat for those species dependent on a mature coniferous forest would exist

for 100 years

In the short term loss of habitat would result in a measurable reduction in species

occurrence within the Sawmill Canyon watershed, especially those species associated

with climax conifer habitat both in the near and long term


Beneficial Indirect Effects Post Fire includes:

Riparian zones would slightly expand

Aspen stands previously over crowded by conifers would expand

40 years post fire, riparian communities, including aspen communities would be

more abundant and healthy than what is currently found within the analysis area

Migratory bird species dependent on an early seral conifer community would

experience an indirect beneficial effect attributed to the wildfire event

Under the No Action Alternative there would be no cumulative effects because there are no

known planned future activities with the cumulative effects analysis area that differ from the

ongoing activities.

Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations, or Agency Directives

This alternative does not fall under the direction of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Act

directs the Forest Service to … develop mitigation criteria in cooperation with the FWS that

minimizes the unintentional take of migratory birds where management actions may have

measurable negative effects on migratory birds. Since this alternative is a “no action”

alternative the Forest Service is not implementing a management action, hence the

requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act do not apply for this alternative.

2. Proposed Action Alternative Under the proposed action only those migratory bird species that occupy habitat in the action

areas will be impacted. Both adverse direct, indirect adverse and indirect beneficial effects

will occur to those species that utilize these action areas. Implementation of a design criteria

identifying period of time when operation can occur will allow individuals to relocate

reducing chances of loss of individual migratory bird species. Effects are limited to action

area.

The direct adverse effects though minor in scope include:

Minor loss of mature aspen trees and aspen habitat associated with harvest activities,

skid trail construction, and road construction

Loss of conifer habitat dependent bird species

Incidental loss of individuals and force relocation of individuals

The indirect adverse effect includes:

Minor loss of aspen habitat as a result of harvest activity from incidental knocking

down of nesting aspen trees while removing conifers. These habitat alterations

would not result in measurable changes in the populations of the respective

migratory bird species.

Loss of 308 acres of multistory conifer canopy structure to single canopy structure

stands through action activities impacting those bird species that require multistory

stand

Effects of conversion will last up to 100 years

Increase predation as individuals relocate to other site

This loss of habitat will result in the loss of individuals. It is possible this change may be

detected within the action area.


The indirect beneficial indirect effects of the harvest activities include:

Removal of conifers and associated soil disturbance from harvest activities will

promote regeneration and expansion of aspen in the action areas

Vigor of treated aspen stands would increase

Provide additional habitat for migratory bird species that require aspen communities’

types. Beneficial effects will likely occur 30 years post-harvest as aspen stand

express mature characteristics and will likely last 100 years

Provide 308 additional acres in Sawmill Canyon of open canopy forest structure for

those bird species that require this habitat as this structure

These indirect beneficial effects would result in a positive increase in those migratory bird

species that utilize this limited habitat. These changes in population may be measurable

within the Sawmill Canyon drainage.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative there would be no cumulative effects because there

are no known planned future activities with the cumulative effects analysis area that differ

from the ongoing activities.

Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations, or Agency Directives

This alternative includes mitigation to reduce the operating season to a period when fledging

has been completed and relocation is possible except for units 1S and 2S. Operating season

for these units will be different than the rest of the units due to other resource concerns. In

these units there will be adverse effects to fledglings but will not change the findings at the

forest scale. Although impacts to migratory birds (both adverse and beneficial) are likely

measurable within the action area, the effects will not be measurable outside the action area

and will not affect the migratory bird population within the Sawmill Canyon area or the

viability of the migratory bird resource at a Forest scale and thus compliant with the

Executive Order # 13186 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Executive Order # 13443 “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation” This Executive order directs the Department of Agriculture “to facilitate the expansion and

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their

habitat”. Specifically this Order directs agencies to:

Evaluate trends in hunting participation and implement actions that expand and

enhance hunting opportunities for the public.

Establish short and long term goals to conserve wildlife and manage wildlife habitats

to ensure healthy and productive populations of game animals in a manner that

respects state management authority over wildlife resources and values private

property rights.

Seek the advice of State fish and wildlife agencies, and, as appropriate, consult with

the Sporting Conservation Council in regards to Federal activities to recognize and

promote the economic and recreational values of hunting and wildlife conservation.


1. No Action Alternative

This alternative does not initiate an agency action; no review is needed for this alternative.

2. Proposed Action Alternative Although the proposed treatments will have minor impacts to game species, the proposed

action will have no adverse impact on hunter opportunities, wildlife conservation goals, or the

promotion of the economic and recreational values of hunting and wildlife conservation. The

proposed action will maintain hunter opportunities, provide for wildlife conservation, and

enhance the recreational and economic values of hunting and wildlife conservation. The

proposed Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project is compliant with Executive

Order # 13443.

Species Listed as Management Indicator Species The Salmon-Challis National Forest identified the sage grouse, pileated woodpecker, and

Columbia spotted frog as the terrestrial management indicator species for the Forest. These

individual species were chosen because their current populations reflect management actions

across the landscape for different communities such as sage steppe uplands, riparian and

aquatics, and coniferous forest.

1. No Action Alternative A No Action Alternative is not analyzed for its effects on these species because this is not an

agency action.

2. Proposed Action Alternative

The three terrestrial management species are listed below as well as potential effects by

implementing the Proposed Action Alternative.

Sage grouse

Sage Grouse populations are used to monitor the effects of management action on the sage

steppe uplands. The Forest identified the following vegetation communities as having the

potential to provide sage grouse habitat are:

Black sage Bunchgrass/fescue

Low sage Mountain big sagebrush

Mountain mahogany Mountain big sagebrush with conifers

Shadscale Three tip sagebrush

Wyoming sagebrush

The action area only has 29 acres that meet community types described, but because of its

lack of juxtaposition to adjacent suitable habitat for sage grouse, this 29 acres is not suitable.

Thus, no further analysis is warranted for the action area. The lack of effects to the sage

grouse or sage grouse habitat precludes this alternative from affecting the viability of sage

grouse at a Forest scale.


Columbia spotted frog

Columbia spotted frog monitoring is done to monitor the effects of management actions on

water quality and riparian zones. The Forest identified the following vegetation

communities as having the potential to provide Columbia spotted frog habitat:

Aspen/conifers Cottonwoods

Riparian shrug Riparian grasses

Riparian sedges

Columbia spotted frog is also been designated as a Regional Forester Sensitive species and

effects of the proposed action on these species have been analyzed under the Threatened,

Endangered, and Sensitive Species section titled Columbia spotted frog.

Pileated woodpecker Pileated woodpecker population monitoring is done to monitor the effects of management

actions on the coniferous forest. The Forest identified the following vegetation communities

as having the potential to provide pileated woodpecker habitat:

Dry Douglas fir with ponderosa pine Dry Douglas fir

Douglas fir/lodgepole pine Douglas fir/limber pine

Limber pine Subalpine fir dry-steep

Subalpine fir moist Subalpine fir/Douglas fir

Subalpine fire/lodgepole pine Subalpine fir/whitebark pine

Whitebark pine Whitebark pine/subalpine fir

Call/Listen transects are used to monitor population of this species across the forest. One of

these transects is located in the Sawmill Canyon area. Call transects have only been going on

for last seven years and not long enough to determine population trends. From those

transects though the Salmon-Challis has determined that we have a low density but stable

population across the forest.

Since community types are well represented in the action area; we can expect direct and

indirect adverse effects from harvest activities. Direct effects in particular to salvage units

would be loss of nesting cavity trees. This would result in relocating of Pileated woodpecker

from disturbance to other areas. The indirect adverse effects are associated with changes to

the structure of the salvage units. Not only would there be a loss in nesting cavity trees, there

would also be a loss of future recruitment trees that could serve this function in the future.

This removal of these trees would impact Pileated woodpeckers that currently use this area,

though it would only be limited to the action areas. Because the current Forest population of

Pileated woodpeckers is stable, widespread, and availability of similar suitable habitat is well

represented across the forest, the proposed action will not affect the viability of Pileated

woodpecker on the Salmon-Challis National Forest.

Threatened, Endangered Species The lynx, wolverine, and yellow-billed cuckoo are the only terrestrial species covered under

the rules and regulations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that occurs within the action

area. The wolverine was proposed for listing under the ESA on January 16, 2013. U.S. Fish


and Wildlife Service (FWS) has not delineated critical habitat for the wolverine and the

yellow-billed cuckoo was proposed for listing on October 3, 2013.

Lynx The Salmon-Challis National Forest is designated unoccupied, secondary lynx habitat

(USDA; Forest Service, March, 2007). FWS agreed with that determination and

subsequently removed the lynx from the list of species covered under the Endangered Species

Act for the Salmon-Challis National Forest. In approximately 2007, the FWS stopped

providing ESA species lists specific to individual Forests and opted to use a web based site

that displayed ESA species occurrence by County. Currently FWS has identified the lynx as

occurring in Counties (Custer and Lemhi) within the action area. This method of displaying

ESA species occurrence does not vacate the decision that the Salmon-Challis National Forest

is secondary, unoccupied lynx habitat and as such, reviewing effects under a formal

biological assessment is not appropriate. However, given the recent litigation on the Nez

Perce National Forest, the effects of the proposed action on the lynx will be disclosed.

Lynx utilize moist boreal forests that experience cold, snowy winters and provide a snowshoe

hare prey base. An abundant population of snowshoe hares is a critical lynx habitat

component. Although lynx may utilize other prey species such as red squirrels, small

mammals, and birds, these other prey species only augment the required snowshoe hare prey

base. Although all other habitat attributes may be present and suitable, if the area does not

support an abundant snowshoe hare population, the area will not sustain lynx.

In order to sustain a population of snowshoe hares, the area must provide areas of early

successional forest and a heavy understory component sufficient to provide quality cover and

forage for the snowshoe hare. The coniferous forests within the action area and within the

southern portion of the Challis National Forest are characterized as very dry Douglas fir

forests. These areas do not support a sufficient shrub understory to sustain an abundant

population of snowshoe hares. Field reviews of the Challis National Forest by Jim Claar,

now retired Forest Service lynx biologist, confirmed this finding. The action area is not

within delineated lynx habitat and is outside any lynx analysis unit. A review of designated

critical habitat for lynx determined there is no designated critical habitat located on the

Salmon-Challis National Forest (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012). The action area

does not provide suitable lynx habitat.

Lynx have not been documented within the action area. There are two CDC records of lynx

observation records adjacent to Sawmill Canyon; however the validity of the two observation

records from 1960 and 1991 is questioned. The Northern Rockies Lynx Management

Direction Environmental Impact Statement determined the Salmon-Challis was unoccupied

secondary lynx habitat. This determination was accepted by Fish and Wildlife Service, the

regulatory agency responsible for the management of species listed under the ESA. The

action area lacks the moist boreal forest associated with lynx habitat and lacks an abundant

snowshoe hare population. The action area is outside the designated lynx analysis units for

the Salmon-Challis National Forest. The lack of species presence and the lack of suitable

habitat preclude the proposed action from directly or indirectly affecting this species. The

proposed action will not result in any interrelated or interdependent actions that would affect

the lynx. The lack of direct or indirect effects precludes the proposed action from resulting in

any cumulative effects to the species. Therefore, it is my personal determination that

allowing the no action alternative to occur or implementing the proposed action alternative


results in a “no effect” determination in regards to the lynx. This species will not be

discussed further in this analysis.

Wolverine Wolverines occupy a variety of habitats. Wolverines can best be described as opportunistic,

scavenging predators, with a tendency to cache surplus food items. They feed primarily on

small mammals and carrion, although they are capable of killing larger ungulates.

Wolverines rely heavily on carrion during the winter months and thus rely heavily on the

presence of other predators. Wolverines normally avoid areas with high levels of human

activity.

Wolverines occur in low densities throughout their range. Population densities in central

Idaho were estimated (Copeland, 1996) at one wolverine per 198 square kilometers (76

square miles). Wolverines occur across most of the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Winter

camera bait stations installed by Foster in 2011 and 2012 documented wolverine use within

the action area (Sawmill Canyon) see Figure 8 - Photograph evidence of a live wolverine

captured at bait station in Sawmill Canyon- Photograph by Mike Foster . No wolverine have

been observed in the Sawmill drainage during the summer period, however it is highly likely

that they are utilizing the remote, higher elevation areas of the drainage seldom visited by the

public. Wolverine use is not expected within the treatment units during the high human use

summer period. General observations related to over 10 years of informal winter track

surveys and monitoring winter bait stations indicate wolverine are dispersed across much of

the Challis portion of the Salmon-Challis National Forest.

Figure 8 - Photograph evidence of a live wolverine captured at bait station in Sawmill

Canyon- Photograph by Mike Foster


Under the No Action Alternative there would be no direct effect to wolverine. Large scale

fires typically occur during the summer period. At this time wolverine are likely in the high

elevation zone. In this elevation zone, fire intensity are typically less severe and many areas

would remain unburned. Fire intensity would allow the opportunity for wolverine to relocate

to avoid the fire and or human disturbance associated with it.


Under the No Action Alternative there would be short term indirect adverse and long term

beneficial effects. Changes in vegetative conditions are dependent on the severity of the fire.

A mixed intensity fire would likely result in short term (0 to 5 years) adverse effects to

habitat resulting in reduction in numbers of wolverine prey base wildlife species. As

vegetative communities recovered, habitat conditions would improve above pre-fire levels,

with increased herbaceous production, shrubs, and aspen, thus also increasing these same

wildlife species that wolverine are dependent on for prey. Given the wolverine’s large home

range and low density of this species, it is anticipated these effects would affect wolverine

behavior and perhaps individual wolverines but would have no measurable indirect effect to

the wolverine population that utilize the Sawmill Canyon area.



ongoing activities.

Determination of Impact

This alternative will affect wolverine habitat and may have minor, short term, indirect,

adverse effects and minor, long term, indirect, beneficial effects to individual wolverines.

Given the large home range of this species, other areas of similar habitat, and the limited

scale of the effects, these effects are insignificant and limited to changes in the behavior of

individual wolverines. The lack of designated critical habitat precludes the alternative from

affecting or modifying wolverine critical habitat. This analysis results in a determination that

the No Action Alternative is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

wolverine or adversely modify proposed critical habitat”.

2. Proposed Action

During the June 15

th to November 30

th period when work could be authorized, it is highly

likely that wolverine will be present in the higher elevation whitebark pine/alpine areas, away

from the treatment units. This spatial separation will avoid disturbance to the wolverine. In

this type situation, the proposed action alternative would not result in any direct effects to the

wolverine. In early snow years, it is possible that wolverine may move down in elevation and

will be foraging in the upper portion of Sawmill Canyon in close proximity to treatment units.

Allowing treatment activities past November 1 could result in disturbance to the wolverine

during early snow years. This disturbance would likely result in the avoidance of the area

until the disturbance stopped. This change in behavior would be a minor direct adverse effect

to individual wolverine.

The implementation of the proposed action would alter habitat characteristics on 420 acres

associated with the 29 treatment units within the action area. This habitat alteration would

result in short term (0 to 5 years) adverse effects to many wildlife species, including small

mammals, large ungulates and birds. During the logging activities, animals capable of

avoiding the area would relocate to adjacent similar habitat, others would attempt to avoid the

activities or suffer mortality through soil compaction, tree harvest or increased predation.

These effects would be localized and limited to individuals. These changes in habitat

conditions and the subsequent effects to prey/carrion availability would result in short term,

indirect, adverse effects to the wolverine.

As the disturbance subsided and the vegetative conditions recovered with increased

herbaceous production, shrub abundance, and increased aspen distribution, habitat conditions


for many small mammals and large ungulates would improve over pre-treatment levels. The

improved habitat conditions would result in minor increases in small mammal and large

ungulates populations. This increase in prey/carrion availability linked to changes in habitat

conditions would result in long term, indirect, beneficial effects to the wolverine.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative there would be no cumulative effects because there

are no known planned future activities with the cumulative effects analysis area that differ

from the ongoing activities.

Determination of Impact:

This alternative will affect wolverine habitat and will likely affect wolverine behavior.

Affects include:

Minor, direct, adverse effects related to disturbance attributed to early winter

vegetation treatment activities.

Minor, short term (0 to 5 years), indirect, adverse effects attributed to changes in

vegetative conditions post treatment which affect prey/carrion availability.

Minor long term, indirect, beneficial effects attributed to increased herbaceous

production, shrub production, and aspen distribution all of which directly or

indirectly increase the availability of wolverine food stocks.

Given the large home range of this species, other areas of similar habitat, and the limited

scale of the effects, these effects are insignificant and limited to changes in the behavior of

individual wolverines. The lack of designated critical habitat precludes the alternative from

affecting or modifying wolverine critical habitat. This analysis results in a determination that

the Proposed Action Alternative is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

wolverine or adversely modify proposed critical habitat”.

Yellow-billed cuckoo The yellow-billed cuckoo is a long slender bird, with a gray-brown back, white underside,

and a long black tail with white spots at the tips of the underside of the feathers. The bill is

slightly curved and yellow. The diet consists mainly of caterpillars. The cuckoo will also

exploit other food sources such as small lizards, frogs, and other insects. The yellow-billed

cuckoo is a riparian obligate. The species is rare in Idaho and is declining across its range

due to loss of riparian habitat and degraded riparian conditions. The project area occurs in

both Custer and Lemhi Counties, within the Little Lost River drainage. There are no

Conservation Data Center records of this species in the Little Lost River drainage. Field

surveys conducted in 2010 in the cottonwood galleries of the adjacent Big Lost River

drainage in the most likely habitat did not locate this species. The yellow-billed cuckoo has

not been observed in the project area, the action area, the Little Lost River drainage or the Big

Lost River drainage.

Habitat Status

Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat is comprised of extensive mature riparian woodlands, primarily

cottonwoods or willows. Heavy understory is an important component of the riparian

woodlands. The treatment units are located within the coniferous forest community in the

upper section of the Sawmill Creek drainage. There are no cottonwood galleries or large

willow communities within or adjacent to the treatment units. The action area lacks the

extensive cottonwood or willow communities required by the yellow-billed cuckoo.

Although aerial vegetation mapping data indicates 35 acres of cottonwood communities


within the action area, these communities are small, isolated, and in some cases comprised of

fewer than a dozen trees. Willow communities although more abundant, 447 acres, are also

scattered and not contiguous. The largest willow communities are found along the lower

elevation reaches of Sawmill Creek. These willow communities are located within the

riparian zone and form narrow linear communities that transition to either herbaceous

meadows or depending on slope, sagebrush uplands. These willow communities are not

extensive and do not provide suitable yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. The action area does not

provide suitable habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo.

Determination of Need for In-depth Analysis

The action area does not provide suitable yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. The yellow-billed

cuckoo does not occur within the identified action area. The action area lacks the riparian

habitat (extensive cottonwood galleries or willow stands) utilized by the yellow-billed

cuckoo. The lack of species presence and the lack of suitable habitat preclude the no action

alternative and the proposed action alternative from resulting in any direct, indirect,

interrelated, or interdependent actions that would affect the yellow-billed cuckoo. The lack

of direct or indirect effects precludes the proposed action from resulting in any cumulative

effects to the species. Therefore, it is my personal determination that allowing the no action

alternative to occur or implementing the proposed action alternative results in a “no effect”

determination in regards to the yellow-billed cuckoo. This species will not be discussed

further in this analysis.

Biological Assessment Concurrence On November 22, 2013 Mike Foster emailed to the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service the

determination from his Biological Assessment for Wolverine, Lynx, and Yellow-billed

cuckoo. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service informally concurred with his determination in an

email back on November 25, 2013. Formal concurrence is not required for these

determinations.

Sensitive Species Regional Forester has identified sixteen terrestrial vertebrate species as sensitive on the

Challis portion of the Salmon-Challis National Forest. The proposed project was reviewed

and analyzed for the likely effects on the Forest Service terrestrial Sensitive vertebrate

species and a determination of effects was made as shown in Table 9.

Table 9 - Summary of the analysis or effects for terrestrial Sensitive vertebrate species

Species Probability of Effects Determination of Effects

Bighorn sheep No No Impact

Spotted bat No No Impact

Townsends big-eared bat No No Impact

Fisher No No Impact

Pygmy rabbit No No Impact

Greater sage grouse No No Impact

Common loon No No Impact

Bald Eagle No No Impact

Peregrine falcon No No Impact

Yellow billed cuckoo No No Impact


Boreal Owl Yes May Impact Individuals or Habitat

Flammulated owl Yes May Impact Individuals or Habitat

Great gray owl Yes May Impact Individuals or Habitat

Northern goshawk Yes May Impact Individuals or Habitat

Three-toed woodpecker Yes May Impact Individuals or Habitat

Columbia spotted frog Yes May Impact Individuals or Habitat

Bighorn Sheep Bighorn sheep have not been documented within the action area despite the numerous aerial

surveys that have been conducted on the Lemhi Mountain range. The determination is that

the proposed Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project would have “No Impact” on

Bighorn sheep.

Spotted bat Spotted bats have not been documented within the Lost River Ranger District or the Arco

desert despite the numerous bat surveys conducted. In my personal judgment as a wildlife

biologist on the Salmon-Challis National Forest, an unrecognized habitat parameter is

currently not being provided within not only the project area, but within most of the Challis

National Forest. The determination is that the proposed Sawmill Canyon Vegetation

Management Project would have “No Impact” on spotted bat.

Townsends big-eared bat Townsend’s big-eared bats have not been documented within the action area or the Sawmill

Canyon drainage. The lack of species presence is likely related to the lack of suitable

roosting habitat (caves or cave like structures). The determination is that the proposed

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project would have “No Impact” on Townsend’s

big-eared bats.

Fisher In over 21 years of observations by the local wildlife biologists Fishers have not been

documented within or adjacent to the action area. The action area lacks the moist, closed

canopy forest associated with fisher habitat. The determination is that the proposed Sawmill

Canyon Vegetation Management Project would have “No Impact” on Fishers.

Pygmy Rabbit Pygmy rabbits have not been documented within or adjacent to the action area. The action

area lacks pygmy rabbit habitat of sagebrush on deep loose soils. The determination is that

the proposed Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project would have “No Impact” on

Pygmy rabbits.

Greater sage grouse Sage grouse do not occur within the action area. The action area lacks sage grouse vegetation

communities as referenced in Species Listed as Management Indicator Species as well as


juxtaposition to these vegetation communities. The determination is that the proposed

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project would have “No Impact” on Greater sage

grouse.

Common loon The common loon does not occur within the project’s action area. The action area lacks the

aquatic habitat utilized by the common loon. The determination is that the proposed Sawmill

Canyon Vegetation Management Project would have “No Impact” on Common loon.

Bald Eagle The bald eagle does not occur within the action area. The action area lacks the aquatic

habitat utilized by the bald eagle. The determination is that the proposed Sawmill Canyon

Vegetation Management Project would have “No Impact” on Bald Eagle.

Peregrine falcon The peregrine falcon does not occur within the action area. The project area and the action

area lack suitable peregrine falcon habitat. The determination is that the proposed Sawmill

Canyon Vegetation Management Project would have “No Impact” on Peregrine falcon.

Boreal owl Sawmill Canyon drainage provides suitable habitat for the Boreal Owl. Boreal owls occur in

forested landscapes where they nest exclusively in tree cavities or artificial nest structures.

As year round residents, boreal owls use similar habitats during all seasons. In Idaho,

documents show that boreal owl habitat is mixed forest, spruce/fir, Douglas-fir, and aspen

stands. Boreal owls feed primarily on small mammals such as voles, pocket gophers and

mice. The best foraging habitat is found in spruce-fir stands. Groves (1997) indicates that the

Sawmill Creek drainage provides suitable habitat for the species although none have been

documented in any previous surveys.

1. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative there would be minor direct adverse effect would occur.

The projected scale of a large fire would result in immediate loss of boreal owl habitat

including loss of nest sites and available prey. This would result in relocation of individuals

to adjacent habitat. This relocation may result in individual mortality due to the result of

increased competition for limited prey base and increased predation.

Under the No Action Alternative there would be both beneficial and adverse indirect effect to

the boreal owl, but would be dependent on the severity of the fire and the subsequent changes

in coniferous forest. These indirect effects are:

A long term adverse impact attributed to the loss of cavity trees used as nesting

habitat

A long term beneficial impact attributed to an increase in herbaceous production post

burn that will result in an increase in the small mammal prey base

A long term beneficial impact attributed to an increase in the aspen component within

the drainage


A long term beneficial impact attributed to the increased structural complexity of the

conifer community

These indirect effects will result in a short term (0 to 10 years) indirect adverse impact to the

boreal owl. As vegetative conditions recover, the fire event will result in long term beneficial

impacts to the boreal owl.



ongoing activities.


This alternative will affect boreal owl habitat and will affect individual boreal owls. Given

the wide range of this species and other areas of similar habitat, the effects are limited to

individuals scale. This alternative results in a “may impact individuals or habitat, but will

not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the

population or species” determination for the boreal owl.

2. Proposed Alternative Under the Proposed Alternative there will be minor direct adverse effects to the boreal owl,

but will be limited to the action area. Adverse effects would be associated with relocation of

individuals to adjacent similar habitat. This relocation may result in individual mortality, the

result of increased competition for a limited prey base and increased predation. Under the Proposed Alternative there would be both beneficial and adverse indirect effect to

the boreal owl. These effects would be based on short term and long term habitat change.

Indirect effects would include the following: A long term adverse impact attributed to the loss of cavity trees used as nesting

habitat, especially in the sanitation/salvage units

A long term beneficial impact attributed to an increase in herbaceous production

post-harvest that will result in an increase in the small mammal prey base


the drainage

A long term beneficial impact attributed to the increased structural complexity of the

conifer community within the action area


boreal owl. This adverse effect would be minor, but likely measurable at the action area

scale. This loss would be limited to those individuals nesting and foraging within the

treatment units. As vegetative conditions recover, the harvest treatment will result in long

term beneficial impacts to the boreal owl. Once cavity trees become established, the change

in forest structure combined with the increase in prey species should result in a measurable

increase in boreal owl occurrence within the action area.

Under the Proposed Alternative there would be no cumulative effects because there are no


ongoing activities.


Determination of Impacts: This alternative will affect boreal owl habitat and will affect

individual boreal owls. Given the wide range of this species and other areas of similar

habitat, the effects are limited to individuals scale. This alternative results in a “may impact

individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or

cause a loss of viability to the population or species” determination for the boreal owl.

Flammulated owl The Sawmill Canyon drainage provides suitable habitat for flammulated owl. Flammulated

owls are neo-tropical migrants that summer within portions of the project area. This owl is an

insectivore and is usually associated with ponderosa pine or open Douglas-fir forests.

Preferred habitat is characterized as open forest containing large diameter trees and snags

with pockets of dense vegetation and patches of grass or shrub understory. Flammulated

owls are secondary cavity nesters, as such cavities excavated by Pileated woodpeckers or

northern flickers are needed to provide adequate nest sites. Portions of the project area

provide these habitat components.

1. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative there would be minor direct adverse effect. The projected

scale of a large fire would result in immediate loss of flammulated owl habitat including loss

of nest sites and available prey. This would result in relocation of individuals to adjacent

habitat. This relocation may result in individual mortality due to the result of increased

competition for limited prey base and increased predation.


the flammulated owl, but would be dependent on the severity of the fire and the subsequent

changes in coniferous forest. These indirect effects are:

A long term adverse impact attributed to the loss of cavity trees used as nesting

habitat

A long term beneficial impact attributed to an increase in herbaceous production on

the forest floor post burn that will result in an increase in insect populations, an

important prey component

A long term beneficial impact attributed to a reduced coniferous forest canopy cover

combined with patches of dense regeneration and shrubs


flammulated owl. As vegetative conditions recover in those less intensely burned areas, the

fire event will result in long term beneficial impacts to the flammulated owl.



ongoing activities.

Determination of Impacts:

This alternative will affect flammulated owl habitat and will affect individual flammulated

owls. Given the wide range of this species and other areas of similar habitat, the effects are

limited to individuals of this species. This alternative results in a “may impact individuals

or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss

of viability to the population or species” determination for the flammulated owl.


2. Proposed Alternative Under the Proposed Alternative there will be minor direct adverse effects to the flammulated

owl, but will be limited to the action area. Adverse effects would be associated with

relocation of individuals to adjacent similar habitat. This relocation may result in individual

mortality, the result of increased competition for a limited prey base and increased predation. Under the Proposed Alternative there would be both beneficial and adverse indirect effect to

the flammulated owl. These effects would be based on short term and long term habitat

change. Indirect effects would include the following:

A long term adverse impact attributed to the loss of cavity trees or future cavity trees

used as nesting habitat, especially in the sanitation/salvage units.

A long term beneficial impact attributed to an increase in insect populations within

the forest canopy and associated with the forest floor, the result of the increased

herbaceous and shrub component on the forest floor post-harvest.

A long term significant beneficial impact attributed to the development of an open

canopy Douglas-fir forest, which includes large diameter, “wolfy” Douglas-fir trees,

snags, and a vegetative component on the forest floor that will provide habitat for

insect populations foraged upon by the flammulated owl.


flammulated owl. This adverse effect would be minor, but likely measurable at the action

area scale. This effect would be limited to those individuals nesting and foraging within the

treatment units. As vegetative conditions recover, the harvest treatment will result in

measurable long term beneficial impacts to the flammulated owl. Once cavity trees become

established, the change in forest structure combined with the increase in prey species will

result in a measurable increase in flammulated owl occurrence within the action area.



ongoing activities.

Determination of Impacts

This alternative will affect flammulated owl habitat and will affect individual flammulated

owls. Given the wide range of this species and other areas of similar habitat, the effects are

limited to individuals of this species. This alternative results in a “may impact individuals

or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss

of viability to the population or species” determination for the flammulated owl.

Great grey owl Sawmill Canyon drainage provides suitable habitat for Great grey owls. Great grey owls

occupy coniferous forest in the spring and summer, most commonly near extensive meadow

complexes where they forage for voles, mice, and other small mammals. During the winter it

is common for great grey owls to move down in elevation and utilize agriculture areas where

snow depth is less and prey is abundant. Great gray owl habitat is characterized as late

successional Douglas-fir forest with herbaceous understory, located on flatter land adjacent to

clearcuts or large meadow openings. Groves indicates that the Sawmill Canyon area provides

suitable habitat attributes and is within the distribution of this species (Groves, 1997).


Though no specific surveys have been conducted for the species in the project area it is

suspected that great grey owls occur in Sawmill Canyon and likely utilize the project area as

summer habitat.

1. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative there would be minor direct adverse effect would occur.

The projected scale of a large fire would result in immediate loss of great grey owl habitat

including loss of nest sites and available prey. This would result in relocation of individuals

to adjacent habitat. This relocation may result in individual mortality due to the result of

increased competition for limited prey base and increased predation.


the great gray owl, but would be dependent on the severity of the fire and the subsequent

changes in coniferous forest. Indirect effects would include the following:

A short term adverse impact attributed to a reduction in prey species immediately

post fire

A long term beneficial impact attributed to an increase in snags used as nesting

habitat

A long term beneficial impact attributed to an increase in forest openings that provide

habitat for prey species such as voles and pocket gophers

A long term beneficial impact attributed to a change in Forest structure complexity

across the Sawmill Canyon that will provide additional forest openings, increased

prey availability, and nesting snags


great gray owl. As vegetative conditions recover, the fire event will result in long term

beneficial impacts to the great gray owl.



ongoing activities.


This alternative will affect great gray owl habitat and will affect individual great gray owls.

Given the wide range of this species and other areas of similar habitat, the effects are limited

to individuals of this species. This alternative results in a “may impact individuals or

habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of

viability to the population or species” determination for the great gray owl.

2. Proposed Alternative Under the Proposed Alternative there will be minor direct adverse effects to the great grey

owl, but will be limited to the action area. Adverse effects would be associated with


mortality, the result of increased competition for a limited prey base and increased predation.

Under the Proposed Alternative there would be both beneficial and adverse indirect effect to

the great grey owl. These effects would be based on short term and long term habitat change.

Indirect effects would include the following:


A long term adverse impact attributed to the loss of nest snags and future nest snags,

especially in the sanitation/salvage units.

A short term adverse indirect affect attributed to the eight year period of operation

that will result in human disturbance for an extended period of time.

A long term beneficial impact attributed to an increase in small mammal populations

associated with the change in the forest structure from a closed canopy to an open

canopy.


great gray owl. This adverse effect would be minor, but likely measurable at the action area

scale. This loss would be limited to those individuals nesting and foraging within or

immediately adjacent to the treatment units. As vegetative conditions recover, and small

mammal populations increase, the harvest treatment will result in measurable long term

beneficial impacts to the great gray owl.


known planned future activities within the cumulative effects analysis area that differ from

the ongoing activities.


This alternative will affect great gray owl habitat and will affect individual great gray owls.

Given the wide range of this species, other areas of similar habitat, and the limited affects

attributed to the proposed action, this alternative results in a “may impact individuals or


viability to the population or species” determination for the great gray owl.

Northern goshawk Sawmill Canyon provides suitable habitat for northern goshawk and have been observed,

though nesting sites have not been located. A raptor, the northern goshawk utilizes a variety

of forest types but tend to nest in mature forest that contains large diameter trees. The

northern goshawk is a forest habitat generalist that uses a variety of forest types and structural

stages. The northern goshawk is an opportunistic forager. Prey species include small

mammals (red squirrel, cottontail rabbit, and chipmunks) and a variety of avian species

depending on availability. The forested portion (upper portion) of Sawmill Canyon provides

suitable summer habitat for the goshawk. During the winter period, this species relocates to

lower elevation agricultural areas where temperature is more moderate and prey more

available.

1. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, minor direct adverse effect would occur. The projected

scale of a large fire would result in immediate loss of northern goshawk habitat including loss

of nest sites and available prey. This would result in relocation of individuals to adjacent

habitat. This relocation may result in individual mortality due to the result of increased

competition for limited prey base and/or increased predation of post fledglings.


the northern goshawk, but would be dependent on the severity of the fire and the subsequent

changes in coniferous forest. Indirect effects would include the following:


A long term adverse impact attributed to the loss of a closed canopy coniferous forest

that provides important hiding cover for post fledgling areas

A long term beneficial impact attributed to an increase in complexity of the forest

structure from a foraging habitat perspective


Sawmill Canyon

These indirect effects will result in long term adverse and beneficial impacts to the northern

goshawk.





This alternative will affect northern goshawk habitat and will affect individual northern

goshawks. Given the wide range of this species and other areas of similar habitat, the effects

are limited to individuals of this species. This alternative results in a “may impact


cause a loss of viability to the population or species” determination for the northern

goshawk.

2. Proposed Alternative Under the Proposed Alternative there will be minor direct adverse effects to the northern

goshawk, but will be limited to the action area. Adverse effects would be associated with


mortality, the result of increased competition for a limited prey base and increased predation

especially for post fledglings.


the northern goshawk. These effects would be based on short term and long term habitat

change. Indirect effects would include the following:

A long term adverse impact attributed to the loss of a closed canopy coniferous forest

that provide important hiding cover for post fledglings

A short term adverse indirect affect attributed to the eight year period of operation

that will result in human disturbance for an extended period of time


Sawmill Canyon

A long term beneficial impact attributed to an increase in the complexity of the forest

structure from a foraging habitat perspective

These indirect effects will result in a short term (0 to 8 years) indirect adverse impact and

long term beneficial and adverse impacts to the northern goshawk. These effects would be

minor, but measurable at the action area scale.






This alternative will affect northern goshawk habitat and will affect individual goshawks.

Given the wide range of this species, other areas of similar habitat, and the limited affects

attributed to the proposed action, this alternative results in a “may impact individuals or


viability to the population or species” determination for the northern goshawk.

Three-toed woodpecker

Sawmill Canyon drainage provides suitable habitat for three-toed woodpecker. The species

has been observed immediately north of the project area in Smithie Fork area. Three-toed

woodpeckers are found primarily in spruce/fir and lodgepole pine forest and less frequently in

mixed forest types. They may be found in willow thickets along streams, in aspen groves, in

swamps, and in burned-over areas. They are primarily insectivores and forage by scaling the

tree bark looking for wood-boring insects that are attacking dead and dying conifer trees

though spiders and berries also provide a food source. Recently burned conifers do provide an

important foraging component and may result in disruption in the local population. The area

within and surrounding the project area includes an abundance of recent conifer mortality as a

result of mountain pine beetle infestation.

1. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, minor direct adverse effect would occur. The projected

scale of a large fire would result in immediate loss of three-toed woodpecker habitat as a

result of stand replacing fire. This effect would result in the relocation of individuals to

adjacent habitat. This relocation may result in individual mortality.

Under the No Action Alternative the fire event would have beneficial indirect impacts to

three-toed woodpecker habitat. Indirect effects would include the following:

A significant long term beneficial impact attributed to the increased availability of

fire killed snags, an important foraging habitat

A significant long term beneficial impact attributed to the increased availability of

snags an important cavity tree component


Sawmill Canyon

These indirect effects will result in long term beneficial impacts to the three-toed

woodpecker. Under the No Action Alternative there would be no cumulative effects because there are no





This alternative will affect three-toed woodpecker habitat and will affect individual three-toed

woodpeckers. Given the wide range of this species and other areas of similar habitat, the

effects are limited to individuals of this species. This alternative results in a “may impact


cause a loss of viability to the population or species” determination for the three-toed

woodpecker.

2. Proposed Alternative Under the Proposed Alternative there will be minor direct adverse effects to the Three-toed

woodpecker, but will be limited to the action area. Adverse effects would be associated with


mortality, the result of increased competition for prey and increased predation especially for

post fledglings.


the Three-toed woodpecker. These effects would be based on short term and long term

habitat change. Indirect effects would include the following:

A long term adverse impact attributed to the loss of snags, dying trees, and mistletoe

infected trees especially within the sanitation/salvage units

A minor, long term adverse impact attributed to the change in forest structure


Sawmill Canyon

These indirect effects will result in a short term (0 to 8 years) indirect adverse impact and

long term beneficial and adverse impacts to the three-toed woodpecker. These effects would

be minor, but measurable at the action area scale.





This alternative will affect three-toed woodpecker habitat and will affect individuals. Given

the wide range of this species, other areas of similar habitat, and the limited affects attributed

to the proposed action, this alternative results in a “may impact individuals or habitat, but

will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to

the population or species” determination for the three-toed woodpecker.

Columbia spotted frog Sawmill Canyon drainage supports Columbia spotted frog and they have been observed in

riparian zones in all but the higher elevation zones. It can be assumed that aquatic habitat

immediately adjacent to proposed treatment areas do support Columbia spotted frogs.

Columbia spotted frog habitat is comprised of aquatic and associated riparian habitats.

Spring sources associated with aquatic habitat are important hibernation locations. Within

the project area it could be assumed that most aquatic areas provide suitable Columbia

spotted frog habitat. Columbia spotted frog surveys conducted on the Lost River District,


indicate that where present, spotted frogs are abundant. There does not appear to be a

correlation between water quality and species abundance.

1. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative there would be minor direct adverse effect to Columbia

spotted frog with loss of individuals due to fire. Although this effect is expected to be minor,

and limited to individuals, the scale of effect would be related to the intensity of the fire

within riparian zones. Under the No Action Alternative there would also be both beneficial and adverse indirect

effects to Columbia spotted frog. Indirect effects include the following:

A short term adverse impact attributed to increased predation associated with the

reduced riparian vegetation

A long term beneficial impact attributed to increased water temperatures within the

aquatic habitat, resulting from the loss of the forest canopy




Determination of Impacts: This alternative will affect Columbia spotted frog habitat and will affect individuals. These

effects are limited to the individual scale. Given the wide range of this species and other areas

of similar habitat, this action will not affect the species at a Meta population scale. This

alternative results in a “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute

to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” determination for the Columbia spotted frog.

2. Proposed Alternative Under the Proposed Action Alternative there would minor direct effects to Columbia spotted

frogs due to implementing design feature criteria. Implementing strict INFISH buffer along

streams combined with restricting the period of activity to after July 15 significantly reduces

the likelihood of the alternative directly impacting the Columbia spotted frog. Any direct

adverse effect attributed to the proposed action would be incidental and limited to an

individual.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative there may be minor indirect effects to Columbia

spotted frog habitat. This effect would be associated with the changes in ground cover

attributed to implementing the project. The area affected would be the upland areas located

between occupied habitats that are traveled by spotted frogs during the mating season. This

loss of ground cover may result in increased predation when traversing these upland areas.

This effect would be limited to individuals and would not measurably impact Columbia

spotted frog populations within the action area.

The riparian buffers included as part of the proposed action preclude the proposed action

from measurably affecting Columbia spotted frog aquatic habitat or riparian habitat.



This alternative may affect Columbia spotted frog habitat and may affect individuals. Given

the wide range of this species, other areas of similar habitat, and the limited affects attributed

to the proposed action, this alternative results in a “may impact individuals or habitat, but

will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to

the population or species” determination for the Columbia spotted frog.

3.2.4 Vegetation Resources The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project was reviewed in the field by the Forest

Service to determine effects to forest vegetation resources and determine compliance with the

Challis Forest Plan and other applicable laws and regulations. A specialists report was

prepared disclosing those effects and is on file at the Lost River Ranger District office.

Several concerns were identified during the scoping process. These include:

1. Impacts of vegetation management on old growth forest within the project area.

2. Impacts of vegetation management on whitebark pine, which is a candidate species

for listing as Threatened or Endangered.

3. Impacts of vegetation management on past and current insect epidemics within the

project area and associated fire risk from those epidemics.

4. Impacts of vegetation management on existing aspen stands within the project area.

Sawmill Canyon Watershed Analysis of 1997 states on page 2-2 that conifers or mixed

conifer/sagebrush areas represent 33,000 acres of the watershed community types (USDA

Forest Service , 1997). Conifer stands contain Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine fir,

Engelmann spruce, whitebark pine, and limber pine. While there are pure stands of all these

species, Douglas-fir is the only one which is currently widespread in pure stands, and found

in numerous mixed conifer stands. This same analysis on page 3-3 also states that forest

areas in the drainage stand structure to be stem exclusion/closed canopy, where new trees are

not establishing and there is little if any sunlight reaching the ground. These high stand

densities have caused an increase in Douglas-fir bark beetle and dwarf mistletoe. Trends

from general observations in that analysis show that there is an ongoing replacement of open

canopy forest, which are more park-like conditions, to forest with multiple structural layers.

Observations in these forested ecosystems documents substantial increase in tree stocking,

resulting in increased tree competition for water and nutrients, and an increase in fuel

accumulations.

Watershed analysis stated that Douglas-fir is more widespread in the drainage then its

historical range as it has expanded into sagebrush and aspen stands. More of the Douglas-fir

is < 40 years or older than 150 years ago in the historical landscape. Stands are currently

denser and there are more multi-layered stands than historically.

When the watershed analysis was conducted, lodgepole pine age data from mixed conifer

stands was used as a comparison since lodgepole pine is a large component. That data shows

that there has been little change in the large tree component of lodgepole pine, but there has

been a significant change in age distribution among the 40 to 150 year old trees. This is

reflected in the fewer pole size trees (41 to 100 years) and an increase in mature trees (101 to

150 years).


Stand densities for subalpine-fir areas are also higher than were historically present with

distribution of subalpine fir remaining about the same. Engelmann spruce trees are not

regenerating as they did historically and are in danger of disappearing from the drainage.

Though not a conifer species, trends in aspen were also documented in the analysis with

general observations that they are not regenerating well and are not able to compete with

conifer encroachment. The watershed analysis concluded that although some healthy stands

do exist, the trend for aspen is decreasing in abundance and distribution in the watershed and

will continue to do so under present management. Others have documented this trend

statewide in Idaho of loss of aspen across the landscape (Bartos, 2001).

These observations were affirmed by USFS State and Private Forestry entomologists in a trip

report (Lazarus, 2010) as principle causes that contributed to current mountain pine beetle

and Western spruce budworm insect epidemics that occurring in the drainage that started in

2003 as documented in ADS flights summarized in Table 1 .

Lodgepole pine is susceptible to mountain pine beetle when average diameter is greater than

8” dbh and stand basal area is greater than 100 square feet. With over 171,000 pine trees

(limber, whitebark, and lodgepole pine) killed from 2003 through 2011 in the Sawmill

drainage clearly the pine stand characteristics fell within these parameters. Observation and

past experience from Lazarus at that time predicted, that most of <5’ dbh lodgepole pine

would be succumbed to the beetle.

Douglas-fir as well as subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce are host trees to Western spruce

budworm, a defoliator. Western spruce budworm thrives in conditions where multiple layers

of dense dry Douglas-fir occur and as well as stands with subalpine fir which is the case in

Sawmill Canyon. Though Western spruce budworm is not a typical killer of mature trees,

regeneration of these trees are often killed from raining of larva that feeds on these immature

trees needles. In the visit of 2010 it was noted that on the Salmon-Challis National Forest

was in its fourth year of severe defoliation. ADS mapping detected in Sawmill drainage

Western spruce budworm starting in 2006 with over 1,627 acres. Outbreaks have fluctuated

through the years spiking then taking drops then rebuilding as it moved through the drainage.

In 2011 ADS mapped in their detection flights 4,301 acres of heavy defoliation which

included the majority of the proposed treatment units. By itself this would not be an issue to

mature trees which typically survive attacks. Tree mortality becomes prevalent when the

stress created by defoliation brings on other insect agents including Douglas-fir beetle which

can kill host trees.

Douglas-fir is highly susceptible to Douglas-fir beetle when average diameter is greater than

14” dbh, Douglas-fir species composition is more than 50%, average age is 120 years, and

stand basal area is greater than 250 square feet. When average stand diameter of Douglas-fir

is less than 14” dbh, stands are less susceptible, and insect activity would occur at lower

endemic levels which normally do not pose a threat.

Probability modeling was conducted for Douglas-fir beetle outbreak using current stand

conditions as recorded in field surveys conducted across the proposed treatment unit in 2010.

Within proposed treatment stands with mature Douglas-fir component, there is an 87%

chance that outbreak will occur within the next decade.

Field surveys were conducted summer of 2010 and 2011 documenting stand attributes for the

proposed treatment units using standard Common Stand Exams Protocols for all but the Pre-


commercial units and are documented in Table 10. For the pre-commercial thinning units

the only data collected was trees per acre.

Table 10 - Stand attributes grouped by silvicultural treatment for the Sawmill Canyon

Vegetation Management Project

Silviculture

Treatment

# o

f

tree

s/ac

re

Bas

al

Are

a

Sta

nd

Den

sity

Ind

ex

Qu

adra

tic

dia

met

er

HT

Av

erag

e

Ag

e

Tre

e

Can

op

y

Lay

ers

Sn

ag/a

cre

Group Selection 918 31 99 2.5 54 98 1 0

Overstory

Removal

1360 100 272 3.7 59 146 3 22

Sanitation/Salvage 292 114 224 8.5 55 181 3 26

Commercial Thin 963 131 316 5 60 111 3 5

Commercial Thin

with Aspen

Release

364 132 263 832 69 114 4 7


Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action alternative there would be no direct or indirect effects, as no agency

activities would occur, the no action alternative would allow current environmental processes

to continue on its current course and trend. Western spruce budworm is expected to continue

through the watershed for at least 6 to 7 more years pre-disposing Douglas-fir stands to

potential Douglas-fir epidemic (Lazarus 2010). Stands would continue to grow increasing the

stand density index. The increased tree mortality as a result of mountain pine beetle,

Douglas-fir beetle, and western spruce budworm epidemic would create larger volumes of

standing fuels in the short term. In the long term this same material would eventually fall and

increase surface fuel loads. Heavy fuels may or may not be treated, increasing the risk of a

high intensity fire. Mortality would be clearly present on the view shed. Where mortality to

conifers occurs around aspen this would benefit opportunities for regeneration of this species.

Fuelwood gatherers would continue to remove snags along road systems.

In the event of a fire (which is a likely event, as the Salmon-Challis National Forest has

experienced 12 large fires since 2000, including two that were over 170,000 acres in 2012, a

passive to active crown fire can be expected as disclosed in 3.2.1 Fire and Fuels. Most

areas would likely be mixed severity fires with approximately 25% of the affected areas

being stand replacing (Keene, et al., 2008). If seed source is available, lodgepole pine would

regenerate well in these opening. Where viable aspen roots exist, fire would trigger release of

growth hormone triggering aspen regeneration. If conifers seed source is not readily available

grasses and forbs would likely colonize these areas initially, prohibiting establishments of

conifers. Conifers regeneration would be limited to the seed walls on the edge and slowly

over time would colonize out into the openings. Five year post-fire decomposition of root

structure of standing snags will reach a point of failure and those trees will begin to fall,

adding more fuel surface across the landscape.


2) Proposed Action Alternative Under the proposed action the following recommendations of Forest entomologists would be

implemented on 420 acres in 29 units in the Sawmill Canyon drainage to address forest health

and insect/disease activities. Those recommendations include (Lazarus, 2010):

1. Reduce stand density throughout the project area

2. Modify canopy structure by reducing the number of canopy layers, where Douglas-fir

is the target species. This will thin trees and reduce Western spruce budworm

defoliation and subsequent Douglas-fir beetle activity in the long-term

3. A mix of species and size class will result in less insect and disease activity in

general and may be appropriate in mixed conifer stands.

4. Aspen competition should be removed and clones regenerated immediately to ensure

long-term survival

5. Minimize injury to any leave trees, as injury may predispose to bark beetle or disease

infections.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Commercial Thinning The commercial thinning units are primarily composed of Douglas-fir with minor

components of lodgepole pine and subalpine fir. The silviculture treatment would reduce

Stand Density Index from 316 to 240 and reduce the Basal Area from 131 to 99 making the

stand more vigorous and resistant to Douglas-fir beetle. Harvesting would change stand

structure from a multi-storied stand to single-story stand that would negatively influence

development of Western spruce budworm mainly by interrupting the developmental

mechanisms to maturity. Wide spacing of residuals would not allow Western spruce

budworm to move across stand from tree to tree. Defoliation damage would be limited to

individual trees and not the whole stand. Tree stress from defoliation would be reduced. Less

than 5” dbh trees would not suffer mortality from defoliation damage. Removal of

competition would favor leave trees and increase the availability of water and nutrients. This

would increase vigor of remaining trees, which in turn would provide more resistance to the

modeled 87% probability (Forest Visual Simulation, Douglas-fir Beetle model) of attack

from Douglas-fir beetle as the trees naturally overcome the attack through natural defense

mechanism. In the event of a fire, one outcome of density reduction suggests the stand would

experience a less severe fire. Other conifer tree species that are present would be released,

adding diversity to the stand.

Commercial Thin with Aspen release The effects in these units would be the same as the commercial thinning units with one

exception. Emphasis for these units is to return lost aspen clones (extent they originally

occupied) to the landscape by removing the conifer encroachment around them. Aspen is a

keystone species and adds botanical and wildlife diversity to those species and to the

landscape. Aspen communities are often moister than conifers communities. Under summer

conditions these communities are more resistant to the effects of fire due to the moisture that

is retained on the surface. Aspen shading during the summer time allow favorable conditions


for conifers to become established under aspen canopies. As the conifers mature they in turn

start to compete for limited resources and eventually shade out the aspen. As in other places

and in Sawmill Canyon, evidence of the extent of these clones in these encroached stands can

be determined by the “bones” of decaying aspen trees on the ground that are overtopped by

conifers. Aspen primarily regenerates from root sprouting. Underneath the encroaching

conifers the root structure is already present waiting for stimuli of light and nutrients to signal

the aspen to sprout. By removing conifers this will provide the disturbance mechanism

sending the signal for aspen to commence sprouting. Since aspen in a non-host species for

Western spruce budworm, mountain pine and Douglas-fir beetle, stand susceptibility to these

agents would be reduced. As the aspen stand matures and expands, this would increase fall

colors available for viewing. Fencing planned for these stands would reduce browsing effects

from domestic livestock allowing stand to mature and expand into the openings created by

removal of conifers.

Overstory Removal The overstory removal treatment is a two part treatment. The first part is to remove the

overstory that is suppressing the residual saplings. The second part includes residual

understory thinning and piling of the slash created from this activity. The understory thinning

is intended to remove the damaged saplings from harvest, reduce the disease agent dwarf

mistletoe from residual lodgepole pine, and reduce tree density of 1,360 conifer trees /acre to

a stand that is approximately 200 conifer trees /acre. This reduction would facilitate residual

stand to grow vigorously as competition for nutrients and water is removed. Following

activity implementation, the residual stand would grow vigorously and be less susceptible to

Douglas-fir or other insect agents for at least 50 more years (Dixon, 2008). The post-harvest

stand would not likely sustain a crown fire as modeled in the 3.2.1 Fire and Fuels Report and

fire effects to the stand would be less severe.

Sanitation Salvage The sanitation and salvage units can be considered as mix conifer stands well-represented by

subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, and Douglas-fir. This silviculture treatment would remove the

lodgepole pine dead component left behind by the ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic, as

well as those trees that have succumbed to other agents. Field data suggest that across these

units, there are at least 26 dead trees per acre. Modeling shows this is equivalent to 36 to 48

additional tons of fuel that will make up surface fuels in the long term (5 plus years) as these

trees fail and fall to the ground for these stands if not harvested. Tree stocking density would

be reduced from 292 trees per acre to only 200 trees per acre.

Changes in spacing would disrupt Western spruce budworm in host species subalpine and

Engelmann spruce tree species as they do in the more pure stands of Douglas-fir. All

remaining live trees would be under less physiological stress and grow more vigorously,

making them less susceptible in future insect agents. Changes in spacing would facilitate a

ground/surface fire with lower damage severity. The residual conifer stand would still be

mixed with Douglas-fir as the majority species. Where lodgepole pine seed source is

available in disturbed areas, lodgepole pine would colonize these areas and serve as nurse

crop to other species. Stands would largely be free of disease and able to withstand future

insect outbreaks for at least 50 more years.

Pre-commercial Thinning


For all but two of the 18 pre-commercial thinning units, the units are planted lodgepole pine

plantations. The other two are naturally regenerated clearcuts that occurred in the 70’s.

Current tree stocking levels range from 250 trees to over 900 trees/acres. Tree crowns are

intertwined; nutrients and water resources are limited because of the excessive stocking.

Treatment would reduce stocking levels down to 200 trees per acre, freeing up nutrients and

water resource on a 15 by 15 feet spacing. Modeling shows that this reduction would allow

residual trees to grow approximately two inches in diameter and at least seven more feet in

height in the next fifty years. In addition to thinning, residual tree crowns would be pruned

raising average height crown from two to five feet. Raising the crown base heights and

reducing the canopy bulk density will result in likely fire behavior to transition from a passive

crown fire to surface fire. Thinning now, instead of in the future will lengthen the time frame

that stands will remain less susceptible to mountain pine beetle. Estimated slash loading will

increase slightly, but will not exceed Forest Service recommendations of retaining 7 to 13

tons/acre. Short term red needles (1 hour fuels) may provide an increased risk of fire, but over

a period of 3 to 5 years, as they decompose that risk will decrease.

Group Selection The group selection in lodgepole pine would select for post and poles material. These

treatments would target the 3.0 - to 6.9 inch dbh size lodgepole pine size classes. Treatment

would lower the projected Stand Density Index of 125 to 104 which makes it a low

susceptibility to future mountain pine beetle. The treatment would likely move the stand

towards a more mixed conifer stand. Percentages of Douglas-fir and subalpine fir would

increase across the stands as only lodgepole pine will be harvested. Removal of small

diameter material will allow residuals, to increase in diameter as competition for nutrient and

water decreases with removal of small diameter material. In turn the remaining stand would

develop the potential to withstand wind damage, a problem common to small-diameter trees.

Some regeneration will occur and provide more structure to the stand. The residual overstory

that remains on the edge of the stand will continue to suppress smaller trees in close

proximity.

Consistency with the National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA; Public Law 94-588; 16 U.S.C. 1600) requires

specific findings to be made and documented when considering the implementation of certain

management practices. The action alternative is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan

long term goals and objectives listed on pages IV-1 through IV-10, and IV-34 through IV-35.

This section describes how the project was designed in conformance with the Challis

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan standards, and incorporates appropriate

land and resource management plan guidelines for desired timber management conditions and

outcomes in the Sawmill Canyon Management Area (Land and Resource Management Plan,

pages IV-11 through IV-34).

Forest Plan Management Area Direction

The project area is located in Management Area (MA) #22 identified in the Land Resource

Management Plan (LRMP) of the Challis National Forest (“Forest Plan”). The Management

Area Direction for timber resources MA #22 and from the LRMP is to "manage the most

productive and accessible stands for timber production.” The Sawmill project is consistent

with this direction because it generally seeks to manipulate the structure and density of timber


stands to remain resistant and resilient to insect and wildfire disturbances, and to maintain or

enhance growth productivity.

Other NFMA Requirements

The action alternative is consistent with the following provisions of the National

Forest Management Act, for reasons described under each provision:

1. Suitability for Timber Production: No timber harvest, other than salvage sales or

sales to protect other multiple-use values, shall occur on lands not suited for timber

production (16 USC 1604(k)).

All activities involving timber harvest will occur on lands suitable for timber production as

required under 16 USC 1604(k).

2. Timber Harvest on National Forest Lands (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)): A Responsible

Official may authorize site-specific projects and activities to harvest timber on

National Forest System lands only where:

b. There is assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within five years

after final regeneration harvest (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(ii)).

All areas with regeneration harvests included under the action alternative are

productive sites that can be adequately restocked within five years via either natural

regeneration or reforestation planting.

d. The harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the

greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber (16 USC

1604(g)(3)(E)(iv)).

During the project environmental analysis, the selected harvesting system was

compared to alternative harvest systems such as helicopter yarding. The ground-based

systems were chosen not primarily because they might give the greatest dollar return or

greatest unit output of timber, but because the ground-based systems were judged to be

most suitable (in terms of operational feasibility) for meeting the silvicultural

objectives of the project. Many of the anticipated prescriptions (particularly the thin-

from-below thinning treatments) are operationally difficult—if not sometimes

impossible—to achieve using helicopter yarding methods.

3. Clearcutting and Even-aged Management (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)): Insure that

clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to

regenerate an even-aged stand of timber will be used as a cutting method on National

Forest System lands only where:

a. For clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such

cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of

the relevant land management plan (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(i)).

b. The interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary has been completed

and the potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic

impacts on each advertised sale area have been assessed, as well as the consistency

of the sale with the multiple use of the general area (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(ii)).

c. Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable

with the natural terrain (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iii)).


d. Cuts are carried out according to the maximum size limit requirements for areas

to be cut during one harvest operation, provided, that such limits shall not apply

to the size of areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as

fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm (FSM R1 supplement 2400-2001-2

2471.1, 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(iv)).

e. Such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil,

watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and the regeneration

of the timber resource (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(v)).

None of the activities included in the Sawmill project action alternative are designed to

regenerate an even-aged stand of timber, so this item is not applicable to the Sawmill

project.

Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives

Narratives in this section pertain to all National Forest System lands located within the

proclaimed Challis National Forest; this direction is referred to as Forest-wide standards and

guidelines. Forest-wide standards and guidelines directly pertaining to forest vegetation

management activities are provided in the timber section of the Forest Plan (part 4 [Timber],

pages IV-16 to IV-20) and listed below in bold font. Management Area direction (as

summarized above) may take precedence over Forest-wide direction.

4. Timber

a. Develop individual stand silvicultural prescriptions for all timber sales.

Standard Forest Service policies and procedures dictate that individual stand

silvicultural prescriptions will be prepared by a Certified Silviculturist for all timber

sales, and this is the expectation with respect to the Sawmill project.

c. Utilize logging residue, where feasible, to meet fuel wood demand. Coordinate fuel

wood access with timber sales.

Although it is not included in the action alternative, expected outcomes of the project

include the utilization of some logging residues for a fuel pellet demonstration project.

e. Along arterial roads or within 300 feet of developed recreation sites utilize

individual tree selection and/or sanitation/salvage harvest.

Along arterial roads or within 300 feet of developed recreation sites, the Sawmill

project action alternative, as disclosed in chapter 2 of this document, utilizes

individual tree selection and/or sanitation/salvage harvests.

f. Integrate appropriate forest pest management strategies into timber management.

Because manipulation of host vegetation structure, density, and species composition is

a common and widely accepted means of pest management for timber production and

other forest values (Lazarus 2010 and references therein), the activities included under

the action alternative constitute an appropriate pest management strategy for timber

resources in the area.

g. Limit tractor skidding to slopes less than 45 percent, except on short pitches

where it is determined to be environmentally acceptable by an interdisciplinary

team.

Design features included in the action alternative demonstrate and ensure consistency

with this item.


i. Enhance timber species diversity and age structure within each Management

Area.

By promoting quaking aspen (a high-value tree species with low representation) and

modifying forest structure to improve resistance and resilience to insect and wildfire

disturbances, the Sawmill project would maintain and/or enhance the existing mix of

species diversity and age structures within the Management Area.

j. Within each Management Area, provide and distribute a minimum of 10% of the

acres of the conifer timber stands as habitat for old-growth-dependent wildlife

species.

The old growth section below shows that a minimum of 10% of the acres of the

conifer timber stands as habitat for old-growth-dependent wildlife species would

likely be distributed within the Management Area following implementation of the

action alternative.

l. Maintain down materials for wildlife habitat: 2 to 4 tons per acre or 10 percent of

the slash treated by harvesting, whichever is the least.

At least 7-13 tons per acre will be retained for the proposed treatment units.

m. Use an I.D. Team to establish silvicultural prescriptions designed to maintain or

enhance wildlife cover and forage values. Remove no more than 40 percent cover

in timber sales adjacent to natural openings. Subsequent timber harvest will be

delayed until hiding cover is re-established (minimum tree height of 6 feet in

previously harvested units).

No timber sales will be conducted adjacent to natural openings.

Old Growth

Issues, Measures, and Indicators The portion of the Forest Plan that provides direction for old growth management is Chapter

IV (Forest Management Direction), part 4 (Timber), subpart J, which states "j. Within each

Management Area, provide and distribute a minimum of 10% of the acres of the conifer

timber stands as habitat for old growth-dependent wildlife species” (page IV-17). The

Challis Land and Resource Management Plan (“Challis Forest Plan”) Analysis of the

Management Situation contains mapped vegetation “Plant-Animal Community

Associations.” Among these, the Plant-Animal Community Association representing habitat

for old-growth dependent wildlife species is the “Climax Coniferous Forest” association.

Utilizing recent aerial photography, informal “walk-through” ground surveys by Forest

Service foresters and entomologists, formal plot-based data collection, insect and disease

aerial detection surveys, wildfire perimeter maps, and professional judgment, areas mapped

as “Climax Coniferous Forest” within the Sawmill Canyon Management Area were closely

examined and updated as necessary to reflect existing conditions.

Aside from the Challis Forest Plan (and, by extension, the National Forest Management Act),

no applicable laws and regulations explicitly pertain to “old growth” or “habitat for old

growth-dependent wildlife species,” for the Sawmill Canyon project. Furthermore, the

maintenance of old growth characteristics are not specifically included within the project

Purpose and Need. Therefore, old growth analysis methods, measures, and indicators focused


solely on the need to demonstrate consistency with the Challis Forest Plan and National

Forest Management Act.

Consistency with respect to the Challis Forest Plan was assessed using a two-step process:

1. Disclosure of whether proposed activities would have any expected direct, indirect, or

cumulative negative effects on the provision and distribution of habitat for old growth-

dependent wildlife species, as defined above and as “climax coniferous forest” in the

AMS precursor to the Challis Forest Plan. If likely effects exist, include step 2 below.

2. Disclosure of whether likely effects would lower habitat suitable for old growth-

dependent species to less than 10% of the mapped conifer forest within the Sawmill

Canyon Management Area.

This two-step process was utilized to address the single old growth-related issue that arose

during scoping, project development, and project analysis, and which is addressed within this

Environmental Assessment: The proposed activities, in whole or in part, may lower the

proportion of habitat for old growth-dependent wildlife species, (as defined above and in the

AMS as “climax coniferous forest”) to less than 10% of the Sawmill Canyon Management

Area. Note that the term “may” is used to denote the need for project level analysis—as stated,

this issue does not suggest an analysis finding.

This issue is addressed in the project Environmental Analysis document by examining the

magnitude, spatial and temporal extent, duration, likelihood, and speed at which the direct,

indirect, and/or cumulative effects of the proposed activities impact the proportion of habitat

for old growth-dependent wildlife species within the Sawmill Canyon Management Area. The

measures and indicators associated with the above old growth-related issue are summarized

below in Table 11.

Table 11 - Measures and indicators associated with the old growth-related issue for

analysis for the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project

Magnitude

(amount of change of a value)

Spatial Extent Temporal Extent / Duration

Likelihood Speed

Change in acres of climax coniferous forest as mapped for the Challis Forest Plan Analysis of the Management Situation

Challis Forest Plan Sawmill Canyon Management Area

Short (1-10 yrs.)

Mid-term (10-50 yrs.)

Long-term (>50 yrs.)

Likely / Not likely

Immediately following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No-Action Alternative

By definition, the No-Action Alternative does not include any activities and would thus have

no direct, indirect, or cumulative activity effects on conifer forest habitat for old growth-

dependent wildlife species. Although there are no activity effects expected from the No-Action

Alternative, adopting this alternative would result in a variety of predictable consequences on


conifer forest habitat for old growth-dependent species, which are described in detail for the

wildlife and silviculture sections of this Environmental Analysis.

Proposed Action Alternative

The methodology section above describes a two-step process by which consistency of a given

activity or suite of activities with the Challis Forest Plan old growth-related requirements can

be assessed. The analysis results for steps 1 and 2 are as follows.

1. The proposed activities would likely have minor direct, indirect, or cumulative negative

effects on the provision and distribution of habitat for old growth-dependent wildlife

species, as defined above and as “climax coniferous forest” in the AMS precursor to the

Challis Forest Plan. These effects would involve a reduction of 39 acres in the amount of

Climax Coniferous Forest within the Management Area. These effects would occur

immediately following implementation of project activities, and persist over the mid-term

(10-50 years), until the residual stand re-acquires existing vegetation characteristics (see

indirect effects section of the silviculture specialist report included in the project file).

Because likely direct, indirect, or cumulative effects exist, step 2 is addressed below.

2. The mapped Climax Conifer Forest (which serves as a proxy within the Challis Forest

Plan for conifer forest habitat of old-growth dependent wildlife species) within the

Sawmill Canyon vegetation management area encompasses 12,557 acres, which is 22.6%

of the total Sawmill Canyon Management Area (itself 55,626 acres). The proposed

activities which overlap with mapped the Climax Conifer Forest PACA and would result

in the removal of the largest-diameter trees (and thus likely reduce the suitability of the

PACA for old growth dependent wildlife species) totals approximately 38 acres. The

remaining 12,519 acres of mapped Climax Coniferous Forest is 22.5% of the total

Sawmill Canyon Management Area. Thus, the post-implementation Climax Coniferous

Forest PACA (habitat suitable for old growth-dependent species) almost certainly exceeds

10% of the mapped conifer forest within the Management Area.

The temporal extent/duration of these activities would be as described above in the short-term

(1 to 10 years). Over the medium and long-term, and in the absence of widespread high-

severity insect and/or wildfire disturbances, the amount of Climax Coniferous Forest in the

Sawmill Canyon would likely continue to increase, largely aided and abetted by the proposed

activities (see effects of the proposed activities on stand development and susceptibility to

insect and wildfire disturbances described in the silviculture specialist report included in the

Sawmill project file). But because widespread and substantial insect disturbances are occurring

in the Sawmill Canyon area and expected over the short, medium, and long-term (see

silviculture resource report and references therein), the amount of Climax Coniferous Forest

useful to “old growth-dependent wildlife species” is likely to decline. It is likely that the

indirect effect of the proposed activities would be to limit the amount of decline—to the extent

that it occurs—relative to the No-Action Alternative (see silviculture resource report included

in the project file).

Uncertainty and Estimated Error

The results above were assessed using methods yielding with a reasonable level of confidence,

and are commensurate with normal, professional standards of measurement and uncertainty in

the field of forestry; however, some uncertainties are inherent to stand and landscape-scale

assessments, and are briefly discussed below.

The primary uncertainties of the results in this analysis involve estimations of the extent of

existing Climax Coniferous Forest. As discussed above in the Introduction section, the Climax


Coniferous Forest Plant-Animal Community Association was mapped during the AMS

process to reflect the best understanding of the time regarding likely conifer forest habitat for

“old growth-dependent” wildlife species defined within the AMS and Forest Plan. Presently,

just as in the early 1980’s when the AMS process occurred, the mapped areas may in fact be

larger or smaller in extent than reality, and only represent a reasonable estimation based on

professional judgment, on-the-ground experience in the general area, aerial photo

interpretation, walk-through field reviews, and sampled measurements in the field. Based on

these elements (professional experience and judgment, photo interpretation, field review, and

data collection), the amount of Climax Coniferous Forest PACA within the Sawmill Canyon

Management Area is estimated to be approximately 5-10% (as a proportion of the total

Sawmill Canyon Management Area) more, or less, than what is reflected in the mapped

analysis discussed in this report.

Closely related to uncertainties revolving around the extent of actual Climax Coniferous

Forest, the actual degree of dependency of wildlife species (particularly those identified

above in the Introduction section) on the areas mapped as Climax Conifer Forest is also

uncertain and subject to reasonable scientific debate. The connection of these wildlife species

and their mapped habitat was made during the AMS process and during the Sawmill project

environmental analysis by professional wildlife biologists exercising reasonable judgment

and discretion based on education, experience, training, and an understanding of the best

available science and data.

Consistency with Applicable Laws and Regulations


National Forest Management Act and Healthy Forest Restoration Act

Because the No-Action Alternative does not include any activities and would have no direct,

indirect, or cumulative effects on conifer forest habitat for old growth-dependent wildlife

species, it is consistent with applicable sections of the Challis Forest Plan (and by extension,

the National Forest Management Act) and Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

2) Proposed Action Alternative

National Forest Management Act

Because Climax Coniferous Forest PACA (habitat suitable for old growth-dependent species)

almost certainly exceeds 10% of the mapped conifer forest within the Sawmill Management

Area following implementation of the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project

proposed activities, the proposed activities are consistent with the Challis Forest Plan

requirements related to the provision of conifer forest habitat for old growth-dependent

wildlife species (Chapter IV, part 4, subpart J).

Healthy Forest Restoration Act

Section 102(e)(2) provides that the USDA Forest Service and DOI BLM, when carrying out

covered projects using HFRA authority, are to "fully maintain, or contribute toward the

restoration of, the structure and composition of old growth stands according to the pre-fire suppression old growth conditions characteristic of the forest type, taking into account the

contribution of the stand to landscape fire adaptation and watershed health, and retaining the

large trees contributing to old growth structure."

Under the HFRA, a “covered project” is an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project carried

out on land described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (5) of subsection 102(a). In contrast, the


Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project is a project described in paragraph 410

of

subsection 102(a), and is therefore not a “covered project,” and not subject to the old growth

and large tree retention requirements associated with covered projects as described in

paragraphs 102(e) and 102(f). Because the project is not subject to such requirements, it is

therefore consistent with the HFRA with respect to old growth and large-diameter trees, and

not discussed further in this report.

Whitebark pine Whitebark pine has been petitioned for listing as a TES species to the FWS. As of March of

2013, the FWS decision is that listing is warranted but precluded. With the listing the

Intermountain Region of the Forest Service placed this species as a sensitive plant species for

the Proclaimed Challis National Forest. A full discussion of effects of the alternatives of the

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project to this species was prepared in a separate

report and can be found in the 3.2.7 Botany Resource.

3.2.5 Recreation and Roadless Resources The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project was field review by Salmon-Challis

National Forest recreation staff to determine effects to recreation and Roadless resources and

to determine compliance with the Challis FLRMP. A specialist report was prepared

disclosing these effects and is on file at the Lost River Ranger District office. From scoping

three concerns arose:

1) Impact of vegetation management on recreation opportunities within the project

area.

2) Impacts of vegetation management on Forest trail conditions within the project

area.

3) Impact of vegetation management on IRA (Idaho Roadless Areas) within the

project area.

The FLRMP identifies Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) for the project area; two

classes are represented; Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural. Of the proposed

units, Unit I and portion of Unit H are in Semi-Primitive Motorized class, with all other units

in the Roaded Natural class. By comparing the definition of the ROS to effects created by the

proposed action, a determination can be made whether activity is compliant with the Forest

plan and ROS.

The Idaho Roadless Rule of 2008 defined 205 Idaho Roadless Areas (IRA’s) and established

five management themes that provide prohibitions with exceptions or conditioned

permissions governing road construction, timber cutting, and discretionary mineral

development. The rule assigns the land within each Roadless area to one or more of five

broad management themes: Wild Land Recreation (WLR); Special Areas of Historic or

10 Subsection 102(a)(4): Federal land on which windthrow or blowdown, ice storm

damage, the existence of an epidemic of disease or insects, or the presence of such an

epidemic on immediately adjacent land and the imminent risk it will spread, poses a

significant threat to an ecosystem component, or forest or rangeland resource, on the Federal

land or adjacent non-Federal land.


Tribal Significance (SAHTS); Primitive (P); Backcountry/Restoration (BCR); and General

Forest, Rangeland and Grassland (GFRG). The project area is located adjacent to, but not

within, the 149,629 acres Lemhi Range IRA (06-093). The Lemhi Range IRA is within the

“Backcountry Restoration” management theme of the Idaho Roadless Rule. Since none of

the proposed vegetation management activities occur within the IRA, there are no effects to

Roadless and Wilderness attributes in the project area.

1) No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative there would be no direct effects to recreation because the

activities would not occur. Though the project would not be implemented in the long term

failure to implement may result in indirect effects to recreation resources in the Sawmill

Canyon area as the risk of severe wildfire continues to increase potentially resulting in

change to the recreation setting and scenic quality of the project area. There also would be no

known cumulative effects by taking no action.


The proposed vegetation management activities in Sawmill Canyon may directly impact

recreation activities occurring in the immediate area. The timber harvest and thinning

activities may require temporary road and trail closures or limited access to the area to protect

public safety. In addition, the recreating public may choose to avoid areas during these

operations. These effects would be both temporary and short term. Public notification at

campgrounds, trailheads, on forest websites and in the local media would allow adequate

notice for those planning trips into the area to adjust their plans accordingly. The commercial

outfitter operating in the area during the harvest/thinning may also be directly impacted by

limited access or trail closures. Notifying the local outfitter prior to the vegetation

management activities would reduce any potential impacts.

Noise from heavy equipment and dust in the air during the harvest/thinning activities may

have a direct impact to the quality of the recreation experience within and adjacent to the

project area by temporarily reducing the air quality and tranquility of the area. Log truck

traffic on FS road 40101 may directly impact recreationists by creating more traffic, noise,

and dust in the area.

There is potential for the harvesting and thinning operations to impact approximately 1.5

miles of Forest trails by causing increased run-off and erosion or debris on the trails. The

trails within the project area would continue to be maintained by the South Zone Trails

Program. Specific trail problems would be addressed as needed based on specific trail

conditions.

The long term benefits of the proposed action, including ecosystem restoration and a

reduction in the risk of negative impacts from insect infestations and severe wildfire have the

potential to indirectly benefit recreation by maintaining the settings and opportunities within

the project area. Reducing the risk of severe wildfire would help maintain the scenic qualities

within the project area.

The ROS classifications within the proposed vegetation management units include Roaded

Natural and Semi-Primitive Motorized. This project is consistent with these classifications,

although harvesting/thinning would have a short-term impact to visitors during those

operations, there would be no long-term negative effect on the access, settings, or recreational

opportunities once the project is complete.

Cumulative Effects


The ongoing land and recreational uses shown in Table 12 would continue within the general

area. The vegetation management activities with the associated short term increases in dust,

traffic, noise and temporary trail closures could lead to some recreationists choosing not to

utilize Sawmill Canyon. These effects would only be evident during vegetation management

activities for the duration of the commercial timber sale and service contracts (3-5 years).

Table 12 - Comparison of alternatives for recreation and roadless resources

Issue Indicator Measure Alt. 1:

No Action

Alt. 2:

Proposed

Action

Loss of

recreation

opportunity

Duration None Short term

displacement of

visitors during

the vegetation

management

activities over a

3-5 year period

Increased trail

maintenance

needs

Miles of trail None Approximately

1.5 miles

Impacts to Lemhi

Range IRA

Acres &

Duration

None None

3.2.6 Scenery Resources The Challis FLRMP uses the Visual Management Systems which identifies five Visual

Quality Objectives (VQO’s) for the entire Forest that provides measurable standards for

general management prescriptions, and allows management activities or other uses to occur

(or continue to occur) while safeguarding the scenic quality.

Of the five VQO’s the Sawmill Canyon project area has been identified and mapped for

Partial Retention where all management activities are visually subordinate to the

characteristic landscape.

The Challis FLRMP has a goal for recreation of “Providing for a pleasing visual landscape”

with specific management direction for Sawmill Canyon of maintaining existing visual

quality of Timber Creek Campground, and prohibiting road construction across the face of

the mountains seen from said campground.

Knowing the goals, directions, and VQO for the project area an effects analysis was prepared

based on answering two questions:

1) How closely the project meets the expectations of the visual quality objectives

allocated throughout the project area. That is, do the proposed actions result in

timber stands that appear to be consistent with the visual quality objectives

descriptions?


2) Does the proposed action strive to meet the forest goal of providing for visually

appealing landscapes?

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Management activities such as timber harvesting, thinning, or other vegetative treatments

have the potential to effect scenic quality of the forest resource by creating changes in

predominate form, color, lines, or texture in a given viewing area. Visual impacts from these

actions often depend on how much the visual result of these actions complement or contrast

with the existing scenery.

The visual resource is affected by the six different vegetation management activities that have

different time frames and are shown in Table 13.

Table 13 - Visual effects of proposed six silvicultural treatments over time

Silviculture

Treatment

Short Term Effects (1-5 years) Long Term Effects ( 20 +

years)

Commercial Thin Both units would have clumps of 2 to 7

trees approximately 15’ apart. The

thinning would create a single story

stand to reduce the spread of Spruce

Budworm infestation. The largest and

healthiest trees would be left for seed

production. Evidence of thinning

operations (slash, skid roads, ground

disturbance where trees were removed)

would remain for a few years.

Slash left from the thinning

would start to decay and

more shrubs and grasses

would begin to populate the

understory. The over story

would have a more open,

park-like appearance.

Pre-commercial

Thinning/Pruning

Timber stands that have been thinned

would be left with 15’ by 15’ spacing,

and some of the thinned trees would be

left on the ground. Lighter areas on

boles of trees where limbs have been

removed would be slightly visible. This

would be very visually evident along

roads and trails.

The thinning activities would

be less visually evident as

the needles fall from the

felled trees left on the ground

and snow starts to break

down the branches. Forbs

and grasses would also begin

to grow in the thinned area

as more light and nutrients

are freed up. Removal of

limbs through pruning would

not be noticeable, either on

the limbs or on the ground,

as the tree boles heal over

and needles fall from limbs

on the ground.

Commercial Thin

with Aspen

Release

Visual effects would be the same as the

commercial thin area with the exception

around the aspen areas where removal

of all conifers within 100 feet would be

highly visible for several years.

Visual effects from the

thinning would diminish as

aspen start to regenerate

within the two units. The

aspen would add color and


diversity to the landscape.

Sanitation/Salvage Visual effects would be evident due to

removal of all the dead trees in a unit.

There would be gaps in the vegetation

layer where the dead trees stood, as well

as evidence of the logging activities,

i.e.; skid trails, slash, and landings.

Visual effect would be

minimized as lodgepole pine

seedlings start to grow, as

well as with the growth of

grasses and forbs due to

more sunlight and nutrients

being available.

Overstory

Removal

Visual effects from removing large,

whole trees and thinning the residual

stand to 15 feet by 15 feet spacing

would be evident for several years

through slash-covered skid trails and

more openings in the canopy.

The stand would have a more

open, park-like appearance.

Very little visual evidence of

the logging/thinning

activities would be evident

after 5 years.

Group Selection/

Post and Pole

All live post and pole size material

would be removed from the stands,

including all dead trees of any size.

Slash from tree removal operations

would be left on skid trails after

operations are complete. These

activities would be visually evident for

several years.

Visual quality would

improve as snow starts to

break down the slash and

young trees start to

regenerate within the stand.

1) – No Action Alternative Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

If no action is taken, the proposed vegetation management activities would not occur.

Douglas-fir stands in the canyon are overstocked, contributing to less vigorous trees and

overcrowding of aspen stands. Scenic quality would continue to deteriorate in the long term

under the no action alternative as more lodgepole and whitebark pine trees die from the

Mountain Pine Beetle infestation and more Douglas-fir trees become defoliated due to the

Spruce Budworm infestation. The lodgepole pine plantations would continue to increase in

density as the trees become larger, losing more visual diversity. Mature lodgepole stands

would continue to deteriorate and have both red-needled and dead trees. Aspen stands would

continue to be edged out by conifers, resulting in a loss of visual diversity throughout the

area.

If a wildfire were to occur in the area, it is possible that the fire could be more extreme due to

higher stand densities and decadence under the No Action alternative. A wildfire could cause

a decrease in the visual quality of Sawmill Canyon for the foreseeable future.

Cumulative Effects

Visual impacts or changes due to beetle kill and Spruce budworm defoliation are currently

noticeable throughout the project area, and past wildfires are noticeable to the north and east

of the project boundary. Under the no action alternative, nothing would change, natural

progression would continue.



Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, treated units within the project area boundary would be restored over

time to a more natural looking regime. Scenes associated with bug killed lodgepole pines and

defoliated Douglas-fir trees would be reduced, giving the forest a more park-like appearance.

Thinning and pruning the lodgepole plantations would produce a mosaic of thinned out

appearing holes within the landscape, also contributing to a more open and cleaned up effect.

“Green up” or vegetation regeneration that masks visual signs associated with activity

disturbances (i.e.: stumps, slash, track and tire prints embedded in soil, imprint of closed and

re-vegetated temporary roads) following the vegetation management activities would enhance

the scenic quality in the Sawmill Canyon area.

The construction of a jack/leg and wire fence around units 1AR and 2AR would not decrease

the visual quality of the area, as the rustic nature of the wood fence (the wire would be used

only in areas not visible from the road or campground) would blend in with the surrounding

characteristic landscape.

In the long term, visual conditions under this alternative would likely result in landscapes that

appear to meet the Partial Retention visual quality objective, comply with Forest Plan

standards and guidelines, and depict the desired condition.

Cumulative Effects

The project or activity types that could have cumulative effects under this proposed action

involve cattle grazing, especially in riparian areas.

No other project types from the past that are occurring now, or proposed in the future, are

expected to have direct or indirect effects on the visual resource aside from an activity being

seen.

3.2.7 Botany Resource The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project was reviewed in the field by Salmon-

Challis National Forest staff to determine potential effects to Threatened, Endangered, and

Sensitive plants. A botany report was prepared that also serves as the Biological Assessment

for these TES species and can be found in the project folder located at the District Office.

Invasive plants are covered under a separate analysis and those will be disclosed under that

section 3.2.10 Invasive Plants.

Determination of effects to plant species is based on changes to habitat (vegetation

communities) that support these species. By comparing changes to vegetation communities

with each alternative, direct, indirect, and cumulative effect can be determined for individual

plant species requiring detailed analysis.


Twenty-one plant species are listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester on the Salmon-

Challis National Forest. These plant species include:

Lost River milkvetch Lemhi milkvetch

Meadow milkvetch Whitecloud milkvetch

Coastal sand sedge Douglass’ springparsley

Denseleaf draba Stanley whitlow-grass

Bridle buckwheat Welsh’s buckwheat

Challis crazyweed Lemhi penstemon

Marsh’s bluegrass Wavyleaf thelypody

Idaho pennycress Sacajawea’s bitterroot

Mill Creek agoseris Flexible alpine collomia

Salmon twin bladderpod Idaho range lichen

Whitebark pine

Because many of the Salmon-Challis National Forest sensitive plant species are considered

endemic to a relatively small area, research was first compiled to remove those species whose

ranges are outside the action area from further consideration. Some species have specific

elevation constraints and these were considered to further reduce the list for potential

occurrence within the action area. Data was then compiled and analyzed from the Idaho

Conservation Data Center to determine the spatial location of known occurrences of sensitive

plant species across the forest. Summary of findings are listed in Table 14.


Table 14 - List of sensitive plants, their habitat requirements, occurrence, presence or absence, and determination of effects to these plants

in the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project

Plant Species Name Habitat Requirements Occurrences Habitat Present or

Absent in Treatment

Units (Yes or No)

Determination of Effects

Lost River milkvetch Occurs on ledges and

rock crevices on nearly

vertical limestone cliffs

and at the base of talus

slopes, where this

species prefers moist,

shaded microsites

(Moseley, 1989, USDA;

Forest Service, 1990).

Occurrence records indicate this

species is limited to the eastern and

western slopes of the southern half

of the Lost River Range, and the

southern end of the Lemhi Range, in

Custer and Butte Counties. It occurs

at elevations from about 5,500 feet in

the canyons of the southern Lemhi

Range, to about 7,000 feet in the

Lost River Range. This action area

is outside the recognized range of

this species representing no

likelihood of occurrence for Lost

River milkvetch. Conservation Data

Center records show no known

occurrence within or adjacent to the

action area. No appropriate habitat

exists for this species within the

action area.

No – Treatment units

occur in coniferous forest

on slopes less than 45%.

No Impact

Lemhi milkvetch Lemhi milkvetch occurs

on dry, unstable, steep

banks, sandy washes,

and gullies within the

shrub-steppe and salt

desert shrub zones

(USDA: Forest Service,

Lemhi milkvetch is endemic to east-

central Idaho and occurs in Custer,

Butte, and Lemhi Counties at lower

elevations. Conservation Data



action area and no potential habitat


occur in coniferous forest

types not shrub steppe or

salt desert shrub zones.

No Impact


1990). Additional

habitat characteristics

for this species include

limestone shale, heavy

soils on south-facing

slopes, and along a

moist irrigation ditch

(Moseley, 1989).

present within the action area.

Mesic (meadow)

milkvetch

This legume occurs on

moist, often alkaline

soils. Suitable habitat is

moist, usually alkaline

meadows and swales in

sagebrush valleys. It

has been found on the

edge of an alkaline

seepage area growing

with rabbitbrush.

Conservation Data Center records

show no known occurrence within or

adjacent to the action area, with this

species generally limited to the

larger intermountain valleys of the

Big Lost River. Potential habitat

does not occur within or adjacent to

the action area, representing no

likelihood of occurrence for mesic

milkvetch.

No - Treatment units occur

in coniferous forest types.

No Impact

White Clouds

milkvetch

White Clouds milkvetch

occurs in subalpine and

alpine areas on scree

slopes and within

sagebrush communities

(USDA; Forest Service,

1990).



adjacent to the action area. Potential

habitat does not occur within or

adjacent to the action area,

representing no likelihood of

occurrence for White Clouds

milkvetch.

No – Proposed treatment

units are not located in

subalpine or alpine

forested zones, nor do they

occur in sagebrush

communities.

No Impact

Maritime sedge Maritime sedge is a

widely distributed but

rare, low-growing

perennial that forms

loose clumps, which

arise from creeping

The only known occurrence of

maritime sedge on the Forest is

within the Kane Lake cirque.



adjacent to the action area. Potential

No- Treatment units are

not located in alpine zone.

No Impact


rootstocks. It occurs on

wet rock ledges and

moist tundra in the

alpine zone.

habitat does not occur within or

adjacent to the action area,

representing no likelihood of

occurrence for maritime sedge.

Douglas’s wavewing On the Lost River

Ranger District it occurs

at high elevations over

9,000 feet. Populations

occur in alpine and

subalpine zones on open

slopes, ridges, and

summits with calcareous

or dolomitic substrates


1990).

This plant is endemic to the central

Lost River Range and central Lemhi

Range in Custer and Lemhi

Counties. Conservation Data Center

records show no known occurrence

within or adjacent to the action area.

The action area is outside the

recognized range of Douglas’

wavewing, with no likelihood of

occurrence within the action area.

No – Treatment Units are

not above 9000 feet nor

are the soils on site

calcareous or dolomitic

No Impact

Rockcress draba Rockcress draba is

found on moist gravelly

alpine meadows and

talus slopes, often on

limestone derived soils.

Found in elevation

generally from 10,000

to 12,000 feet (USDA;

Forest Service, 1990).



adjacent to the action area. The soil

type on the project site does not

support potential habitat or an alpine

meadow community. Therefore,

there is no likelihood of occurrence

for Rockcress draba.

No – Treatment units are

not above 10,000 feet

No Impact

Stanley whitlow-grass Found on steep slopes

on granitic parent

material in shallow soils


1990).

This species is considered a Stanley

Basin endemic, therefore the action

area is outside the range of this

species. Conservation Data Center

records show no known occurrence

within or adjacent to the action area.

Stanley whitlow-grass has no

likelihood of occurrence within the


not in the Stanley Basin

No Impact


action area.

Guardian buckwheat Found on unstable scree

slopes on granitic parent

material (USDA; Forest

Service, 1990).

This species is a Stanley Basin

endemic. The action area is outside

the range of this species, with no


action area. Conservation Data



action area.


not in the Stanley Basin

No Impact

Welsh’s buckwheat This plant is endemic to

east-central Idaho where

it primarily occurs on

dry, windswept,

sparsely vegetated sites

characterized by

shallow, clay-loam soils

on convex topographic

positions; sites are

drought prone and

unproductive(Murphy,

2002). Known

occurrences in Idaho are

between 6,000 and

7,800 feet in elevation.

Welsh's buckwheat

ranges from valley

bottom alluvial fans and

benches to foothill

ridges and bluffs of the

White Knob Mountains,

Boulder Mountains,

Lost River Range and

Welsh’s buckwheat is endemic to the

valleys and foothills of the upper Big

Lost River and the Pahsimeroi River

basins within the rain shadows of the

White Knob Mountains, Boulder

Mountains, Lost River Range, and

Pahsimeroi Mountains (Murphy,

2002). The action area is not within

the recognized habitat and range of

this species. Conservation Data


occurrences within or adjacent to the

action area.

No – Associated plant

species are not present in

the treatment units.

No Impact


Pahsimeroi Mountains.

Associated vegetation

consists primarily of

fringed sagebrush

(Artemisia frigida),

Sandberg’s bluegrass,

bluebunch wheatgrass,

ricegrass, and cushion

like forbs.

Challis crazyweed This legume inhabits

Wyoming big sagebrush

with bluebunch

wheatgrass, Sandberg’s

bluegrass, and salt

desert shrub habitats,

where it occurs in sandy

washes and open slopes

with rocky volcanic

soils (USDA; Forest

Service, 1990).

The action area is outside the

recognized range of this species,

with no likelihood of occurrence

within the action area. Conservation

Data Center records show no known


action area.


in coniferous forest and

associated plants are not

present

No Impact

Lemhi penstemon The species is not

restricted to any

particular geological

substrate, and has been

found on granitic soils

as well as limestone and

other sedimentary

substrates. Soils are

often very gravelly;

however, soil texture is

highly variable and

ranges from sand to fine

Lemhi penstemon is considered a

regional endemic of Lemhi County

in Idaho and Beaverhead, Deer

Lodge, Ravalli and Silverbow

counties in Montana. The action

area is outside the accepted range of

this species with no likelihood of

occurrence. Conservation Data



action area.


outside acceptable range

No Impact


clay. Lemhi penstemon

prefers open habitats

such as rock outcrops

and steep, rocky slopes

with natural soil

slippage. This

adaptation is

underscored where

plants have colonized

road banks.

Marsh’s bluegrass This dwarf perennial

alpine grass occurs in

alpine areas in pockets

of soil within scree and

talus slopes.



adjacent to the action area. Known

occurrences of Marsh’s bluegrass in

Idaho are in mountain passes above

10,000 feet in elevation. There is no

suitable habitat, and the action area

is below the recognized elevation

range of Marsh’s bluegrass;

therefore, there is little to no


action area.

No – Treatment units do

not occur in the alpine

zone nor above 10,000 feet

No Impact

Wavy-leaf thelypody Wavy-leaf thelypody is

found on steep shale

banks derived from

volcanic and

metamorphic rocks.

The plant is associated

with bunchgrass and

herbaceous perennials

between 4,900 to 7,000

feet in elevation

The action area is above the

recognized elevation range of this

species, and the associated plant

community type is not present at the

project site; therefore, there is no


action area. Conservation Data



action area.


occur above recognized

elevation range of this

species and associated

plants

No Impact



1990).

Idaho pennycress

(formerly Stanley

thlaspi)

This species generally

occurs in sandy soil

textures, on glacial

outwash terraces, and on

residual bedrock ridges.

It is an endemic to the

Stanley Basin area,

occurring in the upper

Marsh Creek valley, and

south through the

Stanley Basin and

Sawtooth Valley to the

upper Big Wood River

valley near Easley

Creek (Moseley, 1988).

Stanley thlaspi is a Stanley Basin

endemic, the action area is outside

the recognized range of this species.



adjacent to the action area.


not in the Stanley Basin or

Sawtooth Valley

No Impacts

Sacajawea’s bitterroot Sacajawea's bitterroot

can be found in montane

and subalpine habitats

ranging from 5,000 to

9,500 feet. The plant is

dormant most of the

year. Shortly after

snowmelt, a rosette of

succulent leaves

emerges, followed by

showy white flowers

that hug the ground.

After flowering, all

above ground signs of

the plant disappear, with

Sacajawea’s bitterroot is endemic to

central Idaho with just over two

dozen populations known to exist.

Roughly three-fourths of these

populations are on the Boise

National Forest with scattered

populations also occurring on the

Payette, Sawtooth, and Salmon-

Challis National Forests. The only

known population on the Salmon-

Challis is NF is located on the

northern extreme of the forest in the

vicinity of Bull Trout Lake. The

action area is located on the southern

end of the Forest, outside CDC


not in the Bull Trout Lake

area

No Impacts


the tuberous carrot-like

root hidden just below

the surface.

records known range of this species.

Pink agoseris This species occupies

perennially wet montane

and subalpine meadows,

marshes, and swales or

at the edge of meadows.

These habitats represent

a range of substrates and

vegetation types but are

sparse and

discontinuous across the

landscape, so its

distribution is

characterized as

somewhat patchy.

Pink agoseris is a regional endemic

of east-central Idaho, western,

central and south central Montana,

northwestern Wyoming, and barely

reaching southern Alberta.



in close proximity to the action area.

Potential habitat does not occur

within the action area due to the

perennially wet soil characteristics

required by this plant.

No – treatment units are

not occurring in wet

montane and subalpine

meadows, marshes, and/or

swales or at the edge of

meadows

No Impacts

Flexible alpine

collomia

Species accounts from

the Idaho Conservation

Data Center suggest that

flexible alpine collomia

occurs in quartzite

scree, granitic talus, or

other areas of poor soil

development between

3,800 feet to 8,900 feet

in elevation.

All known occurrences of flexible

alpine collomia are on the Salmon

portion of the Salmon-Challis

National Forest. The action area is

outside the recognized range of this

species and represents no likelihood

of occurrence within the action area.

No – treatment units are

on the Challis portion of

the Salmon-Challis

National Forest

No Impact

Salmon twin

bladderpod

Salmon twin bladderpod

occurs on rocky,

sparsely vegetated,

gentle to steep southerly

slopes. It can be found

At this time, the only known

population of this species on the

Salmon-Challis National Forest is

located on the Leadore District.

Other populations occur on adjacent


not covered by rocks 1-3”

in diameter and ground

cover is not sparse.

No Impact


from upper to lower

slope positions.

Vegetation cover is low

and bare ground and

rock coverage high. The

substrate is dominated

by rocks 1 - 3 inches in

diameter, and can be

loose, or more often

fairly stable. Parent

material consists of

rocks belonging to the

Challis volcanic group.

BLM administered lands. All

populations occur between 4500 to

6800 feet in elevation. Conservation

Data Center records show no known

occurrence within or in close

proximity to the action area.

Idaho range lichen This species is found on

bare bentonite hills and

flats, bare clay outcrops,

and hills on mostly

south facing slopes

within the sagebrush

community.

Currently the five occurrence records

suggest that Idaho range lichen is

found in lower elevations, between

4,260 to 5,212 feet, and has only

been observed on the Salmon

District BLM in the Lemhi River

drainage to date. Conservation Data


occurrence within or in close

proximity to the action area. The

action area is outside the sagebrush

community type associated with the

Idaho range lichen.


not bare bentonite hills or

flats nor bare clay

outcrops.

No Impact


Whitebark pine

(Analysis of effects is

describe in section

below).

Yes – Habitat is present

and occurrence has been

documented

“May be Impacted”, but

where damage does occur to

the few individuals that are

present, would not contribute

to a loss of viability of the

species or cause the species

to move toward federal

listing.


Whitebark pine Whitebark pine is prevelant across the Salmon-Challis National Forest, and occupies the

subalpine and timberline zones across this region. Elevation ranges from 7,300 to 10,500

feet and co-occurs with limber pine, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine. Common associated

understory plants are elk sedge, Ross sedge, subalpine fleabane, rosy pussytoes, grouse

whortleberry, common juniper, pink mountain heath, Oregon boxwood, Idaho fescue, and/or

smooth woodrush. Whitebark pine grows in the region on moist cold sites and is common on

ridges and near timberline where trees are exposed to strong, desiccating winds. Precipitation

ranges from 24 to 72 inches per year, mostly coming in the form of snow. Whitebark pine

can be found on all aspects, but is most common on south and west facing slopes. Soils in

whitebark pine communities are classified as cryochrepts. Soils are moderatly to poorly

developed and well drained. Coarse fragments are well represented. Soils are nutrient poor

and usually derirved from granitic or basalt parent materials.

From stand inventory surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011 several five-needle

seedlings/saplings were observed in serveral of the proposed treatment units. At this stage of

maturity identification separating limber and whitebark pine are difficult without closer

observation of stomata arrangements on the needles using a magnifying lens. For those

surveys conducted by the field crew, five-needle pines were recorded as whitebark pine even

though pure stands of limber pine also reside in the project area.

Currently in the project area mature whitebark pine has experienced significant mortality as a

result of a Mounatin Pine Beetle epidemic that initiated in 2003. Estimates of mortality range

from 30-75% of all 7” plus dbh whitebark pine trees ( Lazarus, 2010).

1) No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative there would be both direct and indirect adverse effects, as

well as indirect beneficial effects to whitebark pine. These effects are hard to quantify as they

are dependent on scope, intensity, location, and duration of the fire. The direct effects would

be individual tree mortality as a result of tree scorching and heat intensity to trees’ cambium

at ground level. At the right heat intensity the cambium can be so damaged to disrupt the

ability of those trees to cycle nutrients, resulting in death of those trees. Indirect adverse

effects to whitebark pine are loss of genetic material that those individuals or stands of tree

may contain. Indirect beneficial effects include; site preparation for new establishment of

seral whitebark pine and reduction of competition by removing the more shade tolerant

species such as subalpine fir.

Under the No Action Alternative there would be cumulative effects. Whitebark pine stands

are being lost across their range to agents such as mountain pine beetle, white pine blister

rust, and fire. A fire in the Sawmill Canyon project area may change population number of

current whitebark pine residents, and in turn change population of this keystone species

across its known extent.

2) Proposed Action Alternative Under the Proposed Action there may be direct effects to whitebark pine. In the Pre-

commercial units there will be no direct effect because the whitebark pine is not present. In

all others units, seedlings/saplings of whitebark/limber pine are present or may be present and


there is potential for damage and even mortality due to harvest activities. This damage can be

reduced to minimum levels by incorporating certain design criteria including:

Designate all mature whitebark/limber pine as leave

Require directional falling in timber sale contracts for protection of seedlings

and saplings

During timber sale operations location of skid trail will need to be pre-

approved prior to operation to avoid areas of whitebark/limber pine seedlings

and saplings

Under the Proposed Action there will be the same indirect effects as in the No Action though

limited to only extent of those 326 acres.

Under the Proposed Actions there will be the same cumulative effects as described in the No

Action alternative with loss of individuals though limited to the 326 acres.


Based on these facts a determination was made that for whitebark pine species in the

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Project the species “May be Impacted”, but where damage does

occur to the few individuals that are present, would not contribute to a loss of viability of the

species or cause the species to move toward federal listing.

3.2.8 Range Resource The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project was field reviewed by the Salmon-

Challis National Forest Rangeland Specialist to determine effects to Non-Forested resources

as well as any effect to Mill Creek Cattle and Horse grazing allotment that may impact cattle

grazing. A Non-Forested Specialist report was prepared documenting the effects of the

proposed action and can be found in the project folder located at the Lost River Ranger

District office.

Non-Forest communities represent shrub-steppe, grasslands, and cultivated fields. For this

analysis the action area was determined to be 8,227 acres in size. Of those 8,227 acres, 226

acres are represented by non-forest communities or three percent of the area. The proposed

treatments cover 439 acres in the action area. Of the 420 acres only .55 acres are represented

or less than one percent. This area discloses the effects to non-forested communities for the

proposed action.

1) No Action Alternative The non-forested communities and riparian zones associated with forested ecosystems would

likely experience high intensity, short duration burns as wildfire moved quickly through these

fine fuels. Roads and natural fuel breaks would limit burning to those areas ignited from

spotting and running associated with the wildfire in the forest community.


For uplands, non-forested, and riparian communities, until disturbance event occurs, current

successional processes will continue with increases in shrub canopy lessening herbaceous

understory. Shrub areas immediately adjacent to conifers would diminish as conifers slowly

encroach into these areas and displace the shrub communities. During fire event, these


communities would experience a range of fire intensities, some areas would be consumed,

and others would not. Recovery to pre-fire conditions would be commensurate with the

degree of fire intensity. The fire event would have mixed effects to these communities. The

herbaceous communities would experience the quickest recovery to pre-fire conditions within

2 to 5 years, whereas the shrub communities would take significantly longer time frame of up

to 15 to 30 years.

Cumulative Effects

For both uplands and riparian communities in action area, livestock grazing would continue

to support current successional processes at current allowable use levels. Post fire grazing

would have to be halted until vegetation re-establishes and stabilizes soils in burned areas, a

period of 2 to 5 growing seasons dependent on burn severity. During this period of time the

Permittee would not be allowed to graze until fire recovery was reached.

2) Proposed Action Alternative As stated in the introduction of this section only .55 acres of uplands may be impacted by the

proposed action which is less than one percent of the total proposed treatment acres and only

179 acres of non-forested communities in the action area of 8,227 acres or less than three

percent.


The 0.55 acres of Mountain Big Sagebrush is located in unit 2AR, an aspen release unit. As

planned there is no treatment in the upland communities; skidding and harvesting may have

impacts to this community because of the juxtaposition to the forest communities.

Anticipated impacts would reduce the canopy cover to sagebrush, but would not eradicate the

community from the area. If the area was heavily impacted by a skid trails the adjacent seed

source would allow new establishment of sagebrush plants in 5 years and return to post

treatment conditions in 20 to 30 years. The planned mitigation measure of reseeding skid

trails, landings, and temporary roads post-harvest will stabilize these areas and return them to

production. Although there will be some impacts to the sagebrush in unit 2AR they will be

small in scale and not irreversible.

All proposed units are located in the Timber Creek unit of the Mill Creek allotment. Potential

conflict may arise between harvest operations and grazing during the life of the project. Post-

harvest treated aspen stands could see increase of browsing of new aspen suckers, defeating

the objective of expanding residual aspen clones. To reduce effects of potential conflict,

Permittee will be informed of harvest operations prior to start and will use herding to keep

cattle out of those areas. To facilitate recovery effort in aspen treatment stands, a wildlife

passable friendly fence will be built to deter livestock browsing, protecting new aspen

regeneration for a period of several years allowing aspen to colonize those areas where

conifers had encroached upon.

With the implementation of INFISH guidelines for boundary layout in the mechanical units

there will be no impacts to riparian vegetation communities from the proposed treatment.

Cumulative Effects


Livestock grazing would continue as authorized. Allowable use levels by livestock would

continue to support healthy herbaceous plants within the uplands and adjacent riparian areas.

3.2.9 Fisheries Resource The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project was field reviewed by the Salmon-

Challis National Forest Fisheries Biologist to determine effects to Forest Management

Indicators Fish species, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) fish, and to determine

compliance with Forest Plan and INFISH guidelines relevant to fisheries resource. A fisheries

report was prepared documenting the effects of the proposed action and can be found in the

project folder located at the Lost River Ranger District office.

The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project has the potential to affect fish habitat

within the units, an area extending 300 feet from the units, roads being used for the project

outside the units, and area extending 50 feet from these roads, roads that are being

decommissioned, and an area extending 50 feet from these roads. These parameters defined

the analysis area. The area does not include roads that may be used during the project that are

currently open to use by the public since the impacts of travel on these roads have already

been considered in the NEPA analysis that opened those roads.

Threatened and Endangered Fish The current list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species for the

Intermountain Region of the Forest Service, which was issued on July 27, 2011, indicates

that there are four fish species currently listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA that

occur on and adjacent to the Salmon-Challis National Forest. These are:

1. Snake River Sockeye Salmon – Endangered (Federal Register 56FR58619)

2. Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon – Threatened (Federal Register

57FR14653) 3. Snake River Steelhead – Threatened (Federal Register 62FR43937)

4. Bull Trout – Threatened – (Salmon-Challis National Forest Management Indicator

Species) (Federal Register 63FR31647)

Of the four species only Bull Trout is present in the project analysis area. All other fish

species are absent from the project area. The determination for Sawmill Canyon Vegetation

Management Project for those species and there critical habitat that are not present is there is

“No effect”.

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

to evaluate the impact of actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may

adversely affect the essential fish habitat of commercially harvested species. Within the scope

of this action this includes Chinook Salmon. Since neither Chinook Salmon nor Chinook

Salmon designated critical habitat occur within the action area, the proposed action results in

a “WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT” determination for Chinook Salmon Essential Fish

Habitat.


Sensitive Fish

There are two fish species that are listed under the Regional Forester sensitive list. These fish

are:

1. Westslope cutthroat trout

2. Big Lost River Mountain whitefish

Both of these fish species are not present in the project analysis area. . The determination for

Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project for these species is “No Impact”.

Bull Trout Bull trout are present within the analysis area. In 2004 the Salmon-Challis National Forest

designated bull trout as a Management Indicator Species. Sampling has shown that bull trout

are present in the following streams within the analysis area: Timber Creek, Redrock Creek,

Camp Creek, Main Fork Little Lost River, and Quigley Creek. The following streams have

also been designated as Critical Habitat in the project area by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

including: Timber Creek, Redrock Creek, Camp Creek, and Main Fork Little Lost River. Bull

trout have a global ranking of G3 and a state ranking of S3; vulnerable in the nation or

state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread

declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Threats to this species include

hybridization with brook trout, competitive interactions with rainbow, brown, and lake trout;

activities that damage riparian areas and cause siltation of spawning streams, habitat

fragmentation, lack of passage through water diversion structures, and habitat loss as a result

of climate change.

A state-wide assessment of bull trout populations found that bull trout in Idaho are presently

widely distributed, relatively abundant, and apparently stable (High , Meyer, Schill, &

Mamer, 2008). The Salmon-Challis National Forest is within two bull trout recovery units;

the Salmon River, in which most of the Salmon-Challis National Forest occurs, and the Little

Lost, which includes the Lost River Ranger District. The population of bull trout greater than

70 mm in Idaho was estimated to be 1.13 million, with over half of those bull trout occurring

within the Salmon River Recovery Unit. The average density of bull trout greater than70 mm

in the Salmon River Recovery Unit was 4.4 fish/100 m2. In the abundance analysis, it was

found that bull trout were most likely to occur in survey sites in first through third order

streams. There was a significant post-1994 increase in abundance for all salmonid species.

This increase may be attributable to stream water temperatures, drought, productivity, or

some combination of these or other unknown factors.

Bull trout occur on all Ranger Districts on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Bull trout

abundance data has been collected on all districts on the Salmon-Challis National Forest for

over a decade.

1) No Action Alternative Bull trout under the no action alternative will have both beneficial and negative effects to fish

population. Bull trout have been prevalent as well as wildfire for several 1000 years. This

suggests that at minimum they both coexisted, but it is even more likely that bull trout are

dependent on wildfire to maintain healthy habitats and populations. Wildfires can generate

short term conditions that have a negative impact on fish but within a few years habitat

conditions can be better for fish than before the fire. Under the No Action alternative there


would be short term negative impacts on bull trout, but in the long term, fire will result in

improved bull trout habitat and bull trout populations

Bull Trout population may also be negatively impacted for failure to decommission roads or

remove the two culverts on Red Rock Creek. Roads and road densities would remain as they

currently exist. As a general rule removing roads and culverts across the landscape generally

has a beneficial impact on watersheds, streams, fish habitat, and fish. Therefore, failure to

decommission these roads and removal of the two culverts would likely have a negative

impact on the watershed, streams, bull trout, and bull trout critical habitat.

Determination of No Action Alternative

Based on this analysis, the no action alternative is not expected to result in a downward trend

for this species; furthermore, it is possible that wildfire burning in the analysis area could

result in a long term upward trend for bull trout.

2) Proposed Alternative The proposed action involves the use of six types of treatments in 29 units covering 420

acres. All units are more than 300 feet from fish bearing streams or more than 150 feet from

permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams or not within 100 feet of any seeps, springs or

bodies of water.

The vegetation treatments were reviewed for effects to bull trout and bull trout habitat. This

review considered potential effects to individual bull trout, water temperature, sediment, large

woody debris, stream flows, and riparian vegetation. Given the distances between the units

and the streams and the nature of the treatments, the proposed vegetation treatments and

associated activities should not impact individual bull trout, water temperature, large woody

debris, stream flows, and riparian vegetation.

It is possible that the vegetation treatments could have a slight impact on stream sediment.

The proposed action was analyzed by a Forest hydrologist using the WEPP model to

determine the probability of sediment entering a stream during the first year following

implementation (Deschaine, 2013). He found that the average probability of sediment

entering a stream in the first year following disturbance was three percent and ranged from

zero to six percent. He also concluded that, “Given the unit layout and design criteria

(INFISH buffers) of the proposed activities there is a high probability of success for

minimizing erosion and retaining or capturing any sediment before it can enter streams.”

While it is possible that minor amounts of sediment may enter some streams this amount is

expected to be very low and will likely not have any adverse impacts on bull trout or bull

trout critical habitat.

The proposed action involves decommissioning 13 sections of road totaling 4.59 miles.

Removing roads from the landscape generally has a beneficial impact on watersheds, streams,

fish habitat, and fish. Therefore, decommissioning these roads would likely have a positive

impact on the watershed, streams, bull trout, and bull trout critical habitat.

The proposed action also involves removing two culverts from Redrock Creek. Removing

culverts from streams generally has a beneficial impact on fish and fish habitat. Therefore,


removing these two culverts would likely have a beneficial impact on bull trout and bull trout

critical habitat.

The project is expected to have beneficial cumulative effects on bull trout and bull trout

critical habitat. The list of past, ongoing, and foreseeable future activities associated with the

project area are found in the environmental assessment. Activities such as dispersed

recreation, livestock grazing, and motorized vehicle travel are all generating stream sediment

in the project area (Gamett, 2013). Given that this project may also generate some stream

sediment there could be a cumulative impact on stream sediment. However, the amount of

sediment that may be generated by the proposed action will likely be low and will likely not

impact bull trout. Therefore, there will likely not be any cumulative effects to bull trout from

sediment. The road decommissioning and culvert removal will help reduce the impact of

previous road building. This should result in a beneficial cumulative effect to bull trout and

bull trout critical habitat.

Determination of Proposed Action Alternative

Based on the analysis for the proposed action alternative, the proposed action is not expected

to result in a downward trend for this species.

A Biological Assessment has been prepared and was presented January 29, 2014 to the U.S.

Fish Wildlife for concurrence. As currently proposed with design feature and

recommendations by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the determination for the project will be

“May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for bull trout and critical bull trout habitat.

3.2.10 Invasive Plants The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project was field reviewed by the Salmon-

Challis National Forest Rangeland Specialist to determine effects to noxious and invasive

weeds resources as well the effect to Mill Creek Cattle and Horse grazing allotment. A Non-

forested vegetation specialist report was prepared documenting the effects in the No action

and action alternative and can be found in the project folder located at the District Office.

The Lost River Ranger District participates in a coordinated weed management program with

Butte and Custer Counties, the State of Idaho, other federal agencies, and private landowners

and uses an integrated pest management approach, which includes chemical, biological and

mechanical treatment to control the spread of weeds. Four species of noxious weeds are

known to occur within the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management action area, occurring

on 221 acres of the analysis area. They include: spotted knapweed, Canada thistle, bull

thistle, and nodding plumeless thistle. Where weeds are present none of them represent areas

that are monocultures, but are dispersed within native vegetation. Table 15 represents the

known scale of infestation by species in the analysis area.


Table 15 - Infested acres of noxious weeds within the Sawmill Canyon Vegetation

Management Project action area

Common Name spotted

knapweed /

Acres / % cover

Canada thistles

/ Acres / %

cover

bull thistle /

Acres / % cover

nodding

plumeless thistle

/ Acres / %

cover

Total Acres in

Action Area

3 acres at 15%

cover

200 acres at 5-

30% cover

163 acres at 3-

15% cover

17 acres at 3-

15% cover

These weeds are limited to or within close proximity to travel corridors within the action

area. Sawmill Canyon is a heavily used area by recreationists from all parts of southern

Idaho. Given the amount of use that this area receives the noxious weed program on the

Salmon-Challis National Forest has been successful in its efforts in keeping the noxious weed

population to the travel corridors in the area at reduced densities.

Specific to the proposed treatment units all four weed species are represented and occupy

8.32 acres of the planned 420 acres within 8 of the 29 units. Table 16 shows the extent of

those weed infestations as well as the percent of cover they represent by treatment unit name.

Table 16 - Acres of noxious weeds with treatment units on the Sawmill Canyon


Treatment

Unit

Acres, Species and ( % cover)

C 2.43 acres, Canada thistle (5%)

D .44 acres, Canada thistle (5 %)

F .59 acres, Canada thistle (5%) and bull thistle (3%)

N .23 acres, spotted knapweed (15%)

N .5 acres spotted knapweed (15%), Canada thistle (5%) and bull thistle (3%)

N .47 acres, Canada thistle (5%), and bull thistle (3%)

1AR 1.9 acres Canada thistle (5%), and bull thistle (3%)

2AR .23 acres Canada thistle (5%), and bull thistle (3%)

3S .74 acres Canada thistle (5%)

1) No Action Alternative


Noxious weed treatment and monitoring within the project action area will continue to

maintain current invasive populations with some reduction in weed densities under the

direction of the Salmon-Challis Noxious Weed Management Program. During a fire event,

these areas of infestation would experience a range of fire intensities, some areas would be

consumed, and others would not. Recovery to pre-fire conditions would be commensurate

with the degree of fire intensity. Bull thistle and nodding plumeless thistle populations would

provide seed sources for burned areas and infestation would increase within action area.

Canada thistle would also increase across the action area because of the resiliency of its roots

to survive severe fires conditions and quickly re-establish. Burn areas then would become

excellent seed beds for offsite seed to establish. Dependent on fire intensity spotted

knapweed would survive or succumb. In areas of moderate to low intensities population


would increase whereas under the high intensity fire would most likely decrease. Result of

this increase in acres of noxious weeds would require more monitoring and treatments within

the action area.

Cumulative Effects

Livestock grazing has the potential for creating ground disturbance and seed dispersal that

would allow for noxious weeds to establish new populations or increase the size of existing

infestations. Allowable use levels by livestock on rangelands will minimize the ground

disturbance in these grazed areas. Post fire grazing would have to be halted until vegetation

re-establishes and stabilizes soils in burned areas, a period of 2-5 growing seasons dependent

on burn severity. With the increase in noxious weeds after recovery from the fire, seed

transport by livestock could become a concern on this allotment requiring increased

monitoring and treatment of these species. Motorized travel and dispersed camping is

currently limited to designated routes. Both are primary vectors for weed dispersal. Post fire

motorized travel and dispersed camping will become difficult to manage as new areas

previously inaccessible become accessible providing a higher potential of spread of noxious

weeds away from those designated travel corridors.

2) Proposed Action Alternative Proposed action alternative would occur over 420 acres. Of that 420 acres there are 8.32 acres

of known current infestation and are shown in Table 16. Project design features would

implement the following practices to reduce potential spread of noxious weeds. These

include:

Pre-treat known infestation in action areas prior to commencement of any work, as

is planned for all known infestations during the period of June 15th – July 15

th

Sale Administrator will select locations of landings and skid trails away from known

infestations as shown on sale area map

Encourage operators to maintain weed-free mill yards, equipment parking and

staging area

Use standard timber sale contract provision CT 6.36 which requires equipment

cleaning and inspection prior to entering onto the Forest

Re-seed with native plant species all disturbed areas post-harvest

Collect KV trust funds for post-harvest treatment and monitoring of disturbed areas

for noxious weeds.


Direct effect of the proposed alternative would create approximately 56 acres of new

disturbance as a result of skid trails, landings, road openings and closing, and temporary

roads required for the project. This will require additional monitoring and treatment of these

areas until vegetation re-establishment, anticipated to be 3-5 years post-harvest. Indirect effects of the proposed alternative would include the potential for noxious weeds to

travel to and from treatment units. Travel to and from can bring off site weeds into new areas

creating new infestations that don’t currently exist. Active monitoring and treatments

including pre, during, and post-harvest activities shall minimize establishment of new

infestations and treat them at an immature stage.


Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and ongoing, activities for the project area include motorized recreation and

livestock grazing. Motorized travel has been limited to designated routes eliminating effects

from cross country travel to noxious weeds. Infestations along travel corridors will continue

to be an issue with the increased potential for noxious weed seed distribution from motorized

vehicles. The weed treatment program on the Lost River Ranger District will continue to

make these high use recreation areas a priority for treatment to control existing infestations

and reduce the potential for any new ones. Livestock grazing has the potential for creating

ground disturbance that would allow for noxious weeds to establish new populations or

increase the size of existing infestations. Allowable use levels by livestock on rangelands

will minimize the ground disturbance in these grazed areas. The active treatment of existing

and new infestations of noxious weeds will reduce the spread of these invasive species. Table

17compares the two alternatives.

Table 17 - Comparison of the alternatives for noxious weeds in the Sawmill Canyon


Indicator No Action Alternative Proposed Action

Noxious Weeds The current areas infested

with noxious weeds will

persist and shrink with the

current monitoring and

treatments. When a fire event

occurs, the potential for

weeds to spread will increase

and the burned acres will all

need to be monitored and

potentially treated for the

establishment of new

infestations. This could be

thousands of acres.

The proposed action would

create approximately 55 to

439 acres of new area to be

monitored and treated.

3.2.11 Climate Change This proposed action would affect 420 acres of forest by commercially thinning smaller trees

from the stand, retaining a residual stand of about 60 percent of the original stand by basal

area. This scope and degree of change would be minor relative to the amount of forested land

being 1.57 million acres on the Challis National Forest as a whole. A project of this

magnitude would have such minimal contributions of greenhouse gasses that its impact on

global climate change would be infinitesimal. Therefore, at the global scale, the proposed

action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate change would be

negligible. In addition, because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the

proposed action’s contribution to cumulative effects on greenhouse gasses and climate

change would also be negligible.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has summarized the contributions to climate

change of global human activity sectors in its Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, Synthesis

Report, section 2, Causes of Change, 2007). The top three anthropogenic (human-caused)


contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (from 1970-2004) are: fossil fuel combustion

(56.6% of global total), deforestation (17.3%), and agriculture/waste/energy (14.3%). IPCC

subdivides the deforestation category into land use conversions, and large scale deforestation.

Deforestation is defined as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion of forest and

grassland into agricultural land or developed landscapes (IPCC, Reports - Special Reports,

2000).

This Sawmill Canyon Vegetation project does not fall within any of these main contributors

of greenhouse gas emissions. Forested land will not be converted into a developed or

agricultural condition. In fact, forest stands are being retained and thinned to maintain a

vigorous forested condition that can continue to support trees and sequester carbon long-term.

This project is also consistent with IPCC recommendations for land use to help mitigate

climate change. The 2007 IPCC report summarizes sector-specific key mitigation

"technologies". For the forestry sector, the report recommends forest management including

management to "improve tree species" and increase biomass. The proposed action is

consistent with these recommendations because it reduces stand density, increases the

availability of nutrients and water, which in turn increases growth of the residual stand which

in turn will increase carbon storage capabilities of these trees.

Forest vegetation management projects can influence carbon dioxide sequestration in three

main ways: (1) by increasing new forests (afforestation), (2) by avoiding their damage or

destruction (avoided deforestation), and (3) by manipulating existing forest cover (managed

forests). Land-use changes, specifically deforestation and regrowth, are by far the biggest

factors on a global scale in forests’ role as sources or sinks of carbon dioxide, respectively

(IPCC, Reports - Special Reports, 2000). Projects that create forests or maintain the inherent

site productivity and capacity to grow trees are positive factors in carbon sequestration. The

proposed action falls into this category.

3.2.12 Other Resource Concerns Eliminated From Detail Study

Roads Analysis There is a concern that implementing the proposed activity would result in changes to road

management in the project area. Road management of current open roads is not a component

or feature of this proposed action. Since there would be no roads policy change implemented

with this proposal a road analysis in not needed. General ongoing maintenance, such as

blading roads to keep them at present maintenance levels would continue. Mitigations

measures are in place to address returning the opened closed roads back to their original

travel plan status prior to implementing the harvest action.

Heritage Resource There is a concern that implementing the proposed activity or occurrence of a stand-replacing

wildfire in the project area could adversely affect heritage resources determined to be eligible

on the National Register of Historic Places. Existing laws, regulations, and Forest Plan

standards and guidelines address heritage resource management requirements and the Forest

Service would adhere to them. Heritage surveys were conducted and a report prepared and

sent to the State Historical Preservation Office (SHIPO) for approval. A letter of concurrence

was obtained from SHIPO on April 7th, 2012 to proceed with the treatments as planned.


4.0 Consultation and Coordination

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies,

tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental

assessment:

Interdisciplinary Team Members:

John Fowler – Fuels

Bart Gamett – Fisheries

Mike Foster – Wildlife and Botany

David Deschaine – Soils and Hydrology

Wes Case and Eric Pfeifer – Silviculture and Old Growth

David Morris –Team Leader and Timber Sale Design

John Rose – Heritage Resources

Melissa Fowler – Recreation/Visual Quality Objectives

Pete Schuldt – Transportation/Engineering

Josh Edwards – Range and Noxious Weeds

Ken Rodgers, Mary Hammer, and Karol Krieger - Planning

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation

Custer County Natural Resource Advisory Committee

Tribes

Shoshone-Bannock

Nez Perce

5.0 References Cited

Bartos, D. L. (2001). Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Conifer Forest, RMRS - P-

18. Washington D.C.: USDA Forest Service.

Clayton, J. L. (1981). Soil disturbance caused by clearcutting and helicopter yarding

in the Idaho batholith:Res. Note INT-305 . Odgen: USDA Forest Service.

Intermountain Research Station.

Copeland, J. P. (1996). Biology of wolverine in central Idaho - Master Thesis.

Moscow, Id: University of Idaho.

Deschaine, D. P. (2013). Sawmill vegetation management project environmental

assessment hydrology/soils. Salmon, ID: USDA Forest Service, Salmon-

Challis National Forest.

Dixon, G. E. (2008). Revised 2008 Forest Vegetation Simulator Growht and Yield

Model. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service.

Farnes, P. W. (2000). Role of Fire in Determining Annual Water Yield in Mountain

Watersheds. Proposed as After the Fires: The Ecology of Change in

Yellowstone National Park. Yale University Press.

Gamett, B. (2013). Personal Observations, Salmon-Challis National Forest.

Unpublished Data.


Groves, C. e. (1997). Atlas of Idaho's wildlife; integrating gap analysis and natural

heritage information. Boise, Id: Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

High , B., Meyer, K. A., Schill, D. J., & Mamer, E. J. (2008). Distribution,

abundance, and population trends of bull trout in Idaho. North American

Journal of Fisheries Management, , 28:1687-1701.

IPCC. (2000). Reports - Special Reports. Retrieved 2011, from Land Use, Land-Use

Change and Forestry, Summary for Policy Makers:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0

IPCC. (2007). Synthesis Report, section 2, Causes of Change. Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report: Climate

Change 2007 (p. 3). Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

Keene, R. E., Agee, J. K., Fule, P., Keeley, J. E., Key, C., Kitchen, S. G., et al.

(2008). "Ecological effects of large fires on US landscapes benefit or

catastrophe?". Internation Journal of Wildland Fire, CSIRO Publilshing, pp.

696-712.

Lazarus, L. (2010). Sawmill Canyon Proposed Project Area, Insect and Disease

Concerns, Forest Protection Report BFO-TR-2010-20. Boise, Idaho: USDA

Forest Service .

Paige-Dumroese, D., Jurgensen, M., Tiarks, A., Sanchez, F., Flemming , R.,

Krattenbetter, M., et al. (2006). Soil physical property changes on the North

American Long-Term Soil Productivity (LTSP) study sites: 1 and 5 years after

treatment. Canada Journal of Forest Resources, 36:551-564.

Powers, R. F., Sanchez, F. G., Scott, D. A., & Page-Dumroese, D. S. (2004). The

North American longterm soil productivity expeirment: Coast- to- coast

findings from the first decade, RMRS-P-34. (pp. 191-205). USDA Forest

Service, Rocky Mountaint Research Station.

Robichaud, P. R., Beyers, J. L., & Neary, D. G. (2000). Evaluating the effectiveness

of postfire rehabilitation treatments, Gen. Tec. Rpt. RMRS-GTR-63. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station.

Service, U. F. (n.d.). Email clarfying that no Lynx habitat occurs on .

USDA Forest Service . (1997). Sawmill Canyon Watershed Analysis. Salmon, ID:

USDA Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest, Lost River Ranger

District.

USDA Forest Service. (1987). Land Resource Management Plan for the Challis

National Forest. Challis, ID, Idaho, USA: USDA Forest Service,

Intermountain Region.

USDA Forest Service. (2010). Programmatic Biological Assessment/Biological

Evaluation of the Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive

Aquatic Species for Wildfire Suppression on the Salmon-Challis National

Forest. Salmon, ID: USDA Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (2012, Febuary 8). Forest Health Protection, Intermountain

Region 4 and Northern Region 1. Retrieved Febuary 8, 2012, from Aerial

Insect and Disease Detection Surveys: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r4/forest-

grasslandhealth/?cid=fsbdev3_016163


USDA Forest Service. (2013, April 4). Salmon-Challis National Forest

FRCC,T:\FS\Reference\GIS\r04_sc\Data\fire.gdb. Salmon, Idaho, USA.

USDA Forest Service and DOI Bureau of Land Management. (2004). The Heatly

Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Resotration Act, Intermin Field Guide.

Washington D.C.: USDA Forest Service and DOI Bureau of Land

Management.

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Reaserch Station. ( September, 1994).

Managing Coarse Woody in Forests of the Rocky Mountains - Res. Pap. INT-

RP-477. Odgen, Utah: Intermoutian Reserarch Station .

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). Email correspondence advising there is no

designated critical habitat for lynx on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. On

file at the Lost River Ranger Station. Mackay, ID.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Services. (2013, April 4). Northern Region. Retrieved

January 22, 2013, from Lynx Management Direction-NEPA & Related

Documents:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5160801.pdf


APPENDIX A –DECISION DIAGRAM AND ANSWERS BY DECIDING OFFICAL TO DETERMINE RELEVANCE TO USING HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT AUTHORITIES

Decision Diagram 1


Decision Point 1) Is the proposed action:

Outside designated wilderness? Response – Proposed action is outside designated wilderness.

Collaborative as described in the Implementation Plan? Response – Custer County Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Mitigation Plan

is in place identifying Sawmill Canyon in need of attention. Public meeting was held.

If answer is yes to above question move to decision point 2

Decision Point 2) Is the project’s objective to protect communities, watersheds, T&E species, or natural resources by treating

hazardous fuels? Response – Project objective is to address insect and disease epidemic and threats to resources, one outcome by

addressing the insect and disease epidemic will be fuel reduction, but answer to this question is NO.

Process Point – Is the project on NFS or BLM land? Response – Yes

Process Point – Consider using HFRA authorities. Go to decision diagram 2.



Decision Diagram 2

Decision Point 1 (WUI Test) – Is the project within ½ mile of the boundary of an at-risk-community (or within 1 ½ miles under

exception)? Response – Yes and No, Custer County has identified project area as a Wildland Urban Interface; Lemhi County has

not designated its portion of the project area as a WUI, move to next Decision Point.

Decision Point 2 (WUI Test) – Is the project within or adjacent to an at-risk community covered by a Community Wildfire Protection

Plan? Response – No, move to next Decision Point.

Decision Point 3 (WUI Test) – Is the project in an area adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk community? Response – No,

move to Decision Point (Watershed Test).

Decision Point 4 (Watershed Test) – Is the project near a municipal watershed or stream feeding a municipal water supply? Response

– No, move to Decision Point (I&D Test)

Decision Point 5 (I&D Test) – Is the project in an area of blowdown, wind throw, or damage by ice storms? Response – No, move to

next Decision Point (I&D Test)

Decision Point 6 (I&D Test) – Is the project in an area with an insect or disease epidemic? Response – Yes, area has experienced a

mountain pine beetle epidemic that led to severe mortality of all pine species greater than 7 inches plus at dbh in the areas as well

as currently experiencing a Western spruce budworm epidemic that has heavily defoliated Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and

subalpine fir in the same area that has led to an increase in a third insect agent of Douglas-fir beetle into same area. Move to next

decision point.

Decision Point 7 ( I&D Test) – Is there a significant risk to ecosystem components or the forest or range resources? Response – Yes,

past tree mortality as well as current insect epidemic is facilitating an increased level of risk to loss of timber resources to wildfire

and insect damage. Move on to Endpoint ( I&D Test)


Endpoint (I&D Test) – qualifies as an “authorized” hazardous-fuel reduction project under HFRA. The old-growth and large

tree retention requirements in Decision Diagram 3 do not apply.


APPENDIX B – CONCERNS AND INDICATORS FOR NEPA ANALYSIS

Fire and Fuels

There is a concern that associated risk is not present to justify mechanical treatment

and that the natural conditions (including current insect epidemic) in the long term

does not increase risk to watershed, life or property in the event of a fire.

Measures: Percent of acres at risk (% high, moderate, and low by Fire Regime Condition

Class)

Surface fire vs. Crown fire ( Probability of outcome)

Fire rate of spread (chains/hour)

Soils, Hydrology and Watershed Resources Mechanized tree thinning and associated activities (such as temporary road utilization and

slash burning) have the potential to adversely affect the soil and hydrology/watershed

resource by causing detrimental soil disturbance, reducing long-term soil productivity,

adversely affecting landform stability, complying with State Water Quality Standards and

Maintenance of Beneficial Use, changing timing and magnitude of flow, and sediment

delivery to streams.

Measures: Percent detrimental soil disturbance within a defined activity area (%

detrimental soil disturbance)

Erosion potential percentages within a defined activity area (% probability)

Compliance with State Water Quality Standards and Maintenance of

Beneficial Uses (yes, no)

Potential for changes in timing and magnitude of water yield (yes, no)

Cumulative effects watershed risk rating combining existing condition,

watershed sensitivity and degree of management as a comparison of the

potential to experience adverse effects to water resources (low, moderate,

high)

Wildlife Species and Habitat There is some concern that project will detrimentally impact Threatened, Endangered,

and Sensitive wildlife species which could facilitate leading to listing by regulatory

agencies, migratory birds, Forest Management Indicator species, as well as harm

hunting heritage resources.

Measures: Comparison of percent change in Plant-Animal Community Associations in the

Sawmill Canyon watershed drainage and at the project level and how they

affect the following groups of wildlife species.


o Wildlife species not requiring specific analysis

o Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive species

o Migratory Birds

Vegetation Resources The vegetation indicators were chosen to assess the need for mechanical treatment with

respect to current stand conditions and existing threats to forested vegetation resources posed

by past and current insect epidemic occurring in the Sawmill Creek watershed, as well as the

effects to “Old Growth”, aspen, and whitebark pine a Forest Sensitive species. Additionally,

the indicators were chosen to assess project consistency with applicable laws, rules, and

regulations, and the extent to which the analyzed alternatives would meet the project purpose

and need.

Measures: Impacts of vegetation management on old growth forest within the project area

(compliance with Forest Plan maintenance of 10% Old Growth forest habitat for

wildlife, change in PACA)

Impacts of vegetation management on whitebark pine, which is a candidate species

for listing as Threatened or Endangered (Sensitive plants presence/absence and

population densities and trend).

Impacts of vegetation management on past and current insect epidemics within the

project area and associated fire risk from those epidemics (current stand conditions

vs. resilient conditions measured by species composition, age, density, and

probability of outcomes for future epidemics).

Impacts of vegetation management on existing aspen stands within the project area

(current conditions vs. outcome with treatment).

Recreation / Visual Resources

There is a risk that implementing the proposed activities, or an uncharacteristic crown

fire occurrence would dramatically affect recreation and visual qualities. Additionally,

the indicators were chosen to assess project consistency with applicable laws, rules, and


and need.

Measures: Changes in visual evidence of anthropogenic impacts from areas of high

recreations use, such as tree-marking paint, mechanical manipulation of forest

vegetation, or erosion

Changes in public safety and accessibility to recreational resources;

specifically, the Timber Creek trails, trailheads and developed and

undeveloped recreational opportunities within the Little Lost River watershed

Botany Resource


fire occurrence would affect Forest Sensitive plants or their habitat. Additionally, the

indicators were chosen to assess project consistency with applicable laws, rules, and



and need.

Measures: Sensitive plants presence/absence and population densities and trend

Range Resource


fire occurrence would affect grazing opportunities. Additionally, the indicators were

chosen to assess project consistency with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, and the

extent to which the analyzed alternatives would meet the project purpose and need.

Measures: Loss or gain of suitable grazing habitat

Fisheries Resource


fire occurrence would affect fish species or their habitat. Additionally, the indicators

were chosen to assess project consistency with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, and the

extent to which the analyzed alternatives would meet the project purpose and need.

Measures: Fish presence/absence and population densities and trend

Stream sediment (percent fines by depth)

Noxious Weeds


fire occurrence would affect the species composition spread rate and plant density of

noxious weeds in the project area. Additionally, the indicators were chosen to assess

project consistency with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, and the extent to which the

analyzed alternatives would meet the project purpose and need.

Measures: Changes to existing noxious weed infestation by plant cover density and

distribution

Risk of an increase in extent or density of noxious weeds infestations by new

and existing species within the project area


APPENDIX C – List of Past, Ongoing, and Foreseeable Future Activities Associated with the Project Area Used in the Cumulative Effects Analysis

Table 1; Past Activities

Agency /Entity Use Category Action/Activity Specifics American Indian

Tribes

Traditional Uses Hunting, gathering and other

activities such as landscape

burning

Hunting of game and fish, gathering of

natural resources and religious practices

according to Tribal customs

All Range Domestic Livestock Grazing Unregulated and regulated (since 1906)

grazing of horses, cattle and sheep since

early settlement of area in 1870’s

All Transportation Road/Trail Construction,

Maintenance, Use

Roads to mining prospects/operations, past

timber sales, a wildfire, and trails since

1870’s

All Property/Resource

Protection

Fire Suppression Last 100+ years

All Resource Use Logging of Forest Vegetation;

Hunting & Fishing

Fuelwood, building materials (mines); food,

commerce & recreation since 1870’s

USFS Vegetation

Treatment

Timber Sales 1960 – 2012, 155 Timber Harvest Sales for

5,366 acres with last sale occurring in 1996.

USFS Minerals Mine site reclamation Three abandoned mines within

Management Area 22, Sawmill Canyon

USFS Fisheries and

Stream

Rehabilitation

Bank stabilization, instream habitat

improvements

Eliminating a fish barrier in Jackson Creek

by removing a culvert. Eliminating a fish

barrier in Jackson Creek by replacing a

culvert. Eliminating a fish barrier in

Ruddock Creek by replacing a culvert.

Improving fish passage in Timber Creek by

installing baffles in a culvert. Improving

fish passage in Main Fork by installing

baffles in a culvert. Eliminating a fish

barrier in Camp Creek by completing a

stream restoration project. Reducing the

probability of brook trout expanding into

the upper Sawmill Canyon drainage by

installing a barrier in Sawmill Creek and

removing brook trout from above the

barrier USFS Aspen Treatment Remove conifers from aspen

clones

37 acres ( Sawmill Canyon Aspen

Treatment Project)


Table 2; Ongoing Activities

Agency

/Entity Use Category Action/Activity Specifics USFS

Vegetation

Management

Noxious Weed Treatment Hand, mechanical, chemical methods;

Cooperative Weed Management group is

established locally

USFS Transportation Road/Trail Maintenance Travel ways maintenance

All Recreation Primarily Dispersed Recreation

With

One Campground at Timber

Creek

One Transfer Station at Mill

Creek

Backcountry use, horseback riding,

fishing, hunting, backpacking, camping,

sightseeing, antler gathering, mountain

biking, rock-hounding, sledding, snow-

machining

All Resource Uses &

Management

Resource Inventory and

Monitoring

Plant communities, wildlife & fish

habitat/populations, soil/water/air

resources, human uses, etc.

All Resource Uses Fuelwood Gathering Fuelwood very abundant; personal use,

free use, limited commercial

All Resource Uses &

Management

Fire Suppression

USFS has primary responsibility on

public lands for fire suppression

USFS

Recreation OHV use and travel management Motorcycling, ATV, 4WD, snow

machine, mountain bike use on open and

restricted routes

Shoshone-

Bannock Tribes

Traditional Uses Hunting, gathering and other

activities on non-ceded lands

provided for in Treaty rights

Hunting of game and fish, gathering of

natural resources and religious practices

according to Tribal customs

Private Minerals Exploration and Mining Plans No recent activity

State

(IDFG)

Wildlife Resources Preserve, protect, perpetuate &

manage “wildlife” resources that

are property of the State

Big game, small game, game birds, non-

game, fur-bearers, predators, fisheries-

management and harvest according to

state regulations

USFS Vegetation Mgmt. Timber sales and aspen treatments Planning-198 acres ( North Sawmill

Canyon Aspen Treatment Project)

USFS Recreation Developed Facilities Timber Creek Campground and

numerous Trailheads

USFS Range Grazing & Allotment Mgmt.

Mill Creek Cattle Allotment; cattle

grazing activities within the Sawmill

Canyon area, including permitted

livestock grazing, existing structure

maintenance, and monitoring of resource

conditions.

USFS Special Uses Outfitter/Guide Permits Hunting/fishing/backcountry use

USFS Insect & Disease Endemic vs. Epidemic Insect and disease are always present in

the vegetation across the landscape but

recently, there has been insect epidemics

in the lodgepole and now starting in the

Douglas-fir. Spruce bud worm is

defoliating the Doug-fir as well.


Table 3; Foreseeable Future Activities Continuation of currently ongoing activities, see Table 2. At this time there are no known foreseeable future projects planned within Sawmill Canyon, Management Area 22, other than the continuation of those activities currently ongoing with this proposed action.

APPENDIX D – SCOPING COMMENTS ANALYSIS

The Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management Project received comments from ten

individuals or groups pertinent to this project. Listed below are the comments and

how they were categorized in relationship to issues or potential issues. The seven

categories are whether they are:

1. RESOLVED BY FOREST PLAN LAND USE DECISIONS

2. ADDRESSED THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST PLAN S&Gs

and BMPs

3. ADDRESSED THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC

DESIGN CRITERIA

4. ADDRESSED DURING PROCESS OR ANALYSES ROUTINELY

CONDUCTED BY ID TEAM

5. ADDRESSED THROUGH SPATIAL LOCATION OF ACTIVITIES

DURING ALTERNATIVE DESIGN

6. USED TO DRIVE OR PARTIALLY DRIVE AN ALTERNATIVE, or

7. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Of the ten commenters, eight were by letter or e-mail, and two were through direct

conversations over the phone or in person. Three of the individuals were in favor of

the project and seven had some concerns which are listed below.

Idaho Conservation League – February 6, 2012

RE: Idaho Conservation League scoping comments on Sawmill Canyon Vegetation Management HFRA Project - February 6, 2012

Comment

#

Comment or Potential Issue Category Issue or

Alternative 1 We suggest that you reconsider the purpose

and need for the project 4

2 We feel that a revised purpose and need

could provide better, more accurate, direction

as the project moves forward and encourage

you to contact us to discuss an approach that

could involve alternative approaches to

vegetation restoration, including but not

limited to variable density harvest

4

3 Noted proposed project is more then 1 ½ mile

from any communities at risk. Thus HFRA 7


requires the Forest Service to have an

additional action alternative. 4 As we often request in our comments, we

encourage you to consider an alternative that

does not construct roads

4,6 Possible

Alternative

5 We specifically request to discuss any Forest

Plan amendments that may be considered,

and if adverse effects to threatened,

endangered and sensitive species are

anticipated, we feel that the project may

necessitate consideration in an

Environmental Impact Statement, pursuant to

NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).

4

6 HRFA is designed with strong focus towards

community protection - question whether

HFRA is appropriate for this project.

1

7 Are stands conditions significantly departed

from historic conditions and have increased

the potential for uncharacteristic wildfire …..

4

8 Mountain pine beetle and increased fire risk 4

9 EA should recognize the fire-risk relationship

associated with MPB vs. logging 4

10 MPB role in succession, changes in species

and structure toward climax species 4

11 Alternative that considers a mixture of

treatments in the project area to include more

prescribed burning, free selection thinning,

retention of untreated areas ……

4,6 Possible

Alternative

12 Significant fire wouldn't necessarily

threatened key ecosystems components as

displayed by FRCC 3

4

13 Evaluate feasibility and viability of a

Variable Density Approach 4

14 Concern that project proposed new road

construction 4

15 Alternative that treats fuels without new

roads ….. 4,6 Possible

Alternative

16 Old growth and RHCA 3,4

17 Implement timing restrictions to protect soils

in the project area 3,4

18 Alternative that uses helicopter or winter

logging 4,6 Possible

Alternative

19 Retention of whitebark pine and aspen 3,4

20 Explain how pre-commercial thinning can

elevate fire risk and the impacts to potential

or suitable Lynx habitat.

4

21 Provide a copy of the trip report referenced in

the scoping notice. 7

22 Clearcuts & impacts 4


23 We are concerned about the cumulative

effects of past and proposed clear cut

activities on the watershed and water quality

in the project area. The EA should analyze

both the current and projected equivalent

clearcuts areas (ECA) in the various

watersheds and subwatersheds before and

after project implementation. The ECA

should not exceed 15% following project

completion

4

24 Consider an Alternative that limits roads 4,7 Possible

Alternative

25 Helicopter or Winter Logging alternative 4,7 Possible

Alternative

26 TES - Impacts to plant species are reduced by

helicopter or winter logging. TES species

should be mapped and inventoried as part of

the analysis.

4

27 Extend road decommissioning in the area 1

28 Define what constitutes road construction 7

29 Recommend full bench obliteration for

decommissioning 3,4

30 We encourage you to consider watershed

improvement activities proposed for the

project area including road obliteration,

closure and armoring of stream crossings.

The Forest Service should also evaluate

culvert replacement so as to accommodate a

100-yr flood, or where existing culverts

represent full or partial barriers to fish

passage.

4,7

31 Cutting & landings in RHCA discouraged

road surfaces armored, etc. 2,3,4

32 We are concerned about steep slopes, and

encourage an evaluation of whether these

areas may be landslide prone pursuant to

INFISH/PACFISH. Landslide prone areas

must be buffered and treated as RHCAs.

2,3,4

33 The EA should analyze both the present and

resultant detrimental disturbance (DD) in the

project area; determine if adjustments to the

proposal are warranted. Similarly, the Forest

Service must analyze total soil resource

commitment (TSRC). DD and TSRC should

not exceed standards of 15% and 20%,

respectively.

4

34 We are concerned that the proposed retention

of 5-10 tons of CWD/acre may be

insufficient to meet the recommendations

from Graham, based on forest type, local

4


conditions (slope, aspect, existing soil

conditions, presence of soil wood, etc.).

35 Old Growth - clarification that will not be

cutting 4

36 Field evaluation should take place - Old

Growth 4

37 Weeds and funding for monitoring and

treatment 1,2,4

38 EA must analyze Threatened, Endangered,

and Sensitive plants, wildlife, and fish in the

project area.

4

39 Drop treatment where flammulated owl, great

grey, goshawk , and or pileated woodpecker 4

40 Implement Northern Goshawk Strategy 4,7

41 Ridge top wildlife corridors should be

evaluated for current level of use, and steps

should be taken to exclude these areas from

treatment.

4,7

42 We disagree with Fire Regime

determinations 4

Custer County Commissioners - January 12, 2012

Comment

#


Alternative

1 Request more detailed description of how

noxious and invasive weeds will be handled

on this project

4

Idaho Parks and Recreation - February 6, 2012

Comment

#


Alternative 1 Impacts to recreationists from proposed

project on trails # 4109, 4137, and 4146

4

Dick Artley –January 6, 2012 & October 8, 2012

Comment

#


Alternative 1 Concern that timber harvest can hurt wildlife

and proposes that we take measures to protect

them in this project.

2,4

2 Concerns that roads will be constructed 4


Alliance for the Wild Rockies – December 5, 2012 Comment

#


Alternative

1 Disclose all Salmon-Challis National Forest

Plan requirements for logging/burning

projects and explain how the Project

complies with them;

4

2 Disclose the acreages of past, current, and

reasonably foreseeable logging, grazing, and

road-building activities within the Project

area;

4

3 Solicit and disclose comments from Idaho

Department of Fish Game

4

4 Solicit and disclose comments from Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality

4

5 Disclose the biological assessment for the

candidate, threatened, or endangered species

with potential and/or actual habitat in the

Project area

4

6 Disclose the biological evaluation for the

sensitive and management indicator species

with potential and/or actual habitat in the

Project area

4

7 Disclose the snag densities in the Project

area, and the method used to determine those

densities

4

8 Disclose the current, during-project, and

post-project road densities in the Project area

4

9 Disclose the Salmon-Challis National

Forest’s record of compliance with state best

management practices regarding stream

sedimentation from ground-disturbing

management activities

7

10 Disclose the Salmon-Challis National

Forest’s record of compliance with its

monitoring requirements as set forth in its

Forest Plan; Disclose the Salmon-Challis

National Forest’s record of compliance with

the additional monitoring requirements set

forth in previous DN/FONSIs and RODs on

the Salmon-Challis National Forest

7

11 Disclose the results of the field surveys for

threatened, endangered, sensitive, and rare

plants in each of the proposed units

4,7

12 Disclose the level of current noxious weed

infestations in the Project area and the cause

of those infestations; Disclose the impact of

the Project on noxious weed infestations and

native plant communities

4


13 Disclose the amount of detrimental soil

disturbance that currently exists in each

proposed unit from previous logging and

grazing activities; Disclose the expected

amount of detrimental soil disturbance in

each unit after ground disturbance and prior

to any proposed mitigation/remediation;

Disclose the analytical data that supports

proposed soil mitigation/remediation

measures;

4

14 Disclose the timeline for implementation; 3,4

15 Disclose the funding source for non-

commercial activities proposed;

7

16 Disclose the current level of old growth

forest in each third order drainage in the

Project area; Disclose the method used to

quantify old growth forest acreages and its

rate of error based upon field review of its

predictions; Disclose the historic levels of

mature and old growth forest in the Project

area; Disclose the amount of mature and old

growth forest that will remain after

implementation;

4

17 Disclose the level of mature and old growth

forest necessary to sustain viable populations

of dependent wildlife species in the area;

Disclose the amount of current habitat for old

growth and mature forest dependent species

in the Project area; Disclose the amount of

habitat for old growth and mature forest

dependent species that will remain after

Project implementation; Disclose the method

used to model old growth and mature forest

dependent wildlife habitat acreages and its

rate of error based upon field review of its

predictions;

4,7

18 Disclose the amount of big game (moose and

elk) hiding cover, winter range, and security

currently available in the area; Disclose the

amount of big game (moose and elk) hiding

cover, winter range, and security during

Project implementation; Disclose the amount

of big game (moose and elk) hiding cover,

winter range, and security after

implementation; Disclose the method used to

determine big game hiding cover, winter

range, and security, and its rate of error as

determined by field review;

4

19 Disclose and address the concerns expressed

by the ID Team in the draft Five-Year

7


Review of the Forest Plan regarding the

failure to monitor population trends of MIS,

the inadequacy of the Forest Plan old growth

standard, and the failure to compile data to

establish a reliable inventory of sensitive

species on the Forest;

20 Disclose the actions being taken to reduce

fuels on private lands adjacent to the Project

area and how those activities/or lack thereof

will impact the efficacy of the activities

proposed for this Project;

4

21 Disclose the efficacy of the proposed

activities at reducing wildfire risk and

severity in the Project area in the future,

including a two-year, five-year, ten-year, and

20-year projection;

4

22 Disclose when and how the Salmon-Challis

National Forest made the decision to

suppress natural wildfire in the Project area

and replace natural fire with logging and

prescribed burning; Disclose the cumulative

impacts on the Forest-wide level of the

Salmon-Challis National Forest’s policy

decision to replace natural fire with logging

and prescribed burning;

7

23 Disclose how Project complies with the

Roadless Rule; a. Disclose how the unroaded

areas adjacent to inventoried Roadless areas

will be surveyed for their wilderness

characteristics;

4

24 Disclose the impact of climate change on the

efficacy of the proposed treatments; Disclose

the impact of the proposed project on the

carbon storage potential of the area;

4

25 Disclose the baseline condition, and expected

sedimentation during and after activities, for

all streams in the area

4

26 Disclose maps of the area that show the

following elements:

1. Past, current, and reasonably foreseeable

logging units in the Project area;

2. Past, current, and reasonably foreseeable

grazing allotments in the Project area;

3. Density of human residences within 1.5

miles from the Project unit boundaries;

4. Hiding cover in the Project area according

to the Forest Plan definition;

5. Old growth forest in the Project area;

6. Big game security areas;

7. Moose winter range;

4


27 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently

ruled that sediment from culverts and ditches

on

Forest Service roads are a point source

pollutant and require a permit a NPDES from

the E.P.A.

Do you have this permit? Runoff that flows

from logging roads into a system of ditches,

culverts, and channels and then into forest

streams and rivers constitutes a point source

under the Clean Water Act and requires a

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (“NPDES”) permit. Please disclose

all such locations in the Project area and

demonstrate that you have complied with the

NPDES permitting process for these point

sources.

7

28 When is the Salmon-Challis National Forest

going to revise its Forest Plan?

1,7

29 Will the Forest Service be considering

binding legal standards for noxious weeds in

its revision of the Salmon-Challis Forest

Plan?

7

30 How effective have BMPs been at stopping

(i.e. preventing) new weed infestations from

starting during logging and related road

operations? Is it true that noxious weeds are

one of the top threats to biodiversity on our

National Forests? Will this Project exacerbate

existing noxious weed infestations and start

new infestations?

4

31 Why isn’t the Forest Service considering a

Forest Plan amendment in this Project to

amend the Forest Plan to include binding

legal standards that address noxious weeds?

Is it true that noxious weeds are one of the

top threats to biodiversity on our National

Forests? How can the Forest Service be

complying with NFMA’s requirement to

maintain biodiversity if it has no legal

standards that address noxious weeds?

7

32 Will this Project address all Project area

BMP needs, i.e. will the BMP road

maintenance backlog and needs from this

Project all be met by this Project?

4,7

33 How will you look for MIS? 4

34 How will the decreased elk security and

thermal cover affect wolverines?

4

35 Are you proposing to replace all culverts that

are at risk of failure?

4,7


36 Are the watersheds in the project area

functioning at risk, functioning at

unacceptable risk, or in a properly

functioning condition? How will the project

improve watershed health? Specialists report

address how the proposed action is

improving watershed health.

4

37 Have you checked to see if the project area

qualifies as lynx critical habitat as required

by the U.S. District Court?

4

38 Which wildlife species and ecosystem

processes, if any, does fire-proofing benefit?

Which species and processes do fire-proofing

harm?

7

39 What about the role of mixed severity and

high severity fire – what are the benefits of

those natural processes? How have those

processes (mixed and high severity fire)

created the ecosystems we have today? Over

how many millennia have mixed and high

severity fire have been occurring without

human intervention?

7

40 What beneficial ecological roles do beetles

play? Can the forest survive without beetles?

4,7

41 Why is logging that removes all/almost all

trees considered regeneration (and not loss of

existing forest), when a stand-replacing fire is

considered loss of the forest (and not

regeneration)?

7

42 Will this project leave enough snags to

follow the Forest Plan requirements and the

requirements of sensitive old growth species

such as flammulated owls and goshawks?

After snags are cut down for safety for

OSHA requirements will there still be

enough snags left for old growth sensitive

species?

2,4

43 Are there any WQLS streams in the project

area and if so are the TMDLs completed and

are you complying with them?

2,3,4

44 Why aren’t you doing more to protect and

not harm critical habitat for bull trout?

4

45 Will this Project exacerbate existing noxious

weed infestations and start new infestations?

4

46 Do unlogged old growth forests store more

carbon than the wood products that would be

removed from the same forest in a logging

operation?

7

47 What is the cumulative effect of National

Forest logging on U.S. carbon stores? How

7


many acres of National Forest lands are

logged every year? How much carbon is lost

by that logging?

48 Is this Project consistent with “research

recommendations (Krankina and Harmon

2006) for protecting carbon gains against the

potential impacts of future climate change?

That study recommends “[I]increasing or

maintaining the forest area by avoiding

deforestation,” and states that “protecting

forest from logging or clearing offer

immediate benefits via prevented emissions.”

That study also states that “[w]hen the initial

condition of land is a productive old-growth

forest, the conversion to forest plantations

with a short harvest rotation can have the

opposite effect lasting for many decades . . .

.” The study does state that thinning may

have a beneficial effect to stabilize the forest

and avoid stand-replacing wildfire, but the

study never defines thinning. In this Project,

where much of the logging is clear-cutting

and includes removing large trees without

any diameter limit, and where the removal of

small diameter surface and ladder fuels is an

unfunded mandate to the tune of over $3

million dollars, it is dubious whether the

prescriptions are the same type of “thinning”

envisioned in Krankina and Harmon (2006).

4

49 Please list each visual quality standard that

applies to each unit and disclose whether

each unit meets its respective visual quality

standard. A failure to comply with visual

quality Forest Plan standards violates

NFMA; For the visual quality standard

analysis please define “ground vegetation,”

i.e. what age are the trees, “reestablishes,”

“short-term,” “longer term,” and “vegetate.”

4

50 Runoff that flows from logging roads into a

system of ditches, culverts, and channels and

then into forest streams and rivers constitutes

a point source under the Clean Water Act and

requires a National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit.

Please disclose all such locations in the

Project area and demonstrate that you have

complied with the NPDES permitting process

for these point sources.

7

51 Please disclose whether you have conducted

surveys in the Project area for this Project for

4


wolverines, pine martins, northern goshawk

and lynx, grizzly bears as required by the

Forest Plan; Please disclose the last time the

Project area was surveyed for wolverines,

pine martins, northern goshawk, grizzly bears

and lynx; Please disclose how often the

Project area has been surveyed for

wolverines, pine martins, northern goshawks,

grizzly bears and lynx. Is it impossible for a


grizzly bears and lynx to inhabit the Project

area? Would the habitat be better for


grizzly bears and lynx if roads were removed

in the Project area? What is the U.S. FWS

position on the impacts of this Project on


grizzly bears and lynx? Have you conducted

ESA consultation? Please provide us with the

full BA for the wolverines, pine martins,

northern goshawks, grizzly bears and lynx.

Please provide us with the full BA for the


grizzly bears and lynx.

52 Before this project can go forward, the F.S.

must consult with the USFWS on the effect

of this project on lynx and if the project will

adversely modify lynx habitat. By definition

the clear-cutting in this project will adversely

modify lynx habitat.

4

53 The agencies should conduct ESA

consultation for wolverine.

4,7

54 Wolverine is a MIS species for the Forest.

Should consult with USFW.

4,7

55 The Agencies should conduct ESA

consultation for the Northern Rockies Fisher.

4,7

56 The Forest Service’s own management

activities are largely responsible for noxious

weed infestations…particular, logging,

prescribed burns, and road construction and

use create a risk of weed infestations

4

57 Please provide an alternative that eliminates

units that have noxious weeds present on

roads within units from fire management

proposal?

7

58 Please address the ecological, social and

ascetic impact of current noxious weed

infestations within the project area. Include

an analysis of the impact of the actions

proposed by this project on the long and

4,7


short term spread of current and new noxious

weed infestations. What treatment methods

will be used to address growing noxious

weed problems? What noxious weeds are

currently and historically found within the

project area? Please include a map of

current noxious weed infestations which

includes knapweed, Saint Johnswort, cheat

grass, bull thistle, Canada thistle, hawkweed,

hound’s-tongue, oxeye daisy and all other

Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3

weeds classified as noxious in the

MONTANA COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED

LIST

59 Are yellow and orange hawkweeds present

within the project area?

7

60 Please address the cumulative, direct and

indirect effects of the proposed project on

weed introduction, spread and persistence

that includes how weed infestations have

been and will be influenced by the following

management actions: road construction

including new permanent and temporary

roads, and skid trails proposed within this

project; opening and decommissioning of

roads represented on forest service maps;

ground disturbance and traffic on forest

service template roads, mining access routes,

and private roads; removal of trees through

commercial and pre-commercial logging and

understory thinning; and prescribed burns.

What open, gated, and decommissioned

Forest Service roads within the project area

proposed as haul routes have existent

noxious weed populations and what methods

will be used to assure that noxious weeds are

not spread into the proposed action units?

4

61 What commitment to a long-term, strategy of

application is being proposed for each weed

infested area within the proposed action

area? What long term monitoring of weed

populations is proposed?

4,7

62 What native plant restoration activities will

be implemented in areas disturbed by the

actions proposed in this project? Will

disturbed areas including road corridors,

skid trails, and burn units be planted or

reseeded with native plant species?

3,4

63 Which units within the project area currently

have no noxious weed populations within

1,4,7


their boundaries? What minimum standards

are in the Salmon-Challis National Forest

Plan to address noxious weed infestations?

Please include an alternative in the DEIS

that includes land management standards

that will prevent new weed infestations by

addressing the causes of weed infestation.

The failure to include preventive standards

violates NFMA because the Forest Service is

not ensuring the protection of soils and

native plant communities. Additionally, the

omission of an EIS alternative that includes

preventive measures would violate NEPA

because the Forest Service would fail to

consider a reasonable alternative.

64 Describe the potential direct and indirect

effect of the proposed management actions

on rare plants and their habitat. Will

prescribe burning take place in the spring or

early summer.

4,7

65 What surveys have been conducted to

determine presence and abundance of

whitebark pine regeneration? If whitebark

pine seedlings and saplings are present, what

measures will be taken to protect them?

Please include an alternative that excludes

burning in the presence of whitebark pine

regeneration (consider ‘Day lighting’

seedlings and saplings as an alternative

restoration method). Will restoration efforts

include planting whitebark pine...?

4,7

66 Since the project’s goals are to reduce the

chances that fire will destroy private

structures, and harm people, the WUI that’s

relevant to this area must be displayed on a

map current fuel/fire hazard situation on land

of all ownerships within the WUI

...[Research shows] that effective fuel

modification for reducing potential WUI fire

losses need only occur within a few tens of

meters from a home, not hundreds of meters

or more from a home...

7

67 Even though ecological restoration is not the

project’s priority, the NEPA document must

at least identify all the existing ecological

liabilities caused by past management

actions. This includes poorly located or

poorly maintained roads, high-risk fuel

situations caused by earlier vegetation

manipulation projects, wildlife security

4,7


problems by open motorized roads and trails

plus those that are closed but violated—and

include all those impacts in the analyses.

68 Any desire to keep a road in the project area

WUI must be in harmony with the alleged

priority goals (again, to reduce the chances

that fire will destroy private structures and

harm people), not driven by timber

production

7

69 Since disruption of fire cycles is identified,

the SALMON-CHALLIS NF needs to take a

hard look at its fire policies.

7

70 For every project proposal, it is important

that the results of past monitoring be

incorporated into planning. All

Interdisciplinary Team Members should be

familiar with the results of all past

monitoring pertinent to the project area, and

any deficiencies of monitoring that have been

previously committed to. For that reason, we

expect that the following be included in the

NEPA documents or project files: • A list of

all past projects (completed or ongoing)

implemented in the proposed project area

watersheds.

• The results of all monitoring done in the

project area as committed to in the NEPA

documents of those past projects.

• The results of all monitoring done in the

proposed project area as a part of the Forest

Plan monitoring and evaluation effort.

• A description of any monitoring, specified

in those past project NEPA documents or the

Forest Plan for proposed project area, which

has yet to be gathered and/or reported.

Please disclose the names of all other past

projects (implemented during the life of the

Forest Plan) whose analysis area(s)

encompass the areas to be “treated” under

this proposal. Please disclose if the FS has

performed all of the monitoring and

mitigation required or recommended in any

NEPA documents, and the results of the

monitoring.

4,7

71 Specifically how will the Dalton Project

affect Flammulated owls, cavity-nesters

usually associated with mature stands of

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir?

4,7

72 Please disclose how stands to be treated

compare to Forest Plan or Regional old-

4,7


growth criteria. In order to disclose such

information, please provide all the details, in

plain language, of these areas’ forest

characteristics (the various tree components’

species, age and diameter of the various tree

components, canopy closure, snag density by

size class, amounts of down logs, understory

composition, etc.).

73 Please examine how this project could affect

grizzly bears, lynx and other species listed

under the Endangered Species Act. Are you

complying with lynx critical and bull trout

critical habitat requirements? Please formally

consult with the U.S. FWS on the impact of

the project on all ESA listed species and their

habitat. Please examine how this project will

affect all ESA, MIS and sensitive species.

4,7

74 We request the FS design a restoration/access

management plan for project area streams

that will achieve recovery goals

7

75 Please utilize the NEPA process to clarify

any Roadless boundary issues. It is not

adequate to merely accept previous, often

arbitrary Roadless inventories—unloaded

areas adjacent to inventoried areas were often

left out.

7

76 We request a careful analysis of the impacts

to fisheries and water quality, including

considerations of sedimentation, increases in

peak flow, channel stability, risk of rain-on-

snow events, and increases in stream water

temperature. Please disclose the locations of

seeps, springs, bogs and other sensitive wet

areas, and the effects on these areas of the

project activities. Where livestock are

permitted to graze, we ask that you assess the

present condition and continue to monitor the

impacts of grazing activities upon vegetation

diversity, soil compaction, stream bank

stability and subsequent sedimentation. This

watershed is designated as bull trout critical

habitat. Will you meet the requirements of

bull trout critical habitat? Have you consult

with the U.S. FWS to make sure you are not

adversely modifying bull trout critical

habitat?

4

77 Please disclose in the NEPA document the

results of up-to-date monitoring of fish

habitat and watershed conditions, how this

project will affect the fish in the project area.

4


78 It is extremely important the FS disclose the

environmental baseline for watersheds.

Generally, this means their condition before

development or resource exploitation was

initiated.

4

79 Please disclose how the productivity of the

land been affected in the project area and

forest wide due to noxious weed infestations,

and how that situation is expected to change

in the coming years and decades.

4

80 Please provide estimates of current

detrimental disturbance in all previously

established activity areas in the watersheds

affected by the proposal. Please disclose the

link between current and cumulative soil

disturbance in project area watersheds to the

current and cumulative impacts on water

quantity and quality. Please disclose if there

are any WQLS streams or TMDL streams in

the project area. Please disclose measures of,

or provide scientifically sound estimates of,

detrimental soil disturbance or soil

productivity

4

81 Please disclose the results monitoring of

weed treatments on the SALMON-CHALLIS

NF that have been projected to significantly

reduce noxious weed populations over time,

or prevent spread. This is an ongoing issue of

land productivity.

7

82 Please disclose how the proposed

“treatments” would be consistent with

Graham, et al., 1994 recommendations for

fine and coarse woody debris, a necessary

consideration for sustaining long-term soil

productivity.

4

83 Please evaluate all of the costs and benefits

of this project. Please include a detailed list

of all the costs to the agency and the public.

4,7

84 Published scientific reports indicate that

climate change will be exacerbated by

logging due to the loss of carbon storage.

Additionally, published scientific reports

indicate that climate change will lead to

increased wildfire severity (including drier

and warmer conditions that may render

obsolete the proposed effects of the Project).

The former indicates that the Dalton

Vegetation Project may have a significant

adverse effect on the environment, and the

latter undermines the central underlying

4,7


purpose of the Project. Therefore, the Forest

Service must candidly disclose, consider, and

fully discuss the published scientific papers

discussing climate change in these two

contexts.

85 At least the Forest Service should discuss the

attached following studies: Deport, Brooks

M., Brian C. Murray, Ralph J. Align, and

Alyssa Shanks. 2008. Public land, timber

harvests, and climate mitigation: quantifying

carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public

timberlands. Forest Ecology and

Management 255: 1122-1134.

• Harmon, Mark E. 2001. Carbon

sequestration in forests: addressing the scale

question. Journal of Forestry 99:4: 24-29.

• Harmon, Mark E, William K. Ferrell, and

Jerry F. Franklin. 1990. Effects of carbon

storage of conversion of old-growth forest to

young forests. Science 247: 4943: 699-702

• Harmon, Mark E, and Barbara Marks. 2002.

Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon

stores in Douglas-fir – western hemlock

forests in the Pacific Northwest, USA: results

from a simulation model. Canadian Journal

of Forest Research 32: 863-877.

• Homann, Peter S., Mark Harmon, Suzanne

Remillard, and Erica A.H. Smithwick. 2005.

What the soil reveals: potential total

ecosystem C stores of the Pacific Northwest

region, USA. Forest Ecology and

Management 220: 270-283.

• McKenzie, Donald, Ze’ev Gedalof, David

L. Peterson and Philip Mote. 2004. Climatic

change, wildfire, and conservation.

Conservation Biology 18:4: 890 -902...

4

Alliance for Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystem Council –December 5, 2012


Comment

#


Alternative

1 How will this project affect Bull Trout? What

are the primary constituent elements in these

streams? Do they need to be improved? How

will this project protect rather than adversely

impact fish habitat and water quality? What

is the current condition of the Riparian

Habitat Conservation Area? Are they meeting

INFISH standards?

4

Western Watershed Project –July 25, 2012 Comment

#


Alternative

1 Please provide and analyze all past forestry

treatments in the Little Lost, as well as all

livestock grazing monitoring information for

all periods of time for the affected Sawmill

area allotment(s).

4,7