Chapter 4—Agencies and Persons Consulteda123.g.akamai.net › 7 › 123 › 11558 › abc123 › forestservic... · Blair, S., and G. Servheen. 1995. A Species Conservation Assessment

South Pioneer Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project Environmental Assessment

193

Chapter 4—Agencies and Persons Consulted What Agencies and Persons have been Consulted? displays a list of Native American Tribes, collaborative groups, agencies, elected officials, and organizations and businesses consulted for input during project development. Additionally, numerous individuals were consulted for input, either through formal scoping or informal contacts with specific resource specialists. Scoping documents were mailed to 197 parties, as well as posted on the Boise National Forest project website. The GovDelivery email notification system delivered the scoping documents to an additional 695 interested parties who chose to receive electronic notification. A complete list of agencies and persons consulted is available in the project record. Table 37 displays a list of Native American Tribes, collaborative groups, agencies, elected officials, and organizations and businesses consulted for input during project development. Additionally, numerous individuals were consulted for input, either through formal scoping or informal contacts with specific resource specialists. Scoping documents were mailed to 197 parties, as well as posted on the Boise National Forest project website. The GovDelivery email notification system delivered the scoping documents to an additional 695 interested parties who chose to receive electronic notification. A complete list of agencies and persons consulted is available in the project record.

Table 37. Native American Tribes, collaborative groups, agencies, elected officials, and organizations and businesses consulted during the planning process for the South Pioneer Project

Native American Tribes Nez Perce Tribe

Shoshone Bannock Tribe Shoshone Paiute Tribe

Collaborative Groups Boise Forest Coalition

Agencies Elected Officials Bureau of Land Management Boise County Commissioners Idaho Department of Lands Representative Mike Simpson

Idaho Dept. of Water Resources Representative Raul Labrador Idaho Dept. of Agriculture Senator James E. Risch

Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality Senator Mike Crapo Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Valley County Commissioners U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NOAA Fisheries U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

In Chapter 4 You will find:

• A list of the agencies and persons consulted during project development


194

Organizations and Businesses Advocates for the West Idaho Whitewater Association

American Forest Resource Council Idaho Wildlife Federation Blue Ribbon Coalition Intermountain Forest Association

Boise Building Sierra Club Boise Cascade Southwest Idaho Mountain Bike Association

Boise Valley Fly Fishermen The Nature Conservancy Center for Biological Diversity The Wilderness Society

Deadwood Outfitters Treasure Valley Backcountry Horsemen Fly Fishers of Idaho Treasure Valley Trail Machine Assn.

Golden Eagle Audubon Trout Unlimited Greater Garden Valley Area Chamber of Commerce Valley Soil & Water Conservation District

Idaho ATV Association, Inc. Western Lands Project Idaho Conservation League Winter Wildlands Alliance Idaho Mining Association Brown Brothers Construction Inc.

Idaho Outfitters and Guides Assn. Canaday Trucking Idaho Precision Log Homes, LLC JI Morgan Inc.

Idaho World Mahon Logging Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission MW Renfro & Sons Inc.

Idaho Rivers United Parma Post and Pole Inc. Idaho State Bowhunters Tamarack Mill LLC

Idaho State Snowmobile Association Woodgrain Millwork Idaho Forest Group LLC National Wild Turkey Federation


195

Literature Cited Abatzaglou, J., and A.P. Williams. 2016 Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire

across western US forests. PNAS, vol. 113 no. 42, 11770-11775. Allen, C.D. 2007. Interactions across spatial scales among forest dieback, fire, and erosion in

northern New Mexico. Ecosystems 10: 797–808. Arnup, R.W. 1998. The extent, effects and management of forestry-related soil disturbance, with

reference to implications for the clay belt: a literature review. OMNR, Northeast Science & Technology. TR-037. 30p.

Balda, R. P. 1975. The relationship of secondary cavity nesters to snag densities in western coniferous forests. USDA For. Serv. Southwest Region. Wildlife Tech Bull. 1, 37 p. Albuquerque, New Mexico

Barton, A.M. 2002. Intense wildfire in southeastern Arizona: transformation of a Madrean oak-pine forest to oak woodland. Forest Ecology and Management 165: 205–212.

Beschta, Robert L., Rhodes, Jonathan J., Kauffman, Boone, Gresswell, Robert E., Minshall, G. Wayne, Karr, James R., Perry, David A., Hauer, R. Richard, and Frissell, Christopher A., 2004.Postfire Management on Forested Public Lands of the Western United States. Conservation Biology, Vol. 18. Pages 957-967.

Baird, M., D. Zabowski, and R.L. Everett. 1999. Wildfire effects on carbon and nitrogen in inland coniferous forests. Plant and Soil 209:233-243.

Blair, S., and G. Servheen. 1995. A Species Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the White-headed Woodpecker, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region (R-1) and Intermountain Region (R-4), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 44 p.

Boisvenue, C., and S.W. Running. 2010. Simulations show decreasing carbon stocks and potential for carbon emissions in Rocky Mountain forests over the next century. Ecological Applications 20(5): 13-2-1319.

Breashears, D.D., and C.D. Allen. 2002. The importance of rapid, disturbance-induced losses in carbon management and sequestration. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11:1-5.

Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. RMRS-GTR-105. 16 p.

Bull E.L., and E.C. Meslow 1977. Habitat Requirements of the Pileated Woodpecker in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Forestry/337.

Bull, E.L., A. Wright, and M. Henjum. 1990. Nesting habitat of flammulated owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Res. 24(3): 52-55.

Bull, E.L., C.G. Parks, and T.R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-391: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.


196

Campbell, J., D. Donato, D. Azuma, and B. Law. 2007. Pyrogenic carbon emission from a large wildfire in Oregon, United States. Journal of Geophysical Research 12:G04014 doi:10.1029/2007JG000451

Cannon, S.H. et al. 2010. Predicting the probability and volume of postwildfire debris flows in the intermountain western United States. Geologic Society of America Bulletin, January/February 2010. v. 122.

Christensen, A.G., L.J. Lyon, and J.W. Unsworth. 1993. Elk Management in Northern Region: Considerations in Forest Plan Updates or Revision. General Technical Report INT-303. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Pp. 12.

Conant, R.T., K. Paustian, F. García-Oliva, H.H. Janzen, V.J. Jaramillo, D.E. Johnson, S.N. Kulshreshtha. 2007. Chapter 10 Agricultural and Grazing Lands. In: CCSP, 2007. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [King, A.W., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M. Fairman, R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, A.Z. Rose, and T.J. Wilbanks (eds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA, 242 pp. http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/saps/sap2-2

Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks, and M. Wotton. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience, Vol. 51(9): 723–734.

DellaSala, D. A., and C. T. Hanson. 2015. The ecological importance of mixed-severity fires: nature’s phoenix. Elsevier, Boston, MA.

Depro, B.M., B.C. Murray, R.J. Alig, and A. Shanks. 2008. Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation: Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008) 1122–1134.

Dixon, R.D. 1995a. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat-use, and behavior of White-headed Woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildl. Nongame Rep. 93-3-01.

Dixon, R.D. 1995b. Ecology of White-Headed Woodpeckers in the Central Oregon Cascades, A Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science with a Major in Wildlife Resources in the College of Graduate Studies, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

Dixon, R.D. 1998. An Assessment of White-Headed Woodpeckers in a Regional Landscape, USDA Forest Service Contract #101-ecol-98, Report also serves as supplemental report to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (#63506193)

Doerr, S.H., R.A. Shakesby, W.H. Blake, [and others] 2006. Effects of differing wildfire severities on soil wettability and implications for hydrological response. J. Hydrol. 319, 295–311.

Donato, D.C., J.B. Fontaine, J.B. Kauffman, W.D. Robinson, and B.E. Law. 2013. Fuel mass and forest structure following stand-replacement fire and post-fire logging in a mixed evergreen forest. International Journal Wildland Fire 22:652–666.


197

Elliot, W.J., I.S. Miller, and L. Audin, Eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 299 p.

Feiger 2016. Wildlife Technical Report for the Becker Integrated Resource Project. Project Record. USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Idaho City Ranger District.

FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the FEMAT. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Filip, G., M. Barger, J. Bronson, K. Chadwick, R. Collins, B. Goodrich, H. Kearns, M. McWilliams, B. Oblinger, D. Omdal, A. Ramsey, and A. Saavedra. 2016. Field guide for Danger-tree identification and response along forest roads and work sites in Oregon and Washington. R6-NR-TP-021-2016. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. 120pgs.

Froehlich, H.A., and D.H. McNabb. 1983. Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific Northwest soils. North American Forest Soils Conference, 6th Knoxville, TN. Pp. 159-l 92.

Fulé, Peter Z., Julie E. Korb, and Rosalind Wu. 2009. Changes in forest structure of a mixed conifer forest, southwestern Colorado, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 258. pp 1200-1210Galik, C.S., and R.B. Jackson. 2009. Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 2209–2216.

Garrett, K.L., M.G. Raphael, and R.D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed woodpecker. In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., eds. The birds of North America. No. 252. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 24 p.

Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology. National Wildfire Coordinating Group – Incident Operations Standards Working Team, 2015. Available at: https://www.nwcg.gov/glossary-of-wildland-fire-terminology

Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, and L.C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed and black- backed woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Nongame Rep. 87-3-02. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Deschutes National Forest, Nongame Wildlife Program. 49 p.

Goggans, R.. 1986. Habitat use by flammulated owls in northeastern Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Gomez, D. 1994. Conservation assessment for the spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in the Intermountain Region USFS. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah.

Graham, R.T., Harvey, Alan E., Jain, Theresa B., Tonn, Jonalea R. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p.

Haapanen 1965 Haapanen, A. 1965. Bird fauna of the Finnish forests in relation to forest succession. I. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2:154-196.


198

Haggard and Gaines 2001 Effects of stand-replacement fire and salvage logging on a cavity-nesting bird community in eastern Cascades, Washington. Northwest Science 75(4):387-396.

Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, J.C. Lovett, D. Scott, F.I. Woodward. 2002. Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate. Conservation Biology, Vol. 16(1): 264-268.

Hanson, C.T., and M.P. North. 2008. Postfire woodpecker foraging in salvage-logged and unlogged forests of the Sierra Nevada. Condor 110:777–782.

Harmon, M.E. 2001. Carbon sequestration in forests: addressing the scale question. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 4: 24-29.

Harmon, M.E., and B. Marks. 2002. Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon stores in Douglas-fir – western hemlock forests in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.: results from a simulation model. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, Vol. 32: 863-877.

Harr, R. 1986. Effects of clearcutting on rain-on-snow runoff in western Oregon: a new look at old studies. Water Resources Research. Vol. 22 (7)

Heath, L.S., J.E. Smith, C.W. Woodall, D.L. Azuma, and K.L. Waddell. 2011. Carbon stocks on forestland of the United States, with emphasis on USDA Forest Service ownership. Ecosphere 2(1): art6 doi:10.1890/ES10-00126.Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems, Vol. 4: 390-405.

Houghton, R.A. 2003. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850-2000. Tellus B: 378-390.

Hutto, R. 2008. The ecological importance of severe wildfires: some like it hot. Ecological Applications, 18(8), 2008. pp. 1827-1834.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2005. Idaho comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Idaho Department Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Interagency Lynx Biology Team (ILBT). 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128 pp. Karr, J.R., J.J. Rhodes, G. Minshall, H.F. Wayne, B. Richard, L. Robert, C.A. Frissell, and D.A. Perry. 2004. The Effects of Postfire Salvage Logging on Aquatic Ecosystems in the American West. Bioscience 54: 1029–1033.

Karr, James R., Rhodes, Jonathan J. , Minshall, G.Wayne, Hauer, F. Richard, Beschta, Robert L., Frissell, Christopher A., and Perry, David A., 2004. The Effects of Postfire Salvage Logging on Aquatic Ecosystems in the American West. Bioscience, Vol. 54. Pages 1029-1033.

Kashian, D.M., W.H. Romme, D.B. Tinker, M.G. Turner, and M.G. Ryan. 2006. Carbon storage on landscapes with stand-replacing fires. BioScience 56: 598-606.

Keane, R. E.; Parsons, R. 2010. Restoring whitebark pine forests of the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Ecological Restoration 28:56-70.


199

Kemp, K.B., P.E. Higuera, and P. Morgan. 2015 Fire legacies impact conifer regeneration across environmental gradients in the U.S. northern Rockies. Landscape Ecology Volume 30, No. 8, October 2015.

Kennedy, P.L., and J.B. Fontaine. 2009. Synthesis of knowledge on the effects of fire and fire surrogates on wildlife in U.S. dry forests. Special Report 1096. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University. 132 p.

Knapp, E. E., and M. W. Ritchie. 2016. Response of understory vegetation to salvage logging following a high-severity wildfire. Ecosphere 7(11)

Kurz, W.A., C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, E.T. Neilson, A.L. Carroll, T. Ebata, and L. Safranyik. 2008a. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452: 987-990.

Kurz, W.A., G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, C.C. Dymond, and E.T. Neilson. 2008b. Risk of natural disturbances makes future contributions of Canada’s forest to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 1551-1555.

Lambeck, R. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Leonard Jr., David L 2001. American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis), The Birds of

North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-DOI: 10.2173/bna.588Account/bna/species/attwoo1: accessed March 16, 2017.

Lindenmayer, D. B., D.R. Foster, J.F. Franklin, M.L. Hunter, R.F. Noss, F.A. Schmiegelow, and D.A. Perry. 2004. Salvage harvesting policies after natural disturbance. Science 303:1303.

Lindenmayer, D.B., and R.F. Noss. 2006. Salvage Logging, Ecosystem Processes, and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology, 20: 949–958.

Lindenmayer, D.B., Franklin, J.F., Fischer, J., 2006. General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 131, 433–445.

Lippke, Bruce and Larry Mason. 2005. Implications of Working Forestry Impacts on Jobs and Local Economies. College of Natural Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Littell, J.S., D. McKenzie, D.L. Peterson, and A.L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications 19: 1003-1021.

Lyon, L. Jack; and Alan G. Christensen. 2002. Elk and land management. Pages 557-582 in Toweill, Dale E. and Jack Ward Thomas, technical eds. 2002. North American Elk: Ecology and Management. The Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 962 pp

Mannan et al. 1980. Use of Snags by Birds in Douglas-Fir Forests, Western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 787-797


200

Manuwal, David A.; Zarnowitz, Jill E. 1981. Cavity nesting birds of the Olympic National Forest. Seattle, WA: College of Forest Resources, University of Washington; 144 p.

McCallum, D. Archibald, and Frederick R. Gehlbach. 1988. Nest-site preferences of flammulated owls in western New Mexico. The Condor, Vol. 90, No.3, pp. 653-661.

McIver, J.D. 2003 Sediment Transport and Soil Disturbance after Postfire Logging. Hydrological Science and Technology, 2002 AIH Annual Meeting, Hydrologic Extremes: Challenges for Science and Management, October 2002, Portland Oregon. Volume 19, No. 1-4, 2003.

McKelvey, Kevin S.; Steven W. Buskirk, and Charles J. Krebs. 2000. Theoretical Insights into the Population Viability of Lynx, Pages 21-37 In: Ruggiero et al. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW.

McKinley, D.C., M.G. Ryan, R.A. Birdsey, C.P. Giardina, M.E. Harmon, L.S. Heath, R.A. Houghton, R.B. Jackson, J.F. Morrison, B.C. Murray, D.E. Pataki, and K.E. Skog. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. In press. Ecological Applications.

Megahan et al. 1978. Landslide occurrence in the western and central Northern Rocky Mountain physiographic province in Idaho. Reprinted from: Forest soils and land use. (Proc., Fifth North Am. For. Soils Conf., Ft. Collins, Colo., Aug. 1978) p. 116-139. Chester T. Youngberg, ed. Colo. State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Moore, Teresa L. and Glenn P. Frederick. 1991. Distribution and Habitat of Flammulated Owls (Otus Flammeolus) in West-Central Idaho, Challenge Cost Share Project, Payette National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

NatureServe. 2017. Pileated woodpecker- comprehensive report. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: September 29, 2012.)

Nutt, Lisa M., Kathy Geier-Hayes, and Randy Hayman. 2010. Wildlife Technical Report for the 2010 Boise National Forest Plan Amendment to Implement a Forest Wildlife Conservation Strategy. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Boise National Forest, Boise ID.

Pack, R.T., D.G. Tarboton, and C.N. Goodwin. 1998. Terrain stability mapping with SINMAP, technical description and users guide for version 1.00. Report Number 4114-0, Terratech Consulting Ltd., Salmon Arm, B.C., Canada.

Page-Dumroese, Deborah S., Martin Jurgensen, and Thomas Terry. 2010. Maintaining soil productivity during forest or biomass-to-energy harvesting in the western United States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 25: 5-12.

Peterson, D., Agee, J., Aplet, G., Dykstra, D., Graham, R., [and others] 2009. Effects of Timber Harvest Following Wildfire in Western North America. USDA. PNW-GTR-776.

http://www/

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer


201

Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; Joyce, L.A.; Furniss, M.J.; Halofsky, J.E.; Neilson, R.P.; Morelli, T.L. 2011. Responding to climate change in national forests: a guidebook for developing adaptation options. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-855. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 109 pages.

Peterson, David W., Dodson, Erich K., Harrod, Richy J., 2015. Post-fire logging reduces surface woody fuels up to four decades following wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 338. Pp. 84-91.

Pregitzer, K.S. and E.S. Euskirchen. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10: 2052-2077. Available online at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118805398/PDFSTART

Raphael M.G., and M. White 1984. Use of Snags by Cavity-Nesting Birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs. 86, 1-66, Publication of the Wildlife Society.

Raphael, M. G. 1980. Utilization of standing dead trees by breeding birds at Sagehen Creek, Cali- fornia. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. California, Berkeley. 195pp.

Reeves, Derrick, Deborah Page-Dumroese, and Mark Coleman. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance associated with timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-89 Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 12 p.

Reilly, M.J., Spies, A.S., Hessburg, P.F. 2015. Ecological Effects of Post-fire Salvage Logging in the Pacific Northwest. White Paper. Boise, ID.

Reynolds, R. T. and B. D. Linkhart. 1987. The nesting biology of Flammulated Owls in Colorado. Pages 239–248 in Biology and conservation of northern forest owls (R. W. Nero, R. J. Clark, R. J. Knapton, and R. H. Hamre, Editors). USDA, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM- 142, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Robichaud, P.R., W.J. Elliot, L. MacDonald, R. Coats, J.W. Wagenbrenner. 2011. Evaluating post-fire salvage logging effects on erosion. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.

Rota, C.T.; J.J. Millspaugh, M.A. Rumble, C.P.Lehman, and D.C. Kesler. 2014a.The role of wildfire, prescribed fire, and mountain pine beetle infestations on the population dynamics of Black-backed Woodpeckers in the Black Hills, South Dakota. PLOS One 9:e94700. doe:10.1371/journal.pone.0094700.

Rowland, M. M.; M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and M. A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of Roads on Elk: Implications for Management in Forested Ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Ruediger, Bill, Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney, Gary Patton, Tony Rinaldi, Joel Trick, Anne Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick Wenger, and Al Williamson, 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118805398/PDFSTART


202

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. A Scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-254. 184p.

Running, S.W. 2006. Is global warming causing more, larger wildfires? Science 313: 927-928. Ryan M.G., M.E. Harmon, R.A. Birdsey, C.P. Giardina, L.S. Heath, R.A. Houghton, R.B.

Jackson, D.C. McKinley, J.F. Morrison, B.C., Murray, D.E., Pataki, and K.E. Skog. 2010. A Synthesis of the Science on Forests and Carbon for U.S. Forests. Issues in Ecology, Report Number 13. 17 p.

Saab et al. 2009. Nest-site selection by cavity nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 151-159.

Saab, Vicki, and Jon Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest of southwester Idaho. RMRS-RP-11 (Research Paper), USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Saab, Victoria; William Block, Robin Russell, John Lehmkuhl, Lisa Bate, and Rachel White. 2007. Birds and Burns of the Interior West: Descriptions, Habitats, and Management in Western Forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-712; USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Sankey et al. 2015. Predictin future, post-fire erosion and sedimentation with watershed models in the western USA. American Geophysical Union, Fall meeting 2015, abstract #H12C-04.

Savage, M. and J.N. Mast. 2005. How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after crown fires? Can. J. For. Res. 35: 967–977.

Schoennagel, Tania, Beblen, Thomas T., Negron, Jose F., and Smith, Jeremy M., 2012. Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle on Fuels and Expected Fire Behavior in Lodgepole Pine Forests, Colorado, USA. PLoS ONE 7(1): e30002. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030002

Scott, Virgil E. 1979. Bird response to snag removal in ponderosa pine. J. For.77(1): 26–28.Skovlin, Jon M., Peter Zager, and Bruce K. Johnson. 2002. Elk Habitat Selection and Evaluation. Pages 557-582 in Toweill, Dale E. and Jack Ward Thomas, technical eds. 2002. North American Elk: Ecology and Management. The Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 962 pp.Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of fire on Fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.1. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 83 p.

Slesak, R.A., S.H. Schoenholtz, and D. Evans. 2015. Hillslope erosion two and three years after wildfire, skyline salvage logging, and site preparation in southern Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 342: 1-7.

Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p.


203

Smith, S. and Cluck, D. 2011. Marking guidelines for fire-injured trees in California. USFS Forest Health Protection Report # RO-11-01.

Solomon, S.D.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Maquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L. (eds.), Denman, K.L.; Brasseur, G. 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. Chapter 7, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA., pages 500-587.

Stallings, David H., Gary J. Wolfe, and Dan K. Crocket. 2002. Regulating the Hunt. Pages 749-792 in Toweill, Dale E. and Jack Ward Thomas, technical eds. 2002. North American Elk: Ecology and Management. The Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 962 pp.

State of Idaho (IDEQ). 2014. Idaho’s 2012 Integrated Report (Final) Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Online GIS platform. Accessed March 7, 2017.

Steele, R.; Pfister, R.D.; Ryker, R.A.; Kittams, J.A. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Report INT-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 138 pages.

Strom, B.A. and P.Z. Fulé. 2007. Pre-wildfire fuel treatments affect long-term ponderosa pine forest dynamics. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16: 128-138.

Thomas. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests, the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service. Agricultural Handbook No. 553.

Tomback, D. F.; Arno, S. F.; Keane, R. E. 2001. The compelling case for management intervention. Pages 3-28 in: Tomback, D.; Arno, Stephen F.; Keane, R. E., editors. Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC

Tremblay, J.A.; R.D. Dixon, V.A. Saab, P. Pyle and M.A. Patten. 2016. Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), The Birds of North America (P.G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/bkbwoo DOI: 10.2173/bna.509. Accessed 13 March 2017.

Turner, D.P.; Koerper, G.J.; Harmon, M.E.; Lee, J.J. 1995. A carbon budget for forests of the conterminous United States. Ecological Applications. Vol. 5(2): 421-436.

U.S. Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016. Unemployment in the Boise Area by County.

U.S. President. 2009. Estimates of Job Creation From the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisors. 12 p.

US EPA 2013. Chapter 7. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry, in Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2011. The entire report is available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

USDA Forest Service 1986 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 1986 ROS Book 2009. Lowman Ranger District “E” Area Motorized Wheeled Vehicle Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html


204

USDA Forest Service 2003a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Boise National Forest

USDA Forest Service 2003b Land and Resource Management Plan for the Boise National Forest, Volumes 1-2, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID

USDA Forest Service 2010a Land and Resource Management Plan for the Boise National Forest, 2003-2010 Integration, Volumes 1-2, amended July 2010, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID

USDA Forest Service 2010b Final Environmental Impact Statement Supporting Forest Plan Amendments to Integrate the Boise National Forest Wildlife Conservation Strategy, Phase 1: Forested Biological Community, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID

USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter: The Visual Management System. Agric. Handbook. 462. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 47 p

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis. Located at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/climate_change/includes/cc_nepa_guidance.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. Washington, DC.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and USDC NMFS. 1998 (March). Endangered Species Consultation Handbook Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service and USDC National Marine Fisheries Service.

USDI FWS 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule; 50 CFR Part 17; [Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2009-0085]. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 200, October 18, 2010, Rules and Regulations.

Wagenbrenner, J., MacDonald, L., Coats, R. [and others] 2015. Effects of post-fire salvage logging and a skid trail treatment on ground cover, soils, and sediment production in the interior western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 335 p. 176-193.

Walburger, K., T. DelCurto, M. Vavra, and A. A. Clark. 2005. The effects of herbivory and timber harvest on understory production in northeastern Oregon. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR.

Westerling, A.L. 2016. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371.

Westerling, A.L. and B.P. Bryant. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change: 87(Suppl. 1): S231-S249.

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetman, T.W. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science Vol. 313: 940-943


205

Wisdom, Michael J.; Holthausen, Richard S.; Wales, Barbara C.; Hargis, Christina D.; Saab, Victoria A.; Lee, Danny C.; Hann, Wendel J.; Rich, Terrell D.; Rowland, Mary M.; Murphy, Wally J.; Eames, Michelle R. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. Ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

This page intentionally left blank


207

Appendices Appendix A: Design Features Cultural Resources

CR-1. Avoid and protect all known historic properties during project implementation. CR-2. If any cultural materials are encountered during the course of the project, all ground disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will cease until the Forest Archeologist is notified, and the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and potentially affected Indian tribes are consulted. Fire/Fuels

FF-1. Pile and burn or disseminate activity fuels, consistent with Design Features FH-8 and TH-2, where needed to protect National Forest System improvements and facilities; address public safety; and maintain recreational access, use, and visual quality. No hand piling will occur below the road within RCAs, unless otherwise designated through site-specific evaluation by the Hydrologist or Fish Biologist consistent with Design Feature FH-1. Fisheries, Hydrology, and Soils

FH-1. To maintain riparian functions and water quality, all perennial streams (year-round surface flow) have a designated 240 foot RCA width while intermittent streams (flows some part of the year and have defined bed and banks), springs, ponds, and wetlands have a designated 120 foot RCA width. Stream features are identified in the stream layer (Boise National Forest GIS Database) or as identified in the field. The following apply to the above-defined RCA widths:

• Salvage Dead Trees—No harvest will occur within RCAs associated with salvage harvest areas identified for the purpose of recovering economic value.

• Hazard and Dead Tree Salvage—Salvage and removal of hazard trees will occur within RCAs along roads and trails identified for hazard tree removal. Harvesting and removing road/trail-side hazard trees will occur on the side of the road or trail opposite the water feature (uphill side of the road) where they run parallel with the steam feature (Figure A-1). Where RCAs intersect the road perpendicularly, no tree removal will be allowed with some limited exceptions13. No new landing construction will occur within RCAs, and mechanized equipment will be restricted to existing road prisms within the RCA.

13Removal or relocation of hazard trees may be allowed if falling and leaving onsite would result in one of two situations: 1) hazardous working conditions for felling operations (i.e., lack of escape routes or stacking of tree boles such that there is unpredictable movement when felled trees come to rest) or 2) downed trees would compromise road prisms, bridges, and/or drainage features associated with the road. The Forest or District Fish Biologist, Hydrologist, and/or Transportation Engineer will coordinate with the appropriate Timber Management Assistant to evaluate these areas to ensure trees can be removed without causing unacceptable effects to soil, water, riparian, or aquatic resources.


208

• Hazard Tree Fell and Leave—Road/trail-side hazard trees that occur within RCAs between the road and the water feature (stream side of the road) or where the RCA intersects the road perpendicularly will be felled and left onsite (Figure A-1) with some limited exceptions1.

Figure A-1. Example of treatment zones along roads and trails identified for either salvage

or felling with an emphasis on hazard tree mitigation. This example shows how treatments would be applied within RCAs and outside of RCAs

FH-2. Water drafting locations, methods, and timing shall be approved by the Forest Service Contract Administrator in consultation with the Fisheries Biologist and/or Hydrologist. Screens on intake hoses will meet all U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) criteria (e.g., 3/32 mesh with sufficient surface area). FH-3. No fuel shall be stored in RCAs. Refueling or servicing of vehicles or equipment shall not occur within RCAs unless no other alternative exists. In the event there is no acceptable alternative site for these activities, refueling or servicing sites must be approved by the Forest Service Contract Administrator in consultation with the District Hydrologist and/or Fish Biologist and have an approved spill containment plan commensurate with the amount of fuel. All equipment shall be in good repair and free of leakage of lubricants, fuels, coolants, and hydraulic fluid. FH-4. To minimize soil and water movement and promote restoration of soil-hydrologic functions, unauthorized route decommissioning may include, but is not limited to, some or all of the following activities: scarification of road bed; partial to full re-contour; removal of culverts and stabilization of stream crossings; elimination of access from connecting roads utilizing barrier devices, such as boulders, berms, and slash material at access points; and application of seed/mulch at all disturbed areas with a seed mixture approved by the Forest Service Botanist. Determination of methods to be used will be completed on a site-by-site basis during Project implementation.


209

FH-5. Erosion control devices are required where activities occur in RCAs to minimize sediment delivery to streams from road management activities, including temporary road construction, road maintenance, and/or unauthorized route decommissioning. Erosion control devices may include, but are not limited to, certified weed-free straw wattles or bales, slash filter windrows, and/or biodegradable erosion cloth. The District Hydrologist or Fisheries Biologist will consult with the Forest Service Contract Administrator in determining the most effective sediment control method. Erosion control materials will be allowed to deteriorate in place. FH-6. To maintain the condition of the roads and to minimize soil movement from road surfaces, snow removal shall be done in a manner to preserve and protect the roads to ensure safe and efficient travel as well as prevent unacceptable erosion damage to roads, streams, and adjacent lands:

• A minimum depth of 6 inches of snow must be left to protect roadways and bridges.

• During snow removal operations, banks shall not be undercut nor shall gravel or other road surfacing material be bladed off the roadway surface.

• Snow removal work also includes removing snow slides, minor earth slides, fallen timber, and boulders obstructing normal road surface width, including turnouts. All debris, except snow and ice that is removed from the road surface and ditch, will be deposited away from stream channels at approved locations.

• Drainages and culverts shall be kept functional during and following the roadway use. Any dirt or other inorganic materials cleaned from culvert inlets will be deposited away from stream channels at approved locations.

• Snow berms will not be left on the road surface. Berms left on the shoulder of the road will be removed and/or drainage holes shall be opened and maintained. Drainage holes shall be spaced as required to obtain satisfactory surface drainage without discharge on erodible fill slopes.

FH-7. To prevent degradation of previous and ongoing Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) actions, the functionality of emergency actions implemented under BAER will be protected. BAER actions include hillslope seeding and mulching, road and trail drainage improvements, hillslope stabilization and motor vehicle access restrictions, hazard warning signs, and noxious weed/invasive plant treatments. Any damage to previously implemented BAER actions from the proposed action will be repaired within a reasonable timeframe, but not to exceed 72 hours. However, any damage to previously completed BAER actions will be repaired immediately if threats to human life and safety are expected; or damage to infrastructure related to BAER actions will be repaired immediately if the damage will result in resource impacts (e.g., culvert failure and water quality). Otherwise, damage or impairment of functionality will be repaired or corrected concurrent with erosion control activities needed for salvage harvest and felling of drop-and-leave hazard trees. FH-8. To minimize soil and water movement and promote the restoration of soil-hydrologic functions associated with the construction of temporary roads, landings, and skid trails, the following will be implemented upon completion of Project activities:


210

• Temporary Roads—Decommission temporary roads by full obliteration along entire length of disturbance. Upon completion of Project activities, all temporary roads used to implement Project activities will be reclaimed by ripping or scarifying compacted surfaces to a depth of 12 inches; re-contouring excavated segments to the original slope; and scattering slash or mulch to achieve effective ground cover over at least 50% of the reclaimed surface.

• Landings—Reshape constructed landings used in association with this Project to provide adequate drainage. Constructed landings will be ripped to a depth of 12–18 inches, with slash and/or mulch evenly distributed to achieve effective ground cover over at least 50% of the reclaimed surface.

• Excavated Skid Trails—All newly constructed and existing excavated skid trails used to implement project activities will be reclaimed by ripping or scarifying compacted surfaces to a depth of 12 inches; re-contouring excavated segments to the original slope; and scattering slash or mulch to achieve effective ground cover over at least 50% of the reclaimed surface.

• Skid Trails—Where Primary and Secondary skid trails are located in moderate or high soil burn severity and the Soils Resource analysis identifies moderate-to-high sensitivity, apply the same restoration prescription for excavated skid trails described above. On remaining Primary and Secondary skid trails, remove interior and lateral berms and construct waterbars at angles and at locations to not concentrate flow into natural flow path or swales, and where possible, divert runoff into vegetated, stable areas. Where sediment buffers are lacking or where runout can concentrate flow, utilize slash or other debris at waterbar outlets to diffuse runoff and store sediment. Utilize available slash material for erosion control to minimize soil movement and sediment delivery by placing logs or slash against the ground surface perpendicular to the slope fall-line, and mulch as needed to achieve effective ground cover over at least 50% of the reclaimed area. On Primary skid trails, scarify the trail tread to address soil compaction and initiate soil restoration.

In addition to the above actions, the following will be implemented following completion of Project activities:

• All reclaimed areas will be revegetated with certified weed-free grasses, shrubs, and/or trees to expedite vegetative recovery and further reduce potential sediment delivery. Any material used for revegetation activities will meet requirements of Design Feature NX-2.

• All constructed temporary roads, landings, and skid trails will be closed to public use by recontouring access points the first 100 feet or sight distance, whichever is less. If needed, barriers, such as rock, earthen berms, or large coarse woody debris, will be placed to deter unauthorized use. Landing slash or mulch will be used to restore soil-hydrologic function and process and minimize soil and water movement (see Design Feature TH-2).

FH-9. Waste resulting from road and trail activities, logging operations, and burning operations (e.g., crankcase oil, filters, grease tubes, oil containers, or other nonbiodegradable waste) shall be removed from the operating area and disposed of properly.


211

FH-10. Ensure that a spill containment kit, commensurate with the amount of fuel stored, and supplies (e.g., shovels, absorbent pads, straw bales, and/or booms) are onsite when equipment or service vehicles are within the Project area. If a spill should occur, State and federal regulations regarding spills would be followed (e.g., any spills resulting in a detectable sheen on water shall be reported to the Environmental Protection Agency National Response Center [1-800-424-8802] and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality [1-800-632-800], and cleanup be initiated within 24 hours of the spill). FH-11. Use the SINMAP analysis results in addition to guidelines developed by Chatwin et al. (1994) during project implementation to field-verify or identify moderate- and high-hazard landslide prone areas where commercial timber harvest and road construction is proposed. Site-specific management measures or mitigations shall be required where the proposed activities might initiate landslides. Minerals/Geology

MG-1. Reasonable access for mining claimants will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Minerals Administrator, Timber Sale Administrator, and District Ranger. Noxious Weeds

NX-1. Avoid or reduce the introduction and spread of weed seeds and propagates by including provisions in all contracts to ensure appropriate off-road equipment is cleaned. All contractors and/or purchaser of any timber sale shall be required to ensure that, prior to moving onto the National Forest System lands, all off-road equipment is cleaned and free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain seeds. NX-2. Ensure seed mixes and/or plant materials used during restoration and soil erosion prevention activities is comprised of certified weed-free native or desirable nonnative seed mixes and/or native cultivars, as recommended by the Forest or District Botanist. NX-3. Require all straw and/or hay brought to the project area for land management purposes be certified weed-free. NX-4. During project implementation, report the identification of undocumented noxious weed populations in the project area to the District Weed specialist for inclusion in noxious weed treatment plans as provided for in existing plans and environmental documents in effect at the time of implementation. Traffic and Public Safety

PS-1. A closure order will be issued for public safety when logging operations are occurring within sale areas and associated haul routes. To the maximum extent practicable, notice of closures will be provided at least 2 weeks in advance in local papers and nearby public facilities. PS-2. Logging contractors shall install signs to notify the public of hazards with respect to active logging truck traffic. Signs will be located near the public access entry points to the project area. The contractor will be responsible for maintaining the signs during the life of the project. Recreation

RE-1. Coordinate Purchaser/Contractor campsites with the Recreation Specialist to avoid or minimize impacts to dispersed recreation users.


212

RE-2. Trees will be directionally felled away from authorized trails where feasible. Any stumps within 3 feet of the finished slope of the trail will be flush cut to meet Forest Service trail standards. RE-3. Identify project area authorized trails in the timber sale contract. For the authorized trails falling within or immediately adjacent to harvest units, specific contract provisions will be included to protect National Forest System improvements; maintain access or use; and protect or minimize impacts to trail surfaces, trail heads, trail access, and recreation opportunities. The Sale Administrator shall designate all skid trails crossing authorized trails and shall consult with the Recreation Specialist on appropriate maintenance or repair necessary to return the trail to its preexisting condition. RE-4 (South Only). Prohibit snow plowing on the following roads within the Project area from November 15 to April 15 to allow winter access to yurts: NFS 394B (Stargaze Yurt), NFS 362F (Skyline Yurt), and 025M/362D (Rocky Ridge Yurt). Range Management

RM-1. Notify the Range Management Specialist of the timing of project activities, including salvage and hazard tree felling, reforestation, and road activities. Inform permittee(s), through the allotment annual operating instructions (AOIs), of pending project activities to minimize the potential for conflicts and allow for short-term modification of grazing practices where necessary. Short-term modifications of grazing practices will be coordinated with the Hydrologist, Fish Biologist, Silviculturist, and Soil Scientist to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan Rangeland Resource direction and to support recovery of desired vegetation conditions and related biophysical resources. Rare Plants

RP-1. Protect all live and dead whitebark pine trees unless they pose an imminent hazard to public safety. Avoid damaging live whitebark pine trees during implementation to the maximum extent practicable14. RP-2 (South Only). Project activities would avoid to the maximum extent practicable2 occupied and/or field verified high potential habitat of Sacajawea’s bitterroot or Idaho dwarf-primrose. Plant Consideration Areas (PCAs) will be developed by the Forest Botanist for occupied habitat within the project area. The PCA shall include a 500-meter zone from the outside edge of the occupied habitat area. The PCA (Figure A-2) shall include zones formed by concentric rings (100 meters, 300 meters, 500 meters), originating from the outside edge of the occupied habitat area to the 500-meter line. The following direction will apply to these zones:

• Prior to salvage and hazard tree felling operations occurring in PCAs, and during the growing season (approximately May–July), Sacajawea’s bitterroot populations (Pilot Peak PCA) will be identified and flagged by Forest Botany staff. Felling operations shall be performed in a manner to avoid felling trees into those identified areas.

14 Maximum Extent Practicable—Available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes (40 CFR 230.10(a)(2))


213

• No salvage shall occur in occupied habitat and within the 100-meter buffer zone, unless approved by the Forest Botanist. Felling and removing by whole tree yarding may occur within the 300- and 500-meter buffers.

• No log decking, newly constructed landings, equipment/vehicle turnarounds, or off-road equipment use will occur within the PCAs outside of existing road prisms.

• Piling and burning is not allowed within the occupied habitat or 100-meter buffer zone of the PCAs. Slash generated from harvest/salvage activities within a PCA will be lopped and scattered within the harvest area or piled/burned within the existing road prism.

• Dust abatement shall occur along roads within the PCAs (i.e., NFS roads 380) during project activities. This dust abatement shall be conducted via water application to minimize impacts from dust to rare plants and pollinator forage resources.

Figure A-2. Example of Plant Consideration Areas (PCAs) along roads and trails identified

for either salvage or felling with an emphasis on hazard tree mitigation. This example shows how treatments would be applied within PCAs Zones

RP-3. To protect rare plant species associated with riparian habitats, no decked material or slash piles will be allowed in riparian plant communities. Decking of material is allowed during winter operations while the ground is frozen or snow covered. RP-4. Heavy equipment or other machinery used in salvage or felling operations is to remain outside of riparian plant communities or restricted, as stated in Design Feature FH-1, to existing road prisms within RCAs. RP-5. Field surveys will be conducted prior to salvage operations, as needed, where a high potential for occupied rare plant habitat is identified or additional information is needed in known occupied habitat. Site-specific protection measures will be developed by the Forest


214

Botanist in coordination with implementation personnel. If necessary, new protective measures or modification of the existing design features will be applied thru timber sale contract provision B(T)6.24 or other direction. RP-6. Tree planting in the whitebark pine reforestation units will avoid planting natural openings not supporting trees. To prevent disturbance and conifer encroachment in occupied, but dormant, Sacajawea bitterroot habitat, tree seedlings will be planted no farther than 10 feet from evidence of a previously existing tree. Timber Harvest

TH-1 (South Only). Snow plowing may occur on established groomed ski and snow machine trails within the project area and on all haul routes as needed to facilitate salvage harvest and hazard tree removal activities, except as stated in RE-4. TH-2. Transport yard trees whole to the landing and manufacture them at the landing to reduce compaction and aid in soil amelioration. After manufacturing, the tops/limbs/branches will be hauled back and utilized as slash material on skid trails within tractor/jammer units or utilized on temporary roads and landings. Apply slash to temporary roads or landings (see FH-8). TH-3. Limit the grade of constructed skid trails to a maximum of 30%. TH-4. Temporary roads and skid trails used to facilitate proposed mechanical treatments are either identified as new locations or aligned with existing unauthorized roads. The time between constructing and decommissioning each temporary road and skid trail will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Both activities (constructing and decommissioning) will generally occur during the same field season. However, additional mitigation (e.g., water bars/cross ditches, slash filter windrows, silt fencing, straw bales/wattles) will be applied to temporary roads and skid trails that remain operational/open over the winter to minimize soil erosion and sediment delivery during spring snowmelt and runoff. Engineering/Transportation

TR-1. Road maintenance will be performed on NFS roads to reduce resource impacts during implementation and improve watershed conditions. Road maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to, road prism blading, spot aggregate placement, drainage improvements, roadway clearing, and roadway ditch/culvert cleaning. TR-2 (South Only). Magnesium chloride (MgCl2) will be applied to about 6 miles of NFS road 384 road to mitigate dust and increase visibility for public use. Applying MgCl2 will be prohibited within 6.1 meters (~20 feet) of designated critical bull trout habitat (i.e., Crooked River and Pikes Fork) and within 3.0 meters (~10 feet) of live water stream crossings within the project area. This mitigation is designed to protect listed bull trout and their habitat from direct entry of MgCl2 during application (wind or splash from vehicles travelling on roadway) as well as movement of MgCl2 ions over time that could indirectly enter habitat following application (run-off from rainstorm following treatment). Wildlife Resources

WL-1. Appropriate provisions (i.e., provision B(T)6.24) to provide protective measures for known Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate and Region 4 Sensitive (TEPC/S) wildlife species and habitats shall be included in all contracts. If new TEPC/S species, denning, nesting, or roosting sites are discovered during implementation, the Wildlife Biologist shall be


215

contacted to specify mitigation measures needed to avoid or minimize impacts. The Wildlife Biologist, Contract Representative, and other appropriate resource representatives will coordinate any needed modifications to prescribed treatments or activities to maintain key features of nesting/denning/roosting habitat, to avoid disrupting nesting/denning activities, and to comply with Forest Plan direction and/or law. WL-2. Trees and snags with raptor nests (i.e., large stick nests) shall be retained. The Wildlife Biologist shall be notified if any raptor nests are discovered during layout and implementation. The Wildlife Biologist will make a site-specific assessment to determine raptor occupancy; species; and any appropriate protective measures (e.g., timing restrictions, no-treatment buffers, prescription modifications). Raptor nest trees and snags identified as hazard trees may be felled but only after consultation with the Wildlife Biologist and a determination of occupancy and appropriate timing of the action to avoid impacts to nesting raptors. WL-3. Public motorized use shall be restricted on Maintenance Level (ML) 1, ML 2A, seasonally closed, and temporary roads used for implementing project activities. While these routes may be used for implementation purposes, they will remain closed to public motorized uses to minimize impacts to wildlife. Temporary, ML 1, and ML 2A roads shall not be put on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Signage and/or barriers will be used as appropriate to prevent motorized use by the public. Public access on gated roads that are seasonally open shall only be allowed during the open period designated on the MVUM. Temporary roads shall be decommissioned and ML 1/ML 2A roads shall be effectively re-closed as soon as practicable following salvage operations. WL-4. Operational loss of aspen snags (>8 inches dbh) will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable during salvage harvest. WL-5. Hazard tree felling, salvage harvest, temporary road construction, and ML 1 road opening/maintenance activities shall be prohibited within identified flammulated owl historical nesting areas from May 1 through August 15 until annual surveys have been completed by a Wildlife Biologist or technician. Surveys, using an established protocol, shall be conducted during the optimal detection period of the breeding season (approximately May 15–June 30) to assess occupancy and locate active nest sites. Site-specific protection measures for active nest sites falling within hazard tree felling and salvage harvest areas will be developed by the Wildlife Biologist in coordination with implementation personnel. Nest trees shall not be harvested in salvage areas outside of hazard tree removal zones. Nest trees identified as hazard trees may be felled or harvested; however, they shall not be felled during the breeding season (May 1–August 15) if occupied. WL-6. In patches of low-to-moderate vegetation burn severity within 300 feet of open NFS routes, sign or mark large ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir snags (>20 inches dbh) that are not deemed hazards to human health and safety. Snags will be marked using a combination of “Wildlife Tree” signs affixed to the snag and/or orange tree-marking paint. Marking these snags will occur during or after implementation of the proposed salvage and hazard tree felling actions, but before the area is opened up for personal use firewood collection. WL-7 (South Only). Hazard tree felling, salvage harvest, temporary road construction/ decommissioning, ML1 road reopening/closing shall not be implemented within calving protection areas from May 1 through June 30.


216

Vegetation Management

VM-1. Retain at least the maximum number of snags post-implementation depicted in Table A-6 (USDA Forest Service 2010a, Appendix A) within each size class where available by salvage harvest unit.

Table A-1. Minimum Snags Retained Post-Implementation (derived from Forest Plan, Appendix A Table A-6 for the Salvage [Non-Hazard-Tree] PVGs (PVGs 1-4).

Snag Class PVG 1 PVG 2 PVG 3 PVG 4

Snags/Acre Snags/Acre Snags/Acre Snags/Acre 10–19.9 inches 0.5 2.7 4.1 2.7 >20 inches 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.1 Total 2.8 5.7 6.9 4.8 Minimum Height 15’ 30’ 30’ 30’

• Where large snags (>20 inches dbh) are unavailable, additional snags (>10 inches dbh) shall be retained where available to meet at least the maximum total number snags per acre depicted in Table A-6.

• If substituting smaller snags for the larger (>20 inches dbh) snag class is necessary, the replacements shall consist of snags from the largest diameters available.

• The average diameter of retention snags shall be equal to or greater than the average diameter of salvaged snags (i.e., retained snags will be a representative sample of the range of snag diameter at breast height pre-harvest).

• If a harvest unit includes both hazard tree salvage and salvage outside hazard tree removal areas, then the design feature for minimal snag retention shall be met for the entire harvest unit; however, snags shall be retained in the portion of the unit located away from the open road or trail where hazard trees are a concern.

• Snag species marked for retention will give preference to ponderosa pine first, and then Douglas-fir. In units where ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir are co-dominant, both species will be retained although ponderosa pine representation will be greater. Lodgepole pine snags may also contribute to minimum snags per acre standards in harvest units where lodgepole pine is a major seral component.

• Snags shall be retained in clumps as well as some individuals scattered across the harvest unit.

• A portion of the imminently dead trees (90% probability of mortality) shall be retained onsite to meet the minimum snag retention standard. The ‘portion’ retained should be similar to their representation in the salvage unit (i.e., if 10% of the salvageable trees fall within this group, then approximately 10% of the retained snags would come from this group.

VM-2. Bedding of sheep and salting of livestock in plantations will be prohibited until plantation trees have grown to a size that reduces their susceptibility to damage from livestock (Forest Plan Standard RAST08 [USDA Forest Service 2010a]). Livestock use should be discouraged within


217

plantations until they have been certified, minimizing conflicts as outlined in Design Feature RM-1. VM-3. Livestock use should be discouraged in progeny sites, seed orchards, and plantations that have not been certified (Forest Plan Guideline RAGU06 [USDA Forest Service 2010a, p. III-48]). While livestock are present within the allotment and pasture(s) with reforestation units for up to 5 years following planting, the permittee is required to employ a herder/rider to either ensure livestock are not within reforestation units and/or to push livestock from units. If the permittee cannot keep livestock out of reforestation units, the permittee would be required to take non-use for resource protection in the project area with reforestation units for up to 5 years. Visual Quality

VQ-1. Constructed log landings, roads, gravel pits, borrow areas, and bladed skid trails should be minimized within sensitive view sheds to the maximum extent possible. VQ-2 (South Only). In sensitivity level 1, foreground areas around developed sites and State Highway 21 (e.g., campgrounds, developed viewpoints, trails, and trailheads) stumps should be cut flush within the first 100 feet and 6 inches or less in height from 100 to 300 feet. From sensitivity level 2 trails and yurts, stumps should be cut flush within the first 100 feet and 6 inches or less in height from 100-300 feet; stumps should be cut to 6 inches or less in height within the immediate foreground (300 feet) of roads. Color contrast caused by bright fresh cut stump faces should be reduced by covering or dusting stump faces with a soil or duff material.

Table A-2. Roads and trails by sensitivity level and stump height treatment type Name or Number Facility Type Sensitivity

Level 0–100 feet

Treatment Type 100–300 feet

Treatment Type State Highway 21 State Highway 1 Flush Less than 6 inches Edna Creek CG Campground 1 Flush Less than 6 inches Road 312 NFS Road 2 Less than 6 inches Less than 6 inches Road 316 NFS Road 2 Less than 6 inches Less than 6 inches Road 351 NFS Road 2 Less than 6 inches Less than 6 inches Road 384 NFS Road 2 Less than 6 inches Less than 6 inches Elkhorn Yurt 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Rocky Ridge Yurt 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Skyline Yurt 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Stargaze Yurt 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 700 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 701 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 703 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 704 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 705 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 706 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 707 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 708 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 709 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 710 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches


218

Name or Number Facility Type Sensitivity Level

0–100 feet Treatment Type

100–300 feet Treatment Type

Trail 711 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 712 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 712A03 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 713 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 714 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 715 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 716 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 717 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 718 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 719 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 720 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 722 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 723 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 726 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 729 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches Trail 730 Trail 2 Flush Less than 6 inches

VQ-3. Temporary roads and skid trails should blend into the characteristic landscape of the surrounding area to the maximum extent practicable. To accomplish this blending, practices such as the following should be considered and implemented where applicable:

• Design cut and fill banks to be sloped to accommodate natural revegetation and to reduce sharp contrasts viewed from any distance.

• Where skid trails meet sensitivity level 1 and 2 roads, they should intersect at a right angle and, where practicable, curve within 100 feet from the road to minimize the length of the visible skid trail corridor from the road, and debris should be scattered across the skid trail from the road edge out 50 feet in both directions.

• Where skid trails meet sensitivity level 1 and 2 trails, debris should be scattered across the skid trail from the trail edge out 50 feet in both directions.


219

Appendix B: Cumulative Effects: Present, Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities The National Environmental Policy Act requires analysis and disclosure of potential cumulative effects—the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of an action when added to other relevant past, present (ongoing) and reasonably foreseeable actions (those for which there are existing decisions, funding or identified proposals, but that have not yet been implemented), regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects analysis is carried out in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7 and The Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Memorandum on Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, dated June 24, 2005. Past activities were considered by each resource area assessed in Chapter 3 and are incorporated into the baseline conditions disclosed in the affected environment for each resource. Thus, because past activities are already included in baseline conditions, they are not included in the cumulative effects analysis. More information concerning past activities incorporated into baseline conditions are available in the project record and applicable resource technical reports. Cumulative effects disclosures for each resource addressed in Chapter 3 considered present, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions that fell within the cumulative effects analysis area identified for the resource. Table B-1 identifies the cumulative effects analysis area by resource.

Table B-1. Cumulative Effects Analysis Areas (CEAA) by Resource Resource Sub-resource CEAA Total acres

Air Quality N/A Project area to Airshed 39,100 acres Climate Change N/A Upper, Middle, and Lower Crooked

River; and Pikes Fork Subwatersheds 66,968 acres

Cultural N/A Area of Potential Effect (APE) within Project Area

39,100 acres

Economics N/A Project Area 39,100 acres Fire & Fuels N/A Project Area plus North Pioneer Project

Area 39,100 acres plus

North PA Fisheries N/A Upper, Middle, and Lower Crooked

River; and Pikes Fork Subwatersheds 66,968 acres

Forested Vegetation N/A Upper, Middle, and Lower Crooked River; and Pikes Fork Subwatersheds

66,968 acres

Hydrology N/A Upper, Middle, and Lower Crooked River; and Pikes Fork Subwatersheds

66,968 acres

IRA-Roadless N/A Project Area plus the Ten mile/Black Warrior IRA

39,100 acres 118,813 acres

Minerals N/A Project Area 39,100 acres


220

Resource Sub-resource CEAA Total acres Noxious Weeds N/A Project Area to interactions within Fire

Perimeter 28,007 to

190,000 acres Rangeland N/A Boise Basin and North Fork S&G

allotments 654,099 acres

Rare Plants Rare Plants Project Area and Plant Conservation Areas (PCAs)

39,100 acres

Whitebark pine Project Area plus a 10 Kilometer Buffer 259,668 acres Recreation N/A Project Area 39,100 acres Scenic Resource N/A Project Area 39,100 acres Soils Detrimental Disturbance Activity Area 22,366 acres

Total Soil Resource Commitment

Project Area 39,100 acres

Slope Stability Project Area 39,100 acres Transportation N/A Project Area 39,100 acres Wildlife Lynx

and Wolverine

Pilot/Sunset Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) and

Jackson Peak (LAU) Pilot/Sunset (LAU) Habitat Clear Creek (LAU) Habitat

112,987 acres 112,638 acres 42,963 acres 42,535 acres

Spotted Frog Upper, Middle, and Lower Crooked River; and Pikes Fork Subwatersheds

66,968 acres

Other Species Project Area 39,100 acres

All present, ongoing and foreseeable future actions that fell within these cumulative effect analysis areas (Table B-1) were identified and displayed in Table B-2. Each resource reviewed each of these actions to determine which would be applicable to their respective cumulative effects analysis. Those actions identified by each resource as applicable to their cumulative effects analysis is summarized in Table B-2. This includes those actions proposed in the North Pioneer Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project that a resource specialist determined fell within the extent of their respective cumulative effects area and whose effects overlapped in time and space with those of the proposed action described in Chapter 1 of this document. Some present and ongoing actions have been modified and/or activities listed have been temporary halted due to the Pioneer Fire itself; activities such as grazing, dispersed recreation, public access, fuelwood gathering and Christmas tree cutting have been disrupted but are still considered as present and ongoing. While ongoing projects such as the Becker Integrated Resource Project 2016 will no longer implement the vegetation and fuels reduction actions authorized by those decisions but will continue to implement other aspects of those decisions such as, road reconstruction, road decommissioning, recreational enhancements, improvement to water quality and fish passage, etc. Thus, the actions still to be implemented under these past decisions are included, as applicable, in each resource cumulative effects analysis.

South Pioneer Fire Salvage and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

221

Table B-2. List of the Present, Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities by Resource Area

Project or Activity

In P

roje

ct A

rea?

Air

Qua

lity

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Cul

tura

l

Eco

nom

ics

Fire

& F

uels

Fis

herie

s

For

este

d Ve

geta

tion

Hyd

rolo

gy

IRA

- R

oadl

ess

Min

eral

Nox

ious

Wee

ds

Ran

gela

nd

Rar

e Pl

ants

Rec

reat

ion

Sce

nic

Reso

urce

Soi

ls

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Wild

life

Present/Ongoing Pioneer Fire Management Activities

BAER 2016 - Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation Yes X X X X X X X X X X

Public Safety Closure Orders Yes X X X X X X X

Present/Ongoing Activities

Present/Ongoing Transportation Management Activities

Road Maintenance Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X

Trail Maintenance Yes X X X X X X X X X X

Present/Ongoing Vegetation Management Activities (Harvest, Reforestation, Timber Stand Improvement (TSI))

Buckskin Restoration Project No

Present/Ongoing Prescribed Fire Management Activities

Buckskin Restoration Project No

Present/Ongoing Fire Suppression Activities

Wildfire Suppression Yes X X X X X

Present/Ongoing Range Management Activities

Grazing Yes X X X X X X X X


222

Project or Activity

In P

roje

ct A

rea?

Air

Qua

lity

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Cul

tura

l

Eco

nom

ics

Fire

& F

uels

Fis

herie

s

For

este

d Ve

geta

tion

Hyd

rolo

gy

IRA

- R

oadl

ess

Min

eral

Nox

ious

Wee

ds

Ran

gela

nd

Rar

e Pl

ants

Rec

reat

ion

Sce

nic

Reso

urce

Soi

ls

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Wild

life

Present/Ongoing Noxious Weed Management Activities Weed Treatments Yes X X X X X X X X

Boise County Cooperative Noxious Weed Treatments Yes X X X X X X X

Present/Ongoing Recreation Activities Groomed Snowmachine Routes Yes X X X

Groomed/Un-groomed Ski Trails

Yes X X

Trailhead Maintenance Yes X X X X X X X

Non-motorized Trail Maintenance

Yes X X X X X X X

Motorized Trail Maintenance Yes X X X X X X X X

Cabins, Yurts, Campgrounds Use

Yes X X X X X X X X

General Forest Area Camping Yes X X X X X X X X

IDPR Yurts Maintenance Yes X

Campground maintenance Yes X X X X

Rental Cabin Maintenance Yes X

Public Recreation Activities Yes X X X X X X X X X X

Fuelwood Gathering Yes X X X X X X X X X X

Christmas Tree Program Yes X X X X X X X

Dispersed Recreation and Hunting

Yes X X X X X X X X X X


223

Project or Activity

In P

roje

ct A

rea?

Air

Qua

lity

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Cul

tura

l

Eco

nom

ics

Fire

& F

uels

Fis

herie

s

For

este

d Ve

geta

tion

Hyd

rolo

gy

IRA

- R

oadl

ess

Min

eral

Nox

ious

Wee

ds

Ran

gela

nd

Rar

e Pl

ants

Rec

reat

ion

Sce

nic

Reso

urce

Soi

ls

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Wild

life

Present/Ongoing Special Use Management Activities Lands Special Use, Road or trail authorization - Idaho State School & Hospital, expires 2019

Yes

Lands Special Use, Hospital - Idaho State School & Hospital, expires 2019

Yes

Lands Special Use, Irrigation water transmission pipeline <12" - Idaho State School & Hospital, expires 2019

Yes

Recreation Special Use, Organization camp - Idaho State School & Hospital, expires 2019

Yes

Lands Special Use, Road or trail authorization - Idaho Transportation Department, expires 2019

Yes

Lands Special Use, Stockpile site - Idaho Transportation Department, expires 2019

Yes

Present/Ongoing Mineral Management/Rehabilitation Activities Active Mining Claims Placer and Lode Yes X X X X X X X


224

Project or Activity

In P

roje

ct A

rea?

Air

Qua

lity

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Cul

tura

l

Eco

nom

ics

Fire

& F

uels

Fis

herie

s

For

este

d Ve

geta

tion

Hyd

rolo

gy

IRA

- R

oadl

ess

Min

eral

Nox

ious

Wee

ds

Ran

gela

nd

Rar

e Pl

ants

Rec

reat

ion

Sce

nic

Reso

urce

Soi

ls

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Wild

life

Present/Ongoing Private Land Management Activities Residences/Cabins/Ranches

Landuse - Little BNF data (known uses are limited grazing, wood product production, mining and residences/commercial facilities) also includes state/county uses and other non-USFS federal (Dept. of Energy site at Lowman).

No X X X X

Present/Ongoing Previous NEPA Decisions Becker Integrated Resource Project 2016 Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Present/Ongoing Pioneer Fire Project and Activities

Beaver Creek North Roadside T.S. Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Beaver Creek South Roadside T.S. Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Coulter Roadside T.S. No X X X

Pine Flats T.S. No

BAER 2017 - Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


225

Project or Activity

In P

roje

ct A

rea?

Air

Qua

lity

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Cul

tura

l

Eco

nom

ics

Fire

& F

uels

Fis

herie

s

For

este

d Ve

geta

tion

Hyd

rolo

gy

IRA

- R

oadl

ess

Min

eral

Nox

ious

Wee

ds

Ran

gela

nd

Rar

e Pl

ants

Rec

reat

ion

Sce

nic

Reso

urce

Soi

ls

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Wild

life

Reasonably Foreseeable Activities

Reasonably Foreseeable Vegetation Management Activities (Harvest, Reforestation, Timber Stand Improvement (TSI)) Lowman WUI Corridor No X X

Reasonably Foreseeable Prescribed Fire Activities

Lowman WUI Corridor No X X

Reasonably Foreseeable Special Use Management Activities Keller Outfitter and Guide Special Use Permit - Issuance of a 10-yr special use permit to outfit and guide predator hunting for wolf, cougar and bear.

No X X

Reasonably Foreseeable Mineral Management/Rehabilitation Activities Cumo Exploration No X

Carlin Mineral Exploration Project No X X

Reasonably Foreseeable Private Land Management Activities Residences/Cabins/Ranches Private Land Timber Salvage – Associated with Pioneer Fire No X X X

Reasonably Foreseeable Pioneer Fire Activities North Pioneer Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project EA No X X X X X X X X X X X X

Documents

Chapter 4—Agencies and Persons Consulteda123.g.akamai.net › 7 › 123 › 11558 › abc123 › forestservic... · Blair, S., and G. Servheen. 1995. A Species Conservation Assessment