300R05902B
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Red River
Ranger District
Nez Perce
National Forest
American and
Crcfeed
eject
FEIS Appendices
March 2005
-------
ite
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX A - MAPS
SECTION
Introduction
Action
Watershed
Fisheries
Fire
MAP NUMBER
1
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5a
5b
6a
6b
7a
7b
8a
8b
9a
9b
10a
PROJECT AREA
American and
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
TITLE
American and Crooked River
Project Vicinity
Alternative B: Proposed Harvest
Units, Roadside Salvage,
Temporary Roads, Road
Maintenance, and Road
Decommissioning
Alternative C: Proposed Harvest
units, Roadside Salvage,
Temporary Roads, Road
Maintenance, and Road
Decommissioning
Alternative D: Proposed Harvest
Units, Roadside Salvage,
Temporary Roads, Road
Maintenance, and Road
Decommissioning
Alternative E: Proposed harvest
Units, Roadside Salvage,
Temporary Roads, Road
Maintenance, and Road
Decommissioning
Alternative D: Aquatic Restoration
Activities
Subwatersheds and Stream
network
Fish Distribution and Fish Unroaded
Areas
Fire Regimes
Fire Regime Condition Classes
EXTENT
State and
Forest
Project
Area
Project
Area
Project
Area
Project
Area
Project
Area
Watersheds
Watersheds
Watersheds
Watersheds
Appendix A
Page A-1
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
«W"^<«w*wv^
Transportation (includes
trails)
Vegetation (includes Insects
and Disease, Rare Plants,
Weeds, and Non-Native
Vegetation
Wildlife
10b
11a
11b
12a
12b
13a
13b
14a
14b
15a
15b
16a
16b
17a
17b
18a
18b
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
American River
Crooked River
Current Fuel Models
Road Access, Haul Routes Trails
and Groomed Snowtrails
Pole and Larger Lodgepole Pine
Susceptible to Mountain Pine
Beetle
History of Harvest and Road
Construction Activity
Areas Susceptible to Invasion by
Noxious Weeds
Areas of Weed Spread Risk
Old Growth
Lynx Habitat
Watersheds
Watersheds
Watersheds
Project
Area
Project
Area
Project
Area
Watersheds
Watersheds
Appendix A
Page A-2
-------
American and Crooked River Project Vicinity
Nez Perce National Forest
American River
Rroject^Area
gtogrande
Crooked River
ProjecfA~rea
j:\fsfiles\office\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amertmaps\vicinity.mxd 17 Dec 2004
-------
Alternative B: Proposed Harvest Units, Roadside Salvage, T.moor,,, Road con.tn.cuon
Temporary Roads, Road Maintenance, and Road Decommissioning "^ """Ma|n«™"<*««»*"< f>«
American and Crooked River Project: American River *^" Road D"=<""missioning
m Roadside Salvage
Harvest Units
\~~\ Project Area Boundary
HI Elk City To
I I Private Land Inholdin
[| BLM Lands
Existing Roads
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Road
Other Roads
Community Protection Ar
| _| Inventoried Roadless Areas
F" I Areas with Unroaded Characteristic
WEST MEADOW CREEK IRA
' ) I
': r ^ il n
/['American River Subdivision
i:\f5files\office\proJect_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amerVnaps\altb.mxd 17 Dec 2004
-------
Alternative B: Proposed Harvest Units, Roadside Salvage. Temporary Road construction ^—| ProJectAreaBoimdafy
Temporary Roads, Road Maintenance, and Road Decommissioning ~ Road Malntanance (o'Haut Routes j.»j EtkCityTownshJpBoundary
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River '^ Road Decommissioning ^ Private Land inhoidinga
N ^^1 Roadside Salvage , ,
I 1 BLM Lands
Harvest Units
Existing Roads
cabi.
Ground
0 0-25 0.5 1 1.5
Community Protection Areas
!"""_"_] Inventoried Roadless Areas
I J Areas with Unroaded Characteristics
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
j:\fsliles\oftice\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\altb.mxd 23 Dec 2004
-------
Alternative C: Proposed Harvest Units, Roadside Salvage,
Temporary Roads, Road Maintenance, and Road Decommissioning "^ R»"«.mi«.anc.iorH.uiR
-------
Alternative C: Proposed Harvest Units, Roadside Salvage,
Temporary Roads, Road Maintenance, and Road Decommissioning "^ Boad"='"""»«"lorHauiRoute. J-^-J p'°ie"A""B°™dar,
American and Crooked River Prniert- rmnL-oH Di.,«r -s.. HO.S D.™mmi..i™,^ <-»> Elk cllv T°»"=niP aoun,
II Private Land Inholdings
I I BLM Lands
Existing Roads
American and Crooked Rjver Project: Crooked River
Temporary Road construction
• Road D
|^| Roadside Salvage
Harvest Units
H.I Cable
Ground
Community Protection Areas
L_l~l Inventoried Roadless Areas
fith Unroadet
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
j:\tsfiles\orfice\project_sf_clw\nf rn^riepa\crkd_arner\rriaps\alt_c"rhxd 23'Dec 2004
-------
... .. _ _ , ,. ... — . . . — Temporary Road Construction
Alternative D: Proposed Harvest Units, Roadside Salvage, ^ „„„„ Malnlen,nc. for „.„, HOUM1
Temporary Roads, Road Maintenance, and Road Decommissioning Road Decommissioning
American and Crooked River Project: American River -^, R*quir.d
N
0 0.25 0.5
1:55,000
Discretionary
^^| Roadside Salvage
Harvest Units
Hi Cable
Ground
Q'J Inventoried Roadless Areas
Community Protection Areas
I I Areas with Unroaded Characteristics
I I Project Area Boundary
JHul Elk City Township Boundary
1..' | Private Land Inholdingg
1 | BLM Lands
Existing Roads
<;:^ State Highway
^zs Main County Roads
'~\~* Main Forest Service Roads
•^-s Other Roads
WEST MEADOW CREEK IRA
j:\fsfiles\office\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\alt_d.mxd 21 Dec 2004
-------
Alternative D: Proposed Harvest Units, Roadside Salvage, ^ ^Z^
Temporary Roads, Road Maintenance, and Road Decommissioning Road Decommissioning
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River *-\^ Required
0 0.2S 0.5 1 1.5
1:55,000
Discretionary
^B Roadside Salvage
Harvest Units
•B Cable
Ground
f I Inventoried Roadless Areas
Community Protection Areas
Areas with Unroaded Characteristics
L_'_| Project Area Boundary
lIZlj Elk c'ty Township Boundar
I I Private Land Inholdlngs
I I BLM Lands
Existing Roads
<^\z* State Highway
^\^» Main County Roads
"\*» Main Forest Service Roads
^.^ Other Roads
j:\fsfiles\office\proiecusf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\alt_d.mxd 23 Dec 2004
-------
Alternative E: Proposed Harvest Units, Roadside Salvage,
II Project Area Boundary
Temporary Roads, Road Maintenance, and Road Decommissioning Ro1""""""""'"« fa. H.UI R«,t.. E,kC^
American and Crooked River Project: American River
N
I __ I Private Land In holdings
| ] BLM Lands
Existing Roads
State Highway
Community Protection Areas
| | Areas with Unroaded Characteristics '~^~-^ otner
("~"l Inventoried Roadless Areas
/American River Subdivision
\fsfiles\office\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\alt_e.mxd 21 Dec 2004
-------
Alternative E: Proposed Harvest Units, Roadside Salvage, "v' Te""""arT Hoad c°"'ttaai°" _
Temporary Roads, Road Maintenance, and Road Decommissioning ~ Road H""K"'"" '<" """Routts =,.-
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River *v"r Roali °='°""'"ssi°"""'
H Roadside Salvage
Harvest Units
MM Cable
Ground
Community Protection Areas
Project Area Boundary
"J Elk City Township Boundary
1. 1 Private Land Inholctings
[ I BLM Lands
Existing Roads
'Z^izt State Highway
•:1>«» Main County Roads
^\*s Main Forest Service Roads
| Areas with Unroaded Characteristics '~^~' otner R
I I Inventoried Roadless Areas
i:\[sfiles\oifice\pro]ect_sf_clw\ntma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\alt_e.rnxd 23 Dec 2004^
-------
Alternative D: Aquatic Restoration Activities
American and Crooked River Project: American River
oject Area Boundary
j Elk City Township Boundary
Private Land Inholdinga
| | BLM Lands
Existing Roads
Soil Restoration, required
Soil Restoration, additiona
sioning, required
ing, additional
Minelands Reclamation, required
Recreation and Trail Improvements, required
Soil Restoration, required
Soil Restoration, additional
Recreation and Trail Improvements, required
Recreation and Trail Improvements, additional
Minelands Reclamation, additional
Recreation and Trail Improvements, required
Watershed Road Improvmenls, required
Watershed Road Improvmenis, additional
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other floads
Stream Crossing Improvements, required
Stream Crossing Improvements, additional
in stream Improvements, required
Instream Improvements, additional
This map represents Alternative D and shows
both required concurrent and additional activities. In
Alternative E, all these activities are Included.
Alternatives 8 and C include subsets of these activities.
See Appendix D for specific activities associated with
Alternatives B and C..
-------
Alternative D: Aquatic Restoration Activities
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
©
Minelands Reclamation, required
Recreation and Trail Improvements, required
0 0.25 0.5
Road Decommissioning, required
Road Decommissioning, additional
Walershed Road Improvments, required
Watershed Road Improvments. additional
mis, required | | Minelands Reclamation, additional
^H Recreation and Trail Improvements, required
Recreation and Trail Improvements, required
Recreation and Trail Improvements, additional
Watershed Road Improver
1 V.5
• Miles
Soil Resioration, required
y Soil Restoration, additional
Soil Restoration, required
Soil Resioration, additional
• Stream Crossing Improvements, required
O Stream Crossing Improvements, additional
*\^ Instream Improvements, required
, Instream Improvements, additional
m Project Area Boundary
4wJ Elk City Township Boundary
Ijffi'l Private Land Inholdinga
|] BLM Lands
Existing Roads
^\sf State Highway
^\af Main County Roads
*^\^ Main Forest Service Roads
'~\^s Otfier Roads
This map represents Alternative D and shows
both required concurrent and additional activities. In
Alternative E, all these activities are included.
Alternatives B and C include subsets of these activities.
See Appendix D for specific activities associated with
Alternatives B and C..
(sfiles\office\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\altd_aq_rest.mxd 7 Jan 2005
-------
Subwatersheds and Stream Network
American and Crooked River Project: American River
1 I Project Area Boundary
P Elk City Township Boundary
Private Land Inholdlngs
| | BLM Lands
Existing Roads
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
/QUEEN CREEK
170603050513'
\fsfiles\office\proiect_sf_clwVnfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\subwatersheds.mxd 23 Dec 2004
-------
Subwatersheds and Stream Network
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
Project Area Boundary
ElkClty Township Boundary
Private Land Inholdlngs
[ J BLM Lands
Existing Roads
WEST FORK CROCKED
5030i6\
"UPPER CROOKED RIV
/170603D50305
I:\fsfiles\office\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\map5\subwatersheds.mxd 23 Dec 2004
-------
Fish Distribution and Fish Unroaded Areas
American and Crooked River Project: American River
West slop* Cutthroat Trout
Steelhead and Rcdband Tro
Spring Chinook
Bull Trout
Brook Trout
Project Area
Watershed Boundary
Fish Unroaded Areas
II! Elk City Township Boundary
I I BLM Land
Existing Roads
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
\fstiles\oHice\proiect_sLclw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amerVnaps\tish_distribution.mxd 23 Dec 2004
-------
Fish Distribution and Fish Unroaded Areas
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
Weslslope Cutthroat Trout
Steelhead and Redband Tro
Spring Chinook
Bull Trout
Brook Trout
Project Area
Watershed Boundary
Fish Unroaded Areas
•..! Elk City Township Boundary
Private Land Inholdings
| | BUM Lands
Existing Roads
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
i:Vfsfiles\office\project,sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\fish_distribution.mxd23 Dec 2004
-------
Fire Regimes
American and Crooked River Project: American River
Project Area Boundary
Elk City Township Boundary
BLM Lands
Existing Roads
Stand replacement, long inte
Stand replacement, short Into
[ I Stand replacement, short Inte
. Mixed severity, high elevation
[__] Mixed severity, long Interval
Mixed severity, short Interval
_ Mixed severity, short Interval,
I | Non-lethal
Water
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roada
Other Roads
-------
Fire Regimes
American and Crooked Riyer Project: Crooked River
I"""! Project Area Boundary
Elk City Township Boundary
I I BLM Lands
Existing Roads
Stand replacement, long Interval
Stand replacement, short interval
[~~] Stand repl
gjj Mixed severity, high elevation
I | Mixed severity, long Interval
| | Mixed severity, short Interval
f 1 Mixed severity, short Interval, non-forest
r~~] Non-lethal
•• Water
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roods
0 0.35 0.7 1.4
1:75,000
iAtsfiles^fficeXproiect^sLclw^fmajepaXcrkd.amerVnapsUire^eginies.mxd 27 Dec 2004{^
-------
Fire Regime Condition Classes
American and Crooked River Project: American River
I I Project Area Boundary
ZiiP Elk Clty TownshlP Boundary
I | BLM Lands
Existing Roads
Fire Regime Condition Class
i||| High Departure
\ _\ Moderate Depart
["_'"| Low Departure
•^•1 Water
State Highway
«^ Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Road
Other Roads i
j:\tsfiles\oftice\project_sLclw\n{ma_nepaVcrkd^arner\maps\trcc.mxd 27 Dec 2QQ4
-------
Fire Regime Condition Classes
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
I I Project Area Boundary
j| Elk City Township Boundary
I I B1JYI Lands
Existing Roads
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
[TL ^j^Sohers Mountain
X-Ihn \
i:\fsfiie5\office\project_st_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\frcc.mxd 27 Dec 2004
-------
Current Fuel Models
American and Crooked River Project: American River
N
+
Current Fuel Models
1 - Grassland
2 - Open (oresl and gras;
&&J 3-Wetmeadow
HHI 4 - Dense regeneration
|~~~| Project Area Boundary
|—,J Elk City Township Boundary
fa^j Private Land Inholdlngs
! i BLM Lands
5 - Shrub, herb and regeneration Existing Roads
6 • Low flammablllty „
10-Hea»y.uel forested ^ State Highway
^%v Main County Roads
^\^f Main Forest Service Roads
-~\_/ other Roads
13 -Heavy slash
j:\fsfiles\office\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\fueLmodels_cur.mxd 23 Dec 2
-------
Current Fuel Models
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
I_JJ Project Area Boundary
Elk City Township Boundary
Private Land Inholdings
| 1 BLM Lands
Existing Roads
1 - Grassland
2 - Open forest and grass
3 - Wet meadow
4 - Dense regeneration
5 - Shrub, herb and regeneratio
8 - Low flammability
10-Heavy fuel forested
13-Heavy slash
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
-------
Road Access, Haul Routes, Trails, and Groomed Snowtrails
American and Crooked River Project: American River
p ^ Project Area Boundary
j Ell< citV Township Boundary
Private Land Inholdings
[ "'1 BLM Lands
Existing Roads
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
..
'-'
J?. ,,Gen1er Star Mountain
i:\fsfiles\ofiice\project_sLclw\nfma_nepa\crkd_ainer\fnaps\transportation.mxd 7 Jan 2004
-------
Road Access, Haul Routes, Trails, and Groomed Snowtrails
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
Project Area Boundary
Elk City Township Boundary
Private Land Inholdlngs
I | BLM Lands
Existing Roads
% '-- \ '--- <-
3cl_sLclw\ntma_nepa\crkd,amer\maps\lransporlatlon.mxd 7 Jan 2004
-------
Pole and Larger Lodgepole Pine Susceptible to Mountain Pine Beetle mm Polfl and larger ,odgep0|fl pina Q projec
American and Crooked River Project: American River r"l watershed Boundaries CS Elk Citv Townsh'p
Private Land Inholdlngs
| | BLM Unda
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
\f5liles\ofllce\proiecL5l_clw\ntma_nepa\crKd_ameAmaps\lpp_risk.nixd 27 Dec 2004
-------
Pole and Larger Lodgepole Pine Susceptible to Mountain Pine Beetle
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
0 0.5 1
ratmit^l,Mffa.tk
Water5heii Boundaries
i.,,1 Elk City Township Boundary
HI Private Land Inholdings
I I BLH Lands
Existing Roads
*\tt State Highway
•""V^ Main County Roads
^\* Main Forest Service Roads
f~^< Other Roads
j:\fsfiles\Qffice\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\cn
-------
History of Harvest and Road Construction Activity
American and Crooked River Project: American River
Project Area Boundary
Elk City Township Boundary
Private Land Inholdings
BLM Lands
Existing Roads
Road Construction by Decade
Harvest by Decade
I I pre-1960
I I 1960s
BH 1970s
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
2000s
Time of harvest Is not displayed
tsfiles\oftice\proiect_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\harvest_history.mxd 7 Jan 2004
-------
History of Harvest and Road Construction Activity
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
N
+
Harvest by Decade
e-1960
I I
I I
970s
980s
Road Construction by Decade
£=^ pre-1960
^^f 1960s
<^^ 1970s
C^^ 1980s
<*%^ 1990s
*"X* 2000s
**N_/ Construction year not known
n Project Area Boundary
^•Ti'J Elk City Township Boundary
HHJ Private Land Inholdings
j ] BLM Lands
Existing Roads
^%* State Highway
r\^t Main County Roads
•^^ Main Forest Service Roads
'"X_x Other Roads
t sf clwAnfma nepa\crkd_amer\maps\harvest_history.mxd 7 Jan 2004
-------
Areas Susceptible to Invasion by Noxious Weeds
American and Crooked River Project: American River
J I Project Area Boundary
TJ Elk City Township Boundary
Existing Roads
**^^ State Highway
'"Nur Main County Roads
*~\*> Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
0 0,25 0.5 1 1-5 2
j:\fstiles\office\project_st_ciw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\weed_susc.mxd 28 Dec 200
-------
Areas Susceptible to Invasion by Noxious Weeds
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
I I Project Area Boundary
Elk City Township Boundary
Existing Roads
F^* State Highway
^N^r Main County Roads
''%_, Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
i:\fstiles\office\proiect_sLclw\nftna_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\weed_susc.mxd28 Dec
-------
[ I Areas of Moderate Weed Spread Risk l~~l Project Area Boundary
Areas of Weed Spread Risk
American and Crooked River Project: American River
"0 Elk City Township Boundary
HI Private Land Inholdings
p1 1 BLM Lands
Existing Roads
Alternative D Proposed Units
Alternative D Temporary Roada
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Road
Other Roads
i:\fstiles\oHice\project_sf,clw\nfma_nepa\crkdjamer\maps\weed_spread_risk.mxd26 Dec
-------
Areas of Weed Spread Risk
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
Areas of Moderate Weed Spread Risk I I Project Area Boundary
-(J Elk City Township Boundary
Private Land Inholdlngs
BLM Lands
Existing Roads
r\,t State Highway
'"X* Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
Alternative D Proposed Units
Alternative D Temporary Roads
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
1:55,000
\fsfiles\office\proiect_sf_clw\ntma_nepa\crkd_arner\maps\weed_spread_risk.mxd 28 Dec 2004
-------
Old Growth
American and Crooked River Project: American River
I | Project Area Boundary
k City Township Boundary
MBI Private Land Inholdlngs
I I BLM Lands
Existing Roads
Existing Old Growth, Forest Plan Definition
Existing Old Growth, North Idaho Definition
I I Replacement Old Growth
j:\isfiles\office\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\jnaps\old_growth.mxd 28 Dec 2004
-------
Old Growth
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
N
+
0 0.375 0.75
H Existing Old Growth, Forest Plan Definition I I Project Area Boundary
Hi Existing Old Growth, North Idaho Definition |!Z|1 Elk City Township Boundary
I | Replacement Old Growth feW Private Land tnholdings
I 1 BLM Lands
Existing Roads
'V* State Highway
'"N^ Main County Roads
*\^ Main Forest Service Roads
r~~\-s Other Roads
i:\fsfiiesVoffice\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\old_growlh.mxd 28 Dec 2004
-------
Lynx Habitat
American and Crooked River Project: American River
IN
+
Lynx Habitat
I • I Denning
(•V^l Foraging
I I Unsuitable
I I Not habitat
II Project Area Boundary
|—,J Elk City Township Boundary
Existing Roads
*V* State Highway
^W Main County Roads
*"Xx Main Forest Service Roads
'^^-^ Other Roads
Q 0.5 1
•i j:\fsfiles\office\project_sf_clw\nfma_nepa\crkd_amer\maps\lynx_habitat.mxd 28 Dec 2004
-------
Lynx Habitat
I"""'' I Denning
Foraging
I I Unsuitable
I I Nothabital
Project Area Boundary
Elk City Township Boundary
Existing Roads
Lynx Habitat
American and Crooked River Project: Crooked River
State Highway
Main County Roads
Main Forest Service Roads
Other Roads
pa\crkd_amer\maps\lyn
-------
APPENDIX B - GLOSSARY
Term
Abiotic
ACHP
Active Nest
ADA
Affected
environment
Age class
Air Quality
Airshed
Alternative
Alternative, No
Action
Anadromous Fish
ANILCA
Animal Unit Month
(AUM)
Apparent
Naturalness
AQMP
AQRVs
Aquatic
Ecosystem
ARPA
Aspect
ASQ (allowable
sale quantity)
Authorized Officer
Background
Viewing Area
Definition
Non-living. Climate is an abiotic component of ecosystems.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
A nest with an adult pair present at least 1 year within a period of 5 consecutive
years.
American with Disabilities Act
The natural environment that exists at the present time in an area being
analyzed. The environment of the area to be affected or created by the
alternatives under consideration.
An age grouping of trees of according to an interval of years, usually 20 years. A
single age class would have trees that are within 20 years of the same age, such
as 1-20 years or 21-40 years.
Refers to air standards for various classes of air as designated by the Clean Air
Act, P.L. 88-206: Jan. 1978. Airshed Basic geographic units in which air quality
is managed.
A geographic area that shares the same air.
A combination of management prescriptions applied in specific amounts and
locations to achieve a desired management emphasis as expressed in goals and
objectives. One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for decision.
An alternative that maintains current established trends or management
direction.
Fish that migrate from salt water seas up fresh water streams to reproduce.
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
The quantity of forage required by one mature cow and her calf (or the
equivalent, in sheep or horses, for instance) for one month.
Roadless area characteristic defined as an indicator of whether an area appears
natural to most people who are using the area. It is a measure of importance of
visitors' perception of human impacts to the area. There may be some human
impact, but it would not be obvious to the casual observer and the area would
have the appearance of being affected only by the forces of nature.
Air Quality Management Plan
Air Quality Related Values
A stream channel, lake or estuary bed, the water itself, and the biotic
communities that occur therein.
Archaeological Resource Protection Act
The direction a slope faces. A hillside facing east has an eastern aspect.
The amount of timber that may be sold within a certain time period from an area
of suitable land. The suitability of the land and the time period are specified in
the Forest Plan.
The Forest Service employee delegated Officer given the authority to perform a
duty described in these rules. A Regional Forester, Forest Supervisor, District
Ranger depending on the scope and level of the duty to be performed.
A landscape viewing area visible to a viewer from approximately three to five
miles to infinity.
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
BACT
Bark beetle
Basal area (BA)
Best Available
Science
Best Management
Practices (BMPs)
Big Game
Biodiversity
Biological
Assessment (BA)
Definition
Best Available Control Technology
An insect that bores through the bark of forest trees to eat the inner bark and lay
its eggs. Bark beetles are important killers of forest trees.
The area of the cross section of a tree trunk near its base, usually 4 and Vz feet
above the ground. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is
occupied by trees. The term basal area is often used to describe the collective
basal area of trees per acre.
The Responsible Official has considered the best available science, also
considering public input, competing use demands, budget projections, and other
factors. Consideration of science has included:
• Surveying a wide range of available scientific information, including both
published material, historical data, and agency surveys and reports to
develop a comprehensive basis for analysis of important issues.
• Using best available data and models at appropriate scales, on the basis of
internal review and consultation.
• Evaluating and disclosing limitations of data and models.
• Evaluating and disclosing substantial risks associated with project actions
based on that science, and identifying the ecosystem components at risk.
• Considering and disclosing uncertainties and opposing viewpoints in
scientific literature pertinent to project development and effects analysis.
• Independent peer review and other appropriate review to evaluate the
application of science.
• These considerations are adapted from proposed Forest Planning Rule
219.11: Consideration of science in planning; Federal Register Volume 59,
No. 126: Notice of interagency cooperative policy on information standards
under the Endangered Species Act; Final ESA Consultation Handbook,
March 1998, pages 1-6 on best available scientific and commercial data; and
relevant court decisions. Each consideration is discussed in the individual
resource analysis to the degree the issues merit.
The set of management practices that, when applied during implementation of a
project, ensures that water-related beneficial uses are protected and that state
water quality standards are met.
Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting
resource.
The variety of life in an area, including the variety of genes, species, plant, and
animal communities, and ecosystems, as well as the interactions of these
elements.
A stand alone document that reviews all Forest Service planned, funded,
executed, or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on federally
listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species as identified for
the cumulative effects area in coordination with the USFWS. A Biological
Assessment is used to satisfy consultation requirements with the USFWS for
projects requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. (Reference: Sec. 7,
ESA; 50 CFR, 402.12, 1508.7, 1508.25, and
1508.27.) The Biological Assessment displays the Determination of Effects for
the DEIS or FEIS preferred alternative. The Determination of Effects
(Salwasser, et al. Aug. 17, 1995) is limited to: (1) No Effect; (2) Mav effect - Not
Appendix B
Page B-2
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Biological
Evaluation (BE)
Biological Opinion
Biomass
Biota
BLM
BMPs
Board foot
Broadcast burn
Buffer
Bureau of Land
Management
(BLM)
CAA
Cable logging
Canopy
Definition
likely to adversely affect (NLAA); (3) *May effect - Likely to adversely affect
(LAA); and (4) Beneficial effect.
* = Considered a trigger for a significant action.
Documentation on USFS sensitive species (animal and plant) contained within
an EIS. Documentation includes a review of USFS sensitive species present,
their habitat, and addresses and identifies the Determination of Effects on these
species. The USFWS review of the biological evaluation is addressed through
public scoping and conducted in conjunction with overall agency review of the
DEIS. Reference FSM 2673.4 - Biological Evaluations for Sensitive Species.
Opinions in the determination of impacts
to sensitive species (Salwasser, et al. Aug. 17,1995) are limited to: (1) Nl = No
impact; (2) MIIH = 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; (3) *WIFV = Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that
the action
may contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the
population of species; and (4) Bl = Beneficial impact.
* = Trigger for a significant action as defined in NEPA.
An official report by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued in response
to a formal Forest Service request for consultation or conference. It states
whether an action is likely to result in jeopardy to a species or adverse
modification to its critical habitat.
The total weight of all living organisms in a biological community.
Living. Green plants and soil micro-organisms are biotic components of
ecosystems
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Best Management Practices
A measurement term for lumber or timber. It is the amount of wood contained in
an unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide.
A prescribed fire that burns a designated area. These controlled fires can
reduce wildfire hazards, improve forage for wildlife and livestock, or encourage
successful regeneration of trees.
A land area that is designated to block or absorb unwanted impacts to the area
beyond the buffer. Buffer strips along a trail could block views that may be
undesirable. Buffers may be set-aside next to wildlife habitat to reduce abrupt
change to the habitat.
The Department of Interior agency responsible for managing most federal
government subsurface minerals.
Clean Air Act
Logging that involves the transport of logs from stump to collection points by
means of suspended steel cables. Cable logging reduces the need for the
construction of logging roads.
The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually refers
to the uppermost layer of foliage, but it can be used to describe lower layers in a
multi-storied forest.
Appendix B
Page B-3
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
lerm
Definition
Capability
The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and
services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management
practices and at a given level of management intensity. Capability depends
upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform,
soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as
silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease.
Cave
The term "cave" means any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of
interconnected passages that occurs beneath the surface of the earth or within a
cliff or ledge (including any cave resource therein, but not including any mine,
tunnel, aqueduct, or other manmade excavation) and that is large enough to '
permit an individual to enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or
manmade. Such term shall include any natural pit, sinkhole, or other feature that
is an extension of the entrance. (Source: Federal Cave Resource Protection Act
of 1988.)
Cave Resource
The term "cave resource" includes any material or substance occurring naturally
in caves on federal lands, such as animal life, plant life, paleontological deposits,
sediments, minerals, speleogens, and speleothems. (Source: Federal Cave
Resource Protection Act of 1988.) See also July 1, 1994, CFR 36, Part 261-
Prohibitions [specifically 261.8 (e), 261.9 G), 261.10 (d)(3), and 261.10 (n)] and
290-Cave Resource Management.
Cavity
A hole in a tree'often used by wildlife species, usually birds, for nesting, roosting,
and reproduction.
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
Classified Road
Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands that
are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including state
roads, county roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and
other roads authorized by the Forest Service.
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law that protects our nation's waters,
including lakes, rivers, aquifers, and coastal areas.
Clear cut
A harvest in which all or almost all of the trees are removed in one cutting.
Climax
The culminating stage in plant succession for a given site. Climax vegetation is
stable and self-reproducing.
Closure
'he administrative order that does not allow specified users in designated areas
or on Forest development roads or trails.
Code of Federal
Regulation (CFR)
Regulations developed at the Department level for the specific implementation of
a Public Law.
Composition
What an ecosystem is composed of. Composition could include water, minerals,
trees, snags, wildlife, soil, micro-organisms, and certain plant species.
Conifer
A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, spruce, or fir tree
Connected
Actions
A connected action is one type of action considered in determining the scope of
the Proposed Action. Connected actions are actions that closely relate and
therefore should be discussed in the same EIS (40 CFR 1508.29(i)(ii)(iii)).
Actions are connected if they:
(i) Automatically trigger other actions that may require environmental impact
statements.
(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or
Appendix B
Page B-4
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Connectivity
Connectivity (of
habitats)
Consumptive use
Contour
Contrast
Corridor
Cost
Council on
Environmental
Quality (CEQ)
County Road
Cover
Cover type (forest
cover type)
Created opening
Critical Habitat
Crown
Definition
simultaneously.
(iii) Are interdependent parts of larger actions and depend on the larger action
for their justification.
Condition in which the spatial arrangements of land cover types allows
organisms and ecological processes (such as disturbance) to move across the
landscape. Connectivity is the opposite of fragmentation.
The linkage of similar but separated vegetation stands by patches, corridors, or
"stepping stones" of like vegetation. This term can also refer to the degree to
which similar habitats are linked.
Use of resources that reduces the supply, such as logging and mining
A line drawn on a map connecting points of the same elevation.
The effect of a striking difference in the form, line, color, or texture of an area
being viewed.
Elements of the landscape that connect similar areas. Streamside vegetation
may create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows were wildlife
feed.
The negative or adverse effects of expenditures resulting from an action. Costs
may be monetary, social, physical, or environmental in nature.
An advisory council to the President established by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1 969. It reviews federal programs for their effect on the
environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on
' environmental matters.
A road under the jurisdiction of the county.
Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish. Cover may be dead or live vegetation,
boulders, or undercut stream banks. Animals use cover to escape from
predators rest, or feed.
Stands of particular vegetation types that are composed of similar species.
An opening in the forest cover created by the application of even-aged
silvicultural practices.
Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which
are found those physical and biological features (1) essential to the conservation
of the species, and (2) that may require special management considerations or
protection. Critical habitat shall not include the entire geographic area that can
be occupied by the threatened and/or endangered species.
The part of a tree or woody plant bearing live branches and foliage.
Dominant - Trees with crowns extending above the general level of the main
canopy of even-aged groups of trees, and receiving full light from above and
partly from the sides.
Co-dominant - Trees with crowns forming the general level of the main canopy
in even-aged groups of trees, receiving full light from above and comparatively
little from the sides.
Intermediate - Trees with crowns extending into the lower portion of the main
canopy of even-aged groups of trees, but shorter in height than the co-
dominants. They receive little direct light from above and none from the sides.
Overtopped (Suppressed) - Trees of varying levels of vigor that have their
crowns completely covered by the crowns of one or more neighboring trees.
Appendix B
Page B-5
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Cultural resource
Cumulative effects
Cumulative
Effects Analysis
Cumulative Impact
CWA
CWE
dbh
DEIS
Desired future
condition
Developed
Recreation
Diameter of
Breast Height
Direct Effects
Dispersed
recreation
Displacement
District Ranger
Disturbance
Diversity
Draft
Environmental
Impact Statement
Duration
Definition
The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past; this can
be historical or pre-historic.
Effects on the environment that result from separate, individual actions that,
collectively, become significant over time
An analysis of the effects of the environment that results from the incremental
impact of a proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal), or
person undertakes such other actions.
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 regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes
such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time
Clean Water Act
Cumulative Watershed Effects
Diameter at Breast Height: The diameter of a tree 4 and 1/2 feet above the
ground on the uphill side of the tree.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - The draft version of the Environmental
Impact Statement that is released to the public and other agencies for review
and comment.
Land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and objectives
are fully achieved.
Recreation that occurs where improvements have been added to enhance
recreation opportunities and accommodate intensive recreation activities in a
defined area.
The standard method for measuring tree diameter at 4 V* feet from the ground.
Also known as dbh.
Effects on the environment that occur at the same time and
place as the initial cause or action.
Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site, such as hunting,
backpacking, and scenic driving.
As applied to wildlife, forced shifts in the patterns of wildlife use, either in location
or timing of use.
The official responsible for administering the National Forest System lands on a
Ranger District.
Any event, such as forest fire or insect infestations that alter the structure,
composition, or functions of an ecosystem.
(1) The relative abundance of wildlife species, plant species,
communities, habitats, or habitat features per unit of area. (2)
The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal
communities and species within the area covered by a Land
and Resource Management Plan.
(DEIS) A detailed written statement as required by Sec. 102 (2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The length of time management activity and its impacts will be taking place.
Appendix B
Page B-6
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
EA
EC
Ecology
Ecoregion
Ecosystem
Ecosystem
management
Ecosystem
Structure
Edge
Effects (also see
Impacts)
EIS
Endangered
species
Endemic
Endemic
plant/organism
Enhancement
Environmental
Analysis
Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Environmental
Impact Statement
(EIS)
Definition
Environmental Assessment
Existing Conditions
The interrelationships of living things to one another and to their environment, or
the study of these interrelationships.
An area over which the climate is sufficiently uniform to permit development of
similar ecosystems on sites that have similar properties. Ecoregions contain
many landscapes with different spatial patterns of ecosystems.
An arrangement of living and non-living things and the forces that move among
them. Living things include plants and animals. Non-living parts of ecosystems
may be rocks and minerals. Weather and wildfire are tow of the forces that act
within ecosystems.
An ecological approach to natural resource management to assure productive,
healthy ecosystems by blending social, economic, physical, and biological needs
and values.
The physical arrangement of the various components. In addition, trophic
(nourishing) structure; measured in standing crop or energy fixed per unit area
per unit time. May be pyramids of numbers, biomass, or energy flows.
The margin where two or more vegetation patches meet, such as a meadow
opening next to a mature forest stand, or a ponderosa pine stand next to an
aspen stand.
Physical, biological, social, and economic results (expected or experienced)
resulting from achievement of outputs. Effects can be direct, indirect, and
cumulative and may be either beneficial or detrimental. (See Impacts)
Environmental Impact Statement (under NEPA)
A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Endangered species are identified by the Secretary of the
Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Restricted to a specified region or locality.
A plant or animal that occurs naturally in a certain region and whose distribution
is relatively limited geographically.
A short-term visual resource management objective aimed at increasing positive
visual variety where little variety now exists.
An analysis of alternatives actions and their predictable short- and long-term
environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, social, and
environmental design factors and their interactions. Completion of this level of
analysis may result in a Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
A concise public document prepared to provide sufficient evidence and analysis
for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a
finding of no significant impact. It includes a brief discussion of the need for the
proposal, alternatives considered, environmental impact of the proposed action
and alternatives, and a list of agencies and individuals consulted.
A formal public document prepared to analyze and disclose the impacts on the
environment of the proposed project or action and alternatives.
Appendix B
Page B-7
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Environmental
Justice
EO
EPA
Ephemeral
Stream
Erosion
Erosion Hazard
ESA
ESC
Even-aged
Even-aged
management
Executive Orders
11 990 and 11988
Existing Old
Growth
Existing Scenic
Condition
Exotic
Fauna
FEIS
FEIS Database
Felling
Final cut
Final
Environmental
Impact Statement
(FEIS)
Fire Effects
Information
System (FEIS)
Definition
When environmental effects do not disproportionately affect minority or low-
income communities.
Executive Order
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation and whose channel is
at all times above the water table.
(1) The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other
geological agents, including such processes as gravitational creep. (2)
Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or
gravity.
The probability of soil loss resulting from complete removal of vegetation and
litter. It is an interpretation based on potential soil loss in relation to tolerance
values.
Endangered Species Act
Existing Scenic Condition
A stand of trees that originated at a single point in time, so that the individual
trees are approximately the same age or a regeneration system designed to
produce such a stand.
Timber management actions that result in the creation of stands of trees in which
the trees are essentially the same age.
.The purpose of these executive orders is to avoid to the extent possible the long-
and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification
of wetlands and floodplains.
Individual stands on a national forest currently recognized as meeting the
parameters of the old-growth operational definitions.
Current Scenic Condition of the Forest.
Foreign, not native.
The animal life of an area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
See 'Fire Effects Information System'
Cutting down trees.
The removal of the last seed bearers or shelter trees after regeneration of new
trees has been established in a stand being managed under the shelterwood
system of silviculture.
The final version of the public document required by NEPA.
FEIS provides up-to-date information about fire effects on plants and animals. It
was developed at the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula,
Montana.
The FEIS database contains literature reviews, taken from current English-
language literature of almost 900 plant species, about 100 animal species, and
16 Kuchler plant communities found on the North American continent. The
Appendix B
Page B-8
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Fire regime
Fire severity
ratings
Fisheries
Definition
emphasis of each review is fire and how it affects each species. Background
information on taxonomy, distribution, basic biology, and ecology of each
species is also included. Reviews are thoroughly documented, and each
contains a complete bibliography. Managers from several land management
agencies (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United
States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service) identified the
species to be included in the database. Those agencies funded the original work
and continue to support maintenance and updating of the database.
FEIS staff accessions current English-language literature for FEIS literature
reviews by searching scientific abstracts including Agricola, Current Contents,
Current Titles in Wildland Fire, Ecodisc, Ecological Abstracts, Forestry Abstracts,
Georef, and Water Resources Abstracts. Tables of Content from reefed
scientific journals and government publication lists are also regularly searched
for pertinent literature.
The characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, such as the frequency,
predictability, intensity, and seasonality of fire.
• Low Fire Severity: Low soil heating, or light ground char, occurs where litter
is scorched, charred, or consumed, but the duff is left largely intact, although
it can be charred on the surface. Woody debris accumulation are partially
consumed or charred. Mineral soil is not changed. Fire severity in forest
ecosystems is low if the litter and duff layers are scorched or not altered over
the entire depth. The surface is mostly black in a shrubland or grassland
ecosystem, although gray ash can be present for a short time. Soil
temperatures at 1 cm are less than 50 C. Lethal temperatures for soil
organisms occur down to depths of about 1 cm.
• Moderate Fire Severity: Moderate soil heating, or moderate ground char,
occurs where the litter on forest sites is consumed and the duff is deeply
charred or consumed, but the underlying mineral soil surface is not visibly
altered. Light colored ash is present. Woody debris is mostly consumed,
except for logs, which are deeply charred. On shrubland or grassland sites,
gray or white ash is present and char can be visible in the upper 1 cm of
mineral soil, but the soil is not altered. Soil temperatures at the 1 cm depth
can reach 100 to 200 C. Lethal temperatures for soil organisms occur down
to depths of 3 to 5 cm.
• High Fire Severity: High soil heating, or deep ground char, occurs, where the
duff is completely consumed and the top of the mineral soils is visibly reddish
or orange on severely burned sites. Color of the soil below 1 cm is darker or
charred form organic material. The char layer can extend to a depth of 10
cm or more. Logs can be consumed or deeply charred, and deep ground
char can occur under slash concentrations or burned out logs. Soil texture in
the surface layers is changed and fusion evidenced by clinkers can be
observed locally. All shrub stems are consumed and only the charred
remains of large stubs may be visible. Soil temperatures at 1 cm are greater
than 250 C. Lethal temperatures for soil organisms occur down to depths of
9 to 16cm.
(Debano, etal, 1998)
Resident and anadromous fish species.
Appendix B
Page B-9
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Fisheries habitat
Flood plain
Flora
Forage
Forb
Foreground
Forest
Forest and
Rangeland
Renewable
Resources
Planning Act of
1974 (RPA)
Forest cover type
Forest
Development
Transportation
System
Forest health
Forest land
Forest Plan
Forest roads and
trails
Forest Service
(FS)
Forest Supervisor
Form
Formation
Definition
Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish, or have the potential to support
fish.
Lowland adjoining a watercourse. At a minimum, the area is subject to a 1
percent or greater chance of flooding in a given year.
The plant life of an area.
All browse and non-woody plants that are eaten by wildlife and livestock
A broadleaf plant that has little or no woody material in it.
One of the distance zones of a landscape being viewed. A distance that details
can be perceived, normally within one quarter to one-half mile of the viewer.
Must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
An area of trees with overlapping crowns (generally forming a 60 to 100 percent
cover).
The parent act that preceded Forest Planning. This act directed that the
National Forest System begin systematic resource planning on the National
Forest units.
See cover type.
Those facilities, Forest Development Roads, trails, and airfields, in the
transportation network and under Forest Service jurisdiction.
A measure of the robustness of forest ecosystems. Aspects of forest health
include biological diversity; soil, air, and water productivity; natural disturbances;
and the capacity of the rest to provide a sustaining flow of goods and services for
people.
Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having
had such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest use. Lands
developed for non-forest use include areas for crops, improved pasture,
residential, or administrative areas, improved roads of any width, and adjoining
road clearing and powerline clearing of any width.
A comprehensive management plan prepared under the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 that provides standards and guidelines for
management activities on the Forest.
Roads and trails under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.
The agency of the United States Department of Agriculture responsible for
managing National Forests and Grasslands.
The official responsible for administering National Forest lands on an
administrative unit, usually one or more National Forests. The Forest Supervisor
reports to the Regional Forester.
The mass of an object or objects that appears visually unified.
A body of rock identified by lithic (stone) characteristics and stratigraphic (rock
strata) position; it is prevailingly, but not necessarily tabular, and is mapable at
the earth's surface or traceable in the subsurface.
Appendix B
PageB-10
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
FP
Fragmentation
Frost heave
FSM
Fuelbreak
Fuels
Fuels
management
Fuelwood
Function
Future Old Growth
FWS
FY
Game Species
Geology
Geomorphic
processes
Geomorphology
CIS (geographic
information
systems)
Goal
Ground fire
Ground water
Group selection
Guilds
Habitat
Definition
Forest Plan
The splitting or isolating of patches of similar habitat, typically forest cover, but
including other types of habitat. Habitat can be fragmented naturally or from
forest management activities, such as clearcut logging
A land surface that is pushed up by the accumulation of ice in the underlying soil
Forest Service Manual
A linear corridor in which vegetation is modified to prevent fires from easily
crossing.
Plants and woody vegetation, both living and dead, that are capable of burning
The treatment of fuels that would otherwise interfere with effective fire
management or control. For instance, prescribed fire can reduce the amount of
fuels that accumulate on the forest floor before the fuels become so heavy that a
natural wildlife in the area would be explosive and impossible to control
Wood cut into short lengths for burning
All the processes within an ecosystem through which the elements interact, such
as succession, the food chain, fire, weather, and the hydrologic cycle
Areas on national forests that have been allocated to old-growth restoration
through land management decisions.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Fiscal Year
Any species of wildlife or fish for which seasons and bag limits have been
prescribed under state or federal laws, codes, and regulations, and that are
normally harvested by hunting, trapping, and fishing
The study of the planet Earth. It is concerned with the origin of the planet, the
material and morphology of the Earth, and its history and the processes that
acted (and act) upon it to affect its historic and present forms
Processes that change the form of the earth, such as volcanic activity, running
water, and glacial action.
The science that deals with the relief features of the earth's surface
CIS is both a database designed to handle geographic data as well as a set of
computer operations that can be used to analyze the data. In a sense, GIS can
be thought of as a higher order map.
A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved sometime
in the future. It is normally expressed in broad, general terms and is timeless in
that it has no specific date by which it is to be completed. Goal statements form
the principal basis from which objectives are developed
A fire that burns along the forest floor and does not affect trees with thick bark or
high crowns.
The supply of fresh water under the earth's surface in an aquifer or in the soil
A method of tree harvest in which trees are removed periodically in small groups
This silvicultural treatment results in small openings that form mosaics of age
class groups in the forest.
A group of organisms that share a common food resource
The physical and biological environment for a plant or animal in which all the
essentials for its development, existence, and reproduction are present
Appendix B
PageB-11
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Habitat capability
Habitat type
Habitat Type
Group
Heritage
Resources
Hiding cover
High fire severity
Human
Environment
Hydrologic Unit
Hydrology
ID
Impact (See
Effects)
IMPLAN Pro
Indicator Species
Indigenous
Species
Indirect Effects
Instream flow
Integrated pest
management
Definition
The ability of a land area or plant community to support a given species of
wildlife.
A way to classify land area. A habitat type can support certain climax
vegetation, both tree and undergrowth species. The habitat type can indicate
the biological potential of a .site.
An aggregation of habitat types with similar interpretative properties. The habitat
type groups used in the DEIS are from Applegate et al., 1995. The habitat type
groups used in the FEIS are from Jones, 2003, except for the weeds and
sensitive plant analyses, which use Applegate et al.
Prehistoric, historic, and Native American cultural resources.
Vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of an adult elk or deer from human view
at a distance of 200 feet or less.
See "Fire severity ratings"
The factors that include, but are not limited to biological, physical, social,
economic, cultural, and aesthetic factors that interrelate to form the environment.
Hierarchical units for designating combinations of watersheds.
The science dealing with the study of water on the surface of the land, in the soil
and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere.
Interdisciplinary
Physical, biological, social, and economic results (expected or experienced)
resulting from achievement of outputs. Effects can be direct, indirect, and
cumulative and may be either beneficial or detrimental.
An economic input / output model.
A species of animal or plant whose presence is a fairly certain indication of a
particular set of environmental conditions. Indicator species serve to show the
effects of development actions on the environment.
A species that originally inhabited a particular National Forest or National
Grassland (see definition of exotic).
Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther
removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may
include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in
the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on
air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
The quantity of water necessary to meet seasonal stream flow requirements to
accomplish the purposes of the National Forests, including, but not limited to
fisheries, visual quality, and recreational opportunities.
A process for selecting strategies to regulate forest pests in which all aspects of
a pest-host system are studied and weighed. The information considered in
selecting appropriate strategies includes the impact of the unregulated pest
population on various resources values, alternative regulatory tactics and
strategies, and benefit/cost estimates for these alternative strategies.
Regulatory strategies are based on sound silvicultural practices and ecology of
the pest-host system and consist of a combination of tactics such as timber
stand improvement plus selective use of pesticides. A basic principle in the
choice of strategy is that it be ecologically compatible or acceptable.
Appendix B
Page B-12
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Definition
team of individuals with skills from different disciplines that focuses on the
same task or project.
Term
^—i^i^^^^m
Interdisciplinary
team
Intermittent stream A stream that flows on|y at certajn times of the year when it receives water from
— streams or from some surface source, such as melting snow.
Unroaded areas typically 5000 acres or more that meet criteria for wilderness
consideration under the Wilderness Act and that were inventoried during the
Forest Service's Roadless Area and Review and Evaluation (RARE II) process
subsequent assessments, or forest planning
Inventoried
Roadless Area
(IRA)
invertebrate
IRA
Irretrievable
Irretrievable Effect
Irreversible
Irreversible Effects
Issue
km
Ladder fuels
Landing
•
Landscape
Late Serai
(successional)
Stage
Litter (forest litter)
"
Logging slash
Low fire severity
LRMP
M
An animal lacking a spinal column.
Inventoried Roadless Area
One of the categories of impacts mentioned in the National Environmental Policy
Act to be included in statements of environmental impacts. An irretrievable
effect applies to losses of production or commitment of renewable natural
resources.
An irretrievable effect is one that is sustained for a certain period of time but is—
A category of impacts mentioned in statements of environmental impacts that
frSf K, noi:ren+ewable|resources, such as minerals and archaeological sites.
Irreversible effects can also refer to effects of actions that can be renewed only
after a very long period of time, such as the loss of soil productivity.
Potentially significant impact areas or areas of controversy
kilometer
Vegetation located below the crown level of forest trees that can carry fire from
°m- Laddef fUe'S "^ be IOW 9r°Win tree branches
Any Place where cut timber is assembled for further transport form the timber
-
Any Place where cut timber is assembled for further transport from the timber
S3IQ 3T63.
The stage of forest development during which the age of trees is usually greater
than 80 years depending on the composition of tree species Small gaps
become more common as some trees die allowing full sunlight to reach the mid-
and under stories. This stage contains the largest trees within a forest and
provides the highest capability for large snags, large live cavities, and den tree
production. The presence of large, downed, woody material is highest during
this period. Old-growth forests occur during the later periods of the serai stage
The freshly fallen or only slightly decomposed plant material on the forest floor
Th.s layer in includes foliage, bark fragments, twigs, flowers, and fruit.
residue left on the ground after timber cutting. It includes unutilized logs
"" Cinches, bark, and leaves. Certain amounts of slash
roles, such as soil protection, nutrient cycling, and
Thousand. Five thousand board feet of timber can be expressed
Appendix B
PageB-13
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Definition
feet.
Management
action
Any activity undertaken as part of the administration of the National Forest.
Management Area
An aggregation of capability areas that have common management direction
under the Forest Plan and may be noncontiguous in the Forest. Consists of a
grouping of capability areas selected through evaluation procedures and used to
locate decisions and resolve issues and concerns. :
Management
Direction
A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the associated
management practices identified by the Forest Service in the planning process.
Management
Indicator Species
Species identified in a planning process that are used to monitor the effects of
planned management activities on viable populations of wildlife and fish,
including those that are socially or economically important. Mitigation Includes:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources
or environments. .
Management
practice
A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment.
Mass
movement/wastin
The down-slope movement of large masses of earth material by the force of
gravity. Also called a landslide.
Matrix
The least fragmented, most continuous pattern element of a landscape; the
vegetation type that is most continuous over a landscape.
Mature timber
Trees that have attained full development, especially height, and are in full seed
production. .
MBF
Thousand Board Feet
MCF
thousand cubic feet
Mesic
Pertaining to or adapted to an area that has a balanced supply of water; neither
wet nor dry
Microclimate
The climate of a small site. It may differ from the climate at large of the area due
to aspect, tree cover (or the absence of tree cover), or exposure to winds.
Mid Serai
(successional)
Stage
The stage of forest development during which distinct over story, mid story, and
under story canopies are present. The age of trees range from about 20 years
to about 90 years depending on the composition of tree species. The trees are
usually greater than 10 inches in dbh. This stage provides capability for hard
mast production, large standing snags, and live cavities. During this period, tree
ipecies reach economic maturity.
Mineral soil
Soil that consists mainly of inorganic material, such as weathered rock, rather
than organic matter.
MIS
Management Indicator Species
Appendix B
Page B-14
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Mission (of the
USDA Forest
Service)
Mitigation
MM
MMBF
Moderate fire
severity
Modification
Monitoring
Monitoring and
evaluation
Montane
Mortality
Mosaic
MOU
Mountain pine
beetle
Multiple Use (MU)
NAAQS
National
Environmental
Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)
National Forest
Definition
"To Care for the Land and Serve the People." As set forth in law, the mission is
to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use
management concept to meet the diverse needs of people.
Actions taken to avoid, minimize, or rectify the impact of a land management
practice.
Million
Million Board Feet
See "Fire severity ratings"
Fundamental change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or
for the term of the lease. Therefore, a modification may include an exemption
from or alteration to a stipulated requirement. Depending on the specific
modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all other sites within the
leasehold to which the restrictive criteria apply.
To watch, observe, or check, especially for a specific purpose, such as to keep
track of, regulate, or control (Webster's dictionary).
The periodic evaluation of forest management activities to determine how well
objectives were met and how management practices should be adjusted.
Relating to the zone of relatively moist, cool, upland slopes characterized by the
presence of large evergreen trees as a dominant life form.
Trees that were merchantable and have died within a specified period of time.
The term mortality can also refer to the rate of death of a species in a given
population or community.
Areas with a variety of plant communities over a landscape, such as areas with
trees and areas without trees occurring over a landscape.
Memorandum of Understanding
A tiny black insect, ranging from 1/8 to % inch in size, which bores through a
pine tree's bark. It stops the tree's intake and transport of the food and nutrients
it must have to stay alive, thus killing the tree.
The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National
Forest System so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the
needs of the American people, by making the most judicious use of the land for
some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to
provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing
needs and conditions, and recognizing that some lands will be used for less than
all of the resources. It also provides for harmonious and coordinated
management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment
of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative
values of. the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that
will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
An act which encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between man and
his environments; promotes efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man;
enriches the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources
important to the Nation; and establishes a Council on Environmental Quality.
A law passed in 1976 as amendments to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Appendix B
PageB-15
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Management Act
(NFMA)
National Forest
System (NFS)
National Forest
System Road
(NFSR)
National Park
Service
National Register
of Historic Places
(NRHP)
Native Species
Natural
disturbance
Natural Integrity
Natural range of
variability
Natural resource
NCP
NEPA
New Road
Construction
NFLRMP
NFMA
NFMP
NFRS
NFS
NFSR
NHPA
NMFS
NNL
No Action
Definition
Resources Planning Act that requires the preparation of Regional and Forest
plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development
All National Forest System lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain
of the United States; all National Forest System lands acquired through
purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, and other lands, waters, or
interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated
for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the system (16 U S C
1609).
A Forest road under jurisdiction of the Forest Service.
The agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior responsible for the
administration of national Parks, Monuments, and Historic Sites. It is distinct
form the U.S.D.A. Forest Service both administratively and by mission
A listing of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural sites of local,
state, or national significance, established by the Historic Preservation Act of
1966 and maintained by the National Park Service.
All animal and plant species originally occurring in the area
See disturbance.
Roadless area characteristic defined as the extent to which long-term ecological
processes are intact and operating. Impacts to natural integrity are measured by
the presence and magnitude of human-induced change to an area. This change
includes physical developments as well as activity in the area
See range'of variability.
A feature of the natural environment that is of value in serving human needs
National Contingency Plan
National Environmental Policy Act
Investment in construction of a road to provide access that adds new miles of
road to the transportation system.
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan - also called the Forest
Plan or just the Plan, this document guides the management of a particular
National Forest and establishes management standards and guidelines for all
lands of that National Forest.
National Forest Management Act - this law was passed in 1976 and requires the
preparation of Regional Guides and Forest Plans.
National Forest Management Plan
National Forest recreation sites that have been inventoried.
National Forest System
National Forest System Road
National Historic Preservation Act
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Natural Landmark
The management direction, activities, outputs, and effects that are likely to exist
in the future if the current trends and management would continue unchanged.
Appendix B
Page B-16
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Alternative
NOAA
NOI
Nongame
Northern Region
Notice of intent
Noxious Weed
NRCS
NRHP
NWPS
Objective
Off Highway
Vehicle
OHV
Old growth
Old Growth
Forests
ORV
Overstory
Ozone
Parent materials
Partial retention
Particulates
Definition
Under NEPA, it means following the current approved Forest Plan management
direction and guidance.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Notice of Intent
Wildlife species that are not hunted for sport.
The portion of the USDA Forest Service, also referred to as Region One, which
includes National Forests in North/Central Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,
Northwestern South Dakota.
A notice in the Federal Register of intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement on a proposed action.
According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-629), a weed that causes
disease or has other adverse effects on man or his environment and therefore is
detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United States and to the
public health.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Register of Historic Places
National Wilderness Preservation System
A concise time-specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to
pre-established goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning, to
defining the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving
identified goals.
Any motorized vehicle designed for and/or capable of travel off roads.
off-highway vehicle
Old forests often containing several canopy layers, variety in trees sizes and
species, decadent old trees, and standing and dead woody material.
An ecosystem distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old
growth encompasses the later stages in a variety of characteristics including tree
size, accumulation of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers,
species composition, and ecosystem function. Old growth is not necessarily
virgin or primeval. It can develop over time following human disturbances, just
as it does following natural disturbances. Old growth encompasses both older
forests dominated by early serai species and forests in later successional stages
dominated by shade tolerant species.
Off-road vehicles, such as motorcycles, 4-wheel drive vehicles, and 4-wheelers
The upper canopy layer; the plants below comprise the understory.
Ozone, the major constituent of smog, is formed through a complex series of
chemical reactions and transformations in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is a
strong irritant, which attacks the respiratory system, leading to lung tissue
damage. Ozone also affects materials such as surface coatings, fabrics, and
rubber.
The mineral or organic matter from which the upper layers of soil are formed.
A visual quality objective, which, in general, means man's activities, may be
evident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape.
Small particles suspended in the air and generally considered pollutants.
Appendix B
PageB-17
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Patch
Perennial Stream
Personal use
PFA
PILT
PL
Planning area
Plant Community
PNV
Pole/sapling
Policy
Population
ppm
Precommercial
thinning
Predator
Prescribed fire
Prescription
Present net value
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration
/DOPN\
(PSD)
Primitive (P)
Productive
Definition
An area of homogeneous vegetation, in structure and composition
A stream that flows continuously year round.
The use of a forest product, such as firewood, for home use and not for
commercial use.
post-fledgling family area
payments in lieu of taxes
Public Law
The area of the National Forest System covered by a regional guide or forest
plan.
A group of individual plants of one or more species growing in a specific area in
association with one another and with a complex of other plants and animals
See present net value.
The stage of forest succession in which trees are between 3 and 7 inches in
diameter and are the dominant vegetation.
A guiding principle upon which is based a specific decision or set of decisions
A group of individuals with common ancestry that are much more likely to mate
with one another than with individuals from another such group
part per million
Removing some of the trees from a stand that are too small to be sold for lumber
or house logs, so the remaining trees will grow faster
An animal the lives by preying on other animals. Predators are at or near the
tops of food chains.
Fire set intentionally in wildland fuels under prescribed conditions and
circumstances. Prescribed fire can rejuvenate forage for livestock and wildlife or
prepare sites for natural regeneration of trees.
Management practices selected to accomplish specific land and resource
management objectives.
PNV - also called present net worth - the measure of the economic value of a
project when costs and revenues occur in different time periods. Future
revenues and costs are "discounted" to the present by an interest rate that
reflects the changing value of a dollar over time. The assumption is that dollars
today are more valuable than dollars in the future. PNV is used to compare
alternatives that have different cost and revenue flows.
A classification established to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in
National Wilderness Preservation System areas in existence prior to August
1977 and other areas of National significance, while ensuring economic growth
can occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air
resources. Specific emission limitations and other measures, by class, are
detailed in the Clean Air Act. (42 U.S.C. 1 875 et seq.)
Those recreation activities that occur in areas characterized by an essentially
unmodified natural environment of fairly large size.
The ability of an area to provide goods and services and to sustain ecological
values.
Appendix B
Page B-18
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Project Area
Proposed Action
PSD
psi
Public domain
Public
involvement
Public issue
Range
Range of
Alternatives
Range of
variability
Ranger District
Raptor
RARE II
RD
Reclamation
Record of
Decision (ROD)
Recreation
Opportunities
Recreation
Opportunity
Spectrum (ROS)
Definition
Area of analysis for proposed leasing on Sioux Ranger District of the Custer
National Forest.
In terms of National Environmental Policy Act, the project, activity, or action that
a federal agency intends to implement or undertake and which is the subject of
an environmental analysis.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
pounds per square inch
The territory ceded to the Federal government by the original thirteen states,
plus additions by treaty, cession, and purchase.
The use of appropriate procedures to inform the public, obtain early and
continuing public participating, and consider the views of interested parties in
planning and decision making.
A subject or question of widespread public interest relating to management of
the National Forest System.
Land on which the principle natural plant cover is composed of native grasses,
forbs, and shrubs that are valuable as forage for livestock and big game.
The NEPA requires the proposed action, a no action alternative, and a
reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action be addressed in an EIS.
Also called the historic range of variability or natural range of variation. The
components of healthy ecosystems fluctuate over time. The range of
sustainable conditions in an ecosystem is determined by time, processes (such
as fire), native species, and the land itself. For instance, ecosystems that have a
10-year fire cycle have narrower range of variation than ecosystems with 200-
300 year fire cycles. Past management has placed some ecosystems outside
their range of variability. Future management should move such ecosystems
back toward their natural, sustainable range of variation.
The administrative sub-unit of a National Forest that is supervised by a District
ranger who reports directly to the Forest Supervisor.
Birds of prey, such as owls, hawks, and eagles.
Roadless Area Review and Evaluation. The national inventory of roadless and
undeveloped areas within the National Forests and Grasslands.
Ranger District
Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for designated uses.
This normally involves regrading, replacement of topsoil, revegetation, and other
work such as fertilization and fencing necessary to restore it for use.
A document separate from, but associated with, an environmental impact
statement, that publicly and officially discloses the responsible official's decision
on the proposed action.
The combination of recreation settings, activities, and experiences provided by
an area.
A system for planning and managing recreation resources that recognizes
recreation activity opportunities, recreation settings, and recreation experiences
along a spectrum or continuum of settings as follows:
Primitive - Characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly
large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is
Appendix B
PageB-19
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
lerm
Definition
minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of human-
induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use is not permitted.
Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized - Characterized by predominately natural or
natural appearing environment of a moderate to large size. Concentrations of
users is low, but there is often evidence of other area users. The area is
managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be
present, but are subtle. Motorized use is not permitted.
Semi-Primitive Motorized - Characterized by a predominantly natural or natural
appearing environment of moderate-to-large size. Concentration of users is low,
but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way
that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle.
Motorized use is permitted.
Roaded Natural - Characterized by predominantly natural appearing
environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such
evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between
users may be low to moderate, but with the evidence of other users prevalent.
Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with
the natural environment. Motorized use is permitted.
Rural - Characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource
modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities
and to maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are
readily evident, and the interaction between users is often moderate to high.
Facilities are often provided for special activities. Moderate densities are
provided far away from developed sites.
Urban - Characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the
background may have natural appearing elements. Vegetative cover is often
exotic and manicured. Sights and sounds of humans on-site are predominant.
Recreation Visitor
Days (RVD)
One visitor day equals 12 hours of human use (one person for 12 hours, or 12
people for 1 hour, or any combination thereof).
Reforestation
The restocking of an area with forest trees, by either natural or artificial means,
such as planting.
Regeneration
The renewal of a tree crop by either natural or artificial means. The term is also
used to refer to the young crop itself.
Regional Forester
The official of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service responsible for administering an entire
region of the Forest Service.
Rehabilitation
A short-term visual resource management objective used to restore landscapes
containing undesirable visual or other resource impacts to the desired visual or
other acceptable quality level.
Remoteness
A characteristic of an area defined as the perceived condition of being secluded,
inaccessible, and "out of the way." Topography, vegetative screening, distance
from human impacts, distance from sights and sounds of man, and difficulty of
travel all contribute to remoteness.
Removal cut
The removal of the last seed bearers or shelter trees after regeneration is
established.
Residual stand
The trees remaining standing after an event such as selection cutting.
Resilience
The ability of an ecosystem to maintain diversity, integrity, and ecological
processes following a disturbance.
Appendix B
Page B-20
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Responsible line
officer
Responsible
official
Restoration (of
ecosystems)
Restore
Revegetation
RFD
RIM
Riparian
Riparian area
Riparian Areas
Riparian
Ecosystem
Riparian Zone
RN
Road
Road
Decommissioning
Roaded Natural
Roadless
Definition
The Forest Service employee who has the authority to select and/or carry out a
specific planning action.
The Forest Service employee who has been delegated the authority to carry out
a specific planning action.
Actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve a desired, healthy, and
functioning condition.
To bring back to a former or original condition or appearance.
The reestablishment and development of self-sustaining plant cover. On
disturbed sites, this normally requires human assistance such as seedbed
preparation, reseeding, and mulching.
Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario
Recreation Information Management
Riparian areas consist of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, those lands in a
position to directly influence water quality and water resources, whether or not
free water is available. This would include all lands in the active flood channel
and lands immediately upslope of stream banks. These areas may be
associated with lakes, reservoirs, marshes, streams, bogs, wet meadows, and
intermittent or permanent streams where free and unbound water is available.
The area along a watercourse or around a lake or pond.
Geographically delineable areas with distinctive resource values and
characteristics that comprise the riparian ecosystems.
a) Ecosystems transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Also
streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent vegetation communities and their
associated soils that have free water at or near the surface, b) Those
assemblages of plants, animals, and aquatic communities whose presence can
either be directly or indirectly attributed to factors that are water influenced or
related, c) Interacting system between aquatic and terrestrial situations,
identified by soil characteristics and distinctive vegetation that requires or
tolerates free or unbound water.
An area of vegetation adjacent to an aquatic ecosystem. It has a high water
table, certain soil characteristics, and some vegetation that requires free
(unbound chemically) water or conditions that are more moist than normal. This
zone is transitional between aquatic and upland zones.
Roaded Natural
A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed
as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary.
Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a
more natural state.
A recreation opportunity classification term for describing a land area that has
predominately a natural appearing environment with moderate evidence of sights
and sounds of humans. Concentration of users is moderate to low. Roads of
better than primitive class are usually within 0.5 mile. A broad range of
motorized and non-motorized activity opportunities is available. Management
activities are present and harmonize with the natural environment.
Refers to the absence of roads that have been constructed and maintained by
mechanical means to ensure regular and continuous use.
Appendix B
Page B-21
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
ROD
ROS
Rotation
RPA
Run-off
Sacred Site
Sapling
Scale
Scoping/Scoping
Process
Sediment
Seen area
Semi-primitive
Semi-Primitive
Motorized (SPM)
Semi-Primitive
Non-Motorized
(SPNM)
Sensitive Species
Serai
Definition
Record of Decision
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
The number of years required to establish and grow timber crops to a specific
condition of maturity.
Resource Planning Act
The portion of precipitation that flows over the land surface or in open channels
Any specified, discrete, narrowly delineated location on federal land that is
identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an
appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by
virtue of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian
religion; provided that the tribe or an appropriately authoritative representative of
an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site
A loose term for a young tree more than a few feet tall and an inch or so in
diameter that is typically growing vigorously.
In ecosystem management, it refers to the degree of resolution at which
ecosystems are observed and measured.
An early and open public involvement process for determining the scope of
issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the
proposed action. Identifying the significant environmental issues deserving of
study and de-emphasizing insignificant issues, narrowing the scope of the
Environmental Impact Statement accordingly. (Ref. CEQ Regulations 40 CFR
1501.7.)
Solid mineral or organic material that is transported by air, water, gravity or ice
That portion of the landscape that can be viewed from one or more observer
positions. The extent or area that can be viewed is normally limited by landform,
vegetation, structures, or distance.
A recreation opportunity classification term for describing land areas that have
very few management controls lying between 0.5 mile and 3 miles from the
nearest point of motor vehicle access, excepting four-wheel drive roads and
trails, with mostly natural landscapes and some evidence of other people
A land area classified as semi-primitive that may have primitive roads present
and where motorized use is permitted. Settings, activities, and opportunities are
affected accordingly though there is still a moderate probability of experiencing
isolation from sights and sounds of humans.
A land area classified as semi-primitive that has a natural environment and
motorized use is not permitted. Non-motorized status increases the probability
of experiencing isolation, independence, and closeness to nature. Challenge
and risk are generally high. Resource management may be present; however,
natural appearance is still maintained.
Those plant or animal species that are susceptible or vulnerable to activity
impacts or habitat alterations and will be managed similar to threatened or
endangered species. The Forest Service policy is to ensure that species would
not be affected in such a manner as to have them listed or proposed for listing as
threatened or endangered.
The stage of succession of a plant or animal community that is transitional. If left
alone, the serai stage will give way to another plant or animal community that
represents a further stage of succession.
Appendix B
Page B-22
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Shelterwood
SHPO
Significant
Impact/Effect
Silviculture
Size class
Skidding
Skyline logging
Slash
Slope
Slump
Snag
Soil compaction
Soil productivity
Solitude
Special Features
Stand
Standards and
guidelines
Definition
A cutting method used in a more or less mature stand, designed to establish a
new crop under the protection of the old.
State Historic Preservation Office
An impact or effect is significant when it is projected to meet or exceed threshold
standards, while considering how substantial the impact or effect is, considering
its context and intensity.
The art science that promotes the growth of single trees and the forest as a
biological unit.
One of the three intervals of three stem diameters used to classify timber in the
Forest Plan database. The size classes are: Seedling/Sapling (less than 5
inches in diameter); Pole timber (5 to 7 inches in diameter); Saw timber (greater
than 7 inches in diameter).
Hauling logs by sliding, not on wheels, from stump to a collection point.
A logging system used to remove timber from steep slopes. Logs are brought
up-slope on a suspended cable, or skyline. Since the weight of the log is
completely or partially supported by the cable, there is little disturbance to soil or
other vegetation.
The residue left on the ground after timber cutting or left after a storm, fire, or
other event. Slash includes logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems,
branches, bark, etc.
The amount or degree of deviation from the horizontal or vertical. Concerning
visual or scenic resources, as slope increases, views into a site and the size of
the disturbance increase. Generally, the steeper slopes are more visible due to
their location in the landscape.
A landslide where the underlying rock masses tilt back as they slide from a cliff
or escarpment.
A standing dead tree. Snags are important as habitat for a variety of wildlife
species and their prey.
The reduction of soil volume. For instance, the weight of heavy equipment on
soils can compact the soil and thereby change it in some ways, such as in its
ability to absorb water.
The capacity of a soil to produce a specific crop. Productivity depends on
adequate moisture and soil nutrients, as well as favorable climate.
A personal, subjective value and roadless area characteristic defined as isolation
from the sights, sounds, presence of others, and the developments of man. A
primitive recreation experience includes the opportunity to experience solitude, a
sense of remoteness, closeness to nature, serenity, and spirit of adventure.
Unique geological, biological, ecological, cultural, or scenic features located in a
roadless area. Unique fish and animal species, unique plants or plant
communities, potential Research Natural Areas, outstanding landscape features
such as unique rock formations, and significant cultural resource sites are some
of the items that should be considered when analyzing this element.
A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is similar in species, age, and
condition.
Requirements found in a forest plan which impose limits on natural resource
management activities, generally for environmental protection.
Appendix B
Page B-23
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Stewardship
Stocking level
Stream order
Stringer
Structure
Succession
Successional
stage
Suitability
SUP
Sustainabiiity
Sustainable
Sustained yield
Sustained-yield of
products and
services
Target
TDS
Temporary Road
Terrestrial
TES
Texture
Thinning
Definition
Caring for the land and its resources to pass healthy ecosystems to future
generations.
The number of trees in an area as compared to the desirable number of trees for
best results, such as maximum wood production.
A numbering system used to classify streams by their position relative to other
streams. The Strahler system is the most commonly used. First order streams
are the smallest unbranched tributaries. Second order streams are formed at
the confluence of two first order streams. Third order streams are formed at the
confluence of two second order streams. This pattern continues downstream
until a stream enters an ocean or other sink. [Adapted from: American
Geological Institute. 1962. Dictionary of Geological Terms ]
A strip of vegetation different form surrounding vegetation, such as a stringer of
aspen in an area of spruce.
How the parts of ecosystems are arranged, both horizontally and vertically.
Structure might reveal a patter, or mosaic, or total randomness of vegetation
The natural replacement, in time, of one plant community with another.
Conditions of the prior plant community (or successional stage) create conditions
that are favorable for the establishment of the next stage
A stage of development of a plant community as it moves from bare ground to
climax. The grass-form stage of succession precedes the woody shrub stage
The appropriateness of certain resource management to an area of land.
Suitability can be determined by environmental and economic analysis of
management practices.
Special Use Permit
The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions,
biological diversity, and productivity over time.
The yield of a natural resource that can be produced continually at a given
intensity of management is said to be sustainable.
The yield that a renewable resource can produce continuously at a given
intensity of management.
The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular
periodic output of the various renewable resources of the National Forest
System without impairment of the productivity of the land.
A National Forest's annual goals for accomplishment for natural resource
programs. Targets represent the commitment the Forest Service has with
Congress to accomplish the work Congress has funded, and are often used as a
measure of the agency's performance.
Total Dissolved Solids
Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or
emergency operation, not intended to be part of the forest transportation system
and not necessary for long-term resource management.
Living or growing in or on the land.
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (Species)
Detail of landscape that varies with distance.
A cutting made in an immature stand of trees to accelerate growth of the
remaining trees or to improve the form of the remaining trees.
Appendix B
Page B-24
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Threatened
Species
Tiering
Timber production
TOC
tpy
Tractor logging
Treatment area
TSI
Unclassified Road
Underburn
Understory
Uneven-aged
USDA
USDI
USFWS
uses
Vegetation
management
Vegetation
Response Unit
Vegetation type
Viability
Viable population
Viewshed
Definition
Any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and that has been
designated in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior as a
threatened species.
Refers to the elimination of repetitive discussions of the same issue by
incorporating by reference the general discussion in an environmental impact
statement of broader scope. For example, a project environmental assessment
could be tiered to the Forest Plan EIS.
The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated
crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or
consumer use. For purposes of this subpart, the term "timber production" does
not include production of fuelwood.
Threshold of Concern
ton per year
A logging method that uses tractors to carry or drag lots from the stump to a
collection point.
The site-specific location of a resource improvement activity.
Timber Stand Improvement - Actions to improve growing conditions for trees in
a stand, such as thinning, pruning, prescribed fire, or release cutting.
Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the
forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travel-ways,
and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a
trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and
were not decommissioned upon termination of the authorization.
A burn by a surface fire that can consume ground vegetation and "ladder" fuels.
The trees and other woody species that grow under a more or less continuous
cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by the upper portion of
adjacent trees and other woody growth.
A stand of trees in which the individual trees originated over a long period of time
and, thus, differ widely in age; a regeneration system designed to produce such
a stand.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest vegetation for
multiple-use purposes.
Ecological land units that have unique patterns of habitat types groups (potential
vegetation), terrain, and historic fire regimes.
A plant community with distinguishable characteristics.
The likelihood of continued existence in an area for some specified period of
time.
The number of individuals of a species sufficient to ensure the long-term
existence of the species in natural, self-sustaining populations that are
adequately distributed throughout their range.
A total landscape as seen from a particular viewpoint.
Appendix B
Page B-25
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
lerm
Definition
Visual (or Scenic)
Resource
The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetative
patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual
appeal of the unit.
Visual
Management
System
A management system that establishes the "visual landscape" as a basic
resource, treated as an essential part of the land. The visual management
system provides a framework to inventory the visual resource and provides
measurable standards for its management.
Visual Quality
Objectives (VQO)
A classification based upon variety class, sensitivity level, and distance zone
determinations. Each objective describes a different level of acceptable
alteration based on aesthetic importance. The degree of alteration is based on
contrast with the surrounding landscape. The VQOs are:
Preservation: In general, human activities are not detectable to the visitor.
Retention: Human activities are not evident to the casual Forest visitor.
Partial Retention: Human activities may be evident, but must remain subordinate
to the characteristic landscape.
Modification: Human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape, but
must, at the same time, use naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It
should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in middle ground or
background.
Maximum Modification: Human activity may dominate the characteristic
landscape, but should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as
background.
Visual resource
A part of the landscape important for its scenic quality. It may include a
composite of terrain, geologic features, or vegetation.
VMS
Visual Management System
VQO
Visual Quality Objective
VRM
Visual Resource Management
Water table
fhe upper surface of groundwater. Below it, the soil is saturated with water.
Water yield
The runoff from a watershed, including groundwater outflow.
Watershed
The entire region drained by a waterway (or into a lake or reservoir. More
specifically, a watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that
contributes water to the streamflow at that point.
Wetlands
Areas that are permanently wet or are intermittently covered with water.
Wilderness
An area of undeveloped federal land designated Wilderness by Congress,
retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements
or human habitation, protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions
and that (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of
nature with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable, (2) has
outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, (3)
has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size to make practical its preservation
and use in an unimpaired condition, and (4) also may contain features that are of
ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. These
characteristics were identified by Congress in the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Wildfire
Any wildland fire that is not a prescribed fire.
Wildland Urban
Interface
An area within or adjacent to an at-risk community identified within
recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture in a Community Wildfire
Protection Plan, OR
Appendix B
Page B-26
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Term
Wildlife
Windthrow
Woodlands
WUI
Yarding
ZOI
Definition
In the case of any area for which a Community Wildfire Protection Plan is not in
effect:
• An area extending 14 mile from the boundary of an at-risk community;
• An area with 1-1/2 miles from the boundary of an at risk community,
including land that 1) Has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential
for wildland fire behavior endangering the at-risk community, 2) Has a
geographic feature that aids in creating an effective firebreak, such as a
road or ridgetop.
Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates.
Trees uprooted by wind.
An open stand of trees with crowns not usually touching (generally forming a 25
to 60 percent cover).
See 'wildland urban interface'
Moving the cut trees form where they fell to a centralized place (landing) for
hauling away from the stand.
Zone of Influence - the area influenced by Forest Service management
activities.
Appendix B
Page B-27
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
This page left blank intentionally.
Appendix B
Page B-28
-------
APPENDIX C - REFERENCES
Acheson, Ann; Charles Stanich, Mark Story. 2000. Describing Air Resource Impacts From
Prescribed Fire Projects in NEPA Documents for Montana and Idaho in Region 1 and
Region 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Agee, J.K., 1993 Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington D.C.
pp 388-389.
Agee, J.K., B. Bahro, M.A. Finney, P.M. Omi, D.B. Sapsis, C.N. Skinner, J.W. van
Wagtendonk, and C.P. Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of Fuel Breaks in Landscape
Fire Management. Forest Ecology Management. 127pp. 55-66.
Alexander, E.B., and R. Poff. 1985. Soil disturbance and compaction in wildland
management. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. Earth Resources
Monograph 8. Pp 30- 32.
Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA
Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-122.
Andrus, C.W. and H.A. Froelich. 1983. An evaluation of four implements used to till
compacted forest soils in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University. College of
Forestry. Research Bulletin 45. 12 pp.
Aney, W.C., and B. R. McClelland. 1985. Habitat suitability index model for northern Rocky
Mountain pileated woodpeckers. School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula.
31 pp.
Aney, W. C., and B. R. McClelland. 1990. Pileated woodpecker habitat relationships. Pages
10-17 in N. M. Warren. Old-growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the
Northern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service. Northern Region.
Baird, Dennis W., 1999, The Early Years of the Bitterroot Forest Reserve: Major Frank Fenn
Reports to Washington. Transcribed from the original manuscripts in the National
Archives as part of the Northwest Historical Manuscript Series, University of Idaho
Library.
Barrett, S.W., S.F. Arno, and J.P. Menakis. 1997. Fire episodes in the Inland Northwest
(1540-1940) based on fire history data. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain
Research Station. General Technical Report INT-GTR-370. p. 14.
Bedunah, D. J. 1992. The Complex Ecology of Weeds, Grazing, and Wildlife. Western
Wildlands. 8(2): 6-11.
Behnke, Robert J. and Joseph R. Tomelleri. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America.
New York: Free Press.
Belsky, A. J and J. L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid
West. A Scientific Report Published By The Oregon Natural Desert Association.
Portland, Oregon.
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Belt, George H. 1980. Predicting Streamflow Changes Caused by Forest Practices Using
the Equivalent Clearcut Area Model. University of Idaho. College of Forestry, Wildlife
and Range Sciences. Bulletin Number 32.
Bisson, P. A., B.E. Rieman, C. Luce, P.F. Hessburg, D.C. Lee, J.L. Hershner, G.H. Reeves,
and R.E. Gresswell. 2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: current
knowledge and key questions. Forest Ecology and Management. Vol. 178. Pp. 213-
229.
Blake, J. and C. Ebrahimi. 1992. Species Conservation Strategy and Monitoring Plan for
Blechnum spicant for northern Idaho, Idaho Panhandle National Forest and Clearwater
National Forest. USFS Regional Office, Missoula MT. 14 pp. plus appendices.
Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In:
Influences of forest and range/and management of salmonid fishes and their habitats.
Meehan, editor. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda; MD.
Bonn, Joe and Richard Graves. 2005. Considerations of increased sediment production
from road surfaces due to truck travel for the American and Crooked River project
within the framework of sediment modeling. Unpublished report on file at the Nez
Perce National Forest.
Brostrom, Jody. No date. Personal Communication. FWS and Sherman Sprague Tribe.
Bull, E. L. 1980. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 109pp. Pqs. 6-7, 26 35 41-42
54, 59, 62-65.
Bull, E. L., C. G. Parks, and R. R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in
the interior Columbia River Basin. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. Portland, OR: U.
S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Pages 21-31 (55pp.).
Bull, Evelyn L., Jerome A. Jackson. 1995. Pileated woodpecker, Dryocopus pileatus. The
Birds of North America, No. 148.
Bull, Evelyn L., Steven R. Peterson, and Jack Ward Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning
among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Research Note PNW-444. USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, LaGrande, OR. 19 pp.
Bull, E. L.; T. W. Heater. 2001. Home Range and Dispersal in the American Martin in
Northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist. 82:7-11.
Buol, S.W., F. D. Hole, and R. J. McCracken. 1989. Soil Genesis and Classification (3rd
edition), Iowa State University Press. Ames IA. p 111.
Burroughs, E.R., Jr. and J.G. King 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. USDA
Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. General Technical report INT-264.
Bush, R, and J. D. Zeiler. 2004. Detailed estimates of old growth and large-snags on the
Nez Perce National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Forest and Range
Management, Missoula, MT. 4 pp.
Appendix C
Page C-2
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Buskirk, S. W., and L. F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. Pages 7-37 in L.F. Ruggiero,
K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski. The 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, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254.
Button, Tim, 2004, USDA Forest Service, Nez Perce National Forest, personal
communication re: fire behavior and spatial fragmentation of fuels.
Cassirer, E.F. 1989. Distribution and Status of Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) on
the Nez Perce National Forest, Idaho. Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game, Boise, Idaho. 13
pp. plus appendicies.
Cassirer, E. F., C. Johnson, C. R. Peterson, W. Wall, and D. Davis. 1995. Coeur d'Alene
Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) Habitat Conservation Assessment and
Conservation Strategy Draft. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, ID. 22
pp.
Chadde, Steve and Greg Kudray. 2001. Conservation Assessment of Botrychium simplex
(Least Moonwort) Unpublished report for USDA Forest Service, Region 9. 21 pp. plus
appendices.
Chamberlin, R. D. Harr, and F. H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and
watershed processes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 181-205.
Chapman, D.W. and K.P. McCleod. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment in the
Northern Rockies Ecoregion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Report
910/9-87-162, Washington, DC.
Chapman, D. W. 1988. Critical Review of Variables Used to Define Effects of Fines in
Redds of Large Salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 117,
Number 1, January 1998.
Chatwin, S.C., D. E. Howes, J. W. Schwab, and D. N. Swanston. 1991. A guide for
management of landslide-prone terrain in the Pacific Northwest. BC Ministry of
Forests. Research Branch
Clair. 2004. Personal Communication.
Clearwater Basin Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team. 1998. South Fork Clearwater River
Subbasin Bull Trout Problem Assessment.
Clearwater BioStudies Inc. 1990. Fish Habitat Characteristics, Riparian Conditions and
Salmonic Abundance in the Crooked River Study Area During Summer 1990. P.O.
No. 43-0295-0-2017
Cline, Richard, Gene Cole, Walt Megahan, Rick Patten and John Potyondy. 1981. Guide for
Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested Watersheds. USDA Forest Service.
Northern and Intermountain Regions.
Appendix C
Page C-3
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Clough, L.T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in West-
Central Montana. M.S. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT pq 67-68
(87pp.).
Cochnauer, Tim and Christopher Claire. 2000. Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
Evaluate Status of Pacific Lamprey in the Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho, Annual
Report 2000. Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No 00000090
Project No. 200002800.
Cochnauer, Tim and Christopher Claire. 2001. Evaluate Status of Pacific Lamprey in the
Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho. 2001 Annual Report, Project No. 200002800.
Cochnauer, Tim and Christopher Clair. 2002. Evaluate Status of Pacific Lamprey in the
Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho. 2002 Annual Report, Project No. 200002800.
Cochnauer, Tim and Christopher Claire. 2003. Status and Distribution of Pacific Lamprey
(Lampetra Tridentata) in Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Coffin, K., et al. 2002. Winter ecology of American marten in southwestern Montana.
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Wildlife Division, Technical Bulletin Helena,
Montana, pp. 54
Cole and Amman. 1980. USDA GTR INT-89. Mountain Pine Beetle Dynamics in Lodgepole
Pine Forests, Part 1, 56 pp.
Copeland, Jeff and Hudak, Howard. 1995. Conservation Strategy for Wolverine (Gulo gulo)
in Idaho. Pages 97-111 IN: Habitat Conservation Assessments and Strategies for
Forest Carnivores in Idaho. Prepared by Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game, Nez Perce
Tribe, and Sawtooth National Forest. 126 pp.
Crawford, R. C. 1980. Ecological investigations and management implications of six
northern Idaho endemic plants on the proposed endangered and threatened lists.
Unpublished MS Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow ID.
Crocker-Bedford, D. C., 1990. Goshawk Reproduction and Forest Management. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 18:262-269.
Crum, H.A. and Anderson, I.E. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America Volume II.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Cullen, S., C. Montaigne, and H. Ferguson. 1991. Timber harvest trafficking and soil
compaction in western Montana. Soil Science Society of America Journal. Volume
55. Number5. Pp 1416-141.
Czaplewski, R. L, A. A. Leach, P. L. Patterson, and M. S. Williams. 2003. Application of
forest inventory and analysis data to estimate amount of old growth forest and snag
density on the Lolo National Forest. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins,
CO. 7 pp.
D'Antonio, Carla M. 2000. Fire, Plant Invasions, and Global Change. In Mooney, H. A. and
R. J. Hobbs, Editors. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Island Press, Wash. D.C.
pp 65-93.
Appendix C
PageC-4
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Davis, S. 1990. Bulk density changes within two central Oregon soils following tractor
logging and slash piling. Bureau of Land Management. Eugene, Oregon. Report on
file at Forest Headquarters. 14 pp.
Debano, L. F., D. G. Neary, and P. F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire's Effects on Ecosystems. John
Wiley and Sons, 1998, pp 333.
Deeming, J.E., 1990. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Wildfire Occurrence and Severity. Chap.
8 In Walstad, J.D., S.R. Radosevich, and D.V. Sandberg (editors) Natural and
Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis
Oregon, pp. 97-98.
DellaSala, D. A., A. Martin, R. Spivak, T. Schulke, B. Bird, M. Criley, C. Vvan Daalen, J.
Kreilick, R. Brown, and G. Aplet. 2003. A Citizens' Call for Ecological Forest
Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria. Ecological Restoration 21:14-
23
Dixon, Rita D., and Victoria A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed woodpecker, Picoides arcticus.
The Birds of North America, No. 509. 20 pp.
Dobkin, D. S. 1994. Conservation and management of neoptropical migrant birds in the
Northern Rockies and Great Plains. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. 220 pp.
Dodge, S.R. (ed.) 2003. The Trouble with Connectedness: Disturbance and Ecosystem
Crashes, Science Findings, Issue 54, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA
Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. (Available on the web at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw).
Dukes, J. S. and H. A. Mooney. 2001. Disruption of Ecosystem Processes in Western North
America by Invasive Species. In Bradshaw, G. A., P. A. Marquet, and H. A. Mooney,
Editors. How Landscape Change: Human Disturbance and Ecosystem Disruptions in
the Americas. Springer-Verlag.
Elliot, W.J. and Robichaud, P.R. 2001. Comparing erosion risks from forest operations to
wildfire. In: International Mountain logging and 11th Pacific Northwest skyline
symposium. 2001. Pp. 78-89.
Elsensohn, Sister M. Alfreda, 1971, Pioneer Days in Idaho County- Volume Two. Caxton
Printers, Caldwell, Idaho.
Elsensohn, Sister M. Alfreda, 1978, Pioneer Days in Idaho County - Volume One. Caxton
Printers, Caldwell, Idaho.
Engle, J. C. and C. E. Harris. 2001. Idaho species of special concern element state ranking
reviews. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 104 pp. Pages 21-22, 45,
81-86, 95-96.
Espinosa, Al. 1992. DFC Fisheries Model and Analysis Procedures. Clearwater National
Forest. Spring.
Fahrig, Lenore. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population
extinction. Jour, of Wildlife Mgmt 61(3): 603-610.
Appendix C
Page C-5
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Farrell, A. P., A. K. Gamperl, J. M. T. Hicks, H. A. Shiels, and K. E. Jain. 1996. Maxium
Cardiac Performance of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) at Temperatures
Approaching Their Upper Lethal Limit. The Jouranl of Experimental Biology 199 PD
663-672. yy - MM
Federal Register. 1992. Volume 57, Number 78, April 22, 1992, p. 14653
Federal Register. 1997. Fish and Wildlife Service - Endangered and Threatened Species:
Listing of Several Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Steelhead
Volume 62, Number 159, August 18, 1997.
Federal Register. 1998. Fish and Wildlife Service - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Klamath River and Columbia
River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout, Volume 63, Number 111 June 10
1998.
Federal Register. 1999. Fish and Wildlife Service - Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Proposed Issuance of an Incidental Take
Permit to Crown Pacific for Forest Management and Timber Harvest in Whatcom and
Skagit Counties, Washington. Volume 64, Number 24, February, 5, 1999.
Federal Register. 2002. Fish and Wildlife Service - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia
River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout and Notice of Availability of the Draft
Recovery Plan; Proposed Rule and Notice, Volume 67, Number 230, November 29
2002, p. 71235.
Federal Register. 2004a. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Endangered
and Threatened species: Proposed Listing Determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast
Salmonids. Proposed Rule, Volume 69, Number 113, p. 33119. June 14, 2004.
Federal Register. 2004b. Volume 69, Number 193, pp 59995-60076.
FEMAT. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl.
Appendix A. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. USDA Forest
Service, Portland, Oregon. 73 pp plus Standards and Guidelines.
Fertig, W. and H. Marriott. 1993. Field survey for Astragalus paysonii (Payson's milkvetch)
and Draba borealis (boreal draba), Bridger-Teton NF Final Report. Wyoming Natural
Diversity Data base, Laramie. 23 p.
Finney, Mark A.; Sapsis, David B.; Bahro, Berni. 1997. Use of FARSITE for Simulating Fire
Suppression and Analyzing Fuel Treatment Economics. Presented at the symposium
on Fire in California Ecosystems: Integrating Ecology, Prevention, and Management,
San Diego, California.
Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of Regular Landscape Fuel Treatment Patterns for Modifying
Fire Growth and Behavior. Forest Science 47(2). Pp. 219-228.
Appendix C
Page C-6
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Finney, M.A. 2001. Spatial Strategies for Landscape Fuel Treatments. Unpublished report
for USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Foltz, R.B. and E. Maillard. 2004. Infiltration rates on abandoned road-stream crossings.
Presented to 2003 ASAE International Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, p 10.
Foltz, R. B. and K. A. Yanosek. 2005. Effects of Road Obliteration on Stream Water Quality.
Rocky Mountain Research Station. In press.
Forcella, F. and S.J. Harvey. 1983. Eurasian Weed Infestations in Western Montana in
Relation to Vegetation and Disturbance. Madrono, 30(2): 102-109.
Froelich, H.A. 1978. The effect of soil compaction by logging on forest productivity. Final
Report, contract number 53500-CT4-5(N), Bureau of Land Management. Portland
Oregon. 19 pp.
Froelich, H.A., et al. 1981. Designing skid trail systems to reduce soil impacts from tractive
logging machines. Oregon State University Forest Research lab. Research paper 44.
15pp.
Froelich, H.A., R. W. Robbins, D. W. R., Miles, and J. K. Lyons. 1983. Monitoring recovery
of compacted skid trails in central Idaho. Contract 43-0256-2-543. Report on file at
Payette National Forest. McCall, Idaho. Page 1,33,37.
Froelich, H.A., D. W. R. Miles, R. W. Robbins. 1985. Soil bulk density recovery on
compacted skid trails in central Idaho. Soil Science Society of America Journal.
Volume 49. PP 1015-1017.
Fulbright, Zane. 1996. Moose Butte Salvage Sale (Report #96-NZ-8-8). Report on file at the
Nez Perce National Forest Headquarters Office, Grangeville, Idaho.
Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 297-323.
Garbutt. 1992, as cited in Natural Resources of Canada 2003 Impact of the western balsam
bark beetle, Dryocoetes confuses Swaine (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).
Garrison, M.T. and J.A. Moore, 1998. Nutrient management: a summary and review.
Intermountain forest tree Nutrition cooperative. Supplemental Report 98-5. 48 pp.
Geist, J.M., J. W. Hazard, and K. W. Seidel. 1989. Assessing physical conditions of some
Pacific Northwest volcanic ash soils after forest harvest. Soil Science Society of
America Journal. Vol. 53. Pp. 946-950.
Gelbard, J.L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a
Semiarid Landscape. Conservation Biology Vol 17:420-432.
Gerhardt, M. 2003a. American Crooked field reconnaissance notes on file at forest
headquarters
Gerhardt, M. 2003b. Personal communication.
Appendix C
Page C-7
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Gerhardt, Nick and Jack King. 1987. Predicted vs Measured Natural Sediment Yield -
Horse Creek. Unpublished report on file at the Nez Perce National Forest.
Gerhardt, Nick, Pete Parsell and Kathy Anderson. 1991 a. The Care and Feeding of
Appendix A - An Implementation Guide to the Fish/Water Quality Objectives of the
Nez Perce National Forest Plan. Unpublished review draft dated September 4, 1991
Gerhardt, Nick, Pat Green and Joe Bonn. 1991b. Description and Effectiveness of Mitigation
Measures Used to Minimize Impacts of Timber Management and Road Construction
on Soil and Water Resources. Nez Perce National Forest. Unpublished report.
Gerhardt, Nick. 2000. A Brief History of Water Yield and EGA Guidelines on the Nez Perce
National Forest. Unpublished report dated April 11, 2000.
Gerhardt, Nick. 2002. topic: bedload sediment, see page 99 in Chapter 3
Gerhardt, N. 2003. Personal communication based on American Crooked field
reconnaissance.
Gerhardt, Nick. 2004. Horse Creek Summary of Results. Unpublished report dated June 2
2004.
Gerhardt, Nick. 2005. Summary of NEZSED Model Tests. Unpublished report on file at the
Nez Perce National Forest.
Gibson, K. 2003. Bark Beetle Conditions in the Northern Region. 35 pp.
Glassey, J.M. and T.L. Svalberg. 1981. Effects of intense dozer pile burns on soils of the
Kootenai National Forest, report of file at forest headquarters. 27 pp.
Gloss, Dave. 1995. Evaluation of the NEZSED Sediment Yield Model Using Data from
Forested Watersheds in North-Central Idaho. MS Thesis. University of Idaho.
Goggans, Rebecca, R.ita D. Dixon, and L. Claire Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed
and black-backed woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. USDA
Deschutes National Forest and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame
Project Number 87-3-02. 50 pp. plus appendices.
Graham, R.T., A. E. Harvey, M. F. Jurgensen, T. B. Jain, J. R. Tonn, and D. S. Page-
Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains.
USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Research Paper INT-RP-
477.Page 1,11.
Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, and B. Naumann. 1992. Old-growth forests
types of the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.
R-1 SES 4/92. 38 pp.
Greenlee, J. 1997. Cypripedium fasciculatum Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest
Service, Region 1, Lolo National Forest. Missoula MT. 18 pp. plus appendices.
Groves, C. R., B. Butterfield, A. Lippincott, B. Csuti, and J. M. Scott. 1997. Atlas of Idaho's
wildlife. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 372 pp. Pp 6, 80, 153, 155
344, 349, 355.
Appendix C
Page C-8
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Hailey, John., 1910, The History of Idaho. Syms-York Company, Boise.
Hammet, A. 2001. Table summarizing the results of the Blechnum spicant monitoring plots
at Distillery Bay, Priest lake Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests (1991-
1997). Unpublished. On file at: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation
Data Center, Boise, ID. 1p.
Hammond, C., D. Hall, S. Miller, and P. Swetik.. 1992. Level I stability analysis (LISA)
documentation for version 2.0. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research
Station. General Technical Report INT-285.
Hankin, David G. and Gordon H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating Total Fish Abundance and Total
Habitat Area in Small Streams Based on Visual Estimation Methods. Can. Journal of
Fish Aquat. Science. Volume 45.
Hardy, Colin C.; Robert E. Burgen; Roger D. Ottmar; and John C. Deeming. 1996. A
Database for Spatial Assessments of Fire Characteristics, Fuel Profiles, and PM 10
Emissions. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula MT.
Hagle, S. K., S. Tunnock, K. E. Gibson, C. J. Gillian. 1987. Field Guide to Diseases and
Insect Pests of Idaho and Montana Forests. 37 pp.
Hagle, S. K., T. L. Johnson, L. E. Stipe, J. W. Schwandt, J. W. Byler, A. J. Kegley, C. S.
Randall, J. E. Taylor, I. B. Lockman, N. J. Sturdevant. 2000. Suppression. Functions
of Forest Pathogens and Insects. 95 pp.
Harrod, R.J., D.E. Knecht, E.E. Kuhlmann, M.W. Ellis, and R. Davenport. 1997. Effects of
the Rat and Hatchery Creek fires on four rare plant species. Pages 311-319 in :
Proceedings - Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and habitats
Conference, Nov. 13-16, 1995, Coeur d'Alene, ID. International Association of
Wildland Fire, Fairfield, WA.
Harvey, A.E., M.F. Jurgensen, M.J. Larsen, and R.T. Graham. 1987. Decaying organic
materials and soil quality in the Inland Northwest: a management opportunity. USDA
Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT -225.
Pp. 11-12
Haupt, Harold F. 1967. Unpublished memorandum from Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station dated January 16, 1967.
Hays, M. 1997. Field observations of Cypripedium fasciculatum on the Palouse Ranger
District, Clearwater National Forest.
Hays, M. 2003. Field observations of Allotropa virgata on the Red River Ranger District, Nez
Perce National Forest.
Hayward, Gregory D., Tom Holland, and Ron Escano. 1990. Goshawk habitat relationships.
Pages 19-27 in N. Warren, editor. Old-growth habitats and associated wildlife species
in the northern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service.
Appendix C
Page C-9
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Hayward, Gregory D. and Ron Escano, 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western
Montana and northern Idaho. Condor 91: 476-479.
Heinemeyer, K. S. 1995. Conservation assessment for fisher in Idaho. Pages 28-41 In
Idaho State Conservation Effort. Habitat conservation assessments and strategies for
forest carnivores in Idaho. Idaho Dept. Fish and Game. 126 pp.
Heinemeyer, K. S. and J. L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management in the western
United States: A literature review and adaptive management strategy. USDA Forest
Service Northern Region, Missoula, MT. pgs. iii and 12 (108 pp.).
Hejl, Sallie, and Mary McFadzen. 1999. An assessment of the suitability of salvaged-logged
burned forests for cavity-nesting birds in western Montana. Intermountain Journal of
Sciences 5(1/4): 54.
Hessburg, P. F., B. G. Smith, S. D. Kreiter, C. A. Miller, r. B. Salter, C. H. McNicoll, and W. J.
Hann. 1996. Status of the Interior Columbia River Basin; Summary of scientific
findings. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR 385. USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon. 144 pp.
Hessburg, P. F., B. G. Smith, S. D. Kreiter, C. A. Miller, R. B. Salter, C. H. McNicoll, and W. J.
Hann. 1999. Historical and Current Forest and Range Landscapes in the Interior
Columbia River Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. 357 pp.
Hicks, B. J., J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson, and J. R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of salmonids to
habitat changes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: pp 483-518.
Hill, Mark. 2001. Site Identification Strategy for the Clearwater and Nez Perce National
Forests. Report on file at the Nez Perce National Forest Headquarters Office,
Grangeville, Idaho.
Hobbs, Richard J. 1989. The Nature and Effects of Disturbance Relative to Invasion. In;
Drake J.A. et. al. Editors: Biological Invasion: A Global Perspective. John Wiley and
Sons Publisher, pp 389-405.
Hobbs, Richard J. 2000. Land-Use Changes and Invasions. In Mooney, H. A. and R. J.
Hobbs, Editors. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Island Press, Wash D C pp
55-64.
Hornocker, Maurice G., and Howard S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in
northwestern Montana. Can. Journal Zool. 59:1286-1301.
Hungerford, R.D., M.G. Harrington, W.F. Frandsen, K.C. Ryan, and G.J. Niehoff. 1991.
Influence of fire on factors that affect site productivity. In A.E. Harvey and L.F.
Neuenschwander, editors. Proceedings of the management and productivity of
western montane forest soils. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station.
General Technical Report INT-280. Pp. 32-50
Hutto, D.L. 1995. USFS Northern Region Songbird Monitoring Program: Distribution and
Habitat Relationships. USFS Contract #R1-95-05, University of Montana, Missoula
120pp.
Appendix C
PageC-10
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Hutto, D.L., and Young, J.S. 1999. Habitat Relationships of Landbirds in the Northern
Region, USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-32, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Missoula, MT. Page 69 (72 pp).
Idaho Conservation Data Center. 2002. Element occurrence records, Biological and
Conservation database. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.
IDAPA 20.02.01. Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act.
IDAPA 37.03.07. Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act.
IDAPA 58.01.02. Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Nez Perce Tribe and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 2004. South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment and
Total Maximum Daily Loads.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1989. Idaho's Amphibians and Reptiles: description,
habitat and ecology. Nongame Wildlife Leaflet #7, Boise, Idaho. 11 pp.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1995. Draft Habitat Conservation Assessment for the
Fisher (Martes pennanti) in Idaho. 24 pp.
Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, USDA Forest Service - Nez Perce National Forest, USDI
Bureau of Land Management. 1996-2003. Bull Trout Investigations, South Fork
Clearwater River Drainage.
Idaho Dept. of Lands. 2005. Report for Maggie Creek Area. January 2005
Idaho Partners in Flight. 2000. Idaho Bird Conservation Plan, version 1.0. Idaho Partners in
Flight, Hamilton, MT. 166 pp.
Idaho State Conservation Effort. 1995. Habitat conservation assessment and conservation
strategy for the Townsend's big-eared bat. Draft Unpublished Report No. 1, Boise, ID.
63 pp.
Idaho State Conservation Effort 1995 ( p 30-31; p 33 fisher). 77 lynx 14-15 18-20 marten 103-
106 wolverine
Johnson-Groh, C.L. and D. Farrar. 1989. Ecological monitoring of Botrychium campestre
and a new species of Botrychium in western Minnesota. Unpublished report on file at:
Idaho department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. 6 p.
Johnson-Groh, C.L. and Farrar, D. (1996). "The effects of fire on prairie moonworts
(Botrychium subgenus Botrychium)." Am. J. Botany 83(Supple.): 134.
Johnson-Groh, C.L. 1999. Population ecology of Botrychium (moonworts), status report on
Minnesota Botrychium permanent plot monitoring. Dept. of Biology, Gustavus
Adolphus College, St. Peter, MN.
Jones, J.L. 1991. Habitat use of fishers in north central Idaho. M.S. thesis, Univ. Idaho,
Moscow. 147 pp.
Appendix C
PageC-11
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Jones, Julia A. , F.J. Swanson, B.C. Wemple, and K. U. Snyder. 2000. Effects of roads on
hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks.
Conservation Biology: Volume 14, No. 1. Pp. 76-85. February 2000.
Kapler-Smith, J. and W.C. Fischer. 1997. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern
Idaho. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. General Technical
Report INT-GTR-363. 142 pp.
Kaufmann, M. R., W. R. Moir, and W. W. Covington. 1992. Old-growth forests: What de we
know about their ecology and management in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain
Regions Pages 1-11 in M. R. Kaufmann, W. H. Moir, and R. L. Bassett, Tech. Coords.
Old-growth forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regions: Proceedings of a
Workshop. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-213.
Keane, Bob; Reinhart, Elizabeth; Brown, Jim; and Gangi, Larry. No date. First Order Fire
Effects Model (FOFEM v5.11). Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missbula Fire
Laboratory, PO Box 8090 Missoula Mt, 59807, (406) 329-4800.
Kelly, D. 1994. Demography and conservation of Botrychium australe, a peculiar sparse
mycorrhizal fern. N.Z. J. Bott. 32:393-400.
Kiefer, Russell B. and Jerald N. Lockhart. 1995. Intensive Evaluation and Monitoring of
Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Production, Crooked River and Upper Salmon River
sites - Annual Progress Report - January 1, 1993 - December 31, 1993. Idaho
Departmenfof Fish and Game report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No
00005862, Project No. 199107300.
Kiefer, Russell B. and Katharine A. Forster. 1992. Idaho Habitat/Natural Production
Monitoring, Part II, Intensive Monitoring Subproject - Annual Progress Report 1990.
King, John G. 1989. Streamflow Responses to Road Building and Harvesting: A
Comparison with the Equivalent Clearcut Area Procedure. Intermountain Research
Station Research Paper INT-401.
Koehler, Gary M., and J. David Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and
snowshoe hares. Journal of Forestry, October: 10-14.
Koehler, G. M., and K, B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. Pages 74-98 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S.
W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, tech eds. The scientiffc basis for conservin
forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United
States. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254.
Korb, J.E. , N.C. Johnson, and W.W. Covington. 2004. Slash pile burning effects on soil
biotic and chemical properties and plant establishment: recommendations for
amelioration. Restoration Ecology. Volume 12, No. 1. Pp. 52-62.
Krag, R. 1991. Options for reducing soil disturbance during timber harvesting. Canadian
Forest Industries paper presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Woodlands
Section, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. Montreal. Canada. Pp. 60-64.
Appendix C
PageC-12
-------
American River/Crooked River -Final Environmental Impact Statement
Laaka, S., and K. Syrjanen, K. 1990. Notes on the distribution and ecology of a threatened
moss, Buxbaumia viridis (DC,) Moug. & Nestl., in Finland. Memoranda Soc. Fauna
Flora Fennica 66:108-11.
Laaka, S. 1992. The threatened epixylic bryophytes in old primeval forests in Finland.
Biological Conservation 59:151-154.
Lacey C.A., J.R. Lacey, P.K. Fay, J.M. Story, and D.L. Zamora. 1995. Control Knapweed on
Montana Rangeland. Montana State University Extension Service. Circular 311.
Lacey, J.R., C.B. Marlow, and J.R. Lane. 1989. Influence of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea
maculosa) on Surface Runoff and Sediment Yield. Weed Technology, 3:627-631.
Lake, L. 1999. Nez Perce National Forest. Personal Communication concerning Buxbaumia
aphylla.
Leege, T. A. 1984. Guidelines ;for Evaluating and Managing Summer elk Habitat in Northern
Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin No. 11, Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Leiberg, J.B. 1898. The Bitterroot Forest Reserve. In: Part V of the Nineteenth annual report
of the US Geological Survey. 408 Pp.
Lichthardt, J. 1995a. Conservation Strategy for Allotropa virgata (candystick), U.S. Forest
Service, Northern and Intermountain Regions. Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID.
Lichthardt, J.J. 1995b. Monitoring of Clustered Lady's Slipper Orchid (Cypripedium
fasciculatum Kell. Ex Wats.) At Apgar Campground, Clearwater National Forest.
Idaho Conservation Data Center, Unpublished Report.
Lichthardt, J.J. 1999. Action Plan for sensitive plant species on the Clearwater National
Forest (Draft). Report to the Clearwater National Forest SO, Orofino, ID. Idaho Dept.
of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID.
Lichthardt, J. and M. Mancuso. 1991. Report on the conservation status of Allotropa virgata
(candystick) on the Nez Perce National Forest. Field survey and first- and second-
year monitoring results. Unpublished report for the Nez Perce National Forest; on file
at Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID.
Lichthardt, J. 2002. Conservation Strategy for Clustered Lady's Slipper Orchid (Cypripedium
fasciculatum) in U.S. Forest Service Region 1 (Draft v. 2). Unpublished report
prepared for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. 25 pages plus appendices.
Lorain, C. 1990. Field investigations of Astragalus paysonii (Payson's milkvetch). Idaho
Dept. of Fish and Game Conservation Data Center, Boise.
LRK Communications, University of Idaho Ecohydraulics Research Group, Wildlife Habitat
Institute, TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc, and Pocket Water, Inc. 2000.
Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project. 1997-2000 Implementation Monitoring
Report. Bonneville Power Administration Project #199393501.
Appendix C
Page C-13
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Luce, C.H. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest
roads. Restoration Ecology. Volume 5. Number 3. Pp 265-270.
Mack, C. and C. Gibilisco. 1995. Conservation assessment for the American marten (Martes
americana) in Idaho. Pages 8-27 In Idaho State Conservation Effort. 1995. Habitat
conservation assessments and strategies for forest carnivores in Idaho. Idaho Dept.
Fish and Game.
Mann, Hudson and Mark Von Lindern. 1988. Crooked River, Idaho County, Idaho. Water
Quality Status Report No. 80. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Division of
Environmental Quality.
Marcus, W.A., et al. 1998. Spotted Knapweed Distribution in Stock Camps and Trails of the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Great Basin Naturalist. Vol. 58 (2): 156-166.
Marshall, Allan., 1977, Nez Perce Social Groups: An Ecological Interpretation. Doctoral
dissertation, Department of Anthropology; Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington.
Martin, R.E., J.B. Kauffman, and J.D. Landsberg. 1989. Use of Prescribed Fire to Reduce
Wildfire Potential. Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire and Watershed
Management. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-109. pp. 17-22.
Maxell, B. A., G. Hokit, J. Miller, and K. Werner. No date. Detection of (Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis), the Chytrid Fungus Associated with Global Amphibian Declines in
Montana Amphibians. Technical Paper.
McGrath, M. T., S. DeStefano, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, and G. J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially
explicit influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific
northwest. Wildlife Monograph 154. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. 63 pp.
McKay, Kathryn L., 1998, Gold for the Taking: Historical Overview of the Florence Mining
District, Idaho County, Idaho. Prepared for the United States Forest Service under
contract #43-0295-5-0172 by Tracks of the Past, Columbia Falls, Montana.
Mitchell, J. L. 1994. Commercial Thinning of Mature Lodgepole Pine to Reduce
Susceptibility to Mountain Pine Beetle. Special Report SR-94. FERIC, Vancouver, BC
Montana and Idaho Airshed Group, 2004, North Idaho and Montana Airshed Group
Memorandum of Agreement - 1999, in: Montana /Idaho Airshed Group Operating
Guide, p. 39.
Montgomery, J.D. 1990. Survivorship and predation changes in five populations of
Botrychium dissectum in eastern Pennsylvania. Am. Fern J. 80:173-182.
Montgomery, David R. and John M. Buffington. 1993. Channel Classification, Prediction of
Channel Response and Assessment of Channel Condition. Washington State
Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement Report TFW-SH10-93-002.
Moody, M.E. and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the Spread of Plant Invasions: the Importance
of Nascent Foci. Journal of Applied Ecology. 25,1009-1021.
Appendix C
Page C-14
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Moore, J.A., P.O. Mika, T.M. Shaw, and M.G. Johnston. 2004. Foliar nutrient characteristics
of four conifer species in the interior northwest, USA. Western Journal of Applied
Forestry. Volume 19, number 1. 40 pp.
Moseley, R.K. and Pitner, A. (1996). Rare Bryophytes and Lichens in Idaho: Status of Our
Knowledge. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Boise.
Mote, Philip W., Edward A. Parson, Alan F. Hamlet, William S. Keeton, Dennis Lettenmaier,
Nathan Mantua, Edward L. Miles, David W. Peterson, David L. Peterson, Richard
Slaughter and Amy K. Snover. 2003. Preparing for Climatic Change: The Water,
Salmon, and Forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 61: 45-88, 2003.
Mousseaux, M. 1996. Idaho Panhandle NF. Draft Botanist Report for the St. Joe
Geographic Assessment.
Murphy, E. C., and W. A. Lenhausen. 1998. Density and foraging ecology of woodpeckers
following a stand-replacement fire. Journal of Wildl. Management 62:1359-1372.
Murray, Sharon A. No date. The Mount Vernon Dredge.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995.
Biological Opinion on the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Boise,
Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman
National Forests.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998.
Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries Service and
other agencies, 1998. Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition for
Chinook, Steelhead, and Bull Trout. Local Adaptation for the Clearwater Basin and
Lower Salmon.
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 1995. Introduction to Fire Effects RX-340
Student Text. Pp2.9-2.10.
NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 4.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 2005 ).
Nielsen-Gerhardt, Marci. 2003. Ohara Creek Fish Structure Turbidity Monitoring.
Unpublished report on file at the Nez Perce National Forest.
Noon, B.R., R.H. Lamberson, M.S. Boyce, and L.L. Irwin. 1999. Population viability
analysis: a primer on its principal technical concepts, pp.87-134 in Ecological
Stewardship: a Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, Vol. II. W.T. Sexton,
A.J. Malk, R.C. Szaro, and N.C. Johnson, editors. Elsevier Science, The Netherlands.
Norris, L. A., H. W. Lorz, and S. V. Gregory. 1991. Forest chemicals. American Fisheries
Society Special Publication 19: 207-296.
Pfankuch. 1978. R1 Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation. USDA
Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.
Appendix C
PageC-15
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Paradis, Wayne. 2003. Personal observation
Parendes, L. A. and J. A. Jones. 2000. Role of Light Availability and Dispersal in Exotic Plant
Invasion along Roads and Streams in the H. J. Andres Experimental Forest, Oregon.
Conservation Biology. 14(1) pp. 64-75.
Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1993. Susceptibility of volcanic ash-influenced soil in northern Idaho
to mechanical compaction. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station.
Research Note INT-409. page 1.
Parker, Ingrid M. 2001. Safe Site and Seed Limitation in Cytisus scoparius (Scotch Broom):
invasibility, disturbance, and the role of cryptogams in a glacial outwash prairie.
Biological Invasions 3: pp323-332.
Patla, S. (team leader), K.K. Bates, M. Bechard, E. Craig, M. Fuller, R. Howard, S. Jefferies,
S. Robinson, R. Rodriguez, and B. Wall. 1995. Habitat conservation assessment and
strategy for the northern goshawk for the State of Idaho, March 3, 1995. 35 pp.
Pauchard A., P. B. Alaback, and E. G. Edlund. 2003. Plant Invasions in Protected Areas at
Multiple Scales: Linaria Vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae) in the West Yellowstone Area.
Western North American Naturalist. 63(4) pp. 416-428.
Pauley, George. 1993. Chukar Use of Yellow Starthistle. Unpublished Memo. Idaho
Department of Fish and Game.
Plotnikoff, M., M.Schmidt, C.Bulmer, and M.Curran. 1999. Forest productivity and soil
conditions on rehabilitated landings: interior British Columbia. British Columbia
Ministry of Forests Research program. Extension Note 40. Pp 6-8.
Powell, Hugh D. W. 2000. The influence of prey density on post-fire habitat use of the black-
backed woodpecker. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 99 pp.
Prellwitz, R..T.R. Howard, and W.D. Wilson. 1983. landslide analysis concepts for
management of forest lands on residual and colluvial soils. Transportation Research
Record 919. Washington D.C. 10 pp.
Quigley, T.M., R.W. Haynes, and R.T. Graham, tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific
assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of
the Klamath and Great Basins. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report.
PNW-GTR-382. Portland, Oregon. 303 pp.
Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, technical editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem
components in the interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service. Volumes I-V.
Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382. 303
PP-
Reynolds, R. T., D. A. Boyce, R. T. Graham, and H. Reiser. 2001. Review of Supplemental
Information Relevant to Habitat Management for the Northern Goshawk in
Southwestern United States. Northern Goshawk Scientific Committee Report - USDA
Forest Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, N.M.
Appendix C
PageC-16
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. Hildegard, and others. 1992. Management
recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen
Tech. Rep. RM-217. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 pp..
Ringe, R. R., J. R. Lukens, P. D. Hiebert, and W. D. Morton. 1978. Survey of Streams in the
Emerald Empire and Cottonwood Resource Areas of Idaho. Interagency Agreement
No. YA-515-IA7-15.
Robichaud, P.R. and R.E. Brown. 1999. What happened after the smoke cleared: Onsite
erosion rates after a wildfire in Eastern Oregon. In: Olsen, D.S. and J.P. Potyondy
(eds.). Proceedings AWRA Specialty Conference: Wildland Hydrology, Bozeman,
Montana. Pp. 419-426
Roloff, G.J. 1995. Conservation assessment for the Canada lynx (Felis lynx) in Idaho.
Pages 71-81 In Idaho State Conservation Effort. 1995. Habitat conservation
assessments and strategies for forest carnivores in Idaho. Idaho Dept. Fish and
Game.
Roloff, Gary J. and Haufler, Jonathan B. 1997. Establishing Population Viability Planning
Objectives Based on Habitat Potentials. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 25(4): 895-904.
Rosentreter, R. 1994. Displacement of Rare Plants by Exotic Grasses. In; Monsen, S.B. and
S.G. Kitchen, editors: Proceedings-Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands,
General Technical Report INT-GTR-313, Ogden, Ut., U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 170-175.
Rosgen. 1994. Stream Channel Classification with Wolman Pebble Count and Channel
Profiles.
Rowland, Mary M., Wisdom, Michael J.,. Johnson, Douglas H., Wales, Barbara C. ,.
Copeland, Jeffrey C, and Edelmann, Frank B. 2003. Evaluation of Landscape Models
for Wolverines in the Interior Northwest, United States of America. Journal of
Mammology, 84(1):92-105.
Ruediger, Bill, Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney,
Gary Patoon, 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. Pp 7-10, 142pp. (Also available electronically at:
http//www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html).
Ruggiero, L.F., Hayward, G.D., and Squires, J.R. 1994. Viability Analysis in Biological
Evaluations: concepts of Population Viability Analysis, Biological Population, and
Ecological Scale. Conservation Biology Volume 8, No. 2, pp. 365-372.
Samson, F.B. 2002. Population viability analysis: management and conservation planning at
large scales. Pages 425-441 in Population Viability Analysis, S.R. Bessinger and D.R.
McCullough, editors. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Appendix C
PageC-17
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Sanborn, P., C. Bulmer, D. Coopersmith, A. Dale, and D. Erikson. 1999a. Soil rehabilitation
research at the Aleza Lake Research Forest: techniques for restoring productivity to
fine-textured soils. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program Note PG-
18. 8pp.
Sanborn, P, M. Kranabetter, and C. Bulmer. 1999b. Soil rehabilitation in the Prince George
Forest region: a review of two decades of research. British Columiba Ministry of
Forests Research Program. Note PG-16. 6 pp.
Sappington, Robert Lee, Caroline D. Carley, Kenneth C. Reid and James D. Gallison . 1995,
Alice Cunningham Fletcher's "The Nez Perce Country." In Northwest Anthropological
Research Notes Volume 29 (2), edited by Roderick Sprague and Deward E. Walker,
pp. 177-220. Department of Sociology/Anthropology, University of Idaho.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Mines, and J. Fallen. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey,
Results and Analysis 1966 - 2003. Version 2004.1 [Online]. USGS Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available at: http://www.mbr-
pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html [Accessed 2004].
Schmidt, K., J. Menakis, C. Hard, W. Hann, and D. Bunnell. 2002. Development of Coarse-
Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management. General Technical Report
RMRS-87.
Schoennagel, T., T.T. Veblen, and W.H. Romme. 2004. The interaction of fire, fuels, and
climate across Rocky Mountain forests. BioScience. Vol. 54, No. 7. Pp. 661-676.
Schroeder, Mark J.; and Charles C. Buck. 1970. Agriculture Handbook 360. Washington
DC; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Seim, Sharon. 2003. Personal communication (email) concerning recent Nez Perce Tribal
wolf pack verifications on the Red River Ranger District (September 2003).
Seim, Sharon 2004. E-mail message regarding Boreal toads.
Shaw, T. 2003. Personal communication. Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Cooperative.
University of Idaho. College of Natural Resources.
Siddall, Phoebe. 1992. Guide for Predicting Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields in
Idaho Batholith Watersheds. USDA Forest Service. August 1992.
Siddall, P, 1992, South Fork Clearwater River Habitat Enhancement, Project 84-5,
Agreement No. DE-A179-84BP16475
Spinden, Herbert, Joseph., 1964, The Nez Perce Indians. Memoirs of the American
Anthropological Association, Volume II Part 3. Reprint of the original 1908 Memoir by
the Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York.
Squires, J. R., and L. F. Ruggerio. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern goshawks in
southcentral Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 60:170-177
Stark, N. and C. Spitzner. 1982. Nutrient storage by andic soils. Soil Science. Volume 133,
umber 1. Pp. 33-41.
Appendix C
PageC-18
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
Steele, Robert, Robert D. Pfister, Russell A. Ryker; Jay A. Kittams. 1981. Forest Habitat
Types of Central Idaho. General Technical Report INT-114. Ogden, US: U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 138pp.
Stowell, Rick, Al Espinosa, Ted C. Bjornn, William S. Platts, Dave C. Burns and John S.
Irving. 1983. Guide for Predicting Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields Idaho
Batholith Watersheds. USDA Forest Service Northern and Intermountain Regions.
August 1983.
Suttle, Kenwyn B., Mary Power, Jonathan Levine, and Camille McNeely. 2004. How Fine
Sediment in Riverbeds Impairs Growth and Survival of Juvenile Salmonids. Ecological
Applications 14(4). Pp. 969-976. August 2004.
Tausch J.R., t. Svejar, and J. W. Burhardt. 1994. Patterns of annual Grass Dominance on
Anaho Island; Implications for Great Basin Vegetation Management. In; Monsen, S.B.
and S.G. Kitchen, editors: Proceedings-Ecology and Management of Annual
Rangelands, General Technical Report INT-GTR-313, Ogden, UT, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 120-131.
Thomas, Robert and John G. King. 2004. Sediment Yield and Model Test in Main and South
Forks of Red River - Water Years 1986 to 2001. Unpublished report on file at the Nez
Perce National Forest.
Thompson, Katherine. Personal communication.
Trombulak, Stephen C., and Christopher A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of
roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology: Volume 14, No.
1. February. 18-30.
Tyser, R.W. and C.H. Key. 1988. Spotted Knapweed in natural Area Fescue Grasslands: An
Ecological Assessment. Northwest Science, 62:(4) 151-160.
University of Idaho. 1978. Final Report YA-515-1A7-15
University of Idaho. 1993. State Climate Program. Precipitation Maps for the State of Idaho.
Base Period 1961-1990.
U.S. Code - Title 16, Chapter 36, Section 1604. 2004. National Forest System Land and
Resource Management Plans.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1974. Agriculture Handbook 462 Visual Management
System - Volume 2, Chapter 1, 1974.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Agriculture Handbook 701 Landscape Aesthetics: A
Handbook for Scenery Management, 1995 (AH-701).
USDA Forest Service. Northern Region. 1974. Forest Hydrology Part II - Hydrologic Effects
of Vegetation Manipulation.
USDA Forest Service. 1981. Guide for predicting sediment yields from forested watersheds.
Appendix C
Page C-19
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
USDA, Forest Service. 1982. Nez Perce Forest Plan, Background Paper for Analysis of the
Management Situation: Timber. Region 1, Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville,
Idaho. Pages 4-5.
USDA Forest Service. 1986. 1986 ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) Book. USDA
Forest Service.
USDA Forest Service. 1987a Nez Perce National Forest Plan. Nez Perce National Forest.
Grangeville, Idaho
USDA Forest Service. 1987b. Soil Survey of the Nez Perce National Forest area. Pp 333-
409.
USDA Forest Service. 1987c. Nez Perce National Forest Plan: Record of Decision, Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices.
USDA Forest Service. 1987d. Nez Perce National Forest Plan Appendix A: Identification of
issues, concerns, and opportunities. Region 1, Nez Perce National Forest,
Grangeville, Idaho. Pages A-10 and A-17.
USDA Forest Service. 1987e. Nez Perce National Forest Plan, Appendices B and N.
USDA Forest Service. 1988a. First annual monitoring and evaluation report. Page 31.
USDA Forest Service, 1988b, Forest Service Handbook 7709.55 - Transportation Planning,
Chapter 10 - Regional Transportation Planning, USDA Forest Service Washington'
D.C, March 1988. '
USDA Forest Service. 1990. Third annual monitoring and evaluation report. Page 51.
USDA Forest Service. 1991. Fourth annual monitoring and evaluation report.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Fifth annual monitoring and evaluation report. Page 78.
USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Snag and coarse woody debris guidelines for NEPA analysis
of the 1994 fires. Payette National Forest. Report on file at Forest headquarters 26
PP-
USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Reserve tree guide. Northern Region guidance document on
file at Forest headquarters. 14 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1995c. Per FSM File Code 2670/1950, August 17, 1995;
Streamlining Biological Evaluations and Conclusions for Determining Effects to Listed,
Proposed and Sensitive Species.
USDA Forest Service. 1995d Nez Perce Forest Stream Survey
USDA Forest Service. 1996a. Monitoring strategy for landslide prone terrain. Report on file
at Forest headquarters. 8 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1996b. Status of the Interior Columbia River Basin: Summary of
scientific findings. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR 385.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon. 144 pp.
Appendix C
Page C-20
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Upper Columbia River
Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1.
USDA Forest Service, 1977. Nez Perce National Forest 10th Annual Forest Plan Monitoring
and Evaluation Report. Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID.
USDA, Forest Service. 1998a. South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment. Nez
Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. Volumes I and II.
USDA Forest Service. 1998b. South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment, Wildlife
Technical Report, - Fisher, goshawk, marten, pileated woodpecker. Nez Perce
National Forest - Clearwater National Forest - Bitterroot National Forest, Grangeville,
Idaho.
USDA Forest Service. 1999a. South Fork Clearwater River Biological Assessment. Nez
Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho.
USDA Forest Service. 1999b. Forest Service Manual. R-1 Supplement No. 2500-99-1.
USDA Forest Service. 1999c. Nez Perce National Forest 12th Annual Forest Plan Monitoring
and Evaluation Report. Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID. p 39.
USDA Forest Service, unpublished. 1999d. Programmatic Biological Assessment for noxious
weed control.
USDA Forest Service. 1999e. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the
National Forest Transportation System.
USDA, Forest Service, 1999f. Draft Meadow Face Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed
Scale (EAWS). Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho.
USDA Forest Service. 2000a. Northern Region shag management protocols. Report on file
at Forest headquarters. 34 pp.
USDA, Forest Service, 2000b. Nez Perce National Forest, Forest Plan 13th Annual
Monitoring and Evaluation Report
USDA, Forest Service. 2001 a. Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin
Assessment (Volume 1: Narrative), Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho.
447 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2001 b. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA
Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, signed January 17, 2001
USDA Forest Service. 2002a. Clean Slate timber sale landslide prone assessment. Report
on file at Forest headquarters. 2 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2002b. Nez Perce National Forest Plan Monitoring & Evaluation
Report - Wolf Populations. Grangeville, Idaho
USDA Forest Service. 2002c. Meadow Face Stewardship Project Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Clearwater Ranger District, Nez Perce national Forest,
Grangeville, Idaho. 194 pp.
Appendix C
Page C-21
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
USDA Forest Service. 2002d. Newsome Creek Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed
Scale. Nez Perce National Forest. Grangeville, Idaho. Saul and Lewis
USDA Forest Service. 2003a (previously 2003b). Red River Ecosystem Analysis at the
Watershed Scale. Nez Perce National Forest. Grangeville, Idaho.
USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Draft soil monitoring study: Mackay Day soil timber sale. On
file at Forest Headquarters. 12 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2003c. Soil monitoring and soil improvement inventory data on file at
Forest Headquarters.
USDA Forest Service. 2003d. Slim's Fire Incident Command Team, Structure Protection
Contingency Plan for the Elk City Township and Red River Area, Nez Perce National
Forest.
USDA Forest Service, 2003e, Forest Service Manual 7700 - Transportation System, 7712 -
Transportation Analysis, WO Amendment 7700-2003-2, USDA Forest Service,
December 16, 2003.
USDA Forest Service, 2004a, Nez Perce NF, Habitat-based Terrestrial Vertebrate
Populations Viability related to the American/Crooked River Project (see project file)
USDA, Forest Service. 2004b. Draft Northern Region Forest Service 2004 Sensitive
Species List Update Process for Wildlife. Region 1, Missoula, Montana.
USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Fire Effects Information - Plant Species Life Form! Electronic
document/database, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants. accessed December
10,2004.
USDA Forest Service. 2004d, Draft Forest Plan 15th Annual Monitoring and Evaluation
Report- FY 2002, Region 1, Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho.
USDA Forest Service. 2004e. Forest insect and disease conditions in the United States
2003. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Washington, D.C. Page 54.
http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/annual_i_d_conditions/ConditionsReport_03_final.pdf.
USDA Forest Service. 2004f (Pat Green 2004d). Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in
the United States. Forest Health Protection. August 2004, p. 54.
USDA, Forest Service. No date. Nez Perce Forest Plan, Background Paper for Analysis of
the Management Situation: Wildlife. Region 1, Nez Perce National Forest,
Grangevilie, Idaho, p 27.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Appendix G - Biological Assessment of Ongoing
and Proposed Bureau of Land Management And Forest Service (American River -
Chapter 3) Activities on Listed Fall Chinook Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Bull Trout in
the South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin, Also includes Westslope Cutthroat Trout
and Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Bureau of Land Management, Upper Columbia-
Salmon Clearwater Districts, Cottonwood Resource Area Office, Cottonwood Idaho
April 1999.
Appendix C
Page C-22
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U> S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Pp 1, 8, and 19 (160 pp.)
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998.- Notice of 12-month petition finding (goshawk).
Federal Register: June 29, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 124), pp. 35183-35184.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Final Rule: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
Establishment of a Nonessential experimental population of gray wolves in
Yellowstone National park in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. 50 CFR Part 17. 31 pp.
van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1995. Large Fires in Wilderness Areas. In: Brown, J.K., et al Tech.
Coords. 1995. Proceedings: Symposium on Fire in Wilderness and Park
Management. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-GTR-320. pp.
113-116.
Walstad, J.D., et al. 1990. Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forest. Oregon
State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Pp. 97-98.
Wemple, B.C. 1994. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two
basins, western Cascades, Oregon. MS thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon. Pp. 68-69.
Wendzell, S.M. and J.G. King. 2003. Postfire erosional processes in the Pacific Northwest
and Rocky Mountain regions. Forest Ecology and management. Vol. 178. Pp. 75-87.
Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing Fire Frequencies on Snake River Plains: Ecological and
Management Implications. In; McArther, E.D., et al, editors: Proceedings-Symposium
on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and
Management. General Technical Report INT-276 Ogden, Ut., U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, pp4-10.
Willard E.K., D.J. Bedunah, and C.L. Marcuey. 1988. Impacts and Potential Impacts of
Spotted Knapweed on Forest and Rangelands in Western Montana. Final Report.
University of Montana. 264 p.
William, Ray D. 2000. Pacific Northwest Weed Control Handbook. Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Williams, et al. 2001. References on the American Indian Use of Fire in Ecosystems.
Electronic document, http://www.wildlandfire.com/docs/biblio indianfire.htm. accessed
on December 1, 2004.
Wondzell, Steven M., and John G. King. 2003. Postfire Erosional Processes in the Pacific
Northwest and rocky Mountain Regions. Forest Ecology and Management, 178:75-87.
Woodbridge, B. and Detrich, PJ. 1994. Territory Occupancy and Habitat Patch Size of
Northern Goshawks in the Southern Cascades of California Studies in Avian Biology
No. 16:83-87.
Young, J. A. 1992. Ecology and Management of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusa
ssp. asperum [Simk.] Melderis). Great Basin Naturalist 52(3), pp 245-252.
Appendix C
Page C-23
-------
American River/Crooked River -Final Environmental Impact Statement
Young, J. S., and Hutto, R. L. 1999. Habitat and landscape factors affecting cowbird
distribution in the Northern Rockies. Studies in Avian Biology, No. 18:41-51.
Young, J. S., and Hutto, R. L. 2002. Use of a landbird monitoring database to explore effects
of partial-cut timber harvesting. Forest Science 48(2):373-378.
Zavaleta, Erika. 2000. Valuing Ecosystem Services Lost to Tamarix Invasion in the United
States. In Mooney, H. A. and R. J. Hobbs, Editors. Invasive Species in a Changing
World. Island Press, Wash. D.C. pp 261-300.
Appendix C
Page C-24
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
APPENDIX D - WATERSHED AND FISH HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS
Watershed and fish habitat improvement projects are part of each alternative. The projects are designed to achieve the upward
trend and soil quality requirements of the Nez Perce National Forest Plan, to achieve recovery of important habitats to ESA-listed fish
and/or to meet Clean Water Act requirements, including TMDLs. A summary of projects by alternative is found below:
Watershed and fish habitat improvement projects are part of each alternative. The projects are designed to achieve the upward
trend and soil quality requirements of the Nez Perce National Forest Plan, to achieve recovery of important habitats to ESA-listed fish
and/or to meet Clean Water Act requirements, including TMDLs. A summary of projects by alternative is found below:
Table D.1: Summary of Projects by Alternative
Project Type
Road Decommissioning
(miles)
(1000$)
Watershed Road
Improvement (miles)
(1000$)
Watershed Road
Improvement (sites)
(1000$)
Stream Crossing
Improvement (sites)
(1000$)
American River
B
4.9
46.1
7.4
13
0
0
3
70.0
C
7.5
71.9
.7.4
13
0
0
3
70.0
D
8.4
80.9
7.4
13
0
0
3
70.0
E
19.5
152.9
7.4
13
0
0
9
220.0
Crooked River
B
9.0
66.4
8.6
33.5
1
10.0
7
54.0
C
9.8
73.8
9.2
43.0
3
11.0
7
54.0
D
10.5
70.3
9.2
52.3
3
11.0
10
199
E
17.5
117.2
17.2
100.0
3
11.0
25
764.0
Project Total
B
13.9
112.5
16
46.6
1
10
10
124.0
C
17.3
145.7
16.6
56.0
3
11.0
10
124.0
D
18.9
151.2
16.6
65.3
3
11.0
13
269.0
E
37.0
270.1
24.6
113
3
11.0
34
984.0
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Project Type
Instream Improvement
(miles)
(1000$)
Recreation and Trail
Improvement (miles)
(1000$)
Recreation and Trail
Improvement (acres)
(1000$)
Mine Site Reclamation
(acres)
(1000$)
Soil Restoration (acres)
(1000$)
Grand Total Cost (1000$)
*.;• : .American River ','/',
B
0
0
1.6
8.3
0
0
0
0
4.4
10.0
147
C
0
0
1.6
8.3
0
0
0
0
8.1
18.3
182
D
0
0
1.6
8.3
0
0
0
0
9.6
25.6
198
E
0
0
2.4
12.3
0
0
0
0
20.4
49.9
448
', Crooked River
B
10.3
182.5
0.7
7.0
.1
2
7
15
13
29.8
400
C
11.1
222.5
0.7
7.0
8.1
52
7
15
18
48.6
527
D
11.1
222.5
0.7
7.0
8.1
52
7
15
23
59.2
688
E
14.6
737.0
2.2
14.5
8.1
52
9
25
37
89.6
1910
, Project Total
B
10.3
182.5
2.3
15.3
.1
2
7
15
18
39.8
547
C
11.1
222.5
2.3
15.3
- 8.1
52
7
15
26
70.0
711
D
11.1
222.5
2.3
15.3
8.1
52
7
15
32
84.8
886
E
14.6
737.0
4.6
26.8
8.1
52
9
25
58
139.5
2,358
Note: Alternative D units and costs are those associated with required projects only. When additional projects are factored in, the units and costs
are the same as Alternative E.
Appendix D
Page D-2
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
In the context of watershed improvement projects, road decommissioning applies to existing
roads and can include treatments ranging from abandonment to recontouring. The selection of
treatment type is based on the condition of the road, proximity to resource values such as
streams, cost, and other factors. The objectives of road decommissioning are to reduce
negative resource impacts and reduce maintenance costs by removing roads that are not
needed for access. Most of the roads planned for decommissioning within this project were
identified through a roads analysis process. Some roads were added or deleted based on field
reconnaissance. These were screened with Forest and District personnel to ensure that future
access needs were being met. Temporary roads constructed and decommissioned as part of
this project are not considered to be watershed improvements and are not listed in this
appendix.
Several roads were identified as having improvement needs due to adverse effects on aquatic
resources. The proposed work would improve drainage and reduce erosion from these roads.
Techniques could include adding drainage structures, shaping the road, adding rock surfacing in
places, hardening fords, and revegetation. In general, roads being reconstructed primarily for
timber haul purposes are not listed as watershed improvements. There are some exceptions,
however, which are identified by an underscored "Y" or "N" in the alternative columns of the
following tables. These exceptions consist of roads that require reconstruction or reconditioning
for timber haul purposes, and the treatment activities are deemed to be a benefit to watershed
health.
Stream crossing improvements are done to improve upstream passage of aquatic organisms,
particularly spawning salmonids, and/or to reduce risk of culvert failure during runoff events. In
some cases, culverts can be upgraded by retrofitting with baffles or other means. In other
situations, they may be replaced with larger culverts or other stream crossing devices.
Instream improvements include a variety of treatments. Large woody debris (LWD) placement
is done to improve aquatic habitat and restore natural function of stream systems. LWD is
placed in stream reaches where there is deficiency in this habitat feature. Riparian planting is
done to improve streamside shade, restore bank stability, and improve aquatic ecological
function. It is done using adapted native species and can include sedges, forbs, shrubs, or
trees. Maintenance generally involves improvements to existing fish habitat structures in the
channel and can include floodplain enhancement adjacent to existing improvements. Channel
reconstruction includes the above and often re-establishing stream meanders.
Soil restoration treats areas that have negative impacts to soil productivity or stability.
Objectives of soil restoration include improvement of soil productivity and reduction of adverse
effects to hydrologic function. Treatments can include soil de-compaction, recontouring of
excavated skid trails and landings, replacing surface soil and organic material, stabilization of
erosion features such as rills and gullies, and revegetation. The soil restoration units identified
with this project are primarily associated with roads planned for decommissioning, but some
legacy temporary roads are also proposed for recontouring. An estimated 1 to 6 percent of the
gross stand area associated with many of the roads proposed for decommissioning would
receive actual treatment.
Appendix D
Page D-3
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
AMERICAN RIVER
Table Notes: Alternative Codes: Y = Yes (considered in alternative), N = No (not considered in alternative); Underscore in alternative
column indicates road is used as haul route, with roadwork possibly funded by a timber sale or stewardship contract.
MIDDLE AMERICAN RIVER (17060305-05-06)
Table D.2: Existing roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
443C
9835
78480
78481
78482
78483
Decommissioning
Level
Moderate
reconstruction and
recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Haul route; eroding cuts and bare
travelway with poor drainage;
sediment depositing into American
River
0.5 miles within project boundary 1.0
miles in upper American.
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road. 0.12 miles in Flint
Creek.
Ridgetop road
Alternative
B
Y
N
N
N
N
N
C
Y
N
N
N
N
N
D
Y
N
N
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.18
0.2
Unit
Cost
$1,740
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Cost
$1,400
$8,000
$9,000
$1,000
$1,000
$900
$1,000
Priority
5th Code
M
L
L
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
M
L
L
L
L
L
Table D.3: Instream Improvement Projects
Project Name
Telephone Creek
-site id 100
Stream
Name
Telephone
Creek
Description/Comments
Channel reconnect. BLM project
Alternative
B
N
C
N
D
N
E
N
Units
(miles)
NA
Unit
Cost
NA
Cost
NA
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
Appendix D
Page D-4
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.4: Recreation and Trail Improvement Projects
Project
Name
Trail #510
- site id
22
Telephone
Creek
ATV
Location
American River
Telephone
Creek -from
mouth upstream
Description/Comments
Trail improvement, erosion, and
crossing improvements. Decrease
surface erosion and reduce sediment
and impacts at stream crossing. ATV
use occurring on trail closed to
motorized use, except for
snowmobiles. Restrict access with a
physical barrier.
Road-to-trail conversion. BLM project
- trail extends onto FS land.
Coordinate with rec/trails
Alternative
B
N
N
c
N
N
D
N
N
E
Y
N
Units
(ac/mi)
0.8 mi
NA
Unit
Cost
$5,000
NA
Cost
$4,000
NA
Priority
5th Code
L
Priority
6th Code
L
Table D.5: Soil restoration projects
Stand
Number
81107085
81206009
81206009
81107088
81206007
81206049
81207018
81207005
81107010
Adjacent
; Road
Number
443
443C
443C
78480
78481
78483
78550
9812F
9835
, Description/Comments
Recontour unclassified road and
associated skid trails
Recontour skid trail and landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 landings
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Y .
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
1.0
.3
.5
.2
.4
.3
.6
.1
.2
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
2500
700
1100
500
900
700
1400
300
500
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
M
M
L
L
L
M
M
L
Appendix D
Page D-5
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
UPPER AMERICAN RIVER (17060305-05-09)
Table D.6: Existing roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
9835
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Description/Comments
0.5 miles within project boundary;
0.9 miles in middle American.
Alternative
B
N
c
N
D
N
E
Y
Units
(miles)
1.0
Unit
Cost
$10,000
Cost
$10,000
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
EAST FORK AMERICAN RIVER (17060305-05-10)
Table D.7: Existing roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
9812E
9812E1
78526
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
This road is trashed with saturated
template. In old harvest unit; cut and fill
failures exist. Accesses private land and
will require coordination with landowner.
Alternative
B
N
•N
C
N
N
D
N
N
E
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
1.0
0.1
0,15
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$5,000 .
$10,000
Cost
$5,000
$500
$1,500
Priority
5th Code
L
L
M
Priority
6th Code
L
L
M
Table D.8: Stream crossing improvements
Road
Number
1810
Private
Crossing
Number
811
1005
Stream
East Fork
American
East Fork
American
description/Comments
48" culvert with 20' fill; recommend
upgrade by adding baffles for
aquatic organism passage
72" culvert with 6" fill, partial fish
barrier, BLM project, connected
action
Alternative
B
N
N
C
N
N
D
N
N
E
Y
N
Units
(sites)
1
1
Unit
Cost
$15,000
: Cost
$15,000
Priority
5th Code
L
Priority
encode
L
Appendix D
Page D-6
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.9: Soil restoration projects
Stand
Number
81205076
Adjacent
Road
Number
9812E
Description/Comments
Recontour 2 landings
Alternative
B
N
C
N
D
N
E
Y
Units
(acres)
.4
Unit
Cost
2260
Cost
1000
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
L
KIRKS FORK (17060305-05-11)
Table D.10: Existing roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
1810C
1810E
9832A
77328
Decommissioning
Level
Moderate
reconstruction and
recontour
Recontour
Maintenance and
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Gullied road with little or no drainage;
restore riparian function; first 0.69
miles to be reconstructed and
maintained, last 0.23 miles to be
decommissioned
Haul route; road vegetated and
drivable, but not needed for future.
Decommission from stream crossing.
Need to coordinate access needs with
BLM, though it may not be used for
Eastside Township project. Last one
out recontours the road.
Alternative ,
B
Y
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.23
0.33
1.42
0.21
0.33
Unit
Cost
$10,000
$10,000
$1,740
$10,000
$10,00
Cost
$2,300
$3,300
$2,500
$2,100
$3,300
Priority
5th Code
H
M
H
H
Priority
6lh Code
M
M
H
H
Appendix D
Page D-7
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.11: Watershed road improvements
Road
Number
9832
Improvement
Level
Maintenance
Description/Comments ,
Improve drainage on first 0.1 miles (in
lower American River); repair or remove 2
failing culverts near end of road (in Kirks
Fork); Haul route. Alt E treats only 1st 0.7
miles. Road is also proposed for haul
under Red Pines EIS
Alternative
B
Y
C
Y
D
Y
:e
Y
Units
(miles)
4.0
Unit
Cost
$250
Coat;/,',;'
$1,000
Priority ,
.-5th Code/
M
-Priority
; 6th Code
M
Table D.12: Stream crossing improvements
Road
Number
1810B
Crossing
Number
873
Stream
Unnamed
trib to Kirks
Fork
Description/Comments
30" culvert with 10' fill;
recommend larger pipe for
hydraulics
Alternative
B
N
C
N
D
N
E
Y
Units
(sites)
1
Unit
Cost
$10,000
Cost
$10,000
Priority
5th Code
L
Priority
6m Code
L
Table D.13: Recreation and Trail Improvement Projects
Project
Name
Trail #846 -
site id 23
Location
Kirks Fork
Description/Comments
ATV trail should be evaluated for
possible improvement needs.
Coordinate with BLM.
Alternative
B
Y
C
Y
D
Y
'E
Y
Units
(ac/mi)
1.16
miles
Unit
Cost
5000
Cost
$5,800
Priority
5th Code
L
Priority
6th Code
. M
Appendix D
Page D-8
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.14: Soil restoration projects
Stand
Number ,
81602063
81602066
81605021
81605019
81605005
Adjacent Road
Number
1810
1810
77326
77328
9832A
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour 2 landings
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
N
N
N
Y
Y
C
N
N
N
Y
Y
D
N
N
N
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.3
.5
.2
.4
.5
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
700
1100
500
1000
1100
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
M
M
M
H
H
WHITAKER CREEK (17060305-05-12)
Table D.15: Existing roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
78485
78525
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Varied
Description/Comments
Road borders old plantation, several
skid trail throughout
Alternative
B
N
C
Y
D
Y
E
Y
Units
(miles)
0.52
0.12
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$5,000
Cost
$2,600
$600
Priority
5th Code
M
L
Priority
6th Code
H
M
Table D.16: Watershed road improvements
Road
Number
1809B
1809B
1809C
Improvement
Level
Moderate
reconstruction
Minor
reconstruction
Major
Reconstruction
Description/Comments
Ditched, but some ponding; 2 low risk
culverts should be removed; failed log
culvert; 0.62 miles to be used for haul
Non-haul route - see comments above.
Ongoing erosion due to failing drainage.
Planned for use under BLM Eastside
township project. Coordinate w/ BLM
Alternative
B
Y
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
,, Units
0.62 mi
1.28 miles
0.78
Unit
Cost
$1,000
$2,000
$10,000
Cost
$620
$2,560
$7,800
Priority
5th Code
L
L
M
Priority
6th Code
L
L
H
Appendix D
Page D-9
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.17: Stream crossing improvements
Road
Number
1809
1809C
Crossing
Number
890
884
Stream
Unnamed
trib to
Whitaker
Creek
Whitaker
Creek
Description/Comments
24" culvert with 20' fill; replace
with larger pipe for hydraulics
and possible fish passage
Replace failing log culvert; to be
used by BLM
Alternative
B
N
Y
C
N
Y
D
N
Y
E
Y
Y
Units
(Sites)
1
2
Unit
Cost
$20,000
$10,000
tosi
$20,000
$20,000
Priority:
5th Code
L
. M
Priority
encode
L
H
Table D.18: Instream Improvement Projects
Project Name
Whitaker Creek
-site id 101
Stream
Name
Whitaker
Creek
Description/Comments
Channel reconnect, wetland
restoration. BLM project
Alternative
B
N
C
N
D
N
E
N
Units
(miles)
NA
Unit
, Cost
NA
Cost
NA
Priority
5th Code ,
M
Priority
encode
H
Table D.19: Soil restoration projects
Stand
Number
81307014
81307002
81303002
Adjacent Road
Number
1809B1
78485
78525
Description/Comments
Recontour unclassified road, trail,
and landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
N
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
1.2
.3
.1
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
Cost
2260
700
300
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
Appendix D
PageD-10
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
QUEEN CREEK (17060305-05-13)
Table D.20: Existing roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
1809A
1810D
78486
78487
78488
78489
78489A
78489B
Decommissioning Level
Moderate reconstruction
and recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Haul route alts C & D.
Gullied road with little or no
drainage; restore riparian function
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
D
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.92
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.15
Unit
. Cost
$3,800
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Cost
$3,500
$9,200
$8,000
$5,000
$1,000
$2,000
$2,000
$1,000
$750
Priority
5th Code
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
M
M
L
L
L
Table D.21: Stream crossing improvements
Road
Number
1809
1809
Crossing
Number
977
1090
Stream
Queen
Creek
Unnamed
trib to Queen
Creek
Description/Comments
36" culvert with 25' fill; seepy
site; possible replacement for
hydraulics and fish passage;
haul route
36" culvert with 20' fill; possible
replacement for hydraulics and
fish passage; haul route
Alternative
B
N
N
C
N
N
D
N
N
E
Y
Y
Units
(sites)
1
1
Unit
Cost
$50,000
$50,000
Cost
$50,000
$50,000
Priority
5th Code
L
L
Priority
6th Code
M
M
Appendix D
Page D-11
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.22: Instream Improvement Projects
Project Name
Queen Creek -
site id 102
Stream
Name
Queen Creek
Description/Comments
Channel reconnect, wetland
restoration. BLM project
Alternative
B
N
C
N
D
N
E
N
Units
(miles)
NA
Unit
Cost
NA
Cost
NA
Priority
5* Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
Table D.23: Soil restoration projects
Stand
Number
81307013
81307014
81308003
81308037
81308003
81308003
81308003
81308007
81308002
Adjacent Road
Number
1809A
1809B1
1810
1810A
1810D
1810D
1810D
78489
78489A
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour road to rock pit
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
D
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.6
.4
.5
.5
.2
.3
.8
.2
.2
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
1500
900
1100
1100
500
700
1800
500
500
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
H
M
M
M
H
H
H
L
H
Appendix D
Page D-12
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
FLINT CREEK (17060305-05-14)
Table D.24: Existing roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
443F
1125B
1125B1
9807A
9807A1
9807B
9807B1
981 2A
981 2B
981 2C
981 2D
9812F
9812F1
981 2G
9812H
9834B
78482
78586
78587
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Maintenance and
Recontour
Recontour
Moderate
Reconstruction and
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Moderate
Reconstruction and
Recontour
Major Reconst.
and Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Major reconst and
recontour -
Reconstruct and
Recontour
Description/Comments
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road. Includes soil restoration
Ridgetop road
Most of road is to be maintained, but recommend
decommissioning end of road in existing clearcut (-0.6
mi). Road is 2.2 miles long '
Ridgetop road
Haul route, followed by decommissioning; first 0.25 mi
used for haul in alts B & E; entire road used for haul alt
C & D; the 1st 0.72 miles rd. in fairly good condition; at
Saddle Rd becomes more vegetated, eroding cut & fill
slopes pose threat to mass wasting into trib of
American River.
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Has plugged culverts
Haul route; ridgetop road holding water; soils are
compacted, and productivity low; decompact to
increase soil productivity, reduce mass wasting. Used
for BLM Eastside Township project
Same as 981 2F. Used for BLM Eastside township
project.
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road. 0.18 miles in Middle American
Ridgetop road.
Road not used in alt C.
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
C
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.04
0.95
1.0
0.41
1.25
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.12
0.5
0.6
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$1,130
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$2,950
$10,000
$3,480
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$2,270
$5,000
$3,480
$10,000
Cost
$4,500
$1,000
$500
$2,000
$2,000
$6,000
$200
$1,100
$9,500
$5,000
$2,050
$12,500
$2,100
$7,000
$700
$2,000
$1,500
$3,000
$1,000
$600
$1,100
$2,500
$2,100
$6,000
Priority
5th Code
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
H
L
H
L
L
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
Appendix D
PageD-13
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.25: Stream Crossing Improvements
Road
Number
9812
Crossing
Number
766
Stream
Unnamed trib
to Flint Creek
Description/Comments
-30" culvert with 50% scour line;
recommend replacement for
hydraulics and accommodating
fish passage; haul route
Alternative
B
Y
;C
Y
D
Y
E
Y
Units
(sites)
1
Unit
Cost
$50,000
Cost
$50,000
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
Table D.26: Soil restoration projects
Stand
Number
81202027
81202027
81202027
81206001
81202003
81202008
81202031
81205028
81205030
81205083
81205027
81205026
81205024
81205031
81207004
81203001
81203008
81204001
81204009
Adjacent
Road
Number
1125
1125B
1125B1
78482
9807
9807A
9807B
9812
981 2A
9812A
9812B
9812C
9812D
9812D
9812F1
9812H
9812H
9834
9834
Description/Comments
Recontour landing
Recontour landing
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour road extension
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour 3 skid trails
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y.
N
N
N
N
c
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.2
.2
.2
.6
.4
.2
.2
.6
.1
.3
.8
.6
.9
.6
.3
.3
.2
.4
.2
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
500
500
500
1300
900
500
500
1400
300
700
1700
1400
2200
1400
700
700
500
900
500
Priority
. 5th'
Code
L
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
M
M
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
Appendix D
Page D-14
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Box SING CREEK (17060305-05-15)
Table D.27: Existing roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
78516
78517
Decommissioning
" Level
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Mid-slope road
Mid-slope road
Alternative
B
N
N
c
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
-E
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.20
0.10
Unit
Cost
$10,000
$10,000
Cost
$2,000
$1,000
Priority
5th Code
L
L
Priority
6th Code
M
M
Table D.28: Watershed road improvements
Road
Number
1810C
Improvement
Level
Moderate
reconstruction
Description/Comments
Haul route; 1' deep. ruts in road.
Decommission 0.23 mi in Kirks Fork.
Alternative
B
Y
C
Y
D
Y
E
Y
Units
(miles)
0.69
Unit
Cost
$1,500
Cost
$1,035
Priority
,5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
Table D.29: Stream Crossing Improvements
Road
Number
1810
Crossing
Number
1028
Stream
Box Sing
Description/Comments
24" pipe w/ 10' fill; 50% scour
line; replace for hydraulics
Alternative
B
N
C
N
D
N
E
Y
Units
(sites)
1
Unit
Cost
$5,000
Cost
$5,000
Priority
5th Code
L
Priority
6th Code
L
Table D.30: Recreation and Trail Improvement Projects
Project
Name
Trail 830 and
807
crossings -
site id 20
Location
.lunrtinn with
road trail 807
and Trail 810
crossings on
Box Sing
Creek
Description/Comments
Crossing on Box Sing Creek in poor
condition; decrease sediment into
Box Sing Creek. Trail up Box Sing
Creek needs recreation use
management prescription.
Alternative
B
Y
C
Y
D
Y
•E
Y
Units
(ac/mi)
0.5 mi
Unit
Cost
$5,000
Cost
$2,500
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
Appendix D
PageD-15
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.31: Soil restoration projects
Stand
Number
81308001
81308020
81308031
81308002
Adjacent
Road
Number
1810
1810A
78489
, Description/Comments
Recontour skid trail
Restore rock pit
Recontour 3 skid trails
Alternative
B
N
N
N
c
N
N
N
D
N
Y
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.3
.5
.7
Unit
Cost
2260
10000
2260
, Cost : ;
700
5000
1700
Priority
S^Code
Priority
e^Code
L
M
M
LOWER AMERICAN RIVER (17060305-05-16)
Table D.32: Soil restoration projects
Stand
Number
81708025
81708044
Adjacent
Road
Number
9832A
9832A
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trail
Restore landing
Alternative
B
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.2
.2
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
Cost
500
500
Priority
5* Code
Priority
6th Code
L
L
Appendix D
Page D-16
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
CROOKED RIVER
LOWER CROOKED RIVER (17060305-03-01)
Table D.33: Existing roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
522F1
9816F
9847
78404
78405
78406
78407
78532
78533
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Recontour
Reconstruct &
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Includes soil restoration
Ridgetop road. Starts in Red River
Wet draws pose threat to mass
wasting into Crooked River. Haul
route.
Ridgetop road. 1st 0.26 mi outside
proj area
Ridgetop road.
Ridgetop road. Most of road
outside proj area.
Ridgetop road.
Outside analysis area boundary -
used by BLM in Whiskey South;
coord decom by BLM.
Alternative
B
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
c
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.40
0.61
1.30
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.2
Unit
Cost
'$5,000
$5,000
$1,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
Cost
$2,000
$3,050
$1,300
$13,000
$3,500
$1,000
$500
$500
$5,000
$4,000
Priority
5th Code
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
Priority '
6th Code
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
Appendix D
PageD-17
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.34: Watershed Road Improvements
Road
Number
233
1110
9831
Improvement
Level
Minor
Reconstruction
Minor
Reconstruction
Maintenance
Description/Corn ments
County road - the "narrows". Spot
treatment. See also Crooked River
"narrows" in-stream improvement projects.
MP 2.56 to 6.06
Aggregate surfacing and ditch rock, cutslope
revegetation. Haul route. 2-3 locations over
length of rd - approx 0.3 mi total. From mp
4.83 to mp 5. 13
Drainage improvement, cutslope
stabilization. MP 1 .07 to 1 . 1 3.
Alternative
B
N
Y
Y
c
N
Y
Y
D
N
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
3.5 miles
0.3 miles
0.06 miles
Unit
Cost
$15,000
$15,000
$80,000
Cost
$52,500
$4,500
$4,800
Priority
5th Code
M
M
M
Priority
6th Code
M
M
M
Table D.35: Stream Crossing Improvements
Road
Number
233
233
9805
9805
9805
9831
Crossing
Number
1665
1548
1935
1959
1967
1702
Stream
Unnamed trib to
Crooked R
Unnamed trib to
Crooked R
Sec 14 trib to
Crooked R
Sec 14 trib to
Crooked R
Sec 14 trib to
Crooked R
Unnamed trib to
Crooked River
Description/Comments
County road. Replace culvert for
hydraulics; low fill height; Approx
MP2.3.
County road. Replace culvert for
hydraulics.
48" culvert; 10' fill height. Add
baffles for fish passage (possible
replacement)
48" culvert; 10' fill height. Add
baffles for fish passage (possible
replacement)
48" culvert; 10' fill height. Add
baffles for fish passage (possible
replacement)
30" culvert; 10' fill height.
Replacement for hydraulics, remove
debris below outlet
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(sites)
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Cost
$20;000
$20,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$20,000
Cost
$20,000
$20,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$20,000
Priority
5th Code
M
M
L
L
L
L
Priority
6*h Code
M
M
L
L
L
L
Appendix D
PageD-18
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.36: Instream Improvement Projects
' > > , * **' '
Project Name
Lower Crooked River
forced meanders site
id1
Lower Crooked River
narrows - site id 2
Lower Crooked River
narrows to Relief Creek
- site id 3
Stream
Name
Crooked
River
Crooked
River
Crooked
River
Description/Comments '
Riparian planting and maintenance
of existing improvements.
Riparian planting & bioengineering to
improve habitat and road-stream
interactions; reestablish sinuosity in
select areas - see also Crooked
River "narrows" under watershed
road improvements.
Riparian planting and maintenance
of existing improvements.
; Alternative;
B
Y
N
Y
c
Y
N
Y
D
Y
N
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
3.2
3.2
3,5
1.7
1.7
Unit
Cost
$10,000
$20,000
$50,000
$25,000
$50,000
Cost
$32,000
$64,000
$175,000
$42,500
$85,000
Priority
5th Code
H
M
H
Priority
6th Code
H
M
H
Table D.37: Soil Restoration Projects
Stand Number
82201170
82201022
82201022
82201093
82201133
82201130
82101064
82201011
82001040
82203083
82203084
82203085
Adjacent Road
, Number
1110
1110B
1110B
1110B
1110F
1110H
522F1
77329A
78533
9804
9804
9804
Description/Comments
Recontour trail and landing
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour road extension
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour temp road and skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
G
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.4
.2
.3
.5
.4
.2
.2
.2
.8
.2
.6
.3
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
900
500
700
1100
900
500
500
500
1800
300
1400
700
Priority 5th
Code
Priority 6th
Code
M
L
L
L
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
Appendix D
PageD-19
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Stand Number
82203087
82203057
82203080
82203003
82101061
82001134
82001131
82001117
82001042
82201135
82202049
82101027
82101007
82202098
82101057
Adjacent Road
Number
9804
9804
9805
9805A
9816
9816F
9831
9831
9831
9844
9844
9847
9847
9850
9870A
Description/Comments
Recontour 2 landings
Recontour skid trail/old mine road
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trails and landing
Recontour landing
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
D
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
1.2
.9
.5
.2
1.0
.7
.2
.4
.2
.4
.2
.2
.1
.1
.2
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
2700
2100
1100
500
2260
1600
500
900
500
900
500
500
300
300
500
Priority 5*
Code
Priority 6th
Code
M
H
H
H
M
H
L
L
L
L
L
M
H
L
L
RELIEF CREEK (17060305-03-03)
Table D.38: Roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
522 B1
522J
78496A
Decommissioning
Level
Reconstruct/
recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
This road will be reconstructed for haul
in Alt C and D. Planned for
decommissioning, but might be used
to replace portion of 522B.
Road is ponded and located in riparian
zone on Relief Creek. Road is 0.2 mi
long; first 0.1 mi to be maintained,
remainder recontoured .
Ridgetop road. NEPA coverage in
Red River Salvage. Road starts in
Red River, including, additional
Alternative
B
Y
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
1.10
.10
0:2
Unit .-
Cost
$1,150
$10,000
$10,0.00
$5,000
Cost
$1,300
$11,000
$1,000
$1,000
Priority
5th Code
M
M
L
Priority,
6th Code
H
H
L
Appendix D
Page D-20
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Road
Number
78496B
78496B1
78496C
78497
78497A
78497B
78497B1
78498
78499
78499A
78499A1
78500
78511
78512
78513
78514
78539
78540
Decommissioning
-,vflevei,: V'V~
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Varied
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Varied
Partial recontour
Description/Comments , ;
INFRA mileage
Same as 78496A
Same as 78496A
Same as 78496A
Ridgetop road. Road is compacted,
but in generally good condition with
effective water bars. Decompaction
would increase soil productivity
Ridgetop road. Same as 78496A
Ridgetop road.
Ridgetop road.
Reclaimed by landscape, trees and
shrubs could be planted
Same as 78499
Same as 78499
Ridgetop road.
Ridgetop road.
Streamside encroachment
0.8 miles in Middle Crooked
Major reconstruction for haul route,
followed by decommissioning
Alternative
B
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
c
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
E-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
.40
.70
.5
.20
.30
0.1
0.2
.50
0.2
.20
.26
Unit
: dost.
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$4,280
,_ $10,000
$10,000
Cost
$1,500
$2,000
$1,500
$5,500
$1,000
$2,000
$1,000
$4,000
$700
$500
$200
$3,000
$500
$1,000
$5,000
$1,000
$900
$2,000
$2,600
Priority
5th Code
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
Priority
6th Code
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
H
L
L
H
L
H
H
Appendix D
Page D-21
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.39: Watershed Road Improvements
Road
Number
522
522 B
9837
9839
9859
Improvement
Level
Maintenance
Moderate
reconstruction
Major
reconstruction
Moderate
reconstruction
Maintenance
Maintenance
Moderate
reconstruction
Description/Comments !
Add -10 cross-drains, -0.5 mi ditch rock
and possibly revegetate cutslopes
pending further analysis. From mp 4.87
to mp 5.5.
Road has poor drainage and is heavily
rutted; drain and grade and close during
wet season or obliterate to reduce
sediment; also covered under Red River
Salvage EA. 0.56 miles of 522B are
located in Deadwood Creek - 1.70 miles
in Relief Creek. MP 2.07 to 2.2 used for
haul in Alts B, C, and E.
MP 1 .32 to 2.2 is major reconstruction for
haul in Alt D.
Road needs immediate maintenance
attention; planned for haul route. Active
cut sloughing on upper slope road.
Watershed improvement recommended
on 0.57 miles (mp 1 .23 to mp 1 .8), road
is 3.2 miles long.
Decrease mass wasting into Relief
Creek. Active cut slumping onto road
with seepage at approx MP 0.2 and 0.3
(from mp 0.2 to mp 0.7). Road is 1 .2 mi
long.
Road used for private land access;
remove log culverts on steep side slopes;
sediment delivery to Relief Creek; Road
is 1 .05 mi long; see also crossing no
1964 stream crossing improvements.
Further coord w/ temp rd access between
draft & final.
Alternative
B
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
£
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
0.63 mi
2.2 mi
0.88
1.32
0.57 mi
0.5 mi
0.45 mi
Unit
Cost
$15,000
$4,400
$15,000
$4,400
$1,500
$2,000
$3,000
Cost
$9,450
$9,680
$13,200
$5.800
$900
$1,000
$1,350
Priority
5th Code
M
M
M
M
M
Priority 6th
Code
H
M
H
M
H
Appendix D
Page D-22
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
< ftoad
Number
9876-
site id 1
9876-
site id 2
> Improvement
••' Level /
Temporary
stabilization
(i e road
storage
Temporary
stabilization
(i e road
storage
• ; Descriptidn/Commeriis ,
Site at mp 1 .43. Pull back fill at stream
crossing to restore hydrologic function.
See also crossing nos. 1907 & 1926.
Site at mp 2.16. Pull back fill at stream
crossing to restore hydrologic function.
See also crossing nos. 1907 & 1926.
Alternative
B
N
N
C
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
E.
Y
Y
Units
1 sites
1 sites
, Unit
Cost
$500
$500
Cost
$500
$500
Priority
,5th Code
M
M
Priority 6th
Code
H
H
Table D.40: Stream crossing improvements
Road
Number
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
Crossing
Number,
1969
2024
2055
2212
2234
Stream
East Fork
Relief Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Description/Comments
Replace 48" culvert for fish
passage
24" culvert with 30' fill depth;
replacement for hydraulic
capacity; check for aquatic
organism passage.
30" culvert with 30' fill depth;
replacement for hydraulic
capacity and fish passage;
scour line 50%+; good habitat
above.
24" culvert; 30' fill; limited
habitat above; steep A channel.
Replacement for hydraulic
capacity; check for aquatic
organism passage.
24" culvert with 20' fill; replace
with larger pipe for hydraulic
capacity; pipe needs
maintenance.
Alternative
8
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(sites)
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Cost
$100,000
$20,000
$60,000
$30,000
$20,000
Cost
$100,000
$20,000
$60,000
$30,000
$20,000
Priority
5th Code
M
L
M
L
M
Priority
6th Code
H
M
M
L
M
Appendix D
Page D-23
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Road
Number
1803
9837
9859
9876
9876
Crossing
Number
2241
2213
1964
1907
1926
Stream
Relief Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
E Fk Relief
Cr
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Description/Comments
Replace 48" culvert for fish
passage
18" culvert with 10' fill; no fish &
little water above; probable
replacement with larger pipe for
hydraulic capacity; road needs
maintenance
Remove failing log bridge and
consider replacing with
hardened ford for private land
access; potential cost share;
see also watershed road
improvements.
Crossing removed, but
encroaching fill remains; restore
stream channel, floodplain, and
wetland. Spot treatments on
road before crossing location -
see watershed road
improvement treatments above.
Same as #1907
Alternative
B
N
N
Y
Y
Y
C
N
N
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(sites)
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Cost
$120,000
$5,000
$10,000
$2,000
$2,000
Cost
$120,000
$5,000
$10,000
$2,000
$2,000
Priority
5th Code
H
L
H
L
L
Priority
6th Code
H
L
H
M
M
Appendix D
Page D-24
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.41: Instream improvement projects
Project Name
Relief Creek
Instream
Improvement -
site id 4
Relief Creek
Instream
Improvement -
site id 5
Stream
Name
Relief and
East Fork
Relief Creeks
Relief and
East Fork
Relief Creeks
Description/Comments ;
Streamside planting in old harvest units
and mined areas; Large woody debris
placement; existing structure
maintenance.
Streamside planting in old harvest units
and mined areas; Large woody debris
placement; existing structure
maintenance. Adds channel sinuosity
restoration & flood plain restoration to 0.5
mile of site id 4.
; Alternative
B
Y
N
N
C
Y
N
N
D
Y
N
N
E
N
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
1.6
1.1
0.5
'Unit
Cost
$7,500
$150,000
Cost
$12,000
$75,000
Priority
5th Code
M
M
Priority
6th Code
H
M
Table D.42: Soil Restoration
Stand
Number
82104025
82102024
82103004
82104069
82104094
82102032
82102001
82102001
82102038
82102001
82102001
82102004
. 82102005
82102003
82102001
82105034
82104001
82104001
82105008
Adjacent Road
Number
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
522B
522B
522B
522B1
522B1
522B1
78497
78497B
78500
78511
78539
9836A
9836A
9837
Description/Comments
Recontour landing
Recontour trail
Recontour trails and landing
Partial stabilization of rock pit
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
RECONTOUR SKID TRAILS
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
C
N
N
N
Y
N
Y .
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.3
.2
1.3
1.0
.2
.6
.1
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.2
.4
.2
.4
.5
.1
.5
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
• 10,000
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
700
500
2900
10,000
500
1400
300
900
700
700
500
500
500
900
500
1000
1100
300
1100
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
L
L
M
M
L
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L M
M
M
Appendix D
Page D-25
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Stand
Number
82105011
82105037
82104013
82104047
82104090
82103002
82103001
82103001
82103001
82102003
82102023
Adjacent Road
Number
9837
9837
9837
9855A
9855A
9856A
9857
9857
9857
9876
9876
Description/Comments .
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Landing and skid trail decompaction
Landing and skid trail decompaction
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour temp road and landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
c
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.2
.5
.6
.6
.6
.3
.4
.1
.7
.3
.4
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
500
1100
1500
1300
1300
600
900
300
1600
700
900
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6mCode
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
MIDDLE CROOKED RIVER (17060305-03-04)
Table D.43: Roads to be decommissioned
Road
Number
9833
9836
9836B
9836B1
9836C
78514
78534
78538
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Road to trail
conversion
Recontour
Recontour
Varied
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Decommission last 1 .4 miles; total road
length 3.3 miles.
Road to trail conversion from Crooked River
to -4700' elev. Maintain rd width for
snowmobile groomer. Trail to remain open
for motorized trail vehicles.
DECOMMISSION FROM CROSSING 2285 TO END
OF ROAD
Road parallels small intermittent
stream
C road parallels B road entrance camo'd
w/slash pile. Decrease potential mass
wasting into Silver Cr.
0.2 miles in Relief Creek
Alternative
B
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Y
Y
f
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
D
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
1.6
1.46
0.24
0.1
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.5
Unit
Cost
$10,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Cost
$16,000
$7,350
$2,400
$1,000
$4,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,500
Priority
5th Code
H
H
M
M
M
L
L
L
Priority 6*
Code
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
Appendix D
Page D-26
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.44: Watershed road improvements
Road
Number
233A-
site id 3
9836
9838A
9848
9848B
Improvement ,
Level •
Minor
reconstruction
Moderate
reconstruction
Minnr
IVI II I\JI
reconstruction
Minnr
IVIII t\Jt
reconstruction
Maintenance
Description/Comments;
Road involves private land and mining
access. Site at mp 0.18. See also
improvements at two stream crossings.
High flows (Quartz Creek) run out of bar
and down rd to private residences.
This road is in bad shape and leads to
Crooked River. Varying (w/ alt)
lengths will be reconstructed for timber
haul. Watershed improvement needs
1st 3.4 miles. See also rd-trail
conversion under rd decom.
Spurs off main road are heavily used
by ATV's creating large gullies and are
high concern for sediment
transportation. Decrease sediment
transportation. Haul route.
Improve drainage with cross drains
and spot gravel; improve stream
crossings; recommend
decommissioning sediment trap (mp
3.17); stabilize slump (mp 3.2) above
sediment trap; cost share with
minerals program
Improve drainage with cross drains;
possible rd-trail conversion (has
current ATV use); coord w/ recreation
Alternative
B
Y
Y
Y
N
N
C
Y.
Y
Y
N
N
D
Y
Y
Y
N
N
E-.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
1 site
3.4 mi
1.11 mi
3.4 mi
1.1 mi
Unit
Cost .
$10,000
$3,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
Cost
$10,000
$10,200
$1,110
$3,400
$1,100
Priority
5th Code
M
H
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
H
H
M
M
M
Appendix D
Page D-27
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.45: Stream crossing improvements
Road
Number
233
233
233A
233A
9836
9836
9836B
9838
9848
Crossing
Number
2092
2136
2340
2341
2205
2243
2285
2335
2371
Stream
Baker Gulch
Gulch
Quartz Creek
Quartz Creek
Sawmill
Creek
Unnamed trib
to Crooked
River
Unnamed trib
to Silver
Creek
Unnamed trib
to Silver
Creek
Unnamed trib
to Crooked
River
Description/Comments
36" culvert; shallow fill; replacement
for hydraulics and fish passage;
county road (discretionary).
24" culvert; shallow fill; replacement
for hydraulics and fish passage;
county road (discretionary).
Old bridge laying in channel;
remove bridge; harden and improve
existing ford; near private land; see
also watershed rd improvements.
Same as 2340
18" culvert; shallow fill; replacement
for hydraulics; on haul route
18" culvert; 10' fill depth;
replacement for hydraulics; on haul
route
18" culvert; 20' fill depth; inlet
ripped, culvert partially mashed;
replacement for hydraulics;
recommend decommissioning from
crossing to end of road
48" culvert; recommend
replacement with pipe arch;
evaluate for fish passage (cost
includes passage provisions)
Designed as temporary sediment
trap; decommission sediment trap
and replace pipe for hydraulics.
Alternative
B
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
C
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
D
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(sites)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Cost
$70,000
$50,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$120,000
$15,000
Cost
$70,000
$50,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$120,000
$15,000
Priority
5th Code
H
H
H
H
L
L
M
L
M
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
H
M
L
M
L
H
Appendix D
Page D-28
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.46: Instream Improvement Projects
Project Name '.
Middle Crooked
River Habitat
Improvement
Maintenance - site
id 6
Crooked River
near Silver Creek
- site id 7
Baker Gulch - site
id8
Rainbow Gulch -
site id 9
Quartz Creek
Riparian Planting
-site id 10
Stream :
iName
Crooked
River
(Relief Creek
to Fivemile)
Crooked
River
(Fivemile to
Orogrande)
Baker Gulch
Creek
Rainbow
Gulch Creek
Quartz Creek
: Qes.cription/Comments •
Riparian planting and maintenance
of existing improvements. Includes
stabilization of fillslope on private
land and Baker Gulch side channel
maintenance.
New fish habitat improvements on
0.8 miles of stream. Work includes
adding stream meanders, floodplain
creation, large woody debris
placement, and riparian planting.
Reconnect channel mouth to
Crooked River to restore stream
connectivity.
Reconnect channel mouth to
Crooked River to restore stream
connectivity.
Plant RHCA along harvest unit.
Alternative
B
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
'E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
2.8
2.8 •
0.8
0.8
0.02
0.02
1.0
, Unit
Cost ,
$25,000
$50,000
$50,000
$200,000
NA
NA
$6,000
Cost
$70,000
$140,000
$40,000
$160,000
$10,000
$10,000
$6,000
Priority
5th Code
H
M
H
H
L
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
H
H
Appendix D
Page D-29
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table D.47: Recreation and Trail Improvement Projects
Project
Name
Trail 807 - site
id 12
Crooked River
Camp-grounds
-site id 10
Crooked River
Camp-grounds
-site id 10
Old Orogrande
Hotel - site id 9
Jnauthorized
Bridge on
Quartz Creek
Location
Near Fivemile
Campground
Upstream of
Orogrande
above Road
#233
Upstream of
Orogrande
above Road
#233
At Old
Orogrande
rjpor
1 IGC11
confluence of
West and East
Forks of
Crooked River
Upper Quartz
Creek NE NW
Sec 18. End
of FS Road #
9848B
Description/Comments
Trail is very steep and rutting, was rebuilt, but still
dangerous for the user. Surface erosion to
ephemeral channel during rainstorm and
snowmelt events. Decrease surface erosion and
rutting on steep section, decrease sediment
routing to ephemeral channel. User-created trail
also associated with this trail.
Crooked River Campgrounds above Orogrande
and ATV raceway" 15' wide x 100' long. Manage
sites to restrict motorized use to designated
areas, improve soil productivity, reduce erosion
and sediment delivery into Crooked River.
Crooked River Campgrounds above Orogrande
and ATV raceway" 15' wide x 100' long. Manage
sites to restrict motorized use to designated
areas, improve soil productivity, reduce erosion
and sediment delivery into Crooked River.
Control parking on meadow adjacent to Road
#233 and across from historic hotel, decompact
and seed area, designate parking with boulders.
Decrease soil compaction, erosion, sediment
delivery, and invasion of weeds. Construct
sanitation facilities.
User-built bridge to cross the headwaters of
Quartz Creek. Use associated with recreation
within the Diamond Hitch Mine Prospects and
accesses road system closed to motorized use,
except for snowmobiles. Remove bridge and
restore site.
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
Y
C
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(ac/mi)
1.5 mi
5 ac
5 ac
2ac
0.1 ac
Unit
Cost ,
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
NA
Cost
$7,500
$25,000
$25,000
$20,000
$2,000
Priority
5th Code
M
M
M
M
L
Priority
6th Code
M
M
M
M
M
Appendix D
Page D-30
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
/Project
' • = Name '/
Unauthorized
ATV trail
connects FS
Road # 9848B
with FS Road #
9838 - site id 3
. Private ATV
Access to the
Quartz Creek
ATV Loop -
site id 21
: , Location.1
Trail
Originates
from the end of
the 9848B
Road and
travels upslope
to the end of
the 9838 road.
riva e r°a
access north
Orogrande.
, , Description/Comments
Trail is deeply rutted in places. Active erosion
from trail. into Quartz Creek. Trail accesses road
system closed to motorized use, except for
snowmobiles. Rehabilitate trail and manage
access.
The public is using a road accessing private land
to reach FS Rd # 9838A, which is closed to
motorized access, except for snowmobiles.
Manage road as access to private land and
restrict unauthorized use of Rd #9838A.
Alternative
B
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Units
(ac/mi)
0.2 mi
0.5 mi
Unit
Cost
$10,000
$10,000
Cost
$2,000
$5,000
Priority
5th Code
L
M
Priority
6th Code
H
H
Table D.48: Mine Site Restoration
Project
Name
Pond and
mine site
near
Petsite.
site id 8
Diamond
Hitch - site
id 1
Unnamed
Mine #1 -
site id 7
Location
Hpart of
tributary in
Quartz Creek
thp NW5W
End of Road
#98486 in
Quartz Creek
On Quartz
Creek 0.2
miles
upstream
from mouth
near end of
Road #233A
Description/Comments
Old pond at the head of the trib, accessed by old
road, pond overflow eroding, wetland damage,
old mine site. Drain and recontour pond,
recontour road into mine site. Restore wetland,
clean up mine site. Decrease sediment
overflowing out of pond into wetland. Decrease
erosion from road into trib, restore wetland
Test adit seepage and mine tailings for metals.
Restore and stabilize tailings in and adjacent to
Quartz Creek. Test adit seepage and mine
tailings for metals.
Alternative
B
N
Y
Y
C
N
Y
Y
D
N
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
2
5
1
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$1,000
$5,000
Cost
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
Priority .
5lh Code
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
M
M
M
Appendix D
Page D-31
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Project
Name
Unnamed
Mine #2 -
site id 6
Location
On Quartz
Creek 0.1 7
miles
upstream
from mouth
along Road
#233A.
Description/Comments
Restore and stabilize placer mining site.
Alternative
B
Y
C
Y
D
Y
E
Y
Units
(acres)
1
Unit
Cost
$5,000
COSt , ' :
$5,000
Priority
5th Code
L
Priority
6(N Code
M
Table D.49: Soil Restoration Projects
Stand
Number
83102023
83102019
83102026
83102066
83102069
83102028
83102029
83102008
83102038
83101005
83101005
83102002
83102002
83101050
83101061
83101061
83101053
83101046
Adjacent Road
Number
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
77325
78514
78514
78534
78534
78538
9833
9833
9833
9836
Description/Comments
RECONTOUR 2 SKID TRAILS AND
LANDING
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail system and
fireline
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour trail
Recontour landing
Recontour temp road
Recontour skid trail
Alternative .
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
'.£.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.4
.1
.4
.2
.3
.5
.6
.4
.5
.2
.2
.2
.1
.1
.5
.2
.6
.6
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
1000
500
1000
500
700
1100
1400
900
1100
500
500
500
300
500
1100
500
1400
1300
Priority
5th Code
H
Priority
6mCode
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
Appendix D
Page D-32
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Stand
Number
83101042
83101041
83101004
83101002
83102001
83102017
83102001
83102082
83102064
83103010
83103007
83102058
83103018
83103028
Adjacent Road
Number
9836
9836
9836
9836
9836B
9836B1
9836C
9838A
9838
9838
9838
9838
9838
9838
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour legacy temporary road
Recontour unclassified road and
landing
Recontour unclassified road
Recontour unclassified road
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trails
Recontour 2 skid trails
Alternative
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
D
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.7
.4
.2
.2
.8
.2
.5
1.2
1.0
.4
.8
.2
.2
.4
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
1600
1000
1000
500
1800
500
1100
3100
2260
1000
1300
500
700
1400
Priority
5th Code
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
Appendix D
Page D-33
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
This page left blank intentionally.
Appendix D
Page D-34
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX E - INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE WATERSHED AND FISHERIES ANALYSIS
FISH/WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Appendix A of the Nez Perce National Forest Plan lists fish/water quality objectives by prescription
watershed for streams in the analysis area. Fish/water quality objectives displayed below provide
management direction in terms of maximum sediment yield over baseline conditions that can be
approached of equaled for a specified number of years per decade, ranging from one to three times.
Watersheds with fish/water objectives of 90 percent are allowed one entry per decade, those with 80
percent are allowed two entries per decade and those with 70 percent are allowed three entries per
decade. All objectives are relative to full habitat potential of 100 percent.
FISHERY/WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES IN APPENDIX A OF THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST PLAN
TABLE E.1: AMERICAN RIVER
Prescription
Watershed
17060305-05-06
17060305-05-09
17060305-05-10
17060305-05-11
17060305-05-12
17060305-05-13
17060305-05-14
17060305-05-15
17060305-05-16
Prescription
Watershed Name
Middle American
River1
Upper American
River1
East Fork
American River1
Kirks Fork1
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Flint Creek1
Box Sing Creek
Lower American
River3
Beneficial
Use
A
A
A
A
R
R
A
R
A
Current
Fishery
Habitat
Condition
(%)
50%
60 %
60%
50%
70%
70%
40%
70%
50%
Fishery
Water
Quality
Objective
(% habitat
potential)
90%
90%
90%
90%
70%
70%
90%
70%
90%
Sediment
Yield
Guideline
(% over
baseline)
30 %2
30%
30%2
30%
60%
60%
30%
60%
30 %2
Entry
Frequency
Guideline
(per decade)
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1 These streams are suffering from both a lack of diversity (similar to category 1) and excess sediment from past reading and
timber management activities. Along with increasing diversity through direct habitat improvement, state-of-the-art techniques
will be used to remove sediment from the gravel environment. Improvements will be scheduled between 1986 and 1995.
Timber management can occur in these watersheds, concurrent with habitat improvement efforts, as long as a positive,
upward trend in habitat carrying capacity is indicated.
2 These prescription watersheds, unlike most, are not true watersheds. By definition, a true watershed includes all the lands
draining through a stream reach. These footnoted watersheds drain only part of such a hydraulic unit and generally contain
the downstream reaches of relatively large streams. For sediment yield analysis on these downstream reaches, all upstream
prescription watersheds are combined into a true watershed. Sediment yield guidelines (Column 6) apply only to true
watersheds. Entry frequency guidelines (Column 7) apply to prescription watersheds regardless of whether they are true
watersheds.
Lower American River was not included in Appendix A of the Forest Plan.
recommended for use in the American/Crooked Project.
Objectives and guidelines are those
Appendix E
Page E-1
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE B-2: CROOKED RIVER
Prescription
Watershed
17060305-03-01
1 7060305-03-03
17060305-03-04
Prescription
Watershed
Name
Lower Crooked
River1
Relief Creek1
Middle Crooked
River
Beneficial
Use
A
A
A
Current
Fishery
Habitat
Condition
(%)
50%
60%
90%
Fishery
Water
Quality
Objective
(% habitat
potential)
90%
90%
90%
Sediment
Yield
Guideline
(% over
baseline)
30 %2
30%
30 %2
Entry
Frequency
Guideline
(per decade)
1
1
1
In Forest Plan Appendix A, there were three general beneficial use designations, anadromous
fisheries (A), resident fisheries (R) and municipal watershed (MW). Only the first two are present in
project area watersheds.
The watershed numbering and nomenclature system has evolved over the past twenty years. At the
time of the Forest Plan (1987), the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) system was nationally coordinated to
the 4 code HUC (e.g. South Fork Clearwater River subbasin = 17060305). Efforts are currently
underway to nationally coordinate HUCs to the 6th code level. This analysis relies on the older codes.
At the time of the Forest Plan, 6th code watersheds were referred to as prescription watersheds.
Current nomenclature refers to those as subwatersheds. Also, 5th code watersheds were referred to
as NFS (National Forest System) watersheds. Current nomenclature refers to those as simply
watersheds.
Prescription watersheds such as Lower American River and Lower Crooked River pose a unique
situation in that they are not a single complete drainage (see footnote above). At the time of the
Forest Plan, these were called face drainages. Current terminology refers to them as composite
watersheds. Those watersheds called true watersheds at the time of the Forest Plan are now referred
to as pure watersheds. The maps below show how composite and pure watersheds are related in the
project area.
Streams listed in the category are below carrying capacity due primarily to a lack of diversity (pool structure). This problem
is caused by the removal of all large boulders and woody debris from the stream through placer mining. These habitat
components will be replaced through direct habitat improvement projects. Work will be scheduled in the latter part of the first
decade (1989-1995). Work in Crooked River is underway, with an expected completion date of 1989. Timber management
activities can occur in these drainages, concurrent with habitat improvement efforts, as long as a positive, upward trend in
habitat carrying capacity is indicated.
These prescription watersheds, unlike most, are not true watersheds. By definition, a true watershed includes all the lands
draining through a stream reach. These footnoted watersheds drain only part of such a hydraulic unit and generally contain
the downstream reaches of relatively large streams. For sediment yield analysis on these downstream reaches, all upstream
prescription watersheds are combined into a true watershed. Sediment yield guidelines (Column 6) apply only to true
watersheds. Entry frequency guidelines (Column 7) apply to prescription watersheds regardless of whether they are true
watersheds.
Appendix E
Page E-2
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure E.1: Composite v Pure Watersheds -American River
Middle American River
East Fork
American River
Lower American River
Appendix E
Page E-3
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure E.2: Composite v Pure Watersheds - Crooked River
' -- "'. /
^"> 03 /
06
85 •''
/' rj Middle Crooked River
\
-\./
03
_."
"
"X
i-, / '—'s.
/
04
7'X
•' (
r" k/
/ 05 '
; Lower Crooked River
For purposes of water yield (EGA) and sediment yield (NEZSED) analysis, composite watersheds are
compiled into larger pure watersheds. This is done in order to maintain integrity with the assumptions
used to develop the EGA and NEZSED procedures. Both of these models assume the water yield
and sediment yield reflect the conditions in the entire pure watershed above the analysis point (also
known as pour point).
Each of the maps above shows the relationship between composite and pure watersheds for the
American and Crooked River watersheds. Using Lower Crooked River as an example, when EGA or
NEZSED results are reported, they include all of the shaded subwatersheds. For more detail on the
watershed boundaries and associated stream systems, see Maps 7a and 7b.
UPWARD TREND
The Nez Perce Forest Plan provides direction that timber harvest in sediment-limited watersheds that
do not meet their Fish/Water Quality objectives, as listed in Appendix A, would occur only where
concurrent watershed improvement efforts result in a positive upward trend in habitat condition. Many
of the area streams do not meet their objectives and are in this category. Those are the watersheds
with footnotes 1/ and 2/in Tables E.1 and E.2.
THE DFC TABLES
To estimate natural fish habitat potential and quantify existing stream conditions as required by the
Forest Plan, the Nez Perce National Forest is using a Desired Future Condition (DFC) Model
developed on the Clearwater National Forest (Espinosa 1992). This model addresses specific
conditions and channel types found on the Nez Perce Forest using a habitat quality index. Values for
the habitat parameters are quantified in a set of desired future condition (DFC) tables. The DFC
tables list the specific fish habitat parameter and a value or range that a stream should have in order
to be at a given percentage of the streams potential and to meet the Forest Plan Objectives for that
watershed. The DFC values, habitat parameter data and their relationships are stratified by channel
types and fish species. The values for the fish habitat parameters listed in the DFC tables are
considered achievable for streams under natural conditions in the absence of major disturbances or
are reflective of what good fish habitat should be. Most of the habitat parameters are consistent for
each species, and they very slightly by channel type. Past work has shown a need to adjust some of
Appendix E
Page E-4
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
the elements to better-fit natural conditions and what is achievable, The DFC for acting and potential
woody debris in a meadow channel is often used as an example of this.
FOREST PLAN RIPARIAN AREA DIRECTION
In addition, the Nez Perce Forest Plan defines standards for vegetation management in riparian areas
(Management Area 10), which are collectively defined as lakes, lakeside lands, perennial streams,
seasonally flowing streams supporting riparian vegetation, and adjoining lands that are dominated by
riparian vegetation (NPFP III-30-33). This area includes the floodplains of streams and the wetlands
associated with springs, lakes, and ponds. Guidelines include the following:
• Consider cumulative impacts of proposed actions on the entire riparian ecosystem
• Manage riparian areas to maintain and enhance their value for wildlife, fishery, aquatic habitat,
and water quality.
• Maintain sufficient streamside vegetative canopy to ensure acceptable water temperatures for
fish and to provide cover.
• Management activities shall not be permitted to adversely change the composition and
productivity of key riparian vegetation. Riparian areas now degraded by management should
be rehabilitated before any further nondependent resource use.
• Planned ignitions, when within prescription, would be allowed to burn to enhance resource
values.
FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT 20 (PACFISH)
The PACFISH Environmental Assessment amended the Nez Perce Forest Plan in 1995 and is
incorporated as Amendment 20. PACFISH establishes riparian goals, riparian management
objectives (RMOs), and defines riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). It includes specific
direction for land management activities within riparian areas adjacent to streams, lakes, wetlands,
and landslide-prone terrain. Riparian goals establish an expectation of the characteristics of healthy,
functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and fish habitat. The goals direct the Forest to maintain or
improve habitat elements such as water quality, stream channel integrity, instream flows, riparian
vegetation, and several others.
Riparian management objectives (RMOs) for stream channel condition provide the criteria against
which attainment, or progress toward attainment, of the riparian goals is measured. They include
habitat attributes such as number of pools, amount of large wood in the channel, stability of the
stream banks, and width-to-depth ratio. The areas adjacent to streams and wetlands (RHCAs) were
established in PACFISH to maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Healthy riparian areas are
essential to maintaining or improving the quality of fish habitat in streams. This analysis will use a
combination of DFC and RMO values to define existing conditions in watersheds where activities
occur.
Direction in PACFISH specific to Timber Management/Silviculture includes the following:
PROHIBIT TIMBER HARVEST, INCLUDING FUEL WOODCUTTING, IN RHCAs, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
• Where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect damage result in
degraded riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuel wood cutting in RHCAs only where
present and future debris needs are met, where cutting would not retard or prevent attainment
of RMOs, and where adverse effects on anadromous fish can be avoided.
Appendix E
Page E-5
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
• Apply silviculture practices for RHCAs to acquire desired vegetation characteristics where
needed to attain RMOs. Apply silviculture practices is a manner that does not retard
attainment of RMOs and that avoid adverse effects on listed anadromous fish.
Direction in PACFISH specific to Fire/Fuels Management and relevant to this project includes
the following:
• Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions so as not to
prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, and to minimize disturbance of
riparian ground cover and vegetation.
• Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances
where fire suppression or fuel management actions could perpetuate or be damaging to long-
term ecosystem function, listed anadromous fish, or designated critical habitat.
Direction in PACFISH specific to Recreation Management and relevant to this project includes
the following:
• Design, construct, and operate recreation facilities, including trails and dispersed sites, in a
manner that does not retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives and
avoids adverse effects on listed anadromous fish... Relocate or close recreation facilities
where Riparian Management Objectives cannot be met or adverse effects on listed
anadromous fish avoided.
• Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent attainment of
RMOs or adversely affect listed anadromous fish. Where adjustment measures such as
education, use limitations, traffic control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of
facilities, and/or specific site closures are not effective in meeting RMOs and avoiding adverse
effects on listed anadromous fish, eliminate the practice or occupancy.
Direction in PACFISH specific to Fisheries/Wildlife Restoration includes the following:
• Design and implement fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement actions in a manner
that contributes to attainment of RMOs.
CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY AND SEDIMENT ROUTING
Stream gradient is an important parameter that has implications for sediment transport and
deposition. It is also related to fish habitat quality, since many species prefer lower gradient stream
reaches for certain life stages. Lower gradient reaches on 3rd to 5th order streams in the project area
are particularly well-suited for Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning. The data below were
compiled with CIS methods using the 1:24,000 scale NHD stream layer and 30 meter DEM data.
Appendix E
Page E-6
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE E.3: PERCENT STREAM LENGTH BY GRADIENT CLASSES - AMERICAN RIVER
Watershed Name
Middle American River1
East Fork American
River1
Flint Creek
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Box Sing Creek
. Kirks Fork
Lower
American River1
Stream Miles 1 <2% | 2-4%
12.8
19.6
23.8
4.6
4.8
4.1
26.8
17.7
45
12
13
6
6
11
8
53
12
12
20
2
12
6
8
4
4-10%
34
28
34
46
67
36
37
12
10-20% I 20-40% | >40%
9
39
26
33
16
46
35
29
0
9
7
12
0
0
11
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
TABLE E.4: PERCENT STREAM LENGTH BY GRADIENT CLASSES - CROOKED RIVER
Watershed Name
Middle Crooked River2
Relief Creek
Lower Crooked River1
Stream Miles
50.2
23.2
40.0
<2%
• 10
14
20
2-4%
8
5
2
4-10%
26
36
15
10-20%
39
34
39
20-40%
17
11
21.
>40%
0
0
4
SEDIMENT ROUTING
Sediment routing considers the disposition of sediment within the watershed system, including
processes of erosion, deposition, storage and transport. It includes upslope and instream
components. The upslope component includes initial detachment, erosion and delivery efficiency.
The instream component includes suspended and bedload sediment yield, as well as substrate
deposition and composition. The instream component also includes consideration of streamflow and
channel morphology, both of which influence the capability of the stream to transport or deposit
sediment.
EROSION AND DELIVERY PROCESSES
The erosion process initiates with detachment of material. Detachment can occur through weathering
processes such as frost heave or raindrop impact. Erosion can occur as dry ravel, surface erosion
(e.g. sheet, rill and gully) and mass erosion (e.g. debris avalanches, slumps and earthflows). The rate
of each is dependent on climate, landforms, geology, soils and exposure of mineral soil. For freshly
exposed materials, surface erosion is probably the dominant process in the Red River landscape.
Transport occurs when rainfall or snowmelt generate water in sufficient quantities to carry the
detached materials.
In most cases, a large proportion of eroded material is stored on the landscape without being
delivered to the channel system. Storage can take place in hollows and flats or behind obstructions.
It can also occur on slopes if the water transporting the material infiltrates. Delivery efficiency has
1 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds
2 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds
Appendix E
Page E-7
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
been estimated for each landtype on the NPNF. Sediment is considered to be delivered to the
channel system when it reaches a stream with defined bed and banks. Within the sediment model,
this is assumed to occur at a catchment area of 1 mi2 (USDA Forest Service, 1981).
INSTREAM PROCESSES
Once sediment is delivered to the channel system, it is subject to transport or deposition. Transport
can occur as suspended or bedload sediment. Fine materials, such as clay, silt and fine sand are
transported in the water column as suspended sediment. This material usually travels through the
system rapidly and only deposits in still water. It contributes to the turbidity that is seen during runoff
events. During active runoff periods the travel time of suspended sediment through the Red River
watershed and out of the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin is less than 24 hours. Monitoring at
gaging stations in nearby Red River has indicated that suspended sediment constitutes about 40
percent to 60 percent of the annual sediment yield (Gloss, 1995). Recent analyses with a larger
dataset suggest that suspended sediment may be a higher proportion of total sediment yield.
Bedload sediment moves along the channel bottom and typically consists of medium and coarse
sand, gravel and cobble. Boulders may occasionally move as bedload, but only for short distances in
any given event. Bedload transport and deposition is a complex and intermittent process. It is highly
dependent on stream energy in terms of streamflow and channel morphology. Under given conditions
of streamflow, a river could transport or deposit bedload sediment in different reaches or habitat units,
depending on gradient and cross-sectional characteristics. Bedload transport is an episodic process
that occurs at higher streamflows, with the majority occurring at discharges approaching bankfull and
above. Under low and moderate flow conditions, very little if any bedload is in transport.
Materials of various sizes are deposited between episodes of transport. Deposition can involve fines
(i.e. sand) intruding into coarse substrates or covering the stream bottom. When large amounts of
coarse substrates are deposited, aggradation and changes in bedforms can result. In some cases
this can lead to further adjustments, such as bank erosion and changes in channel morphology.
Storage of deposited sediment within a given habitat unit or reach may be relatively short, for example
between flow events or seasons. In other cases, storage can be on the order of years to indefinitely.
Stream gradients for the American and Crooked River watersheds are described above in Tables E.3
and E.4. Lower gradient reaches are particularly susceptible to sediment deposition and relatively
long term storage. With regard to sediment deposition and transport, one classification system
suggests that channels with <3 percent gradient can be considered response reaches and channels
with >3 percent gradient can be considered either transport or source reaches (Montgomery and
Buffington, 1993).
In subwatersheds affected by project activities in American River, Middle American and Lower
American both have >45 percent of their channel system with gradient <2 percent. Conversely, the
other subwatersheds all have >60 percent of their channel system with gradient >4 percent.' In
subwatersheds affected by project activities in Crooked River, all have >60 percent of their channel
system with gradient >4 percent.
FLOW REGIME
The flow regime for American and Crooked Rivers is similar to the upper South Fork Clearwater River.
The data represented below were collected by the USGS just upstream of the mouth of Crooked
River. Though discontinued in 1974, this stream gage was re-established in 2002 and is currently in
operation.
Appendix E
Page E-8
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure E.3: Annual Hydrograph
S FK Clear-water River nr Elk City
1945-1974
' Median Daily Flow .... Min Daily Flow
- Max Daily Flow
4000
Oct NOV Ded-flan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept
AQUATIC MODEL DISCLOSURES
This section discloses the assumptions, limitations, management thresholds, and field tests
associated with the three aquatic effects models used in the American and Crooked River project
analysis. The models are Equivalent Clearcut Area (EGA), NEZSED, and FISHSED.
EQUIVALENT CLEARCUT AREA (EGA)
The EGA model procedures are derived from Forest Hydrology, Part II (USDA Forest Service, 1974).
Equivalent Clearcut Area (EGA) analysis is a tool used to index the relationship between vegetation
condition and water yield from forested watersheds. The basic assumptions of the procedure are that
removal of forest vegetation results in water yield increases and that EGA can be used as an index of
these increases. Depending on the interaction between water yield, sediment yield, and stream
channel conditions, such increases could have impacts on stream channels.
Water yield increases can be directly modeled, but equivalent clearcut area (EGA) is often used as a
surrogate. The EGA model is designed to estimate changes in mean annual streamflow resulting
from forest practices or treatments (reading, timber harvest, and fires), which remove or reduce
vegetative cover, and is usually expressed as a percent of watershed area (Belt, 1980). The index
takes into account the initial percentage of crown removal and the recovery through regrowth of
vegetation since the initial disturbance. For purposes of this assessment, EGA will be used to index
changes in water yield through time based on timber harvest and reading disturbances.
There are a number of physical factors that determine the relationship between canopy conditions and
water yield. These include interception, evapotranspiration, shading effects and wind flux. These
factors affect the accumulation and melt rates of snow packs and how rainfall is processed. The EGA
analysis takes into account the initial percentage of crown removal and the recovery through
Appendix E
Page E-9
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
vegetative re-growth since the initial disturbance in the case of timber harvest or fire. Within the
habitat types being treated under this project, the time frame for complete EGA recovery to occur is
estimated to be 65 to 85 years (USDA Forest Service, 1974).
Additional factors affecting water yield include compacted surfaces due to roads, skid trails, and
landings. Existing and new roads are considered as permanent openings in the EGA model.
Decommissioned roads are considered as openings, so the road decommissioning projects do not
contribute to reductions in EGA.
The EGA model does not directly account for the effects of peak flows. Peaks flows in the project
area are nearly always associated with spring snowmelt, at times accompanied by rainfall. This can
be seen in Figured E.3. Winter rain-on-snow events are historically rare and only infrequently exceed
the spring runoff peak. About 3 percent of annual peak flow events have occurred during the winter
months of November through March (USDA Forest Service, 1998). The effects of peaks flows are
considered using professional judgment in the interpretation of EGA effects on stream channels.
Various EGA thresholds of concern have been in use in the Northern Region since the 1960s
(Gerhardt, 2000). Early cutting guides recommended a limit of 20-30 percent EGA within a watershed
(Haupt, 1967). More recently, EGA thresholds have been rejuvenated through consultation under the
Endangered Species Act. A recent Biological Opinion stipulated that watershed analysis should be
conducted prior to actions that would increase EGA in 3rd to 5th order priority watersheds where EGA
exceeds 15 percent (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1995).
Recently, concern over water yield changes relative to stream channel condition has focused on
smaller headwater catchments. Research in the nearby Horse Creek watershed study have
demonstrated instantaneous peak flow increase up to 34 percent and maximum daily flow increases
up to 87 percent, resulting from road construction and timber harvest in small catchments (King,
1989). Recent observations have suggested that channel erosion from these streams may be
contributing to increased bedload sediment in the 3rd order receiving channel (Gerhardt, 2002).
The studies by Belt (1980) and King (1989) have also served as field tests of the EGA procedure.
Belt concluded that the EGA procedure is a rational tool for evaluation of hydrologic impacts of forest
practices. King recommended local calibration of the model and a greater emphasis on conditions in
1st and 2nd order headwater streams.
NEZSED
NEZSED is a computer model tiered to the R1R4 guidelines (Cline, et al, 1981), developed by
hydrologists and soil scientists from the Intermountain Research Station and the Northern and
Intermountain Regions of the Forest Service. The model estimates the average annual natural or
base rate of sediment yield, and surface erosion sediment yield produced from roads, logging, and
fire. The model is limited in that it does not consider the effects of activities on mass erosion greater
than 10 cubic yards. It also does not include the effects of grazing and most instream and mining
activities. Effects of land uses other than roads, logging and fire are analyzed using other information
and techniques.
For this analysis, NEZSED was used to model timber harvest, temporary road construction,
reconstruction of existing roads and road decommissioning. Activities under this project that are not
modeled are soil restoration, trail improvements, recreation site improvements and stream channel
restoration. The effects of these other activities were considered in the overall aquatic analysis and
conclusions.
Though the model shows annual variations in response to land use, it does not estimate variations
due to climate or weather events. NEZSED is not an event-based model in that sediment yield does
not vary in accordance with specific assumed runoff or erosion events. It estimates average annual
Appendix E
PageE-10
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
sediment yields. However, modeling coefficients are the result of a research base that includes the
cumulative result of individual storm and runoff events. Thus, the effects of storm events are
incorporated into the model coefficients, though the model results are expressed in terms of average
annual yields.
Though NEZSED does not model large activity-related mass erosion events, effects of such events
are considered in the effects analysis. This is done through mapping of landslide prone terrain and
avoidance of areas deemed to possess high hazard and mitigation of areas deemed to possess
moderate hazards. Mass erosion occurrences were also noted during field inventories.
Management thresholds for sediment yield were established in Appendix A of the Nez Perce National
Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1987). These include sediment yield guidelines, expressed as
peak year percent over base sediment yield, and entry frequency guidelines, expressed as the
number of times per decade that sediment yield guidelines can be equaled. For the American and
Crooked River project, these guidelines are found in Tables E.1 and E.2.
NEZSED has been tested against field sampled data in several studies at three scales of watersheds
across the Nez Perce National Forest (Gerhardt, 2005). The first study compared measured and
modeled natural sediment yields at fifteen small watersheds that are tributaries to Horse Creek, which
is a tributary of the Meadow Creek watershed draining into the Lower Selway Subbasin (Gerhardt and
King, 1987). These watersheds ranged in size from 0.08 to 0.57 square miles. Annual sediment yield
was sampled with sediment detention basins, suspended sediment samples, and streamflow gaging.
Of the fifteen tributaries sampled, the model over-predicted sediment yield on nine sites and under-
predicted on six sites. The mean result was that the model over-predicted by about 23 percent.
The second study evaluated data from eight stream gaging stations on the Nez Perce National Forest,
ranging in size from 5.7 to 113 square miles. Three of these were located within the South Fork
Clearwater Subbasin (Gloss, 1995). At six stations, the field data consisted of suspended and
bedload sediment samples, along with streamflow gaging. At two stations, sediment yield was
estimated through the use of sediment detention basins and streamflow gaging. This study found that
NEZSED under-predicted sediment yields at six stations and over-predicted at two stations, when
compared to observed data from field sampling during water years 1986 through 1993. For the three
stations within the South Fork Clearwater Subbasin, field-sampled sediment yields averaged about 30
tons/mi2/yr. and modeled sediment yields averaged about 12 tons/mi2/yr. In general, the model
predicted better in average to below average water years, and more significantly under-predicted in
above average water years.
A third study to test the NEZSED model compared field sampled and modeled sediment yield at the
subbasin scale, using data from the South Fork Clearwater and Selway Rivers. Sampling in both
rivers occurred between 1988 and 1992 and consisted of 52 suspended sediment samples. The
South Fork data were collected at the Mt. Idaho Bridge, near the forest boundary where the
watershed area is about 830 square miles. When calculated as annual sediment yield, these data
suggest an annual sediment yield at this site of 17,880 tons/year, or about 22 tons/mi2/yr. Sediment
yield predictions at this site, based on NEZSED, were estimated to be 15,080 tons per year, or about
18 tons/mi2/yr (USDA Forest Service, 1998).
The Selway River data were collected at the USGS gage near Ohara Creek, where the watershed
area is about 1910 square miles. When calculated as annual sediment yield, these data suggest a
sediment yield at this site of 54,900 tons/year, or if adjusted to the mouth, 55,700 tons/year. The
watershed area at the mouth is 1974 square miles, so the sediment production is 28 tons/mi2 /yr.
Sediment predictions based on modeled sediment at the mouth of the Selway River were 54,400
tons/year or about 27.5 tons/mi2/yr (USDA Forest Service, 2001).
A fourth study (Thomas and King, 2004) tested NEZSED against measured data at stream gages in
Red River and South Fork Red River. Results showed that NEZSED predicted 74 percent and 89
Appendix E
PageE-11
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
percent, respectively, of field-sampled sediment yield over a 16-year period at these two gaging
stations. The model results were closer to measured values at these two stations than found in the
Gloss study.
FISHSED
The Guide for Predicting Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields in Idaho Batholith Watersheds
(Fishsed model) has been used in this project to predict the effect of sediment yields on stream
habitat and fish populations. This model is based on assumptions and has limitations.
The assumptions of the Fishsed model are listed in Appendix A of the model documentation (Stowell
et al, 1983). Some of the key assumptions with influence on the. limitations of this model include: 1)
on those Forests in which mass erosion is a significant hazard, predicted sediment yield will include a
mass erosion component. The American and Crooked River Project does not occur in a landscape
where mass erosion is a significant hazard. 2) The relative response of salmonid fish populations to
increased levels of sediment and percent fines in the substrate as depicted in laboratory studies
approximates the response under natural conditions. The model documentation (p. 6) describes
studies that support this assumption and others that show some differences.
The Fishsed model has other recognized limitations including: 1) the model simplifies an extremely
complex physical and biological system and is developed from limited scientific knowledge (p. 2). The
complex sequence of sediment movement from the slopes to the channel, transport down, and
deposition in a channel reach, and its effect on fish habitats and populations have not beeri fully
described (p. 5). 2) The method was developed for watersheds and fish species associated with the
Idaho Batholith (p. 4), using data from the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forest. Given the
source of the original data, the model is applicable to the American and Crooked River Project. 3)
The specific fish response curves in this model were partially developed from laboratory experiments
and may constitute only partial simulation of natural conditions (p. 6). 4) The model evaluates embryo
survival, winter carrying capacity, and summer rearing capacity. While invertebrate insect abundance
may be directly affected by sediment, the relationship between sediment deposition and invertebrate
production is not included in the model (p. 10). 5) The utilization of channel types to stratify fish
response, particularly with respect to the modeling of "A" channel types, may not realistically
represent changes in fish habitat (p. 21). 6) The model does not include a 'recovery function' that
predicts the changes in substrate condition based on natural flow events. 7) The model was
calibrated to the original Nez Perce Forest sediment model and landtypes, which have been updated
since model development. No subsequent testing or validation of the model has occurred on the
Forest. 8) The model outputs are reasonable estimates, but are not absolute numbers of high
statistical precision (p. 6). As appropriate given this limitation, the model outputs have been used by
the fisheries biologists in this project in combination with sound biological judgment.
SEDIMENT YIELD GRAPHS
The following graphs show percent over base sediment yield by alternative for each analysis point in
the American and Crooked River watersheds. These are the same data shown in tables in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Section 3.2. - Watershed, except for the entire 10-year modeling
period.
Appendix E
Page E-12
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
AMERICAN RIVER
• Figures E.4a-h: Sediment Yield - American River
Middle American
» 35
1 30
S 25
20
15
10
5
0
Q)
|ET~
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
• Forest Guidelines
•alt a
•altb
•altc
•altd
•alte
35 T
EF American
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Forest Guidelines
aft a
altb
altc
altd
alte
Appendix E
PageE-13
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Flint Cr
Forest Guidelines -•— alt a -*— alt b -x— alt c -*— alt d -•— alt e
Whitaker Cr
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Forest Guidelines -*- alt a -*- alt b -*- alt c -*- alt d -•- alt e
Appendix E
Page E-14
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Queen Ck
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
• Forest Guidelines-
• alt a
-altb
• altc
-altd
• alte
35
30
8 25
re
CD 20
w
0)
8 15
Kirks Fk
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
•#REF!
alt a
altb
altc
altd
alte
Appendix E
Page E-15
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Lower American
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
•Forest Guidelines* alt a-»-alt b-*-alt c-
•altd-
•alte
CROOKED RIVER
• Figures E.5a-c: Sediment Yield - Crooked River
35
30
§ 25
re
CO 20
i_
5 15
o
* 10
5
0
Middle Crooked River
00 -j-— ———--—-— ^ _
00
no
00
on
00
00-
00
-. •> m *• • R V B i •
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
-*— Forest Guidelines -•— alt a -A- alt b — x— alt c — *— alt d — •— alt e
Appendix E
PageE-16
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Relief Creek
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Forest Guidelines
• alt a
• altb
• alt e
-altd
• alte
0)
(A
TO
CO
V.
0)
O
SS
Lower Crooked River
35.00
25.00
20.00 -
15.00
10.00 -
.00
t
j
I
^*»W^
— • m^^ m ^ -^^^••^^^••Jnn B B B
.U(J V— T ! r- i t r T
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
—•— Forest Guidelines • alt a — *— alt b " alt c — «—• altd • alte
|
WATER TEMPERATURE
Water temperature data were collected in the American/Crooked project watersheds during the
summer of 2003. These data are shown in Figures B-7 and B-8. Data have been collected on the
mainstem South Fork Clearwater River at the Mt. Idaho Bridge since 1993. These are summarized in
Table B-5 to provide a perspective on the 2003 summer. It is apparent that 2003 was the warmest
summer in the past 10 years in terms of water temperature in the South Fork Clearwater River
subbasin.
Appendix E
Page E-17
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure E.6a-d: American River 2003 Water Temperature
American River Daily Max Temps 2003
§§§§8§
§§g
•American River @ Mouth -*-American @ Bdry — EF American
American River Daily Max Temps 2003
o
00 CNI CO
j; T- CNJ CNI
i~- r~^ f^ r^ i^
o o o o o
o co
or> o
r^- T- m
o •<- T-
ro s- T- -si-
CN C\l CO O O
M I I I I "I"T 'I" M I I I I I I
OO CNI CO O ^- CO
CM CM CNI
•American River® Mouth -*- American @ Bdry — EF American
Appendix E
PageE-18
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
American River 7-day Max Temps 2003
u
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I
07/14 07/24 08/03 08/13 08/23 09/02 09/12 09/22
-American Ri\er @ Mouth —*—American @ Bdry EF American
American River Tribs 7-day Max Temps 2003
07/14
07/24
08/03 08/13
08/23
-Flint Creek • Kirks Fk —•—Queen Creek
Appendix E
PageE-19
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure E.7a-d: Crooked River 2003 Water Temperature
Crooked River Daily Max Temps 2003
Crooked .Mouth Crooked blw Relief Cr
Crooked River Tribs Daily Max Temps 2003
• I
• Quartz Creek Relief Creek x Silver Creek
Appendix E
Page E-20
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Crooked River 7-day max
O 4
ZH-
on
o
w 1fi-
0) I D
0>
O) 10 -
0) I\s
x Sil\«r Creek
WATER .QUALITY. DATA
Water quality data were collected by the Nez Perce National Forest at several locations in the project
area during the period of 1974 - 1981. These are useful for general characterization of water quality
conditions. The lowest numbers of samples were taken for pH and the larger numbers of samples
were taken for conductivity and alkalinity. Some key water quality parameters are summarized in the
tables below:
Appendix E
Page E-21
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE E.5: WATER QUALITY DATA - AMERICAN RIVER
Site Name
Upper
American
Flint
Creek
Lower
American
STORET
Number
NEXY04
NETW20
NEXT05
Number of
Samples
15-49
4-29
5-37
PH
Mean
6.7
6.9
6.8
Range
6.3-7.4
6.4-7.4
6.8-6.8
Conductivity
(urnhos)
Mean
27
20
22
Range
20-45
16-29
18-33
Alkalinity
(mg/l)
Mean
15
11
12
Range
8-26
7-18
6-21
TABLE E.6: WATER QUALITY DATA- CROOKED RIVER
Site Name
Crooked River
Relief Creek
STORET
Number
NETWO
NETW10
Number of
Samples
12
24-50
PH
Mean
NA
7.1
Range
NA
6.2-8.0
Conductivity
{(jmhos)
Mean
21
22
Range
12-31
10-34
Alkalinity
(mg/l)
Mean
NA
14
Range
NA
10-21
Sampling in Crooked River was limited in the studies summarized above. A subsequent water quality
study was conducted in 1986 and 1987. In four samples taken under this study, pH ranged from 7.3
to 7.5, conductivity ranged from 35 to 47 umhos, and alkalinity ranged from 18 to 20 mg/l (Mann and
Von Lindern, 1988).
AQUATIC TREND ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION TO TREND ANALYSIS
To assess the expected trend in aquatic habitat condition, from the variety of influences both
quantitative and qualitative, the activities and their expected contribution to aquatic condition are
summarized in a table below. The table is a summary of the expected influence of the alternatives on
the aquatic conditions in the American and Crooked River watersheds respectively. It does not
represent an assessment of cumulative effects, or expected trend within specific subwatersheds.
Various activities are considered with respect to the variety of aquatic processes that they potentially
affect.
The contribution to the overall aquatic condition is estimated in terms of positive influence (denoted by
"+") where the activity is expected to contribute to an improvement in condition, and a negative
influence (denoted by "-") where the activity is expected to contribute to degradation in aquatic
condition. The amount of influence a specific activity is expected to have on the overall aquatic
condition (either positive or negative) is represented by a ranking of high (H), moderate (M), or low
(L). Activities rated "High"' are those that are expected to have a significant effect at the watershed
scale (considering both scope and magnitude). Those rated as "Moderate" are those activities that
are expected to have a significant local effect (i.e. at the subwatershed scale), but not result in a
significant effect at the watershed scale. Those activities rated "Low" are expected to have only a
negligible effect both at the subwatershed and watershed scale.
All of the processes potentially affected by an activity are listed in the table. No ranking represents
'no expected' influence on conditions from this project. The expected contribution of a specific activity
on aquatic condition is considered both in terms of short-term and long-term. Short-term influence is
Appendix E
Page E-22
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
judged to be the immediate results of implementing the activity, generally expected to be around a 5-
year timeframe. Long-term influence is judged to be the influence the activity will have on aquatic
condition as a result of changes in processes and resource conditions that will over time result in
changes in aquatic habitat condition. The timeframe for this influence is greater than 5 years.
TREND ANALYSIS - AMERICAN RIVER
TABLE E.7: AQUATIC TREND ANALYSIS - AMERICAN RIVER
Action
1 Vegetation
Treatments
Temporary Road Construction
d Recon and
iprovement
8-E
or
CD
• £
'c
O
'in
if>
E
E
o
8
Q
T3
(0
§.
Process Affected
Surface Erosion
Mass Failure Risk
Infiltration, runoff,
peaks
Solar heating
LWD Recruitment
Surface erosion
Mass failure risk
Infiltration, runoff,
peaks
Fish passage
Riparian shade
LWD
Recruitment
Surface erosion
Mass failure risk
Infiltration, runoff,
peaks
Fish passage
Surface erosion
Mass failure risk
Infiltration, runoff,
peaks
Fish Passage
Riparian Shade
LWD Recruitment
Characteristic
Indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian shade
Potential LWD
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Habitat
availability
Riparian
condition
Potential LWD
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse Sediment
Hydrologic
process
Habitat
availability
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Habitat
availability
Riparian
Condition
Potential LWD
£
r
o
(0
<
•**
<
i
D)
1
<
<•»•*
<
-L
-L
E
£
•c
o
V)
m
±;
<
-L
-L
-M
-L
-M
-L
+L
E
0)
O)
3
CO
*•*
<
+L
+L
£
£
o
V)
o
•+J
<
-L
-L
-M
-L
-M
-L
+L
£
<5
01
o
0
-*••
<
+L
+L
•o
£
3
o-
0)
cc
It
?°
o
(0
Q
s;
<
-L
-L
-M
-L
-M
-L
+L
•o
J
cr
£
§>
£1
O)
§
Q
*J
<
+L
+L
1
cr
o _
CC m
£ o
o> S
•-5
i!
(0
0
**
<
-L
-L
-M
-L
-M
-M
+M
1
o-
0) —
11
y
!r
Q
*-•
<
+M
+M
£
£
r
o
«
U]
**
<
-L
-L
-L
-M
+M
O)
0
o
UJ
»*
<
+M
+M
Appendix E
Page E-23
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Action
D)
8 «
8 E
o §
c o
0! Q.
£ I
CO
.g
fe
Q. C
£.2
oa 5
m -2
£ M
c <"
TO CC
f-
O
C
O
5
2
"GO
eu
o:
C/D
c
Q) O
CO g
g 1
1.8
a:
.22
~ "c
K 1
=8 ^
«!
Process
Affected
Surface
erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Fish passage
Construction
sediment
Habitat
Quality
Riparian
shade
LWD
Recruitment
Surface
erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Riparian
Shade
Surface
Erosion
Infiltration,
runoff, etc.
Riparian
Interaction,
shade
Surface
Erosion
Infiltration,
Runoff, etc.
Riparian
Interaction,
Shade
1
Characteristic
Indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Habitat availability
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Channel
Dimensions
Riparian Condition
Acting LWD
Pulse & chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian Condition
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian
Conditions
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Hydrologic
Processes
Riparian Condition
§
0)
t
O
U)
<
<
<5
1s
3
<
<
0>
o
V)
CD
<
-L
+L
+L
+L
+L
CD
?
5
CQ
<
+L
+L
+L
+L
»
»"E
•~O
t
o
w
0
<,
-L
+L
+L
+L
+L
•o
J
o-
Si
§>>
« c
«-o
ra
O
«d
<
+L
+L
+L
+L
1
tr
» —
DC co
Efe
O »!
«'
It
w
o
<
-L
+M
+M
+M
+L
T3
£
or
o> —
o: js
*z c
E o
« S
*?
05 <
§7
a
*•*
<
+M
+M
+M
+L
ai
I—
C
o
CO
Ul
<
-L
+M
+M
+M
+L
.*
1-
ro
o
UJ
<
+M
+M
+M
+L
The expected short-term consequences of the American and Crooked River project on aquatic
condition in American River are fairly balanced between positive and negative influences. The factors
contributing to a short-term reduction in aquatic condition are principally related to the sediment pulse
generated from the implementation of the action (timber harvest, temporary road construction, road
decommissioning, road reconstruction and improvement, and culvert replacement. The temporary
Appendix E
Page E-24
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
road construction is judged to be the largest contributor to this influence, followed by the harvest
activities, road decommissioning, and road reconstruction and improvement. The factors contributing
to an immediate short-term improvement in aquatic condition are related to; the reduction in chronic
sediment and improvement in the hydrologic process from road decommissioning, road reconstruction
and improvement, and soil restoration; and the immediate improvements in habitat accessibility from
culvert upgrades and road decommissioning are judged to be the largest contributors to this
improvement.
The expected long-term consequences of the American and Crooked River project on aquatic
condition in the American River watershed are all positive. The road decommissioning and improved
habitat accessibility from the culvert upgrades are judged to be the largest contributors to long-term
improved aquatic conditions. The reduction in chronic sediment and improved hydrologic process
from the road decommissioning, road improvement, and soil restoration are the other contributors to
this expected improvement. The amount of the improvement associated with this later group of
activities is rated low due to the amount of this work being completed with this project with respect to
the remaining amount of degraded mainstem habitat, roads and compacted soils in the American
River watershed. These will continue to contribute negatively to these aquatic processes. Planned
Bureau of Land Management work in this drainage will further improve in channel and riparian
conditions along the mainstem as well as tributary streams.
The above ratings by activity can be summarized by the effect pathways by assigning a value to the
Low, Moderate, and High ranking (L=1, M=2, H=3). The table below summarizes the alternatives by
the effect pathway and for the alternative in general (total).
TABLE E 8: AQUATIC TREND SUMMARY - AMERICAN RIVER
Action
nj
E
E
w
TOTAL
Process
Affected
•
Surface Erosion'
Mass Failure
Risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Riparian Shade
LWD
Recruitment
Fish passage
Habitat Quality
Characteristic
Indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic process
Riparian shade
Acting LWD
Habitat availability
Channel
Dimensions
i
0)
•c
O
4
^•f
^
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
4)
0)
1
<
**
^
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
0
-2
E
0)
o
V)
CD
*•*
5
-6
0
1
0
0
1
0
-4
E
a>
O)
o
CO
•4-1
^
2
0
3
0
0
1
0
6
§
« c
i-o
CD
O
_J
O
2£
2
0
3
0
0
1
0
6
•o
£
D-
flj _
t£ n
E o
is
.1 "0
h<
0)
•o
1M
-7
0
4
0
0
2
0
-1
•o
£
3
C£ n
sfe
^ ts
j2 ^
g*<
o +
^
o
M
3
0
6
0
0
2
0
11
E
•c
O
to
Ul
*-»
3
-4
0
5
0
0
2
0
3
E
0)
I—
o>
!
UJ
»•
3
0
6
0
0
2
0
11
The No Action alternative in American River suggests no change in the short term, but a slight
negative trend in the long term related to fire risk associated with untreated stands. Alternatives B, C,
and D (the latter with only required improvement projects) suggest a short term negative effect,
followed by long term improving trend. Alternative D, including the required and additional
Appendix E
Page E-25
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
improvement projects, suggests a slight short-term negative effect, followed by a greater long term
improving trend than the previous action alternatives. Alternative E suggests a slight short term
improvement, followed by a similar long term improving trend as Alternative D, when both required
and additional improvement projects are considered. The larger amount of improving trend in
Alternatives D and E occur in large part as a result of the greater amount of road decommissioning,
when both required and additional projects are considered.
TREND ANALYSIS - CROOKED RIVER
TABLE E.9: AQUATIC TREND ANALYSIS - CROOKED RIVER
Action
'c
0)
"CD
a>
g
£
0)
tY O
-D 0.
Process
Affected
Surface
Erosion .
Mass Failure
Risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Solar heating
LWD
Recruitment
Surface erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Fish passage
Riparian shade
LWD
Recruitment
Surface erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Fish passage
Characteristic
Indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic process
Riparian shade
Potential LWD
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic process
Habitat availability
Riparian condition
Potential LWD
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse Sediment
Hydrologic process
Habitat availability
t;
o
CO
*"
0)
O
<
-L
-L
(D
•e
o
£.
V)
ffl
<
-M
-L
-M
-L
-M
E
ro
o
ffl
*
•c
0
«
o
-M
-L
-M
-L
-M
E
O>
o
o
*
il
to -5
o °"
" °
?S
11
-" 3
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Action
O5
O
'lO
to
E
1
CD
Q
T3
to
0
sr
TO
C *-
•— c
0 §
E £
(0 g-
CO
o^S C
"o c: .0
i '= 5
.g
2
_o
QJ
C£
'o
Process
Affected
Surface erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Fish Passage
Riparian Shade
LWD
Recruitment
Surface erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Fish passage
Construction
sediment
Habitat Quality
Riparian shade
LWD
Recruitment
Surface erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Riparian Shade
Characteristic
Indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic process
Habitat availability
Riparian Condition
Potential LWD
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic process
Habitat availability
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Channel Dimensions
Riparian Condition
Acting LWD
Pulse & chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic process
Riparian Condition
E
r
o
CO
*•*
<
-L
E
0)
1
*
-L
-L
-L
E
t:
o
to
m
<
-L
+L
-L
+L
+L
-L
+M
+M
+L
6.
0)
m
<
+L
+L
+L
+L
+M
+L
+M
+L
E
t
o
to
o
*••
<
-L
+L
-L
+L
+L
-L
+M
+M
+L
E
0)
j
O
4-1
"*
+L
+L
+L
+L
+M
+L
+M
+L
!-?
1 1
to 3
o °"
<
-L
+L
-L
+L
+L
-L
+M
+M
+L
1 >•
o> c
§1
-1 3
"^
+L
+L
+L
+L
+M
+L
+M
+L
n
§|
I?
to -a
•o 2
< o-
0)
V.
-M
+M
-M
+M
+M
-M
+H
+H
+M
ro
E .0
ol
u.
+M
+L
+M
+M
+M
+H
+M
+H
+M
1
t:
o
JC
to
111
<
-M
+M
-M
+M
+M
-M
+H
+H
+M
1
D)
UJ
**
+M
+L
+M
+M
+M
+H
+M
+H
+M
Appendix E
Page E-27
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Action
c
Q) O
(75 g
<
o> c
•- o
n
<"-
+L
+L
+L
+L
n
II
1?
€0 -0
•a £
^
-L
+L
+L
+L
n
a!
&
+L
+L
+L
+L
E
H
•c
0
CO
Ul
<
-L
+L
+L
+L
E
0
1-
O)
c
o
Ul
+L
+L
+L
+L
The expected short-term consequences of the American and Crooked River project on aquatic
condition in the Crooked River watershed is fairly balanced between positive and negative influences.
The factors contributing to a short-term reduction in aquatic condition are principally related to the
sediment pulse generated from the implementation of the action (timber harvest, temp road
construction, road decommissioning, road reconstruction and improvement, soil restoration, and in-
channel aquatic improvements). The temporary road construction is judged to be the largest
contributor to this influence, followed by the harvest activities, road decommissioning, and road
reconstruction and improvement. The factors contributing to an immediate short-term improvement in
aquatic condition are related to: the reduction in chronic sediment and improvement in the hydrologic
process from road decommissioning, road reconstruction and improvement, and soil restoration; and
the immediate improvements in habitat accessibility and riparian and instream conditions from the
direct improvement projects (culvert upgrades, riparian planting, and in channel improvements). The
in channel and riparian restoration are judged to be the largest contributor to this improvement,
followed by the road decommissioning, culvert upgrades, soil restoration, recreation site and mine site
improvements.
The expected long-term consequences of the American and Crooked River project on aquatic
condition in the Crooked River watershed are all positive. The in channel habitat and riparian
restoration work is judged to be the largest contributor to long-term improved aquatic conditions. The
reduction in chronic sediment and improved hydrologic process from the road decommissioning, road
improvement, culvert upgrades, soil restoration, and mine and recreation site improvements are the
other contributors to this expected improvement. The amount of the in channel and riparian work will
contribute correspondingly to the degree of long-term improvement in Crooked River.
The above ratings by activity can be summarized by the effect pathways by assigning a value to the
Low, Moderate, and High ranking (L=1, M=2, H=3). The table below summarizes the alternatives by
the effect pathway and for the alternative in general (total).
Appendix E
Page E-28
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE E.10: AQUATIC TREND SUMMARY - CROOKED RIVER
Action
£>
(0
E
w
TOTAL
Process Affected
Surface Erosion
Mass Failure Risk
Infiltration, runoff,
peaks
Riparian Shade
LWD Recruitment
Fish passage
Habitat Quality
Characteristic
Indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian shade
Acting LWD
Habitat availability
Channel
Dimensions
E
H
r
o
to
<
<
0
0
0
0
0
0
--1
-1
E
a>
O)
O
<
<
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
-1
-3
'E
0)
•c
o
J=
CO
CO
<
-9
0
3
0
2
1
2
-1
E
0)
O)
o
CO
<
2
0
5
2
2
1
2
14
E
0)
r
o
CO
o
<
-9
0
3
0
2
1
2
-1
£
0
0)
o
o
<
2
0
5
2
2
1
2
14
§. >»
"£
«°
o"g
J= w
to -5
O °"
0)
<"•
-9
0
3
0
2
1
2
-1
§. >
l°£
•^ O
°>T3
o £
-" =
?,*
<"•
2
0
5
2
2
1
2
14
TO
_ C
E .0
I® TJ
I?
tO T3
•o E
< o-
<0
OH
-12
0
6
0
3
2
3
2
(0
£§
>$
g3
0 +
-I'D
0 £
<^
o>
Qi
3
1
8
3
3
2
3
23
E
0)
•c
o
CO
LU
<
-12
0
6
0
3
2
3
2
E
i®
O)
1
Ul
<
3
1
8
3
3
2
3
23
The No Action alternative in Crooked River suggests a slight negative effect in the short term related
to ongoing maintenance needs at instream structures and a slight negative trend in the long term
related to fire risk associated with untreated stands. • Alternatives B, C, and D (the latter with only
required improvement projects considered) suggest a short term negative effect, followed by long
term improving trend. Alternatives D (including the required and additional improvement projects) and
E suggest a slight short-term positive effect, followed by a greater long term improving trend than the
previous action alternatives. The larger amount of improving trend in Alternatives D and E occur in
large part as a result of the greater amount of road decommissioning and instream improvements,
when both required and additional projects are considered.
Appendix E
Page E-29
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
This page left blank intentionally
Appendix E
Page E-30
-------
APPENDIX F - ROAD MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
The tables in this appendix display pertinent data for each road within the analysis area. The
following information describes each column within the tables.
Description of Table Components
• Route # - The designation of the route as carried in the forest transportation database.
• Segment - Which segment of the route the data is related to.
• Length - Length of the route segment (within the analysis area) in miles.
• Surface - Surface type of the road.
o Aggregate- Aggregate surface.
o Native- Native (natural dirt surface)
• Access Prescription - The access prescription assigned to a road or road segment in
accordance with the Nez Perce National Forest Access Management Guide.
o OPEN - Open for use
o B - Route is not intended to be managed as a maintained travel route. Applicable to
decommissioned routes.
o C2-A - Open for use in the summer (June 15 to September 15). Allows no motorized
use during the restricted period (September 15 to June 15).
o Y-2 - Allows no motorized use year-round.
o Y-3 - Allows pack stock and snowmobile use. All other motorized uses prohibited
year-round.
o Y-4 - Allows pack stock, trail vehicle, and snowmobile use. Highway vehicle use
prohibited year-round.
• Jurisdiction - A network of travel ways serving a common need or purpose, managed by an
entity with the authority to finance, build, operate, and maintain the routes, (travel routes data
dictionary)
o FSR- Forest Service Road
o C- County
o P-Private
• Traffic Service Level - A description of the road's significant traffic characteristics and
operating conditions, (travel routes data dictionary)
o C-Flow Interrupted- Use Limited. Interrupted traffic flow, limited passing facilities, may
not accommodate some vehicles. Low design speeds. Unstable surface under certain
traffic or weather.
o D-slow flow or may be blocked. Traffic low is slow and may be blocked by
management activities. Two-way traffic is difficult, backing may be required. Rough
and irregular surface. Travel with low clearance vehicles is difficult. Single purpose
facility.
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
o N/A -Traffic Service level not applicable. Applies to decommissioned roads and roads
that exist only for access to private land and are not maintained by the Forest Service.
Objective Maintenance Level- The maintenance level required to meet the intended purpose.
It is constrained by the route's current physical configuration, (travel routes data dictionary)
o D - Decommission. Assigned to roads that have been, or are to be, decommissioned.
o 1 - Basic custodial care (closed). Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time
they are closed to vehicular traffic.
o 2 - High clearance vehicles. Assigned to roads operated for use by high clearance
vehicles.
o 3 - Suitable for passenger cars. Assigned to roads operated and maintained for travel
by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car.
o 4 - Moderate degree of user comfort. Assigned to roads that provide a moderate
degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds.
o 5 - High degree of user comfort. Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user
comfort and convenience.
o N/A - Applies to roads that exist only for access to private land and not maintained by
the Forest Service.
Appendix F
Page F-2
-------
Table F.1: Existing Condition - American River
Route
No.
1125
1125
1125B
1125B1
1809
1809
1809
1809A
1809B
1809B1
1809C
1809F
1810
1810A
1810B
1810G
1810D
1810E
1810G
443
443
443C
443E
443F
77324
77326
Beg
MP
0.03
1.14
0.00
0.00
1.68
3.01
3.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.13
10.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
Ending
MP
1.14
2.70
0.20
0.10
3.01
3.10
6.81
0.92
1.90
0.75
0.78
0.74
6.40
1.90
2.12
0.92
0.80
0.33
0.86
10.54
11.36
0.80
0.80
0.90
0.26
0.14
Segment
Length
1.11
1.56
0.20
0.10
1.33
0.09
3.71
0.92
1.90
0.75
0.78
0.74
6.40
1.90
2.12
0.92
0.80
0.33
0.86
4.40
0.41
0.80
0.80
0.90
0.26
0.11
Surface
Type
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Native
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Native
Native
Native
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Native
Native
Native
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Native -
Native
Native
Native
Access
Prescription
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
OPEN
OPEN
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-2
OPEN
OPEN
Y-3
Y-3
B
Y-2
Y-3
Jurisdiction
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
Traffic
Service
Level
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
D
NA
D
D
Objective
Maintenance
Level
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• 1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
2
D
1 .
1
Comments
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Appendix F
Page F-3
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Route
No.
77328
78471
78480
78481
78482
78483
78485
78486
78487
78488
78489
78489A
78489B
78516
78517
78525
78526
78550
78586
78587
Beg
MP
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.78
0.00
0.03
Ending
MP
0.33
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.52
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.80
0.50
0.60
Segment
Length
0.33
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.52
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.50
0.57
Surface
Type
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Access
Prescription
Y-3
Y-2
Y-3
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
B
Y-3
Y-3
Jurisdiction
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR ,
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
Traffic
Service
Level
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
NA
D
D
Objective
Maintenance
Level
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D
1
1
Comments
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
Appendix F
Page F-4
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Route
No.
9807
9807A
9807A1
9807B
9807B1
9812
9812
9812A
9812B
9812C
9812D
9812E
9812E1
9812F
9812F1
9812G
9812H
9832
9832
9832
9832A
9834
Beg
MP
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.58
3.75
3.76
0.10
0.00
Ending
MP
2.25
0.40
0.40
2.20
0.40
5.50
9.30
0.95
1.00
0.41
1.25
1.00
0.10
0.70
0.20
0.30
0.60
3.69
3.75
4.00
1.71
1.20
Segment
Length
2.24
0.40
0.40
2.20
0.04
5.50
3.80
0.95
1.00
0.41
1.25
1.00
0.10
0.70
0.20
0.30
0.60
0.11
0.00
0.24
1.61
1.20
Surface
Type
Aggregate
Native
Native
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Aggregate
Native
Access
Prescription
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
B
B
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
1 Traffic
Jurisdiction 1 Service
1 Level
FSR
FSR
FSR-
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
NA
NA
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Objective
Maintenance
Level
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D
D
1
1
1
1
1
1-
1
Comments
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Appendix F
Page F-5
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Route
No.
9834A
9834B
9835
9869
Beg
MP
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
Ending
MP
1.60
0.20
0.48
0.29
Segment
Length
1.60
0.20
0.48
0.25
Surface
Type
Native
Native
Native
Aggregate
Access
Prescription
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Jurisdiction
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
Traffic
Service
Level
D
D
D
D
Objective
Maintenance
Level
1
1
1
2
Comments
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Appendix F
Page F-6
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table F.2: Existing Condition - Crooked River
Route
No.
1110
1110
1110A
1110B
1110D
1110E
1110E
1110F
1110H
1111
1803
1803
1803
1803E
2003
2003
233
233
233
233A
233B
233D
233J
233K
478
478
492
522
522B
522B
522B
522B
Beg
MP
0.05
5.72
.0.00
0.00
0.55
0.00
1.13
0.00
0.00
0.20
5.34
15.30
15.50
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.11
12.21
12.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.03
6.46
4.43
0.06
0.41
1.17
1.62
Ending
MP
5.24
6.80
0.95
1.00
0.70
1.10
1.17
0.50
0.20
0.26
15.30
15.50
19.20
1.40
0.06
0.43
12.21
12.24
12.24
0.50
0.40
0.10
0.10
0.21
0.43
1.10
6.56
5.50
0.09
1.12
1.51
1.81
Segment
Length
5.19
1.08
0.95
1.00
0.15
1.10
0.04
0.50
0.20
0.06
9.96
0.20
3.70
1.40
0.06
0.13
12.10
0.03
0.00
0.50
0.40
0.10
0.10
0.21
0.43
0.07
0.10
1.07
0.02
0.71
0.34
0.19
Surface
type
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Native
Native
Access
Prescription
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
Y-3
Y-3
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
Jurisdiction
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
C
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
Traffic
Service
Level
c
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Objective
Maintenance
Level
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
Comments
Appendix F
Page F-7
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Route
No.
522B1
522B2
522F
522F
522F1
522J
522K
77325
77327
77329
77329A
77330
77331
78400
78404
78405
78405
78405
78406
78407
78496A
78496B
78496B1
78496C
Beg
MP
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.27
0.00
0.08
0.12
0.08
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.09
Ending
MP
2.20
1.10
0.06
0.00
0.30
0.40
.2
0.20
0.44
0.48
0.53
0.45
0.22
0.38
0.30
0.67
0.05
0.09
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.30
Segment
Length
0.39
1.06
0.06
0.00
0.13
0.40
.2
0.20
0.44
0.48
0.53
0.45
0.22
0.38
0.04
0.40
0.05
0.01
0.08
0.02
0.10
0.18
0.26
0.20
0.21
Surface
Type
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Access
Prescription
OPEN
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Open
Open
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-2
Jurisdiction
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
Traffic
Service
Level
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Objective
Maintenance
Level
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Comments
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Appendix F
Page F-8
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Route
No.
78497
78497A
78497B
78497B1
78498
78499
78499A
78499A1
78500
78508
78509
78510
78511
78512
78513
78514
78532
78533
78534
78538
Beg
MP
0.05
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ending
MP
1.10
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.40
0.70
0.50
0.20
0.30
0.02
0.60
0.01
0.10
0.16
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.20
0.60
0.50
Segment
Length
1.05
0.07
0.40
0.20
0.40
0.70
0.50
0.20
0.30
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.10
0.12
0.50
1.00
0.47
0.20
0.60
0.50
Surface
Type
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Access
Prescription
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Jurisdiction
FSR
FSR .
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
Traffic 1 Objective I
Service 1 Maintenance I * Comments
Level 1 Level |
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Appendix F
Page F-9
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Route
No.
78539
78540
9804
9804A
9805
9805A
9806
9816
9816A
9816A
981 6F
9816F
981 6H
9816H1
9831
9833
9836
9836
9836A
9836B
9836B1
9836C
9837
9838
9838A
9829
9843
Beg
MP
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
2.41
0.51
0.98
0.09
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ending
MP
0.20
0.26
4.58
2.10
1.83
0.91
3.50
5.20
0.98
1.09
0.27
0.61
1.40
1.00
1.50
3.30
2.80
4.40
1.90
0.90
0.10
0.40
3.20
6.30
1.20
1.20
0.01
Segment
Length
0.20
0.26
4.56
2.10
1.83
0.91
3.48
2.79
0.47
0.11
0.18
0.28
1.40
1.00
1.50
3.30
2.80
1.60
1.90
0.90
0.10
0.40
3.20
6.30
1.20
1.20
0.01
Surface
Type
Native
Native
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Access.
Prescription
Y-2
Y-2
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-2
Y-3
OPEN
OPEN
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4
Y-4Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Jurisdiction
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
Traffic
Service
Level
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Objective
Maintenance
Level
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Comments
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
.Appendix F
PageF-10
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Route 1 Beg
No. 1 MP
9844
9845
9846
9847
9848
9848
9848
9848A
9848B
9850
9855
9855A
9856
9856A
9857
9859
9859
9859
9859
9859
9870A
9871
9876
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
1.08
1.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.14
0.80
0.10
Ending I Segment I Surface I Access
MP 1 Length 1 Type 1 Prescription
1.80
0.02
0.00
1.30
0.71
1.83
3.31
0.03
1.10
1.80
2.95
1.05
1.40
0.60
1.50
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
1.05
0.70
1.20
2.80
1.80
0.02
0.00
1.30
0.60
0.75
1.36
0.03
1.10
1.80
2.95
1.05
1.40
0.60
1.50
0.50
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.25
0.56
0.40
2.70
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Aggregate
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-2
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
Y-3
Y-3
Y-3
Y-2
Y-2
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
C2-A
Y-3
Y-3
Jurisdiction
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
P
FSR
P
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
Traffic
Service
Level
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
D
D
D
Objective
Maintenance
Level
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
1
1
Comments
Portion of this road proposed for
decommissioning
Appendix F
Page F-11
-------
Table F.3: Roads Proposed for Decommissioning by Alternative - American River
Route
No,
1125B1
1809A
1810C
1810D
1810E
443C
443F
77328
78480
78481
78482
78483
78485
78486
78487
78488
78489
78489A
78489B
78516
78517
78525
78526
78586
78587
9807A
9807A1
9807B
9807B1
981 2A
981 2B
981 2C
9812D
981 2E
9812E1
9812F
9812F1
Section to be
Decommissioned
Beg
MP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ending MP
0.20
0.10
0.92
0.23
0.80
0.33
0.80
0.90
0.33
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.52
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.10
0.12
0.15
0.50
0.60
0.40
0.40
2.20
0.04
0.95
1.00
0.41
1.25
1.00
0.10
0.70
0.20
Segment
Length
0.20
0.10
0.92
0.23
0.80
0.33
0.80
0.90
0.33
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.52
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.10
0.12
0.15
0.50
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.60
0.04
0.95
1.00
0.41
1.25
1.00
0.10
0.70
0.20
Alternative
("X" indicates
Decommission)
A
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments
Timber haul route - decommission
following harvest activity
Timber haul route - decommission
following harvest activity
Timber haul route - decommission
following harvest activity
Timber haul route - decommission
following harvest activity
Timber haul route - decommission
following harvest activity
Timber haul route - decommission
following harvest activity
Timber haul route - decommission
following harvest activity
Timber haul route - decommission
Appendix F
Page F-12
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Route
No.
9812G
9812H
9832A
9834B
9835
Section to be
Decommissioned
Beg
MP
0
0
0
0
0
Ending MP
0.30
0.60
0.21
0.20
1.90
Segment
Length
0.30
0.60
0.21
0.20
1.90
Alternative
("X" indicates
Decommission)
A
B
X
c
X
D
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
Comments
following harvest activity
Timber haul route - decommission
following harvest activity
Appendix F
Page F-13
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table F.4: Roads Proposed for Decommissioning by Alternative - Crooked River
Route No.
522B1
522F1
522J
78404
78405
78406
78407
78496A
78496B
78496B1
78496C
78497
79497A
78497B
78497B1
78498
78499
78499A
78499A1
78500
78511
78512
78513
78514
• 78532
78533
78534
78538
78539
78540
9816F
9833
9836
9836B
9836B1
9836C
9847
Section to be
Decommissioned
Beg
MP
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.70
2.93
0.66
0
0
0
Ending
MP
1.10
0.40
0.20
0.70
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.30
1.10
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.40
0.70
0.50
0.20
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.20
0.60
0.50
0.20
0.26
0.61
3.30
4.40
0.90
0.10
0.40
1.30
Segment
Length
1.10
0.40
0.10
0.70
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.30
1.10
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.40
0.70
0.50
0.20
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.20
0.60
0.50
0.20
0.26
0.61
1.60
1.47
0.24
0.10
0.40
1.30
Alternative
("X" indicates
Decommission)
A
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments
Timber haul route - decommission following
harvest activity
Timber haul route - decommission following
harvest activity
Length to be decommissioned increased
from 1 .4 to 1 .6 from DEIS. Increase is not
reflected in alternatives B & C.
Road to trail conversion
Timber haul route - decommission following
harvest activity
Appendix F
Page F-14
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX G - FUEL MODELS
Fuel Model descriptions taken from Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior by
Hal E.Anderson, 1982.
FUEL MODEL 1:
Fire spread is governed by the fine herbaceous fuels that have cured or are nearly cured. Fires move
rapidly through cured grass and associated material. Very little shrub or timber is present, generally
less than one-third of the area.
FUEL MODEL 3:
Fires in this fuel are the most intense of the grass group and display high rates of spread under the
influence of wind. The fire may be driven into the upper heights of the grass stand by the'wind and
cross standing water. Stands are tall, averaging about 3 ft., but may vary considerably.
Approximately one-third or more of the stand is considered dead or cured, and maintains the fire.
FUEL MODEL 4:
Fire intensity and fast-spreading fires involves the foliage and live and dead fine woody material in the
crowns of a nearly continuous secondary overstory. Besides flammable foliage, dead woody material
in the stands significantly contributes to the fore intensity.
FUEL MODEL 5:
Fire is generally carried in the surface fuels that are made up of litter cast by the shrubs, and the
grasses or forbs in the understory. The fires are generally not very intense because surface fuel
loads are light, the shrubs are young with little dead material, and the foliage contains little volatile
material. Shrubs are generally not tall, but have nearly total coverage of the area.
FUEL MODEL 8:
Slow-burning ground fires with low flame heights are the rule, although the fire may encounter an
occasional "jackpot" or heavy fuel concentration that can flare up. Only under severe weather
conditions involving high temperatures, low humidities, and high winds do the fuels pose fire hazards.
Closed canopy stands of short-needle conifers or hardwoods that have leafed out support fire in the
compact litter layer. This layer is mainly needles, leaves, and some twigs since little undergrowth is
present in the stand.
FUEL MODEL 10:
The fires burn in the surface and ground fuels with greater fire intensity than the other timber litter
models. Dead down fuels include greater quantities of 3-inch or larger limbwood resulting from
overmaturity or natural events that create a large load of dead materiel on the forest floor. Crowning
out, spotting, and torching of individual trees is more frequent in this fuel situation, leading to potential
fire control difficulties. Any forest type may be considered if heavy down material is present; for
example insect or disease ridden stands, wind-thrown stands, overmature stands with deadfall, and
aged slash from light thinning or partial cutting.
Appendix G
Page G-1
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
FUEL MODEL 13:
Fire is generally carried across the area by a continuous layer of slash. Large quantities of greater
than 3-inch material are present. Fires spread quickly through the fine fuels and intensity builds up
more slowly as the large fuels start burning. Active flaming is sustained for long periods and
firebrands of various sizes may be generated. These contribute to spotting problems as the weather
conditions become more severe.
Appendix G
Page G-2
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX H -TREATMENTS BY ALTERNATIVE
The following table represents the units for the project area, split out by American and
Crooked River areas. The Unit is the number assigned to the stand being treated. The Code
is the prescription type. The codes are:
Table H.1: Codes
4114
4220
4230
4134
4133
4994
Clearcut with reserves
Thinning
Sanitation/Salvage cut
Seed tree cut with reserves
Shelterwood seed tree cut with
reserves
Fuel Break
The percent (%) stands for canopy cover. The treatment type is the follow-up prescribed fire
treatment. The alternatives are the associated actions alternatives that will be treated and the
acres column is the size of the unit. If there is a blank in the Unite row under the alternative,
this means that that unit will not be treated under that action alternative.
Table H.2: American River Treatments
American River
Unit
111
112
113
114
114.9
115
116
117
118
121
122
124
124.8
124.9
T Code 1 Type
4114
4114
4114
4114
4134
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
%
90
90
90
90
80
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Treatment
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Broadcast
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Alternatives
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
Acres
7
22
6
10
11
11
14
15
18
16
16
3
4
23
Appendix H
Page H-1
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Unit
126
127
128
129
130
131
133
133.2
133.9
134
135
135.9
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
143.2
144
145
146
147
151
151.2
151.3
152
153
154
155
156
American River
TCode
4230
4230
4114
4114
4114
4133
4114
4114
4114
4114
4133
4133
4133
4133
-4230
4230
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4134
4134
4134
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
Type
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Cable
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Cable
Ground
Ground
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Cable
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
%
50
50
90
90
90
70
90
90
90
90
70
70
70
70
50
50
90
90
90
90
90
90
80
80
80
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Treatment
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Broadcast
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Broadcast
Broadcast
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Underburn
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Alternatives
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Acres
12
13
12
9
25
17
2
8
2 '
6
6
2
19
9
12
8
16
13
5
11
3
15
8
5
5
10
5
3
5
4
3
4
3
Appendix H
Page H-2
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
American River
Unit
157
158
158.2
161
162
163
164
165
166
166.9
167
168
168.2
169
501
503
503.9
504
505
505.1
505.9
506
507
508
509
510
510.9
511
512
513
518
520
521
TCode
4133
4133
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4220
4133
4133
4220
4133
4133
4133
4220
4220
4133
4133
4220
4220
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
Type
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
%
70
70
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
50
70
70
50
70
70
70
50
50
70
70
50
50
70
70
70
70
70
70
Treatment
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Alternatives
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Acres
4
3
3
1
8
4
13
8
7
3
3
4
1
8
7
3
9
10
6
6
3
5
8
30
11
10
14
6
3
12
34
26
45
Appendix H
Page H-3
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
American River
Unit
522
523
524
525
527
527.1
529
530
531
533
534
536
537
541
542
543
TCode
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
Type
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
%
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Treatment
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Alternatives
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
American River Total Acres
L-
Acres
6
4
30
22
6
11
14
25
17
13
23
14
9
53
45
14
1080
Appendix H
Page H-4
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table H.3: Crooked River Treatments
Crooked River
Unit
1
2
2.1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11.1
12
12.1
13
14
15
17
18
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
33
34
35
36
36.1
37
38
38.2
39
41
42
43
44
TCode
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4133
4133
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4134
4114
4134
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
4133
4114
4230
4114
4114
4134
4134
Type
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Cable
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Cable
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Ground
Cable
%
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
70
70
90
90
90
90
90
90
80
90
80
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
90
90
90
90
90
90
70
90
50
90
90
80
80
Treatment
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Broadcast
Broadcast
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Broadcast
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Underburn
Underburn
Underburn
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Broadcast
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Alternatives
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
. E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Acres
18
15
7
29
22
6
9
52
81
28
6
7
49
13
27
14
17
29
6
10
8
4
31
7
4
24
11
5
23
11
73
12
19
3
31
15
22
4
4
22
3
Appendix H
Page H-5
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Crooked River
Unit
45
46
47
48
49
50
50.1
51
52
53
54
55
56
58
59
60
64
65
66 '
66.2
66.3
68
69
70
71
72
73
75
76
77
78
79
81
82
82.2
83
84
90
93
94
95
96
TCode
4134
4134
4114
4114
4114
4134
4114
4114
4134
4133
4114
4114
4114
4220
4114
4133
4114
4230
4230
4230
4230
4114
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4134
4134
4134
4133
4133
4114
4114
4114
4114
4114
Type
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Cable
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Cable
Ground
.%
80
80
90
90
90
80
90
90
80
70
90
90
90
50
90
70
90
50
60
60
50
90
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
80
80
80
70
70
90
90
90
90
90
Treatment
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Broadcast
Underburn
Underburn
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Underburn
• Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Alternatives
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
" D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E -
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Acres
8
9
25
26
35
10
13
15
40
9
9
10
12
13
30
10
4
5
6
6
6
29
8
4
26
15
8
57
5
17
6
25
7
6
2
19
19
5
29
13
• 9
6
Appendix H
Page H-6
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Crooked River
Unit
97
98
99
99.2
100
101
101.1
104
105
307
309
309.1
312
312.1
313
313.1
315
316
317
318
318.1
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
327
329
330
333
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
TCode
4114
4134
4220
4220
4133
4230
4133
4994
4994
4133
4134
4134
4230
4230
4114
4114
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4133
4134
4134
4133
4133
4133
4134
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4114
4114
Type
Cable
Cable
Cable
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Cable
Ground
Cable
Ground
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Cable
Cable
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
%
90
80
50
50
70
50
70
70
70
70
80
80
50
50
90
90
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
80
80
70
70
70
80
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
90
90
Treatment
Broadcast
Underburn
Underburn
Underburn
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Broadcast
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Underburn
Underburn
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Ex. Pile
Alternatives
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Crooked River Total Acres
Acres
14
17
14
9
12
10
9
17
21
32
12
10
25
20
18
11
29
20
14
15
17
11
17
21
9
4
1
7
10
18
11
19
9
15
23
16
7
14
13
1,968
Appendix H
Page H-7
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix H
Page H-8
-------
APPENDIX I
MONITORING PLAN
FOREST PLAN MONITORING
As part of implementing the Nez Perce Forest Plan, the Nez Perce Forest monitors numerous
effects and conditions within the Forest. The Forest Plan Monitoring items are displayed on
pages V-4 through V-8, and Appendix O of the Nez Perce Forest Plan. These monitoring
activities are applied on a sample basis randomly across the Forest or among projects. Some
of that monitoring may occur within the American and Crooked River analysis area. Forest Plan
monitoring is reported in an annual monitoring and evaluation report.
PROPOSED MONITORING FOR THIS PROJECT
Monitoring is a process of gathering information through observation and measurement to
assure the goals, objectives and standards of the Nez Perce Forest Plan are implemented and
to ensure implementation and effectiveness of design criteria or mitigation.
Where additional monitoring is determined to be necessary for specific activities, a detailed
monitoring plan will be developed before implementation of those activities. This monitoring
plan will specify the monitoring items, objectives, location, protocols, and reporting for each
item. The Forest is currently engaged with the IDEQ, EPA, Nez Perce Tribe, and the South
Fork Clearwater Watershed Advisory Group to develop an implementation and monitoring plan
for South Fork Clearwater TMDL. This will be completed by the end of 2005; and the provisions
developed that may pertain to this project will be implemented as appropriate.
Two forms of monitoring are proposed: 1) implementation and 2) effectiveness. These two
types of monitoring are described below:
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING is used to determine if management practices are implemented
as specified in the Nez Perce Forest Plan or this EIS.
1. ALL ACTIVITY MONITORING: Some level of implementation monitoring would be conducted on
all activities and activity areas, as appropriate for each resource. Monitoring would be
accomplished by an interdisciplinary and/or multi-party team through a combination of any of
the following methods:
• Review contract specifications
• Review designs and plans of operation
• Review contract administration reports (daily diaries)
• Review activities on the ground before, during, and after implementation.
RESOURCE SPECIFIC MONITORING: The following design criteria, as listed in Chapter 2, Table 2.3
of this document, would be monitored: Numbers in parentheses correspond to those in Table
2.3. The contract administrator generally conducts this monitoring, with resource specialist
input, or as indicated. Results from monitoring may require further specialist coordination and
adjustment of activities to ensure compliance with the design criteria or documented variances.
a. Road Decommissioning: (10,20, 23,36) Contract administrator and Engineering staff
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
b. Temporary Road Construction and Road Reconditioning: (10, 11, 23, 33, 36) Contract
administrator and Engineering staff
c. Crossing improvements, including upgrades, replacements, and removals: (23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29) Contract administrator and Engineering staff/watershed specialist
d. Conversion of Roads to Trails: (35) Contract administrator and Engineering staff
e. Hazardous materials handling and transport, including fuel haul, transfer, storage,
containment, and spill response (31, 37 (31, 37) Contract administrator
f. Prescribed Fire and Smoke Management: (4, 38, 39, 40) Fuels specialist
g. Timber Harvest: (1, 2, 3) Contract administrator and silviculturist.
i. Monitoring before implementation: Coordination with presale prep crew during and
following unit layout and marking. Silviculturist and sale prep crew.
ii. Monitoring during project implementation: Timber harvest is occurring as
recommended. Contract administrator and siiviculturist.
iii. Monitoring after project completion: - Evaluate the effectiveness of harvest to meet
the goals for basal area retention, species mixture, canopy layers, size class, tons
per acre woody debris and snag/snag replacement retention. Contract administrator
and silviculturist.
h. Invasive Weed Management: (54, 55, 56, 57, 58)
i. Inspections of equipment and rock material are completed and documented.
Contract administrator
ii. Plant seed, straw, and/or mulch are certified as required and the results are
documented. Contract administrator
iii. Pretreatment is completed and documented following National Standards and
protocols. Weed specialist
i. Soil Resource Protection (1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) Contract
administrator and soil scientist.
i. Monitoring before implementation: Site-specific review for landslide hazard or prior
harvest impacts; consequent adjustment of harvest or compensatory restoration
adopted as recommended. Soil scientist with layout crew.
ii. Monitoring during project implementation:
Coordination of timber harvest and local soil restoration activities is occurring as
recommended. Contract administrator
Monitoring progress toward compliance with forest plan soil quality standards on
tractor units to identify activities, settings, or conditions that result in trend toward
non-compliance. Adjust activities to achieve compliance. Contract administrator and
soil scientist
iii. Monitoring after project completion
Appendix I
Page I-2
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Evaluate implemented proportion of broadcast burning to machine piling. Soil scientist
Evaluate if whole tree yarding occurred on susceptible materials. Soil scientist
j. Soil Restoration: (19,20,21,22,)
i. Monitoring during implementation:
Monitor that soil restoration on current activity areas is being done as
recommended, including scarification, recontouring, addition of slash and litter,
seeding, and coordination with logging activities. Contract administrator and soil
scientist
Monitor that soil restoration on prior activity areas is being done as
recommended, including coordination with road decommissioning. Contract
administrator and soil scientist
Instream activities including restoration and stream crossing improvements: (23,
29, 30, 32)
ii. Field personnel responsible for implementing the activity will monitor and report on
the effectiveness of relevant design criteria, mitigation measures, and terms and
conditions contained in the Biological Opinions' from NOAA Fisheries and US Fish.
Implementation monitoring will also be supplemented by resource specialists' on-site
visits. The results will be reported in an annual report.
k. Snag and green tree marking done to levels recommended: (44) Contract administrator,
silviculturist, ecologist, or wildlife biologist
I. Cultural Resource Protection: (50, 51, 52) Contract administrator and heritage specialist
m. Access Management (34) Contract administrator and district access coordinator
n. Wildlife Protection (41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49) Contract administrator and wildlife
biologist
EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING is used to determine if management practices, as designed and
executed, are effective in meeting project objectives, as well as goals, objectives, and standards
of the Forest Plan.
Effectiveness monitoring would be accomplished using established protocols specific to each
criterion. Effectiveness of the following design criteria and other treatment activities would be
monitored to determine how they help meet goals and objectives, as listed in Chapter 2, Table
2.3 of this document, and other forest plan direction. The specialist responsible for each
resource generally completes the monitoring. This monitoring would generally be done on a
sampling basis or with field reviews and quantitative sampling as appropriate.
a. Invasive Weed Management:
i. Effectiveness of invasive weed design criteria to reduce or eliminate spread of
existing invasive plants infestations and/or eradicate new infestations. Re-survey
risk zones for changes in weed infestations after implementation of design criteria for
noxious weeds to insure that weed spread from the ground disturbing actions is
minimized or eliminated. Surveys would follow National Protocol for Invasive Plant
Appendix I
Page I-3
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Inventory and would document survey areas. Results would be stored in FS
National Database (TERRA).
ii. Qualitative post treatment evaluation will be conducted on a sample basis following
the Nez Perce National Forest post-evaluation protocol.
b. Soil Resource Protection:
i. Monitor compliance with forest soil quality standards upon completion of activities:
using standard R6 protocols on a random 10 percent sample of tractor logging units
and 3 percent of cable units. Results will be published in forest monitoring reports.
ii. Monitor compliance with snag/green tree and down wood retention
recommendations upon completion of activities: Measurement after logging and fuels
treatments to assess retention levels in relation to Appendix K. Use CSE protocols
for tree and down wood sampling and randomly selected units. Results will be
published in forest monitoring reports.
iii. Effectiveness of road decommissioning and soil restoration to reduce erosion
sources: identify sample monitoring sites and before and after photos and
characterization.
iv. Effectiveness of soil restoration to improve permeability on scarified or scarified and
recontoured sites: Permeability or resistance measurements on compacted and
scarified/recontoured sites. Sample a minimum of 10 roads, 10 landings, and 10 skid
trail sites, randomly selected, with comparisons to a similar sample of unrestored
sites.
v. Effectiveness of road decommissioning and soil restoration to recover native
vegetation and ground cover: Vegetation frequency and cover plots 3 to 5 years after
decommissioning. Sample a minimum of 10 roads, 10 landings, 10 skid trail sites,
randomly selected, with comparisons to a similar sample of unrestored skid trails and
landings. Should be coordinated with (b) above. Results will be published in forest
monitoring reports.
c. Effectiveness of timber harvest to achieve desired stand density, size class, species mix,
cover types and canopy layers.
i. Monitoring will be done on all timber harvest units. The units will be surveyed after
the harvest and activity fuels reduction has been completed. Data will be collected
on the remaining basal area, species mixture, canopy layers, size class down woody
debris tons per acre and snag/snag replacement retention. Results of this
monitoring will be documented, after harvest and fuels treatments are completed for
a unit, in the annual project monitoring report.
ii. Survey units treated with regeneration harvests.
• Survey for conifer regeneration, document the number of trees regenerating by
species.
• Monitoring will occur in the second, third and fifth year following initiation of
natural regeneration.
Appendix I
Page I-4
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
• Surveys will occur in all units treated with regeneration harvests
• Surveys will be done by regeneration exam contract or by Forest Service
reforestation crew.
• Accomplishment and results will be entered into the Timber Stand Management
Record System (TSMRS) database for reporting purposes.
b. Effectiveness of stream restoration activities to restore fish habitat elements.
c. Effectiveness of prescribed fire and smoke management:
Prescribed Fire: Monitor pre-and post-fire conditions to determine effectiveness of
prescribed fire to meet goals and objectives established in the silvicultural prescription.
Use a combination of walk-through and photo exams the same season that
implementation occurs. In addition, follow monitoring protocols as established in the
Nez Perce Forest Programmatic Biological Assessment of the Fire Management
Program. Prepare an annual monitoring report to be presented to the Level 1 team by
March 1 of each year.
Air Quality: The Monitoring Unit (MU) of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group is responsible
for the daily monitoring of meteorological data, air quality information and planned
burning. It is also responsible for notifying all Group members when acceptable limits of
smoke .accumulation are threatened or exceeded. Meteorological conditions will be
compiled daily (Mon.-Fri.) by the MU Meteorologist, who will issue an updated smoke
dispersion forecast for the following day at approximately 4pm Mountain Time. The MU
will consider existing air quality conditions when determining burn recommendations.
Current air quality conditions for smoke sensitive sites in Montana and Idaho will be
posted by the MU each day (Mon.-Fri.) by 12pm Mountain Time. The actual recorded air
quality values at Sam Mountain Time will be posted in table format along with a color-
coded air quality map based on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Air Quality
Index (AQI) levels.
d. Effectiveness of Aquatics
Fish populations will be monitored according to the terms and conditions contained in
the Biological Opinions' from NOAA Fisheries and US Fish and Wildlife Service.
• The isolated westslope cutthroat trout populations in Whitaker and Queens Creek will
have genetics samples taken to document existing genetic make up for comparison
with fish populations in a connected system. Dialog will continue with BLM and
research biologists as to benefits associated with connecting two streams to the
mainstem river.
• Before and after stream surveys will be conducted in Crooked River where instream
improvements are planned. Permanent stations will be located to document fish
population responses. These stations will be established in coordination with
existing parr monitoring stations monitored by IDFG.
At a minimum, 20% of instream activities will be selected for substrate and turbidity
monitoring and identified/reported in the annual report. Three permanent reference
(before management activity) transects will be set up on the downstream side of the
Appendix I
Page I-5
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
culverts/management activities. The sites will be sampled, and will be tested against the
reference for a significant change.
Physical attributes of "new" culverts will also be monitored over time. The monitoring will
focus on the structural attributes of the culvert, the substrate retention within the culvert,
and the substrate distribution within the structure.
e. Effectiveness of Wildlife protection
Monitor compliance with recommendations concerning active goshawk nest area
protection. Dialogue will continue between District/Forest biologist and sale
administrators, layout and implementation crews regarding observations of wildlife
species of concerns outlined in the design and mitigation measures.
OTHER APPLICABLE AND ONGOING MONITORING
AQUATIC MONITORING
• The Idaho Department of Fish and Game maintains a weir at the mouth of Crooked River.
Returning adult steelhead and Chinook salmon are monitored as well as bull trout. Crooked
River is also monitored for chinook salmon redds and permanent parr monitoring stations
have been established.
• One permanent monitoring station will be established in Crooked River to assess condition
and trend of stream channel morphology and fish habitat. The protocol to be applied is
currently being developed in the Northern Region for use in the forest plan revision process.
This station will be established in 2005.
• Selected channel morphology sites established by the Nez Perce National Forest in the
American and Crooked River watersheds during the Snake River Basin Adjudication data
collection phase will be remeasured in 2005. The selected sites will be those potentially
affected by the American and Crooked River Project and that can be relocated and re-
monumented.
• The Forest will coordinate with BLM to continue fish habitat condition and trend monitoring
at existing sites on American River and the South Fork Clearwater River.
• The Forest will coordinate through the South Fork Clearwater River TMDL Technical
Advisory Group (TAG) to establish additional monitoring required under TMDL
implementation. This TAG is scheduled to initiate in February 2005, with completion of a
monitoring plan targeted in 2005.
• Thermographs will continue to be placed in project area streams. A long-term baseline
network to track trends will be established as part of the Forest's 2005 Annual Monitoring
Plan for Soils, Air, Water, and Fisheries. This baseline network will include sites in
American River, Crooked River, and the South Fork Clearwater River. It will be coordinated
with federal and state agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe.
PRESCRIBED FIRE MONITORING
• The Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Fire Management Program (South Fork
Clearwater River Biological Assessment, 1999 p. 97) specifies monitoring items for the
prescribed fire program. These monitoring items include items such as location and size,
Appendix I
Page I-6
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
mortality levels and patch size, and riparian fire intensity. This monitoring occurs for all fire
activities occurring under this Biological Assessment. This monitoring would also be
applicable to prescribed fire activities proposed with this project.
Noxious AND EXOTIC SPECIES MONITORING
• On-going monitoring within the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin includes weed
surveys to document the extent and changes of weed infestations. In addition, when weeds
are treated effectiveness monitoring is conducted on selected sites to determine if the
management treatment is effective in reducing the target infestation. This work is
coordinated with the community-based weed mgt cooperative through Idaho County Weed
Control.
MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES MONITORING
Forestwide MIS populations monitoring for bald eagle, pileated woodpecker, goshawk, fisher
and pine marten are conducted annually for most species with sample plots or transects that
occur within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Results are reported in the Forest Plan
Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report.
WOLF RECOVERY MONITORING
The Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Program conducts monitoring of wolf recovery. Recovery continues
and wolf numbers continuing growing. Currently, five wolf packs overlap or are in close
proximity to the project analysis area.
LANDBIRD POPULATION MONITORING
In 1993, a USFS Region-wide Landbird Monitoring Program was initiated. Sample plots were
established along randomly distributed transects distributed across all 13 national forests of
Region 1. Monitoring of Neotropical migrant songbird species diversity and populations is
currently being done in partnership with non-game biologists of the Idaho Department of Fish &
Game and overseen by researchers from the University of Montana (Hutto and Young 1999).
Transects are distributed across the Forest and include transects near the project area.
RECREATION AND TRAIL MONITORING
Recreation and trails are inventoried over a 5 year period (i.e. 20 per cent a year) as part of the
INFRA data base information collection process. Deficiencies and/or resource damage is
recorded as part of the process and will include project improvements.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT: Monitor accomplishment of activities over time with an annual
report of the past year's implementation and monitoring accomplishments and the planned
accomplishments for the next year. Adjust implementation designs to respond to monitoring
findings, where modification would better meet objectives of design criteria or Forest Plan
standards.
Appendix I
Page I-7
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
This page left blank intentionally.
Appendix I
Page 1-8
-------
APPENDIX J
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE POPULATIONS VIABILITY SUMMARY RELATED TO THE
AMERICAN AND CROOKED RIVER PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that vertebrate species populations' viability
be maintained across the "planning area." The planning area is generally defined as each national
forest. Very few if any vertebrate species' ranges are so limited in geographical extent that they
remain within the boundaries of any given national forest "planning area." In assessing species
populations viability to meet the intent of NFMA, reconciling disparities between the geographic scale
of management actions and the scale of ecological responses (i.e., species' viability) across
geographically extensive landscapes is necessary to avoid a gross mismatch of ecological analysis
scale which can reduce reliability of the environmental analysis (Ruggiero, L.F. et al. 1994; Noon, B.R.
et al. 1999). More appropriately, such analyses must be accomplished through an analysis
framework that assesses ecological responses of forest-scale "biological populations" from within the
"planning area." Scale issues are also important in impact analysis because individual populations
evolving under the unique conditions present in a given local may have acquired characteristics
important for that population's persistence (Samson, F.B. 2002).
ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
To conduct comprehensive population viability analyses, it requires extensive ecological data, which
is usually unavailable and it is usually cost and time prohibitive to collect that data locally (Ruggiero et
al. 1994). The following framework provides an ecological habitat basis that supports species viability
assertions for the 2.2 million acre Nez Perce National Forest based on two hierarchically-tiered spatial
scales, with the assumption that other environmental variables (e.g., disease, competition) are related
to habitat structure and spacing (Roloff & Haufler, 1997). This framework relies on data summarized
from mid-scale subbasin ecological assessments (Planning Unit Assessments), preparatory for Forest
Plan revision. Site-specific habitat analyses showing habitats for species at risk species is relatively
well distributed on the Forest.
SPECIES AT RISK
The species that require population viability analysis are those whose populations are in declines for
various reasons or their habitats have become so modified or in short supply that the species may be
in jeopardy of becoming locally extirpated or extinct. Federally listed species all are automatically
assumed to fit these "species at risk" general criteria. The Forest Service "sensitive" list represents
the most defensible and appropriate list of other, less critical, but uncertain species. The process
used to update this list in USFS Region 1 was the "species of concern" lists from the Natural Heritage
Programs of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota with consideration of species identified
by the Partners in Flight, BLM sensitive lists, USFWS candidate lists and migratory bird species of
concern. Details of this species identification process are documented in the Northern Region Forest
Service 2004 Sensitive Species List Update Process for Wildlife, (2-11-04) led by Tom Wittinger of the
Missoula office (R1) of the U.S. Forest Service.
Appendix J
Page J-1
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
This analysis addresses federally listed species, Forest Plan Management Indicator species, and key
Forest Service sensitive species. These species are considered most to have concern about
population or habitat status.
This analysis is not a quantitative analysis of viable populations, because it is not an explicit model of
genetic or demographic risk to species persistence. Rather, it does provide a reasoned series of
judgments and inferences about projected amounts and distributions of habitat and the likelihood that
broad-scale habitat mitigations will allow terrestrial species to persist in the foreseeable future.
MID-SCALE
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST HISTORY
Broad scale analysis themes of concern identified above have been recognized as common to the
Nez Perce National Forest and were historically documented in the forest planning records. Evidence
of their presence across the Forest could be founding early forest planning AMS documents:
1. Conifer age class distributions on the Nez Perce Forest remain weighted too heavily away
from historic, pre-European conditions. This condition was recognized in TSMRS data and
documented in the statement, "The existing age-class structure in the 1964-73 analysis
reflects similar problems that still exist today. There is a definite shortage in both the
seedling/sapling and pole timber condition classes." Figure 1 of this document graphed the
age class distributions of suitable timber pre-dominantly in the mid-aged categories as well",
(USDA Forest Service 1982, Nez Perce Forest Plan, Background Paper for Analysis of the
Management Situation - Timber, page 4-5).
2. Large-scale exclusion of fire from the landscapes of the Nez Perce National Forest were
recognized as Forest Planning "issues" even before the completion of the 1987 Plan. This
was documented in Issue #12 (Fire Effects) where in the situation statement acknowledged
the following: "With a dramatic improvement in firefighting effectiveness over the last 30-40
years, the burned-over acreage on the Forest has been greatly reduced. This exclusion of fire
has had a significant effect on vegetative succession, an effect which has become more
pronounced over time, and one which has had varying effects on different resources" (USDA
Forest Service 1987:A-17, Nez Perce National Forest Issues and Concerns, Nez Perce
National Forest). Likewise, in the same document within the wildlife section, the public raised
questions during the scooping process regarding "How will fire management affect wildlife
habitat?" USDA Forest Service 1987:A-10).
3. The multi-faceted effects of large numbers of roads on the Nez Perce National Forest were
theorized early on and stated as another of the public's issue related questions expressed in
the statement: "Do management activities create too much access to wildlife habitat?" (USDA
Forest Service no date: Nez Perce Forest Plan Background Paper for Analysis of the
Management Situation - Wildlife, page 27).
Recovery of threatened and endangered species (wolf, grizzly bear, bald eagle, lynx) would rely on
application of Forest Plan wildlife standards on pages 11-18-20 and include: maintaining or improving
elk habitat through use of the "Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in
Northern Idaho, Forest Plan Appendix B), monitoring population levels of all Management Indicator
Species, consulting with the Fish & Wildlife Service and Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game whenever
management of wolf dens or rendezvous areas are involved, restoring fish habitats, and implementing
the post-Forest Plan Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. Viable populations of old growth
and snag-dependent species would be accomplished through implementation of Forest Plan
Appendix N (old-growth and snag standards). For the remainder of "at risk" species, implementation
of species recovery or conservation plan actions would occur.
Appendix J
Page J-2
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
HABITAT & ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES TRENDS- PLANNING UNIT ASSESSMENTS (PDA)
Ecosystem analysis of the 2.2 million acre Nez Perce National Forest was based on (1) three mid-
scale, watershed-oriented sub-basins which facilitated scaled-down analysis; and (2)
recommendations for application of pre-emptive restoration actions needed to restore terrestrial
vertebrate habitats within the South Fork Clearwater River, Selway/Middle Fork Clearwater, and
Salmon River sub-basins. Analyses of these units were subdivided and recommendations were
applied to Ecological Reporting Units (ERU), within each assessment. For example, the South Fork
Clearwater Assessment (SFLA) is subdivided geographically into 13 watershed-based reporting units:
South Fork Canyon, Meadow Creek, Cougar-Peasley Creeks, Silver Creek, Newsome-Leggett Creek,
American River, Red River, Crooked River, Tenmile Creek, Wing-Twentymile Creek, Johns Creek,
Mill Creek, and Camas Prairie.
Each analysis considered an array of comparisons of historic versus current conditions relative to
forest serai stages, old growth, disturbance processes, relative habitat patch sizes, and other habitat
parameters including fire frequencies/intensities. Relative densities of roads were also evaluated
along with numerous other resource considerations.
Site-specific conservation and restoration recommendations identified thematic landscape vegetative
and disturbance (fire) process changes as well as increased security needs (related to road impacts)
within each ERU. By this pattern, the conservation and restoration needs were identified to help
ensure sufficient amounts and distribution of habitats to sustain population viability and persistence.
Recommendations were provided as guidance for future Forest restoration actions.
SOUTH FORK CLEARWATER RIVER LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT (1998)
The process and rationale behind the terrestrial species analyzed is presented in the South Fork
Clearwater River Assessment (USDA, Forest Service, 1998a, page 99-100). Species were selected
based on five broad "guilds" including: ponderosa pine, early serai forest dependent, late forest serai
dependent, riparian-associated species, and security-dependent species. Representative "indicator
species" were then chosen for in-depth analysis, based principally on species status as either a
Forest Plan management indicator or Forest Service sensitive species.
Understanding the effects of changed disturbance regimes for terrestrial and aquatic systems is
emphasized throughout the South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment. Restoration of the
pattern of disturbance appropriate to a given setting was a key consideration in developing
management themes and recommendations (USDA, Forest Service, 1998a, page 7). Relative
amounts and distribution of historic versus current habitats for each species were analyzed. A
summary of the recommendations for the subbasin are provide on pages 166-172, and includes
specific discussion pertinent to larger scale, species persistence-related recommendations.
Restoration "themes" and their priorities resulted from the landscape scale analysis for major
resources and uses (USDA, Forest Service, 1998a: Table #5, page 165.).
Ensuring populations persistence thus must include fire-interval restoration, vegetative repatterning,
restoration of late-serai habitats along with snags and logs, road management, aquatic habitat needs,
and strategies to address fragmentation issues such as noxious weed spread. To facilitate
recommendations which address site-specific actions which are well distributed across the subbasin,
management actions are identified for each geographical Ecological Response Unit (ERU) within the
subbasin for the Forest's "at risk" species including fisher, flammulated owl, Canadian lynx, goshawk,
pine marten, pileated woodpecker, wolverine, black-backed woodpecker, wolf, and bald eagle (USDA,
Forest Service 1998b).
Chapter 4 of the South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (SFLA) summarized habitat
needs into wildlife themes and treatment objectives that would help move vegetation patterns and
Appendix J
Page J-3
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
processes closer toward historic norms, theoretically providing the habitat changes necessary to
maintain and sustain all "at risk" species in the local landscape.
For American River ERU, three key wildlife habitat restoration themes emerged: 1) Produce early-
serai habitat (very high priority), important for species such as black-backed woodpecker and Canada
lynx; 2) Conserve late-serai habitat (Moderate priority), important for species such as fisher, marten,
Northern goshawk; and 3) Enhance wildlife security (moderate priority), important for species such as
Canada lynx and marten (SFLA, page 140-141).
For Crooked River ERU, two key wildlife habitat restoration themes emerged: 1) Produce early-serai
habitat (high priority), important for species such as black-backed woodpecker and Canada lynx; and
2) Conserve late-serai habitat (low priority), important for benefiting species such as marten, fisher
Northern goshawk (SFLA, page 148).
A discussion of impacts and opportunities for terrestrial species in the subbasin is provided in the
SFLA (1998, Chapter 3, pages 100-107; Chapter 4, pages 114-117, 138-141, 146-149) that are
associated with the American and Crooked River project.
FINE-SCALE: THE AMERICAN AND CROOKED RIVER PROJECT
The current mountain pine beetle infestation in the Elk City area within the Red River, Crooked River,
and American River drainages is killing many thousands of acres of lodgepole pines, most of which
are 6 inches in dbh or greater. The relative amounts of acreage planned for harvest by the American
and Crooked Project relative to the analysis area acreage (39,000) now under attack by beetles in
these drainages amounts to approximately 9 percent. The remaining areas will eventually be
regenerated naturally by wildfire as it has done for centuries. Many thousands of acres of dead,
standing trees will remain after the project is completed. For this reason, planned harvest treatments
will have relatively negligible impact to overall habitat availability for black-backed woodpecker, but
will help convert modest amounts of mid-serai timber now in abundance, to early serai habitat, a high
priority wildlife habitat restoration theme from the SFLA. Early-serai habitat is important for habitat
mosaics and forage production 'used by lynx as well as carrion sources and ungulate prey of wolves
and wolverine.
The American and Crooked River Project will protect late serai habitats including all existing old
growth stands and generous amounts of future replacement old growth from harvest. This action is
consistent with the "conserve late serai" habitat restoration theme and will be beneficial for species
such as fisher, pine marten, goshawks, and pileated woodpecker. Regenerating limited, but well-
distributed acreages of mid-serai timber ahead of anticipated wildfire disturbances would enhance
repatterning of forest vegetation, since no-late-seral stands are taken and due to minor reductions in
fuels, may help maintain patches of unburned habitat after expected major wildfire disturbances.
Partial cut harvests will account for just over half of all proposed harvests in the project. The aim of
partial harvests is to remove excess fuel loading, while increasing proportions of long-lived, fire-
resistant species by restoring or regenerating western larch and ponderosa pine. Larch and
ponderosa pine are preferred as snags for pileated woodpeckers and are more likely to become large,
wildlife-preferred snags and down logs. Reductions in access through decommissioning of existing
roads will also contribute toward enhancement of overall wildlife security. Most of these actions are
consistent with viability associated habitat restoration aims cited in both the SFLA and ICBEMP.
Project activities in the American and Crooked River Project will accomplish the following:
• Protects and maintains all existing old growth within the project area. In addition, the project
strategically designates and protects abundant future replacement old growth stands located
adjacent to or "cluster-related" in their proximity to existing old growth stands. The project protects
riparian zones that help serve to connect old growth patches. In doing so, the project contributes
Appendix J
Page J-4
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
to long term populations viability for all old growth related species including but not limited to:
goshawk, fisher, marten, and pileated woodpecker.
• Converts 30-40 percent of the project area treatment acres from mid-serai to early serai conditions
needed for several species. Actions also promote, restore, and protect large diameter ponderosa
pine and larch in mixed conifer stands.
• Through widely distributed but modest levels of fuel removal, the project helps to reduce likelihood
of locally severe fire effects, potentially increasing survivability of nearby old growth habitats,
leaving a mosaic of habitat age classes which contribute to maintenance of a diverse habitat
landscape after the predicted fire disturbance.
• Reduces and decommissions roads to help enhance wildlife security.
Specifically, the project will accomplish the following:
• Harvest up to approximately 3,400 acres (principally lodgepole pine), which amounts to
approximately 9 percent of the analysis area.
• No new permanent roads developed, but up to 14 miles of temporary roads (for harvest access)
would be developed and later decommissioned.
• Would decommission up to approximately 37 miles of roadway.
• Protect from harvest all existing old growth stands and maintain abundant future replacement old
growth.
• Incorporates road and stream improvements designed to help restore and maintain aquatic
habitats.
WILDLIFE SPECIES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL:
Project details from Alternative D of the American and Crooked Draft Environmental Impact Statement
support species viability. Fisher, lynx, goshawk, marten, pileated woodpecker, wolverine, black-
backed woodpecker, bald eagle, gray wolf, elk, and moose are discussed below.
FISHER
INTRODUCTION
In northern Idaho, fishers inhabit mesic, closed-canopy, later-serai forests (Heinemeyer 1995 pg 30-
31). Modification of coniferous forests and the mosaic of the forest landscape may limit populations.
Access to populations via roads and trails may increase the probability of trapping mortality
(Heinemeyer 1995 pg. 33).
STATE STATUS AND AVAILABLE TREND INFORMATION
The network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers determine the
conservation status of a species. The rank is primarily based the number of occurrences, habitat
quality, estimated population size and trend, range of distribution, and threats to a species or their
habitat. The fisher has a global rank of G5 (widespread, abundant and secure) and an Idaho State
ranking of S1 (critically imperiled) (Engle and Harris 2001, Groves et al. 1997).
The original decline if fisher population was due to trapping and logging (Engle and Harris 2001).
However, no fisher trapping is currently allowed in Idaho, but animals are occasionally caught
incidental to marten, coyote, and bobcat trapping. Current and past trend monitoring on the Nez
Perce National Forest suggests relatively low numbers of fisher. Monitoring results have suggested
that on the Nez Perce Forest, pine marten appear to be considerably more common than fishers.
Appendix J
Page J-5
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
During winter of 2003-2004, 28 snow-track routes were run statewide. Approximately six to eight
fisher were detected.
HABITAT ANALYSIS
The following table (Table A-1) shows the acres of habitat for the American and Crooked River
watersheds (and % habitat within the two watersheds) based on R1-VMP. Approximately 69% of
American River and 60% of Crooked River contains habitat for this species.
TABLE J-1. ESTIMATED ACRES OF FISHER HABITAT WITHIN THE AMERICAN AND CROOKED RIVER
DRAINAGES
Watershed
American River
Crooked River
Summer Habitat Acres {% wtrsd)
38,326 (65%)
21,727(48%)
: Winter habitat acres (% wtrsd}
40,651 (69%)
27,328 (60%)
The results of the Forest-wide Forest Inventory and Analysis indicate that, overall, fisher habitat is
widely distributed across the Forest (this includes summer and winter habitat). The total potential
fisher habitat represents approximately 33% of the forested lands forest-wide with a 90% confidence
interval of 29% to 37%. Within the American River watershed, total fisher habitat (represented by
winter habitat as summer habitat is included in the calculations) amounts to 53% of the forested lands
and 11% in the Crooked River watershed. Table A-2 displays the FIA data at three scales: 1) Forest
2) Subbasin (4th HUC), and watershed (5th HUC). The amount and distribution of habitat is both a
reflection of the capability and current condition of the landscape, as well as the number of plots
across the landscape.
TABLE J-2: FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS DATA AT THREE SCALES FOR PERCENT FISHER SUMMER
AND WINTER HABITAT, INCLUDING 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS (Cl LOW AND Cl HIGH).
Species
Fisher
Summer
Habitat
Fisher
Winter
Habitat
Nez Perce Forest
Cl
Low
17
29
Mean
20
33
Ci
High
23
37
South Fork
Clearwater River
Cl
.Low
20
35
Mean
26
43
CJ
High
33
51
American River
Watershed
Cl
Low
13
32
Mean
28
53
Cl
High
45
75
Crooked River
Watershed
Cl
Low
0
0
Mean
7
11
Cl
High
25
27
Estimates of fisher habitat based on R1VMP and the FIA data differ primarily due to the divisions for
size class and canopy cover categories being slightly different between the two datasets. R1VMP
also provides a spatial context not represented by the FIA data.
Both FIA and R1VMP have strengths and limitations relative to modeling and providing an estimate of
fisher habitat. FIA data should be interpreted in conjunction with the FIA old growth analysis to fill in
habitat gaps created by small sample sizes and habitat model parameters in some of the landscapes.
CONCLUSION
Current distribution of fishers in North America is substantially fragmented compared to their historical
(pre-European) distribution. Across the species' range, fisher populations declined in the early
Appendix J
Page J-6
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
twentieth century, probably due to a combination of over trapping, predator poisoning, and habitat loss
from settlement, logging and forest fires (Heinemeyer 1995. 1995). Fishers and their habitat use were
studied by Jeff Jones in the adjacent Newsome drainage and surrounding areas near Elk City during
the late 1980's (Jones, J.L. 1991). Jones concluded that over-trapping and habitat loss due to
extensive fires in 1910 and 1934 were most likely responsible for the historical decline of fishers in
Idaho.
Fisher habitat has increased over historical conditions in both American River Crooked River
drainages (SFLA, 1998, Wildlife Technical Report - Fisher) due to fire suppression and forest
succession. The project harvests no existing old growth stands, also protects replacement old growth
to promote largest contiguous block sizes, and improves security by decommissioning roadways.
Based on populations monitoring results, incidental sightings, ICDC database records and
consideration of this data within the context of locally monitored downtrends in the two of the most
commonly recognized threats to fisher and marten populations in the western U.S. (trapping pressure
and clearcutting of late successional timber), local trends in fisher populations remain stable (USDA
Forest Service, NPNF 15th Annual Monitoring & Evaluation Report 2002 Fisher/pine marten
monitoring data - Item 10 Population Trends of Indicator Species , Nez Perce National Forest, 2004).
Based on the analysis of the project impacts on fisher, there is sufficient habitat to support viable
populations of fisher in the American and Crooked River drainages and Forest-wide.
LYNX
INTRODUCTION
In the Inland northwest, lynx inhabit high elevation, mountain coniferous forests (Koehler and Brittell
1990, pg. 10). Because of their need for both early serai-foraging habitat and late-serai denning
habitat, lynx require a mosaic of forest successional states (Roloff 1995, pg 77).
STATE STATUS AND AVAILABLE TREND INFORMATION
The network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers determine the
conservation status of a species. The rank is primarily based the number of occurrences, habitat
quality, estimated population size and trend, range of distribution, and threats to a species or their
habitat. The lynx has a global rank of G5 (widespread, abundant and secure) and an Idaho State
ranking of S1 (critically imperiled) (Engle and Harris 2001, Groves et al. 1997).
The original decline in lynx population was due to overexploitation and habitat loss (Engle and Harris
2001). However, no lynx trapping is currently allowed in Idaho, but animals are occasionally caught
incidental to marten, coyote, and bobcat trapping. Based on sightings and ICDC database records,
lynx possibly inhabit the Nez Perce National Forest. During the winter of 2003-2004, 28 snow track
routes were run statewide. One lynx was possibly detected.
HABITAT ANALYSIS
Lynx analysis unit (LAU) delineations and habitat mapping actions directed by the Canada Lynx
Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS, 2000) have been completed for the entire Forest
including the project area. Lynx habitat mapping of the Nez Perce Forest has undergone recent
adjustments as recommended by the National Lynx Biology Team. Their recommendations were
based on an on-site field review conducted in October 2003. The Conservation Measures and
mapping direction in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS), and the most recent
changes to the Forestwide lynx habitat map (Forest CIS file:
c/fsfiles/gis/projects/lynx_habitat/lynx_habitat.mxd 20 April 2004), per direct review and adjustments
by the National Lynx Biology Team - Oct., 2003, are used and applied in this analysis.
Appendix J
Page J-7
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Mapping efforts indicate that, overall, lynx habitat is widely distributed across the Forest. Some
landscapes have more potential habitat that others; this is both a reflection of the capability and
current condition of the landscape.
Very little designated lynx habitat occurs within the American-Crooked project area. Currently, both
LAUs have ample denning habitat (above the 10% LCAS guideline), and neither LAU has enough
mapped "unsuitable" habitat to be of concern with respect to the LCAS 30% limit on conversion of
suitable to unsuitable habitat.
CONCLUSION
Forest management activities within designated lynx habitats are partially governed and guided to be
consistent with the Conservation Measures of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy.
Based on sightings and ICDC database records, lynx possibly inhabit the Nez Perce National Forest.
Based on the analysis of the project impacts on lynx, there is sufficient habitat to support lynx in the
American and Crooked River drainages and Forest-wide.
NORTHERN GOSHAWK
INTRODUCTION
Forest management activities within designated lynx habitats are partially governed and guided to be
consistent with the Conservation Measures of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy.
Based on sightings and ICDC database records, lynx possibly inhabit the Nez Perce National Forest.
Based on the analysis of the project impacts on lynx, there is sufficient habitat to support viable
populations of lynx in the American and Crooked River drainages and Forest-wide.
The habitat information gathered and reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that
changes have occurred in the distribution, amount, and structural characteristics of mature forests
throughout much of the western United States. The primary change has been the reduction of mature
forest cover by logging, although other factors such as fire suppression and catastrophic fire have
also been implicated. While timber management has been demonstrated to affect goshawks at least
at local levels (Crocker-Bedford 1990), forest management practices, such as the use of controlled
fire selective thinning, also may make habitats more suitable to goshawks by opening up dense
understory vegetation, creating snags, down logs, and woody debris, and creating other conditions
conducive to goshawks and their prey (Reynolds et al. 1992). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
found "no evidence that goshawk habitat is limiting the population, or that a significant curtailment of
the species habitat or range is occurring. Goshawks remain widely distributed throughout their
historic range in the western United States" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
STATE STATUS AND AVAILABLE TREND INFORMATION
The network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers determine the
conservation status of a species. The rank is primarily based the number of occurrences, habitat
quality, estimated population size and trend, range of distribution, and threats to a species or their
habitat. The goshawk has a global rank of G5 (widespread, abundant, secure) and an Idaho State
ranking of S4 (not rare, apparently secure) (Engle and Harris 2001) (S3, Dixon 2005, pers. com.).
The National Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a national bird occurrence-monitoring program
coordinated by the US Geological Survey. These routes are used to monitor long-term changes in
populations as part of the national Breeding Survey effort (Sauer et al. 2004). Although single survey
routes do not have an adequate number of data points to show population trend individually (by
route), they do indicate if goshawk were detected or not, and when combined with the other routes,
they provide a measure of relative statewide population trend. Nationally, this portion of the northwest
shows a slight downward trend in the population of goshawks of 1.5% per year over a 37-year period
Appendix J
Page J-8
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
(1966-2003). For the state of Idaho, goshawk populations appear to be stable (Engle and Harris
2001).
In 1994, the Northern Region of the US Forest Service initiated a region-wide landbird-monitoring
program to help biologists and managers better understand the habitat relationships of landbirds
breeding in the region. Information from the permanent, long-term monitoring transects (1994-2003)
on the Nez Perce National Forests shows that goshawks have been detected during 2 years on 4-
point counts with an abundance of 4 individuals. This is probably due to the number of routes in
potential habitat.
Goshawk have been recorded across the Nez Perce National Forest. This species may be more
common than records suggest, as it is inconspicuous due to its behavior and preference for heavily
forested areas.
HABITAT ANALYSIS
Habitat for the northern goshawk was modeled using R1VMP data as part of the American and
Crooked River project. This analysis indicates that goshawk habitat represents 76% of the forested
lands in the American River watershed and 68% in the Crooked River watershed.
The results of the Forest-wide Forest Inventory and Analysis indicate that, overall, goshawk habitat is
widely distributed across the Forest (this includes nesting and foraging habitat). The total potential
goshawk habitat represents approximately 38% of the forested lands forest-wide with a 90%
confidence interval of 34% to 42%. Within the American River watershed, total goshawk habitat
(represented by foraging habitat as nesting habitat is included in the calculations) amounts to 69% of
the forested lands and 43% in the Crooked River watershed. The following table (Table A-3) displays
the FIA data at three scales: 1) Forest, 2) Subbasin (4th HUC), and watershed (5th HUC). The amount
and distribution of habitat is both a reflection of the capability and current condition of the landscape,
as well as the number of plots across the landscape.
TABLE J-3: FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS DATA AT THREE SCALES FOR PERCENT GOSHAWK
FORAGING AND NESTING HABITAT, INCLUDING 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS (Cl LOW AND Cl HIGH).
Species
Goshawk
Nesting
Habitat
Goshawk
Foraging
Habitat
Nez Perce Forest
Cl
Low
16
34
Mean
19
38
Cl
High
22
42
, South Fork
Clearwater River
Cl
Low
22
45
Mean
28
52
Cl
High
35
60
American River
Watershed
Cl
Low
18
50
Mean
38
69
Cl
High
58
88
Crooked River
Watershed
Cl
Low
0
13
Mean
4
43
Ci
High
13
75
Estimates of goshawk habitat based on R1VMP and the FIA data differ primarily due to the divisions
for size class and canopy cover categories being slightly different between the two datasets. R1VMP
also provides a spatial context not represented by the FIA data.
Both FIA and R1VMP have strengths and limitations relative to modeling and providing an estimate of
goshawk habitat. FIA data should be interpreted in conjunction with the FIA old growth analysis to fill
in habitat gaps created by small sample sizes and habitat model parameters in some of the
landscapes.
Appendix J
Page J-9
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
CONCLUSION
Current (1997) amounts of goshawk habitat are more prevalent than historically. Goshawk habitat
has increased over historic levels in both American and Crooked River drainages (SFLA, 1998,
Wildlife Technical Report - Goshawk) due to fire suppression and forest succession. No existing old
growth or replacement old growth stands would be harvested. A 10-15 acre buffer would protect nest
trees.
Based on formal monitoring results, widely scattered incidental sightings, and inventoried habitat
information, local goshawk population trends remain relatively stable on the Forest (USDA Forest
Service FY 2002 monitoring report 2005). As field work continues for inventorying for goshawks,
additional nests and sightings continue to be discovered. Based on the analysis of the project
impacts on goshawk, there is sufficient habitat to support viable populations of goshawk in the
American and Crooked River drainages and Forest-wide.
PINE MARTEN
INTRODUCTION
Martens use a variety of coniferous forest types and serai stages, but prefer high-elevation, mature or
older, mesic forest. An important component of favored forest stands is complex physical structure
near the ground (Mack and Gibilisco 1995, p. 18-19; Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994 p. 7). Modification
of coniferous forests and the mosaic of the forest landscape may limit populations. Access to
populations via roads and trails may increase the probability of trapping mortality (Idaho State
Conservation Effort 1995 pg. 14-15, 18, 20).
STATE STATUS AND AVAILABLE TREND INFORMATION
The network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers determine the
conservation status of a species. The rank is primarily based the number of occurrences, habitat
quality, estimated population size and trend, range of distribution, and threats to a species or their
habitat. The marten has a global rank of G4 (not rare, apparently secure) and an Idaho State ranking
of S4/S5 (not rare, apparently secure) (Dixon 2005, pers. com., Groves et al. 1997). Monitoring
results have suggested that on the Nez Perce Forest, pine marten appear to be considerably more
common than fishers. During the winter of 2003-2004, 28 snow track routes were run statewide.
Approximately 153-158 marten were detected.
HABITAT ANALYSIS
The following table (Table A-4) shows the acres of habitat for the American and Crooked River
watersheds (and % habitat within the two watersheds) based on R1-VMP. Approximately 66% of
American River and 49% of Crooked River contains habitat for this species.
TABLE J-4. ESTIMATED ACRES OF PINE MARTEN HABITAT WITHIN THE AMERICAN AND CROOKED RIVER
DRAINAGES
:^^fe<^->
American River
Crooked River
Habitat Acres {% wtrsd) , 4 ; ;
38,497 (66%)
22,147(49%)
The results of the Forest-wide Forest Inventory and Analysis indicate that, overall, marten habitat is
widely distributed across the Forest. The total potential marten habitat represents approximately 19%
of the forested lands forest-wide with a 90% confidence interval of 17% to 22%. Within the American
River watershed, total marten habitat amounts to 31% of the forested lands and 7% in the Crooked
Appendix J
PageJ-10
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
River watershed. Table A-5 displays the FIA data at three scales: 1) Forest, 2) Subbasin (4th HUC),
and watershed (5th HUC). The amount and distribution of habitat is both a reflection of the capability
and current condition of the landscape, as well as the number of plots across the landscape.
TABLE J-5: FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS DATA AT THREE SCALES FOR PERCENT MARTEN HABITAT,
INCLUDING 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS (Cl LOW AND Cl HIGH).
Species
Habitat
Nez Perce Forest
Cl
Low
17
Mean
19
Ci
High
22
South Fork
Clearwater River
Ci
Low
19
Mean
25
Cl
High
32
American River
Watershed
CJ
Low
15
Mean
31
Cl
High
50
Crooked River
Watershed
Cl
Low
0
Mean
7
CI
High
23
Estimates of marten habitat based on R1VMP and the FIA data differ primarily due to the divisions for
size class and canopy cover categories being slightly different between the two datasets. R1VMP
also provides a spatial context not represented by the FIA data.
Both FIA and R1VMP have strengths and limitations relative to modeling and providing an estimate of
marten habitat. FIA data should be interpreted in conjunction with the FIA old growth analysis to fill in
habitat gaps created by small sample sizes and habitat model parameters in some of the landscapes.
CONCLUSION
The current (1997) extent of available marten habitat in American and Crooked River drainages has
increased over historic levels due to fire suppression and forest succession (SFLA, 1998, Wildlife
Technical Report - Marten). No existing old growth or replacement old growth stands would be
harvested. Based on the analysis of the project impacts on marten, there is sufficient habitat to
support viable populations of marten in the American and Crooked River drainages and Forest-wide.
PILEATED WOODPECKER
INTRODUCTION
The pileated woodpecker is widely distributed in western North America, and is a common resident of
northern Idaho's coniferous forests. The pileated woodpecker is used as an indicator of mature
forests, primarily because of their preference for large diameter snags as nest trees that tend to occur
more frequently in mature forests (Bull and Jackson 1995). Forests above 5,000' are generally
avoided. Lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests in particular receive little use, most likely due to the
paucity of large diameter trees (Aney and McClelland 1990 p. 10).
Nesting habitat and food sources are considered key to maintaining viable populations of pileated
woodpeckers. In particular, the amount of large trees and large snags affect available nesting habitat,
and the amount of large logs on the forest floor affects the habitat for carpenter ants, a critical food
source.
STATE STATUS AND AVAILABLE TREND INFORMATION
The network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers determine the
conservation status of a species. The rank is primarily based the number of occurrences, habitat
quality, estimated population size and trend, range of distribution, and threats to a species or their
habitat. The pileated woodpecker has a global rank of G5 (widespread, abundant and secure) and an
Idaho State ranking of S4 (not rare, apparently secure) (Dixon 2005, pers. com., Groves et a. 1997,
pg 155).
Appendix J
Page J-11
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
The National Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a national bird occurrence monitoring program
coordinated by the US Geological Survey. These routes are used to monitor long-term changes in
population as part of the national Breeding Survey effort (Sauer et al. 2004). Although single survey
routes do not have an adequate number of data points to show population trend individually (by
route), they do indicate if pileated woodpeckers were detected or not, and when combined with the
other routes, they provide a measure of relative statewide population trend. Nationally, this portion of
the northwest shows a long-term upward trend in the population of pileated woodpecker of greater
than 1.5% per year over a 37-year period (1966-2003). For the state of Idaho, the BBS data shows a
long-term upward trend in the population of 3.2% per year since 1966.
In 1994, the Northern Region of the US Forest Service initiated a region-wide landbird monitoring
program to help biologists and managers better understand the habitat relationships of landbirds
breeding in the region. Information from the permanent, long-term monitoring transects (1994-2003)
on the Nez Perce National Forests shows that pileated woodpeckers have been detected on 188 point
counts with an abundance of 217 individuals. The Regional landbird monitoring data for the Nez
Perce National Forest indicate that the average number of pileated woodpeckers detected during
surveys has increased since 1994.
Based on monitoring counts from five randomly placed survey transects established in 1988, as well
as incidental pileated woodpecker sightings, show that pileated woodpeckers do occur on the Forest
and are fairly common.
HABITAT ANALYSIS
Habitat for the pileated woodpecker was modeled using R1VMP data as part of the American and
Crooked River project. This analysis indicates that pileated woodpecker habitat represents 47% of
the forested lands in the American River watershed and 31% in the Crooked River watershed.
The results of the Forest-wide Forest Inventory and Analysis indicate that, overall, pileated
woodpecker habitat is widely distributed across the Forest (this includes nesting and foraging habitat).
The total potential pileated habitat represents approximately 41% of the forested lands forest-wide
with a 90% confidence interval of 37% to 45%. Within the American River watershed, total pileated
habitat (represented by foraging habitat as nesting habitat is included in the calculations) amounts to
47% of the forested lands and 21% in the Crooked River watershed. Table A-6 displays the FIA data
at three scales: 1) Forest, 2) Subbasin (4th HUC), and watershed (5th HUC). The amount and
distribution of habitat is both a reflection of the capability and current condition of the landscape, as
well as the number of plots across the landscape.
TABLE J-6: FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS DATA AT THREE SCALES FOR PERCENT PILEATED WOODPECKER
NESTING AND FORAGING HABITAT INCLUDING 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS (Cl LOW AND Cl HIGH).
Species
Pileated
Nesting
Habitat
Pileated
Foraging
Habitat
Nez Perce Forest
Ci
Low
8
37
Mean
10
41
Ci
High
12
45
South Fork
Clearwater River
a
Low
7
42
Mean
11
50
Cl
High
16
57
American River
Watershed
Cl
Low
0
21
Mean
3
47
Cl
High
11
72
Crooked River
Watershed
CI
Low
0
0
Mean
0
21
CI
High
0
43
Appendix J
Page J-12
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Estimates of pileated woodpecker habitat based on R1VMP and the FIA data differ primarily due to
the differences in parameters used in defining habitat. The R1VMP model uses several parameters,
including live tree size (dbh), live tree species, and canopy closure. The FIA habitat model used
primarily a snag diameter component, which R1VMP does not have. R1VMP also provides a spatial
context not represented by the FIA data.
Both FIA and R1VMP have strengths and limitations relative to modeling and providing an estimate of
pileated habitat. FIA data should be interpreted in conjunction with the FIA old growth and snag
analysis to fill in habitat gaps created by small sample sizes and habitat model parameters in some of
the landscapes.
CONCLUSION
The current (1997) extent of available pileated woodpecker habitat has increased over historic levels
in the American River and Crooked River drainages (SFLA, Wildlife Technical Report - pileated
woodpecker). Harvest in mixed conifer stands (about 30-40 percent of total harvest) would amount to
approximately 5 percent of pileated woodpecker nesting habitats on national forest lands in these
drainages. No existing old growth or replacement old growth stands would be harvested.
Based on the available information for several indicator including both habitat data and population
trend data, information does not suggest a downward trend in the Nez Perce pileated woodpecker
population. Based on the analysis of the project impacts on pileated woodpeckers, there is sufficient
habitat to support viable populations of pileateds in the American and Crooked River drainages and
Forest-wide.
WOLVERINE
INTRODUCTION
In the Northwest, wolverine inhabit montane forests associated with subalpine rock/scree habitats in
areas of low human occurrence (Copeland and Hudak 1995, pg. 104). Their presence is tied to late
serai coniferous forest, but no specific vegetation association has been shown for wolverine
(Copeland and Hudak 1995, p. 103). Use of various forest types is likely tied to food availability
(Copeland and Hudak 1995, p. 106). Subalpine rock/scree habitats are used for foraging, security,
and resting sites, and for natal denning (Idaho State Conservation Effort 1995, p. 119-120).
STATE STATUS AND AVAILABLE TREND INFORMATION
The network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers determine the
conservation status of a species. The rank is primarily based the number of occurrences, habitat
quality, estimated population size and trend, range of distribution, and threats to a species or their
habitat. The wolverine has a global rank of G4 (not rare, apparently secure) and an Idaho State
ranking of S2 (imperiled because of rarity) (Engle and Harris 2001, Groves et al. 1997).
Based on sightings and ICDC database records, wolverine possibly inhabit the Nez Perce National
Forest. During the winter of 2003-2004, 28 snow track routes were run statewide. Approximately 3
wolverine were detected.
HABITAT
Within the western U.S., wolverine occur principally in remote, high-elevation mountain basins and
cirques, particularly during the breeding season (Rowland, et al. 2003). No high elevation cirque
basins occur in the project area. However, wolverine may occasionally traverse the landscape in
search of food. Wolverines are opportunistic scavengers and ungulate carrion is considered an
important food source. Productivity of habitats and related ungulate carrion availability are important
aspects of wolverine habitat management.
Appendix J
Page J-13
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
CONCLUSION
The project area lacks seclusion from human influence, has no high elevation cirque basins within the
project area, but project activities improve potential elk (carrion) habitat suitability, as well as security
by reducing motorized access. Based on sightings and ICDC database records, wolverine possibly
inhabit the Nez Perce National Forest. Based on the analysis of the project impacts on wolverine,
there is sufficient habitat to support viable populations of wolverine in the American and Crooked
River drainages and Forest-wide.
BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER
INTRODUCTION
Black-backed woodpeckers inhabit montane forests; primarily ponderosa and lodge-pole pine stands
(Bull 1980:6-7, 26, 35, 41-42, 54, 59, 62-65). They are also frequently seen inhabiting burned areas,
harvested areas, or beetle-killed forests.
STATE STATUS AND AVAILABLE TREND INFORMATION
The network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers determine the
conservation status of a species. The rank is primarily based the number of occurrences, habitat
quality, estimated population size and trend, range of distribution, and threats to a species or their
habitat. The black-backed woodpecker has a global rank of G5 (widespread, abundant and secure)
and a Idaho State ranking of S3 (vulnerable) (Dixon 2005, pers. com., Engle and Harris 2001 Groves
etal. 1997).
The National Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a national bird occurrence monitoring program
coordinated by the US Geological Survey. These routes are used to monitor long-term changes in
populations as part of the national Breeding Survey effort (Sauer et al. 2004). Although single survey
routes do not have an adequate number of data points to show population trend individually (by
route), they do indicate if black-backed woodpeckers were detected or not, and when combined with
the other routes, they provide a measure of relative statewide population trend. Nationally, this
portion of the northwest shows a long-term upward trend in the population of black-backed
woodpecker of greater than 1.5% per year over a 37-year period (1966-2003). For the state of Idaho,
the BBS data shows a long-term upward trend in the population of 19.2% per year since 1966.
In 1994, the Northern Region of the US Forest Service initiated a region-wide landbird monitoring
program to help biologists and managers better understand the habitat relationships of landbirds
breeding in the region. Information from the permanent, long-term monitoring transects (1994-2003)
on the Nez Perce National Forest shows that black-backed woodpeckers have been detected during 2
years on 3 point counts with an abundance of 3 individuals. This is probably due to the number of
routes in potential habitat.
The black-backed woodpecker is known to occur on all Districts on the Nez Perce National Forest, but
in relatively low numbers.
HABITAT ANALYSIS
Habitat for the black-backed woodpecker was modeled using R1VMP data as part of the American
and Crooked River project. This analysis indicates that black-backed woodpecker habitat represents
32% of the forested lands in the American River watershed and 41% in the Crooked River watershed.
Forest-wide, by far the largest and most intense insect outbreak is in and around the American,
Crooked, and Red River watersheds. However, other areas of the forest have insects and disease,
and large insect outbreaks are possible in these areas. In addition, other areas of the Forest have
and will burn, thus creating additional habitat for black-backed woodpeckers.
Appendix J
PageJ-14
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
CONCLUSION
The current (1997) extent of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat has likely declined over
historic levels within the American and Crooked River drainages (SFLA, Wildlife Technical Report -
Black-backed woodpecker) due to fire suppression. However, the very wide extent and magnitude of
the mountain pine beetle epidemic in the Upper South Fork Clearwater River has substantially
changed these circumstances. Harvest acres would amount to approximately 9 percent of the overall
acres of potential black-backed woodpecker habitat in the project area. Given the current mountain
pine beetle epidemic and risk of fires in the next decade, black-backed woodpecker habitat quality
and abundance is rising across the landscape. Based on the analysis of the project impacts on black-
backed woodpeckers, there is sufficient habitat to support viable populations of black-backed
woodpeckers in the American and Crooked River drainages and Forest-wide.
BALD EAGLE
INTRODUCTION
On the Nez Perce National Forest, all bald eagle use occurs principally during the winter season.
The project area is high elevation habitat, well outside the lower elevation river corridors used by
wintering bald eagles on the Forest.
STATE STATUS AND AVAILABLE TREND INFORMATION
The network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers determine the
conservation status of a species. The rank is primarily based the number of occurrences, habitat
quality, estimated population size and trend, range of distribution, and threats to a species or their
habitat. The bald eagle has a global rank of G4 (not rare, apparently secure) and a .Idaho State
ranking of S3/S4 (rare or uncommon, not rare, apparently secure) (Dixon 2005, pers. com., Engle and
Harris 2001, Groves et al. 1997).
The National Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a national bird occurrence monitoring program
coordinated by the US Geological Survey. These routes are used to monitor long-term changes in
population as part of the national Breeding Survey effort (Sauer et al. 2004). Although single survey
routes do not have an adequate number of data points to show population trend individually (by
route), they do indicate if bald eagles were detected or not, and when combined with the other routes,
they provide a measure of relative statewide population trend. Nationally, this portion of the northwest
shows a long-term upward trend in the population of bald eagles of greater than 1.5% per year over a
37-year period (1966-2003). For the state of Idaho, the BBS data shows a long-term upward trend in
the population of 3.6% per year since 1966.
Along the South Fork Clearwater River, annual winter counts, suggest that local bald eagle
populations remain stable.
CONCLUSION
Bald eagle winter habitat is concentrated along the major river corridors on the Forest, Salmon River
South Fork Clearwater, and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers. The Forest participates in the annual
bald eagle mid-winter census each year. Based on the monitoring data, local bald eagle population
trends are considered stable or slightly increasing.
Appendix J
PageJ-15
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
GRAY WOLF
INTRODUCTION
Gray wolves were once common in North America but with European settlement and conflicts with
livestock grazing, persecution and near extermination have dramatically reduced wolf numbers. In
1995 and 1996, efforts to reintroduce this large predator into remote wildlands of Idaho were made.
STATE STATUS AND AVAILABLE TREND INFORMATION
The network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers determine the
conservation status of a species. The rank is primarily based the number of occurrences, habitat
quality, estimated population size and trend, range of distribution, and threats to a species or their
habitat. The wolf has a global rank of G4 (not rare, apparently secure, but with cause for long-term
concern) and a Idaho State ranking of S1 (critically imperiled) (Dixon 2005, pers. com., Engle and
Harris 2001, Nature Serve 2005). Wolves were reintroduced into north central Idaho beginning in
1995, hence local wolf populations have since multiplied dramatically on the Nez Perce National
Forest and throughout the state. Based on most recent monitoring results, north Idaho wolf
populations continue to increase to meet or exceed local recovery population goals.
There are currently at least 20 active packs in the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Area. Based on most
recent Forest Plan populations monitoring and statewide monitoring results, wolf populations are at or
exceed recovery levels now. The Nez Perce National Forest is home to 7+ confirmed packs of
wolves. In addition, new sightings of individuals wolves are continually being reported to the Forest
and to the Nez Perce Tribe. Across the landscape of the Nez Perce National Forest, wolf packs are
active and thriving (FY2002 Nez Perce National Forest Plan Monitoring & Evaluation Report - Wolf
Populations).
CONCLUSION
Within Central Idaho, total confirmed wolf packs now easily exceed 15 (http://mountain-
prairie.fws.gov/woif/annuaireports.htm). The Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2003 Annual report
stated that 345 wolves occupy the state of Idaho. Based on local sightings, sign and formal
monitoring results, wolves are abundant, widely distributed on the Forest, and increasing numbers of
reports suggest local populations of wolves continue growing.
ELK AND MOOSE
Elk - Elk are the product of habitat quality, as well as influenced by the effects of weather, hunting,
and predation. Forest management practices tend to affect habitat quality and hunter access. In
reviewing elk numbers along with recent elk-calf recruitment data, elk population trends on the Forest
are considered stable of moderately down. In addition to habitat concerns, total predation population
numbers and the cumulative effects on game herds have become a concern to local sportsmen and
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Moose - Moose continue to be seen commonly and widely distributed on the Forest. As evidenced
by common incidental sightings and increasing hunter permit number, the local moose population
trend remains relatively stable or slightly up.
CONCLUSIONS
The American and Crooked River project improves habitat for these species, specifically early-serai
habitat and security. Based on the analysis of the project impacts on elk and moose, there is
sufficient habitat to support viable populations of big game species in the American and Crooked
River drainages and Forest-wide.
Appendix J
Page J-16
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
CONCLUSIONS
The Nez Perce National Forest provides management direction and standards to guide project
planning. The action alternatives and analysis of the impacts on wildlife species addressed in the
American and Crooked River EIS are consistent with Forest Plan standards and guides, the
Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, and Forest Service Manual 2670. Based
on application of carefully-designed actions in the American and Crooked River Project and in
consideration of the species population monitoring data collected to date across the Forest, the
evidence fully supports the conclusion that all monitored terrestrial management indicator and
federally listed species populations are maintaining or increasing locally and will continue to do so
after implementation of this project. The desired condition for the American and Crooked River Project
is to protect and enhance the habitat and local populations of wildlife species. All Alternatives would
comply with NFMA direction that wildlife habitat be managed to maintain viable populations of existing
native and desired non-native species well distributed across the "planning area" (Nez Perce Forest),
of which the American and Crooked River Project area is a part. At the Forest level and across the
range of the various wildlife species, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in and
around the American and Crooked River watersheds will have a small or negligible effect on wildlife
habitat or wildlife populations.
Prepared by: Glen S. Blair, Forest Biologist, 2004
Updated by: Joanne Bonn, Salmon River Ranger District, Wildlife Biologist, January 2005
Appendix J
Page J-17
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
This page left blank intentionally.
Appendix J
Page J-18
-------
APPENDIX K
COARSE WOODY DEBRIS, SNAG, AND GREEN TREE RETENTION GUIDELINES
COARSE WOODY DEBRIS
The recommendations in Table K-1 are based on the work of Graham et al., 1994,
and Harvey et al., 1987. These guidelines assume that the more severe a
disturbance affecting existing soil wood reserves, the more important it becomes to
supplement the soil wood supply. Therefore, the recommendations change not only
with habitat type, but also with severity of harvest treatment. Coarse woody debris
includes material larger than 3 inches diameter, and distribution should be more or
less scattered through the unit, with some localized concentrations acceptable, or
even desirable for additional wildlife benefits. Low harvest severity is < 30 percent
canopy removal, moderate is 30-<70 percent removal, and high is >=70 percent
removal.
Table K-1: Recommended Coarse Woody Debris Prescriptions
Harvest or Fire
Severity
Low: Low fire severity
or harvest leaving slash
onsite, no dozer piling
or hot broadcast burn
Moderate: Moderate
fire severity or harvest
with moderate
broadcast burn
High: High fire
severity, or harvest
yarding tops or hot
broadcast burn, or
dozer pile
Habitat Type
Groups 1 and 2
Tons/Acre
5-10
10-15
15-20
Habitat Type
Groups 3, 9, 10
Trees/Acre
10-15
15-20
20-25
Habitat Type
Groups 4, 7,8
Trees/Acre
15-20
20-25
25-30
SNAGS
The recommendations for snag and green tree retention are derived from the
Northern Region snag management protocol (USDA FS, 2000c). They are
transposed from the VRU clusters used in that document to the habitat type groups
(Applegate et al., 1995) and VRUs (USDA FS, 1998) used on the Nez Perce Forest.
The data were taken from FIA plots, and modified with consideration for effects of fire
suppression and exotic pathogens.
Snag occurrence is highly variable in the landscape, and densities of desirable snags
have been highly reduced in the analysis area due to logging and fire suppression
(USDA FS, 2003). Snags provide both wildlife habitat and are recruited to coarse
woody debris that sustains soil resources, so measures to improve both retention of
adequate numbers and some measure of equitable distribution are justified. This
means, particularly for areas that have lost desirable snags to the degree that the
American/Crooked River area has, that snag retention and recruitment should be
applied using the guidelines in Table K-2 on all stands where it is possible to do so.
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table K-2: Snag Retention Guidelines
Habitat Type
Group/VRU
Warm dry ponderosa pine
and Douglas fir
(HTG1)
Cool Douglas-fir and warm
grand fir
(HTGs 2, 3, and 4/VRUs 3
and 4 - not lodgepole
cover types)
Cool, wet and dry grand fir
and subalpine fir
(HTGs 3, 4, 7, 9
Not lodgepole cover types
or VRU 3 or 4)
Cool, wet and dry grand fir
and subalpine fir
(HTGs 3, 4,7,9-
Lodgepole cover types,
any VRU)
Low elevation cedar
(HTGs 5, 6)
High elevation cold habitat
types
(HTGs 10,11)
Snags 11.0-
19.9 inches
dbh per acre*
4-10
3-8
8
All available
Snags >=
20.0 inches
dbh per acre*
1-2
4
2
2-4 or as
available
4
All available
Total trees
per acre
1-2
4
6-12
5-10
12
All available
Total trees
per 10 acres
10-20
40
60-120
50-100
120
All available >
10 inches
• Where snags are not available in these classes, substitute green trees. Where neither green
trees nor snags are available in these size classes, substitute the largest diameters available.
Preferred species in order are ponderosa pine, larch, Douglas fir, grand fir, lodgepole pine,
spruce.
GREEN TREE SNAG REPLACEMENT
Protecting existing large diameter snags will not assure long-term snag occurrence
on National Forest lands. Managing live trees for long-term snag recruitment is as
important as protecting existing snags (Thomas et al., 1979, Hichcox, 1996). Current
Nez Perce Forest Plan green tree replacement standards call for four trees per acre
to be retained to provide large old trees to become snags in the future. Monitoring
has shown these trees are likely to be lost to other causes before becoming available
as snags. Causes of loss include wind throw, salvage, falling for safety concerns, or
slash burning (Steve Blair, personal communication.). Therefore, the
recommendations are greater than the Forest Plan's.
The Regional Protocol recommends using SnagPop, a matrix model of tree
survivorship and fall rates. This requires site-specific data lacking for many project
areas. The recommendations below consider the work of Schommer et al. 1993,
and Ritter and Davis, 1994, and the snag guidelines from the Payette National Forest
(USDA Forest Service 1995). They are adapted to the same habitat type
groups/VRU groups as in the snag recommendations above. They must be
considered provisional and need more rigorous modeling and monitoring to evaluate
their adequacy.
Densities of desirable replacement large green trees have been highly reduced in the
analysis area due to logging (USDA FS, 2003a). Many harvest units have been
Appendix K
Page K-2
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
clearcut and dozer piled so that no recruitable snags, green trees, or woody debris
exist. One purpose of these guidelines is to assure that some green trees are
available for snag and down wood recruitment in the future.
Leave trees should represent the range of species and size classes most likely to
survive natural fire disturbance, and be located in the clustering patterns and
locations most likely to have survived natural fires in the local setting (e.g. open
ridges or rocky areas), and be likely to survive harvesting operations and post-
harvest exposure.
The rationale for this guide may be less than the 4-6 green tree replacements per
snag recommended by Ritter and Davis (1994) for the Clearwater, because the snag
recommendations of the Regional Protocols presented in Table K-3 significantly
exceed those recommended in the Clearwater guidelines. The recommendations
here are based on: An equivalent number of large green retention trees as snags
Recommendations for smaller diameter green trees are estimated as twice the
number of smaller diameter snags, or twice the numbers of larger snags if no small
snags were recommended. This is to provide for variable growth, mortality, and soil
wood recruitment over time. These numbers should be more rigorously evaluated
before widespread adoption.
Table K-3: Green Tree Snag-Replacement Guidelines
Cover Type
Warm dry ponderosa pine and
Douglas fir
(HTG 1)
Grand fir and Cool Douglas fir
(HTG 2, 3, 4/VRUs 3 and 4, -
not lodgepole cover types)
Cool, wet and dry grand fir and
subalpine fir, other VRUs
(HTGs 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 - not
lodgepole pine cover types or
VRUs 3 or 4)
Low elevation cedar
(HTGs 5, 6)
Cool, wet and dry grand fir and
subalpine fir
(HTGS, 4,7, 9-
Lodgepole cover types, any
VRUs)
High elevation cold habitat
types (HTGs 10,11)
Trees/Acre
11-19.9 in.
dbh
4
8
14
16
12
Inadequate
data
Trees/Acre
>= 20 inches
dbh
2
4
2
4
3 or as
available
Inadequate
data
Total green
trees/Acre
6
12
15
16
15
Inadequate
data
Total Trees/
10 Acres
60
120
150
160
150
Inadequate
data
SCALE AT WHICH TO APPLY SNAG AND SNAG RECRUITMENT PRESCRIPTIONS
Snag retention and recruitment prescriptions should be applied, where possible, at
the stand scale. Success of snag retention and recruitment may be monitored at the
subwatershed scale or larger.
Clumping of snags and retention green trees is acceptable and even desirable for
wildlife, in 1-2 acre patches within the unit, where necessary to provide for safety,
Appendix K
Page K-3
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
operability, and long-term retention of leave trees. At the same time, try to ensure
that each 3-4 acres is not without a snag. Green tree replacements and snags in
clumps are desirable for nesting birds (Raphael and Morrison, 1984).
Look for natural clumps of snags or for areas where snags and green trees can be
most logically maintained through logging and slash treatments.
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS IN SNAG AND GREEN TREE RETENTION
Not all snags are a grave significant danger and not all snags are of such high value
that they should be retained where any safety risk is identified. The decision to cut
or leave a snag will be made by the purchaser/operator, using the guide "Risk
assessment for identifying reserve trees" that is available from each sale
administrator. (USDA FS, 1995b)
Machine harvesting systems with cabs provide more safety than where fallers are
exposed to falling trees, so more leeway for leaving trees should be possible where
mechanized harvesting and-piling are used.
In marking leave trees, attempt to avoid likely landing sites, roads, cable corridors,
and within 1.5 tree lengths of the outer unit boundary on broadcast burn units.
Snags and green trees will be lost.
Do not mark snags for retention within 300 feet of a road that will be open for
firewood cutting unless they can be protected or unless they will not count toward the
retention requirement.
Where one particularly desirable and safe snag or green tree is left in isolation on
tractor units being machine piled, it should be feasible and economical to retain 20-
50 feet of some brush and a few small saplings or poles around this tree to mitigate
its isolation. This may not be feasible in broadcast burn units.
Appendix K
Page K-4
-------
APPENDIX L
CREATED OPENINGS > 40 ACRES
OPENINGS OVER 40 ACRES
Direction in Forest Service Manual 2471.1 states that the size of openings created by even-
aged silvicultural treatments in the Northern Rockies will normally be 40 acres or less, with
certain exceptions. One of those exceptions includes catastrophic events such as fire,
windstorms, or insect and disease attacks. In theses cases, the 40-acre limitation may be
exceeded without 60-day public review and without Regional Forester approval, provided the
public is notified and the environmental analysis supports the decision. This documentation of
the proposed creation of these openings constitutes public notification.
Implementation of any of the action alternatives would create some openings that are greater
than 40 acres in size. Average stocking levels of trees in these openings would vary from zero
to as many as 30 trees per acre depending on tree species and condition of individual trees.
Snags and green tree replacements should remain where available based on the table in
appendix K. All of these openings have been precipitated by the action of catastrophic events,
in this case insect attacks and disease. The units themselves range in size from 1 to 81 acres
in size. However, some of them are adjacent to other planned or existing units, and cumulative
opening size will exceed 40 acres in several instances. TableL-1 in Appendix L displays
openings over 40 acres that would be created with Alternative D, the alternative that harvests
the most acres.
Table L-1 - Units Creating Openings > 40 Acres
WATERSHED
American
UNITJD
503,503.9,505,505.1 ,505.9,
508,509,512,513,541
128,129;130
140,141,521
155,156,166,166.9,169,523,
524,525
530,531
542
American Total
Crooked
12
33,34,35,36,36.1
75
6,7,8,9,23
9
69,70,71,72
68,321
47,48,49
25,26,307
11,11.1,12,12.1,13,14,15,
17,18
Crooked Total
4114
(clearcut
w/reserves)
29
29
49
138
67
29
86
145
514
4133
(shelter-wood)
128
46
45
87
42
45
393
57
112
81
53
43
346
4134 TnTA)
(seed tree) IUIAL
21
23
44
128
46
74
87
42
45
422
49
138
57
179
81
53
50
86
43
168
904
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
SlLVICULTURAL TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS
CLEARCUT (WITH RESERVES)
For the purpose of this project, the term clearcut implies removal of approximately 90 percent of
the trees in a stand. This differs from the conventional definition of harvest of all trees in one
cut. The area harvested may be a patch, stand, or strip large enough to be mapped or recorded
as a separate age class in planning. Regeneration is obtained through natural seeding, or
through planting. Snags and green tree snag replacements (as available) will be retained in
groups within the boundaries of the clearcut unit.
SHELTERWOOD
For the purpose of this project, a shelterwood cut is a treatment removing up to 60 percent of
the tree canopy in a stand. This differs from the conventional definition of the removal of a
stand of trees through a series of cuttings designed to establish a new crop with seed and
protection provided by a portion of the stand.
IRREGULAR SHELTERWOOD
For the purpose of this project, an irregular shelterwood cut is a treatment that results in a
patchy or irregular distribution and density of residual trees in a thinned area.
PRECOMMERCIAL THINNING
The selective felling, deadening, or removal of trees in a young stand primarily to accelerate
diameter increment on the remaining stems, provide a selected species composition, maintain a
specific stocking or stand density range, and improve the vigor and quality of the trees that
remain.
ACTIVITY-GENERATED FUELS TREATMENT DESCRIPTION
EXCAVATOR PILE (Ex. PILE)
Excavator piling is a type of mechanical piling of vegetation as a fuel treatment. This would
normally be accomplished on slopes less than 40 percent. Most piles would subsequently be
burned to reduce fuels.
UNDERBURN
A type of broadcast burn designed to reduce fuel accumulations beneath an overstory tree
canopy (natural stand, shelterwood, seed tree, etc.) and be designed to achieve specified levels
of tree mortality and/or site preparation regeneration.
BROADCAST BURN
A controlled prescribed fire designed to burn over a designated area that is usually pretreated
mechanically, for reduction of fuel hazard, as a silvicultural treatment, or both.
Appendix L
Page L-2
-------
APPENDIX M
RESPONSE TO COMMENTSI RECEIVED ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SECTION 1. PROPOSED ACTION
SECTION 2. ALTERNATIVES, RESTORATION AND MONITORING
SECTION 3. SOILS AND WATERSHEDS
SECTION 4. FISHERIES
SECTION 5. FIRE AND FUELS
SECTION 6. AIR QUALITY
SECTION 7. RECREATION
SECTION 8. TRANSPORTATION
SECTION 9. VEGETATION
SECTION 10. WILDLIFE
SECTION 11. SOCIO-ECONOMIC
SECTION 12. ROADLESS
SECTION 13. NEZ PERCE TRIBE
Note: The Content Analysis Report and individual comment letters received for this project have been filed
in the project file and are available to the public upon request.
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
SECTION 1 - PROPOSED ACTION
GENERAL OPPOSITION/SUPPORT FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
1. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD IMPLEMENT THE AMERICAN AND
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT.
A. The plan for extensive thinning makes excellent sense, and I can find no good
arguments against the amount of roadside salvage being planned here. If the
temporary roads are indeed temporary, and are, as described in the mitigation
language, in reality kept free ofATV use, then I would have to conclude that the
road and road management package is logical. (Individual, Moscow, ID -
#6.4.20000.410)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
OS OS 08
B. BECAUSE THE PROJECT is OF BENEFIT TO ELK CITY'S FIRE SAFETY. LOCALECONOMY
AND ELK HERDS
The concerned Sportsmen of Idaho, INC., (CSI) supports the referenced project
as being professionally organized and of benefit to Elk City's fire safety, the local
economy, and elk herds in the area. (Recreation/Conservation Organization,
Viola, ID - #2.1.20000.002)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
OS OS 08
C. BECAUSE THE PROJECT WOULD HELP TO UNDO THE NEGLECT OF OUR FOREST LANDS
We are afraid too little has been done to late (like 25 years) to help our area.
Let's get the American/Crooked project and Red River out as soon as possible to
help undo this neglect of our forest lands. (Individual, Elk City, ID -
#14.3.20000.205)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
OS O8 OS
D. BECAUSE OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT is BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION REGARDING
FISH AND SEDIMENT
/ fully approve of this project, although I feel it is too little to late. The fact that
this worthy project has been delayed for 20 years is caused by false information
regarding fish and sediment. Anyone caring to read the facts should study the
early history of the South Fork and its tributaries, which will show that from 1862
to 1940, a period of heaviest mining, where millions of tons of earth were
discharged into the headwaters, the fish numbers remained the highest ever
recorded. (Individual, Grangeville, ID-#18.2.20000.210)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
OS OS OS
Appendix M
Page M-2
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
E. BECAUSE WHAT is BEING PLANNED is WELL SUITED TO THE HABITAT AND SOIL TYPES OF
THE PROJECT AREAS
The real test of a forest decision like this one, especially when plenty of tree
cutting and some (temporary) road building is planned, is the issue of suitability.
In this case, I think that you have demonstrated that what is being planned is, in
fact, suited to the habitat and soil types. This whole piece of the country is not
too steep, and it gets plenty of moisture. It is also not prone to the catastrophic
mass failures and erosion patterns that exist just a little to the east near and
south of Anderson Butte. (Individual, Moscow, ID - #6.3.20000.230)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
os 03 os
F. BECAUSE OF MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE INFESTATIONS
The RAC (Resource Advisory Committee- North Central Idaho) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the American and Crooked River Project. It is the
type of project that is needed in the Elk City area in response to the ongoing
mountain pine beetle epidemic. Please keep the RAC informed as the planning
progresses and the project is implemented. If the RAC can help with any aspect
of implementation, please let us know. (Place Based Group, Lewiston, ID -
#3.9.20000.373)
I fully approve of this project, although I feel it is too little to late. It is sad to think
of the millions of feet of timber wasted by the delay of this project and the
negative effect it has had on Idaho County's economy. We need to have 20 of
these projects going at this time to curb the bug infestations. At one time, this
beetle problem could have easily been controlled, prior to 1984, when the
infested area was small, along the Darby road. Now it has spread in all
directions, south to Mallard Cr. Ranches where 50% of the trees on our property
were killed last year. (Individual, Grangeville, ID - #18.1.20000.373)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
es oa as
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
3. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD CONTINUE TO DEMONSTRATE
COMMITMENT TO GOOD SCIENCE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
A. The process used to date to develop these projects and the DEIS is, in my mind,
one of the best that I have ever seen. There was full and frequent public
disclosure and a genuine sense of communication and openness. As a result,
not only has the proposed decision been improved, but a good model of how to
better do business has also been developed. (Individual, Moscow ID -
#6.1.20000.060)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
osoacs
B. BY CLARIFYING HOW THE PROGRAM WILL SOLVE EXISTING WATER QUALITY
PROBLEMS
The Nez Perce National Forest has proposed here a plan that strikes me as
being thoughtful and based on good science. The important test of suitability has
been met, but the commitment to some serious fixes for existing water quality
problems needs a whole lot of clarification. The forest should also be proud of its
methodology, both in the scientific aspects of the plan, and also in how it has
worked with citizens in the preparation of this proposal. (Individual, Moscow ID -
#6.9.10000.246)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
OS O5 08 (33 (S3 (S3
4. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD ACTIVELY MANAGE THE FORESTS.
The National Forests inevitably degenerate from neglect and mismanagement,
becoming overgrown, bug-infested and disease-ridden, dead and dying. They
become tinderboxes, a starting point for the kind of wildfire that will ravage the west's
homes, and work places are destroyed. The hillsides and valleys of our clean, vital
watersheds are blackened and denuded. Habitat supporting Idaho's rich diverse
wildlife populations and protecting our fragile salmon and steelhead runs are
befouled and laid to waste. Lives are lost. Let's try to undo this damage of neglect
and mismanagement, and leave a legacy for future generations that hope to live,
work, recreate and raise families in and around healthy productive and sustainable
forests. (Individual, Elk City, ID - #14.2.30000.002)
The Forest Service has been doing a great disservice to the forest since I can
remember. What's the matter with you guys? Mismanagement of resources is now
an American tradition - nothing to be proud of. (Individual, Ukiah, CA -
#13.1.30000.203)
RESPONSE: Comments acknowledged
us us os o» 03 es
Appendix M
Page M-4
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
5. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASSERT AUTHORITY
TO MANAGE.
BECAUSE LAWSUITS HAVE INHIBITED MANAGEMENT
We have lived here 35 years and watched our Forest Land managers be forced into
a state of inertia by lawsuits from outsiders calling themselves "Conservationists".
(Individual, Elk City, ID - #14.1.10100.051)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
o« as o« o$ as oa
6. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD DELAY THIS PROJECT UNTIL THE
FOREST PLAN is REVISED.
GIVEN CONTROVERSIAL NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT IN ROADLESS AREAS
The fact that the forest plan will be revised soon makes a strong argument for
delaying this process until after completion of the forest plan revision. Such a
controversial proposal that involves extensive roadless area development ought to
wait for to have the benefit of a newly revised and updated forest plan.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.88.12300.621)
RESPONSE:
It is important to proceed with implementation as soon as possible, due to the rapidly
progressing pine beetle situation in the area. Please refer to socio/economic
discussion in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.12.
OS US
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
B. BECAUSE THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONTRADICTS ITS OWN FOREST PLAN AND ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE LAW
/ wish to voice my strenuous opposition to the Crooked/American Timber Sale
proposed for the South Fork Clearwater watershed in the Nez Perce National
Forest. By proposing to build some 14 miles of new roads and log thousands of
acres in the East Fork of the American River and Kirks Fork in its draft
environmental impact statement, the Forest Service contradicts its own Forest
Plan and its responsibilities under the law. I have been informed that your
agency has refused even to analyze an alternative that does not damage
watershed through logging and road building. (Individual, Delmar, NY -
#28.1.23400.100)
RESPONSE:
This project is consistent with the Forest Plan and fully conforms to all applicable
standards and guidelines. A restoration only alternative was considered but not
analyzed in detail because it would not be responsive to the Purpose and Need
of this project.
O3 (X (S3
C. BECAUSE PUBLIC PROPERTY is NOT FOR LOGGERS
/ am writing to say I greatly oppose the logging proposed in the Nez Perce
National Forest. This is public property, not for loggers. It was set aside for
human and animal use, as so little space is, not to make the loggers rich.
(Individual, Coeur D Alene, ID-#11.1.20000.820)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
oscs os
D. BECAUSE THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO ENTER "ROADLESS" AREAS
/ am not in favor of this sale! The 14 miles of newly proposed road will threaten
the already sensitive watershed in an area that is already deemed "roadless".
(Individual, Moscow, ID - #23.1.20000.002)
Crooked/American timber sale apparently involves 14 miles of new road
construction and logging thousands of acres. I object to the project because it
proposes to enter the Meadow Creek Inventoried Roadless Area, which is
protected by the Roadless Rule, which the present administration is unwisely
attempting to overturn. (Individual, Minneapolis, MN - #32.1.20000.160)
RESPONSE:
We have considered the sensitivities of each watershed in the project area. No
part of this project involves the Meadow Creek Inventoried Roadless Area.
Please refer to Section 1.1 of the FEIS and Map 1 for the project area location.
03 OS 08
Appendix M
Page M-6
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
E. BECAUSE THE PROJECT INVOLVES BUILDING NEW ROADS IN WATERSHED AREAS AND
LOGGING IN ALREADY HIGHLY "MANAGED" AREAS
/ am against the proposed management plan proposed for the South Fork of the
Clearwater. The most disturbing points of the proposed plan include building
new roads in watershed areas and potentially logging thousands of acres in an
already highly "managed" area. (Individual, Moscow, ID - #10.1.20000.247)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
OS OS 08
F. BECAUSE THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD CAUSE MORE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
THAN IT WOULD CORRECT
/ sincerely sympathize with the problem of significant fuel loading that is claimed
in the American and Crooked River systems. However, I also am deeply
concerned that the proposed cure to reduce this fire risk posses more
environmental damage than it corrects. This DEIS, as is typical of these
documents, suggest that there may be some short term watershed degradation
but promises eventual upward trend improvement in these watersheds. One has
to be extremely naive not to recognize the very likelihood that these rivers may
never recover from management decisions that remove a major quantity of the
forest canopy. Given that you are proposing to cut over 25 MMBF (Alternative C)
on approximately 2,700 acres of ground and build 15 miles of "temporary" road in
watersheds that are already suffering from past activity clearly indicates to me to
be very skeptical of such promises. (Individual, Post Falls, ID - #19.1.20000.247)
RESPONSE:
The Bonneville Power Administration funded research in Crooked River
(Intensive Evaluation and Monitoring of Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout
Production, Crooked River and Upper Salmon River Sites, 1995 and 1993
Annual Reports). Their work has found that in streams degraded by dredge
mining, connecting off-channel ponds to the stream can increase the carrying
capacity for Chinook salmon parr (Kiefer and Foster, 1991), and complex
instream structures can increase the carrying capacity for steelhead trout parr
(Kiefer and Lockhart, 1993). Both American River and Crooked Rivers have
been dredge mined. Past instream improvement work completed by the Nez
Perce Forest in Crooked River includes approximately 15,000 square meters of
juvenile rearing and winter habitat through side channel construction and pond
connection (P.Siddell, 1992). This work included the addition of instream
structures, which accounted for 37.4 percent of the total pool habitat in the
project area. The past work is obviously helping Crooked River recover from
past management decisions. American River has seen similar instream work
completed by the BLM.
This project will both improve on the existing in channel work and provide
additional stream reaches containing complex instream structures as well as off
channel rearing areas with the objective of increasing fish habitat carrying
capacity and leading to an upward trend in fish/water quality (FEIS, Chapter 3,
Sections 3.2, 3.3, and Appendix E).
Appendix M
Page M-7
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
as
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
of the headwaters of the Clearwater River which is critical spawning grounds for
native and anadromous fish.
The Forest Service holds a grave responsibility to the Columbia River Tribes, and to
all citizens, to do its utmost to improve spawning habitat. The federal government,
including the Forest Service, has a legal and moral obligation to do all it can to
reverse this trend to meet treaty rights and environmental laws. When fish stocks
are at such critical lows, it is the federal government's responsibility to not only
minimize the habitat degradation - but also to maximize restoration.
In fact, this is the policy adopted by the government in the salmon recovery strategy
(AII-H paper) and in the NMFS biological opinion. The government chose not to
remove the lower 4 Snake River dams at this time and instead focused on habitat.
Status quo is insufficient. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.15.32300.381)
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the fish viability/population trend analysis in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
We agree that the status quo is not an option and this project was designed to meet
the Forest Plan objective of improving fish/water quality in streams that are below
their objective. Restoration activities are included for all watersheds within the
project area. The BLM has taken the lead for mainstem fish habitat improvements in
American River and will continue their work under proposals currently being planned
(FEIS, Chapter 3). The American and Crooked River Project includes instream work
in Crooked River and Relief Creek (23.8 mi). This work will modify and improve the
work done by the Forest Service in 1984-1988. Additional reaches will be enhanced
as well using the b,est available science and restoration techniques. Along with the
instream improvements will be road decommissioning, soil restoration and culvert
removal and replacements, all designed to improve fish habitat and water quality in
these important streams. Refer to FEIS, Appendix D for more information.
In addition, the Nez Perce National Forest has pursued an active and ongoing
dialogue with the Nez Perce Tribe at key points during the development of this
proposed project. Additionally, their advice and input has been sought at all phases
and is continually being incorporated into this document. Refer to the Responses to
Comments from Nez Perce Tribe, which immediately following the responses to
public comments.
O» (S3 (X (S3 US (S3
11. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD BALANCE THE PROJECTS STATED
PURPOSE AND NEED WITH OTHER MANDATES IN THE FOREST PLAN REGARDING
WATERSHED AND SPECIES PROTECTION.
The project's stated purpose, to recover economic value and contribute to the
economic and social well being of local communities, needs to be balanced with
other mandates in the Forest Plan regarding watershed and species protection.
Continuing shortsighted logging and road construction in this heavily impacted area
will only exacerbate water quality and wildlife habitat problems. Unfortunately, this
project is based on short-term economics with disastrous ecological consequences,
Appendix M
Page M-9
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
which will negatively affect the region's long-term economy.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.9.20000.700)
RESPONSE:
We strongly disagree with your conclusion/prediction that there will be disastrous
ecological consequences. Please refer to the response to # 10, above. The above-
mentioned restoration work will also contribute to the economic and social well being
of the local communities both in the short term and in the long term.
With respect to wildlife species, the project actually will modestly improve habitats for
some species (elk, wolves), and may serve to reduce future risks losses of some old
growth stands in near adjacency to treatment units. In all, none of the activities
would result in adverse effects to any terrestrial federally listed species or their
habitats. Refer to the Biological Assessment for FEIS for details.
05 (IS OS (IS V3 OS
12. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD CLARIFY REASONS FOR MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES.
BECAUSE RISK OF FIRE is BEING FALSELY USED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR TIMBER HARVEST
/ think that our present federal administration is using the public's general belief that
forest fires are bad, to try to push through road building and timber cutting to "save"
the forests. (Individual, Loveland, CO - #12.1.10100.720)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
ess cs ca os us e#
13. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD BE HONEST ABOUT WHY THEY ARE
LOGGING.
BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC REASONS FOR ELK CITY
/ have asked many questions in this comment letter. Perhaps many are
rhetorical. I firmly believe that this large timber sale is being proposed to feed
logs to a certain mill near Elk City. By selling this sale, the PR of the Forest
Service will be heightened in the small town of Elk City where the mill is located.
There is little doubt in my mind that log acquisition this is clearly the primary
purpose and need for this logging proposal. (Individual, Grangeville, ID -
#30.9.34000.720)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
OS OS OS G3 OS OS
Appendix M
Page M-10
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
14. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD NOT FALSIFY THE PURPOSE AND NEED
IN THE DEIS IN ORDER TO MAKE A PROJECT APPEAR MORE LEGITIMATE AND
ACCEPTABLE.
Tfte way the purpose and need is written up in the DEIS, jobs and community
stability is shown as the 3 rd reason for the project in kind of an "oh by the way"
content. Job creation and community stability are actually shown as a secondary
benefit of the project to remove the fuels. You cannot have two co-purpose and
needs (fuels reduction and job creation) that are so different in their objectives. As I
said earlier, one is the purpose and need for the project, and the other is a
secondary outcome from implementing the project. You would be violating the
NEPA to call them both your primary purpose and need. I will remind you that
falsifying a NEPA purpose and need in order to make a project appear more
legitimate and acceptable to the public is a clear violation of the NEPA. (Individual,
Grangeville, ID - #30.10.20000.131)
The majority of units being ground-skidded and machine piled, gives the clear
impression that the primary objective of the project is to maximize net economic
return. It should be noted that this is not one of the stated objectives in the Purpose
and Need section. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.121.20000.720)
If the Forest Service is selling the timber sale to help a small, local mill, why can't the
Forest Service tell the truth and insert this as the primary purpose and need? I am
quite certain that is the mill is in as much trouble as I have heard, the Forest Service
could, easily justify a timber sale for "jobs and community stability" near Elk City.
(Individual, Grangeville, ID-#30.12.20000.820)
RESPONSE:
The purpose and need statement is balanced, clear, and consistent throughout the
development of this project. It is appropriate for conditions within the project area
and follows the Forest Plan and addresses issued raised during scoping.
One purpose of the project is to reduce current and future fuel loads within the
watersheds which are being affected by the mountain pine beetle; it is not designed
to solely reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire to Elk City. The proposed treatments
would modify fire behavior by lowering fire intensities for fires occurring in the
treatment areas, which would help to protect resource values of all types within the
watershed such as; water quality, wildlife habitat, old growth, recreation
opportunities, and air quality as well as infrastructure investments such as roads,
bridges, campgrounds, etc. The result of having lower fire intensities would give fire
suppression resources the opportunity to utilize the treatment areas during
suppression activities, which would allow for the control of a fire at a smaller size,
less cost, and less resource loss within the watersheds.
CS 03 03 08 03 OS
Appendix M
Page M-11
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
15. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR QUESTIONABLE
TIMBER HARVESTS AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMERICAN RlVER WATERSHED.
GIVEN RELATIVELY LOW FIRE REGIME AND POTENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
FROM HARVESTS IN THE AMERICAN RIVER AREA
In looking at the sections of the DEIS addressing fire (3.4. Indicator 1-Fire Regime)
you show Table 3.37 Fire Regime Acreage in the Project Area. Reviewing this
information plus your Fire Regime maps 9A, 9B, 10A and 10B raises a big question.
That question is why are you doing the extensive logging in the American River as its
Fire Regime is almost entirely comprised of either of Infrequent, Mixed or Infrequent
to Very Infrequent, Lethal? The maps (not map 5 you refer to) corroborate this
classification although the maps describe each classification somewhat differently.
In any event, it seems the American River water shed is very different than the
Crooked River system in terms of fire risk. Fire ignitions between every 75 to 300
years in the American River do not suggest to me that this water shed is faced with
any more of a fire risk than countless other public lands that are reasonably in a state
of balance in terms of types of fuel and its risk of catastrophic fire. Obviously, even
your best-conditioned lands pose as lethal fire regimes when environmental
conditions are such as to place said land in jeopardy. Your data indicates about 43
percent of the project area is not threatened with frequent fire and yet your proposed
logging acreage is 32 per cent from this river. Why is the Nez Perce NF advocating
such extensive timber removal from an area that seems to be well within some
reasonable balance regarding fuel types and fuel loading? Considering the
previously discussed danger of further watershed habitat degradation, I have to
question the wisdom of doing that much longing and road building in an area that
does not seem to warrant such fire reduction; especially when one honestly
considers the probable down side of such activity. You do not have to log over 700
acres of the American River to protect the tow of Elk City! (Individual, Post Falls, ID -
#19.10.13110.277)
RESPONSE:
Fire regime is used as an indicator to demonstrate the historic patterns of fire and not
as design criteria for the project. The treatment units are not based on the fire
regime but are based on the need for fuels treatments in the areas of dead and dying
stands of timber. While there are areas within the project area that have historic fire
regimes of infrequent mixed and lethal regimes that would have historically burned
with severe stand replacing fires, allowing these types of fires to burn may be socially
unacceptable. If left untreated these stands of dead and dying timber will increase
the fuel loading to levels where fire suppression would be extremely difficult under
normal fire conditions due to increased fire behavior. With the increased fire
behavior comes the increased possibility of a severe fire which may degrade
resources such as water quality, habitat, air quality, etc. Additionally, by treating the
stands suppression resources will have an opportunity to safely utilize the treated
areas during the suppression activities due to lower fuel loadings and decreased fire
behavior.
O8 O8 OS C# (33
Appendix M
Page M-12
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
16. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD ADOPT STEWARDSHIP PRINCIPLES
WHEN IMPLEMENTING RESTORATION ACTIVITIES.
A. TO ENSURE EFFICIENT USE OF TAX DOLLARS AND BENEFIT LOCAL ECONOMIES
We encourage you to be more strategic in your planning and project design with
regard to reducing fire risks. This project seems to be more of the same that has
already occurred in the South Fork Clearwater Watershed and would not reduce
the fire risk. In order to ensure that tax dollars are wisely spent, projects should
be more strategic in terms of designing them to address fire risk, while
concurrently providing revenue to the U.S. Treasury and providing resource-
based jobs to the local communities. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Boise, ID - #15.108.10000.800)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. We believe this project strategically addresses fire risk
while concurrently providing local employment opportunities.
CX OS 03
B. BECAUSE PAST STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS REVEALED THE VALUE OF SERVICES
PROVIDED
Involvement in stewardship projects has taught the Concerned Sportsmen of
Idaho members the value of including additional service component, restoration
activities in projects such as fish passage improvements. Please consider using
the proceeds of an increased timber harvest project component to fund project
service components through employment of the "goods for service" stewardship
principle. (Recreation/Conservation Organization, Viola, ID-#2.3.10000.381)
CERT members have extensive experience in failed Stewardship projects on
both Basin forests. The CERT believes that this project offers a golden
opportunity to employ "goods for services" stewardship features to accomplish
fish passage improvements and other service oriented restoration activities.
(Recreation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -#1.5.20000.381)
RESPONSE: See response to 16(D).
OS (X OS
C. BECAUSE TIMBER HARVEST GENERATES SIGNIFICANT REVENUES
The American and Crooked River Project seems to encompass the essential
elements that would make an excellent stewardship proposal. Under the
Stewardship authorities, receipts generated from the sale of commercial products
could be retained to fund the fuel reduction and watershed improvements that
have been identified as part of this project. We urge that you consider the
potential benefits of stewardship contracting in the implementation of this project.
(Place Based Group, Lewiston, ID - #3.8.10000.835)
RESPONSE: See response to 16(D).
030303
Appendix M
Page M-13
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
BECAUSE SIMILAR STEWARDSHIP PROJECTS ARE LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL
This [project] fits well with BLM project design in the Elk City area. It appears the
Whiskey South stewardship project will successfully proceed. The American and
Crooked River Project is of similar nature, with similar objectives. (Timber/Wood
Products Industry, Kamiah, ID - #5. 19.1 0200. 1 60)
RESPONSE:
It is our intent to include stewardship contracting among the implementation
options, in part to secure funding for a substantial watershed restoration
component. Refer to the tables in Appendix D and the Cost/Revenue Tables
in Chapter 3, Section 3.12.
C8 CZ (S3 OS O8 0#
17. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD CLARIFY THE ROLE OF THIS PROJECT
UNDER THE HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT (HFRA), AND DEMONSTRATE
COMPLIANCE WITH HFRA AS NECESSARY.
A. BY PERFORMING REVISED SCOPING AND ADDITIONAL COLLABORATION
Of significant concern to us is the proposed application of the project under the
so-called Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 or HFRA (H.R. 1904). If this is
the intent, as described in the DEIS, the project must be scoped as such in a
revised scoping notice to all interested parties. Further, meaningful collaboration
must take place in order to ascertain whether the current design of the project
meets the direction of the HFRA. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Boise, ID -#15.1. 10400. 160)
RESPONSE:
The text has been corrected for FEIS. While this project would fit under an
authorized project for HFRA, it is not being implemented as such since the
project was scoped prior to the passage of HFRA.
B. GIVEN QUESTIONABLE REFERENCES TO THIS PROJECT AS AN HFRA APPLICATION
1 . According to certain portions of the DEIS, notably on page 150, the assertion
is made that this project is considered an "authorized project" under the
Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. This is inappropriate because no
mention of the project's applicability under the HFRA has been mentioned in
any previous NEPA preparation or documentation. Further, the project is not
identified in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Idaho County Wildland
Fire Mitigation Plan, August 2003), that was prepared prior to the passage of
the HFRA, and fails to fully meet the definition of an approved CWPP under
the HFRA. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.15.10400.160)
Appendix M
Page M-14
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE: Please refer to response to 17(A).
03 08 OS
2. It is also curious that the HFRA is not listed under Section 1.4 of the DEIS
(Planning and Direction). We strongly object to the application of this project
under the HFRA for the aforementioned reasons and urge you to proceed
with the project as a "regular" timber sale project.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.17.10400.160)
RESPONSE: Please refer to response to 17(A).
08 OS OS OS OS OS
18. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD INVOLVE THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION IN THE
ASSESSMENT OF INDICATOR SPECIES BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENTS.
A. BY ARRANGING FOR THESE AGENCIES TO DEVELOP A BIOLOGICAL OPINION
The Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries need to evaluate this
assessment in a Biological Opinion. The most appropriate species should be
selected as indicators to assess ecosystem integrity before, during, and after the
proposed treatment. The assessment should describe the effects of the
.proposed activities on all forest indicator species for each treatment site.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.124.10200.340)
RESPONSE:
In 1987, the current Forest Plan recognized westslope cutthroat trout,
steelhead trout and spring Chinook salmon as management indicator species
that occurred on the Nez Perce National Forest (USDA, 1987). Since then,
steelhead trout and bull trout have been listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act (Federal Register Vol.62, No. 159, August 18, 1997,
and Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 111, June 10, 1968).
Steelhead trout and the bull trout have both been listed as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 159, August 18,
1997 and Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 111, June 10, 1998).
In 1999, USDA Forest Service Northern Region Sensitive Species list was
updated and it now includes not only westslope cutthroat trout and spring
Chinook salmon but added to the list was interior redband trout. Redband
trout will likely be considered threatened under ESA like steelhead trout.
The management indicator species have been reviewed in relation to this
proposed project (FEIS, Section 3.3). Cumulative effects to management
indicator species and their habitats are described in the FEIS, Chapter 3.
A Biological Assessment has been completed and consultation with NOAA
Fisheries and US Fish and Wildlife Service has been conducted as required
under ESA (FEIS and ROD). A draft Biological Opinion was issued on
December 2, 2004.
Appendix M
Page M-15
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
During the project planning process, the Forest Service will consult with the
Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries when the project has impacts
to Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed species. The Forest Service
prepares a biological assessment for Federally listed or proposed species.
The Fish and Wildlife Service prepares a biological opinion and NOAA
Fisheries when there are adverse effects to federally listed species. The Fish
and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries do not consult on Forest Service
management indicator species.
oses os
B. BY CONSULTING WITH THESE AGENCIES ON SENSITIVE SALMONIDS AND PACIFIC
LAMPREY
Snake River Steelhead Trout, Columbia River Bull Trout, Snake River
Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Interior Redband Trout, and Westslope
Cutthroat Trout, and Pacific Lamprey all occupy the project area. Consultations
with both the NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be
incorporated into the EA. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise ID -
#15.131.10200.380)
RESPONSE:
NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were provided copies
of the DEIS and were asked to-provide comments. In addition, both agencies
fulfilled their consultation responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
Biological Opinions from both Agencies are appended to the ROD for this
EIS.
OS OS OS (S3 OS OS
19. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD MANAGE THIS PROJECT JOINTLY WITH
THE EASTSIDE TOWNSHIP PROPOSED PROJECT.
BECAUSE THESE PROJECTS ARE LINKED DUE TO TEMPORARY ROAD ACCESS
The DEIS gives the impression that the Record of Decision for the Crooked-
American Project will be based in part on the temporary road access provided to
BLM parcels designated for logging in the Eastside Township proposed project. This
is inappropriate. If the projects are intricately intertwined, they should be managed
as a single project. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.20.10200.170)
RESPONSE:
The American and Crooked River project and the Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM) proposed Eastside Township project are discrete projects. The two projects
are proposed under separate authorities, the National Forest Management Act and
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, respectively. They are being planned under
different schedules. The Nez Perce National Forest is on a schedule to begin
implementing the American and Crooked River project during the spring and summer
of 2005. The BLM is currently preparing to publish a Notice of Intent and initiation of
scoping on a proposed action for the Eastside Township EIS. It is unlikely that the
Appendix M
Page M-16
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
BLM would be in a position to implement its project until late 2005 or 2006. The two
projects are being planned under separate administrative and supervisory controls.
It is premature to conclude that the BLM would access their lands from temporary
roads needed to conduct proposed activities on the American and Crooked River
project because the BLM has not yet completed the analysis of alternatives for the
Eastside Township project. If the BLM needed access across Forest Service lands
in order to achieve its management objectives, it would initiate a request for a permit
to do so, regardless of Forest Service activities on adjacent lands. The BLM has not
initiated such a request.
A portion of the American and Crooked River project (the American River portion)
occurs in the same watershed as the proposed Eastside Township project but
disparities exist related to: authorities, schedules, administrative boundaries,
ownership patterns and related objectives, and administrative/supervisory controls.
Considering these factors, it is clear these two actions have independent utility.
OS US V3 OS C8 03
20. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD DOCUMENT COMPLIANCE WITH TRUST AND CONSULTATION
RESPONSIBILITIES TO TRIBAL TREATIES.
A. TO ENSURE THAT TREATY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEDGES ARE ADDRESSED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH EO 13175
The EIS should document that any existing treaty rights and privileges are
addressed appropriately. If the proposed project may have impacts on Tribes,
the draft EIS should describe the results of the consultation that took place with
all affected tribal governments, consistent with Executive Order (EO) 13175
(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). EO 13175
states that the U.S. government will continue "to work with Indian tribes on a
government-to-government basis to address issues that pertain to Indian tribal
self- government, trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights."
(Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA-#24.28.10300.040)
RESPONSE:
Refer to formal correspondence with the Nez Perce Tribe, immediately
following the responses to public comments section and the response to
20(B).
csoso*
B. To ENSURE TRIBAL RIGHTS TO SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES FOR FISHING. HUNTING.
AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
This project does not honor legal commitments to the Nez Perce Tribal treaty
rights that are supposed to ensure a sustainable fishery. Please honor these
rights to the Tribe as well as the species that call this roadless area home.
(Individual, Moscow, ID - #9.3.10300.150)
Appendix M
PageM-17
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
The American and Crooked River Project is located within that area ceded to
the United States in 1855 by the Nez Perce people. The Treaty was
subsequently ratified by Congress and proclaimed by the President in 1859.
Although the Forest Service, through the Secretary of Agriculture, is vested
with statutory authority and responsibility for managing resources of the
National Forests such as areas within the project area, no sharing of
administrative or management decision-making power is held with the Nez
Perce Tribe. However, commensurate with the authority and responsibility to
manage resources, is the obligation to consult, cooperate and coordinate with
the Nez Perce Tribe in developing and planning projects within the project
area, and on other areas of National Forest system land, that may affect tribal
rights.
As a result of the 1855 Treaty, elements of Nez Perce culture such as tribal
welfare, land and resources were entrusted to the United States government.
Trust responsibilities resulting from the Treaty dictate, in part, that the United
States government facilitate the execution of treaty rights and traditional
cultural practices of the Nez Perce Indians by working with them on a
government to government basis in a manner that attempts a reasonable
accommodation of their needs, without compromising the legal positions of
the Nez Perce Tribe or the Federal government. Because tribal trust
activities often occur in common with the public, the Nez Perce National
Forest strives to manage Nez Perce ceded land in favor of the concerns of
the Nez Perce Indians, as far as is practicable, while still providing goods and
services to all the people.
Specific Nez Perce treaty rights applicable to the American and Crooked
River project area and other areas managed by the Nez Perce National
Forest are generally articulated in Article III of the 1855 Treaty, and include:
"The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running
through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said
Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed
places in common with citizens of the Territory; and of erecting
temporary buildings for curing, together with the privilege of
hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses
and cattle upon open and unclaimed land."
Although the 1855 Treaty does not specifically mandate the federal
government to manage habitats, there is an implied assumption that an
adequate reserve of water be available for executing treaty related hunting
and fishing activities.
Treaty rights as well as implied rights applying to grazing and wildlife habitat
are incorporated into the Nez Perce Forest Plan. Forest Plan Amendment #7
addressed Tribal concerns with the Plan about monitoring and mitigation of
impacts on elk and their habitats. Compliance with the Forest Plan and its
subsequent amendments by the American and Crooked River Project
presumes that compliance with trust and treaty responsibilities is incorporated
Appendix M
Page M-18
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
by reference to the Forest Plan. Refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIS for additional
information.
O5 O3
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
analysis identified opportunities to improve existing conditions. Decisions concerning
these opportunities, however, are left to a site-specific NEPA analysis (such as this).
US V5 V$ U3 CS (Si
22. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD CONCENTRATE SALVAGE EFFORTS
ALONG ROADS IN DRAINAGES THAT CAN SUSTAIN THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY.
While some additional value might be recovered from salvaging trees, any
efforts have to be based on existing road systems and be located in drainages
that can sustain this type of activity. (Preservation/Conservation Organization
Boise, ID - #15.12.34600.410).
RESPONSE:
All action alternatives base salvage activities from existing roads. Some
alternatives temporarily extend existing roads to reach treatment areas needed to
respond to the purpose and need of reducing fuel loads (FEIS, Chapter 2,
Section 2.2). All alternatives were developed to ensure that Forest Plan
standards, goals and objectives for certain components of ecosystem quality and
integrity were addressed (FEIS, Chapter 3). Reconnaissance surveys identified
old growth, riparian areas, sensitive slopes, areas of prior soil impacts,
watershed improvement needs, unroaded areas, and certain forest vegetation
components at risk from fire suppression and succession. Extent and location of
temporary roads were constrained to avoid stream crossings and proximity to
streams. Analysis of effects (FEIS, Chapter 3) will determine the extent of
treatment that each drainage can support within the standards and guidelines.
(US &5
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
An adequate range of alternatives was considered. A restoration only alternative
was considered but not analyzed in detail because it would not be responsive to
the Purpose and Need of this project. (Refer to FEIS, Chapter 1.)
08 C3 03 08 03 OS
24. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD OBJECTIVELY COMPARE THE
ALTERNATIVES REGARDING VISUAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES.
The Forest Service needs to objectively compare the alternatives regarding visual quality
objectives. Although dead and dying trees would still remain visible with less harvesting,
the Forest Service needs to consider that when the needles drop off the red crowns will
be replaced by much less striking bare limbs. The Red Tree Fuels Reduction Project in
the Sawtooth NRA cites this fact as a reason to leave many stands intact. In areas that
are not logged, natural regeneration (through forest successional cycles) will also
replace the forest where trees have been killed by mountain pine beetles without the
negative association with clear-cuts. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID
-#15.138.23000.715)
RESPONSE:
The VQOs specified in the Forest Plan are not similar to those of the Sawtooth
National Recreation Area.
The FEIS (Chapter 3, Section 3.6), objectively compares the alternatives regarding
visual quality objectives. This project is treating less than nine percent of the
analysis area. The disturbance process of insect infestation and subsequent
mortality is occurring on many of the untreated acres and may be viewed there.
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
OS OS Oi OS OS OS
26. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD ADOPT THE ALTERNATIVE THAT POSES
THE LEAST RISK OF SEDIMENTATION.
Choosing the proposal with the least risk of sedimentation would be needed to meet
Goal 4 of the Forest Plan. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise ID -
#15.48.23000.160)
RESPONSE:
Goal 4 calls for providing habitat to contribute to the recovery of threatened and
endangered species and to provide habitat to ensure viability of these species. The
No Action (Alternative A) while providing for the least sediment, will also not allow for
watershed and fish habitat restoration activities. The added sediment between
Alternatives B and D is not likely to be of sufficient amounts to show difference or
added risk to species viability. Section 3.3.1.1 of the FEIS displays the modeled
(NEZSED and FISHSED) differences between alternatives. Refer, also to the
Alternatives Comparison Tables in Chapter 2.
OS (S3 OS OS (S3 OS
27. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD ADOPT AN ALTERNATIVE THAT DOES
NEEDED WATERSHED RESTORATION WITHOUT TIMBER HARVEST.
/ am writing you to urge you, as a co-owner of our National Forests, to protect the
integrity of the Nez Perce Forest Plan and watershed health by analyzing and
selecting an alternative in the Crooked/American Project that does needed
watershed restoration without logging. (Individual, Moscow, ID - #9. 1.23400.002)
Please consider a non-logging (beyond minimal thinning to reduce ladder fuelsO
alternative that emphasizes watershed restoration. The ecology and health of our S.
Fork Clearwater River depends on it. (Individual, Moscow, ID - #9.5.23400.201)
I call upon the Forest Service to analyze an alternative that does the needed
watershed restoration without logging. There should be no logging or road building
in the Meadow Creek Inventoried Roadless Area as per the Forest Service's own
landscape assessment. The cumulative impacts of this timber sale plus, the
Whiskey South, Meadow Face, Red Pines, Blacktail Butte, and Eastside Township
timber sales must be taken into account and considered as a whole. (Individual,
Delmar, NY - #28.8.23400.360)
We are urging the Forest Service to analyze an alternative that does the needed
watershed restoration without logging. (Individual, San Francisco, CA -
#31.1.23400.360)
For public land, this is an improper use of our land. Please consider a no-logging
approach to these lands. (Individual, Moscow, ID - #10.2.23400.620)
RESPONSE:
A restoration only alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail because it
would not be responsive to the Purpose and Need of this project.
Appendix M
Page M-22
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Thinning of ladder fuels, as called for in one of the comments, would reduce the
possibility for fire to transition from a surface to a crown fire for a short time frame.
Though as the dead and dying trees in the stands start to fall we will again have a
high potential for fire transition to occur due to the high fire intensities generated by
this type of fuel bed.
Please also refer to responses to items 7(B), 7(D) and 25.
C8 US &3 US 03 03
No ACTION ALTERNATIVE
28. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD NOT ADOPT THE No ACTION'
ALTERNATIVE.'
BECAUSE THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IGNORES WHAT CATASTROPHIC FIRE WOULD DO
TO WILDLIFE AND OTHER RESOURCES
The purpose and objectives are adequate and focused. The No Action Alternative
ignores what catastrophic fire can and would do to fish and other resources and,
therefore, does not comply with the project's purpose and objectives.
(Recreation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #1.3.23510.270)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
OS 03 OS (S3 (S3 OS
ALTERNATIVE C
29. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD NOT ADOPT ALTERNATIVE C.
BECAUSE IT is TOO SIMPLISTIC AND UNDERSTATES THE DAMAGE CREATED BY THESE
PROJECTS
The public is not well served by overt emphasis put upon simplified projects to
supposedly overcome this fire problem while completely understating the
accompanying damage created by these projects. What we may well end up with is
a very good stream of timber to the timber industry (this is not to suggest that this is,
in itself, bad) while continuing to inflict near irreversible damage to other aspects of
the forest ecosystem. Until these risks are all given equal weight and are fully
disclosed to the public I am. adamantly opposed to the selection of Alternative C
because it is dangerously too simplistic. (Individual, Post Falls, ID -
#19.12.23530.200)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. Alternative D is the selected alternative. This alternative
includes increased emphasis on watershed restoration.
05 03 (S3 US OS US
Appendix M
Page M-23
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
ALTERNATIVE D
30. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD ADOPT THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
D.
A. BECAUSE ALTERNATIVE D INTEGRATES WELL WITH OTHER POTENTIAL PROJECTS ON
BLM AND PRIVATE LANDS.
The RAC (Resource Advisory Committee- North Central Idaho) endorses the
preferred alternative D, as described in the DEIS, because the alternative would
integrate well with other potential projects on BLM and private lands near Elk
City. (Place Based Group, Lewiston, ID - #3.4.23540.100)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. Please refer to response to item 29..
os es e*
B. BECAUSE ALTERNATIVE D WOULD PROVIDE A HIGH LEVEL OF HAZARDOUS FUEL
REDUCTION IN CRITICAL AREAS NEAR ELK ClTY
The RAC (Resource Advisory Committee- North Central Idaho) endorses the
preferred alternative D, as described in the DEIS, because the alternative would
provide a high level of hazardous fuel reduction in critical areas near Elk City.
(Place Based Group, Lewiston, ID - #3.1.23540.271)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. Please refer to response to item 29.
us os os
C. BECAUSE ALTERNATIVE D WOULD RESULT IN LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS IN
ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT AND ELK HABITAT
The RAC (Resource Advisory Committee- North Central Idaho) endorses the
preferred alternative D, as described in the DEIS, Because the alternative would
result in long-term improvements in anadromous fish habitat and elk habitat while
incorporating design elements minimizing possible short-term adverse effects to
these important resources. (Place Based Group, Lewiston, ID - #3.5.23540.300)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. Please refer to response to item 29.
CSOS OS
D. BECAUSE ALTERNATIVE D WOULD PROMOTE HEALTHY FOREST AND WATERSHED
CONDITIONS
The RAC (Resource Advisory Committee- North Central Idaho) endorses the
preferred alternative D, as described in the DEIS, because the alternative would
promote healthy forest and watershed conditions. (Place Based Group,
Lewiston, ID - #3.2.23540.330)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. Please refer to response to item 29.
csosos
Appendix M
Page M-24
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
E. BECAUSE ALTERNATIVE D WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
WELL-BEING OF THE LOCAL AREA
The RAC (Resource Advisory Committee- North Central Idaho) endorses the
preferred alternative D, as described in the DEIS, because the alternative would
contribute to the social and economic well-being of the local area. (Place Based
Group, Lewiston, ID - #3.3.23540.800)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. Please refer to response to item 29.
OS OS OS CS OS OS
31. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD NOT ADOPT THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE D.
A. BECAUSE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE D PROPOSES ACTIVITIES THAT WILL
INCREASE SHORT-TERM SEDIMENTATION
1. The South fork of the Clearwater is listed for water temperature and sediment.
On page 89 it is noted that, "No specific targets were set for tributaries, but it
was recognized that much of the sediment yield reduction would need to take
place in the tributaries." The Proposed Action undermines the intent and goal
of designation by proposing activities that the DEIS acknowledges will
increase short-term sedimentation. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Boise, ID - #15.27.23540.137)
RESPONSE:
The implementation plan for the South Fork Clearwater River TMDLs
has not yet been developed. However, the IDEQ has recognized that
short term increases in sediment yield may be allowed in a 303(d) listed
water body listed for sediment, as long as a net decrease in sediment
yield is shown and beneficial uses are not impaired. We believe that
this Project meets these criteria. These concepts are documented in a
November 4, 2003, letter from IDEQ to the Idaho Panhandle National
Forests and in draft guidance posted on IDEQ's website on April 8,
2004.
OS OS OS
2. We have assigned a rating of EC-2 (Environmental Concerns - Insufficient
Information) to the preferred alternative D. EPA appreciates the U.S. Forest
Service's (USFS's) efforts to minimize adverse environmental impacts from
timber harvest and commitment to working toward restoring water quality and
fish habitat in the American, and Crooked Rivers. However, we are
concerned about the potential impacts of timber harvest and construction of
new roads on sediment yields to streams that are impaired from sediment
and loss of shade. (Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA - #24.1.23540.234)
RESPONSE:
The impacts of timber harvest and construction of new roads on
sediment yields are disclosed in Chapter 3 and Appendix E of the FEIS.
These impacts are believed to be in compliance with the Clean Water
Appendix M
Page M-25
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Act, Idaho State Water Quality Standards and the South Fork
Clearwater River TMDLs.
asasos
B. BECAUSE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE D WOULD VIOLATE FISH/WATER
QUALITY OBJECTIVES UNDER THE FOREST PLAN
Given that Bull Trout, Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon exist in the Rivers,
and the risk of sedimentation is high in the short-term under the proposed action,
the Proposed Action clearly does not meet the goal and intent of the Forest Plan
in this regard. The Proposed Action would also violate fish/water quality
objectives under the Forest Plan. On page 89 it is stated that, "The Plan
recognizes that many of these watersheds do not meet fish/water quality
objectives under current conditions. The Plan stipulates that an upward trend in
aquatic habitat carrying capacity be established in below objective watersheds.
This is accomplished by limiting new disturbance. By proposing new roads and
timber harvesting that will further degrade the watersheds; the project clearly fails
to limit new disturbances. Allowing short-term degradation while proposing long-
term restoration is contrary to the objectives and intent of the Plan since it clearly
states that a limitation of new disturbance is necessary. Offsets are not enough
to meet this criterion. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.49.23540.160)
RESPONSE:
It has been determined that the selected alternative meets the upward trend
requirements stated in Appendix A of the Forest Plan. The rationale for this
conclusion is found in Chapter 3 and Appendix E of the FEIS.
(S3 C8 (13
C. BECAUSE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE D WOULD NOT MINIMIZE THE SPREAD
AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NOXIOUS WEEDS
The Forest Plan requires that the Forest Service minimize the creation of sites
suitable for weed establishment (Noxious Weed Management, Supplement No,
R1 2000-2002-1). The proposed action will not minimize and will in fact
exacerbate the spread and establishment of noxious weeds through 15 miles of
road construction and 24 miles of reconstruction. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15.89.23540.160)
Appendix M
Page M-26
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
Through the analysis a set of project design criteria or mitigation requirements
have been established to address the risk of weed spread and colonization
resulting from the proposed project. The design criteria include prevention
measures, spot treatment, monitoring, re-survey of risk zones for changes in
weed infestations and, where appropriate, the re-vegetation of disturbed soil
(Chapter 2 Design Criteria). The implementation of these invasive plant design
criteria would insure that weed spread from ground disturbing actions is
minimized or eliminated.
(S3 (S3 (S3
D. BECAUSE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE D WOULD NOT MEET SOIL QUALITY
STANDARDS UNDER THE FOREST PLAN
Soil quality standards under the Forest Plan will not be met under the Preferred
Action. The DEIS concedes the potential problems (at page 40) when it states,
"?58% [American watershed, 53% for Crooked] of all logging areas would not
meet the Forest Plan So// quality standard 2?" This makes suspect the
subsequent claim made that mitigation measures may offset any differences in
cumulative effects for each of the alternatives. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15.40.23540.230)
RESPONSE:
The analysis of compliance with soil quality standards has been
augmented. Please see the revised narrative in FEIS Chapter 3, Section
3.1, summary of cumulative effects for soil physical properties and
compliance with Forest Plan standards.
(X (33 (S3
E. BECAUSE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE D WOULD HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON
PINE MARTEN HABITAT
While old growth stands are supposedly protected from logging under the project,
we believe the impacts of the Proposed Action on pine marten are dramatically
understated. The DEIS acknowledges that clear-cutting of mature stands and
habitat fragmentation have "seriously affected distribution of marten" (P. 308). It
also notes that, "While habitat quantity has increased, habitat quality has likely
declined due to loss of larger snags and habitat heterogeneity from fuel-wooding,
fire suppression, and /oss of large diameter trees due to past timber harvest."
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.85.23540.330)
RESPONSE:
The FEIS acknowledges effects of additional harvest and fragmentation
effects on pine marten habitats, but also the discussion cites work from
Coffin, et al. 2002, which indicates that despite heavily logged and roaded
areas, pine marten can tolerate and remain in such areas (see FEIS,
Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1). The analysis further discusses and assesses
fragmentation effects and the impacts of the activities.
Appendix M
Page M-27
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
03V3VS
F. BECAUSE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE D WOULD NOT DO ENOUGH TO LIMIT
IRRESPONSIBLE OHV USE
The damaging effects of irresponsible OHV use are well documented and could
be contributing to water quality problems among others. It is clear that the
Proposed Action will not do enough to curtail trail blazing. It is mentioned that
current restrictions will be maintained and that the effectiveness is rated as
"high". However, on page 39 it states, "Numerous undocumented user-created
ATV trails exist, which add to the amount of detrimental disturbance in the project
area." This contradiction is highly confusing and leaves one to wonder if
management has fallen behind the reality of the current situation. Accordingly,
restrictions and monitoring should be increased. This is also a reason to
minimize road construction to prevent further intrusion into areas.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.51.23540.501)
RESPONSE:
Illegal OHV use does exist presently and will continue in the future no
matter which alternative is selected or if any alternative is selected.
Unfortunately, at present funding levels the problem can not be addressed.
Illegal use is not expected to change due to implementing any of these
alternatives.
C« OS OS OS OS CSS
32. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD INCREASE EMPHASIS ON FISH HABITAT
RESTORATION IN ALTERNATIVE D.
Alternative D appears to be an economically viable proposal. If there is sufficient
latitude within your budget or projected revenues to increase the level of fish habitat
restoration above that shown in Alternative D, we would strongly recommend that
you give habitat restoration additional emphasis in your final decision. Increased
emphasis on fish habitat restoration, particularly stream improvements, would not
only help recover ESA-listed fish at a faster pace, but would also provide additional
employment opportunities to the potential contractors involved with implementing
those actions on the ground. (Place Based Group, Lewiston, ID - #3.6.32300.340)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. Effects of additional restoration activities were also
analyzed as Alternative D (modified) for the FEIS.
(13 OS OS C3
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
C53 US 05 03 (S3 US
ADEQUACY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
34. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE AND ADDRESS THE
SHORTCOMINGS AND INCONSISTENCIES OF THE AMERICAN AND CROOKED RlVER
DEIS.
A. Very frankly, everything about this DEIS stinks. It is obvious that the Forest
Service is trying to pass-off their hidden agenda on the public under the mask of
a fuels reduction project. (Individual, Grangeville, ID - #30.11.21000.820)
There are several issues that need to be addressed in this document. They
include baseline data, the cumulative impacts on the South Fork Clearwater, the
indicators and parameters identified in the DEIS, the disconnect between water
quality based upon modeling and fish habitat and how that does not meet the
forest plan, and the very different impacts of pulse disturbances (fire) versus
press disturbances (logging and road building). (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.18.21100.002)
RESPONSE:
The FEIS covers each of these concerns in Chapter 3 and/or Appendix E.
The issue of Forest Plan compliance is discussed above in the response to
comment 32. The linkage between water quality modeling and fish habitat
is discussed in the FEIS. The effects of pulse versus press disturbances
due to fire, logging, and road building are disclosed in the Chapter 3.
V5U3C8
B. BECAUSE THE DEIS FAILS ITS DUTY UNDER NEPA TO OFFER AND DISCLOSE TO THE
PUBLIC A RESONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES
The DEIS fails its duty under NEPA to offer and disclose to the public a
reasonable range of alternatives that includes scientifically and ecologically
sound management proposals. The purpose and need was designed in such a
way as to constrain alternatives and, in so doing, pie-determined the decision
prior to issuance of even the DEIS. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Moscow, ID - #22.13.21000.131)
A basic requirement of NEPA is that federal agencies must consider a
reasonable range of alternative actions in an as. 42 U.S.C. B 4332(2XcXiii); 40
C.F.R. B 1502.14; Bob Marshall Alliance v. 1-lodel, 852 F.2d 1223(9th Or. 1988),
cert, denied, 489 U.S. 1066(1988). The range of alternatives should 'sharply
[define] the issues and [provide] a clear basis for choice among options by the
decision maker and the public." Id. Under NEPA, alternatives analysis must:
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from
detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been
eliminated.
Appendix M
Page M-29
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
(c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the
lead agency.
40 C.F.R. 8 1502.14 (a) and (a). See California v. Block, 690 R2d 753,765-
69(9th Cir. 1982) (reversing EIS for failure to address reasonable range of
alternatives); see also Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. USFS, 177 F.3d 800(9th Cir.
1999) (reversing EIS for failure to address reasonable range of alternatives).
There is a lack of a range of alternatives-or any alternative-that examines the
implications of changing forest plan management direction as noted above.
There was no real restoration alternative without logging. Conflation of those
opposites-logging and mad building which are damaging and restoration which
seeks to restore the damage from the pervious two-is dishonest. Furthermore,
narrowly defining the purpose and need to require removal of vegetation (a
euphemism for logging) violates NEPA. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.14.23100.002)
The Seventh Circuit recently explained:
No decision is more important than delimiting what these 'reasonable
alternatives" are... One obvious way for an agency to slip past the strictures of
NEPA is to contrive a purpose so slender as to define competing reasonable
alternatives out of consideration (and even out of existence). If the agency
constricts the definition of the project's purpose and thereby excludes what truly
are reasonable alternatives, the EIS cannot fulfill its role.
This DEIS follows that pattern mentioned by the Court. In coming up with the
purpose and need, the agency has defined the issues to preclude a reasonable
array of alternatives. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow ID -
#22.16.23100.131)
RESPONSE:
Contrary to your statement above, there is no change in Forest Plan
management direction proposed by this project. The range of alternatives
was developed in response to the Purpose and Need and issues identified
through scoping. (Refer to FEIS, Chapters 1 and 2).
<& V3 O*
C. BECAUSE THE DEIS USES NON-NEPA DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH MANAGEMENT
DIRECTION
The DEIS fails to meet the spirit and intent of NEPA and NFMA requirements by
using non-NEPA documents to establish management direction, that coupled
with an overly narrow Purpose and Need will lead to a predetermined decision
and constrains the array of alternatives. In this case, programmatic decisions in
the South Fork Landscape Assessment, or presumed to be in that assessment,
to meet some so-called historic range of variability and establish goals for
vegetation (less lodgepole and fir and more ponderosa pine and western larch).
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.9.21000.330)
Appendix M
Page M-30
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE: See response to item 21.
CSCSOS
D. BECAUSE THE DEIS OFFERS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CURRENT CONDITION OF
STREAMS SHOWS AN UPWARD TREND IN WATER QUALITY AND FISH HABITAT
STANDARDS
The DEIS recognizes that these streams do not meet forest plan water quality
and fish habitat standards. Cobble embeddedness is significant and predicted to
increase. Appendix A of the forest plan is quite clear most if not all of the
streams fall below the mandated percentage of Fishery Water Quality Objectives.
The DEIS offers no evidence the current condition of those streams has changed
since Appendix A of the forest plan was completed.
Appendix A is also clear that streams below objectives must show (present
tense) and upward trend before logging can take place. A future predicted
upward tend is not sufficient. The plan is clear on this point. Real recovery must
be taking place before logging and road building can be allowed. The DEIS
offers no monitoring data that is indeed the case.
The DEIS does not seem to indicate whether the entry frequency guidelines in
appendix A have been met or exceeded. Is that information available and if so,
where is it? (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.22.21000.002)
RESPONSE:
The issue of Forest Plan compliance, including upward trend requirements,
is discussed above in the response to comment 31 (B). We disagree that
the Forest Plan requires that an upward trend must show before logging
can take place. The Forest issued a guidance document in 1991 that
states, in part, "The Plan did not specifically intend that the improving trend
be in place prior to initiation of new activities ..." (Gerhardt, et al, 1991).
Rather, in the watersheds within the project area, the Forest Plan provided
for timber management and improvement activities to occur concurrently.
Refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3 and Appendix A.
V& 08 OS
E. BECAUSE THE DEIS is UNCLEAR HOW THE PROPOSED TIMBER HARVESTS RELATE TO
THE PROPOSED WATERSHED IMPROVEMENTS
That is especially true [that an economic analysis be provided for each
alternative] in light of the lack of clear language in the DEIS connecting the tree
removal part of the plan with the superb list of watershed improvements provided
in two appendices to the DEIS. These appendices offer a clear and very well
thought out plan to make long term watershed improvements in this portion of the
Forest - a place where just this type of improvement is badly needed. These
efforts can also be very labor intensive, which is not a bad idea in a place where
more jobs are certainly needed. But, and I am sorry to say, as usual, no clear
plan is provided to answer these questions: how will these improvements be
timed? Will they for certain be accomplished? Are they a prerequisite for any
other part of your proposed decision? Will they be done by the same people who
Appendix M
Page M-31
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
remove the trees? Is their actual completion a key part of both the monitoring
effort, and more importantly, is their completion factored into the many tables that
show the overall water quality situation in these two drainages. (Individual,
Moscow, ID - #6.7.21100.247)
It is not clear from the DEIS of the timing of the watershed restoration activities
listed in Appendix D. (Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA - #24.14.21100.249)
RESPONSE:
The Nez Perce National Forest is committed to completing the aquatic
restoration that is part of this action. Please refer to the FEIS Record of Decision
including the Biological Evaluation/Assessment. The aquatic improvement
activities will occur concurrently with the vegetation treatments. Activities will be
planned to achieve a balance over the life of the timber sale contract. The exact
mechanism is not final at this stage and implementation will either occur under.
the same contract or by separate contracts.
OS CS OS
F. BECAUSE THE DEIS FAILS OT SUBSTANTIATE HOW THE MITIGATION WORK PROPOSED
IN THIS PROJECT WILL RESULT IN LONG TERM IMPROVEMENT TRENDS
1. Regarding this over generalization of future habitat improvements, your DEIS
frequently admits that these rivers are in poor condition and/or are very
vulnerable to further degradation. As an example of this, on page 146 you
frankly state "In summary, American River and tributaries are subject to
cumulative sediment effects due to past impacts in the watershed and the
existing degraded condition" (holding added).
On the bottom of page 147, you make the simple and flat statement "Fish
habitat in the analysis area is in poor condition". You continue on page 148
to describe just how poor of a condition these rivers and tributary streams are
in. Yet, in spite of these type of assessments, the DEIS constantly implies, in
a very blurred way, that road decommissioning and the use of "temporary
roads" will eventually offset any further damage caused by this proposal. I
am aware of the other mitigation work proposed in this project which is
commendable but you submit no supportable evidence substantiating the
contention that this work will more than offset the short term impacts of
Alternative C. Although I applaud such mitigation work, it is pure speculation
that the net effect of taking 25 MMBF of timber off of 2,700 acres will result in
a long term improvement trend. (Individual, Post Fails, ID - #19.5.21000.720)
RESPONSE:
The documentation for the conclusion that an upward trend in aquatic
condition is expected to result from this project is found in Appendix E of
the FEIS. In addition, 2,700 acres represents only seven percent of the
project area.
C# O8 O8
Appendix M
Page M-32
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
2. Proposals such as the American and Crooked River Project coyly imply that
after this project is completed, there essentially will be no other subsequent
proposals that would add additional short term or long term negative impacts.
This is done by almost promising the reader that following some undefined
period of time of "short term" degradation, these watersheds "are expected to
result in long-term improvements in habitat condition (page V; page 111).
What is so astounding about such assertions is you present not one iota of
information or data to support that critical commitment. That is just not
probable nor does it suggest reality. No, in all likely hood, some years after
the American and Crooked Rivers are logged, the temporary roads are
decommissioned (more on that later), existing non-used roads are
decommissioned and the affected area commences to recover, the Nez
Perce NP will come forth with another proposal to attempt to "manage1 some
form of risk in the same watersheds. In other words, it seems to me io be
incredibly idealistic to expect that there will be no further negative impacting
projects to those watersheds. Certainly that has not been my experience up
here in the Panhandle National Forest. So, for the USFS to say that if this
project is initiated, it will lead to long term improvements in the watershed are,
as they say, a bit of a stretch. (Individual, Post Falls, ID-#19.2.21100.160)
RESPONSE:
Currently, there are no additional proposals planned within this project
area. The assertion of long-term improvement is based on actions that
we can currently assess. Unless the requirements for upward trend in
aquatic condition are removed at some point, future projects would be
subject to the same direction.
O8 C8 OS
G. BECAUSE THE DEIS is UNCLEAR WHETHER THE USDA FOREST SERVICE WILL
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE STAFF AND FUNDING TO SUSTAIN EFFECTIVE MITIGATION
PROJECTS AND RESTORATION PROJECTS
Adding to this dubious claim that the forest silviculture and watersheds will
eventually be in better condition is the question of whether the US Forest Service
will continue to provide staff and funding to sustain effective mitigation programs.
There certainly is valid concern that programs originally committed to in a given
project never actually gel completed as originally orchestrated or, at the very
least, takes inordinately long to complete. I am sure that this continual under
funding of the USFS, and hence the downsizing, is as agonizing to the agency as
it is to the general public. None-the-less, this raises serious doubt that the Forest
Service can, in fact, deliver on the constant promise that things will get better in
the long term IF THE PRESENT PROPOSED PROJECT IS AUTHORIZED.
(Individual, Post Falls, ID - #19.3.21100.835)
It is not clear from the DEIS whether the funding is certain for all or some of the
watershed restoration activities. (Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA -
#24.15.21100.835)
Appendix M
Page M-33
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
Most restoration work associated with this project will be accomplished
through the use of various contracting mechanisms. Some of the work,
streamside planting for example, may be accomplished through
participating, volunteer, and challenge cost-share agreements.
The various types of contracting authorities being considered to implement
the project include stewardship, service, and timber sale contracts, each of
which offers a different opportunity to apply funds or contract specifications
toward completing restoration activities.
We are confident that restoration funds will be made available from a
variety of sources over the life of the project.
Funding Sources
• Appropriated funds have been requested for Fiscal Year 2005 and
beyond to accomplish restoration work in the upper South Fork
Clearwater River, including the American and Crooked River Project
area.
• The North Central Resource Advisory Council (RAC) is on record
supporting this Project and has the capability to fund a significant
portion of the restoration once the Project is approved.
• Many road improvements and a portion of the existing road
decommissioning would be accomplished through timber sale
contract provisions where such roads would be used for hauling and
removing forest products.
• Where forest product revenues are projected to exceed operational
logging and site treatment costs, stewardship contracting authorities
would be used to allow the Forest Service to direct those revenues
toward restoration activities.
• A substantial portion of the restoration work fits well under
partnership and grant opportunities:
-» A recent addition to the potential sources of funding for
restoration activities is the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund
(PSRF). At least one grant proposal from a local non-profit
organization has already been submitted, through the PSRF
process, to do restoration work in the project area.
->• Restoration work associated with this Project, once approved,
will be incorporated into the South Fork Clearwater River TMDL
implementation plan, which is under development by the SFCR
Watershed Advisory Group.
-> Many of the proposed restoration projects would be competitive
for BPA funds and work could be accomplished in partnership
with the Nez Perce Tribe.
Appendix M
Page M-34
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
In the event of significantly changed conditions due to natural events related to
large floods, wind, or fire affecting the project area, the project would be
reevaluated. Significant delays in project implementation could affect the overall
economics of the project. National funding priorities could temporarily shift in the
event of large-scale catastrophic events in other parts of the country. The
difficulty in accurately predicting the future makes it impossible to guarantee
funding or results. We can, however, provide assurance of our intent to
implement the full range of actions identified in the FEIS and Record of Decision
and that the tools to do so are reasonably available at this time.
050808
H. BECAUSE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSES IN THE DEIS ARE INADEQUATE
1. The cumulative impacts analyses in the DEIS are disjointed (for example see
pages 109, 110 and 147) and somewhat contradictory. Page 110 indicates
sediment horn only four projects was analyzed in a cumulative fashion, yet
table 3.0 lists many more future projects. Even table 3.0 is not clear whether
it covers all of the mining projects in the area as, for example, Crooked River
Mining Activity is so general it may take in several projects which are not
explicitly mentioned. Mining projects have been proposed and/or approved in
the past few years in the South Fork drainage which are not mentioned on
the chart (Siegel Creek, El Lucky Duk, Cypress Hill, and Petsite), timber sales
are not mentioned (Mackey Day) and other timber sales (Ridge Running)
apparently are considered past (a Hungry mill EIS sale, as per
communication with the USFS) when we understand that are still ongoing
though nearing completion.
As of today, the TMDL for the South Fork has just been or is on the verge of
being approved. Sediment is a major problem in the South Fork Clearwater.
The problems noted in the above paragraph of the DEIS make it impossible
to determine whether the TMDL is being met. However, the evidence that is
available leads one to conclude the TMDL, which requires a reduction of 25%
in sediment won't be met. How can the agency produce more sediment and
still meet the TMDL that calls for sediment reduction?
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -#22.20.21000.137)
RESPONSE:
The cumulative effects discussion was supplemented with additional
analysis in the FEIS. Not all ongoing and proposed activities are
modeled in the sediment analysis. The types of activities and effects
that are modeled are disclosed in Appendix E. The concern regarding
compliance with the South Fork Clearwater River TMDLs is discussed
above in the response to comment 31.
080808
2. The DEIS failed to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of other
federal actions in the area on Fisheries, Soils, Wildlife, Management Indicator
Species, TE&S Species, Water Quality, Forest Stand Dynamics and other
resources. Some of the other projects that should be incorporated into the
Appendix M
Page M-35
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Cumulative Effects Analysis include the Eastside Township (BLM), Whiskey-
South (BLM and FS), Crooked River Road Demonstration project, the
mysterious Orogrande Defensible Space project, Newsome Creek Defensible
Space, Red River Defensible Space, Red River Administrative Sites, Blacktail
Fuels, American River Drainage Fisheries (BLM), Buffalo Gulch Culvert
Replacement (BLM), Dixie Summit Tree Removal, Crooked River Channel,
Genesis Minerals, Red River Hazard Tree Removal, Newsome Creek
Channel Restoration, Upper Red River Watershed Restoration project, "This
is it" placer mining, EMC #1 placer mines on Newsome Creek, Forestwide
Thinning project (scoping notice of March 29, 2004) Red River Campground,
and last but certainly not least, Red Pines. Additional effects analysis is
warranted for the historic, current and foreseeable mining activities located
throughout the watershed, as these legacy and continuing projects carry
significant risks to values and resources within and adjacent to the project
area.
Given the inextricable relationship of this impressive (yet likely not
comprehensive) list of related activities, many of these projects should be
analyzed under one comprehensive EIS. The Forest Service also needs to
analyze the cumulative effects of the Slims Fire Contingency Fire Line and
any other emergency projects that arise. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID-#15.143.30310.002)
RESPONSE:
For water quality cumulative effects, please see response above. The
analysis of cumulative effects for soils was also supplemented. See this
section in FEIS 3 at the end of Section 3.1. The analysis of cumulative
effects for vegetation was supplemented in the FEIS. See this section
in FEIS 3 at the end of Section 3.10. The analysis of cumulative effects
for fisheries has been updated in the FEIS. Please refer to Section 3.2
in that documents.
o« oa cs
3. The DEIS does not clearly show or evaluate cumulative the impacts from
livestock grazing on the watershed. There are as few allotments in the
planning area.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.29.21100.247)
RESPONSE: The evaluation of cumulative effects from livestock grazing on
the watershed has been strengthened in the Final EIS.
O8 OS OS
I. BECAUSE THE DEIS is NOT PRECISE IN HOW IT DEFINES FOREST HEALTH
The DES and associated documents are not precise in how to define forest
health. Is it merely an expression of being within historical range of variability (or
does it include human economic concerns as well? lithe latter, how can science
define what is healthy since the economic values are simply that, expressions of
Appendix M
Page M-36
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
a value system, and not based in value-neutral science? (see Walder 1995)
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.32.21000.205)
RESPONSE:
We consider a healthy forest ecosystem to have the following characteristics:
1) The physical environment, biotic resources and trophic networks to
support productive forests during at least some serai stages;
2) Resistance to dramatic change in populations of important organisms
within the ecosystem not accounted for by predicted successional trends;
3) A functional equilibrium between supply and demand of essential
resources (water, nutrients, light, growing space) for major portions of the
vegetation; and
4) A diversity of serai stages, cover types, and stand structures that provide
habitat for many native species and all essential ecosystem processes.
C3 VS (IS
J. BECAUSE THE DEIS DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE MAPPING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IT
AND THE SOUTH FORK OF THE CLEARWATER RIVER LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT
(SFLA1 CONCERNING FIRE REGIMES
The DEIS does not explain the mapping differences between fire regimes
between it and the SFLA, though minor, and the assumptions behind the
departure from historic. Without this information, it is impossible to test the
validity of the assumptions made in the DEIS. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.61.21000.210)
The DEIS is not clear how the assumptions made in the SFLA and other
documents were derived. For example, the SFLA reaches some different
site-specific conclusions about extent of certain habitat types (and
therefore, about fire regimes) in the South Fork Clearwater than does
ICBEMP. However, neither the SFLA nor DEIS explain the site-specific
science behind those differences. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.60.21000.210)
RESPONSE:
The modest inconsistencies are due to the methods of deriving fire
regimes. In both analyses, combinations of potential vegetation and terrain
setting were used with a rule set to estimate historic fire regimes. In the
case of the South Fork assessment, the resultant maps were refined using
site-specific potential vegetation data where they were available.
In the case of the American Crooked River Project, no site-specific
corrections were made. Both these and the historic fire regimes derived for
the Idaho Cohesive Strategy
(http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/id_fire_assessment/id_haz_risk_review.html), which
will replace in the FEIS data used for the DEIS, are based on modeling of
potential vegetation, and the use of rule sets to derive fire regimes. The
Forest and Idaho-scale processes are likely to result in differing fire regime
Appendix M
Page M-37
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
assignments and could affect consequent estimation of fire regime
condition class. Recognition of variability in these areas of mixed and lethal
fire, and landscape and stand-specific evaluations, are important to
interpreting existing condition with respect to historic process.
08 OS OS
K. BECAUSE THE DEIS is INCONSISTENT IN ITS DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA AND FIRE
REGIMES VERSUS THE MAPS IN THE APPENDIX
The DEIS is inconsistent between description of the area, and fire regimes,
versus the maps in the appendix which delineate Fire Regimes. The FINAL EIS
should clarify these discrepancies. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Boise, ID-#15.44.21000.277)
RESPONSE:
The description of the area and the map legend for the fire regimes now
correspond.
OS OS OS
L. BECAUSE THE DEIS PRESENTS INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING DAMAGE TO
WATERSHEDS FROM STAND-REPLACEMENT FIRE
One of the wrong assumptions in the DEIS is the damage to watersheds from
stand-replacing fires. The SFLA clearly notes the difference between pulse
events like stand-replacing fires (which are necessary for watershed function)
and press events (road building and logging). "Predominantly pulse disturbances
of fire and flood have been supplanted by wide scale press disturbances of
harvest and mad-related sediment regimes that have impacted aquatic integrity."
Enclosed is a paper from agency personnel that look at this issue. It is
particularly important to note that logging for watershed health is misguided.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.23.21000.333)
RESPONSE:
The need to log for watershed health is not a primary purpose of this
project. Stand replacing fire, and the pulse watershed responses that
ensue, are intrinsic to historic and projected fire activity in the American and
Crooked River watersheds. The FEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.3, Conditions
Contributing to the Purpose and Need for Action, describes vegetation
changes associated with past fire suppression, succession, and mountain
pine beetle activity. Refer to FEIS, Chapter 3, Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4
regarding the relationship of fire to these disturbances. Furthermore, a
robust program of watershed improvements (see Appendix D) should help
improve resiliency to fire when it does occur.
os cscd
M. BECAUSE THE DEIS DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW DIFFERENT SITE-SPECIFIC
CONCLUSIONS WERE DERIVED
The DEIS is not clear how the assumptions made in the SFLA and other
documents were derived. For example, the SFLA reaches some different site-
M
Page M-38
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
specific conclusions about extent of certain habitat types (and therefore, about
fire regimes) in the South Fork Clearwater than does ICBEMP. However, neither
the SFLA nor DEIS explain the site-specific science behind those differences.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.60.21000.210)
NEPA requires information be available before decisions are made. The DEIS
does not indicate whether the inventories conducted to date are adequate site-
specific analysis for this project. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Moscow, ID - #22.94.21100.131)
RESPONSE:
The Analysis Methods described under each resource area in the FEIS,
Chapter 3, have been augmented to describe data sources, including field
inventories.
N. BECAUSE THE DEIS FAILS TO ADDRESS ISSUES CONCERNING WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE
HABITAT
There is inadequate information provided regarding the Flammulated owl. While
it is stated that there is extremely limited owl habitat within the Crooked River, an
estimate of how many owls are located in the area is appropriate.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.83.21100.390)
The Forest Service failed to address the fact that harvest units adjacent to
previous units could create combined openings that are too large to be used by
goshawks. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID
#15.79.21100.391)
It is particularly confusing that the environmental effects that are analyzed only
consider habitat in ponderosa pine. It should analyze other potential nesting
trees such as Douglas fir, which the owls are also known to utilize in Idaho.
Given the extent of logging in the area, it is likely that there would be impacts on
the limited population that is present in the area. These impacts should have
been fully considered in the DEIS, and must be duly incorporated into the FINAL
EIS. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.84.21100.391)
The DEIS specifies that project nest site mitigation will only protect 10-15 acres
of forest around nest trees. This is inadequate. The Forest Service should leave
a 30-acre buffer around active and previously existing but unoccupied nest sites
as specified in the Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk
(Reynolds 1992). Due to parasites or previous disturbances, goshawks often
alternate between existing nests. These existing alternate nests may well be
located within or adjacent to the proposed patch clear-cuts and other units. The
proposed action could remove or make these otherwise viable nests unusable.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.78.23540.391)
RESPONSE:
Xeric ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitats are extremely limiting in the
American and Crooked River drainages. The extent of flammulated owl
Appendix M
Page M-39
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
habitat and its isolation .from such other is not extensive enough to support
a breeding population. See FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.11.
The goshawk is a habitat generalist and uses variety of structural/age
classes to meet its life history requirements. With the majority of the
harvest within the American and Crooked River drainages having occurred
between the 1950's and 1980s, these areas are fully stocked and could
provide foraging habitat for goshawks. New units would create openings,
which in turn would provide habitat. See FEIS, wildlife cumulative effects
sections in Chapter 3, for further discussion of habitat fragmentation and
related impacts.
Management recommendations proposed by Reynolds et al., 1992, were
developed specifically for the southwestern United States. Thus, it would
be inappropriate to apply these guidelines to the moister, intermountain
west. Given that this project will not harvest old growth stands and that
active or newly discovered goshawk nests will be protected, goshawks
nests should be adequately protected.
(&O5 OS
O. BECAUSE THE DEIS FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE ROLE MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE PLAYS
IN THE SUCCESSIONAL STAGES OF THE FORESTS.
. The DEIS fails to recognize the role Mountain Pine Beetle plays in the
successional stages of the forests. Lodgepole Pine is a serai species and should
be recognized as such in the FINAL EIS. While in certain areas, Lodgepole Pine
can be viewed as a type of serai/climax species due the long fire interval (i.e. as
witnessed at Yellowstone National Park), throughout much of the West, beetles
and other disturbance mechanisms play an integral role in the succession
through to climax forests. While fire may play a role in some of these forests, the
DEIS gives the impression that there are two stark options: Clear-cutting or
Stand Replacing Fire. Is this the position of the Nez Perce National Forest? This
is misleading and disingenuous. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Boise, ID - #15.109.21100.373)
RESPONSE:
The role the mountain pine beetle plays in the successional stages of the
forest vary according to the function of Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine in
the stand: whether serai, persistent, or climax. Section 3.10 of the FEIS for
additional information regarding this topic.
us us us
P. BECAUSE THE DEIS FIALS TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER AND ADDRESS ISSUES
CONCERING "ROADLESS" AREAS
Unmanaged, roadless areas provide important habitat. The Summary of
Scientific Findings for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
Project (PNW-GTR-385) found that undeveloped, roadless areas are important
for providing habitat for native fish and water quality; are economically valuable
to society; and are in relatively good ecological condition.
Appendix M
Page M-40
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
"Because roads crisscross so many forested areas in Eastside (Columbia Basin),
existing roadless regions have enormous ecological value. Existing roadless
regions offer important sanctuary. Roadless regions constitute the least-human-
disturbed forest and stream systems, the last reservoirs of ecological diversity,
and the primary benchmarks for restoring ecological health and integrity."
(Rhodes et al. 1994).
The DEIS fails to consider the importance of roadless in those regards. Instead,
it is as if the roadless areas are targeted Because of some ill-informed belief that
they need manipulation and/or corrective action than do roaded areas. Clearly,
with regard to watershed integrity, that is not the case.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.91.21100.621)
The DEIS does not analyze the so-called temporary impacts on roadless values.
Since project implementation is expected to take at several years, those impacts
could be substantial. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.89.21100.621)
Nowhere in the DEIS does it distinguish between roaded and unroaded
landscapes with regard to fire severity, HRV, or other similar ecological factors.
There is ample evidence, including the agency's own ICBEMP studies that
roadless areas are in far better health than roaded landscapes. For example,
Evan Frost prepared a detailed paper, submitted to the agency as comments on
the roadless policy which used the agency's own scientific reports citing the
health of roadless areas (see Frost 1999). (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.90.21100.621)
The DEIS fails to clarify whether any management of non-system roads, trails, or
skid trails wouldvccur with the project. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Boise, ID-#15.53.21100.410) .
RESPONSE:
The cumulative effects analysis for Roadless areas is discussed in Chapter 3,
Section 3.13, Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Unroaded Areas.
Additional information regarding effects to areas identified as fish habitat
unroaded areas can be found in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.
030503
Q. BECAUSE THE DEIS FAILS TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE THE IMPACTS FROM THE
VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES ON WEED SPREAD
The section on weed spread does not evaluate the impacts from the various
alternatives other than displaying a chart of harvest unit acreage and road
miles... This is a major failing of the DEIS.
The reason this is important is because the DEIS also claims that various HTGs
are different susceptibility to weeds. It does not, however, indicate what HTGs
are being logged or roaded so it is impossible to determine what the potential
impacts of weed spread are from the various alternatives.
Furthermore, if the areas targeted to be logged are HTGs or VRUs (or whatever
habitat/land typing is used) with little chance of weed spread, that should be
Appendix M
Page M-41
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
shown. There is an interesting correlation between those types and infrequent
but lethal fire regimes. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.62.21000.371)
RESPONSE:
The result of the weed risk assessment reflect a concern for the potential of weed
spread from ground disturbing activities from all alternatives, taking into account
the level of disturbance and, type and condition of the vegetation communities
within the project area. To reduce the risk of continued weed spread design
criteria (Chapter 2 Design Criteria pg 28-29) is integrated into the project and will
be a requirement of the proposed project and applies to all alternatives.
CSCSCS
R- BECAUSE THE DEIS FAILS TO ADDRESS MAJOR ISSUES CONCERNING HERITAGE
VALUES
The DEIS gives some important and interesting background information on
heritage values. However, the big questions are avoided. Will there be an on-
site inventory? What are the impacts from the various alternatives? What
measures will be taken to ensure protection of heritage values?
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.93.21000.730)
RESPONSE:
A heritage resource inventory specific'to the American and Crooked River
project occurred throughout the project area during 2003 and 2004. The
level of inventory was predicated on sufficing requirements within 36 CFR
800.4.
No adverse effects to historic properties are anticipated by the
implementation of any of the alternatives proposed for the American and
Crooked River project. Refer to FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.9. Historic
properties will either be avoided entirely from project activity, or specific
mitigation measures implemented in consultation with the Idaho State
Historic Preservation Office and 36 CFR 800.6, will be instituted to arrive at
a "No Adverse Effect" determination for this project.
OS (S3 OS
S. BECAUSE THE DEIS is NOT CLEAR WHETHER FOREST PLAN SOILS STANDARDS WILL
BE MET
The DEIS is not clear whether forest plan soils standards will be met. It assumes
that can be held to 20% but it does not conclude that indeed it will. Furthermore,
it is not evident that regional soils guidelines will be met.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.28.21100.230)
RESPONSE:
The Regional soil quality guidelines have not been adopted Forest-wide through
a Forest Plan amendment, so the Forest Plan standards are in effect. The
discussion of soil quality standards and the assumption that impacts can be held
Appendix M
Page M-42
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
to 20 percent has been supplemented. Please see FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.1,
Summary of Cumulative Effects.
03 US OS 03 (IS 05
35. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD DEVELOP A SUPPLEMENTAL DEIS
WHICH CONSIDERS A DEFENSIBLE SPACE ALTERNATIVE.
The assertion that a defensible space project was not warranted Because of the
implementation of the Crooked River Road Demo Project is outrageous. The
Crooked River Road Demo Project treated approximately 24 acres. The DEIS
further states that because the Orogrande Defensible Space Project has been
envisioned, that a defensible space alternative is not warranted. No information
whatsoever has been provided to the public about this project, no scoping letter has
been disseminated and there is absolutely no assurance that the project will ever get
past the conceptual phase. Additionally, the DEIS (at page VIII) states, "The size
and scope of these treatments are small, designed to protect only the structure
themselves, so the treatments would have little effect on the project area." On the
basis of these considerations, a Supplemental DEIS is clearly warranted which
considers a Defensible Space alternative. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Boise, ID - #15.19.23400.275)
RESPONSE:
The scoping letter for the proposed Crooked River Defensible Space project
was mailed on September 13, 2004. This project proposes fuels treatments on
nine sites located along County Road 223. The proposed treatments include
thinning small diameter trees and pruning large diameter trees within 200 feet
of structures to create a safer area for firefighters to work and to help protect
private properties.
os os cs ea as 03
TECHNICAL AND EDITORIAL COMMENTS ON THE DEIS
36. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD MAKE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO
SECTION 2.2, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES.
Section 2.2 Description of Alternatives: We recommend adding a Table 2.3 similar to
Table 0.1 that compares the alternatives for the combined American/Crooked River
project. (Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA-#24.29.21200.210)
Section 2.2 Description of Alternatives: We recommend that Table 2.1 and 2.2 have
a reference to the list of stream improvement treatments contained in Appendix D.
(Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA - #24.30.21200.249)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
(S3 (IS 03 (33 (S3 C%
Appendix M
Page M-43
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
37. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD CLARIFY THE VRU CHART ON PAGE
221 AND 250 TO DISPLAY THE VRU DISTRIBUTION OF THE AMERICAN RlVER.
VRU Chart, Figure 3/13, Page 250 - this chart appears to display the VRU
distribution of American River rather than Crooked Fork (as labeled), and is the same
as the chart on page 221. (Timber/Wood Products Industry, Kamiah, ID -
#5.13.30100.001)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. The VRU chart has been updated in the FEIS
03 OB OS vs o# ea
38. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD PROVIDE A SHORT NARRATIVE FOR THE
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE.
The economic analysis provided for each alternative is reasonable, but could be
improved with at least a short narrative for each. (Individual, Moscow, ID -
#6.6.21200.800)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. The economic analysis section has been improved in the
FEIS.
o« cs ess cs os cs
39. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NEPA
DOCUMENTATION FOR THE AMERICAN AND CROOKED RlVER PROJECT.
If the intent is to proceed with the project as an authorized, additional NEPA
documentation (i.e. rescoping and supplemental DEIS) is required under current
regulations. Similar efforts to apply the Biscuit Fire Salvage Project posf hoc were
withdrawn as a result of this incompatibility. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15.16.21000.160)
RESPONSE: See response to comment 17
os as cz us os as
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)
40. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD SUMMARIZE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC
AND PROVIDE DETAIL ON THE PROCESS USED TO MODIFY THE PROPOSED
ALTERNATIVE.
In Chapter 2, Section 2.2, the DEIS states that the preferred alternative was
prepared in response to significant issues raised by the public. We recommend that
the final Environmental Impact Statement (FINAL EIS) summarize the significant
issues that were raised by the public and provide more detail on the process used to
modify the proposed alternative to address those concerns. (Federal Agency
Official, Seattle, WA-#24.3.21100.060)
Appendix M
Page M-44
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
Alternatives to the proposed action were developed based on public comments
received during scoping. A detailed list and analysis of issues raised by the
public is in project file for this EIS.
vs ce va eg us ca
41. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD ADDRESS THE EFFECTS OF DROUGHT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
IN THE PROJECT AREA.
The effect of drought and climate change is not adequately considered as one of the
root causes for the issues of concern in the project area. This should be amended in
the FINAL EIS. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.45.21100.260)
RESPONSE:
Since it is not possible to determine if, when, or severity of drought or other climatic
changes, it is beyond what is defined as reasonably foreseeable and is not analyzed
in this EIS.
(S3 08 OS OS OS 08
42. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD INCLUDE THE RESULTS OF THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
(BA).
We recommend that the final EIS contain the results of the Biological Assessment
(BA) for threatened and endangered species affected by the proposed project or that
the Record of Decision discuss the process used to address the results of BA in
determining final action. (Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA - #24.27.21100.340)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. We will include the Biological Assessments with the
FEIS or ROD.
V3 US OS (S3 OS OS
RESTORATION
RESTORATION GENERAL
43. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD CONDUCT RESTORATION.
A. To RESTORE THE WATERSHED
1. A better way to contribute to the economic and social well being of the local
communities is to repair the decades of abuse the landscape has suffered
and restore the watershed so that it supports thriving populations of Chinook
Salmon, Steelhead Trout, Bull Trout, Lampreys and other species. There are
decades worth of restoration projects in this area needing skilled forest
workers. In addition, fishing continues to bring significant income to the local
Appendix M
Page M-45
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
economies. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.11.30000.800)
The proposed restoration package is very limited on the American River.
This is difficult to comprehend given that there are many more improvements
proposed for the Crooked River and there seems to be very similar problems
for both of the rivers. The restoration package should be significantly
increased. This should be the highest priority for the watershed given that on
page 37 of the DEIS it is noted that, "The South Fork Clearwater River
Landscape Assessment identifies 'Restore aquatic processes' as the area
theme for the American River watershed within which the project area
occurs." It also states that "Restoration is to include both restoration of
aquatic conditions and processes in the watershed and adjustments to the
road and trail system to support aquatic restoration and provide for
administrative and public uses and maintain wildlife security." ' The
improvements proposed for this watershed do not seem to include restoration
of aquatic conditions and processes in the watershed.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.38.31100.201)
RESPONSE:
Refer to Chapter 2 for summary tables of watershed restoration
improvements. In addition, Appendix D of the FEIS details the
restoration planned under this action. In American River, this work
includes decommissioning of over 20 miles of road, doing watershed
improvements on over 6 miles of road, and improving fish passage and
increasing the size of 10 culverts. In addition, over 50 acres of soil
improvement will be approved for completion. Crooked River does
include more of this type of work including in channel improvements.
The history of work in American River has the BLM taking the lead in
mainstem improvements. These actions will continue, as evidenced by
BLM's recent proposal to:
• Do 2.5 miles of road to trail conversion,
• Rehab the upper American River Ford,
• Replace the culvert at the mouth of East Fork American River,
• Connect Telephone, Queen and Whitaker Creeks to the
mainstem American River,
• Perform 2.2 miles of in-channel improvements, and
• Install riparian enhancements on an additional 5 miles of the
mainstem.
• The work proposed by both agencies will improve watershed
process and function.
V3V3C3
2. EPA encourages the USFS to continue in the direction of implementing
restoration projects in the American and Crooked Rivers that will result in
Appendix M
Page M-46
-------
American River/Crooked River-Final Environmental Impact Statement
water quality and aquatic habitat improvements. (Federal Agency Official,
Seattle, WA - #24.8.34500.240)
RESPONSE: See response to 43(D) above.
eposes
B. To RESTORE THE SOUTH FORK CLEARWATER
For the restoration of the South Fork Clearwater, it would be better to use plans
which concentrate on development of habitat for diverse wildlife and fish and
improvement of soil conditions. (Individual, Loveland, CO - #12.3.32000.002)
RESPONSE:
While the American and Crooked River Project focuses on timber salvage
and fuel removal, there are a number of key restorative actions that this
project implements as well. Roads decommissioning is one of the most
important from a wildlife and fish habitat viewpoint. See Appendix D for
details on the watershed and fish habitat improvements.
esosos
C. BY CONSIDERING THAT THE DEIS ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT TIMBER HARVEST
AND ROADS CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
In attempting to replicate some as yet to be defined HRV, the DEIS adopts a
strategy nearly identical to the logging of the past which resulted in forest
fragmentation and the conditions of today. In other words, the DEIS grudgingly
acknowledges that logging and road building has led to the problem (although
the emphasis seems to be on fire suppression, the effects of which are not clear
for most of the South Fork), yet proposes the solution to be more logging and
road building. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.39.13100.330)
RESPONSE:
The project is not attempting to replicate HRV. Chapter 1, Section 1.3 of the
FEIS defines the Purpose and Need of this project, as well as conditions that
contributed to the purpose and need for action. See also response to 43(D),
below
OS 03 03
D. BY CONSIDERING EVIDENCE THAT TIMBER HARVEST AND THINNING DO NOT MINIMIZE
EFFECTS OF FIRE
The DEIS fails to analyze some important findings about logging and fire. Both
the Sierra Nevada and Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Projects
found that logging was a major reason for increased intensity and severity of
wildland fire. Delia Sala et at (1995 and 1995a) and Henjum et al.(1994) argue
that scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis that logging, thinning,
minimize the effects of fire. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow,
ID-#22.53.13110.270)
Appendix M
Page M-47
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
This is a complex issue and it is important to examine findings in the
context of biophysical setting and management history. Factors associated
with increased likelihood of high-intensity fire in managed forests include
some appropriate to this project area. For example, harvest-created fuels
will add to the fuel load for a short period until slash treatments are
complete, adding to the risk of locally severe fire effects under severe
burning conditions. However, some findings are more associated with low
elevation forests, in formerly frequent fire regimes, where past harvest has
reduced stand resistance to fire by removing the fire tolerant trees and
leaving younger and more fire sensitive species (Quigley and Arbelbide,
1997: McKelvey et al., 1996), and leaving slash untreated. Weatherspoon
(1997) compared fire and fire surrogates (logging and prescribed fire) for
their ecological effects. Many important questions remain unanswered,
even in the low elevation frequent fire regimes. Designed studies and
modeling, as well as fire case studies, have provided some insights.
Schoennagel et al. (2004) conclude that severe fires at long intervals in
lodgepole and spruce-fir forests are weather driven and not by fuels, stand
age, or fire-fighting activities. These fire situations are not those being
addressed by this project. In mixed severity regimes, or under moderate
burning conditions, climate and fuels interact in a complex manner. Using
the Hayman fire as an example, reviewers found that during severe burning
weather, most fuel treatments had little impact on the severity or direction of
fire (Finney et al., 2003), especially if area of fuel treatment was small.
During moderate weather, fuel modifications did influence fire spread and
severity. Agee et al. (2000) present a reasoned discussion of the utility and
limitations of fuel breaks in affecting fire behavior.
OS (S3 (S3 OS OS (S3
44. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD ADOPT THE RESTORATION PRINCIPLES
AS A SCREEN FOR THE ACTION IN THIS PROJECT.
We request the FS adopt the Restoration Principles (DellaSala, et al., 2003) as a
screen for proposed actions such as this one. We incorporate them by reference
into this DEIS comment. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.57.13100.160)
RESPONSE:
While the Restoration Principles proposed by Dellasala et. al. may contain valuable
insights to the overall effort of ecosystem restoration, the Forest Service is mandated
to by Congress to follow NFMA and NEPA regulations. The Nez Perce Forest Plan
provides the overall guidance for management of the specific management areas.
The NEPA document (American and Crooked River Project EIS) details the purpose
and need for the proposed action (Chapter 1 FEIS), a full range of alternatives which
will achieve the purpose and need (Chapter 2), and analysis of the effects of those
alternatives (Chapter 3). These do not necessarily correspond directly with all the
principles and criteria outlined in the Restoration Principles. During the NEPA
process, publics have the opportunity to comment and state their opinions as you
Appendix M
Page M-48
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
have done. Any action taken to adopt guidelines (such as Dellasala et. al.) which
vary from those already established and approved through the planning process may
require an extra level of involvement, or a Forest Plan Amendment.
There are some similarities between the proposed activities and the Restoration
Principles, however. The table below provides a checklist of the similarities between
the eight sub-principles and the FEIS, and where they may be reviewed in more
detail.
Ecological Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria Checklist
DellaSala, et al., 2003
Core Principle
1. Ecological Forest Restoration — Enhance
ecological integrity bv restoring natural
processes and resiliencv
Sub principles
1. Ecological Forest Restoration — Enhance
ecological integrity by restoring natural
processes and resiliency
2. Forest Restoration Assessment Principle —
Conduct a restoration assessment prior to
restoration activities
3. Ecological Restoration Approaches
Principle — Determine the appropriate use of
protection, passive and active restoration
based on restoration assessments
4. Community Protection Zone Principle —
Distinguish between fuel-reduction treatments
that restore ecological integrity and those that
serve primarily to protect property and human
life.
5. Adaptive Management Principle —
Monitoring and evaluation must be assured
before restoration proceeds, and be
incorporated into the cost of the project
Monitoring and Evaluation Criteria.
II. Ecological Economics — Develoo or
make use of restoration incentives that
protect or restore ecological integrity
6. Economic Framework Principle — Develop
positive incentives to encourage ecologically
FEIS - American and Crooked River Project
2005
See Sub-principles below.
The purpose of the project is to reduce existing
and potential forest fuels, create conditions that
will contribute to sustaining long-lived fire
tolerant tree species (ponderosa pine, western
larch) and contribute to the economic and social
well-being of people who use, and reside, within
the local area.2 FEIS Chapter 1, Purpose and
Need.
The area's existing condition was determined
using field data and the findings and
recommendations from the South Fork
Clearwater River Landscape Assessment
(SFLA). FEIS Chapter 1 .
Specialists' effects analysis of the alternatives
and the responsible official's decision. FEIS
Chapter 3 and Record of Decision (ROD).
WUI and non-WUI designations within the
analysis area. FEIS Chapter 2, description of
the alternatives and Chapter 3, Effects of the
Alternatives.
FEIS Appendix I Monitoring Plan. FEIS Chapter
2, description of the alternatives and Chapter 3,
Effects of the Alternatives.
See Sub-principles below.
FEIS chapter three, economic analysis, effects
of the alternatives on vegetation.
Appendix M
Page M-49
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
DellaSala, et al., 2003
sound restoration.
III. Communities and Work Force — Make
use of or train a hiahlv skilled, well-
comoensated work force to conduct
restoration
7. Community/Work Force Sustainability
Principle — Effective restoration depends on
strong, healthy, and diverse communities and
a skilled, committed work force.
8. Participatory Principle — Encourage
involvement of a diversity of communities,
interest groups, agencies, and other
stakeholders at all levels
FEIS - American and Crooked River Project
2005
See Sub-principles below.
Meetings with Nez Perce Tribe, Framing Our
Community, Bennett Forest Industries.
NEPA scoping, meetings with Nez Perce Tribe,
Framing Our Community, ILC, Friends of the
Clearwater, open houses, field trips, etc. See
FEIS response to DEIS comments.
OS dS 05 05 03 OS
MONITORING
MONITORING GENERAL
45. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD MONITOR.
A. 1. Monitoring should be a high priority item, and funding must be secured. Only
through sound project level monitoring will there be proof that land
management activities can be conducted with modern harvest systems
without a negative impact on other resource values, particularly water quality
and fish. (Timber/Wood Products Industry, Kamiah, ID - #5.14.30100.720)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. The monitoring plan has been amended with
more specific information in the FEIS. Please see Appendix I.
(S3 OS OS
2. Additional issues of concern include a lack of monitoring and discussion of
Heritage issues, Wild and Scenic Rivers (existing and proposed), and
monitoring and evaluation. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise,
ID-#15.145.30100.730)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
oscscs
B. 1. FOR INDICATOR SPECIES THAT INCLUDES ELK
Monitoring impacts on indicator species must include elk. We must be able
to evaluate timber harvest activities to determine if timber stands are opened
sufficiently to provide quality summer forage. Both the Idaho Fish and Game
Department and Nez Perce Tribe should be involved in this activity.
(Timber/Wood Products Industry, Kamiah, ID - #5.16.30100.340)
RESPONSE:
Appendix M
Page M-50
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Staffing and funding levels must be considered by line officers when
prioritizing all required Forest activities and completing all desired tasks
becomes difficult when budgets become constrained.
OS US (S3
C. FOR THREATENED. ENDANAGERED. AND SENSITIVE PLANTS AND ANIMALS AS PART OF
THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
A thorough field survey for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and
animals should be undertaken as part of the biological assessment. Areas
containing threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and wildlife species
within the proposed treatment areas should be mapped, avoided, and monitored
prior to and after management activities. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15.122.30100.340)
RESPONSE:
The FEIS Appendix A maps 8-a and 8-b show fish distribution including
TES species. Section 3.3 of the FEIS provides baseline information for the
fish and discusses how the activities will be managed to protect these fish.
Pre-project field surveys for wildlife have been conducted for this project
(See American/Crooked Project Wildlife Observation Table - in the project
file). This information was incorporated into the biological assessment and
evaluation. Further details on mitigation and monitoring can be found in the
FEIS Section 2.3.
V8V303
D. FOR POPULATION TRENDS
Temporal considerations of the impacts on wildlife population viability from
implementing something with such long duration as a Forest Plan must be
considered (id.) but this has never been done by the Nez Perce NF. It is also of
paramount importance to monitor population trends (as mandated by the Forest
Plan) during the implementation of the Forest Plan in order to validate
assumptions used about long-term species persistence i.e., population viability
(Marcot and Murphy, 1992; Lacy and Clark, 1993). (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.68.30100.350)
RESPONSE:
The Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation reports annually related species
monitoring results and general trends. In addition, the project file holds a
document titled: "Habitat-based Terrestrial Vertebrate Populations Viability
Related to the American and Crooked River Project (USDA FS, 2004a),
which holds a summary of species monitoring over the past sixteen years.
O# OS OSO8 C8 OS
Appendix M
Page M-51
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
46. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD INCLUDE PAST EXPERIENCE AND MONITORING ASSOCIATED
WITH THE NEZSED MODEL.
Past experience and monitoring associated with the NEZSED model should be
provided in the FINAL EIS in order to allow for the appropriate consideration of the
models shortcomings, especially for a project of this magnitude.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.37.21100.210)
RESPONSE:
A summary of NEZSED limitations and field tests was provided in Chapter 3 of
the DEIS. A more detailed discussion has been added to Appendix E of the
FEIS.
OS 08 CZ O8 OS OS
47. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD MAKE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW THE FY
2002 MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT REFERENCED IN THE DEIS.
One of the main problems in the DEIS is the reliance on the FY 2002 monitoring and
Evaluation Report. That report has been long requested by Friends of the
Clearwater. We have been told it is not yet available but will be available soon.
Aside from the tardiness of releasing that report, citizens can't comment on
something that is not yet available. Also, the 2003 report should be available to the
public.
For example, the DEIS claims that all is well with goshawks. Formal surveys have
been conducted on a forest-wide basis. Yet, those surveys are not available as they
are in the unavailable 2002 monitoring report. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.64.12110.210)
RESPONSE:
The FY 2002 Monitoring and Evaluation report is available to the public.
(S3 CZ (S3 (33 (13 (si
48. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD RELY ON BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE TO
DETERMINE REASONS FOR HUMAN INTERVENTION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN
THIS PROJECT.
BY CONSIDERING EVIDENCE THAT TIMBER HARVEST. RESOURCE EXTRACTION. AND
GRAZING HAVE BEEN THE GREATEST AGENTS OF FOREST CHANGE IN THE PAST
The DEIS is based largely upon a flimsy premise the forest needs massive and
extensive human intervention to make it healthy again. While that premise is not
without some equivocation, possibly due to the fact that much of fire ecology is
based upon speculation on what conditions were like years ago, the overriding
theme seems to be the forests are out of whack because of fire suppression. Of
course, the changes that have taken place from logging, mining and grazing are not
emphasized even though they have been the greatest agent of change in the South
Fork. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.31.13000.277)
Appendix M
Page M-52
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
Both broad-scale and locally relevant studies have examined the role of fire
within the last 1,000 years. Many studies have concluded that, despite
considerable local or temporal variability, fire suppression has tended to
change stand structure and composition in areas of frequent, low severity fire.
In areas of longer interval, mixed and more severe fire regimes, like much of
the project area, fire suppression has resulted in changes in landscape-scale
pattern and the proportion of different forest age classes represented in a
landscape (Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997, page 855; USDA FS, 1998, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003). The South Fork Landscape Assessment, page 89, found
that fires affected almost 6000 acres per year on average from about 1880 to
1930, and since then have burned about 400 acres annually, a more than 90
percent decline. Fire history mapping and fire scar studies in other areas of the
forest corroborate the pervasive role of fire within at least the last 300 years
(Barrett, 1993).
Although harvest in the American and Crooked River watersheds has been
extensive, it has not simulated the pattern or processes of natural fire. The
resultant vegetation pattern in some areas is harvest units dispersed in a matrix
of mature forest. These forests, with their significant proportion of dying
lodgepole pine, are susceptible to wind driven lethal fires under the appropriate
weather conditions. While not unnatural, such fires could be difficult to
suppress. Community concerns for property and firefighter safety suggested
the purpose and need: to reduce fuels in strategic locations to improve fire
suppression effectiveness, increase the proportion of fire resistant tree species,
and reduce likelihood of locally severe fire effects in areas of high fuel
accumulations. Refer to Chapter 1, Section 1.3.
Changes due to logging, mining and grazing were assessed for the American
and Crooked River watersheds in the South Fork Landscape Assessment
(USDA FS 1998), the South Fork Clearwater Biological Assessment (1999),
and have been updated and made more site-specific in the discussion of the
affected environment for the project area. See FEIS 3 under the discussion of
existing conditions for each resource area.
03 03 03 03 OS 03
SECTION 3 - SOILS AND WATERSHEDS
SOILS AND SEDIMENTATION
49. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD ANALYZE ACTIVITIES THAT AFFECT
SOILS.
Among other things, we are concerned that project activities will accelerate soil
erosion, increase soil compaction, and degrade soil productivity. NFMA requires the
FS to "not allow significant or permanent impairment of the productivity of the land."
136 C.F.R. 2. NFMA requires the Forest Service to "ensure that timber will be
harvested from National Forest System lands only where-soil, slope, or other
Appendix M
Page M-53
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged." [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(E)]
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.26.31200.133)
RESPONSE:
The regulatory framework for protection of soil resources is displayed in FEIS,
Chapter 3, Section 3.1. The analysis of effects on soils, including compaction,
displacement, erosion, mass wasting, nitrogen, potassium, and soil wood, is also
in this Section. Project design and mitigation measures developed to keep soil
effects within Forest Plan standards, protect slope stability, and to respond to
additional productivity concerns, are in Table 2.3. Additional soil improvement
projects to help restore soil productivity on other sites within the project area are
shown in Appendix D.
US 03 OS 03 V3 08
50. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD SELECT HARVEST TECHNIQUES WITH
THE LEAST AMOUNT OF SOIL DISTURBANCE.
A. The methods that are proposed to harvest trees from the project area are likely to
compact soil, increase erosion, and incur more disturbance than is acceptable.
In areas where treatments are ecologically appropriate, the Forest Service
should select harvesting techniques with the least amount of soil disturbance.
Multi-span cable yarding with a full-tree suspension system and helicopter
logging should be considered instead of tractor-jammer systems where feasible.
We recommend that any and all harvesting occur over frozen or dry soil, with
recognition of sensitivity to nesting or denning species. An increase in hand
thinning and a decrease in mechanized thinning would also lower detrimental soil
disturbance factors. Vehicles which destroy ground cover, expose mineral soil to
erosion, and compact soils for reduced absorption and increased runoff should
be specifically prohibited. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.118.34400.231)
B. BY MINIMIZING GROUND BASED LOGGING
Ground-based logging should be minimized as much as possible since it would
further degrade soil quality via compaction. Not only should logging be scaled
back, but the logging which does occur should include those methods that have
the least impact on soil quality. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise,
ID-#15.41.34400.231)
RESPONSE:
Logging systems are chosen based on a combination of cost, terrain, and
silvicultural prescription and are described in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. Cable
logging is prescribed for about 41 percent of the proposed harvest acres and
ground-based systems for 59 percent. Effects of ground-based logging
including compaction, displacement and erosion are analyzed in the FEIS
Chapter 3, Section 3.1. Extensive design criteria and mitigation measures
have been developed for this project to limit detrimental soil physical
disturbance from ground-based logging (refer to Table 2.1). Monitoring is
also proposed during and after implementation to validate soil resource
Appendix M
Page M-54
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
protection measures. Monitoring will be done to identify units with cumulative
soil disturbance in excess of Forest Plan standards and they will be treated
through post-activity soil restoration work. See the Monitoring Plan in
Appendix I.
as ea
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
cs en os es os es
52. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON SOIL
PRODUCTIVITY.
The FEIS needs to analyze the effects of removing potassium-containing vegetation
on nutrient cycling in the area. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise ID -
#15.104.21100.232)
RESPONSE:
Analysis of potassium and nitrogen removal is in FEIS Chapter 3, Section 3.1.
The design criteria and mitigation in Table 2.1 specify bole-only yarding to reduce
potassium loss, and additional actions to over-winter slash before burning to
allow for nutrient leaching, to minimize excessive slash piling and redistribution of
nutrients, and to constrain slash burn intensity to reduce the amount of
potassium and nitrogen volatilized.
OS OS OS (13 OS OS
53. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD CLARIFY AND DOCUMENT HOW LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY
OF SOIL CONDITIONS WILL BE PROTECTED.
A. GIVEN POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF GROUND BASED EQUIPMENT AND SLASH TREATMENT
Long term impacts to soil potassium and nitrogen may be unacceptable under
the National Forest Management Act and the existing Forest Plan. Please clarify
in the FEIS how the application of ground based equipment, in concert with high-
severity slash treatments will ensure the long-term sustainability of soil resources
in the project area. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.42.10400.230)
RESPONSE: See response to comment 52 above.
03 OS OS
B. GIVEN INADEQUATE EXPLANATION OF HOW FOREST PLAN SOIL STANDARDS WILL BE
MET
The DEIS fails to adequately explain how Forest Plan Soil quality standards will
be met. There is inadequate information provided in several locations including
one at page 44 which states, "Assuming that compaction and displacement can
be held to within the 20 percent area disturbance threshold of Forest Plan Soil
quality standard 2?" The FS must clarify what this assumption is based on since
it appears to be unlikely given the past compaction and displacement that has
occurred from other logging projects in the area.
There are apparent contradictions in the DEIS. At page 87 it states, "All
alternatives may meet Forest Plan soil quality standards on harvest units, if
mitigation and design measures are rigorously implemented, so that cumulative
effects are the same for all alternatives on a site basis." It then goes on to
seemingly discount this prediction when it states, "The likelihood of exceeding
the standards increases with increasing number of activity areas proposed for
ground based logging or temporary road construction." Given that the Preferred
Appendix M
Page M-56
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Action, Alternative D, is ranked as the worst alternative in this regard, it is highly
questionable whether soil quality standards would be met, regardless of
mitigation measures. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.39.10400.231)
RESPONSE:
This discussion has been augmented in the FEIS. Please See FEIS 3,
Section 3.1, summary of cumulative effects for soil physical properties and
compliance with forest plan standards.
54. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD LOOK AT SEDIMENTATION EFFECTS.
A. TO DETERMINE IF ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT REDUCTION PROJECTS COULD BE IDENTIFIED
IN SILVER AND QUARTZ CREEKS
In addition, if this is an area [Silver and Quartz Creeks] of particularly high
sediment loading, perhaps additional sediment reduction projects could be
identified in these watersheds to further reduce sediment levels towards the
TMDL goal. (Federal Agency, Elected Official, Seattle, WA - #24. 12.31200. 180)
RESPONSE:
.Additional field assessment and modeling were conducted for Silver and
Quartz Creeks for the FEIS. Site-specific recommendations were made to
reduce sediment yield from existing roads planned for reconditioning, new
temporary roads and harvest units. These recommendations were
incorporated and are documented in the Record of Decision. This review
also resulted in adjustments to the stream crossings planned for upgrades in
Silver Creek.
cs cs OS
B. TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES AND DECREASE SOIL
SEDIMENTATION
While road obliteration will improve water quality in the long term, road
obliteration and reconstruction will inevitably entail soil disturbance and short-
term increases in sedimentation rates. Additional mitigation measures, such as
stream bank stabilization upstream and downstream of the site, are needed
which guarantee no near-term net increases in soil disturbance or sedimentation
in the watershed as a whole. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID
-#15.74.31200.230)
RESPONSE:
Stream crossings are given special attention during design and
implementation of road obliteration projects. Site-specific best management
practices are employed to minimize short-term sediment yield and to enhance
stability of the stream and adjacent slopes. Within the crossing site,
measures might include dewatering, drop structures, placement of large
wood, mulching, seeding, and/or planting. Temporary sediment traps might
be utilized downstream of the crossing. In some case, channel gradient and
Appendix M
Page M-57
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
steps need to be reestablished upstream of the site. The mix of measures
applied will vary based on site characteristics.
C8 (33 O3 &i OS O3
55. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION ABOUT
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND DEPOSITION.
A. TO SUPPORT CLAIMS THAT CURRENTLY DEGRADED STEAM CONDITIONS WILL BE
REVERSED
1. There /s a significant inconsistency between current assessments of river and
stream conditions versus, again, what you augur will happen in some distant
future in terms of habitat improvement. As an example, on pages 12 and 130
you summarize these river systems for their existing condition of Cobble
Embeddedness, Pool: Riffle Ratios, Large Woody Debris and Percent
Surface Fines. This is a pretty good general summation of what condition
these rivers are in regarding fisheries habitat. You also show in the same
tables what the Forest Service objectives are for each of these components.
In the majority of the stream reaches, your own data clearly shows serious
shortcomings in stream health. In my limited experience, when rivers and
tributary streams are allowed to degrade to this extent, it is extremely
questionable if and when they will ever return to any degree of their original
condition. Never the less, this DEIS, by subtle suggestion, predicts that
eventually, these degrading conditions will be reversed. On page 101, you
tell the public that low gradient stream sediment "tends" to have a long
residence time but will "eventually" be transported or reorganized by high
steam flows. You do not describe the sediment as to whether it is fine or
course material nor do you volunteer the fact that often this predicted "high"
stream flow will frequently be the source of additional deposits of sediment of
varying size and weight. High stream flows can and do move fine sediments,
However, when course "bedload" sediments are deposited in the medium
gradient stream segments, it fills virtually every depression, including critical
pools. You are acutely aware of this. I point this out because the previously
referred to tables testify to a very low Pool to Rifle ratio, indicating we are
dealing with sediment of a size and weight nature that is not easily
transported or.reorganized as you imply will happen. It is such incredibly
generalized assurances that I challenge. (Individual, Post Falls, ID -
#19.6.13100.234)
RESPONSE:
Further discussion of the characteristics of sediment yield, transport and
deposition in the American and Crooked River watersheds is found in
Appendix E of the DEIS and FEIS. This includes an explanation of the
particle sizes that are expected to be produced from project activities and
those that have been sampled in transport at gauging stations in nearby
streams. The low pool:riffle ratios in mainstem reaches of American and
Crooked Rivers are primarily explained by the dredge mining that took
place during the first half of the 20th century. The channel morphology
was drastically altered by this practice, with loss of pools being one
Appendix M
Page M-58
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
outcome. These streams have been partially restored with instream
enhancement projects, and this project will further improve the situation in
Crooked River with maintenance of existing structures and additional
instream enhancements. The dredge mining in American River took
place largely below the Forest boundary. Based on channel observations
and monitoring in nearby Red River, it is evident that the bedload
transport in American and Crooked Rivers consists mostly of sands and
gravels. Coarser cobble materials are also transported, but not in
excessive quantities that result in significant channel aggradation. The
concern with sediment deposition is mostly with fine materials (less than
6mm in diameter) that intrude into coarser substrates. This size of
material can be remobilized by high streamflows. Our approach is
premised on a reduction in chronic sediment yield, which should result in
improved substrate conditions over time. This effect should be further
enhanced by instream improvements, which are in part designed to
improve sediment transport.
OS0808
2. You offer absolutely no credible evidence that such a corrective process will,
in fact take place within any reasonable time frame. (Individual, Post Falls, ID
-#19.7.13100.234)
RESPONSE:
Section 3.3. (Fisheries) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
supplies information pertaining to past research that provides evidence
that such corrective activities will improve aquatic condition in the
watershed within reasonable time frames. The following is an excerpt
from Section 3.3. (Fisheries) of the FEIS. In this work, Idaho Department
of Fish and Game employee Russ Kiefer (Fisheries Biologist) makes the
following observations:
• Our research indicates that in streams degraded by dredge
mining, connecting off-channel ponds to the stream can
increase the carrying capacity for chinook salmon parr
(Kiefer and Forster, 1991), . and complex instream
structures can increase the carrying capacity for steelhead
trout parr (Kiefer and Lockhart, 1995a).
• We observed a shift in spawning areas by adult chinook
salmon to cleaner gravel areas produced by habitat
rehabilitation structures in Crooked River (Kiefer and
Lockhart, 1993). In streams with more than 30 percent
sand in spawning areas, habitat structures that collect
cleaner gravel with less than 30 percent should increase
smolt production.
• Complex habitat enhancement structures apparently can
increase the carrying capacity for age-1 + steelhead trout in
streams with low habitat complexity. Dredge mining has
reduced the habitat complexity in the upper meadow
Appendix M
Page M-59
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
section of Crooked River (Middle Crooked River) by forcing
the channel against the canyon wall on the east side of the
meadow. We observed more than double the density of
age-1 + steelhead in complex habitat study sites than we
observed in control or simple sill log habitat sites in 1992
(Kieferand Lockhart, 1995).
OS (S3 US
B- BY CHARACTERIZING PARAMETER VALUES. ASSUMPTIONS. POTENTIAL BIAS. AND
UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEZSED SEDIMENT MODEL. IN THE ABSENCE
OF MONITORING DATA
There is an increasing reliance on modeled parameters at the expense of
continuing needed monitoring as required by the forest plan. NEZSED is used
as the model in spite of serious problems with it. There is one critiques of
NEZSED referenced in the DEIS (Gloss 1995). However, the DEIS fails to
capture the serious problems with this model uncovered in that master's thesis.
Even more critical is the omission Mickey's research of WATBAL NEZSED is a
"version" of WATBAL and it is very similar. This peer-reviewed study by Mickey
(1997) has documented that the WATBAL model consistently underestimates the
amount of sediment actually reaching streams. WATBAL underestimates
sedimentation for a number of reasons. One example is that the model assumes
' that all sedimentation effects front roads significantly diminish after a brief period
In fact, as the 1995-96 slides, particularly on the adjacent Clearwater National
Forest graphically demonstrated, roads and road failures can continue to
contribute sediment to streams, often on a massive scale, for literally decades
(McClelland et a/. 7997; Pipp et al. 1997; Espinosa, 1998). Another major flaw
illustrated by Mickey was the manner in which the model deals with precipitation
especially storm events. The model deals with average conditions, and does not
consider intense storm events, such as the 1995-96 events. Indeed, the
McClelland study similarly noted (Vol. II, p.4) that "WATBAL is not an episodic
simulator and was never intended to model events. The program's source
information was (and continues to be) based on long-term measured averages."
Many of the watersheds that were blown-out by the flooding and landslides in
1995-96 were assessed as "recovered" by WATBAL.
The DEIS claims all is well with water quality, based upon NEZSED and other
predictions. This is not based upon monitoring data. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.21.13100.234)
The reliance of the project on the NEZSED model is problematic. The FEIS
should consider and discuss limitations and requirements of the model to provide
accurate estimates for sediment delivery. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID-#15.36.13000.234)
RESPONSE:
The section on model limitations and tests, found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS,
has been expanded in Appendix E of the FEIS. The results of four
NEZSED model tests are discussed, including a new test by Thomas and
King (2004). WATBAL and NEZSED share certain common ancestry with
Appendix M
Page M-60
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
regard to surface erosion sediment yield and equivalent clearcut area
computations. They are different in that NEZSED does not estimate
activity-related mass erosion events greater then 10 cubic yards in size,
nor does NEZSED compute water yield increases. NEZSED coefficients
show that sediment yield from roads decreases after initial construction, but
not to zero.
The Mickey (1997) report compared WATBAL results against measured
sediment yield data. Although there are similarities between WATBAL and
NEZSED, there are enough differences that direct comparisons are
problematic. NEZSED has been tested against local field data and those
results are presented in Appendix E of the FEIS.
The 1995-1996 storms on the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests
resulted in numerous landslides from roads. Few if any of these occurred
in the American and Crooked River watersheds. This is due in part to the
generally low landslide hazard of land types in the project area.
The DEIS did not claim that "all is well" with water quality. It used a
combination of field data, observations, modeling and professional
judgment to disclose current conditions and estimated effects of the
alternatives.
OS (S3
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
productive in correcting past depositions. This DEIS completely ignores or
avoids serious discussion of this very common problem.
Your Appendix E, page E-26 shows again, a vague prediction that "vegetation
treatments (logging and thinning) will have a Low negative impact over the short
term on aquatic conditions but you completely disregard any long term impacts to
the hydrologic process due to this logging.
It is for the above reasons that I make the statement that while attempting to
reduce fire risk you are probably going to do so at the expense of further
degradation of the watershed be cause of the extensive removal ofoverstory and
the inclusion of new "temporary" roads. (Individual, Post Falls, ID -
#19.9.13100.241)
RESPONSE:
The DEIS and FEIS disclose the effects of timber harvest on water yield
changes, peak flows and stream channels using a combination of research
data, field data, EGA modeling and professional judgment. The concerns
expressed by the commenter with regard to excessive coarse bedload
deposition have not been observed to a large degree in the upper South
Fork Clearwater subbasin. This is primarily due to the climate, flow regime,
geology and stream types of the area. Refer to the cumulative effects
analysis in Chapter 3.
C3 OS OS
D- TO SUPPORT QUESTIONABLE CLAIMS THAT TIMBER HARVEST. ON AREAS AT RISK
FROM LANDSLIDES. IS NOT OF CONCERN
The DEIS claims, without offering any evidence, that logging in areas with
moderate hazard for landslides is not a concern. Given that areas naturally slide
in the Clearwater drainage, such an approach if far too cavalier. There is no
evidence. presented that areas at risk for landslides can be logged without
threatening the watershed.
BMPs won't prevent landslides. In fact, Magistrate Judge Erickson sided with
plaintiffs on the adjacent Clearwater National Forest on the Fish Bate timber sale.
The judge noted (NO. CV-97-208-M-LBE):
Because BMPs have not been assessed for their effectiveness against landslide
events and because a high risk of landslides is acknowledged in the Fish Bate
preferred alternative, the Court finds it is not reasonable for the Defendants to
just summarily rely on BMPs to mitigate this environmental impact Therefore, the
Court finds the FEIS conclusion that the project will have no effect on water
quality to be arbitrary and capricious based on the undisputed risk of landslides
in the FEIS. Accordingly, the decision is reversed and remanded. This issue is
applicable here.(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.24.13100.247)
RESPONSE:
The discussion of landslide analysis and management has been expanded
in the FEIS. Please see FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.
Appendix M
Page M-62
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
03 US C3 C8 di C3
56. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD FACTOR CONCURRENT NEGATIVE
IMPACTS ON NON-NATIONAL FOREST LANDS INTO THE SEDIMENT ANALYSIS.
The Forest Service needs to assume that concurrent negative impacts will continue
to occur off National Forest lands: "accelerated private land timber harvesting and
road building is occurring in American River watershed." (Red River Salvage EA, p.
59) and factor these impacts in these analyses (sediment yield and sediment budget
analysis). (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.33.30300.002)
RESPONSE:
The cumulative effects of activities occurring on private lands are accounted for
in the FEIS, to the extent that information has been obtained from 2002 aerial
photographs and through field knowledge of the area.
OS 0*080*03 OS
57. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD DISCLOSE THE EQUIVALENT
CLEARCUT AREA (EGA) AND SEDIMENT YIELD FOR ALL WATERSHEDS.
The Forest Service should disclose the ECA and sediment yield for all watersheds,
including both adjacent and project area watersheds, and establish sediment
budgets for each watershed. The FEIS must to compare the time required for the
sediment loads and ECAs to drop to conditions where beneficial uses are met for all
alternatives. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID
#15.31.31100.234)
RESPONSE:
The ECA and sediment yield analyses in Chapter 3 of the FEIS encompasses the
entire watersheds of both American and Crooked Rivers. The tributaries that are
shown in Tables 3.8, 3.10, 3.15 and 3.17 are those that contain activities associated
with the American and Crooked River Project. The last row in each of those tables
(labeled Lower American River and Lower Crooked River) includes the ECA or
sediment yield from all of the subwatersheds contributing to the mouths of the two
rivers. This is further explained in Appendix E, specifically Figures E.1 and E.2,
along with the accompanying narrative. The cumulative effects sediment yield
analysis for the South Fork Clearwater River covers all known activities that could be
modeled upstream of the Nez Perce National Forest boundary. The time frame for
this part of the analysis is through 2012. At this point, post-project sediment yield is
assumed to have stabilized. ECA continues to recover gradually over time as the
forest canopy regrows.
osososcsoaos
58. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD NOT APPROVE ANY AMENDMENTS
NEEDED TO ALLOW PEAK SEDIMENT YIELDS TO EXCEED FOREST PLAN GUIDELINES.
The Forest Service should not approve any amendments needed to allow peak
sediment yields to exceed Forest Plan guidelines because that period will likely be
Appendix M
Page M-63
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
longer than predicted. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.32.21100.160)
RESPONSE: No such amendments are proposed with this project.
OS OS O« OS C3 CS
59. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING QUESTIONABLE CLAIMS
THAT MITIGATION EFFORTS, SUCH AS DECOMMISSIONING ROADS, CAN OFFSET
DAMAGES CAUSED BY TIMBER HARVEST.
There is the continuation of a serious problem in these DEIS's, and this project is
replete with this problem, of the very vague assurance to the public that certain
mitigation work, such as "decommissioning" older roads, will produce tangible
improvements in the watershed; enough so as to offset damage caused by the
project itself On page 145, Cumulative Effects, you refer to Table 3 on page 33 as
listing of projects that supposedly will have some undefined effect on improving
fisheries. Yet, out of a list of 42 projects, there seems to be only one project or
activity that could possibly be construed as benefiting fisheries and that, again, is
very general by saying "Improving road surface—graveling and grading work".
Appendix D does a very good job in detailing mitigation work to be performed under
the various alternatives. However, it remains to be seen whether this work is
sufficient to truly overcome the negative impacts of the projects main objective and
that is to getting 25 MMBF off of the land. (Individual, Post Falls ID -
#19.4.13100.381)
RESPONSE:
The aquatic trend analysis in Appendix E of the FEIS is the documentation
leading to the conclusion that an upward trend in aquatic condition is predicted
in the long term. This analysis takes into account the positive and negative
effects of the. project activities in the short and long term.
See response to comment 7, above, for further discussion of fish habitat
improvements planned under this action. The proposed action would treat
approximately seven percent of the project area. Refer to the tables in FEIS,
Chapter 2
OS CS OSOS C8 O8
60. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD PROVIDE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF
SEDIMENT SOURCES COMPARING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ROAD DECOMMISSIONING
AND NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE.
The Forest Service should provide a detailed analysis of the sediment sources
comparing contributions from road decommissioning and new road construction for
each alternative. Predictions of sediment delivery to streams need to take into
account the fact that PACFISH and INFISH buffers rely on intact buffer zones not
impacted by previous road construction, harvesting, and mining activities.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.29.30300.234)
Appendix M
PageM-64
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
The sediment yield analysis is done by summing the effects of each project
activity that could be modeled. A summary of sediment yield from new road
construction, road decommissioning and other project components for the
selected alternative is found in the Biological Assessment, which is an
appendix to the Record of Decision. We do not believe it necessary to disclose
this level of detail for each alternative. Since this information is not directly
related to the condition of PACFISH RHCAs, it was determined that it was.
unnecessary to provide this level of detail for each alternative.
INFISH buffers do not apply to the Nez Perce National Forest.
OS C3 CS US O8 OS
61. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD QUANTIFY CHANGES IN SEDIMENT
LEVELS IN THE SILVER AND QUARTZ CREEKS.
Silver and Quartz Creeks are stated to have high sediment levels, but these levels
are not quantified. In order to fully evaluate this project, we believe it would be useful
to attempt to quantify these levels and, if possible, document how they may change
with the different alternatives. (Federal Agency, Elected Official, Seattle, WA -
#24.11.13110.234)
RESPONSE:
This analysis was completed for the FEIS. The results are found in Table 3.17
with accompanying narrative.
OS C8 OS OS V& OS
WATERSHEDS
62. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD PRIORITIZE WATER QUALITY, FISH
POPULATIONS, SOIL PRODUCTIVITY AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION.
Water quality, anadromous fish populations, soil productivity, and wildlife protection
must be the priorities of national forest managers, not below-cost timber sa/es that
wreak damage, requiring centuries of nature's repairs. Road-building and clear
cutting are not consistent with these objectives, given the cumulative impacts of past
sales such as Whiskey South, Blacktail Butte, and Red Pines. (Individual,
Minneapolis, MN - #32.2.30000.360)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. The selected alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan,
which considers these values in context.es 03 ea cs us vs
63. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD PROTECT RIPARIAN AREAS.
A. BY PRESCRIBING NEW BUFFER ZONES
The Forest Service should prescribe new buffer zones, which will adequately
protect riparian areas from sedimentation stemming from road construction and
Appendix M
Page M-65
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
management-related mass wasting events. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15.30.31120.234)
RESPONSE:
The Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing
Watersheds on Federal Lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho
and Portions of California (PACFISH) and supporting literature (February
24, 1995) establishes default Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas
(RHCAs) which were shown to protect streams from management activities.
These RHCAs have been incorporated into the design criteria for this
project (FEIS Section 3.3).
OS OS OS
B. BY LIMITING ACTIVITIES TO ONLY WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECTS
According to the DEIS, "Management activities in riparian areas would be
minimized," at page 17. Activities in RHCAs should be limited to include ONLY
watershed restoration projects. No other activities should be permitted within
RHCAs. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID
#15.135.31120.247)
RESPONSE:
No timber harvest is proposed in the streamside RHCAs. Temporary roads
have been located to avoid RHCAs. In the event that RHCAs are
encountered during construction, these activities will be conducted to
minimize impacts following recommendations contained in PACFISH (see
response to comment 62, above).
OS OS US O3 Ui 03
64. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD RESTORE THE WATERSHED.
A. TO SUPPORT FISH POPULATIONS
A better way to contribute to the economic and social well being of the local
communities is to repair the decades of abuse the landscape has suffered and
restore the watershed so that it supports thriving populations of Chinook Salmon,
Steel head Trout, Bull Trout, Lampreys and other species. There are decades
worth of restoration projects in this area needing skilled forest workers. In
addition, fishing continues to bring significant income to the local economies.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.11.30000.800)
RESPONSE:
This project includes all watershed and fish habitat restoration needs
identified in the FEIS. See response to comments 7 and 43, above.
OS OS OS
Appendix M
Page M-66
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
B. FOR AQUATIC LIFE FORMS INCLUDING LISTED AND SENSITIVE FISH SPECIES
One of the most important issues in the area is water quality, watershed health,
and hydrological integrity and how they affect aquatic life forms including the
listed and sensitive fish species. These fish are an important part of Idaho's
heritage and Forest Service has a grave responsibility to ensure fish populations
are available to meet the treaties, made between sovereigns, with the Columbia
Basin Tribes. Furthermore, all Americans and Idahoans have a keen interest in
the recovery of native fish. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow,
ID-#22.17.32300.380)
RESPONSE:
This project has been designed to meet the needs of the aquatic resources,
including fish. The Nez Perce NF has pursued an active and ongoing
dialogue with the Nez Perce Tribe at key points during the development of
this proposed project. Additionally, their advice and input has been sought
at various stages and is continually being incorporated into this document.
Also refer to the individual response to the Nez Perce Tribe's letters in
Appendix M and the response to comment 20.
OS 03 &i
C. WITH THE USE OF FIRE
If you are trying to protect watersheds from adjacent fire, why? A little soot in the
water from a fire is much better in the watershed than petroleum product spills
from logging equipment, and sediment from roads, skid trails, and landings.
(Individual, Grangeville, ID-#30.4.31100.270)
RESPONSE:
The project is designed to minimize the risk of introduced sediment and
toxics. See FEIS Section 2.3.
as as
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
These documents and methodologies provide a numeric reference of
optimal fish habitat conditions.
The USDA Forest Service with funding from the Bonneville Power
Administration began restoration of Crooked River in 1984. This Project will
continue the restoration effort in Crooked River, which was begun in 1984.
American River has seen similar dredging activity and restoration work. For
a cumulative effects discussion refer to the FEIS, Chapter 3, Sections 3.2
and 3.3, and Appendix E.
Both mainstem American River and Crooked River occupy wide valley
bottoms. Fifth order streams in this undisturbed setting will typically
meander across the valley bottom in a C channel type (Rosgen , 1994).
These channels are often lined with hardwoods and provide stable undercut
banks with good shade and high quality pools in the meanders. The.
potential is high for spawning habitat in these areas. A large bucket line
dredge (Mount Vernon Boat) was moved to Crooked River in 1938 and
operated there till 1942 when activities were curtailed by the War
Production Board (Sharon Murray, The Mount Vernon Dredge, ?). In 1939
alone, this dredge moved 218,335 cubic yards of gravel. Dredge mining
began again in 1946 for a short time and started again in 1952, continuing
until 1958 or 1959. Records (S. Murray) show well over 1,400,000 cubic
yards of gravel dug from the Crooked River valley during this period. The
dredge mining activities turned several miles of the valley bottom meadow
into an almost barren strip of rubble piles and a stream channel devoid of
fish habitat features.
The U.S. Forest Service with funding from the Bonneville Power
Administration began restoration of Crooked River in 1984. In summary,
this project installed over 660 pool and cover-creating instream structures;
creation of some 15,000 square meters of juvenile rearing and winter
habitat through side channel construction and pond connection;
rehabilitation of approximately 9,230 square meters of flood plain; and the
planting of some 30,000 hardwood shrubs and small conifers in riparian
areas (Siddall, 1992). American River has seen similar bucket line
dredging and restoration work. This project will continue the restoration
effort in Crooked River began in 1984.
080303
B. BY USING MEASURES SUCH AS VALUES OF RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
It is not clear from the DEIS whether an environmental baseline for watersheds is
included. Generally, this means their condition before development or resource
exploitation was initiated. For example, the baseline condition of a stream
means the habitat conditions for fish and other aquatic species prior to the
impacts of road building, logging, livestock grazing, etc. Proper disclosure of
baseline conditions would mean estimates of stream stability, pool frequency
conditions, water temperature range -essentially the values of Riparian
Management Objectives along with such parameters as sediment levels.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.19.13100.002)
Appendix M
Page M-68
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
Section 3.3 of the FEIS identifies baseline conditions using both the DFC
Analysis (Espinosa, 1992) and the Revised Matrix of Pathways and
Indicators of Watershed Condition (Revised 3/9/98). These documents and
methodologies provide a numeric reference of optimal fish habitat
conditions that could be expected in undisturbed watersheds (prior to
development). Both mainstem American River and Crooked River occupy
wide valleys. Prior to development, of which dredge mining was the
primary influence, these rivers meandered across the valley bottom. The
rivers were likely lined with abundant grasses and woody vegetation
providing stable banks and shade. The pool to riffle ratio was likely high
with complex and high quality pools providing good quality habitat. Pool
tailouts were made up of high quality spawning habitat. The DFC Analysis
and Matrix of Pathways and Indicators use reference conditions from
similar undisturbed streams to quantify the optimum conditions, and these
are referenced to today's measurements to determine existing conditions
(FEIS Chapter 3.3)
OS C3 OS OZ C8 OS
66. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD DESIGN THIS PROJECT so THAT IT
MEETS EXISTING WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT STANDARDS.
A. TO CORRECT CURRENT VIOLATIONS OF FOREST PLAN AND IDAHO TMDL (TOTAL
MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD) GOALS FOR SEDIMENT AND TEMPERATURE
The proposed salvage harvest and road maintenance, reconstruction, and
construction design criteria and best management practices need to be designed
and implemented to significantly improve existing aquatic conditions. Existing
aquatic conditions are in violation of Forest Plan standards for sediment and
temperature and must be significantly improved in order to comply with the
Forest Plan and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality TMDLs.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.133.10400.100)
RESPONSE:
The FEIS recognizes the below-objective conditions of these watersheds.
The aquatic trend analysis documented in Appendix E suggests that an
upward trend in aquatic condition is expected to be achieved with this
project.
O5 V3O3
B. The draft sediment TMDL for the South Fork Clearwater River requires a 25%
decrease in sediment, most of which would need to take place in tributaries such
as the Crooked River, American River, and tributaries. The Forest Service
should consider whether the planned harvest and road construction in these
drainages is warranted given the large portion of the South Fork Clearwater
sediment budget these watersheds will occupy. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID-#15.28.10400.137)
Appendix M
Page M-69
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
This project is predicted to result in a net decrease in sediment yield to the
South Fork Clearwater River over time (refer FEIS, Chapter 3). An
implementation plan for the South Fork Clearwater River TMDLs is
scheduled to be completed in 2005. No single project will be expected to
achieve the entire TMDL sediment reduction goal. However, this project
will contribute toward that goal.
C. TO AVOID THE NEED TO EXEMPT PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT FROM FOREST PLAN
STANDARDS
In order for the project to comply with the Forest Plan, amendments would have
to be included to exempt certain portions of the project from Forest Plan
standards. While this is true, we do not advocate for Forest Plan Amendments
which lower the standards for sediment, soils, Equivalent Clearcut Areas, fish
habitat, water quality, stream productivity, or other issues. Instead we urge you
to modify the project in order to comply with the existing Forest Plan.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.50.10400.160)
RESPONSE:
The proposed project is in compliance with the Forest Plan and no amendments
would be required.
OS OS OS
D. TO ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT SCHEDULE IS CONSISTENT WITH IDAHO TMDL
TIMELINES
We encourage the USFS to evaluate whether the proposed timeline will be
consistent with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality's (IDEQ's) draft
Guidance for Forest Practices Discharging Sediment Into 303(d) Listed
Waterbodies. (Federal Agency, Elected Official, Seattle, WA -
#24.17.10400.180)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. We are familiar with the draft guidance and believe
this project is consistent with it.
OS OS OS
E. BY EXAMINING IMPACTS OF ROAD AND LAND USE CHANGES AT SUBWATERSHED
LEVEL
The analysis must examine changes in subwatershed and riparian road
densities, road/stream crossings, ECAs, and sediment yields above baseline.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.133.10400.100).
RESPONSE:
Subwatershed road densities and sediment yields above baseline are
disclosed by alternative in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Tables 3.7, 3.10, 3.14, and
Appendix M
Page M-70
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.17. Additionally, existing riparian road densities are shown in Tables 3.6
and 3.13. These figures are not expected to change much by alternative
since all temporary roads are being decommissioned and few of the
existing roads planned for decommissioning are located in riparian areas.
Existing stream crossings are shown in Tables 3.21 and 3.22. Although
road/stream crossings are not enumerated by alternative, miles of stream
with improved access are shown in Tables 3.32 and 3.36.
(ss cs as
F. BY ANALYZING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITHIN BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS AND
EVALUATIONS
It has been well-established that site- specific Biological Evaluations (BEs) or
Biological Assessments (BAs) must be prepared for all actions such as this.
Further, the Forest Service Manual requires that BEs/BAs consider cumulative
effects. The Forest Service Manual states that project BEs/BAs must contain "a
discussion of cumulative effects resulting from the planned project in relationship
to existing conditions and other related projects" [FSM 2672.42(4)]. "Existing
conditions" obviously are the current conditions of the resources as a result of
past actions. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.66.10400.130)
RESPONSE:
A site-specific BE has been prepared for this project and is included with
the FEIS and ROD. Non-federal activities are included in the cumulative
effects section to the BE.
C« OS OS O8 OS V3
67. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE ASSUMPTIONS
AND PARAMETERS USED TO PREDICT SEDIMENT YIELD AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON
WATER QUALITY.
A. The riparian buffers and watershed restoration activities will have a beneficial
effect on reducing sediment loads to the streams; however, there is a need for
the EIS to contain additional information on the assumptions and parameters
used to predict the sediment yield to streams from the project. (Federal Agency,
Elected Official, Seattle, WA-#24.2.21100.234)
RESPONSE:
The section on model assumptions, limitations and tests, found in Chapter
3 of the DEIS, has been expanded in Appendix E of the FEIS.
(S3 OS OS OS (S3 (X
B. We recommend that the document list any land management activities by private
land owners in the South Fork of the Clearwater River basin that may be
adversely contributing to sediment and shade targets and therefore having
cumulative effects on water quality. (Federal Agency, Elected Official, Seattle,
WA-#24.7.21100.234)
Appendix M
Page M-71
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
The cumulative effects of activities occurring on private lands are
accounted for in the FEIS, to the extent that information has been obtained
from 2002 aerial photographs and through field knowledge of the area.
e# us us e# as as
68. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF THE CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE DEGRADED CONDITIONS IN THE AFFECTED
WATERSHEDS
The FE/S must provide adequate analysis of the cumulative impacts of the project on
the degraded conditions in the affected watersheds. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15.35.30310.247)
RESPONSE:
The discussion of cumulative effects on watershed conditions are described in
Chapter 3 and Appendix E and has been expanded in the FEIS.
The sediment yield analysis in Chapter 3 of the FEIS encompasses the entire
watersheds of both American and Crooked Rivers. The tributaries that are
shown in Tables 3.35, 3.36, 3.43, and 3.44 are those that contain activities
associated with the American and Crooked River Project. The last row in each
of those tables (labeled Lower American River and Lower Crooked River)
includes the sediment yield from all of the subwatersheds contributing to the
mouths of the two rivers. This is further explained in Appendix E, specifically
Figures E.1 and E.2, along with the accompanying narrative. The cumulative
effects sediment yield analysis for the South Fork Clearwater River covers all
known activities that could be modeled upstream of the Nez Perce National
Forest boundary.
C* 03 OS 03 (S3 d3
69. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD INCLUDE A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE
ASSUMPTIONS AND ANALYSES THAT WERE USED TO DERIVE FIGURES IN TABLES
3.10 AND 3.17 AND FIGURES 3.1 AND 3.2.
We agree that the watershed restoration activities such as culvert replacements and
road regrading and decommissioning would result in an overall long term benefits to
stream morphology and water quality. EPA suggests that the final EIS contain a
more detailed explanation of the assumptions and analysis that were used to derive
figures in Tables 3.10 and 3.17 and Figures 3.1 and 3.2. Also, it is difficult to
distinguish the difference among alternatives in these figures. (Federal Agency,
Elected Official, Seattle, WA-#24.13.21100.240)
RESPONSE:
The section on model limitations and tests, found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS, has
been expanded in Appendix E of the FEIS. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show little
difference among alternatives since they display the results for the entire
Appendix M
Page M-72
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
American and Crooked River watersheds. Figures E.4 and E.5 graphically
show the results for each subwatershed and the differences between
alternatives are more apparent.
OS OS 03 C3 V3 OS
70. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD INCORPORATE THE DESCRIPTION OF
THE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ON PAGES D-2 THROUGH D-3 INTO THE
BODYOFTHEFEIS.
We recommend that the description of the watershed improvement projects on
pages D-2 through D-3 be incorporated into the body of the final EIS. It is important
that readers understand the scope of the measures and process the USFS will use
to select treatments that would be implemented on a site specific basis. (Federal
• Agency, Elected Official, Seattle, WA - #24.5.21100.24 7)
RESPONSE:
It was the editor's feeling that this table was too extensive to incorporate into
the main text of the FEIS. However, these tables are referenced in the text.
OS OS OS OS V3 CZ
71. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD CONSULT THE IDAHO WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS.
TO DETERMINE IF THIS PROJECT MEETS THOSE STANDARDS
Temperature has been identified as exceeding Idaho Water Quality Standards at
certain times of the year. Increased sedimentation could alter the channel
morphology, further increasing water temperatures in the streams. This problem is
further highlighted on page 14 of the DEIS, "Short-term increases in sediment yield
from proposed activities might contribute to degraded substrate conditions and
further reduce carrying capacity and quality of spawning habitat." This indicates that
existing "poor" conditions are likely to deteriorate and with the implementation of this
project will lower even further. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.26.34000.246)
RESPONSE:
Water temperature increases are not predicted to occur as a result of this
project. Increases in sediment yield are not estimated to be of a magnitude
that would result in changes in channel morphology. Draft guidance posted on
the IDEQ website on April 8, 2004, indicates that short-term increases in
sediment yield may be allowable as long as beneficial uses are not impaired. It
will be up to IDEQ to determine if the impacts predicted to occur with this
project are of a magnitude that would impair beneficial uses.
OS (S3 C8
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
72. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD WORK WITH THE BLM AND THE NEZ
PERCE TRIBE TO DESIGN A CUMULATIVE WATER QUALITY IMPACT MONITORING PLAN
FOR THE SOUTH FORK CLEARWATER RIVER.
We highly recommend the Forest Service and BLM work with the Nez Perce Tribe to
design a cumulative water quality impact-monitoring plan for the South Fork
Clearwater River. With so much activity planned over a relatively short time period in
drainages tributary to the South Fork, a credible monitoring plan that can satisfy
public concerns is necessary. (Timber/Wood Products Industry, Kamiah, ID -
#5.15.30100.240)
Also, because of the variety of fuel reduction projects that are approved or being
planned in the Elk City area, we suggest that your Forest work cooperatively with the
BLM in developing an integrated monitoring plan for the affected streams in the
upper South Fork Clearwater River to assure that water quality objectives are being
met. (Place Based Group, Lewiston, ID - #3.7.30100.246)
RESPONSE:
Response to both comments: The Nez Perce National Forest is committed to
working with the Nez Perce Tribe, state and federal agencies and the South
Fork Clearwater Watershed Advisory Group to develop a monitoring plan for
the South Fork Clearwater River.
es e« c# 03 eg <&
73. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD COMPLETE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS THAT ARE EFFECTIVE.
While the scoping notice states that watershed improvement projects are an integral
part of all alternatives, we are concerned that these improvement projects are merely
attempts to mitigate for increased logging and are ineffective in actually improving
conditions over current conditions. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise,
ID-#15.132.31100.720)
RESPONSE:
A subset of the aquatic improvement projects are required in order to meet the
upward trend requirements in Appendix A of the Forest Plan, TMDL goals and
Endangered Species Act requirements. Additional projects are considered
discretionary in the Record of Decision and will be implemented as staff and
funding allow. We believe that these projects have a high probability of being
successful at promoting an upward trend in aquatic conditions. The
documentation for this conclusion is found in the aquatic trend analysis in
Appendix E.
OS 08 OS OS OS OS
Appendix M
Page M-74
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
74. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD DETAIL REASONS FOR THE SEVEN YEAR LAG BETWEEN
COMPLETION OF WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTIVITIES AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION
BENEFITS.
Although we realize that watershed restoration activities cannot be completed at the
same time as timber harvest, EPA suggests that the final EIS describe in more detail
the reasons for the seven year period from the time of project completion to achieve
sediment reduction benefits. (Federal Agency, Elected Official, Seattle, WA -
#24.16.12300.234)
RESPONSE:
The "seven-year lag" presumably refers to the years 2005 and 2012 shown in
Tables 3.35, 3.36, 3.43, and 3.44. These are key points in the sediment yield
modeling process only. They are not meant to imply when improvement-
projects might be implemented or effective. The year 2005 is the assumed
peak year of sediment yield and 2012 is as far as the modeling was carried into
the future. The graphs in Figures E.4 and E.5 display the model results of each
year, individually. Some improvement projects are immediately effective upon
implementation, while the benefits of others accrue over time.
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
A site-specific BE has been prepared for this project and is included with the
FEIS and ROD. Non-federal activities are included in the cumulative effects
section to the BE.
The cumulative effects of activities occurring on private lands are accounted for in
the FEIS, to the extent that information has been obtained from 2002 aerial
photographs and through field knowledge, of the area.
03 C3 05 OS (33 V3
SECTION 4 - FISHERIES
77. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE ALL
RESOURCE ATTRIBUTES, INCLUDING WATER QUALITY AND FISH HABITAT.
BECAUSE THE FOREST HAS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO TRIBAL TREATIES AND THE
PUBLIC:
The Forest Service, as a publicly supported entity has legal commitments to the Nez
Perce Tribal treaty rights and to the public to maintain and improve water quality, fish
habitat, and an intact forest for all to enjoy. (Individual, Coeur D Alene ID -
#11.5.10000.002)
RESPONSE:
The Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA
FS, 1987a) recognizes this commitment to the Nez Perce Tribe in Forestwide
Management Direction (page 11-18). Furthermore, the Nez Perce NF has
pursued an active and ongoing dialogue with the Nez Perce Tribe at key points
during the development of this proposed project. The Tribe's advice and input
have been sought at all phases and are continually being incorporated into this
document. Also, refer to the individual responses to the Nez Perce Tribe's
comments section in this document.
The commitment to the public to maintain and improve water quality and fish
habitat is detailed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.
O3 C!# C8 05 O8C8
78. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD ADDRESS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WATER QUALITY
AND FISH HABITAT.
The DEIS fails to draw adequate attention to the obvious relationship between water
quality and fish habitat. The linkages between these issues need to be fully explored
in the FEIS. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.34.21100.381)
RESPONSE:
The FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.3 Analysis Methods, clearly shows and
recognizes the important linkage between fish and water quality. Both
resource areas (Fisheries and Watershed) document existing conditions and
Appendix M
Page M-76
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
changes resulting from this planned action using common indicators of
condition like sediment, water temperature, and water yield.
O# CS Ui O8 03 U3
79. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD ENSURE THAT ALL RIPARIAN AREA
ACTIVITIES CONFORM TO PACFISH (PACIFIC ANADROMOUS FlSH STRATEGY) AND
INFISH (INLAND NATIVE FISH STRATEGY) STANDARDS
All activities within riparian areas should conform to PACFISH and INFISH
standards. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID
#15.123.10400.170)
RESPONSE:
Forest Plan Amendment #20 incorporates all of the standards and guidelines of
PACFISH. As a result, this project is in conformance with PACFISH. INFISH
does not apply to the Nez Perce NF, as it relates to areas supporting bull trout
without anadromous fish. The FEIS Appendix E highlights and recognizes that
activities will be managed to conform to PACFISH.
(S3 OS (S3 C8 (S3 <1S
80. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD INCLUDE THE PACFISH PRESCRIBED BUFFER WIDTHS.
PACFISH buffers are referenced many places in the DEIS without explanation of the
buffer widths associated with them. We recommend that one section of the final EIS
contain the PACFISH prescribed buffer widths. (Federal Agency Official, Seattle,
WA-#24.9.21100.380)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. The FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.3, details the
PACFISH RHCA widths.
OS OS O« OS O# O8
81. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD CONSIDER THE LOCATIONS OF
LOGGING AND ROAD BUILDING.
BECAUSE OF PACFISH BUFFERS
The DEIS assumes that PACFISH buffers will work and are intact. However, road
locations in the Crooked and American Rivers and past logging have compromised
many buffers. They are not fully functioning. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.25.22500.240)
RESPONSE:
The FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.2 recognizes that the existing conditions of
stream corridors have been affected by past activities. Watershed Condition
shows existing road density and timber harvest in RHCAs. This action
recognizes the importance of RHCAs and activities will be designed to protect
these areas. Where activities do occur in RHCAs, they will be designed to
Appendix M
Page M-77
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
meet the Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) as defined in the Forest
Plan and PACFISH.
US OS C8 US C8 &3
82. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD ADDRESS OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE RISK OF
ADVERSE EFFECTS TO BULL TROUT.
The Department recommends that the Forest seek opportunities in the FEIS to
further reduce the risk of adverse effects to bull trout by either decreasing the
amount of road construction and harvest acres in the most critical areas, or by
expanding the watershed improvements closer to what is shown in Alternative E, or a
combination of both. We believe that taking proactive steps to improve conditions in
affected watersheds will reduce the risks to bull trout conservation and recovery
associated with multiple concurrent fuels treatment projects within the same sub-
basin. (Federal Agency Official, Portland, OR - #35.4.23400.380)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. The selected alternative (Alternative D, modified)
reflects an increased emphasis on watershed restoration.
OS (S3
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
05
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
US US US OS OS
85. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD CONSIDER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, LOGGING, AND FIRE SUPPRESSION IN THE AREA.
Questions need to be asked about the effects of climate change, logging, and fire
suppression in this area. It is possible that all have irrevocably altered site potential.
For example, Tiedemann et. al. (2000) challenge the use of "historic range of
conditions" and call into question the whole notion that we can, or even should, try to
replicate such conditions by stating:
"Nearly 100 years of fire exclusion, possible climate changes, and past management
practices may have caused these communities to cross thresholds and to reside now
in different steady states. "
It may be impossible to differentiate between the roles played by climate change and
fire suppression. Some research suggests that the effects of both may be similar.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.37.30300.330)
RESPONSE:
This discussion draws upon Mote et al., 2003.
The cumulative effects of climate change, fire suppression, and short-term
climatic variability can interact to result in altered fire regimes, over which
management may have little control, and our ability to predict such changes at a
local scale must be considered tentative. Historically, sever fire years tended to
occur synchronously over large areas, coinciding with regional drought periods
(Barrett et al., 1997). Drought effects were strongly influenced by more variable
factors including large dry-lightning storms that produced mass ignitions, and
occurrence of strong winds during fire events.
If we experience a trend toward warmer, wetter conditions, as several climate
models suggest, but with the increased precipitation occurring in primarily in the
winter, there would be more severe summer moisture deficits. These may
control species distribution, productivity, and fire regimes. If prolonged seasons
of moisture deficits occur over a wider area, larger areas could be prone to lethal
fire, at least until species and stand structure equilibrate to more frequent fire,
assuming both frequency and intensity of drought increase. Changes in wind,
insects, and disease are also likely, probably in the direction of increased drought
stress and more susceptibility to pathogens.
This project considers the direction of those changes in deciding species of trees
to favor in management, and stand structures that would be resistant to
increased likelihood of seasonal moisture deficits. The emphasis on
maintenance of Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, and western larch and more open
stand structures is in accord with such a strategy.
Helping forests to adapt to climate variation and climate change means we must
keep connectivity of species and gene pools across wide areas, so there are not
barriers to migration. This means maintaining species distribution and
abundance across landscapes, and providing for both incremental and reset
Appendix M
Page M-80
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
events that support gradual shifts in species dominance or migration to newly
suitable habitats. Use of fire and judicious harvest may help in this regard.
CX exexex ex ex
86. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD DESIGN A LONG-TERM VISION FOR THE
FUEL REDUCTION PROJECT AREA.
The DEIS also discussed Fuel Reduction Effectiveness and states as one of its
purposes to " Reduce the risk of large-scale crown fire by creating vegetative
patterns through harvest." Much of the project area has already been
fragmented through past logging, road construction, thinning, natural and
human burns, dredging and other disturbances. What is the long-term vision for
the project area? According to the aerial photo provided for the August 8, 2003
field trip to the project area, much of the project area has already been
subjected to "active management." We are curious what the end result would
look like, and whether or not the Forest Service foresees additional projects in
the near future to continue to "break up fuel continuity."
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.21.33400.279)
RESPONSE:
The long-term vision for the project area is being addressed in multiple planning
efforts. All will require integration of complex terrestrial, aquatic, and social
concerns, and integration with BLM activities. In American and Crooked River,
concerns include high aquatic potential, past management impacts, mixed and stand
replacing fire regimes, intermingled homes and communities, and nearness to
wilderness and roadless areas.
At the state and national scales, the Idaho Cohesive Strategy
(http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/id fire assessment/descriptions.htmH and LANDFIRE
(http://www.landfire.aov/) are projects designed to develop consistent and accurate
data of vegetation conditions, fire fuels, risks, and ecosystem status at the national,
regional, and local scales for implementation of the National Fire Plan. These
projects could be used to prioritize areas for fuel treatments, which might target
areas within these watersheds. However, neither project provides guidance on
landscape design or how to reconcile conflicting terrestrial, aquatic, and social
values.
In the short term, and at the forest scale, a vegetation management strategy is being
developed that considers, by subwatershed, issues of aquatic values and sensitivity,
and vegetation and fire risk in comparison to natural disturbance dynamics. The
social context and the suite of appropriate management tools are also considered.
This is in progress.
In the longer term, forest plan revision may provide additional guidance that helps
establish objectives for watershed condition and landscapes considering terrestrial,
aquatic, and social factors.
CX ex CX ex eXCX
Appendix M
Page M-81
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
87. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD SECURE FUNDING FOR MAINTENANCE
OF FUEL TREATMENT AREAS.
It would be useful for the final EIS to describe the funding source for long term
maintenance of these areas. Existing information strongly suggests that fuels
treatment areas that are not properly maintained over the long-term can increase the
risk of fire as slopes are opened up to sunlight and undergrowth is stimulated.
(Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA-#24.25.14120.273)
RESPONSE:
The Nez Perce National Forest will continue to seek funding for the maintenance of
fuel treatment areas. Current sources include appropriated funds, trust funds, monies
from the North Central RAC (Resource Advisory Committee) and The Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation. All of these funds fluctuate from year to year and must be
competed for with other Forests and Regions.
O8 O8 OS 08 O8 O8
88. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD REDUCE THE RISK OF WILDFIRES.
A. TO PROTECT FOREST HEALTH. WATER QUALITY. HUMAN LIFE. AND PRIVATE
PROPERTY
By reducing the risk of wildfire, you are protecting forest health and water
quality as well as human life and private property. (Individual, Lewiston ID -
#7.3.33000.002)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
080808
B. WITH THE CONNECTION OF CLEARCUTS
In terms of hazardous fuels reduction and structural protection, this project,
as designed, is both inefficient and ineffective. Much of the surrounding
area has been heavily logged and, in the interest of community protection,
"connecting the clear cuts" could be more effective than laying out units on
the basis of pine beetle mortality, and/or economic factors.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.106.33000.279)
RESPONSE:
The project would create breaks in the continuity of fuel arrangement within the
project area. These breaks would help to achieve two purposes; the first would
be to modify the fire behavior to produce a less intense fire. Also by lowering the
fire intensity these breaks will slow and modify the fire spread (Finney 2001) and
give suppression resources a safe area to initiate suppression responses. The
proposed treatment units would tie in with the past harvesting within the area to
create the spatial patterns referred to by Finney for landscape treatment to
modify the fire behavior.oa 08 o«
Appendix M
Page M-82
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
C. To PROTECT WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE AREAS
1. Creation and maintenance of an extensive fuels treatment network has
the potential to adversely affect water quality and wildlife habitat. We
agree with the USFS goal of concentrating fuels treatment areas near
urban interface areas. We also recommend attempting to locate them in
areas where impacts to water quality and sensitive habitats will be
minimized and where the vegetation is adapted to frequent fire return
intervals. (Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA - #24.24.33400.240)
RESPONSE:
Fuels treatments can affect wildlife species and their habitats (See FEIS,
Chapter 3, Section 3.11). Forest Plan standards as well as the mitigation
and design factors applied to this project help reduce or eliminate most
risks (Refer to Chapter 2). Some of these include protection of old growth
and replacement stands, protection of buffers around goshawk nests,
incorporation of road decommissioning, reporting newly discovered dens
and nests of federally listed species and rare species, and protecting key
habitat components all help eliminate adverse impacts. (See FEIS,
Chapter 2, Table 2.3)
08CSO*
2. While clear [purpose and objectives], you may have expanded on the
need to protect the Elk City community. This project is but a part of the
master plan to treat rapidly deteriorating forests that provide a major
threat to the Elk City community by decreasing dangerous, unnatural
fuel levels. (Timber/Wood Products Industry, Kamiah, ID -
#5.1.33000.271)
The project will also help fireproof Elk City and provide some much-
needed forest product resources to the local economy.
(Recreation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #1.2.33470.810)
If there is to be any type of project, it needs to be located within the
wildland urban interface in order to provide protection from wildfires.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -#15.8.23000.271)
RESPONSE:
While conducting fuels treatments only near the wildland-urban interface
areas would help to protect these areas, it would not reduce fuel loadings
in the outlying areas away from the WUI. By not treating those outlying
areas, the treatments would not fully meet the purpose of the project
(FEIS, Chapter 1).
08 05 08 08 US US
Appendix M
Page M-83
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
89. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD RELY ON BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE TO
REDUCE RISK, INTENSITY, AND SEVERITY OF FIRES.
A. BY CONSIDERING THE WlLDLAND FlRE USE PROGRAM PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING
FUELS REDUCTION OUTSIDE Will AREAS
Once the WUI areas on the Nez Perce National Forest have been treated, it may
be appropriate to consider fuels reduction efforts extending into the forest in
order to restore certain and selected fire-adapted ecosystems. However, such
future projects must be based on the "best available science" that relates to
reducing the intensity and severity of wildland fire. Further, the Wildland Fire Use
program may be a cost-efficient and effective method to reduce fuel loads,
restore fire-adapted ecosystems and to create heterogeneous landscapes that
would be less prone to large-scale fire events. We are aware that WFU is
outside the scope of this project, but feel that it is pertinent to consider the
potential for WFU in certain areas, in lieu of currently proposed logging.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.92.13000.330)
RESPONSE:
While a Wildland Fire Use (WFU) program may be a cost-effective method to
reduce fuel loads and restore fire adapted ecosystems, the Forest Plan and
Fire Management Plan currently do not allow for WFU within any portion of
the project area. Without the authority for WFU all fire ignitions within the
project area require a suppression response.
The analyses conducted as part of the FEIS are based on thorough
application of the best scientific information currently available to the project
Interdisciplinary Team. The information considered consists of scientific
literature, research findings, models and other information that apply to local
conditions within the project area or similar conditions in other nearby areas
that are relevant and can be extrapolated to the area affected by the project.
Use of the best science in the evaluation of this project includes consideration
of opposing viewpoints and disclosure of model and data limitations. Further,
the Forest's consideration and use of science has been coordinated with and
reviewed by other technical experts. Any comments received by those
experts have been considered and, as appropriate, included in the FEIS.
OS
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
No new, permanent road construction will occur with this project, and all
temporary roads constructed to facilitate treatment activities will be
decommissioned within a three-year period following their construction. Refer
to FEIS, Chapter 2, Tables 2.1 and 2.2. In addition, a minimum of 19.7 miles
of existing road will be decommissioned with this project (refer to Appendix D
in the FEIS). Additional miles of existing road may be decommissioned at the
discretion of the deciding official as stated in the ROD.
03030%
C. BY CONSIDERING HOME IGNITABILITY AND EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT FUEL
REDUCTIONS NEED ONLY OCCUR WITHIN TENS OF METERS FROM STRUCTURES
The FS (Cohen, 1999) reviewed current scientific evidence and policy directives
on the issue of fire in the wildland/urban interface and recommended an
alternative focus on home ignitability rather than extensive wildland fuel
management:
The congruence of research findings from different analytical methods suggests
that home ignitability is the principal cause of home losses during wildland fires.
Home ignitability also dictates that effective mitigating actions focus on the home
and its immediate surroundings rather than on extensive wildland fuel
management.
[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. This research indicates that home losses can be
effectively reduced by focusing mitigation efforts on the structure and its
immediate surroundings. Those characteristics of a structure's materials and
design and the surrounding flammables that determine the potential for a home
to ignite during wildland fires (or any fires outside the home) will, hereafter, be
referred to as home ignitability.
The evidence suggests that wildland fuel reduction for reducing home losses
may be inefficient and ineffective. Inefficient because wildland fuel reduction for
several hundred meters or more around homes is greater than necessary for
reducing ignitions from flames Ineffective because it does not sufficiently reduce
firebrand ignitions (Cohen, 1999)
That research also recognizes "the imperative to separate the problem of the
Midland fire threat to homes from the problem of ecosystem sustainability due to
changes in wildland fuels" (Id). (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Moscow, ID - #22.3.13100.270)
RESPONSE:
While it is acknowledged that an efficient and effective method to protect
structures is by conducting work within the home ignitability zone, structure
protection is not the primary purpose and objective of this project (refer to
FEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.3). Additionally, the Crooked River Defensible
Space project, which was scoped September 13, 2004, proposes to complete
Appendix M
Page M-85
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
vegetative management within 200 feet of private structures adjacent to lands
managed by the Forest Service.
US OS US
BY APPLYING RESEARCH BY JACK COHEN REGARDING RISK OF STRUCTURAL FIRE
If you are trying to protect human structures and improvement, why is the DEIS
silent about the recent research finding by Forest Service fire physicist Jack
Cohen? Applying the Cohen finding to human structures, so when a fire does
get started, the risk of the structure burning is greatly reduced. (Individual,
Grangeville, ID - #30. 5.13110.400)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledge. Refer to response to comment 89(C), above.
BY EVALUATING THE UTILITY OF FIRE SCARS TO ESTABLISH FIRE REGIMES IN A
VARIETY OF FOREST TYPES
Baker and Ehle paper calls into question the use of fire scars in establishing
mean fire intervals and suggests that previous reports based upon lire scars may
be biased. Most research, including that in the supporting documents for the
South Fork Clearwater, is based upon fire scars.
Regardless of whether Baker and Ehle are right, those using fire scars to
establish fire regimes are right, none are right, or all have validity, the fact
remains these scientists appear to have somewhat different view of ponderosa
pine systems, or at least what we think we know about them. The same
questions about fire scars need to be asked about other forest types as well.
This should have been fully recognized and evaluated in the DEIS.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.49.13110.277)
RESPONSE:
The focus of the paper by Baker and Ehle was on nearly pure ponderosa
forest, which make up a small portion of the project area. Ponderosa pine
systems are of very limited extent in the project area. The fire regimes
shown in Maps 9a and 9b of the FEIS are derived using the potential
vegetation data derived from the Idaho Cohesive Strategy
(http://www.fs.fed. us/r4/id_fire_assessment/id_haz_risk_review.html). They show areas of
frequent non-lethal fire limited to small warm steep slopes, mostly in
Crooked River.
Fire scar studies must be combined with landscape scale age-class
studies to understand fire regimes and fire patterns in areas of mixed and
lethal fire such as the project area. This has been done in the course of
preparation of the South Fork, Selway, and Slate Creek assessments
(USDA FS, 1997a, 1998, 2001), in which thousands of timber stand exam
plots were analyzed for evidence of non-lethal, mixed severity, or lethal
fire. We summarized these data by Vegetation Response Unit and the
inferred fire regimes are presented in those assessments by VRU. Fire
Appendix M
Page M-86
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
ecology compilations such as Kapler-Smith and Fischer (1997) were also
used to validate these interpretations, and traditional fire scar studies
were used in areas of frequent low severity fire.
Baker and Ehle state in their paper that mean fire intervals based on fire
scar data may have uncertainties and biases and actually lead to longer
fire intervals than previously thought. They also state that fires are also
unrecorded upon trees (i.e., no fire scar), "Trees are often charred by a
surface fire, but fires do not always leave scars in particular areas or even
a whole stand, so fires may be unrecorded in fire scars", "It is uncertain
for example, whether a tree without a scar did or did not burn in a fire that
scarred nearby trees", and "The abundance of unrecorded fires is largely
unknown." This lack of an evident fire scar may actually lead
investigators to infer longer fire intervals than actually occurred.
Additionally, while Baker and Ehle suggest that there may be
uncertainties in the use of fire scars to determine fire intervals, they do
not offer any suggestions to reduce or mitigate these biases other than
bracketing fire intervals, which is what we have done in using fire regimes
and an associated range of fire intervals (e.g.,. 75 to150 years for
infrequent fire regimes) for this project.
030308
F. BY CONSIDERING EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT STAND-REPLACEMENT FIRE IS
NORMAL
Baker and Ehle paper calls into question the use of fire scars in establishing
mean fire intervals and suggests that previous reports based upon lire scars may
be biased. Most research, including that in the supporting documents for the
South Fork Clearwater, is based upon fire scars.
Regardless of whether Baker and Ehle are right, those using fire scars to
establish fire regimes are right, none are right, or all have validity, the fact
remains these scientists appear to have somewhat different view of ponderosa
pine systems, or at least what we think we know about them. The same
questions about fire scars need to be asked about other forest types as well.
This should have been fully recognized and evaluated in the DEIS.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.49.13110.277)
The DEIS indicates that large stand-replacing fires are not desired. Yet, they
were in the range of variability.
The attempts at breaking up the landscape to prevent or reduce large, stand-
replacing fires may be useless. If not, there is no real need to create anymore
breaks in the landscape as any aerial photograph or satellite imagery will attest
much has already occurred in those two drainages (see also DEIS maps 14 a
and b).
One of the major assumptions in the DES is that the no action alternative will
increase the probability of stand-replacing fires. Yet, that assumption is not
quantified. What will it do, increase it by 1%, 50% or 90%? Without some
quantification, so-called stand-replacing fife prevention under the various action
Appendix M
Page M-87
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
alternatives is meaningless. (Preservation/Conservation Organization Moscow
ID-#22.52.13110.277)
RESPONSE:
Stand replacing fire, and the pulse watershed responses that ensue, are
intrinsic to historic and projected fire activity in the American and Crooked
River watersheds. The FEIS Chapter 1 - Conditions Contributing to the
Purpose and Need for Action, describes vegetation changes associated
with past fire suppression, succession, and mountain pine beetle activity.
These are believed to contribute to an enhanced potential for transition
from a ground fire to a crown fire, which could contribute to increased fire
size or severity under moderate burning conditions, and increased
difficulty of suppression. Current developing fuel conditions may have
occurred historically in these fire regimes, but the with the proximity to Elk '
City and other residences and developments, large fires may not be
socially acceptable due to possible loss of life, property and/or resources.
Additionally, with no Wildland Fire Use plan for the project area, the
Forest Plan requires that suppression actions take place to control all new
fire starts within the project area. This sets a management context
under which some harvest and fuel reduction could be designed to
increase fire suppression effectiveness under moderate burning
conditions (Finney, 2001). A robust program of watershed improvements
(see Appendix D) should help improve resiliency to fire when one does
occur.
Quantifying the probability of a stand replacing fire occurrence is
impossible without specifying climate, ignition, burning weather and time
frame. Without those parameters, it can be assumed that the probability
of a stand replacing fire occurring under normal conditions would be
100%. The estimate that the no-action alternative would increase the
probability of stand-replacing fire is based on the premise that strategic
placement of fuel reduction areas in relation to existing areas of low
potential for fire spread or low resistance to control can help fire
suppression be more effective, which could prevent a small fire from
becoming large, if burning conditions are not severe (Finney, 2001). This
is described in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.
US US O3
G. BY APPLYING LANDSCAPE-SCALE FIRE MODELING TO DETERMINE LOCATIONS OF
TIMBER HARVEST PRESCRIPTIONS
In order to be more efficient and effective, the NPNF should apply landscape
scale fire modeling, i.e. using FARSITE, to determine what the effects of the
proposed treatments would be. Such an analysis could also help to determine
more effective location of logging and silvicultural prescriptions in the interest of
reducing rates of fire spread, intensity and severity. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15.107.13000.270)
Appendix M
Page M-88
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
The Nez Perce NF does not currently have good enough data for this
type of modeling to be effective over the whole forest.
V3U3V3
H. BY CONSIDERING EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT FIRE SUPPRESSION AND FUEL LOADS
ARE NOT WELL CORRELATED WITH SEVERE FIRES
Lodgepole pine (in fire groups three and four, see Smith and Fischer 1997) are in
stand-replacing fire regimes (Cooper et at. 1991, Barrett 1982 and Green 1994 in
Smith and Fischer 1997). Research from lodgepole pine in Yellowstone found
stand-replacing or severe fires are a function of weather, not fuel load (Turner et
al. 1994). This contradicts an important assumption in the DEIS.
The DEIS presents a version of history that is speculative, at best, given the
information--the science is not definitive on historical conditions, though the DES
pretends it is in certain instances. The belief that small, cool fires shaped the
landscape of the South Fork is not consistent with the data, especially the events
on the early 1900s. The belief that fire suppression everywhere had led to hotter
fires currently is not consistent with the burn intensity and severity of recent fires
(see for example, the Poet and Slims fire BAER report). Even if it were true fires
are burning hotter now, there is considerable evidence it is because of climate
. change, not fuel amounts. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID
-#22.55.13110.277)
RESPONSE:
Climate and fuels are closely related when discussing them in the context of fire
behavior. Climate can drive the fuels in availability for combustion, resulting
flame length and heat output, and future fuel loadings.
The cumulative effects of climate change, fire suppression, and short-term
climatic variability can interact to result in altered fire regimes, over which
management may have little control. Variations in climate are strongly correlated
over a wide region, so that historically severe fire years tended to occur
synchronously over large areas, coinciding with regional drought periods (Barrett
et al., 1997). Drought effects were strongly influenced by more variable factors
including large dry-lightning storms that produced mass ignitions and occurrence
of strong winds during fire events. If we experience a trend toward warmer,
wetter conditions, as several climate models suggest, but with the increased
precipitation occurring in primarily in the winter, there would be more severe
summer moisture deficits. If prolonged seasons of moisture deficits occur over a
wider area, larger areas could be prone to lethal fire, at least until species and
stand structure equilibrate to more frequent fire, assuming both frequency and
intensity of drought increase. Changes in wind, insects, and disease are also
likely, probably in the direction of increased drought stress and more
susceptibility to pathogens, which result in increased fuel loadings.
Healthy, vigorous stands of lodgepole pine generally have a high crown height
with little surface fuels and are typically classified as a fuel model 8. These
stands do require extreme weather conditions to create fire intensities hot
Appendix M
Page M-89
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
enough to transition from a surface fire to a crown fire. Historically, these stands
would have had fires occurring during both extreme and normal weather
conditions. During the normal weather conditions fires would have burned with
low enough intensity to prevent transition from surface to crown fire, these low
intensity fires would have reduced the surface fuel loading within the stands.
During the extreme weather conditions those surface fires would have enough
intensity to transition to crown fires even with low fuel loadings due to the fact
that fuels were dryer and produced more energy during combustion.
With the mountain pine beetle epidemic occurring in the project area, and no
natural mechanism for removal of fuel accumulations due to fire suppression
requirements in the project area, these are no longer healthy stands with little
surface fuels, but rather are stands that already have high fuel loadings or will
have high fuel loadings as dead trees start to fall over, and are or soon will
become classified as being fuel model 10 or 13. Because of these higher fuel
loadings, a fire burning in these stands will burn with a greater intensity under
less than extreme weather conditions due to the amount of energy created when
more fuel is consumed during combustion. These higher intensities result in
higher flame lengths and heat produced which will allow for a surface fire to more
easily transition to a crown fire under more normal weather conditions. Please
refer to the fuel model discussion in the Chapter 3, Section 3.4 of the FEIS for
further discussion of the fuel models within the project area.
O8 (33 08
BY CONSIDERING EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT FIRE SUPPRESSION IS NOT
CORRELATED WITH SEVERE FIRES IN OLD GROWTH AREAS
The DEIS is based on the premise that fire threatens old growth because of fire
suppression. However, most of the project area's old growth consists of areas
with very long and lethal fire intervals. Furthermore, the 80 year figure for fire
suppression is longer than the fire data indicate. When looking at historical data,
it becomes clear that prior to 1950, fire suppression seems to have been
ineffective when looking at the acres of national forests burned.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.73.13110.365)
RESPONSE:
The old growth analysis has been revised. Please see FEIS Section 3.11.4 Old
Growth Habitat Analysis
The discussion in Chapter 3, Section 3.11 of the FEIS only states that the
current pine beetle infestations within the project area directly threatens
lodgepole pine stands and raises the risk of future fire induced old growth
losses. This is due to patches of old growth becoming more fragmented and
surrounded by large areas of dying lodgepole.
It is generally accepted that fire suppression became effective throughout the
area during the 1930s with the advent of the Civilian Conservation Corp as
large numbers of men went to work in the woods, and the advent of the 10:00
A.M. policy which stipulated control of wildland fires by 10:00 A.M. the following
Appendix M
Page M-90
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
day after a fire was reported. These tools gave fire managers the needed
number of resources to effectively suppression fires.
OS VS C3 OS 03 US
90. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD RETURN FIRE TO THE ECOSYSTEM.
A. TO ALLOW A NATURAL FIRE CYCLE
Clearly, good professional forest management in fire-prone forests would
concentrate on: in the backcountry, let fire play its natural, beneficial role.
(Individual, Grangeville, ID-#30.7.33100.600)
I'll say it again, the real question that needs an answer is why would anyone
want to reduce backcountry fires? How does that logic flow with all the
hoop-la the Forest Service has been giving the importance of returning fire
to the ecosystem? Without providing you a basic course in forest ecology, I
will remind you that the creatures that live in the forest (both flora and fauna)
depend on the benefit from wildfires occurring periodically. You are land
managers with a mission of protecting and conserving the national forests
for 280 million people. How could you even contemplate interrupting this
magnificent natural fire cycle? (Individual, Grangeville, ID -
#30.2.33000.201)
Fire is natural, and can better care for an area than loggers ever could. It
occurs to me this is about lobbying loggers making money, not about what is
best for the forest. (Individual, Coeur D Alene, ID-#11.3.33100.822)
RESPONSE:
The Forest Plan and/or Fire Management Plan currently do not allow for
Wildland Fire Use (WFU) within any portion of the project area. Without the
authority for WFU, all fire ignitions within the project area require a
suppression response.
We acknowledge the integral role of natural fire in terrestrial and aquatic
ecological processes. The combination of past fire suppression, aquatic
habitat degradation, depressed fish populations, and homes and communities
intermingled in the American and Crooked river watersheds create an
environment where we cannot now implement a policy of natural fire use.
The current Forest Plan does not allow wildland fire use within any portion of
the project area. The nearest areas of permitted wildland fire use are the
Gospel Hump Wilderness and the East Meadow Creek roadless area.
Additional roadless areas closer to the project area could be proposed for
wildland fire use planning in the Forest Plan revision process. These include
West Meadow Creek and adjacent unroaded areas within the American River
watershed, and Dixie Summit-Nut Hill and adjacent unroaded areas within
Crooked River watershed.
050303
Appendix M
Page M-91
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
B. TO MAINTAIN WATERSHED INTEGRITY
Research shows the importance of fire in maintaining watersheds. It shows
that logging damages the watersheds while fire is crucial in maintaining
watershed integrity. Logging also dries out the soil, leaves slash on the
ground, and can lead to even hotter fires. Simply put, logging makes
matters far worse. (Individual, Delmar, NY-#28.2.33100.360)
Natural fire in this watershed would actually help maintain the watershed by
controlling bug and ground debris. (Individual, Moscow, ID -
#23.2.33110.002)
RESPONSE:
We acknowledge the integral role of natural fire in terrestrial and aquatic
ecological processes. The combination of past fire suppression, aquatic habitat
degradation, depressed fish populations, and homes and communities
intermingled in the American and Crooked river watersheds create an
environment where we cannot now implement a policy of natural fire use. The
current Forest Plan does not allow wildland fire use within any portion of the
project area. The nearest areas of permitted wildland fire use are the Gospel
Hump Wilderness and the East Meadow Creek roadless area. Additional
roadless areas closer to the project area could be proposed for wildland fire use
. planning in the forest plan revision process. These include West Meadow Creek
and adjacent unroaded areas within the American River watershed, and Dixie
Summit-Nut Hill and adjacent unroaded areas within Crooked River watershed.
os os e#
C. TO INCREASE BIG GAME SUMMER HABITAT FOR ELK
Both timber harvest and controlled bums will significantly increase big game
summer habitat, benefiting the stressed elk population of the Clearwater Basin.
(Timber/Wood Products Industry, Kamiah, ID - #5.3.33400.330)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. Harvest and burning will help to increase nutritious
foraging habitats for big game (See FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.11).
CS OS (33 C8 OS (S3
91. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD USE PRESCRIBED BURNING.
A. WITH THE USE OF PRESCRIBED BURN ONLY PRESCRIPTIONS
We encourage the Forest Service to expand the use of prescribed burn only
prescriptions, in efforts to decrease fuel loads and create a mosaic of varying
age-classes. It appears from Appendix H, where the silvicultural treatments are
described; that the only burning accomplished will be in areas that have been
harvested. In order to meet the purpose and need, burn only treatments are
appropriate and warranted. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.112.33410.273)
Appendix M
Page M-92
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
The use of prescribed burning only will not effectively reduce the fuel loading
within the stands to be treated. If the burning only is done under the existing live
canopy of the stands one of two results will happen; 1) the fuels will be too wet to
remove enough of fuels to be effective (spring/late fall burning), 2) the burning
would occur during conditions (summer/early fall) when control of the fire will be
difficult to control and the risk of adverse results happening are too great (high
probability for fire to become uncontrolled and transition to a wildfire).
By using burning in conjunction with vegetative treatments, we will be better able
to effectively treat the fuels located within the treatment areas to meet the
purpose and need of the project.
es us us
B. LEAVING A RANGE OF DOWNED WOODY MATERIAL ON THE GROUND
When planning to burn unnaturally high fuel loads (i.e. logging slash), it is
important to leave a range of downed woody material on the ground in
appropriate areas in order to preserve insect and wildlife species diversity.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.130.33410.350)
RESPONSE:
Typically during our prescribed burning of logging slash, we use prescription
parameters that will result in down woody material left remaining for nutrients,
shade, habitat, etc. The maintenance of some down woody material is the
norm during prescribed burning and the total removal of all down woody
materials is the exception.
Prescribed burns are developed and implement with specific results in mind. To
meet these results, the prescription parameters are determined for the fuel and
weather, components so that the needed results can be achieved. By having
set parameters, we can determine the resulting fire behavior and fire effects.
When given objectives such as retaining downed woody material for habitat,
and site protection we can determine the prescription parameters need to
successfully accomplish the objectives. To help us determine the parameters
we will use models such as RxWindows, FOFEM (First Order Fire Effects
Model), and Behave.
C. WITH MECHANICAL TREATMENTS
Where uncharacteristic or continuous fuel loads exist, mechanical treatments
may be necessary prior to prescribed burning. These treatments should not
focus on increasing canopy spacing by removing larger trees, but should remove
ladder fuels and brush build ups. Care should be given to areas directly adjacent
to the base of large diameter trees. Debris and fuels should be removed from
these areas to protect tree roots and cambia. The Forest Service needs to
provide details of how and when these adjacent areas are to be treated.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.113.33420.273)
Appendix M
Page M-93
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
Large diameter trees over 21 inches will not be harvested within this project.
Mechanical treatments of uncharacteristic fuel loads will include timber harvest to
remove and capture economic value and fund other treatments. The other
mechanical treatments prescribed for the treated area will vary by stand and
circumstance (slope, fuel load, soils, etc), but may include yarding of
unmerchantable material, machine or hand piling of excessive organic material,
pull-back of fuels from leave trees, jackpot burning of concentrations and piles,
underburning, or broadcast burning. All treatments will have site-specific
silvicultural prescriptions and burn plans will be developed and implemented for
any burning activities.
C8 OS OS C3 C3 OS
92. The Nez Perce National Forest should programmatically assess fire
management policies.
TO ASSURE THAT ECONOMIC INVESTMENTS IN FUEL REDUCTION ARE MOST EFFICIENT
Where pasf fire suppression is often identified as a culprit, it is necessary for the FS
to programmatically assess its fire management policies so that economic
investments in fuel reduction are most efficient. Throwing money at unnecessary
fire suppression activities followed by throwing money at fuel reduction because of
the adverse effects of fire suppression makes no sense ecologically or
economically. Last year's Slims Fire is a case in point where the damage from
fighting fires that should not have been fought was far greater than any damage
from the fire itself. Likewise, spending money on fuel reduction activities so that fire
suppression can allegedly be carried, resulting in the need to do fuel reduction...
seems like a cycle of management that only protects FSjob security and damages
ecosystems. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.4.33000.835)
RESPONSE:
The current Forest Plan does not allow for WFU within the project area, thus, all new
fire starts require a suppression response, and fuels treatments undertaken to lessen
the effects of fires.
OS OS CS OS
93. The Nez Perce National Forest should fully implement the Federal Wildland
Fire policy.
The development of approved fire management plans in compliance with the
Federal Wildland Fire Policy was the number one policy objective intended for
immediate implementation in the Implementation Action Plan Report for the Federal
Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review. In general, the FS lags far
behind other federal land management agencies that have already invested
considerable amounts of time, money, and resources to implement the Fire Policy.
Continued mismanagement of national forest lands and FS refusal to fully
implement the Fire Policy puts wildland firefighters at risk if and when they are
Appendix M
Page M-94
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
dispatched to wildfires. This is a programmatic issue, one that the current Forest
Plan does not adequately consider. Please see Amend (1997) as comments on
this proposal, in terms of fire policy and Forest Planning.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.8.33200.163)
RESPONSE:
The zone Fire Management Program for the Clearwater and Nez Perce National
Forests does have an approved fire management plan in compliance with the
Federal Wildland Fire Policy. The plan is updated annually and was most recently
approved in June 2004, by both Forest Supervisors (Clearwater and Nez Perce).
USUS 03 US US U3
94. The Nez Perce National Forest should consider fire regime condition
classes.
Fire regimes - when proposed treatment areas are overlaid on the map of fire
regime condition classes, the areas of both moderate and significant departure from
historical range, do not match to the extent needed to accomplish project
objectives. This comparison once again focuses attention on factors (standards,
guides, and administrative policy) limiting vegetative management options.
(Timber/Wood Products Industry, Kamiah, ID - #5.12.33000.277)
RESPONSE:
Adherence to the full range of Forest Plan standards limits some vegetative
management options. For example, some of the fire regime condition class
departure areas are located in RHCA and landslide prone areas or would require
road construction through sensitive landscape areas that would necessitate
additional surveys and analysis or Forest Plan amendments in order to implement
some treatments. Additionally economic considerations also came into play in
determining treatment areas.
• US CM US US (S3 US
95. The Nez Perce National Forest should consider fire regime models to
determine fire intervals.
The fact that areas may have missed some fire cycles may not be important at all
for a couple of reasons. First, is the predominance of lethal fire in the area like in
1910 which sets the successional stages at levels far different than those the
agency claims are historic (see OHS maps). This is true for ponderosa pine types
as well in this area which tend to be a bit wetter than the more typical ponderosa
pine types further south (NOTE: The SFLA admits the ponderosa pine type was not
as common in the South Fork and that lodgepole more common than ICBEMP
would lead one to believe). Second, is the fact that these cycles are not hard and
fast. This second question we address briefly below.
Other models of fire regimes need to be considered. Some research suggests,
even in the most studied ponderosa pine fire types that tire return intervals are far
from certain and may be far different (if valid at all) than previously believed. Baker
Appendix M
Page M-95
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
and Ehle (2001) note in the abstract of their recent peer-reviewed paper note:
"Present understanding of fire ecology in forests subject to surface fires is based on
fire-scar evidence. We present theory and empirical results that suggest that fire-
history data have uncertainties and biases when used to estimate the population
mean fire interval (F or other parameters of the tire regime. First, the population
mean Fl is difficult to estimate precisely because of unrecorded fires and can only
be shown to lie in a broad range. Second, the interval between tree origin and first
fire scar estimates a real fire-free interval that warrants inclusion in mean-FI
calculations. Finally, inadequate sampling and targeting of multiple-scarred trees
and high scar densities bias mean Hs toward shorter intervals.
In ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex P. & C. Laws.) forests of the
western United States, these uncertainties and biases suggest that reported mean
FIs of 2-25 years significantly underestimate population mean FIs, which instead
may be between 22 and 308 years. We suggest that uncertainty be explicitly stated
in fire-history results by bracketing the range of possible population mean FIs.
Research and improved methods may narrow the range, but there is no statistical
or other method that can eliminate all uncertainty. Longer mean FIs in ponderosa
pine forests suggest that (i) surface fire is still important, but less so in maintaining
forest structure, and (ii) some dense patches of trees may have occurred in the pre
Euro-American landscape. Creation of low-density forest structure across all parts
of ponderosa pine landscapes, particularly in valuable parks and reserves, is not
supported by these results."
Given this research, the concept of HRV may not be valid. In fact, the agency
needs to take a look at all the assumptions behind the HRV and compare them with
the differences in the scientific literature. (Preservation/Conservation Organization
Moscow, ID - #22.48.33110.277)
RESPONSE:
The focus of the paper by Baker and Ehle was on nearly pure ponderosa forest,
which makes up a small portion of the project area. They state in their paper that
mean fire intervals based on fire scar data may have uncertainties and biases and
actually lead to longer fire intervals than previously thought. They also state that
fires are also unrecorded upon some trees (i.e. no fire scar), "Trees are often charred
by a surface fire, but fires do not always leave scars in particular areas or even a
whole stand, so fires may be unrecorded in fire scars", "It is uncertain for example,
whether a tree without a scar did or did not burn in a fire that scarred nearby trees",
and "The abundance of unrecorded fires is largely unknown." This lack of an evident
fire scar may actually lead to inferring a longer fire interval than occurred, which is
contrary to their theory about fire intervals.
While Baker and Ehle suggest that there may be uncertainties in the use of fire scars
to determine fire intervals, they do not offer any suggestions to reduce or mitigate
these biases other than bracketing fire intervals, which is what we have done in
using fire regimes and an associated range of fire intervals (ex. 75 to 150 years for
infrequent fire regimes) for this project.
An important adjunct of fire scar studies is tree age plots at fixed intervals to
characterize stand-replacing fires. We have analyzed thousands of plots by habitat
Appendix M
Page M-96
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
type group and vegetation response unit (VRU) to derive local characterizations of
presettlement fire regimes (data on file at Forest headquarters).
OS C8 US <33 (IS OS
Wildland Urban Interface
96. The Nez Perce National Forest should focus on thinning from below in the
Wildland-Urban Interface.
TO REMOVE LADDER AND GROUND FUELS
In the Will, we believe that the Forest Service should place /ess emphasis on
reducing crown bulk density, and instead focus on thinning from below and
removing ladder and ground fuels. Habitat loss is increased in areas cut by
regeneration, seed tree or shelter wood logging, prescriptions that produce adverse
effects for species relying on more continuous canopies such as snowshoe hare,
lynx, pine marten, and fisher. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.95.33470.330)
RESPONSE:
With respect to the WUI areas, any treatment done will result in the reduction of the
crown bulk density of the stand, including thinning from below and removing ladder
fuels, crown bulk density is defined as "the mass of available fuel per unit crown
volume." While these types of treatments (thinning from below and removing ladder
fuels) are effective as a measure to keep fires from transitioning from a surface fire to
a crown fire, they are not as effective in transitioning a crown fire back down to a
surface fire. That transition of a crown to a surface fire is one of the things that larger
blocks that have been harvested will accomplish. This will help to better protect the
private property and road infrastructure within the WUI. Additionally these treatment
areas will provide safer areas for firefighters to initiate suppression tactics within the
WUI areas.
With respect to wildlife habitat, managing various habitat types to maintain or
improve wildlife habitats is usually best done by duplicating the fire regime and
disturbance intervals that each habitat evolved with. Thinning from below to remove
ladder and ground fuels is generally consistent with fire's natural disturbance
patterns in low elevation sites dominated by ponderosa pine and dry Douglas fir
types. However, moderate and higher elevation mixed conifer and spruce-fir zones
experienced a variety of both low and high intensity fires that created a mix of
partially burned and completely regenerated sites. This created the patterns of age
classes and conditions necessary for species such as lynx, snowshoe hares, fisher
and marten. Exclusive use of "thinning from below" strategies would be
inappropriate for higher elevation habitats because of failure to create early serai
habitats critical to production of forage species such as snowshoe hares. Snowshoe
hares are important prey of both lynx and fishers.
Refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.11, for information regarding wildlife habitat and
cumulative effects analysis .
O8 OS OS O8 (S3 (!S
Appendix M
Page M-97
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
97. The Nez Perce National Forest should not treat areas beyond the Wildland-
Urban Interface.
A. 1. The scoping notice states that one of the purposes is to reduce potential
future fuel loading. The Forest Plan gives direction to protect resource
values through cost effective fire and fuels management (Forest Plan page
11-2). By treating areas beyond the wildland-urban interface (WUI), the
Forest Service is being grossly inefficient and negligent in hazardous fuels
reduction efforts. The proposed activities will do nothing to safeguard the
community from wildfires and will only increase the hazardous fuel load and
create a false sense of security, contrary to Forest Plan direction.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.10.33470.270)
RESPONSE:
Resource values, as stated in the Forest Plan include not only Wildland
Urban Interfaces, but timber, air quality, terrestrial and aquatic habitat,
recreation opportunities, transportation infrastructure, etc. The proposed
treatments would modify fire behavior by lowering fire intensities for fires
occurring in the treatment areas. This would give suppression resources the
opportunity to utilize the treatment areas during suppression activities, which
would allow for the control of a fire at a smaller size and/or less cost.
us 05 03
2. It is suggested that "lethal fires could pose risk to structures and
investments" (P. VI). Clarification and demarcation should be provided that
identifies which structures and investments are specifically at risk from fire.
This is difficult to comprehend given that there are several concurrent
projects occurring and others proposed which focus on fuel reduction in the
WUI. The Crooked River Demonstration and Orogrande defensible space
projects and BLM actions are focused on protecting structures. The Forest
needs to justify why fuel reduction is necessary this far away from structures
at risk. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.43.33470.270)
RESPONSE: Text has been modified in FEIS (refer to page 200)
us ea as
B. WITH THINNING EFFORTS ON NORTH-FACING SLOPES
Thinning efforts on north-facing slopes should be concentrated within the WUI
so that natural mixed-lethal fires will not threaten structures. Many Lodgepole
Pine stands normally experience stand-replacing events and may not in fact be
outside historic fuel loads or be in danger of uncharacteristic wildfires.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.99.33470.270)
On north-facing wetter forest slopes, a mixed severity or lethal fire regime was
more common, as is evident in the DEIS' descriptions. Thinning here should be
concentrated around the WUI. We recommend that no even age treatments be
implemented outside the WUI. Clear cuts, shelter wood and reserve tree
logging activities transfer fuels from the canopy to the ground and increase
Appendix M
Page M-98
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
hazardous fuel loading, exacerbating the effects of wildfire. Also, clear cuts and
similar logging prescriptions increase the potential for severe blow-downs by
increasing wind speed and decreasing shelter to the outlying trees, again
increasing the amount of hazardous ground fuels. Clear cuts also encourage
rapid regeneration in Lodgepole pine forests. A dense layer of small saplings
and young trees could support a rapid-spreading low crown fire and increase
the risk of a large-scale wildfire. Any efforts to thin Lodgepole pine should
maintain a sufficient density of trees to serve as windbreaks for each other and
to prevent wind throw. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.115.33470.270)
RESPONSE:
Refer to the first two stated objectives of this project (FEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.3).
The vast majority of all acres proposed for treatment regardless of aspect are in the
mixed severity or lethal fire regime. Silvicultural prescriptions are based on relevance
to meeting the stated objectives within the purpose and need. How well a stand
meets criteria depends upon the vegetative condition of the stands as well as the
juxtaposition to the WUI, past treatment areas and determined fire protection areas.
Social and economic values in the WUI are not the only resources at risk from
wildfire in the project area.
OS 08 OS C3 08 09
98. The Nez Perce National Forest should scale back the project since it is not
in the WUI.
Since this is project is not in the WUI, and other projects are currently addressing the
risk to structures and natural resources, the project should be significantly scaled back.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.47.10400.002)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged. Portions of the project are within WUI.
o« es os os os us
99. The Final EIS should discuss the fire behavior in each of the six different
Fuel Models that represent the project area.
The FEIS should also discuss fire behavior in each of the six different Fuel Models that
represent the project area. The DEIS states that Fuel Model 8 represents an elevated
risk only in severe weather conditions. In the next paragraph, at page 153, the
impression is given that Fuel Model 10 exhibits "high fire intensities" regardless of
weather. Is this accurate, or does Fuel Model 10 only exhibit high intensities during
severe weather conditions? Please elaborate in the FEIS. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15.101.21100.270)
RESPONSE:
The descriptions of the fuel models were taken from Aids to Determining Fuel
Models for Estimating Fire Behavior by Hal Anderson (1982). The descriptions given
are for the typical fire behavior for that fuel model under normal fire conditions during
the fire season. Comparing Fuel Model 8, Fuel Model 10, and Fuel Model 13 fire
Appendix M
Page M-99
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
intensities and spread rates with a dead fuel moisture of 8%, live fuel moisture of
100%, and mid-flame wind speed of 5mph the results are as follows:
Fuel Model
8
10
13
Rate of Spread (chains/hr)
1.6
7.9
13.5
Flame Length (feet)
1.0
4.8
10.5
Fires with a flame length of 4 feet or greater are generally considered to be to in
tense to control by hand and requires equipment such as dozers or air support to
control.
os as as
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
101. The Final EIS should describe in detail the fuels treatment areas, Including
the process and criteria used in the selection of the areas and
determination of size and width.
EPA agrees with the need to include fuels treatment into the management of forests to
prevent wildfire. We recommend that the final EIS describe in more detail the fuels
treatment areas, Including the process and criteria used in the selection of the areas and
determination of size and width. (Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA -
#24.23.21100.273)
According to the DEIS (at page 151), only 1249 acres in the project area represent a
frequent, non-lethal fire regime. This also represents only a small portion of the
proposed logging area. Why then, does the DEIS give the impression that the project is
designed to mitigate for departures from the historic fire regime. For instance, at page
157, the DEIS states: "Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E? This would start to bring
these stands back into their historic fire regime."
The FEIS should clearly delineate the number of acres in each Fire Regime (as
displayed in DEIS at page 151), in order to provide a clearer picture for the actual
percent of treatment in these frequent fire return interval systems. Otherwise, the project
and its DEIS gives false impressions of the result, purpose and need of and for the
project. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.100.21100.277)
RESPONSE:
The project was not specifically designed to mitigate for the departure from historic
fire regime. Alternatives B, C, D, and D (modified) would serve to return stands
historically associated with very frequent and frequent fire regimes to more natural
conditions through the use of mechanical or prescribed fire as surrogates for
natural fire when those stands are treated.
V5 (S3 OS V9 O8 CS
102. The Final EIS should include the fire histories and historical forest
compositions of the Crooked River and American River watersheds.
It is important to recognize that not all Lodgepole pine stands were characterized by
stand replacement fire regimes. Fire history should be analyzed in the Crooked River
and American River watersheds and utilized to determine appropriate treatments. This
information should be clearly conveyed in the FEIS. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID-#15.103.21100.277)
Thinning forests is a generally accepted component of decreasing the risk of a severe
fire event on south-facing slopes with dry forest types that were historically characterized
by low density stands ofponderosa pine with large openings between trees. In order to
justify this sort of thinning activity, the FEIS should contain substantive information
concerning the historical nature of these forests. This will help to establish a stand
density target that is within the historical range of natural variability. According to the
DEIS, though, only a small portion (approx. 3.2 percent) of the project area represents
this forest type. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise ID -
#15.114.21100.277)
Appendix M
PageM-101
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
We recognize that not all lodgepole pine stands are characterized by stand
replacement fire regimes, but lodgepole stands located within the project area can
generally all be characterized by mixed and lethal fire regimes. This can be
concluded because the lodgepole stands within the project area are predominately
single storied and even aged stands that would follow a high severity stand
replacing fire event. Furthermore, fire scars are seldom observed.
US OS
103. The Nez Perce National Forest should not harvest timber.
BECAUSE TIMBER HARVESTING AFFECTS WATER QUALITY
In regards to the issue of fire, maps produced by the USFS, BUM, and State of
Idaho show that, after quality fire-prevention projects such as the positive "Dixie
Fuel Breaks" and "Red River Defensible Space", fire risk now to Elk City is low to
moderate. Logging in the American and Crooked River drainages will not change
this, but it will continue to degrade an already-degraded watershed (S. Fork
Clearwater River). (Individual, Moscow, ID - #9.4.34000.270)
RESPONSE:
The purpose and need for this project is broader than fire risk to Elk City. For a review
see Section 1-3 of the FEIS. There are also many restoration activities planned with an
associated "upward trend" to the watershed conditions (Section 3.2. - Watershed).
Fuels projects such as Dixie Fuel Break and Red River Defensible Space were
designed to be site-specific fuels projects. As such they will help to lower the fire risk
in the immediate area, in this case Dixie town and the houses near Red River, and
they are really the last line of defense when trying to protect these structures and
improvements.
With that in mind, those projects in and of themselves would not lower the fire risk to
the town of Elk City or the rest of the project area, nor would they increase fire
suppression efficiency or effectiveness, except in very localized areas.
C!» OS O8 OS OS C9
SECTION 6 - AIR QUALITY
104. THE FINAL EIS SHOULD REFER TO EPA's INTERIM POLICY ON AIR QUALITY
FOR PRESCRIBED FIRES.
TO DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENCY WITH NATIONAL POLICY
EPA encourages federal land managers to refer to the interim Air Quality Policy on
Wildland and Prescribed Fires in their NEPA documents. The interim Policy best
reflects national policy as to how Federal agencies, States, and Tribes will address
the competing needs of clean air and fire in the ecosystem. The Interim Policy was
prepared with the involvement of the Federal land management agencies including
Appendix M
PageM-102
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
that of the Department of Agriculture. By describing this national policy, the Forest
Service further demonstrates how its actions are consistent with national policy. EPA
supports the use of smoke management as a tool for maintaining clean air while
allowing for prescribed fires. Enclosed is a copy of the Interim Policy. (Federal
Agency Official, Seattle, WA - #24.26.10400.250)
RESPONSE:
The Regional smoke guide Describing Air Resource Impacts From Prescribed
Fire Projects in NEPA Documents for Montana and Idaho in Region 1 and
Region 4 (Acheson, et al, 2000) was used as the guide for completing the air
quality description. This guide uses the Interim Policy as guidance. Additionally
the Montana/Idaho Smoke Management Group ensure burners are meeting the
EPA's Interim Policy requirements by coordinating and approving proposed
burns within the airsheds in accordance with their operating guide to minimize
cumulative air quality impacts.
(is cz 05 os as c«
SECTION 7 - RECREATION
105. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD MANAGE LANDS FOR RECREATION.
/ believe the best use Idaho could have from these national lands lies in the direction of
recreation, not logging. These lands are too hilly for profitable replanting for harvesting
trees. (Individual, Moscow, ID-#21.1.50000.820)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. The USDA Forest Service is a multiple use agency and is
charged with providing much more than recreation for the public it serves.
O8 CS C3 C# C« O8
106. The Nez Perce National Forest should describe how they will monitor and
control Off Highway Vehicle use.
The Forest Service needs to describe how they will effectively monitor and control the
use of OHVs on Forest Service and non-system roads, obliterated roads, and trails in
the project area. The analysis should include funding and numbers of personnel
available for these duties. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.55.53100.165)
We suggest discussing efforts to discourage off road transportation and to keep ATV
usage concentrated in areas that are more resistant to damage from these vehicles.
(Federal Agency, Elected Official, Seattle, WA-#24.21.53100.234)
Even for the system roads that are proposed for closure, abandonment, or obliteration,
we have yet to see effective closures and enforcement that prevent use by OHVs.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.54.30200.410)
Appendix M
PageM-103
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
Monitoring will only be conducted during the implementation process and will be funded
as a part of the project implementation.
Thank you for your suggestion. It is hoped that your ideas will be addressed during the
Forest Plan revision process.
Physical closures will need to fit into the terrain to be effective (difficult to pass or get
around).
ess 03 as as as o«
107. The Final EIS should include more information about effects of all terrain
vehicles (ATVs) in the analysis of roads impacts.
We a/so recommend that the analysis of roads contain more information on the areas
used by all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and the sediment generated by their use as well as
any other negative impacts associated with off road travel. (Federal Agency, Elected
Official, Seattle, WA-#24.20.13100.500)
RESPONSE:
No complete inventory of all terrain vehicle trails, whether system trails or user-created
trails, was done for this project. Sediment from trails was not explicitly measured or
modeled using NEZSED, but trails on erodible materials were documented in FEIS
Chapter 3, Section 3.1. - Soils, Surface and Substratum Erosion. Specific sites were
identified for restoration. See Appendix D Middle Crooked River.
O8 O8 O# OS US C#
SECTION 8 - TRANSPORTATION
ROADS GENERAL
108. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD NOT APPROVE NEW ROAD
CONSTRUCTION.
A. We continue to adamantly oppose any new road construction in the project area,
even temporary construction. The proposal for 15 miles of temporary roads, 3 new
stream crossings and 24 miles of reconstruction is absurd given the current
conditions of the watershed from previous reading and management activities and
we are adamantly opposed to this action. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Boise, ID - #15.62.41100.247)
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the response to comment 110 for a discussion of the need for
temporary roads and then subsequent decommissioning of these roads.
There are no identified live water stream crossings associated with any of the
proposed temporary roads. Please refer to the Soils, Water Quality, and Fish Habitat
section of the table entitled Project Design and Mitigation Measures for the American
Appendix M
Page M-104
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
and Crooked River Project in Chapter 2 of the FEIS for additional information
regarding live water stream crossings and road decommissioning.
OS 08 08
B. ON SOILS HIGHLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO EROSION OR COMPACTION WHEN THE WATERSHEDS
ARE ALREADY IMPACTED BY SEDIMENTATION FROM EROSION
A/o new road construction should occur on soils highly susceptible to erosion or
compaction. It is particularly troubling that the Proposed Action includes an
estimated 7 acres of temporary road construction (American River) on soil substrata
highly susceptible to erosion. It is absurd and unacceptable that the Forest Service
would propose adding to the acres of current roads in areas at high risk of erosion
when the watersheds are already being heavily impacted and degraded by
sedimentation from this erosion. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID
-#15.61.41100.231)
RESPONSE:
About 7.25 miles of temporary road are proposed (Alternative C) on soil
substrata rated high for erosion hazard, and about 6.75 miles on soils of
moderate erosion hazard. Please see the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.1. - Soils,
Substratum Erosion for this analysis. Compaction hazard is not analyzed in
evaluating road effects, since road prisms are purposely compacted to provide a
firm surface, and then sub-soiled and recontoured during decommissioning to
restore permeability and subsurface hydrologic function. However, displacement
and loss through mixing of the surface soil, usually the more permeable and
productive volcanic ash layer, is a result of all road construction unless topsoil is
stockpiled and replaced. This is also discussed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section
3.1 - Soils, Soil Compaction and Displacement.
US (S3 08
C. BECAUSE OF THE IMPACTS ON LISTED FISH SPECIES IN THE PROJECT AREA
/As stated in our scoping comments on this project, and on other similar projects in
the area, we believe that new road construction, even temporary, is simply not a
viable option given the Forest Service's own scientific evidence showing the road
system's effect on listed fish species in this watershed. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID-#15.3.41100.380)
RESPONSE:
The FEIS Chapter 3, Sections 3.2 (Watershed) and 3.3 (Fisheries) discuss the
modeled impacts these road-building activities will have on fish/water quality.
The FEIS Appendix E lists the limitations of both the NEZSED and FISHSED
models. Our analysis shows that when combining these actions with the planned
restoration, the result is an improvement in fish habitat and water quality.
OSOS OS OS OS OS
Appendix M
PageM-105
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
109. The Nez Perce National Forest should not approve any construction of
temporary roads.
A. BECAUSE OF THE FOREST SERVICE'S POOR ENFORCEMENT OF ROAD CLOSURES WITHIN
ALL DRAINAGES NOT MEETING BENEFICIAL USES
Given the extremely poor success rate the Forest Service has regarding enforcing
road closures, it is likely that continued user-created resource damage will continue
to occur into the foreseeable future. The most practical way to realize an upward
trend in fish habitat is to reject any temporary roads and to preclude this type of
treatment, especially within all drainages not meeting beneficial uses.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.69.41400.165)
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the response to comment no. 107 for a discussion of the need for
temporary roads. Refer also to the comment no. 112 response for a discussion of
the road decommissioning process. The important points to take from these
discussions are: (1) temporary road construction is necessary to satisfy the project
Purpose and Need, and to contribute to the economic viability of the project; (2) all
temporary roads will be decommissioned within three years following their
construction; and (3) every effort is made to limit unauthorized incursions on
decommissioned roads.
080808
B. BECAUSE OF THEIR SEDIMENTATION EFFECTS DURING AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER
THEIR CONSTRUCTION AND OBLITERATION
1. Even with "Temporary Roads", the most significant addition of sediment to
streams is during years 1 and 2, and in response to obliteration. While the
Idaho Conservation League supports, in premise, the concept of "Temporary
Roads," they are not appropriate in these already heavily roaded and
degraded ecosystems. For reference, see Potyondy, J.P., G.F. Cole, and
W.F. Megahan. 1991. A procedure for estimating sediment yields from
forested watersheds. Pages 12-46 to 12-54
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the response to comment #110 for a discussion of the need for
temporary roads and the decommissioning of these roads.
080308
2. In Proceedings: Fifth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. In fact, according to this
research, over a seven-year period, 77% of soil loss occurs within the first two
years of road construction. Therefore, the impacts from road construction, even
temporary ones, are significant and have very real potential to significantly
impact fisheries habitat. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.25.41400.201)
RESPONSE:
The figure of 77 percent of soil loss from roads within the first two years is the
same as the basic erosion rate for roads used in the R1R4 Guide (Cline, et al).
This basic erosion rate for roads was incorporated into the NEZSED model,
Appendix M
Page M-106
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
which was used in the sediment yield analysis for the American and Crooked
River project. The effects of road construction, reconstruction and
decommissioning on sediment yield are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
CS OS CZ C3 <3S V5
110. The Nez Perce National Forest should base this project off of existing
roads and close additional roads.
If there /s to be any type of project, it needs to be based off of existing road systems,
and close additional roads. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.7.23000.410)
RESPONSE:
The areas available for prescribed treatment activities that are accessible from
existing roads are insufficient in size and location to satisfy the project's Purpose and
Need and to contribute to the economic viability of the project. The fuels reduction
portion of the project is focused primarily on removing dead, down and dying
lodgepole pine, which must be removed in quantities and at locations sufficient to
create the fuel breaks necessary to achieve the project objectives (FEIS, Chapter 1).
A portion of the timber revenue generated will be used for the proposed watershed
restoration activities. All temporary roads constructed as part of this project would be
decommissioned within three years of their construction (refer to FEIS, Chapter 2).
O8 O8 OS OS CSS OS
111. The Nez Perce National Forest should decommission roads.
A. LOCATED IN RIPARIAN HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS OR ON HIGHLY ERODIBLE SLOPES
While we understand that access needs to be provided for recreation and forest
maintenance purposes, EPA encourages the USFS to continue to balance the needs
of the public with the need to reduce sediment loading to streams. It appears from
the DEIS that a high percentage of roads that would be decommissioned are the new
roads being constructed for this project. We recommend finding ways to continue to
decommission other roads, especially those that are located in riparian habitat
conservation areas and on highly erodable slopes. (Federal Agency Official, Seattle
WA-#24.19.41300.002)
RESPONSE:
A roads analysis (conducted as part of this project) identified roads deemed not
essential to management of the proposed project area and were considered as
candidates for decommissioning (refer to Appendix F). Although additional roads
will probably not be recommended for decommissioning for this particular project,
we will continue to reevaluate the need for our roads and decommission more
roads as conditions allow.
As stated in Chapter 2, the miles of roads proposed for decommissioning are not
associated with the miles of temporary road construction proposed in this project.
All temporary roads will be decommissioned following their use, but the roads
proposed for decommissioning as part of the watershed restoration activities are
existing forest system roads.
Appendix M
PageM-107
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
OS (S3 dS C3 08 OS
B- WHICH CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO SEDIMENTATION OR IN AREAS WITH A HIGH RISK
OF LANDSLIDES
Decommissioning roads should be the top priority for the Forest and especially for
the Red River Ranger District. It is unacceptable that road construction is proposed
in an area that is already heavily roaded, and where water quality has been
significantly degraded because of excessive road densities. The DEIS notes this
glaring problem on page IV, "Stream channels have been mostly affected by
sediment deposition and road encroachment." It is also notable that the DEIS
acknowledges that, "Surveyed streams in the analysis area are below their Forest
Plan objectives (existing and proposed) included in Appendix A [of the Forest Plan]"
(P. V). (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.23.41300.240)
Roads contributing significantly to sedimentation should be decommissioned. 251
acres in the American River watershed and 413 acres in the Crooked River
watershed contain old roads that are on soil rated high for erosion. There are also 1
and 34 acres respectively in areas that are rated as a high risk of landslide. As many
of these roads as possible should be decommissioned. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID-#15.58.41300.230)
RESPONSE:
Landslide risk and erosion hazard are two factors considered when evaluating roads
for decommissioning. Administrative jurisdiction and public demand for that road are
other factors (e.g., the main Crooked River road is maintained by Idaho County; we
can work cooperatively with the County to reduce erosion, but we could not
decommission it).
Under alternative D, a total of 79 acres of required road decommissioning would
occur (see Appendix D) and another 72 acres if discretionary decommissioning is
implemented. About 38 acres of the required decommissioning would treat soil
substrata with high erosion hazard. The discretionary road decommissioning would
treat an additional 20 acres with high erosion hazard. Please see Section 3.1.1.1
and Section 3.1.2.1 on soil physical effects.
03 US V9 (S3 CZ C8
C. PRIOR TO THINNING AND BURNING TREATMENTS
The project should decommission and obliterate all high-risk and redundant roads as
determined by a complete Roads Analysis. Road decommissioning must be done
prior to treatments to ensure that decommissioning is achieved and not
overshadowed by the thinning and burning treatments, or that funding for
decommissioning is not diverted for fire suppression activities.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.70.41300.270)
RESPONSE:
A roads analysis consistent with the requirements of section 7712.13c of Forest
Service Manual 7700 (FSM 7700) - Transportation System was conducted as
part of this project. All roads within the project area that were deemed not
Appendix M
PageM-108
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
essential for future management of the affected areas, and the decommissioning
of which would presumably benefit watershed health were proposed for
decommissioning. Please refer to the Nez Perce NF response to a comment
received from the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee (dated November 19,
2004, which immediately follows the response to public comments section) for a
discussion of the implementation phase of this project.
C3 03
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
• A substantial portion of the restoration work fits well under partnership and grant
opportunities:
o A recent addition to the potential sources of funding for restoration activities is
the Pacific Salmon Recover Fund (PSRF). At least one grant proposal from a
local non-profit organization has already been submitted, through the PSRF
process, to do restoration work in the project area.
o Restoration work associated with this project, once approved, will be
incorporated into the South Fork Clearwater River TMDL implementation
plan, which is under development by the SFCR Watershed Advisory Group.
o Many of the proposed restoration projects would be competitive for BPA
funds and work could be accomplished in partnership with the Nez Perce
Tribe.
US US OS <33
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Roads Analysis and Management Considerations
115. The Nez Perce National Forest should actively enforce the closure of roads.
TO PREVENT INCURSIONS BY ORVS
The obliterated road should be gated, signed, and patrolled to prevent incursions by
ORVs. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.73.43000.501)
RESPONSE:
Roads that are obliterated are generally not gated or signed. The concept behind
this approach is that we do not want to call attention to the fact that a road had
previously existed. Please refer to Environmental Effects in Section 3.8 of the FEIS
for a discussion of unauthorized incursions on decommissioned roads..
Where we might reasonably expect to experience problems with unauthorized
incursions on a decommissioned road we would camouflage the entrances, either by
recontouring the roadway at the entrances or by placing natural barriers, such as
logs and branches. Patrolling of the entrances to decommissioned roads by law
enforcement to prevent unauthorized incursions would be conducted as resources
allow.
03 C8 &5 OS US 05
116. The Nez Perce National Forest should detail the maintenance plan for all
roads in the project area.
Proper road maintenance is critical for any remaining roads if sediment is to be
controlled. The Forest Service should detail the maintenance plan for all roads in the
project area. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.76.41200.234)
RESPONSE:
Each forest system road is, and would continue to be, maintained in a manner
consistent with the road management objectives established for the road, if sufficient
funding is available to do so. Please refer to Appendix F of the FEIS for a list of road
management objectives for each road in the project area.
as as as c# os us
117. The Nez Perce National Forest should secure funding for road
decommissioning.
TO GUARANTEE DECOMMISSIONING OF ROADS. REGARDLESS OF TIMBER REVENUES
It is essential that road-decommissioning proposals be guaranteed as part of this, or any
project. We recommend that funds be secured to pay for the decommissioning,
regardless of the revenue generated by the sale of timber. The NPNF should investigate
the potential to acquire appropriated funds for the purpose of road decommissioning If
timber sales are delayed or fail to attract bidders, roads should still be decommissioned
as part of this project, and should not be contingent upon the sale of timber. Utilizing
congressionally appropriated, cost-share, mitigation and/or restoration funds for road
Appendix M
PageM-111
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
decommissioning should be prioritized for the American and Crooked River Watershed.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.67.14100.410)
Any road decommissioning or other watershed improvement activities must be
guaranteed and completed regardless of the successful sale of timber, or the revenue
generated by such sales.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.133.10400.100)
RESPONSE:
Refer to response to comment 34(G) and 112. Briefly, most restoration work associated
with this project will be accomplished using various contracting mechanisms. Some of
the work, streamside planting for example, may be accomplished through participating,
volunteer, and challenge cost-share agreements.
The various types of contracting authorities being considered to implement the project
include stewardship, service, and timber sale contracts, each of which offers a different
opportunity to apply funds or contract specifications toward completing restoration
activities.
At this time, a guarantee of funding or results is not possible. However, we can say with
a high degree of confidence that restoration funds will be made available from a variety
of sources over the life of the project, as planned.
In the event of significantly changed conditions due to natural events related to large
floods, wind or fire affecting the project area, the project would be reevaluated.
C% OS O3 (13 US C%
118. The Nez Perce National Forest should remove all culverts from obliterated
roads.
A. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS
Culverts of obliterated roads should be removed and restored to reduce the effects
these have on sedimentation, water quality, and soil productivity.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.71.43000.220)
RESPONSE:
Removal of drainage structures, including culverts, is, in general, an element of
the decommissioning process, regardless of the method of decommissioning.
The only exception in this project is the road-to-trail conversion of road 9833.
The roadway will remain intact for use by snowmobiles and snow grooming
machines during the winter. Please refer to section 3.8. of the FEIS for further
discussion of the various methods of decommissioning.
O8 OS OS
B. TO AVOID BLOCKED DRAINAGES AND POTENTIAL BLOWOUTS
All culverts should be removed from obliterated roads. Culverts that are not
maintained may lead to blocked drainages and eventual blowouts.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.75.43000.247)
Appendix M
PageM-112
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE: Please refer to response to 119(A).
os 05 cs 03
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
However, roadway openings in forested areas are relatively small, and tree
growth will generally occur over time. Planting with trees and/or shrubs is
prescribed when it is deemed desirable and natural regrowth is not expected in a
timely manner.
e» os o#
D. INCLUDING WHAT EACH CLOSURE METHOD WILL BE FOR EACH ROAD PROPOSED FOR
DECOMMISSIONING
The DE/S discusses various possible scenarios for decommissioning, including
abandonment, gating, and obliteration. It should be made clear what each closure
method will be for each road, as simply abandoning a road that is regularly used as
an ATV route will continue to result in long-term impacts. Further, the DEIS makes
clear (at page 87) that temporary roads are difficult to restore to their former
productivity. Therefore, excessive construction of temporary roads will have lasting
impacts and will jeopardize resource values for years to come. This should be
considered in the FEIS and the Record of Decision. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID-#15.60.21100.410)
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the tables in Appendix D of the FEIS for the specific methods of
decommissioning recommended for each road. Refer also to the response to
comment 115, above, for a discussion of unauthorized incursions on
decommissioned roads.
We acknowledge that, at present, the soil productivity at locations where roads
were constructed and subsequently obliterated is difficult to reestablish. The
alternative to building temporary roads is to limit the prescribed treatment
activities to areas that can be accessed solely from existing roads. Please refer
to the response to comment 110, above, for a more detailed discussion regarding
the reasons for proposing the use of temporary roads.
OS OS CS
E- INCLUDING THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED ROAD DENSITIES DURING PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION FOR ALL THE ALTERNATIVES
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service Bull Trout Interim Conservation
Guidance states that depressed bull trout populations had an average watershed
road density of 1.4 miles per square mile and were extirpated with road densities
above 1.7 miles per square miles (page 27, BTICG). The DEIS failed to exhibit the
road density by project alternative. The FEIS must show the current and proposed
road densities during project implementation for all the alternatives, Including within
150-ft RHCAs on perennial, non-fish bearing streams and 100-ft. RHCAs on
intermittent streams. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.64.21100.410)
RESPONSE:
Subwatershed road densities and over base sediment yields are disclosed by
alternative in the FEIS in Tables 3.35, 3.36, and 3.44. Existing riparian road
Appendix M
PageM-114
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
densities are shown in Tables 3.31 and 3.39. These figures are not expected to
change much by alternative since all temporary roads are being decommissioned
and few of the existing roads planned for decommissioning are located in riparian
areas.
The interim Conservation Guidance states that the document is not intended to
provide site-specific land management prescriptions, but is intended to provide
recommendations that may be adapted to land management activities (USFWS,
December 1998). This same report recognizes that reducing road miles,
improving fish passage, decreasing water temperatures, and improving substrate
and habitat complexity are all important in recovering bull trout populations. This
FEIS contains actions designed to meet these needs (FEIS, Chapter 3, Section
3.3).
F. INCLUDING A TABLE SHOWING ROAD DENSITY AMONG ALTERNATIVES FOR THE AMERICAN
RIVER
The draft EIS explains very well the deleterious impact that roads have on water
quality and aquatic habitats. Road densities are high in riparian habitat conservation
areas in the Crooked River basin and the DEIS points out that it has more existing
roads and past timber harvest on landslide prone terrain than the American River.
Table 3.14 indicates a slight change in road density in the Crooked River basin
between the action alternatives and no action alternative. We recommend a similar
table showing the change in road density among alternatives for the American River.
(Federal Agency Official, Seattle, WA - #24. 18.21100.410)
RESPONSE: This information is located in the FEIS (and DEIS) in Table 3.31 .
O8 OS OS
G. INCLUDING CLARIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF MILES OF ROAD IMPROVEMENT AND
WHERE THESE TREATMENTS WOULD OCCUR
Table 0.1 indicates that the project includes 95 miles of road improvement for
Alternative D; however, the same table under Watershed Restoration Package
Improvements lists 15.8 miles of watershed road improvements. It appears from the
tables contained in Section D that improvements would be made on roads outside
the project area but within the South Fork Clearwater River watershed. We
recommend that the final EIS clarify the number of miles of road improvement, and
that the body of the report discuss where these treatments would occur. (Federal
Agency Official, Seattle, WA - #24.4.21100.410)
RESPONSE:
The miles of road improvement listed in Table 0.1 of the DEIS are not correct; it
should read 90.5 instead of 95. The corresponding footnote (2) is also in error.
There is some ambiguity in the DEIS in the use of the terms road improvement
versus watershed road improvement. The 90.5 miles of road improvements
consists of treatments designed primarily to facilitate hauling of logs, but some of
the treatments would, at the same time, act to improve watershed health. The
15.8 miles of watershed road improvements include only those miles of road
Appendix M
PageM-115
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
treatments deemed to contribute to watershed restoration. This has been
clarified with an additional footnote to Table 0.1 of the FEIS.
os as m
H. INCLUDING PAST EXAMPLES OF THE RANGE OF YEARS THAT TEMPORARY ROADS HAVE
BEEN IN PLACE ON THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST. OR OTHER FORESTS IN THE
REGION
The scop/ng document states that temporary roads would "normally" be
decommissioned within one to three years of construction. This differs from the
statement in the DEIS, which stated that these roads would be decommissioned
within four years. Please cite examples from the NPNF where roads were
decommissioned within pledged timeframes, as well as examples where the
timeframe was extended. Please provide reasons for why these roads were not
decommissioned in a timely manner.
The FEIS needs to give past examples of the range of years that temporary roads
have been in place on the NPNF, or other forests in the region. This will give a
clearer picture of how long roads might be in place. Given the increased flexibility in
timber contracts, we fear that these roads might be in place for several years and
some 'atypical' high-risk roads may be present in degraded watersheds for up to a
decade or more. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise ID -
#15.68.21100.410)
RESPONSE:
Historically, past NEPA decisions allowed for temporary roads to be constructed,
used, and obliterated in the same season. Implementation of these decisions
found that it was the rare instance when a temporary road remained open for
more than one operating season.
It has only been in the last few years that NEPA decisions have stated that
temporary roads may be open for one to three years. Through timber sale
contract implementation, again, it will be the rare case that a temporary road will
remain open for more than one season. While the 1 to 3 year timing does
provide more flexibility to a logging contractor, they normally do not want to have
the additional expense of meeting mitigations necessary to keep road open over
the winter. The majority of the time, they will still construct, use, and obliterate in
the same season.
OS OS OS dS OS OS
120. The Nez Perce National Forest should have used their Roads Analysis
Process in the Draft EIS.
Roads often have devastating impacts on water quality and fish habitat by increasing
landslides, erosion, and siltation of streams. Roads also fragment forests and degrade
or eliminate habitat for species that depend on remote landscapes, such as grizzly
bears, wolves, and other large, wide-ranging predators (Trombulak and Frissell 2000).
The DEIS should have used the Roads Analysis Process. However, this analysis has
yet to be completed by the Nez Perce National Forest. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.74.40220.410)
Appendix M
PageM-116
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
A roads analysis consistent with the requirements of section 7712.13c of Forest Service
Manual 7700 (FSM 7700) - Transportation System was conducted as part of this
project. All roads within the project area that were deemed not essential for future
management of the affected areas, and the decommissioning of which would benefit
watershed health, as well as improve habitat for wildlife, were proposed for
decommissioning.
Please refer to response to comment 111 (C).
O3 CH V& OS OS (33
121. The Nez Perce National Forest should examine how this project will affect
snowmobile use in and adjacent to the project area.
If the Forest Service is unable to demonstrate their capability to manage recreational use
of these roads, no new roads, even temporary ones, should be constructed. The
analysis should also examine this project will affect snowmobile use in, and adjacent to
the project area. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.56.41100.501)
RESPONSE:
No changes are being planned to managing illegal road use. No changes in snowmobile
use anticipated unless a reroute is needed to mitigate winter hauling on an established
groomed trail.
C3 OS V3 Oi (S3 C3
122. The Nez Perce National Forest should recognize the impact of increased
road densities.
Previous management activities have resulted in excessive road densities throughout
our National Forests, including the Nez Perce National Forest, and specifically the
Crooked River and American River watersheds. This density compromises the project
area's ability to support wildlife and fish by promoting further human disturbance,
fragmenting habitat, accelerating sedimentation, and encouraging ORV use.
RESPONSE:
The effects of past management activities, as well as road densities, are described in
the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.11. Restoration activities associated with this project
include reducing the amount of roads within the project area, which are also
discussed in this Section.
The FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Tables 3.61 and 3.65 (miles of stream with
improved access), highlight that this action, with the restoration activities, actually
improves fish access to both perennial and intermittent streams.
The roads actions in the American and Crooked River Project decommissions
significant miles of existing roads and should be recognized for the measure of
positive habitat restoration generated for numerous species. The temporary roads
being built for the project will all be decommissioned and thus do not add to the road
Appendix M
PageM-117
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
density. Past road density impacts and related cumulative effects analysis
discussions for affected terrestrial wildlife are in the FEIS, Chapter 3.
US O» (S3 OS OS (S3
SECTION 9 - VEGETATION
123. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD RESTORE NATURAL
DISTURBANCE PROCESSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREST PLAN
A. BY ALLOWING PINE BEETLE INFESTATIONS AND WILDFIRES TO OCCUR
One of the tenets of the Plan is to "restore natural disturbance processes where
feasible." Considering this, the mountain pine beetle infestations and wildfires
should be allowed to a certain extent to meet the Forest Plan. This is particularly
relevant due to the fact that it is acknowledged that lethal fires would be normal for
these fire regimes in the area. (Preservation/Conservation Organization Boise ID -
#15.46.10400.160)
RESPONSE:
This project is treating less than nine percent of the analysis area. The
disturbance process of insect infestation is occurring on many of the untreated
acres. The natural fire process is .likely to occur on the untreated areas (refer to
Alternatives Maps in Appendix A). There are also more than a million acres in
wilderness and many thousands of acres in roadless areas that have not been
managed and are in a natural state (excluding fire suppression).
The Forest Plan and Fire Management Plan currently do not allow for Wildland
Fire Use (WFU) within any portion of the project area. Without the authority for
WFU all fire ignitions within the project area require a suppression response and
cannot be allowed to play it's natural role.
OS 03 OS
B. BY ALLOWING FIRE TO OCCUR AS A NATURAL PART OF FOREST SUCCESSION AND NOT
USING HIGH INTENSITY FOREST MANAGEMENT
We believe that high intensity forest manipulation as you are proposing, which is
really designed to replace natural fire, will not lend towards restoring functional
ecosystems. Rather, logging activities will disrupt the natural forest succession. Fire
is a natural and essential component of forest ecosystems, and the presence of
naturally functioning wildland fire indicates a high degree of ecosystem function.
This is particularly true in the American and Crooked River drainages which have
significant portions oflodgepole pine, spruce and other high elevation trees in higher
elevation landscapes. Beschta et al., 1995 state, "Land managers should be
managing for the naturally evolving ecosystems, rather than perpetuating artificial
ones we have attempted to create." (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Moscow, ID - #22.5.11200.277)
Appendix M
PageM-118
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
This project responds to public input received from people who use and reside
within the project and surrounding area. Refer to FEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.5
Please refer to the Purpose and Need and Forest Plan direction from the FEIS,
Chapter 1, Section 3. The Forest Plan and Fire Management Plan currently do
not allow for Wildland Fire Use (WFU) within any portion of the project area.
Without the authority for WFU, all fire ignitions within the project area require a
suppression response and can not be allowed to play its natural role.
as us ds
C. BY REMOVING IMPEDIMENTS TO NATURAL RECOVERY
Goa/s for the area include fully functioning stream ecosystems that include healthy,
resilient populations of native trout and salmon. The highest priority management
actions in the project area are those that remove impediments to natural recovery.
The task of management should be the reversal of artificial legacies to allow
restoration of natural, self-sustaining ecosystem processes. If natural disturbance
patterns are the best way to maintain or restore desired ecosystem values, then
nature should be able to accomplish this task very well without human intervention
(Frissell and Bayles, 1996). That is why we requested a real restoration alternative
that did not log or build roads.
We conclude this section of the comment letter with this passage from Frissell and
Bayles (1996):
Most philosophies and approaches for ecosystem management put forward
to date are limited (perhaps doomed) by a failure to acknowledge and
rationally address the overriding problems of uncertainty and ignorance about
the mechanisms by which complex ecosystems respond to human actions.
They lack humility and historical perspective about science and about our
past failures in management. They still implicitly subscribe to the scientifically
discredited illusion that humans are fully in control of an ecosystemic
machine and can foresee and manipulate all the possible consequences of
particular actions while deliberately altering the ecosystem to produce only
predictable, optimized and socially desirable outputs. Moreover, despite our
well-demonstrated inability to prescribe and forge institutional arrangements
capable of successfully implementing the principles and practice of integrated
ecosystem management over a sustained time frame an at sufficiently large
spatial scales, would-be ecosystem managers have neglected to
acknowledge and critically analyze past institutional and policy failures.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.58.11200.330)
They say we need ecosystem management because public opinion has changed,
neglecting the obvious point that public opinion has been shaped by the glowing
promises of past managers and by their clear and spectacular failure to deliver on
such promises. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.59.11200.330)
Appendix M
Page M-119
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
This project responds to public input received from people who use and reside
within the project and surrounding area. Refer to FEIS Chapter 1, Section 1.5.
Please refer also to the Purpose and Need and Forest Plan direction from the
FEIS Chapter 1, pages 2-7.
as os as as o« (is
124. The Nez Perce National Forest should consider naturally occurring
ecosystem function.
A. TO EXAMINE DISEASE ORGANISMS
Some species of trees, native insects, and disease organisms are often
described by the FS as invasive" or somehow bad for the ecosystem. Such
contentions that conditions are somehow "unnatural" runs counter to more
enlightened thinking on such matters. For example, Harvey et al, 1994 state:
Although usually viewed as pests at the tree and stand scale, insects and
disease organisms perform functions on a broader scale.
Pests are a part of even the healthiest eastside ecosystems. Pest roles-such as
the removal of poorly adapted individuals, accelerated decomposition, and
reduced stand density-may be critical to rapid ecosystem adjustment
In some areas of the eastside and Blue Mountain forests, at least, the
ecosystem has been altered, setting the stage for high pest activity (Cast and
others, 1991). This increased activity does not mean that the ecosystem is
broken or dying; rather, it is demonstrating functionality, as programmed during
its developmental (evolutionary) history. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.42.32510.370)
RESPONSE:
This project is treating less than 9 percent of the analysis area. The disturbance
process of insect infestation is occurring on many of the untreated acres. The
natural fire process is likely to occur on the untreated areas. There are also
more than a million acres in wilderness and many thousands of acres in roadless
areas that have not been managed and are in a natural state (excluding fire
suppression).
This project responds to public input received from people who use and reside
within the project and surrounding area. Please review the purpose and need
and forest Plan direction from the DEIS Chapter 1 pages 2-7.
OS (S3 <3Z
B. BECAUSE INSECT INFESTATION AND FIRE ARE PART OF THE NATURAL STAND
REPLACEMENT CYCLE
The presence of some percentage of dying or at risk trees is not sufficient as a
reason to log the entire stand. Not all Lodgepole Pine trees will succumb to the
Mountain Pine Beetle and those that survive could potentially provide a genetic
resistance to beetle in the future. This genetic resistance to beetles would be
Appendix M
Page M-120
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
lost if the trees were logged. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise,
ID-#15.14.34000.373)
We are concerned with the statement that currently uninfected but "high risk"
trees would be harvested given the fact that, "There is little opportunity to further
prevent additional mountain pine beetle Lodgepole pine mortality in the Red
River, Crooked River, and American River watersheds (Red River Salvage EA.
p. 1). This statement is based solely on short-term economic goals and has no
ecological value: Mountain pine beetles prefer larger-diameter Lodgepole pine,
implying that all larger trees could be harvested. Further, according to
discussions with leading forest pathologists, it is impossible to predict where
Mountain Pine Beetles will go, and therefore these stands should not be logged.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.116.34000.373)
RESPONSE:
This project is treating less than 9% of the analysis area. The disturbance
process of insect infestation is occurring on many of the untreated acres. The
natural fire process is likely to .occur on the untreated areas. There are also
more than a million acres in wilderness and many thousands of acres in roadless
areas that have not been managed and are in a natural state (excluding fire
suppression)
Trees are prescribed to be left in all stands if still alive to meet green tree
replacements for snags. If the trees have dwarf mistletoe they are to be removed to
prevent infection of the regeneration. I have seen no literature on genetic resistance
to beetle. The beetle epidemic currently covers- the entire analysis area and the
majority of high risk stands have mortality.
es as vs os ess as
125. The Nez Perce National Forest should use best available science to define
historical ranges of variability (HRV) and to justify characterizations of
current forest conditions and disturbance regimes.
A. BY ADHERING TO NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT (NFMA) DEFINITIONS OF
"RANGE OF VARIATION"
It becomes very difficult to subscribe to the DES arguments when the definitions are
not precise. For this discussion, let us use a definition of range of variability as found
in the 20(X) NFMA regulations (currently in stasis due to the administration's
politics). The definition may be instructive to the writers of the DES. Range of
variability is defined here at Sec. 21936 as:
"The expected range of variation in ecosystem composition, and structure that would
be expected under natural disturbance regimes in the current climatic period. These
regimes include the type, frequency, severity, and magnitude of disturbance in the
absence of fire suppression and extensive commodity extraction."
Current climatic period is further defined as:
"The period of time since establishment of the modem major vegetation types, which
typically encompass the late Holocene Epoch including the present, including likely
Appendix M
Page M-121
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
climatic conditions within the planning period. The climatic period is typically
centuries to millennia in length, a period of time that is long enough to encompass
the variability that species and ecosystems have experienced." (Id.)
To paraphrase the definition, for a project to claim that an area is outside of the
range of variability, according to the 2000 NFMA definition, it would need to make the
case that the area has not seen current conditions in a length of time encompassing
the late Holocene Epoch- a period of centuries to millennia in length. The DEIS
utterly fails to make the case that the current vegetative condition failed to exist at
any time within the late Holocene Epoch. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Moscow, ID - #22.33.13100.133)
RESPONSE:
A characterization of range of variability within a given time scale requires historical
data with enough statistical integrity to be meaningful. Although there are a few
historical records mostly in narrative form, comparing those records with the current
data set is arbitrary at best due to changing definitions of terms. At best, those
records extend back to 1860. Therefore, to attempt to manage within the range of
the Holocene Epoch would encompass such fluctuation and variability as to be
meaningless. This project is not based on range of variability and does not rely on
conjecture as to the former vegetative state of the area. Instead, the treatments
proposed are designed to promote the health and vigor of timber stands and improve
the environment for long-lived, fire resistant species.
03 (S3 OS
B. BY RECOGNIZING THAT DEFINITIONS OF HRV SHOULD BE BASED ON DATA FROM
EXTENDED TIME PERIODS
In the mid-1800s, the event known as the Little Ice Age was ending. It may be that
climatic change made conditions for fires like those in the early 1900s which to occur
and become the major determinants of the landscape of today. It is also possible
that fires like those in the past century occurred on more than one occasion since the
retreat of the glaciers. Paleoecological research shows the importance of climate
change in governing vegetation (Webb and Bartlein 1992).
Vegetation changes seem to lag behind climate change (Johnson et al. 1994).
When looking at the bigger picture that takes into account climatic shins, and not
some narrow, snapshot-in-time view, the concept of a normal fire frequency may not
be valid. (Walder 1995). Research being conducted by Grant Meyer and others on
the Boise National Forest shows this to be the case. In that case, it appears big
stand replacing events occurred in ponderosa pine forests between 900 and 1200
due to climatic conditions.
Given climate change and the very real possibility that site potential for various types
have changed (soil pH and chemistry, moisture, soil temperature) because of it, the
view of HRV on anything less than a time scale that takes into account climate shifts
may be inadequate. That is especially true given the dramatic and scientifically
documented increases in global temperature over the past few years. The past
decade was the warmest on record. Again, the DEIS and supporting documents do
Appendix M
PageM-122
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
not define the HRV so it is impossible to assess the assumptions behind the HRV.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.36.13100.260)
The DEIS's apparent definition of HRV seems very narrow, without conclusive
justification and focusing mainly on ponderosa pine types. The SFLA notes much of
the analysis area is outside the HRV and the DEIS implies this is because of fire
suppression (NOTE: The SFLA is not completely clear on the current conditions and
their causes, there is equivocation and inconsistency in that document) yet it would
seem the DEIS maintains that the big fires of the early 1900s, natural events as far
as we know, put this area outside the HRV. Thus, it would appear the HRV ought to
be able to account for these events. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Moscow, ID - #22.34.13100.277)
What range of time is being used to determine HRV and is it long enough to be
accurate? What proof is there to refute scientific findings that forest conditions in
1850 or 1900 were only a few frames and not representative of an ecological
perspective that should be from two to three thousand years in length (see Walder
1995 and Johnson et. al 1994) ?
The steady-state theory of ecology is inappropriate for time scales more than 200
years in length. (Webb and Bartlein 1992) Certainly, the goal is to have national
forests in perpetuity. A time frame of 200 years only takes us back to Lewis and
Clark, a time not so distant when the Nez Perce National Forest was considered
pad of the public domain of the USA by the federal government (though disputed
with the British) just as it is today. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Moscow, ID - #22.35.13100.330)
RESPONSE
Refer to response to comment 125. A review of recent literature which
documents vegetative changes during the Holocene Epoch (Brunelle and
Whitlock, 2002; Mayewski, et al, 2004; Davis et al; 2002) that wide fluctuations
have occurred in species composition, density, and fire regimes. The purpose
and need (Section 1.3) does not use HRV as an analysis parameter.
OS OS OS
C. BY DESCRIBING THE FACTORS. SUCH AS FIRE AND INSECTS. ASSUMED TO BE AFFECTING
STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS OVER TIME.
Any forest condition that is maintained through intense mechanical manipulation is
not maintaining ecosystem function. We request site-specific disclosure of the
historical data used to arrive at any assumption of "desired conditions." We don't
believe the proposed management activities are designed to foster the processes
that naturally shaped the ecosystem and resulted in a range of natural structural
conditions, they are merely designed to recreate what the agency believes were
structural conditions in a single point in time that the FS considers "natural."
Generally, past process regimes are better understood than past forest structure.
How are you factoring in fire, insects, tree diseases, and other natural disturbances
in specifying the structural conditions you assume to be representative of the historic
range? (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.38.13100.330)
Appendix M
Page M-123
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
This project responds to public input received from people who use and reside
within the project and surrounding area (refer to FEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.
Please review the purpose and need and forest Plan direction from the FEIS
Chapter 1, Section 3.
OS US O8 C8 S US
126. The Final EIS should define the terms "dying" and "at risk".
The FE/S needs to clearly define the following terms: "dying" and "at risk to Mountain
Pine Beetle attack" (Page III). (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise ID -
#15.13.21100.001)
RESPONSE:
The term "dying" refers to the cessation of transport of water and nutrients within a tree.
The first sign of beetle-caused mortality is generally discolored foliage. Needles on
successfully infested trees begin fading and changing color several months to 1 year
after the trees have been attacked. The needles change from green to yellowish green,
then sorrel, red, and finally rusty brown. Fading begins in the lower crown and
progresses upward. Besides having pitch tubes, successfully infested trees will have dry
boring dust, similar to fine sawdust, in bark crevices and around the base of the tree.
Sometimes, however, infested trees can have boring dust, but not pitch tubes. These
trees, called blind attacks, are common during drought years when trees produce little
pitch. When the beetles attack, they carry blue-staining fungi into the tree. After one to
several months, the sapwood begins to discolor.
The term "at risk to Mountain Pine Beetle attack" refers to any species of pinus. In the
American and Crooked River project area the majority of the pinus is lodgepole pine.
Beetles usually select larger lodgepole pines that have thick phloem. They need
adequate food, found in large- diameter trees, for their population to build up. After the
larger lodgepole pines are killed, beetles infest smaller and smaller trees, where phloem
is thin and excessive drying occurs. Beetle populations then decline to endemic levels.
High-risk lodgepole pine stands have an average age of more than 80, an average
diameter at breast height of more than 8 inches (20 cm), and a suitable climate for
beetle development based on elevation and latitude.
In second-growth ponderosa pine, high-risk stands have a high stand basal area, a
single story, and an average diameter at breast height more than 10 inches (25 cm).
OS (X US (S3 CS CS
Timber Management
127. The Nez Perce National Forest should not harvest timber.
A. In particular, I oppose plans to log in the East Fork of the American River and
Kirks Fork. (Individual, Seattle, WA - #8.2.34000.001)
I am of the opinion that logging will continue to damage this area. (Individual,
Minneapolis, MN-#17.2.34000.200)
Appendix M
Page M-124
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
We believe that the large amount of road construction and salvage harvests
proposed are completely inappropriate given the degraded condition of this
drainage. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID
#15.2.34000.247)
RESPONSE:
The proposed logging in the American and Crooked River project is one method
which can be used to respond to the Purpose and Need (refer to FEIS, Chapter 1,
Section 1 .3). Briefly, the purpose of the project is to reduce existing and potential
forest fuels, create conditions that will contribute to sustaining long-lived fire tolerant
tree species (ponderosa pine, western larch) and contribute to the economic and
social well-being of people who use and reside within the surrounding area.
The analysis of each alternative displays the effects to various resources.
Standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan will maintain effects within
accepted limits of change (refer to Regulatory Framework. The proposed
restoration projects and mitigations will offset any potential damage from logging
and result in an upward trend for the watersheds as a whole.
B. BECAUSE TIMBER HARVESTING AND ROADBUILDING DESTROY THE ECOSYSTEM
1 . Road building and logging destroy ecosystems. (Individual, Loveland, CO -
#12.4.34000.201)
RESPONSE:
Analysis of the^ effects of the proposed actions on various resources
demonstrate that the project will help restore landscape patterns which have
been fragmented from past actions. Ecosystem processes and functions will
remain intact.
With respect to terrestrial wildlife, some of the impacts to wildlife will be
positive including improvement of elk habitat effectiveness. Reductions in
miles of road, which is also part of this project, will offer restorative habitat
quality improvements for other species as well.
of this project, will offer restorative habitat quality improvements for other
species as well.
OS C# O8 OS OS OS
2. / understand that the Forest Service is proposing to build some 14 miles of
new roads and log thousands of acres. The Forest Service has good
intentions to help improve the watershed, and I think that other options need
to be considered before logging. Please don't let the road-building and
logging take place. (Individual, Pullman, WA - #33.2.34000.247)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
08 OS OS
Appendix M
PageM-125
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
C. BECAUSE TIMBER HARVESTING SPEEDS UP THE PROGRESS OF FIRE AND COMPROMISES
SOIL QUALITY
Logging the biggest and strongest trees speeds up the progress of a fire and
compromises soil quality. (Individual, Loveland, CO-#12.2.34000.002)
RESPONSE:
The biggest, strongest trees which appear to be most resistant to effects of a
changing climate are the trees that will remain in the treated areas. Refer to the
objectives portion of Chapter 1, Section 1.3.
OS OS O8
D. BECAUSE TIMBER HARVESTING DOES NOT REDUCE FIRE DANGER
/ invite you to review the quotes I have supplied in the Appendix [ATTMT:1J.
Some are from government documents and some are from environmental
groups. All are valid. They all relate to why logging, timber harvest, and
mechanical fuel removal actually increase the fire risk in the forest. I will expect
a response to each quote in our FEIS telling me: 1) why the quote does not
apply to your project, and/or, 2) why the science (which was the basis for the
quote) is incorrect. All of the quotes say that logging large commercial sized
stems does not reduce fire danger. In fact, some of the quotes say that due to
the small activity fuels left after logging, commercial logging actually increases
fire danger. (Individual, Grangeville, ID - #30.13.34000.270)
The activities (road construction and salvage harvest) described do little to
protect homes and communities from fire in any meaningful, way, and may in
fact exacerbate fire danger, severity and intensity. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15.4.34000.271)
RESPONSE:
This project's purpose is to reduce fuels at the individual treatment site and also
at the watershed levels. Other projects such as Crooked River Defensible Space
are designed specifically to protect structures. The way this project is designed it
will help to protect other critical resources such as wildlife habitat, water quality,
recreation opportunities, and infrastructures such as roads and bridges to name
a few.
(S3 O8 C9 Oi OS O8
128. The Nez Perce National Forest should harvest timber.
A. BECAUSE WILDLAND FIRE CAN LEAD TO INCREASED SEDIMENT LOADS
/ understand some sediment may find its way into the creeks and rivers from the
logging and road building. This situation is only short-term, however, and is
much preferred to the stream-choking mud slides that frequently happen after a
wildfire bums off the vegetation and sterilizes the soil. (Individual, Lewiston, ID -
#7.2.34000.230)
Appendix M
Page M-126
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
Comparing the sediment produced by road building and harvest to sediment
from a potential wildfire is a complicated task. Some of the factors that need to
be considered:
• Logging and harvest effects are relatively known quantities, predictable in
extent, time and location. Severe storm years can heighten impacts of
logging and road building. Permanent roads do produce peak sediment for
a few years after construction, and continue to produce chronic levels of
sediment throughout their life. Sediment from most harvest units typically
declines to negligible after 5 years (Cline, et al, 1981). Modeled effects of
sediment due to past wildfires, road building and logging are shown in the
watershed section of the FEIS. These estimates indicate that although peak
sediment from fires was high, chronically elevated sediment from roads
continues to affect watersheds in the project area.
• Sediment effects from any particular fire are influenced by fire size,
severity, and location, interaction with existing road systems or susceptible
soils, and intense storms or rapid spring runoff during the 1-10 years
following wildfire (Wondzell and King 2003). Large severe fires in the
project area occur under a combination of drought, high temperatures, low
humidity, and strong winds (Schoennagel et al., 2004). Under these
conditions, scattered fuel treatments may have slight effects on overall fire
size and severity. This means that such a fire could occur even with the
proposed harvest, so effects of fire might not be averted by harvest and
road building, but compounded.
• Under more moderate burning conditions, fires could be more easily
suppressed, and potential fire size reduced, by using harvest areas as
control points and fuel breaks. This is part of the rationale for the proposed
harvest and fuel reduction. See Section 3.4.2.
• Effects on streams from fires and road building are complex in time and
space. Road building generally produces fine sediments, and may little
affect flow quantity, so that streambeds are more susceptible to filling of
pools and spawning gravels with sand and silt. Fire effects on streams can
vary from negligible to dramatic, short-lived to long term. Aquatic
researchers now acknowledge the important role of natural wildfires in
structuring stream habitats, providing not only fine sediments, but also large
wood and large sediments (Bisson et al., 2003). Fires also may result in
increased flows that arrange these materials in the stream to build pools and
spawning gravels. Some effects can be negative, especially considered
over the short term, when individual fish may be killed, fine sediments
increased, or channels scoured in tributaries.
OS C3C8
B. BECAUSE IT WILL ASSIST THE LOCAL ECONOMY
The logging will add to the local economy and provide enough lumber to build
some 1,500 average-sized family homes. (Individual, Lewiston, ID -
#7.4.34000.814)
Appendix M
PageM-127
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
We believe cut levels can be increased to better accomplish project objectives,
and improve the economics of the project. (Timber/Wood Products Industry,
Kamiah, ID - #5. 1 8. 34300. 800)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
os
BECAUSE TIMBER HARVESTING INCREASES OPENINGS AND CREATES BIG GAME FORAGE
The Concerned Sportsmen of Idaho believes that more trees could and should
be harvested to increase the openings in closed forest canopy areas so that
grasses, forbs and brush can be grown to create much-needed elk forage.
(Recreation/Conservation Organization, Viola, ID - #2.2.34300.330)
RESPONSE:
There are a number of issues and considerations that had to be integrated into
the proposal to limit impacts on resources. The increased habitat effectiveness
resulting from overall reduction in miles of open roads and reduced human
disturbances will benefit elk.
&5 (S3 Q%
D. TO EXPAND TIMBER VOLUME FOR BIG GAME
1. The timber harvest units remove only an average of 8.6 MBF/acre, bringing
into question whether enough volume is being removed to open crown
canopies to sufficiently reduce competition and encourage big game forage
production. We further question if the removal of only 1.3 MBF/acre in the
roadside salvage will accomplish objectives. (Timber/Wood Products
Industry, Kamiah, ID - #5.8.34300.330)
RESPONSE:
The intensity of planned harvests along with liberal use of prescription fire
afterward, will serve to stimulate resprouting and growth of additional nutritious
forage for big game in most units. In the roadside salvage, the more limited
removal of standing timber was planned in part, to incorporate some protection
for minimal amounts of hiding cover along roads which would generate additional
forage without sacrificing large amounts of hiding cover adjacent to roads.
O» OS O3
2. While creating elk forage on the spectrum of range referred to above, the
CERT (Clearwater Elk Recovery Team) encourages you to expand the
timber volume taken so as to insure [sic] that openings in the forest are
numerous enough to accomplish the task for depleted elk herds while
remaining within Forest Plan old growth standards.
(Recreation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #1.4.34300.350)
RESPONSE:
A number of issues and considerations had to be integrated into the proposal,
not just producing elk forage. The intensity of planned harvests along with liberal
Appendix M
PageM-128
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
use of prescription fire afterward, will serve to stimulate resprouting and growth of
additional nutritious forage for big game in most units. Forest plan old growth
standards for old growth will be met.
OS OS OS C8 08 OS
129. The Nez Perce National Forest should consider research that addresses
timber harvest.
A. BECAUSE RESEARCH ADDRESSES POST-HARVEST SLASH DISPOSAL
Research from the Hayman Fire (2002) has determined that pine needles, if not
burned by the fire, can provide significant protection to the soil surface when
they fall to the ground (Interim and Final Hayman Fire Case Study Analyses,
2002 & 2003). By applying regeneration harvests, the beneficial impact of this
material is not realized. Instead, slash is deposited on the ground and burned in
piles, thereby vastly increasing the potential for soil erosion and subsequent
sedimentation of critical spawning habitat for ESA listed species.
Post-logging slash disposal is critical and a number of factors should be
considered in the project design and implementation. Machine and jackpot burn
piles restricted, and if necessitated, should be evenly distributed throughout
logging units. Large piles create excessive heat, create potassium and nitrogen
overloading in small areas, and can negatively impact soil resources. Smaller
piles, evenly distributed, or broadcast burning is preferred. However, the
burning of these materials still can contribute to significant erosion problems on
the forest. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID
#15.105.34400.201)
RESPONSE:
Design criteria will be incorporated into silvicultural prescriptions, which will
include the method/amount of retention and/or removal of materials. In addition,
contract clauses will include design criteria that limit the size, location, and
structure of piles. Furthermore, site-specific burn plans will be developed for
each burn unit. This will include pre-ignition analysis of factors such as wind
speed, humidity, temperature, slope, aspect and duff moisture. Ignitions
performed under these conditions would limit the detrimental effects to residual
stands and the soil resource.
Post harvest slash disposal, broadcast and jackpot burning, is typically
accomplished during times of the year when duff moistures are high enough to
prevent the total consumption of the duff. The duff that remains provides soil
protection against runoff, and continues to provide nutrient cycling to the soil.
Machine piles located within the unit are typically smaller in size and distributed
fairly evenly throughout the units.
c* oa os
Appendix M
PageM-129
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
B- BECAUSE RESEARCH INDICATES TIMBER HARVESTING. ROADS. AND OTHER HUMAN
DISTURBANCES PROMOTE THE SPREAD OF TREE DISEASE AND INSECT INFESTATION
The FS often makes a case for logging as a way to reduce insect and disease
damage to timber stands As far as we are aware, the FS has no empirical
evidence to indicate its "treatments" for "forest health" decrease, rather than
increase, the incidence of insects and diseases in the forest. Since the FS
doesn't cite research that proves otherwise in this DEIS we can only conclude
that "forest health" discussions are unscientific and biased toward logging as a
"solution." Please consider the large body of research that indicates logging,
roads, and other human caused disturbance promote the spread of tree
diseases and insect infestation.
For example, multiple studies have shown that annosus root disease
(Heterobasidion annosum, formerly named Fomes annosus), a fungal root
pathogen that is often fatal or damaging for pine, fir, and hemlock in western
forests, has increased in western forests as a result of logging (Smith 1989).
And researchers have noted that the incidence of annosus root disease in true
fir and ponderosa pine stands increased with the number of logging entries
(Goheen and Goheen 1989). Large stumps served as infection foci for the
stands, although significant mortality was not obvious until 10 to 15 years after
logging (Id).
The proportion of western hemlock trees infected by annosus root disease
increased after pre-commercial thinning, due to infection of stumps and logging
equipment wounds (Edmonds et al 1989, Chavez, et al. 1980).
Armillaria, a primary, aggressive root pathogen of pines, true firs, and Douglas-
fir in western interior forests, spreads into healthy stands from the stumps and
roots of cut trees (Wargo and Shaw 1985). The fungus colonizes stumps and
roots of cut trees, then spreads to adjacent healthy trees. Roots of large trees
in particular can support the fungus for many years because they are moist and
large enough for the fungus to survive, and disease centers can expand to
several hectares in size, with greater than 25% of the trees affected in a stand
(id) Roth et al. (1980) also noted that Armillaria was present in stumps of old-
growth ponderosa pine logged up to 35 years earlier, with the. oldest stumps
having the highest rate of infection.
Filip (1979) observed that mortality of saplings was significant correlated to the
number of Douglas-fir stumps infected with Armillaria mellea and laminated root
rot (Phellinus weirii). McDonald, et al. (1987) concluded the pathogenic fungus
Armillaria had a threefold higher occurrence on disturbed plots compared to
pristine plots at high productivity sites in the Northern Rockies. Those authors
also reviewed past studies on Armillaria, noting a clear link between
management and the severity of Armillaha-caused disease.
Morrison and Mallett (1996) observed that infection and mortality from the root
disease Armillaria ostoyae was several times higher in forest stands with
logging disturbance than in undisturbed stands, and that adjacent residual trees
as well as new regeneration became infected when their roots came into
contact with roots from infected stumps.
Appendix M
PageM-130
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Pre-commercial thinning and soil disturbance led to an increased risk of
infection and mortality by black- stain root disease (Leptographium wageneri) in
Douglas-fir, with the majority of infection centers being close to roads and skid
trails (Hansen et al. 1988) Also another Black-stain root disease (Verticicladiella
wagenerii) occurred at a greater frequency in Douglas-fir trees close to roads
than in trees located 25 in or more from roads (Hansen 1978). Witcosky et al.
(1986) also noted that pre-commercially thinned stands attracted a greater
number of black-stain root disease insect vectors.
Complex interactions involve mechanical damage from logging, infestation by
root diseases, and attacks by insects. Aho et al. (1987) saw that mechanical
wounding of grand fir and white fir by logging equipment activated dormant
decay fungi, including the Indian paint fungus (Echinodontium tinctorium).
Trees stressed by logging, and therefore more susceptible to root diseases are,
in turn, more susceptible to attack by insects. Goheen and Hansen (1993)
reviewed the association between pathogenic fungi and bark beetles in
coniferous forests, noting that root disease fungi predispose some conifer
species to bark beetle attack and/or help maintain endemic populations of bark
beetles.
Goheen and Hansen (1993) observed that live trees infected with Laminated
root rot (Phellinus weirii) have a greater likelihood of attack by Douglas-fir
beetles (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae). Also, Douglas- fir trees weakened by
Black-stain root disease (Leptographium wageneri var. pseudotsugae) are
attacked and killed by a variety of bark beetle species, including the Douglas-fir
bark beetle (D. pseudotsugae) and the Douglas-fir engraver (Scolytus
unispinosis) (id.).
The root disease Leptographium wageneri var. ponderosurn predisposes
ponderosa pine to several bark beetle species, including the mountain pine
beetle (D. ponderosae) and the western pine beetle (D. brevicomis) (Goheen
and Hansen 1993).
A variety of root diseases, including black-slain, Armillaria, and brown cubical
butt rot (Phaeolus schweinitzii). predispose lodgepole pine to attack by
mountain pine beetles in the interior west The diseases are also believed to
provide stressed host trees that help maintain endemic populations of mountain
pine beetle or trigger population increases at the start of an outbreak (Goheen
and Hansen 1993).
Grand and white fir trees in interior mixed-conifer forests have been found to
have a high likelihood of attack by the fir engraver (Scolytus ventralis) when
they are infected by root diseases, such as laminated root rot, Armillaria, and
annosus (Goheen and Hansen 1993).
More western pine beetles (Dendroetonus breviformis) and mountain pine
beetles (D. ponderosae) were captured on trees infected by black-stain root
disease (Ceratocystis wageneri) than on uninfected trees (Goheen et al. 1985).
The two species of beetle were more frequently attracted to wounds on trees
that were also diseased than to uninfected trees. They also noted that the red
turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens) attacked trees at wounds, with attack
Appendix M
PageM-131
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
rates seven-to-eight times higher on trees infected with black-stain root disease
than uninfected trees. Spondylis upiformis attacked only wounded trees, not
unwounded trees. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.46.34000.373)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged.
The stands proposed for treatment are susceptible and contain some of the
pathogens and insects described. Most have a negative growth value (more dying
than growing) and are in a state of decline. The purpose of the project is to reduce
existing and potential forest fuels, create conditions that will contribute to sustaining
long-lived fire tolerant tree species (ponderosa pine, western larch). Refer to FEIS,
Chapter 1, Section 1.3. Ponderosa pine and western larch are the forest tree
species most resistant to fire, insects, and diseases found in the project area.
OS 05 03 05 0# OS
130. The Nez Perce National Forest should focus on stands farthest outside the
historic range.
The Forest Service should focus on those stands that are the farthest outside of the
historic range (i.e. the 3.2% of the project area that exhibits frequent, non-lethal fire
regimes). (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.96.33000.277)
RESPONSE:
Comment acknowledged. Historic range is a concept based on scale (e.g., temporal
and spatial). Only focusing only on the stands that are farthest outside of their
historic range would not fulfill the purpose of this project - which is related to reducing
existing and potential forest fuels by removing the dead, dying, and downed trees
that would otherwise result in high fuel loadings
08 08 08 08 08 OS
131. The Nez Perce National Forest should conduct an inventory of the types
and sizes of downed woody material.
Fallen snags that lean against other trees serve as important subnivean access points
for mesocarnivores such as Fisher and American Marten. An inventory of the types and
sizes of downed woody material should be included in the treatments.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.129.30100.330)
RESPONSE:
Over the next 10 years or so, many thousands of acres of unharvested lodgepole
pine will progressively convert to snags, most of which will fall, lean or "jackstraw"
forming excellent subnivean habitat. Given the vast amounts of dead and dying
lodgepole pine in the analysis area, and the fact that planned treatment acreage
would fall far short of even 10 percent of the local landscape, the growth of important
subnivean habitats formed by fallen snags from many acres of unharvested dead
Appendix M
PageM-132
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
and dying lodgepole pine will dwarf present amounts of this habitat condition, which
would make an inventory at this time a relatively meaningless activity.
(IS O8 C3 OS
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
2003, except for the weeds.analysis, which uses Applegate et al. It is admittedly
difficult to track all the different habitat type groups developed for different
purposes. We can supply the data table of Jones' habitat type groups upon
request.
030303030305
134. The Nez Perce National Forest should define and implement diameter
limits and spacing between crowns.
A. Larger diameter trees that are more resistant to ground fire should be left behind.
The Forest Service needs to define and implement diameter limits and spacing
between crowns for each treatment. Dead and dying Lodgepole pine stands that are
beyond the range of current road systems should be left to regenerate naturally, or
provide opportunities for climax species, in order to maintain natural ecological
cycles. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.117.34400.201)
Ground-based logging systems and excavator piling of slash should be minimized,
and higher intensity landscape burns should be considered to prevent continuous
fuel loads. It is unfortunate that the majority of units will be ground-skidded and
machine piled, as the impacts from this are much more severe in terms of soil
compaction, erosion and sedimentation. (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Boise, ID - #15.120.34400.231)
RESPONSE:
At this time the lands within the project area have no approved WFU plan and the
risks in using prescribed fire at mixed and lethal severities is considered too high
in this area, without prior mechanical fuel reduction.
(33 OS 03
B. The above-referenced logging methods have the potential to increase fire risk in the
short term, and therefore would be counter-productive towards meeting the fire risk
reduction purpose of the project. Forest openings can result in increased wind
speed and related blow-down, more rapid drying of the forest vegetation, and dense
tree and shrub regeneration. Additionally, slash on the ground can lead to increased
short-term fire risk as has been demonstrated throughout the industrial forestlands of
North Idaho and beyond. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.97.34400.270)
RESPONSE:
It is acknowledged that the short-term risk of a high severity wildfire is possible
between the time of the vegetation treatment and the slash disposal is
completed. The long term benefits of the treatments, modified fire behavior and
lower future fuel loadings, outweigh the short term risk. Additionally after the
slash disposal is completed the fuel loadings within the treatment units will be
less than 12 tons per acre. If the treatments are not completed and stands
continue to transition to Fuel Model 10 and 13 we would see fuel loadings in
excess of 12 tons per acre.
OS O5O3 OS OS OS
Appendix M
Page M-134
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
135. The Nez Perce National Forest should compare present, historic, and post-
treatment fuel loads and canopy densities.
The Forest Service needs to compare present, historic, and post-treatment fuel
loads and canopy densities for each unit within the proposed treatment areas.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.93.30300.277)
RESPONSE:
The text has been updated in the FEIS document to address the current, predicted
future, and post-treatment fuel models for the project area. Please see the Fire/Fuels
discussion located within chapter 3 of the American Crooked FEIS.
(S3 03 03 OS (X
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
The purpose of the project is to reduce existing and potential forest fuels,
encourage conditions for sustaining long-lived, fire tolerant conifer species, and
contribute to both the economic and social well being (safety & economic
security) of local residents. Within this broader objective, we sought to design a
compromise approach, incorporating mitigations as needed to minimize impacts
on goshawks and their habitats.
OS OS OS
B. BECAUSE IT WILL HELP REDUCE DANGER FOR FIREFIGHTERS
/ support your plan to punch clear-cuts into the forests in the American and Crooked
Rivers area. I believe they will help firefighters if a wildfire occurs (Individual
Lewiston, ID - #7.1.34410.270)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
os cs os os os os
139. The Nez Perce National Forest should learn from past regeneration
harvests on the Nez Perce and other forests that are dominated by
lodgepole pine stands.
It is critical that the Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) learn from past examples of
regeneration harvests on the NPNF and other forests that are dominated by
Lodgepole pine stands. Evidence shows that under extreme conditions, young
stands of dense Lodgepole pine will burn. An example of this is visible on the
Caribou-Targhee National Forest, directly adjacent to Yellowstone National Park.
The Clover-Mist Fire (1988) was started by woodcutters in a clear cut stand, which
had re-grown with thick Lodgepole pines. Even though aggressive and responsive
fire suppression actions were undertaken, the fire quickly spread through adjacent
stands and burned into Yellowstone Park, eventually threatening Old Faithful.
Similar examples of clear cutting Lodgepole pine stands should be sought out by
the NPNF, and research conducted to determine the effectiveness of logging
activities on fire behavior. (Preservation/Conservation Organization Boise ID -
#15.102.33000.279)
RESPONSE:
It is acknowledged that there is a short timeframe, when canopies grow together in
overstocked stands, where lodgepole pine stands that are regenerating may have
increased fire behavior characteristics until the canopies start to lift off the ground.
As the commenter stated this occurs under extreme conditions (i.e., low fuel
moistures, high temperatures, and high wind conditions). The FEIS, Chapter 3,
Section 3.4, that under extreme fire conditions fire behavior is rarely responsive to
either fuel treatments or suppression actions. What this project is attempting to do is
modify the fire behavior in the conditions that would have historically produced large
fires but are not the worst case conditions.
OS OS OS OS OS OS
Appendix M
PageM-136
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
140. The Nez Perce National Forest should not set unrealistic standards and
guidelines for timber harvesting.
BECAUSE IT PREVENTS AGGRESSIVE TREATMENTS THAT MOVE THE AREA TOWARD NATURAL
DISTRIBUTION OF AGE CLASS AND SPECIES
.Acres treated -only 8.7% of the total project area was treated. While a clear
objective is to protect Elk City from catastrophic fire, one must question if unrealistic
plan standards prevented treatment of sufficient acres to accomplish the project
objective. This is of particular concern since approximately 80% of the area is in
the 9-21 "dbh category, prime for forest health treatment. It would appear that other
resource limitations, possibly unrealistic standards and guides, are preventing more
aggressive treatment to move this area towards the more natural distribution of age
class and species. (Timber/Wood Products Industry, Kamiah, ID - #5.7.34300.160)
RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged
OS (33 VZ OS GS OS
Old Growth
141. The Nez Perce National Forest should conduct field reviews.
A. TO DETERMINE IF TIMBER HARVEST UNITS MEET OLD GROWTH CRITERIA
We question the assertion that that no logging will occur in stands of old growth.
We encourage you to conduct field reviews in order to determine whether or not
any of the logging units currently meet Old Growth Criteria, as described in Old-
Growth Types of the Northern Region (Green et al, 1992). Numerous problems
have been found with old growth inventories on the adjacent Clearwater
National Forest, and to avoid any similar occurrences, the NPNF should
immediately initiate a forest wide analysis of old growth as part of this and other
projects in the Elk City area. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise,
ID-#15.134.30100.365)
RESPONSE:
Between the draft and final documents, we conducted a second analysis of the
project using Forest Plan old growth criteria from Appendix N. This review
resulted in conducting field reviews and plot sampling of planned harvest stands
that were suspected Forest Plan old growth. This resulted in removal of 4
harvest units from the draft to the final project. We then took this follow-up
analysis a step further by carefully evaluating risks that existing old growth units
may have patches or extensions of the old growth conditions which extended into
planned harvest units. All Units were field reviewed by a certified silviculturist and
units which appeared to be old growth were sampled using the National Common
Stand Exam Protocol. Units larger than ten acres that meet the definition of old
growth are to be left untreated.
oscsos
Appendix M
PageM-137
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
B. TO DETERMINE IF OLD GROWTH SHOULD BE HARVESTED
The DEIS is not clear whether there has been any site specific analysis of the
cutting units to determine whether extant old growth would be logged. The
DEIS is not clear what definition of old growth is being used, the forest plan
definition or the North Idaho guidelines. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.72.30300.365)
RESPONSE:
The original analysis utilized criteria from the North Idaho guidelines. Between
the draft and final documents, we conducted a second level, more intensive
analysis of the project using Forest Plan old growth criteria from Appendix N.
See response to comment 141 (A).
C3 C3 <& (S3 OS CS
142. The Nez Perce National Forest should meet old-growth objectives.
A. BY CONDUCTING INVENTORIES AND MONITORING
The fact that the Nez Perce NF has not monitored the population trends of its
old-growth management indicator species (MIS) as required by the forest plan
bears important mention here. The Nez Perce NF has failed to insure viability
of MIS and TES species to date. The monitoring reports from FOC to the Nez
Perce National Forest (referenced in this comment) bear this out.
Unfortunately, region-wide the FS has failed to meet Forest Plan old-growth
standards, does not keep accurate old-growth inventories, and has not
monitored population trends in response to management activities as required
by Forest Plans and NFMA (Juel, 2003). (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.63.30100.210)
RESPONSE:
A complete summary record of our Forest Plan monitoring of MIS and TES
species results is listed at the back of and supports the terrestrial species viability
analysis document titled: "Habitat-Based Terrestrial Vertebrate Populations
Viability Related to the American and Crooked River Project" (USDA FS, 2004a),
available in the project files. Our species viability analysis is more than simply a
"proxy on proxy" approach.
e# os os
B. THROUGH FLEXIBILITY IN ACCOMPLISHING OLD-GROWTH OBJECTIVES
Old growth - if we understand the data, there is only a total of 13 acres of 21"
dbh + in the total project area. The strategy to meet old growth objectives
would be to preserve these areas, and select the appropriate amount of area
from the 9-21" dbh category to provide old growth replacement. Since almost
80% of the project area is in this size category, there should be considerable
flexibility in accomplishing objectives. (Timber/Wood Products Industry,
Kamiah, ID - #5.6.34100.365)
Appendix M
PageM-138
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
This comment was generated by a misconception that the size/structure data in
the vegetation section of the DEIS, equated to old growth. While there is certainly
a correlation, the actual old growth habitat has more specific characteristics. The
size and structure data for vegetation in the project area and the American and
Crooked River drainages has been re-analyzed between the DEIS and FEIS
using an updated Region 1 vegetation coverage. As the new analysis portrays, a
large amount of the project area is in the greater than 15 inch dbh size class, and
meeting Forest Plan requirements for replacement old growth is relatively easy to
do and provides some flexibility to accomplish objectives while protecting future
blocks of old growth. This analysis is located in the vegetation section of Chapter
3 in the FEIS.
The further refined old growth habitat analysis is located near the end of the
wildlife section in chapter 3. This analysis received extensive updating between
the DEIS and FEIS. Specifically, the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots
were completed and the total old growth forest wide was summarized (see table
in the old growth section of Chapter 3).
Old growth validation surveys were conducted within the project area in
designated old growth stands during the fall of 2004. These stands were
originally designated using data from stand exams that were 15-20 years old. It
was felt that the data may be stale and the stands may have changed enough to
no longer meet the strict Forest Plan definition of old growth (15 trees per acre
>21 inches DBH). The results of the surveys and conclusions are located in the
old growth analysis section of Chapter 3.
as us C9 as as as
Weed Management
143. The Nez Perce National Forest should adequately fund and monitor for
weeds.
Monitoring for weeds and acquiring adequate funding for weed treatments need to be
required and guaranteed. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.90.30100.001)
RESPONSE:
Through the analysis a set of project design criteria or mitigation requirements have
been established to address the risk of weed spread and colonization resulting from the
proposed project. The design criteria include prevention measures, spot treatment,
monitoring, re-survey of risk zones for changes in weed infestations and, where
appropriate, the re-vegetation of disturbed soil (Chapter 2 - Design Criteria). The
implementation of these invasive plant design criteria would insure that weed spread
from ground disturbing actions is minimized or eliminated.
as (ss as as as as
Appendix M
PageM-139
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
144. The Nez Perce National Forest should consider weed management.
A. WITH COORDINATION OF NOXIOUS WEED EFFORTS
We are particularly concerned with noxious weeds because there is no
comprehensive weed management strategy for this area. With the amount of
commercial and recreational activity taking place on private and National Forest
lands in this area, failure to coordinate, efforts will make project-level strategies
inadequate. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise ID
#15.87.30300.371)
RESPONSE:
The American River and Crooked River Watersheds fall within the Clearwater Basin
Weed Management Area (CBWMA). The CBWMA is a community-based effort that
brings together those responsible for weed management within the Clearwater River
Basin, to develop common weed management objectives, set realistic priorities,
facilitate effective treatment and coordinate efforts along logical geographic
boundaries with similar land types, use patterns and problem plants. Partners
involved in the CBWMA include Idaho County, Clearwater County, Lewis County,
Clearwater NF, Nez Perce NF, BLM, Nez Perce Tribe, University of Idaho,
Clearwater RC&D, Back Country Horseman and Private landowners. The intent of
reducing risk of weed spread and establishment, treating small infestation before
they expand, providing focus on the transportation network, and reoccurring surveys
integrate many of the priority elements of the Clearwater Basin Weed Management
Area. Coordination at multiple scales is a tenet of cooperative weed management
programs across jurisdictional boundaries. As a result weed management efforts are
coordinated across local, basin, regional and state levels by the community
partnership of which the National Forest is an active participant.
O5 VS &3
B. TO BE PROACTIVE IN PREVENTING INFESTATION
Although the Forest Service does not consider the weed situation to be severe, the
Forest Service should realize that it is far cheaper to be proactive, in order to prevent
infestation, as opposed to having lax standards and to allow the situation to
deteriorate. This is a potentially large threat considering the level of disturbance that
is proposed and the new road construction that will increase motorized vehicles in
previously non-impacted areas, acting as vectors for new infestations of noxious
weeds. Due to the limitations for herbicide application in these high-priority
watersheds, action must be taken to avoid weed infestations and should have been
addressed as part of this analysis. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise,
ID-#15.91.32510.371)
RESPONSE:
The design criteria (Chapter 2 - Design Criteria) were developed as a result of the
risk assessment conducted as part of the analysis. They reflect a concern for the
potential of weed spread from ground disturbing activities, taking into account the
type and condition of the vegetation communities within the project area. The
proposed mitigation is commensurate with the risk. Integrating project level actions
Appendix M
Page M-140
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
within the broader context of a community-based strategy add strength to the overall
weed management effort in the upper watersheds of the Clearwater basin. Refer,
also to response to comment 144(A), above.
05 <&
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
147. The Nez Perce National Forest should consider wildlife fragmentation.
A. The fragmentation of wildlife habitat by the proposed treatments needs to be
assessed. The effects of regeneration harvesting on species dependent upon
contiguous forested habitat should be considered. We are particularly concerned
that the proposed action has the potential to negatively impact American Marten,
Fisher, Wolverine, Moose, Elk, and Canada Lynx. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID -#15. 127. 30300. 33 1)
RESPONSE:
The fragmentation discussion and effects analysis information for old growth
species is located in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Section 3.11). Fragmentation
analysis and discussions for wolverine, moose, elk, and Canada lynx are
located in the FEIS in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 1 .
OS O5 US
B. Treatments need to be timed to reduce the impact on nesting birds and denning
mammals. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.125.34000.350)
RESPONSE:
Project design and mitigation measures have been added to better address
these concerns in the FEIS. See project design and mitigation section.
C3 C!8 OS (35 C8 C#
148. The Nez Perce National Forest should consider cumulative and direct
impacts of the treatments on local wildlife populations.
In addition to the direct impacts these treatments will have on local [wildlife] populations,
the cumulative or linked impacts of these activities on adjacent populations needs to be
considered. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.126.30300.350)
RESPONSE:
Within the FEIS, the cumulative effects or linked impacts are addressed in
Chapters, Section 3.11.
O# OS (33 VS OS
149. The Nez Perce National Forest should leave snags for cavity nesters.
A sufficient number of snags need to be left standing in each treatment area for cavity
nesters until snags can be replaced by natural recruitment. Standing trees need to be
overstocked to ensure sufficient habitat until new trees mature.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -#15. 128.34400.330)
RESPONSE:
The target numbers of snags retained per acre used as an objective is from the
Forest Plan, Appendix N-3, and specific project implementation guidelines for the
Appendix M
PageM-142
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
project follow the "Northern Region Snag Management Protocol", in the project
file.
as cz vs as 03 eg
150. The Nez Perce National Forest should consider goshawks and follow
guidelines and requirements.
A. The DE/S implies that no formal surveys for goshawks have occurred in the project
area. At best, there are sighting records. In order to meet the requirements of
NFMA and NEPA, these kinds of surveys need to be conducted for all Ml and TES
species. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.65.30100.340)
RESPONSE:
Although no formal surveys were conducted for goshawks, the Forest Wildlife
Biologist spent 5 weeks surveying habitat conditions, reporting incidental
sightings, and searching for suitable harvest sites during early summer of
2003. Several sightings and potential, nesting activity areas were thus
identified and are documented in the project files (See Craoked_Amer-
Wiidiife_Observations_Tabie.doc). Conducting individual species surveys
throughout a landscape as extensive as the American/Crooked project was
neither a practical nor affordable alternative given the timeframes to complete
this project.
US O3O3
B. 7776 DE/S suggests that because of major differences in forest types, habitat, and
availability of riparian zones, the cross-region application of the Management
Recommendations cannot be justified. However, it mentions that no guidelines exist
for goshawk nest and habitat protection within USFS Region 1. Given the lack of
guidelines, the sensitivity of goshawks to disturbance via logging, and the scope of
the project, management should rely on these recommendations to ensure a level of
prudence. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.82.10400.390)
RESPONSE:
Considering the fact that the large tree component and higher canopy closures
preferred by goshawks for nesting will, in many cases occur within old growth, and
the project harvests no old growth stands (either Forest Plan or North Idaho
standards) nor in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, existing and historic nests
identified during layout goshawks nests should be adequately protected. See
Chapter 2: Mitigation and Design Measures Section.
OS OS OS
C. TO DETERMINE EXISTING ALTERNATIVE GOSHAWK NESTS
In addition to protecting existing alternate nests, the Management Guidelines
specifically recommend that a minimum of three presently suitable nest areas of 30
acres each should be maintained per home range. These nest areas are usually
mature old trees and dense forest canopies: "No adverse management activities
Appendix M
Page M-143
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
should occur at any time in suitable nest areas" (Reynolds et at. 1992). For each
goshawk home range, the Forest Service should have identified three 30-acre stands
of present nest sites for a total of 90 acres. In addition to protecting three suitable
nest areas, the Management Recommendations also suggest that land managers
identify and prepare three 30-acre stands of replacement nest sites for a total of 90
acres in the event that the original nest sites are lost in a wildfire or other event. The
Forest Service should manage these replacement sites to ensure future stand
conditions consisting of dense, mature stands with high tree cover and high basal
area. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.80.32400.391)
RESPONSE:
See above comments. The Nez Perce National Forest has not inventoried all
potential goshawk nests in the project area, thus protecting currently
unknown nests is not possible at this time. Further, old-growth stands which
tend to have disproportionate amounts of nest selection characteristics
preferred by goshawks are protected from all harvests, further reducing risks
of unknown nest habitat losses to harvesting.
Management recommendations proposed by Reynolds et al., 1992, were
developed specifically for the southwestern United States. Thus, it would be
inappropriate to apply these guidelines to the moister, intermountain west.
Given that this project will not harvest old growth stands and that active or
newly discovered goshawk nests will be protected, goshawks nests should be
adequately protected.
oa ess os as &3 us
151. The Nez Perce National Forest should design this project such that legal
requirements for protecting habitat of threatened and endangered (TE) and
other sensitive species are recognized.
RESPONSE:
The legal requirements for protecting threatened and endangered and other
sensitive species habitats have been met as addressed in the Biological
Assessments (T&E), and the sensitive species discussions within the FEIS. In
addition, a terrestrial and aquatic species viability analysis is provided which
provides rationale supporting long-term persistence of these species. See FEIS,
ROD, BEs Appendix E and J.
CSS OS OS
A. BY MEETING EXISTING FOREST PLAN GOALS REGARDING RECOVERY OF
TE HABITAT AND PROMOTION OF INTRINSIC WILDLIFE VALUES
The following goal in the Forest Plan is not being met and would be further
compromised by massive logging and vegetation projects under the ruse of fire
prevention: Provide habitat to contribute to the recovery of Threatened and
Endangered plant and animal species in accordance with approved recovery plans.
(Individual, Delmar, NY-#28.4.10400.340)
Appendix M
Page M-144
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
Recovery of wolves has been accomplished. The amount of designated lynx
habitat within the project area is extremely limited (see FEIS, Chapter 3 - Section
3.11), and all requisites of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy have
been satisfied (see lynx section of FEIS). The project occurs outside the
wintering area of bald eagles. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has reviewed and
verbally agreed with the conclusions in the Biological Assessment (see Level 1
consultation notes).
C8C8 C8
B. BY MEETING FOREST PLAN STANDARDS FOR OLD GROWTH
The Forest Service also has a responsibility to protect replacement old growth areas,
particularly since the NPNF is not meeting the Forest Plan Standards for Old Growth
throughout the majority of these watersheds. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15.137.10400.365)
RESPONSE:
After the DEIS and comments, a more extensive and intensive old growth
analysis using Forest Plan standards and field review of stands further removed
harvest units that would meet North Idaho and Forest Plan old growth definitions.
In addition, provisions and mitigations to field inventory units near old growth
patches will be implemented. See FEIS, old growth section.
The American and Crooked River Project was designed to avoid all direct harvest
impacts in old growth and replacement stands.
See response to 142.B.
OS 08 OS
C. BY AVOIDING HABITAT FRAGMENTATION TO COMPLY WITH MARTEN
HABITAT GUIDELINES
Because of the significant extent of logging and clearcutting proposed under the
project, the impacts of each alternative appear to be inadequately analyzed.
According to Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of Marten Habitat
(Robert Watt, et al.), gaps of open habitat more than 1-2 kilometers should be
avoided. The project proposes a 34% clearcut. Habitat fragmentation and the
proven subsequent decline in pine marten populations appear to be inevitable under
the Proposed Action. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.86.13100.330)
RESPONSE:
The impacts of each alternative on marten and their habitat have been discussed in
the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.11. In addition, the cumulative effects section has
been updated.
The FEIS acknowledges effects of additional harvest and fragmentation effects on
pine marten habitats, but also the discussion cites work from Coffin, et al. 2002,
which indicates that despite heavily logged and roaded areas, pine marten can
Appendix M
Page M-145
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
tolerate and remain in such areas (see FEIS, Section 3.11 - pine marten). The
analysis further discusses and assesses fragmentation effects and the impacts of the
activities.
US OS OS
D. BY DEMONSTRATING THAT TIMBER HARVEST ACTIVITIES ARE NOT IN
CONFLICT WITH ESA AND FOREST PLAN HABITAT PROTECTION
REQUIREMENTS FOR FISH
Given the above concerns, it is difficult to see how this project meets the ESA
regarding listed fish species. There is no solid evidence from monitoring that habitat
is recovering and no evidence at all that streams are now meeting forest plan stands
(see appendix A forest plan). As such, approval of the non restoration parts of the
project-logging and man-made building-are in conflict with the forest plan, the ESA,
and treaty obligations. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow ID -
#22.30.10400.100)
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the FEIS Record of Decision, which includes the Biological
Evaluation for listed fish and wildlife. While current conditions offish habitat are
below objective in project area streams, this project, as required under the Forest
Plan, is designed to improve these conditions (FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.2).
US US 05 OS OS 03
152. The Nez Perce National Forest should design this project such that best
available science for protecting sensitive species is acknowledged.
A. BY ADOPTING LANDSCAPE-SCALE MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS WITH
BUFFERS. RESERVES. AND CONNECTORS
State-of-the-art conservation biology and the principles that underlie the agency's
policy of "ecosystem management" dictate an increasing focus on the landscape-
scale concept and design of large biological reserves accompanied by buffer zones
and habitat connectors as the most effective (and perhaps only) way to preserve
wildlife diversity and viability (Noss, 1993).
The FS has stated: "Well distributed habitat is the amount and location of required
habitat which assure that individuals from demes distributed throughout the
population's existing range, can interact. Habitat should be located so that genetic
exchange among all demes is possible." (Mealey 1983.) (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.69.13100.330)
RESPONSE:
The FEIS used best available science and a landscape scale approach in the
analysis through reference to the South Fork Clearwater River Landscape
Assessment as well as consideration and referencing updated theories and
biodiversity studies pertaining to old growth (See FEIS discussion in Chapter 3,
Section 3.11). This discussion addresses ability of the habitat to facilitate genetic
exchange commensurate with historic landscape patterns and disturbance
Appendix M
PageM-146
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
regimes. The discussion also highlights that connectedness must be balanced
with risks of natural disturbance events and must be considered when evaluating
long-term habitat integrity. Additional discussion on neotropical migrant birds
and their habitats is in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.11. For additional
discussion by old growth indicator species, see FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.11.
080303
B. BY CONDUCTING MONITORING AND POPULATION VARIABILITY ANALYSIS
FOR AREAS THAT MAY EXCEED THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT AREA
1. The FS in this region has acknowledged that viability is not merely a project area
consideration, that the scale of analysis must be broader:
Population viability analysis is not plausible or logical at the project level such as
the scale of the Dry Fork Vegetation and Recreation Restoration EA.
Distributions of common wildlife species as well as species at risk encompass
much larger areas than typical project areas and in most cases larger than
National Forest boundaries. No wildlife species that presently occupy the project
area are at such low numbers that potential effects to individuals would
jeopardize species viability. No actions proposed under the preferred alternative
would conceivably lead to loss of population viability. (Lewis and Clark NF, Dry
Fork EA Appendix D at p.9.) (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow,
ID-#22.69.13100.330)
RESPONSE:
The viability discussion for various wildlife species has been revised and
improved (see wildlife section 3.11), as well as Appendix J.
The analysis of effects and species viability discussions for various wildlife
species included in the American and Crooked River project looked beyond
the project level. The majority of the wildlife analysis for this project
encompassed the entire 5th code watersheds associated with this project
(American and Crooked Rivers). Wildlife information related to the amount of
existing habitat potentially available for certain sensitive and management
indicator species was modeled using the Northern Region Vegetation
Mapping Project dataset (R1-VMP) to describe abundance and distribution of
wildlife habitat for American and Crooked River drainages. This information
can be found in Chapter 3, wildlife section, of the FEIS. The Nez Perce
National Forest also used the 2000-2002 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
survey dataset to ascertain the abundance and distribution of certain wildlife,
old growth and snag habitats at various scales: watershed (5th Hydrologic
Unit Code - HUC), subbasin (4th HUC), and forest-wide. A revised viability
analysis can be found in Appendix J of the FEIS, which incorporates both
R1vmp and the FIA data. Additional information regarding species viability
can also be found in the project file, which incorporates results of the Forest's
monitoring efforts since the Forest Plan was signed in 1987.
OS 03 OS
2. The DEIS should have firmly established that the species that exist, or historically
are believed to have been present in the analysis area are still part of viable
Appendix M
Page M-147
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
populations. Since Forest Plan monitoring efforts have failed in this regard, it
must be a priority for project analyses. Yet, the project analysis relies on this
inadequate and/or unavailable forest plan monitoring. Identification of viable
populations is something that must be done at a specific geographic scale. The
analysis must cover a large enough area to include a cumulative effects analysis
area that would include truly viable populations. Analysis must identify viable
populations of MIS, TES, at-risk, focal, and demand species of which the
individuals in the analysis area are members in order to sustain viable
populations. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.70.13100.340)
RESPONSE:
The complete summary record of our Forest Plan monitoring of MIS and TES
species results is located in and supports the terrestrial species viability analysis
document in the American & Crooked River Project File titled: "Habitat-Based
Terrestrial Vertebrate Populations Viability Related to the American and Crooked
River Project" (USDA FS, 2004a), available in the project files. This species
viability analysis incorporates both habitat and population data and is more than
simply a "proxy on proxy" approach.
C!8 <33 OS
C. BY CONDUCTING OLD GROWTH ANALYSIS THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH
HABITAT ANALYSIS
The old growth analysis is inconsistent with the analyses for various species
dependent on old growth habitats. The DEIS maintains that no old growth would be
affected by any alternative. However, habitat for old growth species would be
affected. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.71.13100.365)
RESPONSE:
The American and Crooked River Project was designed to avoid all direct harvest
impacts on old growth and Forest Plan minimum replacement stands. While no
direct effects are realized, NEPA requires that indirect as well as cumulative
effects be disclosed. These disclosures by species are related in the FEIS,
Chapter 3, Section 3.11. Related discussion on Neotropical migrant birds and
their habitats is in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Section 3.11.
<&
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
and Appendix J, and the complete analysis for wildlife is available in the project file
titled: "Habitat-based Terrestrial Vertebrate Populations Viability Related to The
American and Crooked River Project" (USDA FS, 2004a). This analysis incorporates
both habitat data as well as MIS populations monitoring results since the Forest Plan
was signed. It is more than simply a "proxy on proxy" approach.
The Fisheries section (3.3) of the FEIS provides a summary of the status and trends
for management indicator species (MIS) as well as a discussion of population
viability. The complete analysis is contained in the project record.
OS OS O3 OS OS OS
154. The Nez Perce National Forest should conduct statistics concerning
wildland fire ignitions and a decrease in elk habitat.
There /s a positive correlation between roads, even temporary ones, and human-caused
wildfire ignitions and decreases in Elk Habitat Effectiveness (EHE). Statistics and
findings related to human-caused fires and EHE need to be addressed and analyzed.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.65.30300.330)
RESPONSE:
Open and seasonally open road and trail densities are factored as inputs to the North
Idaho Summer Elk Model, which generated habitat suitability effectiveness outputs
(related in Table 3.157, Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Although the presence of and
frequent public travel on open roadways may increase human-caused fire risks, and
similar open roads and trails may result in impacts to elk habitat effectiveness
independently, we can think of no logical, resource effects rationale to correlate the
statistics and findings between these two otherwise unrelated parameters.
As referenced in Chapter 3, Section 3.4 of the FEIS, there have been 9 human-
caused fires of the 86 fires within the project area occurring from 1970 through 2003.
O3O3 OS Oi OS OS
155. The Nez Perce National Forest should complete the project to provide for
elk forage.
The referenced project will assist in providing elk forage so vital and necessary for
recovering the declined elk herds in and around the project areas.
(Recreation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #1.1.32200.351)
RESPONSE:
A significant part of the elk habitat improvement from this project will come from
improved habitat security related to road decommissionings. Foraging habitat will be
improved as well.
US 03 C8 03 OS 03
Appendix M
Page M-149
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
SECTION 11 - SOCIOECONOMIC
156. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD WORK WITH INDUSTRIES OTHER
THAN THE TIMBER INDUSTRY.
FOR TOURISM
We could have more tourists than Colorado has in 20 years if our State and your
department could work in harmony with an industry other than timber. My industry is
real estate and I support the forest plan put forth by Friends of the Clearwater. Your
decision concerning the fate of forests within our beloved State of Idaho will impact me
for the rest of my life. (Individual, Moscow, ID - #21.3.34000.810)
RESPONSE: Comment Acknowledged
US (S3 G3 O8 (IS (33
157. (old 158.) The Final EIS should be comprehensive in explaining the
economics of the American and Crooked River Project.
A. BY CLARIFYING WHAT "ECONOMIC OBJECTIVE" REFERS TO. FROM PAGE 20 OF THE DEIS.
"ENTRY INTO MIXED CONIFER STANDS IS INCLUDED TO MEET THE ECONOMIC OBJECTIVE."
At page 20, the DEIS states, "Entry into mixed conifer stands is included to meet the
economic objective." Please clarify which objective this is referring to, as no
economic objective is provided at page 10, where project objectives are disclosed.
Further, because no economic objective is given at page 10, this alternative falls
outside the scope of this analysis. If an economic objective is part of the purpose
and need of this project, the proposal must be re-scoped.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.22.21100.800)
RESPONSE:
The project objectives are discussed in the Purpose and Need For Action Section on
page 2 of the FEIS. The first paragraph of the section defines one purpose of the
project to "contribute to the economic and social well-being of people who use and
reside within the surrounding area." By entering (treating) mixed conifer stands,
additional economic gains can be gained.
OS (S3 &5
B. BY EXAMINING THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF A RESTORATION ALTERNATIVE
REHABILITATING THESE WATERSHEDS SO THEY MEET BENEFICIAL USES
Any work performed in this watershed will have difficulty paying for itself given the
low value of the timber and the high operating costs necessary to mitigate for
previous legacy problem. The FEIS should examine the economic effects of a
restoration alternative rehabilitating these watersheds so they meet beneficial uses.
Healthy watersheds would improve fisheries and benefit outfitters, guides, and
supporting recreational industries. One need only examine the name of the
drainage, the Clearwater, to remind oneself of what is possible.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID-#15.142.21100.800)
Appendix M
PageM-150
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
A restoration alternative was considered and eliminated from detailed study because
it does not respond to the purpose and need. (FEIS chapter 2)
C. BY DISCUSSING THE IMPACT OF THE UPSWING IN THE TIMBER MARKET. AND IT'S
POTENTIAL IMPACT ON PROPOSED RESTORATION WORK
The FEIS should discuss the impact of the upswing in the timber market, and the
potential impact on proposed restoration work. At the time of the project's
conception, timber prices were extremely low and may have led to limited planning
for restoration. With an ensuing rebound in timber prices, additional restoration may
be feasible. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID
#15.140.21100.820)
RESPONSE:
The economic analysis in Chapter 3 is intended to be used as an indicator of value
and costs. The true value received can only occur when a timber sale is sold. The
economic analysis displays the values and costs available at the time of printing and
have been updated from what was displayed in the DEIS.
030303
D. BY FACTORING IN THE COSTS TO RETURN THE WATERSHED TO A CONDITION SUPPORTING
BENEFICIAL USES FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
In addition to analyzing the economic costs and benefits of each alternative in terms
of expected timber yield, benefits, and harvest costs, the FEIS must factor in the
costs to return the watershed to a condition supporting beneficial uses for each
alternative. The FEIS needs to factor in the costs of decommissioning all high-risk
roads, rehabilitating degraded areas, losses in the recreation industry resulting from
decreased and low-level fish production. The FEIS also must address the costs
associated with preparing the EIS, administering the sale and other administrative
costs associated with the planning and preparation of the project. Please include all
costs associated with this sale in the FEIS. (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Boise, ID - #15. 139.21100.830)
RESPONSE:
The alternative tables, displaying the projected revenue and cost of implementation,
in Chapter 3, Section 3.12, do incorporate the direct costs of road decommissioning
and rehabilitating degraded areas (mine sites, soil restoration, etc.) The indirect
effects analysis discusses recreation activity, and an increase in anadromous fish
habitat improvement. The costs associated with planning, preparing, and
administering the project are normally not included in economic analyses.
030303
Appendix M
PageM-151
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
E. BY DISCUSSING THE USE OF OFF-BUDGET FUNDS
The FEIS should also discuss the use of off-budget funds (i.e. KV, BD, Roads and
Trails, etc) in the accomplishment of various components of this proposal.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.141.21100.835)
RESPONSE:
The alternative tables, displaying the projected revenue and cost of implementation,
in Chapter 3, Section 3.12, display KV and BD costs. The KV costs are displayed as
reforestation line items. The BD costs are displayed as line items for broadcast
burning, underburning, and excavator pile and burning. The restoration work and
costs associated are also displayed in the tables. How this work is to be funded is to
be determined.
OS
F. BY INCLUDING THE LONG-TERM OUTLOOK FOR THE PROJECT AREA IN THE ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
Following implementation of the project, it should be expected that dense thickets of
Lodgepole Pine would regenerate in the logged areas. In the course of 80 years,
this will result in beetle-susceptible stands and if current ideology continues to plague
the Forest Service, this will necessitate identical treatments at that time. This is the
long-term outlook for the project area, based on the likely scenario. This sequence
of events should be considered in the FEIS analysis, and particularly in the economic
analysis. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID - #15.110.21100.820)
RESPONSE:
The scenario described in the comment is an accurate description of the expected
life cycle of Lodgepole pine habitat. However, it would be highly speculative to
include in a current economic analysis, a similar treatment with similar costs what
would be done eighty years from now.
03 03 us as os ess
SECTION 12 - WILDERNESS AND ROADLESS AREAS
ROADLESS AND WILDERNESS AREAS GENERAL
158. THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST SHOULD PROTECT LANDS DESIGNATED AS
WILDERNESS OR ROADLESS.
A. BY NOT HARVESTING TIMBER IN ROADLESS AREAS
The merits of protecting roadless lands are many, and crossing the line to log in
roadless lands would set a terrible precedent. (Individual, Seattle, WA -
#8.3.62100.002)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
03(1303
Appendix M
PageM-152
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
B. BY MAINTAINING THE MEADOW CREEK AREA AS INVENTORIED ROADLESS LAND
Not surprisingly, the DEIS claims the SFLA's identification of inventoried roadless
areas has been rescinded and was under different parameters. This is a transparent
attempt to surreptitiously eliminate acreage from the Meadow Creek roadless area.
When was this rescinded and how was it done? (Preservation/Conservation
Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.76.62110.621)
RESPONSE:
The West Meadow Creek Inventoried Roadless Area was defined in the Forest Plan
and this boundary was used in this document. This is the only official boundary of
that Inventoried Roadless Area. The roadless area that is depicted in the SFLA was
an inventory of lands that met Regional protocols for roadless areas and this
boundary will be assessed during the Forest Plan Revision process.
O8 C8 C9 OS OS O8
159. The Nez Perce National Forest should consider reducing limitations to
operate in roadless lands.
TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO TREAT AREAS IN NEED
Roadless- there are significant amount of roadless areas in and adjacent to the project.
We are always concerned that limitation to operating both there and in currently
unroaded areas limits access and treatment of areas in need, and authorized by the
1987 Forest Plan. (Timber/Wood Products Industry, Kamiah, ID - #5.10.62100.410)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
OS C9 C9 O8 C!8 OS
160. The Nez Perce National Forest should consider potential conflicts and
access limitations associated with roadless policy.
When [roadless areas limit access] conflict arises [and] it should be highlighted for the
public, and risk clearly explained to higher authorities. Often roadless policy limits the
best economical and environmental access options. (Timber/Wood Products Industry
Kamiah, ID - #5.11.12100.410)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
OS 03 CSS OS OS C3
161. The Nez Perce National Forest should accurately map and draw inventoried
roadless area boundaries.
TO INCLUDE AND SHOW THE PROPER BOUNDARIES OF THE MEADOW CREEK ROADLESS AREA
TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF LEGAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS IN THE MAPPING AND
INVENTORYING OF ROADLESS AREAS
The DEIS claims no activities are planned for inventoried roadless areas (IRAs).
However, that assumes, among others, two important points. The first is there is a
Appendix M
PageM-153
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
consistent map showing the IRA boundaries. The second is that the IRA boundaries
were drawn correctly. Neither is accurate.
With regard to the Meadow Creek roadless area, there are two maps that show an IRA
boundary. The first is the forest plan map from 1987. The second is the one in the
SFLA (see map 27, SFLA, Volume II. Since this is an agency document we assume you
have a copy of it. If not, we can send you a color copy of the map). The SFLA map
shows land between Box Sing Creek just past Kirks Fork as inventoried roadless all the
way to the BLM boundary, land in the East Fork of the American River all the way to the
boundary with BLM, and some land at the head of the Flint Creek drainage that is part of
the Meadow Creek IRA. It is quite clear, from our on-the-ground knowledge of the area,
observation of aerial photos, and the DEIS itself that areas that this area is, in fact,
roadless.
Map 11 a in the DEIS makes this point. We will comment on the adequacy of this map
later.
What is important is that the SFLA map shows this area to be inventoried. Furthermore,
this area should be in the inventory and its exclusion indicates ethical and perhaps legal
problems with the mapping and inventories. The SFLA was an honest attempt to reflect
the inventoried roadless boundaries. (Preservation/Conservation Organization Moscow
ID-#22.75.40220.621)
RESPONSE:
The inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) for the Nez Perce National Forest were
mapped during development of the Forest Plan. They are displayed in the Nez
Perce National Forest FEIS, Appendix C. No harvest or road building is proposed in
the American and Crooked Rivers Project within these IRAs.
The IRAs in the vicinity of the American and Crooked Rivers Project Area are
.displayed in maps 11a and 11b of the FEIS. The IRA boundaries used in these
maps have been redrawn at a larger scale than that displayed in the Nez Perce
National Forest Plan FEIS Appendix C but represent the same areas as closely as
we can interpret from the small scale maps in the Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix C.
In 1998, the Nez Perce National Forest published the South Fork Clearwater River
Landscape Assessment (SFLA). This document is not a decision document, but an
assessment designed to frame issues and display information to be used during
forest plan revision. As part of that analysis, a preliminary remapping of roadless
areas was conducted using the region's "Roadless Area Inventory Protocol" from
1996. The result of that remapping effort was displayed in maps 3 and 27 of the
SFLA. These maps show the starting point for a reinventory of roadless areas for
consideration during forest plan revision and were not a decision to change IRA
boundaries. The forest plan revision team is currently using the same protocol to
reinventory current Inventoried Roadless Areas and other areas with possible
roadless characteristics to create a new inventory of Inventoried Roadless Areas for
analysis during forest plan revision. They are not using the precise areas displayed
in the SFLA. The areas mapped using this protocol during forest plan revision will be
evaluated for wilderness designation and possible roadless area management in the
revised forest plan.
Appendix M
PageM-154
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
The SFLA did not change the IRAs. It was a first step to a re-inventory of roadless
areas to be analyzed during forest plan revision. The effects to IRAs addressed in
the American and Crooked Rivers Project are those to the IRAs defined in the Forest
Plan FEIS, Appendix C. The analysis of affects to these IRAs and other areas with
possible unroaded characteristics has been supplemented in the FEIS. That
reanalysis can be found in Section 3.13. Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas,
and Areas with Possible Unroaded Characteristics in the FEIS.
See response to comment #21.
VS V3 US C9 OS C3
162. The Final EIS should correct inventoried roadless are information for
Meadow Creek.
It /s clear the inventory that excludes the areas mentioned above from Meadow Creek
was in error (perhaps intentionally so) and is of questionable ethical and legal standards.
Various policies and regulations require high quality and honest information from
agencies. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID - #22.78.62110.720)
RESPONSE: See response to comment 161.
C% OS (35 (S3
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
affecting roadless values, and then claim in the forest plan revision those areas are
not longer suitable for wilderness and drop them from the roadless inventory. Thus,
the decision to destroy wilderness character would never have been analyzed and
the "discovery" of the unsuitability of the area only made after the fact. That is
contrary to NEPA, NFMA, and above all, a sense of public trust and integrity that the
agency is supposed to have. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow ID
-#22.83.13100.621)
RESPONSE:
No part of this project occurs in the any Inventoried Roadless Area and in
particular, no part of this project occurs in the West Meadow Creek Inventoried
Roadless Area. In addition, see response to comment 161 and response to
comment 21.
O3 (33 OS
B. BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE GOALS OF EXISTING FOREST PLANS TO PROTECT SENSITIVE
HABITAT
This roadless area provides diversity and quality of habitat for fish - a primary goal of
your own NP Forest Plan. It also provides habitat that contributes to the recovery of
Threatened and Endangered Species - yet another goal in the NP Forest Plan.
Please uphold your own Forest Plan and do what is right for the ecology of this
roadless landscape by considering and selecting an alternative that meets these
goals. (Individual, Moscow, ID-#9.2.10400.002)
RESPONSE:
There are not specific Forest Plan Standards for Roadless Areas in the Nez Perce
Forest Plan. This project was designed to meet or exceed Forest Plan Standards.
Please see the Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Unroaded Area section
of the Document in Chapter three for an analysis of the impacts to Roadless Areas.
OS (S3 CS 03 08
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
RESPONSE:
Roadless area inventory has been conducted and is used in the Forest Planning
process. See the FEIS Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Area, and Unroaded Area
section in Chapter 3 for effects to roadless areas.
as as 03
B. SUCH AS REGULATORY TRIGGERS TO DOCUMENT IMPACTS FROM TIMBER HARVESTS IN AN
EIS
The agency's own regulations note that "harvesting timber" in a roadless area
triggers the necessity to prepare an EIS, even Wit is "in only one part of the roadless
area.' (Federal Register Vol. 57 No. 152, September 18, 1992. page 43200, FSH
1909.15 Chapter 20.6(3)). While the preparation of an EIS is not the issue here, the
point is logging significantly affects the undeveloped nature of a roadless'area.
(Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID-#22.79.10400.621)
RESPONSE:
There are not specific Forest Plan Standards for Roadless Areas in the Nez Perce
Forest Plan (USDA FS, 1987a), but all other Forest Plan Standards must be met in
these areas. This project was designed to meet or exceed Forest Plan Standards,
including those specific to fish and other threatened and endangered species. No
activities associated with this project are proposed in the Meadow Creek Inventories
Roadless Area. Please see Section 3.13. - Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas,
and Unroaded Area in Chapter 3 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for an
analysis of the impacts to Roadless Areas.
08 03 OS
C. SUCH AS APPROVED RECOVERY PLANS AND PENDING ROADLESS MANDATES IN
CONGRESS
Your responsibilities are to maintain the integrity of those national forests and
watersheds in your area. There are many approved recovery plans for areas already
damaged. As to the damaged South Fork Clearwater watershed, I urge you to
adhere to the roadless mandate now threatened in the US congress and to resist the
pressures for logging. I believe you are obliged to analyze current pressures and to
avoid further depletions of national forests and watersheds. (Individual New York
NY-#29.1.10400.621)
RESPONSE:
No treatment is proposed in inventoried Roadless Areas. Please see the
Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Area, and Unroaded Area section in Chapter 3 of
this FEIS for effects to roadless areas.
080308
D- BY ADOPTING A DEFINITION OF 'IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES' IN ROADLESS AREAS THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH COURT DECISIONS
The DEIS claims that there are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
roadless resources under any alternative in spite of the fact roadless land will be
Appendix M
PageM-157
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
logged under the action alternatives except E. The excuse is the impacts would be
temporary.
The courts are clear even though this DEIS ignores the law. A decision to log a
roadless area is "environmentally significant" [Smith v. US Forest Service No. 93-
36187 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 1994)] and "the decision to harvest timber on a previously
undeveloped tract of land is "an irreversible and irretrievable decision' which could
have 'serious environmental consequences." [National Audubon Society et al v. US
Forest Service 4 F. 3d 832(9th Cir. 1993)].
Such an absurd analysis of irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources in
the DEIS turns NEPA on its head. To be consistent with this ridiculous roadless
analysis, the DEIS should declare no irreversible or irretrievable loss of soils from the
Mazama eruptions of 6,700 years ago because, at some future date, Mt. Hood, the
Three Sisters, Rainier, Mt. Adams, or some other volcano in the Cascades will erupt
and redeposit a soil ash cap. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID
-#22.80.13100.621)
RESPONSE:
No treatment is proposed in inventoried Roadless Areas. Please see the
Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Area, and Unroaded Area section in Chapter 3 of
this FEIS for effects to roadless areas.
.03 as os
E. BY CONDUCTING SITE-SPECIFIC EIS ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN ROADLESS AREAS
The DEIS erroneously defers evaluation of the /oss of potential wilderness from
development of roadless areas. It is the Forest Service itself that set up the policy of
site-specific EISs on development of roadless area in the agency appeal decisions
and subsequent court decisions on the Idaho Panhandle and Flathead National
Forests. In the court decision on the IPNF Forest Ran appeal, the judge concurred
with the agency's argument that EISs would be prepared on development activities in
roadless areas:". . . any future development which might take place (in roadless
areas) will again be determined by the Forest Service and will be subject to the
requirements of NEPA." [Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma 21 E.L.R.
20666,206668 (D. Mont 1990) upheld on appeal].
The above referenced case is the result of a challenge to the forest plan's
analysis/evaluation/allocation of roadless areas. The court determined that it was
the site-specific decision, not the forest plan, that analyzed the impacts of
development on the roadless area and was, hence, the background document for a
decision on the fate of roadless areas (Preservation/Conservation Organization,
Moscow, ID - #22.81.13100.621)
RESPONSE:
No treatment is proposed in inventoried Roadless Areas. Please see the
Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Area, and Unroaded Area section in Chapter 3 of
this FEIS for effects to roadless areas.
(S3 (S3 (S3 (S3 (S3 (S3
Appendix M
PageM-158
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
166. The Nez Perce National Forest should not harvest timber in roadless areas.
Regarding the proposal to log in the basins of the American and Crooked Rivers -1 am
strongly opposed to any logging in roadless lands. (Individual, Seattle, WA -
#8.1.34000.621)
A. BECAUSE OF PLANNING AND THE FOREST SERVICE LAND ASSESSMENT
The Forest Service's own land assessment indicated there should not be logging or
road building in the Meadow Creek Roadless Area. (Individual, Coeur D Alene, ID -
#11.4.34000.621)
There should be no logging or road building in the Meadow Creek Inventoried
Roadless Area as per the Forest Service's own landscape assessment.
The cumulative impacts of this timber sale plus the Whiskey South, Meadow Face,
Red Pines, Blacktail Butte, and Eastside Township timber sales must be considered.
(Individual, San Francisco, CA - #31.2.34000.621)
Please amend your plan to exclude logging where roadless areas are involved.
(Individual, Seattle, WA-#8.4.34000.621)
RESPONSE:
No treatment is proposed in the West Meadow Creek inventoried Roadless Area.
Please see the Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Unroaded Area section
in Chapter 3 of this FEIS for effects to roadless areas.
O8 O8 O8
B. BECAUSE IT AFFECTS CLEAN AIR AND WATER
There are resources of clean air and water that are protected when roadless forest is
preserved. The damage done by logging in these areas has been researched and
recorded. (Individual, Laguna Beach, CA - #20.2.34000.220)
RESPONSE:
No treatment is proposed in inventoried Roadless Areas. Please see the
Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Unroaded Area section in Chapter 3 of
this FEIS for effects to roadless areas.
08080*
C. BECAUSE MEADOW CREEK is A ROADLESS AREA
There should be no logging or road building in the Meadow Creek inventoried
roadless area. Idaho does not need more roads. Why destroy our forests for greed.
(Individual, Moscow, ID-#4.1.34000.621)
RESPONSE:
No treatment is proposed in the West Meadow Creek Inventoried Roadless Areas.
Please see the Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Unroaded Area section
in Chapter 3 of this FEIS for effects to roadless areas.
080803
Appendix M
PageM-159
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
BECAUSE THE AREA MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN PAST ROADLESS INVENTORIES
With the current uncertainty surrounding the status of roadless areas, we encourage
you to avoid logging in any unroaded areas, which may or may not have been
included in inventories in the past (see South Fork Clearwater River Landscape
Assessment).
These areas provide many benefits to wildlife and forest health through their diversity
of plant life and tree variability, whether or not they are inventoried by the Forest
Service or not. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Boise, ID -
#15.136.34000.621)
RESPONSE:
No treatment is proposed in inventoried Roadless Areas. Previous inventories were
conducted to determine if areas have suitability for future Congressional designation
as Wilderness. These areas are identified as Inventoried Roadless Areas. There
are protocols that are used to determine whether or not the area is suitable. The
West Meadow Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (#1845C) and the Dixie Summit-Nut
Hill Inventoried Roadless Area (#1235) were identified as not suitable for Wilderness
based on the inventory criteria. Please see the Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless
Areas, and Unroaded Area section in Chapter 3 of this FEIS for effects to roadless
areas.
esoses
BECAUSE USING INSECT INFESTATION AND FIRE DANGER AS A JUSTIFICATION is
CONTRADICTORY
These forests exist in natural insect and fire regimes, which select for trees resistant
to both natural forces. Using insect infestation and fire safety as justifications for
entering these areas is contradictory, since logging will increase the fire danger
through subsequent soil and slash drying, as well as high grade the most disease-
resistant trees in indiscriminate clear cutting. This squandering of natural capital for
an essentially one-time harvest is characteristic of timber mining, not responsible
forestry.
I would like to receive any scooping information on this project, and the draft and
final EIS or EA. (Individual, Minneapolis, MN - #32.3.34000.822)
RESPONSE:
Treated areas would have short term increase in fire hazard as stated in Chapter
3, Section 3.4. - Fire in the FEIS, due to the logging slash, but this short term
hazard will be abated as the prescribed burning is completed and the fuel loads
lowered.
The same process of soil drying and slash accumulating is effectively taking
place in the stands that are infested with the Mountain Pine Beetles. As trees
are killed and the canopies opened more sunlight and wind is allowed to reach
the surface to warm the soil and slash. Additionally as the trees loose their
branches and/or fall over the fuel loadings are increasing to the levels of a post
Appendix M
Page M-160
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
harvest fuel model. These areas if not treated will also increase the fire hazard
within these stands.
The difference between this process happening naturally and through treatment is
that in the natural scenario this fire hazard will remain high for a much longer time.
Also in the natural scenario there will be no places that will modify the fire behavior
and allow for suppression actions to be safely initiated as there would be under the
proposed action.
08 OS <& OS 05 08
167. The Nez Perce National Forest should not harvest timber in backcountry
areas.
Why would anyone even propose to log (aka thin or mechanically remove fuels) in the
backcountry in an attempt to reduce wildfires? As a logging engineer by education, I can
say without a doubt that thinning is logging, mechanical fuels reduction is logging, and
salvage is logging. Any time a tree (dead or alive) is felled, skidded, cut into logs,
loaded, and hauled on a truck, it is logging. Whether it is small trees or large trees,
burned trees or green trees, it makes no difference. I realize euphemistically, the Forest
Service prefers to use the term "timber harvest" and "mechanical removal" rather than
logging. (Individual, Grangeville, ID-#30.1.34000.720)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
(no site-specifics are mentioned) will only be temporarily affected. No site- specific
acreage numbers or locations are given, just a mention of "various intensities. "
In essence, the site-specific and cumulative effects analysis does not enlighten us on
the impacts to roadless areas. (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow,
ID -#22.85.3031 0.621)
RESPONSE:
No treatment is proposed in inventoried Roadless Areas or in Wilderness. Please
see the Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Unroaded Area section in
Chapter 3 of this FEIS.
B. TO CONDUCT SITE SPECIFIC IMPACTS TO ROADLESS AREAS
What the agency is attempting to do is very deceitful. It is required to analyze the
site-specific impacts to roadless areas. The DEIS claims that the analysis of
development and what it might mean for the wilderness suitability of the roadless
areas will be deferred in a different context. That is just opposite of what the law
requires (NOTE: NFMA requires a programmatic roadless area analysis at each
forest plan revision to look at wilderness potential and make recommendations in the
plan, but the impacts from roadless area development must be analyzed at the site-
specific level). (Preservation/Conservation Organization, Moscow, ID -
#22.82.30300.621)
RESPONSE:
No treatment is proposed in inventoried Roadless Areas. Please see the
Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Unroaded Area section in Chapter 3 of
the FEIS for effects to roadless areas.
169. The Nez Perce National Forest should protect wilderness attributes in the
project lands.
A. BY ESTABLISHING CONSERVATION AND WATERSHED RECOVER PROGRAMS.
DECOMMISSION ROADS. AND DESIGNATING WILDERNESS ACRES
This area presents important soil, water, wildlife, fish, plant, roadless areas and
unroaded area resources. As the area contains impressive biological, scenic, and
wilderness attributes, may I suggest a conservation program for all of the area's
streams, with a watershed recovery plan., and to preserve all plant, fish, and wildlife
habitats with a roads obliteration action schedule. I urge that each of the following
areas, with acres, be designated as wilderness:
Baboon Creek (1923), Flatiron Ridge (961), East Fork American River (5102), Flint
Creek (1602), Envidon Ridge (1922), Lightning Fork (1283), Big Elk Creek (5204),
Elk Summit (968), Moose Creek (1126), Beanf?] Creek (2242), Rabbit Creek -
Center Stand Creek (2563), Crooked river (Deadwood)(1441), Deadwood Creek -
Red River (1296), Wheeler Mtn-Cole Creek (1604), Pontano Mtn (5019), Boyn Creek
(720), Siegal Creek (3204), Ditch Creek (3047), Dalaria Creek (1042),
Appendix M
PageM-162
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
And to designate the Meadow Creek wilderness of 276,503 acres. (Individual,
Minneapolis, MN-#17.1.62200.200)
RESPONSE:
No additional wilderness designation has been recommended in the current Forest
Plan.
cat c« os
B. BECAUSE WILDERNESS is DISAPPEARING AND CANNOT BE VALUED IN DOLLARS
Wilderness is fast disappearing in the American west, and once gone, can never be
restored. The value of these pristine stretches cannot be measured in dollars.
(Individual, Laguna Beach, CA - #20.1.62200.711)
RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.
cs os as uz (ss as
Appendix M
PageM-163
-------
SECTION 13 - COMMENTS FROM THE NEZ PERCE TRIBE
RECEIVED
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST
' _.^ •;••• ..: • ; . . GRANGEVJLLE, IDAHO
,. -.-TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
, ' p-0-BOX 80S ,- UPWAI, IDAHO 63S40 . <20B)««-2253
Bruce Bemhardt • •
Ncz PerceNaticmal Forest '
Route 2, Box 475.
Grangcvilie, Idaho 83530 ' '
: Wb^Cpmmeats on the Akericanahd Crooked River Project
^
'
ies in and downstream
xi interest in the Forest's proposed .
Purpose and Need • • • j ... ' ' ' '
S±±S^ -
die and j
.„. j. - ... . , !Pu^PoseM
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
0003
thiffpttaectappeaiBtoibe. However,
..
and to maki multiple tractor entries across nearly »00 acre TT« Forest
n.eForcst,
^"1^^
such
.as mine.reojamatipn, sofl restomhon, instream fish habitat unproveratnts, and esteWisfament of
toes to shade streams. Given the dirrfinMed-^tc of ex&tm auatio-co^diti
poiptcd tbat o< tPaa* fc
need k the projectiIf the
of
Banee of Aiftmaii
h «
estetipn and fee ou&reaks, which may be probable cmtcomes of 4e project proposal •
strongly believes that ifthe. Forest Service classifies this-^ -
JncliktesienbHictmeiit and protection ^critical water-
"^^^^
'
; foise behind..^ project of this size in
alyw a reasonabllrange of alternatives
SP^
Appendix M
PageM-165
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
1^004
d"?0*--^*?* field.tour, staff fiomthe Forest indicated that
hdteyeal that the Forest has no realpkn
o» this Ranger District? TTie Trib4 very coSed
o^t wiflvtespert W^^ thcJcoSS '
^ "wbere feasible." How ieasSomeLg is
whigt
. -* .^—iiions-of weeds, exacflywhat'stepswillte taken to'see that
additional populations are not created with ^project'i - ..*.*» wxia*.
*•', -; Soils ' ', . -. * . •'.
w^^ ^? !!SfTS tneproject's-unpacte to sojl conditions. Jtist'south of the Nez
'VetteNaJionalF£^st1^ done many studies of .theimpacts to soils
ITie Txibe questions
can do better. . . '
• 5- Water Yields '
Because thousands of acres of cJ
^ a» Ainexican and Qoo w
i^
taws at an ^arKer time in the
inlhe.smnmer. TOe-nibe urges the Forest to analyze how
^^*^^^^^^
m:the relevant watersheds?' ' ' , .
T- ,
I?us plan leconanKaufe.and seeks to establish nunimuminstream flows
pncte M tie South Fork aearer
recommended flows in this plan. ,i' .
Appendix M
PageM-166
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
.@005.
6- ' Prepare an E|§ ' - .-. ;': '. \' _'-. •_• '. • • ' ,' •
"As no-ted..above>-thc!.Tfibc>is concerned with theForest's marWgement philosophy of these two
miportant watersheds—namely ftattiiere is a ycry jmrrow purpose and need which does not
address tiie Tribe's purpose andneed ofaggressive,watershed restoration. The Tribe welcomes-
Turtnerdiscussions on this ppirrt. In the mean time^the Nez Perce^^ Tribe strongly encourages the
Forest to analyze its propped action ar^ a reasonable range of alternatives through the
preparation of an ^toviioamental irnpact Statement (EIS): -
NEPA requires thai ^acting agency prepare an'JEIS.for all "major federal'actiois significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment^ 42U.S.C. § 4332(2)(G). Preparation of an BIS
m the American and Crooked River Project would serve two purposes: (1) to provide forest
managers with enough infonnatipn to aid in the substantive decision whether to proceed with the
project m light of its,potential enviromnental.cbnsequences; and(2):to provide me public with
infonnation concerning ^proj.ect, and an;pprwrtunity to participate in the gathering of that
UllOmiatlOn. 40T! FT? K-KfW-.1t .»&> -?.-. /^_wx_-^..-l..-. n». ->-<:/»/» injnri -»T» AIV£W (enrphaSis added). •Review: of ^the Amencariand CrookedRiver .
f^oct indicates thattbe project is a aigniificaut ^eralactioa ^erefore-theNezPerce
Tribe recommends the Foirest prepare an EIS. ',..--'
POJWC Characterisfa-es of
Sensitive Areas:
One fafctor-in .detenuiniig the sigrdficaacc of the project is the •'Dijniqne.characteristics
ol me geographic area such as. ...ccolojgically sensitive- areas." 40 C J?.R. § 15j38J27(b)0)
TheAmencarr and Crooked Rivers represent ecologically critical spawning.grounds for
anadromoiis Salmonids species (ie, steelhead toout and chinoqk salmon) in the Souta
i-ork Ueatwator-Rivcr. drainage. The protection and enhancement of critical habitat is
essential Tor, the salmon, which are of sigmfidant concern for'ihe Nez Perce Tribe and the
people of U»e Northwest. Snake River steelhead are listed as threatened under the
Endangered SpecieS Act (ESA). Hiese .watersheds also proyidc critical habitat for
wests^e_cirtmroat trout and bull bout. The project will affect ecologically sensitive
areas in the American and Crooked River watersheds that provide esseritiar spawning • -
Appendix M
PageM-167
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
grounds fcr native
b-
Unique or IMnaown Rigfr/
c-
Appendix M
PageM-168
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
^-^^
Thenght.of tbeTribe 10fishingandproteitionoffcese speciehaiJonT
bythcUBftedStet^. "TherightSLortto..
diW»* *** «ber
..." United States v. Wlnans, 198 U.S- 371,38-1
• Clean Water Act
iver is a 303(d) listed water
»aeimeratia^ A draft Tirt>L'has been
'
sedimenta ~~~
and oogoingactrvi
8-
1 ^ '.•".'", >
0^11^0^.
cumulative cffi^
ief^
Siacerely,
Anthonyl). Johnson
0007
Appendix M
PageM-169
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Nez Perce National Forest
Route 2, Box 475
Grangevffle, ID 83530
208983-1950
208 983-2280 TTY
File Code: 1950-1
Date: April 6,2004
Honorable Anthony Johnson, Chairman
Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee
Box 305
Lapwai, ID 83540
Dear Chairman Johnson:
bi the interest of government-to-government consultation and cooperation, this letter is intended to update
you on the progress being made with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the American
and Crooked River Project and to express niy desire to engage in further coordination relative to the
project. The principal focus of this letter will be on the correspondence we received from you dated
Qctoher 29,2003 at the beginning of the project development.
First, I want to express my sincere appreciation for the involvement and communication from your staff,
particularly Ira Jones, Scott Althouse, Stephanie Bransford, and Dave Johnson. Their efforts have
increased our awareness and understanding of Tribal perspectives and concerns, particularly your deeply
held conviction to protect and restore the anadrbmons fish of the South Fork Clearwater River.
Background
Over the course of last summer and fall, field crews conducted surveys and investigations within and
surrounding the projectarea forthe purpose of defining fish and wildlife habitat, watershed and
headwater conditions, culvert and stream crossing improvement needs on existing roads, vegetative
conditions and trends, cultural resources, sensitive plant locations and protection strategies, and weed
population locations and associated risks among many other things. Nez Perce Tribe crews, under the
supervision of Stephanie Bransford, conducted culvert surveys in Crooked River last summer, as well,
and furnished valuable information, which helped us identify watershed improvement opportunities.
Based on this information, the project area was defined and the nature and purpose of the project was
framed. Prior to developing the project proposal, the Forest invited Tribal representatives to take part in a
field review of the area to discuss issues and conditions leading to the need for a proposal. Mr. Jones and
Mr. Althouse participated. Shortly following the field trip, the proposed action was made available to the
Tribe for comment.
Since we received your comments on the initial proposal, our interdisciplinary team has been busy
considering your comments, in detail, while developing alternatives to the original proposal and analyzing
the effects of those alternatives. 1 believe 1 can now shed some light on how the project is progressing
with respect to the issues raised in your letter.
Purpose and Need and Range of Alternatives
The Forest Land and Resource Management,Plan provides the overarching management direction,
including standards and guidelines for achieving fish and water quality objectives. Jn addition, our
interest in respecting the Nez Perce Tribe's treaty rights, according to policies outlined in the Forest
Service Manual (FSM 1563), combined with Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act
considerations would move this project to include a substantial component of water quality and fish
habitat improvement actions. We are proposing our action within this context. All action alternatives for
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Appendix M
PageM-170
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
the American and Crooked River Project are being developed with restoration that would go beyond
merely maintaining existing water quality and fish habitat conditions. While the amount of restoration
and habitat improvement varies by alternative (some being more aggressive than others), each of the
restoration proposals would treat a range of factors that are currently limiting water quality and fish
habitat.
The interdisciplinary team was instructed to address the project objectives in a manner that would limit
risks to watershed and wildlife resources. Although the amount of management activity varies by
alternative, none of the alternatives being considered in detail in the DEIS would involve harvest units or
fuel treatment units within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHC A's) or high hazard landslide prone
areas. There is no permanent road construction proposed. There would be no harvest or road
construction planned within old growth areas or inventoried roadless areas. All roads would be temporary
and would be removed promptly following use on this project Temporary road construction and removal
would occur as a condition of the implementing contracts associated with the project, i.e., the timber sale
and/or stewardship contracts. Temporary roads would be located to minimize effects on RJICA's and
would involve few, if any, live stream crossings.
I understand that these watersheds are vitally important to many people, and particularly important to the
Nez Perce Tribe and its members. While meeting project objectives, our intent is to respect treaty
resources and provide substantial opportunities for watershed and fish habitat restoration.
Noxious Weeds '
Approximately 300 acres of priority weeds were treated on the Red River/Elk City Ranger District during
Fiscal Year 2003. As you are aware, the Nez Perce National forest is involved in a community-based
weed strategy for the Clearwater River Basin. This community-based partnership has developed
objectives and priorities for weed management in the basin. The partnership includes local counties, state
and federal agencies and the Nez Perec Tribe. The Forest weed management program is integrated with
the Clearwater Basin Weed Management Area focus. Neither the Clearwater Basin Weed Management
Area Steering Committee nor the Nez Perce National Forest view spotted knapweed as naturalized in the
Clearwater Basin. One of the priorities for the South Fork Clearwater River area is to eradicate satellite
infestations of invasive plants including knapweed.
The Forest is currently analyzing the project area in relation to invasive plants. This analysis includes
current infestation, habitat susceptibility, risk of spread, and mitigation measures for the project.
Soils
We share your concern for potential detrimental soil disturbance in this project. Since more than half of
the acres to be treated are on slopes less than thirty-five percent, and are planned for harvest and slash
disposal using ground-based equipment, care must be taken to design and administer these operations to
keep soil disturbance within the parameters identified in the Forest Plan. The interdisciplinary team has
been instructed to develop adequate measures and mitigation to protect the soil resource; These measures
will be identified and analyzed in the DEIS, as part of the restoration package. In addition, the DEIS will
analyze options, as part of the restoration package, to restore soils that may remain in a detrimentally
disturbed condition from past activities.
Water Yield
The American and Crooked River watersheds comprise approximately 104,000 acres, total. This project
proposes to create clearcut-type openings on between 600-1200 acres, depending upon the alternatives
being considered. This is a very small percentage of the watershed acres. There would be an additional
1000-1800 acres of partial canopy removal, We consider water yield at a variety of scales. Our initial
review indicates the proposed activities will be below thresholds of concern, overall, within the two
Appendix M
PageM-171
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
watersheds regarding timing and quantities of Water flow. We are assessing the potential for exceeding
any thresholds of concern at the sub-watershed level (Forest Plan Prescription Watersheds), as well,
including cumulative effects with other planned actions in the area. The interdisciplinary team is
considering the existing stand conditions, including previously harvested areas, in making their analysis
of water yield.
Preparation of an EIS
The American and Crooked River watersheds are important for their high values to anadromous and
resident fish, as well as other wildlife species. Considering the rationale you presented in your letter in
addition to comments received by others, the Forest is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for
the American and Crooked River Project.
Clean Water Act
The project will strive to conform to State of Idaho water quality requirements in effect at the time the
Record of Decision is issued, including TMDL's. In order to meet the Forest Plan standards, the project
would produce an upward trend in fish habitat and water quality conditions as a result of the combined
effects of all planned activities. This will result in, among other habitat improvements, a net decrease in
sediment yield from the affected sub-watersheds within the project area and from the project area as a
whole.
Cumulative Effects
Our cumulative effects analysis will take into consideration a long list of actions that have occurred, are
currently active, or are reasonably foreseeable on the federally managed lands as well as on the private
lands in the upper South ForkClearwater River. Theseprojects include Whiskey South, Red Pines (this
project now includes Red River Salvage), and Eastside Township Project (new BLM proposal).
Funding for Habitat Restoration
Although you did not mention this topic in your letter, the question of how we plan to fund the habitat
restoration component of this project has eome up several times in discussions with representatives of the
Nez Perce Tribe. At this time, I can only share the funding mechanisms we plan to pursue since it is
premature to commit to funding of restoration until the NEPA planning phases of the project are complete
and we know the costs involved. A range of restoration alternatives is being considered with differing
costs and effects. Also, the various types of implementation contracting that may be used, such as
stewardship, service, or timber sale contracts, offer differing options to apply funds generated toward
restoration activities. In general, we plan to pursue the following funding sources:
• Appropriated funding for restoration is being requested for fiscal year 2005 and beyond through
the earmarks and reserves process, which is part of the Regional Office; programand budget
planning process. We currently are preparing a request for American and Crooked River as well
as Red River, which will be submitted in early April.
• As the project gets Closer to becoming final, I plan to Work with the North Central Idaho
Resource Advisory Committee to seek financial support for restoration.
• We :are designing road improvements and decommissioning of existing roads to occur and be paid
for as part of the action where such roads would be used for hauling or removing products from
the land.
• Where product values would exceed costs for logging, fuel treatments, reforestation, removal of
temporary roads constructed for the purposes of the action, etc. (we are closely watching the
efficiencies of these measures), we will consider the option to use stewardship contracting which
would allow us to direct generated funds toward restoration activities.
Appendix M
Page M-172
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
• fa the process of completing the project proposal* we would likely approve an array of restoration
projects that would be over and above what is considered as mitigation. We believe such projects
would compete well for BPA funding or other grant funding sources.
Finally, I want you to know that your letter and our subsequent contacts with Tribal representatives have
been helpful to our team in developing alternatives to the original proposed action. Your efforts to
engage in the development of this project are deeply appreciated. If you or any of the Tribal ;
subcommittees or staff wish to discuss the project in greater detail either prior to the release of the DEIS
or shortly thereafter, please let me know. Our current schedule would produce a DEIS in about a month.
In the mean time, our project leader, Phil Jahn, will continue to work with the Tribal representatives
mentioned previously.
Sincerely,
/s/ Bruce E. Bernhardt
BRUCEE. BERNHARDT
Forest Supervisor
ccr Natural Resources Subcommittee
David Johnson, Fisheries Department
Ira Jones, Watershed Department
Regional Forester
Appendix M
PageM-173
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PX). BOX 305 • LAPWAI, IDAHO 83540 • (208)843-2253
July 21,2004
American and Crooked River Project
Nez Perce National Forest
Attn: Phil Jahn
Route 2, Box 475
Grangeville, ID 83530
Sent via email to: comments-northem-nezperce<@fe.fed.us
RE: Tribal Comments on the DEIS for the American and Crooked River Project
Dear Phil:
On behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe, thank you for coming to Lapwai on Tuesday, July 6,2004 to
meet with the Natural Resources Subcommittee and conduct a govemment-to^govemment
consultation for the American and Crooked River Project (the Project). As you know, tribal staff
have been in close coordination with you on this Project, first by attending a public field tour last
summer, then by reviewing and commenting oil the scoping proposal,1 and through continued
discussion with you throughout the development of this Project The Tribe truly appreciates your
diligent efforts to consult with us on this Project. The South Fork Clearwater River is a critically
important area where tribal members routinely exercise treaty rights to fish, hunt, camp, and
gather. The Tribe urges you to evaluate this and all other projects on the impacts to treaty
reserved resources and their habitats.
Project Design
The Tribe understands that the Forest designed this Project in a fashion that avoids timber
harvest in old growth areas and in inventoried roadless areas, and is designed to minimize
impacts to riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs), while avoiding high hazard landslide
prone areas. In those respects, the Tribe views this Project as an improvement over recent
projects where the Forest has proposed risky land management in these sensitive areas, justified
by faulty modeling and biased analysis. Fulfillment of the Forest Service's trust responsibility to
protect treaty reserved resources occurs onthe ground, not through justification or analysis on
paper. Therefore, the Tribe is encouraged by the design of this Project and we encourage you to
'The Tribe's scoping comments are incorporated herein by reference.
Appendix M
PageM-174
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
use a similar or more protective approach for all future projects on the Forest, However, in light
of all activities planned along the South Fork of the Glearwater River, the litmus test for tribal
support of this Project will be whether implementation provides an upward trend in water quality
and fish habitat as required by the forest plan for the Nez Perce National Forest.
Cumulative Effects to the South Fork Clearwater River
As we discussed in our meeting on July 6, the Tribe remains vitally concerned about the
cumulative effects that continued logging and road building has on water quality and fish habitat
in the South Fork Glearwater River. As you know, our Fisheries Department has made
substantial investments in watershed restoration throughout, the South Fork, and conducts
numerous outplantings of salmon and steelhead from our Newsome Creek satellite facility
associated with the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery.
The Tribe was also a key player in the development of the TMDL for the South Fork Glearwater
River. The TMDL sets specific sediment reduction targets for the upper South Fork, Unit 36,
which is the uppermost unit listed for the South Fork and includes American River, has a
sediment load reduction target of 25%. This unit is directly upstream of the mouth of Crooked
River. Unit 30 is the segment below the mouth of Crooked River to Ten-mile Creek and also
requires a 25% reduction in sediment. Although the TMDL does not call for specific reductions
of sediment in specific tributaries to the South Fork, clearly that is the Tribe's expectation and it
is the only practical way to achieve the sediment reduction targets of the TMDL.
With numerous timber sales and road building being planned along the South Fork by the Forest
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and by private industry, the Tribe remains concerned
about how this Project meets the requirements of the TMDL. In contrast, the extensive land
management proposals along the South Fork will inhibit this critical watershed from recovery of
excess sediment and high temperatures. Under the TMDL, the American River unit #36 is in
violation of the maximum weekly mean temperature standard. Although no specific temperature
reduction targets are set, the TMDL sets shade targets as a surrogate measure for temperature.
Yet the extensive logging and road building proposed by this Project and other projects along the
South Fork will further retard the attainment of riparian management objectives (RMOs) in
sensitive riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). Such management inhibits the watershed
from recovery by maintaining high temperatures and limiting recruitment of large woody debris.
Maximum Watershed Restoration
The Tribe urges the Forest Service to adopt an action alternative that is gentle on the land scape
and maximizes watershed restoration in an aggressive manner. American River and Crooked
River are two important watersheds that support dwindling populations of salmon and steelhead.
These two watersheds are also primary sources of sediment to the South Fork Clearwater River.
Therefore, any management undertaken by the Forest Service should focus on an aggressive plan
to reduce sediment and recover these watersheds and improving habitat for threatened fisheries.
Review of the DEIS indicates that Alternative E proposes the most watershed restoration
opportunities. Therefore, the Tribe urges you to implement Alternative E.
Appendix M
PageM-175
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Contracting Mechanisms and Tribal Participation
As was expressed at the Subcommittee meeting, the Tribe is very interested in participating in
the implementation and monitoring of the watershed restoration work identified in Alternative E.
As you know, our Watershed Division has a strong record of working with the Forest Service on
watershed restoration projects such as road obliteration, culvert replacement, riparian plantings,
and watershed monitoring. We would like to expand our partnership throughout the Project area.
We understand that the Forest Service is actively considering using the stewardship contracting
authority to implement this Project. To mat end, we are aware of two stewardship workshops
that you are planning for July 22 and 23, Tribal staff will attend. However, it is unlikely that the
Tribe would be a primary contractor for this Project; thereforCj we urge you to help us identify
opportunities for tribal implementation of the watershed restoration work and monitoring.
Fireproofing Elk City
The Tribe remains concerned about the purpose and need for this project. One rationale is to
reduce the risk of a catastrophic wild fire to the surrounding community of Elk City. However,
review of the DEIS reveals that the proposed timber units are pretty far away and therefore
unlikely to reduce the fire risk to Elk City. A second rationale for the Project is to address the
pine beetle infestations in the lodgepole stands. Dead, dying, and at risk stands are proposed for
harvest. The Tribe remains skeptical about the need to treat such stands, as fire and insect
infestations are part of the natural stand replacement cycle for lodgepole pine, and these
watersheds are well within their historic range of variability.
Conclusion
The Tribe questions how the Forest Service can meet its trust responsibility to protect treaty
reserved resources and their habitats when there is currently planned well over 100 mmbf of
timber sales and 50 miles of new roads in the South Fork Clearwater River. These projects place
unnecessary and cumulative risks to already threatened fisheries and impaired water quality. We
urge you to take a hard look at the sedimentation effects of this and all other projects across the
entire watershed, not just in the specific tributaries of American and Crooked River.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Johnson, Chairman
Appendix M
PageM-176
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Ncz Perce National Forest
Route 2, Box 475
GrangevUle, ID 83530
208983-1950
208 983-2280 TTV
File Code: 1950-1
Date: November 19,2004
Honorable Anthony Johnson
Chairman
Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee
Box 305
Lapwai, ID 83540
Dear Chairman Johnson:
Continuing our government-to-govemment consultation regarding the American and Crooked
River Project (the project) on the Nez Perce National Forest, I am writing to provide an update
and offer some thoughts regarding the issues and concerns you raised in your July 21,2004
letter.
Since our last letter to you on this subject in April (enclosed), your staff, particularly Ira Jones,
Scott Althouse, and Dave Johnson remained engaged in the project and offered many valued
observations and suggestions that have strengthened the project. For this, I am deeply
appreciative. We also gained valuable insights from our meeting with the Natural Resources
Subcommittee in July, when we presented our Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
the project. It is my desire that we schedule an additional meeting with the Subcommittee or
with NPTEC in early December to further discuss our proposal prior to issuing the Final EIS and
Record of Decision.
The Nez Perce Tribe and the Forest share many common goals for managing the resources of the
South Fork Clearwater River. We share a history of working together to achieve those goals.
Recent examples include completing the Newsome Creek Watershed Assessment, our joint
submission of restoration proposals to the Idaho Office of Species Conservation, our cooperative
restoration efforts in Newsome Creek, Meadow Creek, Mill Creek, and upper Red River,
working together to complete subbasin assessments for the Salmon and Clearwater Rivers, joint
participation in the South Fork Clearwater River Watershed Advisory Group, joint participation
in the Clearwater Basin Weed Management Partnership, and our mutual efforts to implement the
satellite components of the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery. The Forest recognizes the critical
importance of the South Fork Clearwater River (SFCR) and its resources to the members of the
Nez Perce Tribe who routinely exercise treaty rights in the area.
With this perspective, I will address the following issues and concerns you brought to my
attention in your letter dated July 21, 2004.
Project Design
Much of the area surrounding Elk City, including the American and Crooked River watersheds,
is experiencing a rapid and extensive die-off of mature lodgepole pine due to the mountain pine
beetle. This is resulting in substanti al increases in hazardous forest fuels and losses of potential
economic value in the trees that are experiencing mortality and deterioration. The purpose of the
Caring for the Land and Serving People Prime* on RecyciK P«W
Appendix M
PageM-177
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
project is to reduce existing and potential forest fads, create conditions that will contribute to
sustaining long-lived fire tolerant tree species, and contribute to the social and economic well-
being of people who use, and reside within, the area.
The project uses timber harvest to accomplish fuel reduction. The project also includes a robust
restoration component, designed by our watershed and fisheries resource specialists, which will
result in a long-term improvement in water quality and fish habitat when combined with the
following design elements that limit overall risks to aquatic resources.
The project would not treat fuels, harvest timber, or construct temporary roads in old growth
areas, inventoried roadless areas, riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA's), or areas with
landslide prone characteristics. Widely dispersed temporary road spurs, generally shorter than
three quarters of a mile in length and located on stable sites, would be used to access units and
landings, where necessary, then obliterated shortly afterthe intended uses. There would be no
permanent roads constructed with this project.
The American and Crooked River Project planning team put a great deal of effort into designing
this project to recognize the importance of watershed restoration and balance fish and wildlife
needs with the other purposes of the project. We appreciate the positive tone of your comments
regarding project design.
In your letter, you encourage the Forest to,".. .use a similar or more protective approach for all
future projects on the Forest" Since receiving your letter, I have instructed the Red Pines
interdisciplinary team to apply a similar framework of design features to that proposed project in
the upper SFCR in order to provide a reasonable expectation that an upward trend in water
quality and fish Habitat can be achieved for the Red River watershed.
Cumulative Effects to the SFCR
Our consultation efforts with the Nez Perce Tribe as well as others who commented on the DEIS
have resulted in a much more comprehensive evaluation of cumulative effects. We are analyzing
the effects of past and ongoing activities in as much detail as our records allow in addition to
evaluating anticipated effects from proposed projects that we believe are reasonably foreseeable.
The geographic context of this analysis is the entire SFCR drainage, as suggested in your letter.
Cumulative effects are a major concern to us. Fish habitat in these watersheds is functioning
below estimated natural potential, due in part, to residual adverse cumulative effects of past
activities that have occurred over the past century. The project addresses existing limiting
factors related to past activities, through restoration, which would result in more rapid fish
habitat recovery than would likely occur through natural processes.
State of Idaho Water Quality Standards, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
The long-term effects of this project on sediment and temperature are positive. Planned
watershed restoration activities would reduce sediment in all watersheds and would maintain or
reduce temperatures. The project would maintain or improve existing shade and potential for
large woody debris recruitment through avoidance of vegetation treatments and temporary road
Appendix M
PageM-178
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
construction within RHCA's and by planting trees and shrubs along stream reaches where
existing vegetation and shade is sparse.
On September 30; the Forest received a letter from the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality regarding the project stating, 'The information contained with in the DEIS appears to be
consistent with the intent of this TMDL and the agreement between State and Federal Agencies
regarding impacts to this water body,"
Maximum Watershed Restoration
Consultation with the Tribe and others who commented on the DEIS, indicated strong support
for increasing emphasis on watershed restoration within the project. Based on thisresponse, I
intend to increase me emphasis on restoration. Our economic analysis indicates that potential
revenues generated from Alternative D, of the DEIS, would be sufficient, under stewardship
contracting authorities, to implement most of the restoration component of Alternative E if
timber harvest involving the. lodgepole stands can be accomplished before insect mortality
progresses to the point mat economic value is lost. Considering these factors, I am developing a
Record of Decision that would maintain, as a requirement, the full amount of restoration
identified in Alternative D and authorize implementation of additional watershed restoration
activities, as identified in Alternative E, depending upon availability of funds.
Contracting Mechanisms and Tribal Participation
I view the American and Crooked River Project, when approved, as an opportunity to expand our
partnership in watershed restoration. I intend to use stewardship contracting authorities to
implement portions of the project During late winter and early spring, 2005, the Forest will be
compiling the information necessary to develop a stewardship contract that focuses on Crooked
River. Following that, we will evaluate additional stewardship contracting opportunities in the
area, including the American River portion of this project.
1 hope that representatives from the Nez Perce Tribe who attended our stewardship contracting
workshop in July found it to be informative and helpful in understanding possible roles for the
Tribe in such endeavors. 1 believe the Nez Perce Tribe has much to offer in the areas of
reforestation and watershed restoration. My staff and I will continue to explore opportunities
with you and others who may be working in partnership with us.
FireprooGng Elk City
Through coordination with Idaho County, we have identified several communities and/or
residential areas in the vicinity of the project where fuel reduction is a priority (reference
enclosed letter from Idaho County). This priority is being addressed by the American and
Crooked River Project and by smaller defensible space projects that have been approved or are
being planned. Treating and removing hazardous forest fuels in order to reduce the risks to life,
property, and resources, in the event of a large fire, is among the objectives of the project Risk
reduction would be accomplished by reducing hazardous fuels accumulations in community
protection areas and other strategic areas and by creating vegetation patterns that would have the
effect of lowering the potential fire behavior within treatment areas. The result of lower
potential fire behavior would be increased fire suppression and management effectiveness and
Appendix M
PageM-179
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
improved..fire fighter safety. The intent of this project is to reduce the potential risks of large
fires in the project area, not to "fireproof Elk City.
Although large-scale, stand-replacing fires are a part of the natural landscape in the Elk City
area, it is currently unacceptable, socially and politically, to allow such fires to threaten
communities and residential areas that have become interspersed within this landscape. Current
management direction under the Forest Plan and Forest Fire Management Plan requires
aggressive suppression response to control all wildfires in the project area. I do not expect this
policy to change in the foreseeable future.
In summary, this project has been designed and modified through consultation with the Nez
Perce Tribe, NOAA Fisheries, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Idaho Department of Fish
and Game, and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to maintain or improve water
quality and to limit the potential for short-term incidental losses of ESA-listed anadromous fish
and bull trout. The project would create aquatic habitat conditions for long-term increases in
abundance of these species. It would also create upland habitat conditions that are projected to
maintain or improve populations of big game species in the area. Additionally, this project
would not impose any restrictions on traditional access rights of Nez Perce tribal members or
restrict, in any way, tribal members' abilities to continue exercising the full range of treaty rights
in the project area over the long term.
I appreciate the efforts of your representatives who have worked with us through the planning
phases of the project and I am committed to pursuing anypotential partnership opportunities
between the NezPerce Tribe and the Forestthat thisiproject would create.
Sincerely,
/s/Steve E. Williams
STEVE E. WILLIAMS
Acting Forest Supervisor
Appendix M
PageM-180
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
tAtftWX.I
«eoaiM.i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
November 17, 2004 R EC E I V E 0
KOV naft
To.SreveWiiHa.ns^tSupervisor ^
DearMr.Wimams:
The Idaho County Commission would like to voice its support for the American and
Crooked River Project You have provided fee Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for our review and we haye discussed, with the project manager, modifications to the
draft that are being developed to emphasize community protection priorities.
We believe this project would contribute to the social and economic well-being of toe
county by reducing potentially catastrophic risks to life and property from the buildup of
hazardous fuels that could affect residential and commercial developments m the EJk City
area. Th* activities associated with the Preferred Alternative (D) such as logging,
reforestation, and watershed restoration would also contribute direct economic benefits in
the form of a diversity uf jobs, commercially valuable wood products, and improved fish
and wildlife habitat conditions which will enhance recreation in the Hesu
We also believe it is appropriate "Dial community protection areas are identified
surrounding each of the residential areas and communities in the vicinity of the project
and that major roadways servicing these areas be maintained for ..safe and efficient
evacuation, in the case of emergency. We recommend yon proceed with specific
identification of the Ericson Ridge, Upper American River, and Gnome Town-si*
residential areas as well as the community of Qrogrande as communities-at-risk, in the
project area, from large scale wildfire. It is extremely important that priority be given to
hazardous fuel reduction within a minimum of one and one-half miles of these
communities and residential areas.
Our May 2003 Wildfire Mitigation Plan identifies a three mile community protection area
around the town of Elk City to protect several additional outlying residential areas as well
as Elk City, itself. This plan also identifies the specific evacuation routes that we expect
you to consider.
Appendix M
Page M-181
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
We agree that your proposal for the American and Crooked River Project is a much
needed step in the right direction. However, the County is concerned with the safety and
well-being of its residents and may find it necessary to add additional community
protection areas and/or expand those already identified as we continue to consider the
risks associated with hazardous forest fuels.
you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project.
George]
Idaho County Commissioners
Appendix M
PageM-182
-------
APPENDIX N - HABITAT TYPE GROUPS
Habitat Type Groups have been defined for use in the Idaho Cohesive Strategy and fire
risk assessment. The habitat types are from existing classifications, including Cooper et
al., 1992, and Steele et al., 1981. The types can be used to develop a cross-walk to
other literature that considers habitat types in making management interpretations,
including Kapler-Smith and Fischer's 1997 Fire Ecology of the Forest Habitat Types of
Northern Idaho or Green et al., 1992 Old Growth Forest Types of the Northern Region.
HTG:cQde
' •- '- -^ v *..'
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
^abftat;>,
TypVGroup
Descriptor*,
abgrl
abgrl
abgrl
abgrl
abgrl
abgrl
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgr2
abgrS
abgrS
abgrS
abgrS
abgrS
abgrS
abgrS
abgrS
abgrS
abgrS
abgrS
abgrS
ablal
,- Habitat:
vTypev
Species 1
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abigra
abilas
, Habitat,
/;Type'v:-
Species 2
acegla
calrub
phymal
phymal
phymal
spibet
acegla
acegla
acegla
copocc
linbor
linbor
linbor
linbor
vaccae
vacglo
vacmem
xerten
xerten
xerten
xerten
asacau
asacau
asacau
asacau
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
sentri
calbif
•^Habitat
;}>,Type ,',
,Sp'ecies'3
acegla
copocc
phymal
acegla
phymal
linbor
vacglo
xerten
copocc
vacglo
vacmem
asacau
menfer
taxbre
aranud
cliuni
menfer
phymal
taxbre
xerten
North
Idaho Rre
Ecology
Group1
, North,?
Idaho Old
,; Growth*
:: Group'
N- Idaho-
":--;W-C; :-;
Montana
HTG •
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
HTGcpde
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
;, Habitat ;>-
Type Group
Description
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablaT
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablal
ablal
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
abla2
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
abla3
e:-
Species 1
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
calcan
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
; Habitat
- Type
Species 2
calcan
calcan
calcan
calcan
calcan
calcan
caleh2
galtri
ledgla
oplhor
pedrac
stramp
stramp
stramp
stramp
stramp
calcan
alnsin
alvis
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
copocc
linbor
linbor
linbor
linbor
menfer
menfer
menfer
menfer
menfer
menfer
menfer
menfer
arncor
arncor
arncor
arncor
,,;,Habftat;
'rvType ' v
Species 3
calcan
galtri
ledgla
ligcan
vaccae
calcan
ligcan
menfer
sentri
stramp
aranud
cliuni
menfer
vaccae
xerten
linbor
vacsco
xerten
copocc
luglh
luzhit
menfer
rhoalb
vacsco
xerten
arncor
piceng
shecan
~t North:
Idaho, Fire
ecology
' Group
North
Idaho Ofd
; -.Growth,,,
Group
N. Idaho-'
.•'•W>
Montana
HTG
Appendix N
Page N-2
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
- --'"< ,V
•. ',' ..!,,,'
HTG;God<3
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
i Habitat-/
ryjre.G'raup
Description"
abla3
abla3
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
abla3
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
abla3
ablaS
abla3
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
abla4
abla4
abla4
abla4
abla4
abla4
abla4
abla4
,,Habitat;
'AJype,r!
Species 1
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
poptre
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
•Habitat,
,;::Type:^
SpecieV2
calrub
calrub
calrub
cargey
cargey
cargey
cargey
cargey
cargey
juncom
vaccae
vaccae
vacglo
vacglo
vacglo
vacglo
vacmem
vacmem
vacmem
vacmem
vacmyr
vacsco
vacsco
vacsco
vacsco
vacsco
vacsco
xerten
xerten
xerten
xerten
xerten
xerten
xerten
abilas
luglh
luglh
luglh
luzhit
luzhit
luzhit
luzhit
luzhit
,/Habitat'
•^TypeV'
Species 3
calrub
pacmyr
artr
artr2
arttri
cargey
psemen
xerten
pacmyr
vacglo
vacsco
pacmyr
vacmem
vacsco
calrub
cargey
pinalb
thaocc
vacsco
copocc
luglh
luzhit
vacglo
vacmem
vacsco
cargey
luglh
vacsco
luzhit
menfer
vacsco
xerten
,, iNonn
Idaho Fire
Ecology;
Group
worm
idahbpid
Growtr|
• Group
IN, raano-
Uw/-:;,
Montana
v.HTG.'
Appendix N
Page N-3
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
HTG.code
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
• Habitat;^
TypeJSrotip;
DescriptrorL-
abla4
abla4
abla4
abla4
abla4
abla4
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
ablaS
laly
laly .
pial
pial
pial
pial
pial
pial
pial
pial
picea
picea
picea
picea
picea
picea
r>Habjlat;:
§pecfes;l"
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
larlya
larlya
pinalb
pinalb
pinalb
pinalb
pinalb
pinalb
pinalb
pinalb
piceng
piceng
piceng
piceng
piceng
piceng
/.Habitat
5::;iype: .
Speciesr2
pinalb
pinalb
pinalb
ribmon
ribmon
ribmon
acegla
acegla
arnlat
arttss
berrep
berrep
berrep
carros
mare 11
mare 11
osbe
osbe
osbe
osmchi
osmchi
osmchi
phymal
spibet
symalb
thaocc
abilas
abilas
cargey
carros
carros
fesida
pinalb
vacsco
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
abilas
'Habitat,
•}rsType-:"
Species 3
juncom
vacsco
pinalb
ribmon
pacmyr
berrep
cargey
marel 1
osbe
pacmyr
osmchi
pacmyr
carros
pincon
cliuni
galtri
piceng
psemen
North,;
ldah0,Flre
,:Bc6fagy:,
: Group
s North ;
Idaho Oict
^owtfL
" Group
N. Idaho-
\w<;,;:
Montana
,<;HTG
Appendix N
Page N-4
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
•' • !, ::£: .'-
HTG code
^V;*'V
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14 -
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
^•Habitat •;'.;
type "Group
Description,;
picea
picea
picea
picea
picea
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pico
pifl
pifl
pifl
pifl
pifl
pifl
pipo
Pipo
Pipo
pipo
pipo
pipo
pipo
pipo
pipo
pipo
pipo
Pipo
pipo
jHabitat',,
::C;t&»> W » .
Jtoniana
'">"HTG •
Appendix N
Page N-5
-------
American.River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
, ,',
HTG code
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
;, Habitat ^.
rype;Grqup
Description
Pipo
pipo
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
psmel
psmel
psmel
psmel
psmel
psmel
psmel
psmel
psmel
psmel
psmel
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
-; Habitat;
^Mfe
Species i
pinpon
pinpon
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
_poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
poptre
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
/Habitat-
^Jypp'-?
.Species*:2
symalb
symore
amealn
amealn
artr2
calrub
carex
mesic fo
poapra
poapra
sal boo
salgey
sasc
symore
symore
tall for
wyeamp
agrspi
artr
arttsv
cerled
fesida
fesida
fesida
fessca
junost
pssps
symore
acegla
acegla
acegla
linbor
linbor
linbor
linbor
osbe
phymal
phymal
phymal
phymal
phymal
phymal
I 'Habitat
-uType^
Species 3
symalb
symore
potfru
poa
poapra
tall for
fesida
pinpon
acegla
symore
calrub
symalb
vacglo
calrub
mast4
pacmyr
phymal
pinpon
North
Idaho Fire
: geology
Group
; North
Idaho Old
~x<3rowtrt::;
Group
N, idaho-
vi'lWv.V
Montana
HTG
Appendix N
Page N-6
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
* ^s " *•"
Tyj>e,jQrpyp
Description,
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
psme2
. psme2
psme2
psme2
psmeS
psmeS
psme3
psmeS
psme3
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psme3
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
psmeS
•"Wahftat
flaDHai
Species 1
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
psemen
jLj,-l,i+.a+
,, FiaDftai;
Species 2
phymal
phymal
pincon
poptre
symalb
symalb
symalb
symalb
symalb
vaccae
vacglo
vacglo
vacglo
vacglo
vacmem
arcuva
arncor
arncor
arncor
berrep
berrep
berrep
berrep
berrep
calrub
calrub
calrub
calrub
calrub
calrub
calrub
cargey
cargey
cargey
cargey
juncom
marel 1
marel 1
mare 11
marel 1 c
osmchi
spibet
spibet
• !JnKi$^f
• rtaDftat;
~,,:<: Type -,,'
Species 3
psemen
smiste
junost
agrspi
calrub
pinpon
symalb
arcuva
vacglo
xerten
arncor
asmi
berrep
cargey
pinpon
symore
agrspi
arcuva
calrub
fesida
pacmyr
pinpon
cargey
pinpon
symore
marel 1
symore
calrub
', North
Idaho Fire
Ecology
Group
North
idarwaow
Group'
N; Idaho-
Montana
!"HTG
Appendix N
Page N-7
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
HTGcode
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
'..Habitat^ j
fype.Grmiff
Description;
psmeS
psme3
thpM
thpM
thpM
thpll
thph
thpM
thpM
thph
thpM
thp!2
thp!2
thp!2
thp!2
thp!2
thp!2
ihp!2
thp!2
thp!2
thp!2
thp!2
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tshe
tsmel
,c -Habitat
'•':$i»£
Spectesil
.. " * " \-.
psemen
psemen
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
thupli
•.thupli
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsuhet
tsumer
-. Habitat
-.'type'*
Species 2
spibet
spibet
adiped
adpe
athfil
athfil
athfil
gymdry
gymdry
oplhor
oplhor
asacau
asacau
asacau
asacau
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
asacau
asacau
asacau
asacau
asacau
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
cliuni
gymdry
gymdry
menfer
cliuni
;,: Habitat
a Type-
Species 3
pinpon
spibet
adiped
athfil
menfer
oplhor
asacau
menfer
taxbre
aranud
cliuni
menfer
phymal
taxbre
xerten
cliuni
menfer
phymal
taxbre
xerten
aranud
asacau
menfer
xerten
aranud
brovul
cliuni
menfer
xerten
gymdry
;•„ North ;-i
Idaho Fire
s Ecolpgj^
: Group -
v-NorJh, .-
Idaho Old
|Grov
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
.- ' vJ >'
HfGboije
•' !/•&•
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
26
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
^Hallftatp
tyi^;6pip
>escriptjori*
tsmel
tsmel
tsmel
tsmel
tsmel
tsmel
tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
• tsme2
tsme2
tsme2
woodland
potfru
sagel
sagel «
sagel
sagel
sagel
sagel
sagel
sagel
sagel
sagel
sagel
sagel
sagel
sagel
sagel
sage2
sage2
sage2
sage2
sage2
iiHabitat"
v.'Type=,
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
tsumer
junost
potfru
artarb
artarb
artarb
artarb
artarb
artarb
artarb
artarb
artlol
artlol
artnov
artnov
artnov
artnov
artrig
arttsw
arttsw
arttsw
arttsw
arttsw
,,s Habitat;
•;:-Typ0T"
Species2
cliuni
cliuni
stramp
stramp
stramp
stramp
luzhit
luzhit
luzhit
menfer
menfer
menfer
menfer
menfer
xerten
xerten
xerten
xerten
xerten
xerten
xerten
agrspi
agrspi
fesida
fesida
oryhym
poa
poasec
pssps
agrspi
fesida
agrspi
pssps
sticom
stithu
poasec
agrspi
artarb
elyams
oryhym
sticom
Haikat;
•^m •
Species 3
menfer
xerten
luglh
luzhit
menfer
menfer
vacsco
luglh
luzhit
menfer
xerten
luglh
luzhit
vacglo
vacmem
vacsco
xerten
poa
oryhym
-, North;.
Idaho' Fire
Ipcoiogsr
"Group
North -=,
WarKrQJd
^Growih^
. 'Group - ;
IfcWano-
%i|'V\^i:
-iKSntaha
.,,, ^JQ •
Appendix N
Page N-9
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
HTG code
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
Habitat Vp
Type Group
Description':
sage2
sageS
sageS
sageS
sageS
sageS
sageS
sageS
sageS
sageS
sageS
sageS
sageS
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
sage4
saltshrub
saltshrub
saltshrub
saltshrub
saltshrub
saltshrub
saltshrub
=:^N^
;~5;tyi4^
Specles;;j
arttsw
arttst
arttst
arttst
arttst
arttst
arttst
arttst
arttst
arttst
arttst
arttsw
arttsw
arttss
arttrp
arttrp
arttrp
arttrp
arttrp
arttrp
arttrp
arttss
arttss
arttss
arttsv
arttsv
arttsv
arttsv
arttsv
arttsv
arttsv
arttsv
arttsv
arttsv
arttsx
arttsx
atrcan
atrcon
atrcon
atrcon
atrcon
atrcon
atrcon
^Habitat
•;>TypeC,
Species2
stithu
agrop
agrspi
elycin
fesida
hecocS
leukin
oryhym
pssps
purtri
agrspi
fesida
agrspi
agrspi
artarb
artnov
fesida
symore
brocar
fesida
hecocS
agrspi
fesida
fesida
hecocS
leukin
pssps
purtri
symore
symore
agrspi
purtri
symore
agrspi
elyams
oryhym
sithys
spcr
sticom
•I Habitat
v "Type;/
SpeclesS
sticom
sticom
elycin
agrspi
stithu
fesida
gervis
fesida
cargey
pssps
agrspi
oryhym
oryhym
sticom
" ', Norths
iaafio:0re
-Ecdipsf,
•• Group:-,
: North ,
Idaho .CW
y Growth
:': Gfoisp '•
tt Jdaho-
:\;W,' •
• Montana
HTG
Appendix N
PageN-10
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
HTG code
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
36
38
38
38
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
Habitat
Type Group
Description
saltshrub
saltshrub
saltshrub
saltshrub
dryshrub
dryshrub
dryshrub
dryshrub
dryshrub
dryshrub
dryshrub
dryshrub
messhrub
messhrub
messhrub
messhrub
messhrub
messhrub
fesida
drygrass
drygrass
drygrass
drygrass
drygrass
drygrass
ripdecid
ripdecid
ripdecid
ripdecid
ripshrub
ripgrass
agriculture
rock/barren
snow/ice
water
urban
Habitat
Type
Species, 1
eurlan
sarver
sarver
sarver
cerled
cerled
cerled
cerled
cerled
purtri
purtri
purtri
acegla
acegra
ceavel
phymal
rhugla
symore
fesida
agrspi
agrspi
agrspi
agrspi
arilon
spocry
popang
poptri
poptri
popul
Habitat
Type
Species 2
oryhym
elycin
sithys
agrspi
arttsv
fesida
pssps
symore
agrspi
oryhym
pssps
brocar
arttsv
amealn
agrspi
agcam
agrspi
balsag
poasan
poasec
poasan
poasan
elycin
corsto
agrop
Habitat
Type
Species 3
agrspi
agrspi
poasec
balsag
North
Idaho Fire
Ecology
Group
North
idaho Old
Growth
Group
N. Idaho-
W,
Montana
HTG
Appendix N
PageN-11
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
This page left blank intentionally.
Appendix N
PageN-12
-------
APPENDIX O - NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION - SUMMARY OF EFFECTS
FOR THREATENED AND SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES - OCTOBER 2004
FOR THE AMERICAN RIVER/CROOKED RIVER PROJECT AREA
LATIN NAME
Astragalus paysonii
Blechnum spicant
Botrychium lanceolatitm var. lane.
Botrychium lineare
Botrychhim minganense
Botrychium pinnatum
Botrychium simplex
Buxbaumia aphylla (moss)
Buxbaiimia viridis (moss)
Calochortus nitidus
Cardamine constancei
Carex buxbaumii
Cornus nuttallii
Cypripedium fasciculatitm
Dasynotns daubenmirei
Douglasia idahoensis
Epipactis gigantea
Halimolobos perplexa var. perplexa
Hookeria lucens
Mimithis ampliatus
Pentagramma triangularis spp. triang.
Rhizomnium nudum (moss)
Sphagnum mendocinum (moss)
Synthyris platycarpa
Triantha occidentatis spp. brevistyla
Trifolium douglasii
Trifolium phimosum var. ampli folium
Waldste'mia idahoensis
Common Name
Payson's milkvetch
Deerfern
Lance-leaf moonwort
Linear-leaved moonwort
Megan moonwort
Northern moonwort
Least moonwort
Leafless bug-on-a stick
Green bug-on-a-stick
Breadfruit mariposa
Constance's bittercress
Buxbaum's sedge
Pacific dogwood
Clustered ladyslipper
Dasynotus
Idaho douglasia
Giant helleborine
Puzzling halimolobos
Light hookeria
Spacious monkeyflower
Gold-back fern
Naked-stem rhizomnium
Mendocino sphagnum
Evergreen kiltentail
Short-style sticky tofieldia
Douglas clover
Plumed clover
Idaho barren strawberry
Cat.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Species
Present
(Project
Area)
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Habitat
Present
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
' N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Species
Potentially
Affected?
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Habitat
Potentially
Affected?
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Determination
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
/S/
, Botanist Date:
Federally listed (Threatened) Species Determination: NE = No Effect; BE = Bcncfical Effect; ML = Not likely to adversely affect; LT = Likely to adversely affect.
Sensitive Species Determination: NI = No Impact; BI = Bcncfical Impact; MI = May impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for the population or
species; LI = Likely to impact individuals or habitat with the consequence that the action may contribute towards federal listing or result in reduced viability for the population or species.
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix P - Biological Evaluation and Assessment
Biological Evaluation and Assessment for Listed and Sensitive Species
STEELHEAD TROUT (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri)
REDBAND TROUT (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri)
BULL TROUT (Salvelinus confluentus)
FALL CHINOOK SALMON (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha)
SPRING CHINOOK SALMON (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha)
WESTSLOPE CUTTHROAT TROUT (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi)
LAMPREY (Lampetra thdentata)
American and Crooked River Project
Red River Ranger District
Nez Perce National Forest
March 2005
Prepared By:
Wayne J. Paradis, Fisheries Biologist
Scott Russell, Fisheries Biologist
Nick Gerhardt, Hydrologist
Pat Green, Ecologist, Soil Scientist
Reviewed By:
/s/ Scott Russell
Scott Russell, Fisheries Staff Officer
Approved By:
/s/ Wayne J. Paradis
3/1/05
Wayne J. Paradis, Clearwater Ranger District Fishery Biologist
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix P
Page P-2
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table of Contents
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 9
Action Area Location... 10
The Decision 10
Vegetation Treatments 10
Watershed Improvements 11
Summary of the Proposal by Watershed 12
MONITORING. 24
Forest Plan Monitoring 24
Proposed Monitoring for This Project 24
Monitoring Applicable to All Activities 25
Implementation monitoring, 25
Effectiveness monitoring 25
Fish Monitoring 26
South Fork Clearwater River Monitoring 26
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES 26
Steelhead Trout. 26
Interior Redband 27
Bull Trout 28
Fall Chinook Salmon 28
SENSITIVE AND STATE LISTED SPECIES 29
Spring Chinook Salmon 29
Westslope Cutthroat 30
Pacific Lamprey 30
INTRODUCED NON-NATIVE FISH 30
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 31
BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR SOILS, WATERSHED AND FISH 32
SOILS 32
Landforms for Crooked and American River 32
American River Landforms 32
Appendix P
Page P-3
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
PAGE
Rolling Hills 32
Stream Breaklands and Steep Mountain Slopes 32
Convex Ridges 32
Alluvial Valleys 33
Crooked River Landforms 33
Rolling Hills 33
Convex Ridges ; 33
Steep Glaciated Lands 33
Stream Breaklands and Mountain Slopes 34
Alluvial Valleys 34
Summary 34
WATERSHED 35
Clean Water Act 35
Watershed Condition _ 36
Indicator of Watershed condition - Road Density 36
Sediment Yield Watershed Condition 38
Water Yield Watershed Condition. 41
Channel Morphology Watershed Condition ___ 42
Water Quality (Toxics and Temperature). 42
FISH HABITAT ELEMENTS 43
Introduction 43
American River 43
American River (Upper, Middle and Lower)- Prescription
Watersheds -#17060305-05-09,06,16 43
Summary of Fish Species Distribution 44
East Fork American River - Prescription Watershed -#17060305-05-10 45
Kirks Fork - Prescription Watershed -#17060305-05-11 46
Whitaker Creek - Prescription Watershed -#17060305-05-12 47
Queen Creek - Prescription Watershed -#17060305-05-13, 47
Flint Creek - Prescription Watershed -#17060305-05-14 48
Box Sing Creek - Prescription Watershed -#17060305-05-15... 49
Appendix P
Page P-4
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
PAGE
Summary 49
Deposited Sediment (Cobble Embeddedness and Percent Fines) 50
Crooked River 51
Summary of Fish Species Distribution 52
Lower Crooked River Prescription Watershed #17060305-03-01 53
Relief Creek - Prescription Watershed #17060305-03-03, 53
Middle Crooked River - Prescription Watershed -#17060305-03-04 54
ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS . 56
Sediment/Substrate Analysis ; 56
American River 57
Crooked River 58
Watershed and Stream Restoration 60
Large Woody Debris Analysis 60
American River 61
Crooked River 61
Pool Habitat Analysis 61
American River. 61
Crooked River 62
Water Yield Analysis 62
American River . 62
Crooked River 63
Water Quality. 63
Toxics 63
American River and Crooked River 64
Water Temperature . 64
American River 64
Crooked River 64
Habitat Connectivity/Fish Passage . 64
American River. 65
Crooked River 65
Cumulative Effects to Fish Habitat 65
Appendix P
Page P-5
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
PAGE
South Fork Clearwater River 66
Interrelated and Interdependent Effects 69
DETERMINATION 70
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 70
DETERMINATION OF EFFECT BY SPECIES 70
DETERMINATION RATIONALE 70
Summary ' 70
Bull Trout .... 71
Primary Constituent Elements of Bull Trout Critical Habitat. 71
Steelhead/Redband Trout. 76
Fall Chinook Salmon 77
Westslope Cutthroat Trout . 77
Spring Chinook Salmon 77
Pacific Lamprey. 77
REFERENCES 81
APPENDIX A - WATERSHED AND FISH HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS. 83
AMERICAN RIVER 86
Middle American River (17060305-05-06) 86
Upper American River (17060305-05-09), 88
East Fork American River (17060305-05-10). 88
Kirks Fork (17060305-05-11) 89
Whitaker Creek (17060305-05-12) '__ 91
Queen Creek (17060305-05-13) _ : 93
Flint Creek (17060305-05-14). _ 95
Box Sing Creek (17060305-05-15) 97
Lower American River (17060305-05-16), 98
CROOKED RIVER 99
Lower Crooked River (17060305-03-01) 99
Relief Creek (17060305-03-03) 102
Middle Crooked River (17060305-03-04) 108
Appendix P
Page P-6
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
PAGE
APPENDIX B - INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE WATERSHED AND FISHERIES ANALYSIS 117
Fish/Water Quality Objectives 117
Fishery/Water Quality Objectives in Appendix A of the Nez Perce National Forest Plan.... 117
Upward Trend 120
The DFC Tables 120
Forest Plan Riparian Area Direction 121
Forest Plan Amendment 20 (PACFISH) 121
Channel Morphology and Sediment Routing 123
Sediment Routing 123
Erosion and Delivery Processes 124
Instream Processes 124
Flow Regime 125
Aquatic Model Disclosures 126
Equivalent Clearcut Area (EGA) 126
NEZSED 127
FISHSED 129
Sediment Yield Graphs 130
American River 130
Crooked River 133
Water Temperature 134
Water Quality Data 138
Aquatic Trend Analysis 139
Introduction to Trend Analysis 139
Trend Analysis - American River 140
Trend Analysis - Crooked River 144
Appendix P
Page P-7
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix P
Page P-8
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction
This BA/BE tiers to the Nez Perce Forest Plan and EIS (1987) and the South Fork Clearwater
River Biological Assessment (April 1999). It incorporates information from the Interior Columbia
River Basin Science Assessment (Quigley, et al., 1997), the South Fork Clearwater River
Landscape Assessment (SFLA) (1998), and the Final American and Crooked River
Environmental Impact Statement (ARCR FEIS) (2005) including references.
This biological evaluation/assessment has been prepared to address the potential effects of the
preferred alternative D as described here and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for
the American and Crooked River (FEIS) on fall Chinook salmon, spring chinook salmon,
steelhead trout, bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout and lamprey. Fall chinook
salmon are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Spring chinook
salmon are listed as threatened in the Salmon River basin, and are a Region 1 Forest Service
sensitive species in the Clearwater basin. Steelhead/redband trout are listed as threatened
under the ESA. Columbia River bull trout are listed as threatened under the ESA. Westslope
cutthroat trout, lamprey, and redband trout, are Region 1 sensitive species.
The analysis of effects of activities on listed and sensitive fish as described below is based on
indicators for listed steelhead/redband and bull trout, as described in the Checklist for
Documenting Environmental Baseline and effects of Action(s) on Relevant Indicators (i.e.
steelhead/bull trout matrix of indicators) as modified by the Nez Perce/Clearwater/Bitterroot
National Forests and Cottonwood Bureau of Land Management Level 1 team. Also considered
are the nine primary constituent elements identified in the Federal Register (11/29/02, pg. 17,
243) for bull trout proposed critical habitat. The environmental baseline used for analysis is
taken from the South Fork Clearwater River Biological Assessment (Nez Perce N.F., 1999).
Consideration was given to activities, post 1999, in Crooked River and American River and the
South Fork Clearwater as they related to the baseline, including past ESA consultations in the
sub-basin. No changes or modifications were required in the Matrix of Indicators or in the
baseline conditions.
The activities described below fall completely within the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin.
Tributaries within the South Fork potentially affected include American River and tributaries and
Crooked River and tributaries as well as face drainages to the South Fork Clearwater River.
This document has been prepared in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (as amended), 50 CFR 402.12, CFR 219.9 of the NFMA regulations, and Chapter 2670
of the Forest Service Manual. Reference Forest wide species list SP# 1-4-05-SP-120, dated
December 8, 2004.
For further information, refer to Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Biological Assessment (BAs) for
listed and sensitive aquatic species (4th along with 5th and 6th code HUC BAs) for portions
(watersheds) of the sub basins (USDA-USDI 1999, USDI-BLM 2000A, B, C, D, and E).
This biological assessment has modified the Biological Evaluation and Assessment for the
American and Crooked River Project, (October 14, 2004). Project activities have changed since
the original BE/BA (October 14, 2004) and a new updated species list from the Fish and Wildlife
Service (December, 8, 2004) has modified proposed critical habitat, excluding Federal portions
of American River and Crooked River. Some of the project activities were also modified
showing changes in the original analysis. While the instream improvements detailed in the
Appendix P
Page P-9
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
original BE/BA called for up to 23.8 miles of this type of work to be accomplished, it was
discovered that this number reflected an accounting error where stream reaches receiving
riparian planting and more extensive stream restoration like in Lower Crooked River and Relief
Creek, were actually double counted. This BA/BE shows instream activities actually planned for
up to 14.6 miles. While this may seem like a reduction in miles of instream improvements, it is
actually the same exact project simply eliminating the double counting of some stream reaches.
This biological assessment must be modified and consultation reinitiated following concurrence
by the NMFS and USFWS, if:
1. Activities other than those described under the Project Description section of this
document are implemented;
2. New information relevant to this analysis, which would significantly alter the effects as
predicted, becomes available;
3. Required mitigation is not implemented;
4. A new species is listed or critical habitat not addressed in this document is designated;
5. The environmental baseline of the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River or tributaries
described in this document significantly change from human or natural disturbances,
such as extreme wildfire or floods;
6. During implementation of the project, effects to watersheds, streams, or fish occur
which are not comparable to effects analyzed in this Biological Assessment;
7. The duration of the project extends beyond ten years, or;
8. The project affects listed species to an extent not considered in this BA.
ACTION AREA LOCATION
The action area (50 CFR Sec. 402.02) includes two 5th code watersheds, American River and
Crooked River. American River contains fifteen 6th code sub watersheds (also known as
prescription watersheds). Project activities are located in nine of the fifteen 6th code sub
watersheds in American River. Crooked River contains five 6th code sub watersheds. Project
activities are located in four of the five sub watersheds in Crooked River. The action area for
cumulative effects analysis includes the American and Crooked River watersheds and the
mainstem South Fork Clearwater River to the Forest Boundary below the Mt. Idaho Bridge.
THE DECISION
The project will implement the preferred Alternative D of the American-Crooked River Project,
with modifications including additional watershed improvements from Alternative E; this became
the Selected Alternative, described below.
VEGETATION TREATMENTS
Up to 3,452 acres of timber harvest will occur. Appendix H of the Final EIS describes in detail
all of the treatment types by unit for each action alternative. The selected alternative includes
all of the units in preferred Alternative D, with the following exceptions. During additional
analysis between the Draft and Final EIS, Units 99, 99.2, 105, and 329 (about 62 acres) were
identified as meeting the Forest Plan criteria for old-growth. These units were dropped from
consideration for harvest. Units 541.542 and 543 were added to American River (112 acres).
Appendix P
Page P-10
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Of the planned harvest acres, about 35 percent will be clearcut, and the remaining acres will be
partially cut or thinned. Harvest methods include ground-based tractor (52 percent of the
project acres) and cable systems (34 percent); the remaining acres (14 percent) are anticipated
to be roadside salvage. The total harvest is estimated to produce 25.4 million board feet
(MMBF) of timber.
The transportation system proposed in Alternative D was adopted, with minor modifications, for
the selected alternative. To facilitate timber harvest activities, an estimated 14.3 miles of
temporary roads will be constructed. Each of these temporary roads will exist on the landscape
for one to three years and will be decommissioned following timber harvest activities.
In addition to temporary roads, the selected alternative will require a combination of annual and
deferred maintenance to prepare existing classified roads for timber haul. Road reconditioning
will be required on about 89.6 miles of road. Of this roadwork, approximately 7.4 will be
decommissioned after use and the remaining 82.1 miles will be maintained as part of the long-
term transportation system for the analysis area. Table 2 (Table R-2 in the EIS) and Map 4a
and 4b (FEIS) display the road reconditioning and temporary road construction needed to
facilitate timber removal.
TABLE 1. VEGETATION TREATMENT ACTIVITIES WITH THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
Proposed Activity - Total Project
Acres of Treatment
Tractor Yard/Machine Pile
Cable Yard/Broadcast Burn
Roadside Salvage
Total Acres Treated
Percent Clearcut
Percent Partial Cut/Thin
Temporary road construction (miles)1
Road reconditioning (for timber harvest) (miles Y
AltD
1813
1173
466
3452
• 34%
66%
14.3
89.6
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENTS
The watershed improvements proposed for Alternative D, as modified by the Record of
Decision, were adopted for the selected alternative. These actions are discussed below and
summarized in Appendix A. Additional details are also provided in Appendix A.
A minimum of 19.0 miles of road will be eliminated from the transportation system through a
variety of decommissioning methods. This road decommissioning is required as mitigation for
the planned timber harvest in order to meet watershed objectives, and will be accomplished
within 7-10 years of this decision. In areas where a road proposed for decommissioning is
1 Temporary roads will be decommissioned within one to three years of construction.
2 Road reconditioning covers a range of activities, such as surface blading, drainage repair, and roadway
brushing with occasional culvert installations, slump repairs, and stabilization work. Road widening could
occur with major reconstruction. Road reconditioning stated in this table are not to be considered or
confused with routine road maintenance that may include but not limited to road prism brushing, clearing,
or hazard reduction activities.
Appendix P
Page P-ll
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
needed for timber harvest activities, the timber harvest activities will occur prior to the
decommissioning.
Also included as part of the selected alternative, are the additional watershed improvements
that were identified in Alternative E (displayed in Appendix A). These additional actions are not
required as mitigation for the proposed timber harvest activities and are discretionary; they may
be implemented as additional funds become available.
TABLE 2. WATERSHED IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
Proposed Activity - Total Project
Miles of decommissioned roads1
Miles of Watershed Road Improvements
Number of sites of Watershed Road Improvements
Stream crossing improvements^
Miles of instream improvements
Miles of Recreation and Trail improvements
Acres of Recreation and Trail improvements
Access change for vehicle use - motorized trail use
(ATV) to restricted use (miles)3
Acres of Mine Site Reclamation
Acres of Soil Restoration
Required
18.9
16.6
3
13
11.1
2.3
8.1
1.0
7
32
Total
37
24.6
3
35
14.6
4.6
8.1
1.0
9
58
Summary of the Proposal by Watershed
The activities will be scheduled and implemented so that a balance will be achieved between
vegetation and watershed improvement activities. The life of a typical timber sale contract is 7-
10 years and all required activities would be completed in this time frame. There are three
types of restoration activities 1) those road related activities and riparian plantings that can be
completed separate from timber sale actions 2) road related activities that are needed for the
timber sale activities and 3) Instream restoration projects which will require planning, designs,
permits and additional funding. Type 1 activities will proceed once this decision is final and can
be completed in advance or concurrent of the timber sale actions. Type 2 activities must be
scheduled with the timber sale actions and coordinated in a way that will not impede either.
These could continue through the life of the sale(s). The in channel work (Type 3) requires
planning, design work and permitting, all of which take time. Implementation of this work will
occur within the timeframe of the timber sale contract.
Table 3: American River Watershed, and Table 4: Crooked River Watershed displays the
activities for the proposed action. Activities included under Alternative D modified are included
for consideration under this BA/BE. The tables below include miles road reconditioning and
miles of watershed road improvement. Road improvement miles include activities designed to
Road decommissioning for this project covers a range of activities, from recontouring to abandonment
due to grown-in conditions. It includes 7.4 miles of roads to be used for timber harvest and
decommissioned upon completion of harvest activities. See Appendix F in the Final EIS.
o
Stream crossing improvements include upgrading or improving culverts and bridges to improve fish
passage and peak water flows and are listed as the number of sites.
3 This is an access change, which restricts use to two wheeled vehicles or snowmobiles over snow, from
previous all terrain vehicle use (ATV).
Appendix P
Page P-12
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
make the road usable for logging traffic. Activities would include blading, adding relief culverts,
cleaning ditches, brushing etc. on roads that are mostly already stable. Miles of Watershed
Road Improvement include similar activities but the road conditions will improve from a
watershed perspective. The items listed under "Alt D modified additional", are included for
analysis and consultation under this BE/BA. They are shown as additional and as such will be
completed when and if funding becomes available. The items listed under "required" will be
completed under this action.
TABLE 3. ACTIVITIES IN THE AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED.
Proposed Activity -American River
Acres of Treatment
Tractor Yard/Machine Pile
Cable Yard/Broadcast Burn
Roadside Salvage
Total Acres Treated
Percent Clearcut
Percent Partial Cut/Thin
Miles temporary road construction1
Miles road reconditioning2
Miles of decommissioned roads3
Miles of Watershed Road Improvement
Number of sites of Watershed Road Improvement
Stream crossing improvements4
Miles of instream improvements .
Miles of Recreation and Trail- improvements
Acres of Recreation & Trail improvements
Acres of Mine Site Reclamation
Acres of Soil Restoration
Access change for vehicle use - motorized trail use
(ATV) to restricted use (snowmobiles over snow)5
| Access change for vehicle use - road to trail6
AltD
modified
required
841
239
137
1,217
29%
71%
8.1
33.9
8.4
7.4
0
3.0
0
1.6
0
0
9.0
1.6
0
AltD
modified
additional
11.0
6.0
0.8
12.0
1 Temporary roads would be decommissioned within one to three years of construction.
2 Road reconditioning covers a range of activities, such as surface blading, drainage repair, and roadway
brushing with occasional culvert installations, slump repairs, and stabilization work. Road reconditioning
stated in this table are not to be considered or confused with routine road maintenance that may include
but not limited to road prism brushing, clearing, or hazard reduction activities.
3 Road decommissioning for this project covers a range of activities, from recontouring to abandonment
due to grown in conditions. See Appendix F
4 Stream crossing improvements include upgrading or improving culverts and bridges to improve fish
passage and peak water flows and are listed as the number of sites.
5 This is an access change, which restricts use to two wheeled vehicles or snowmobiles over snow, from
previous all terrain vehicle use (ATV).
6 This is an access change of miles of roads to trails use.
Appendix P
Page P-13
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE 4. ALTERNATIVES IN THE CROOKED RIVER WATERSHED.
Proposed Activity - American River
Acres of
Treatment
Tractor Yard/Machine Pile
Cable Yard/Broadcast Burn
Roadside Salvage
Total Acres Treated
Percent Clearcut
Percent Partial Cut/Thin
Miles temporary road construction1
Miles road reconditioning2
Miles of decommissioned roads3
Miles of Watershed Road Improvement
Number of sites of Watershed Road Improvement
Stream crossing improvements4
Miles of instream improvements
Miles of Recreation and Trail improvements
Acres of Recreation &
Frail improvements
Acres of Mine Site Reclamation
Acres of Soil Restoration
Access change for vehicle use - motorized trail use (ATV)
to restricted use (snowmobiles over snow)5
Access change for vehicle use - road to trail6
AltD
modified
required
975
931
329
2,235
36%
64%
6.2
56.6
10.5
9.2
3
10.0
11.1
0.7
8.1
7.0
23.0
1.0
1.6
AltD
modified
7.0
8
16
3.5
1.5
2.0
14.0
1 Temporary roads would be decommissioned within one to three years of construction.
Road reconditioning covers a range of activities, such as surface blading, drainage repair, and roadway
brushing with occasional culvert installations, slump repairs, and stabilization work. Road improvements
stated in this table are not to be considered or confused with routine road maintenance that may include
but not limited to road prism brushing, clearing, or hazard reduction activities.
3 Road decommissioning for this project covers a range of activities, from recontouring to abandonment
due to grown in conditions. See Appendix F
Stream crossing improvements include upgrading or improving culverts and bridges to improve fish
passage and peak water flows and are listed as the number of sites.
This is an access change, which restricts use to two wheeled vehicles or snowmobiles over snow, from
previous all terrain vehicle use (ATV).
This is an access change of miles of roads to trails use.
Appendix P
Page P-14
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE 5. CULVERT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH POSSIBLE TAKE IN CROOKED RIVER
STREAM NAME
RELIEF CREEK.
RELIEF CREEK
RELIEF CREEK
RELIEF CREEK
BAKER GULCH
RAINBOW
GULCH
QUARTZ CREEK
QUARTZ CREEK
SAWMILL
CREEK
SILVER CREEK
CROOKED
RIVER
CULVERT
NUMBER
2234
1964
1907
1926
2092
2136
2340
2341
2205
2285
2371
ROAD
NUMBER
1803
9859
9876
9876
233
233
233A
233A
9836
9836B
9848
STEELHEAD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
BULL
TROUT
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
SEDIMENT
PLUME
DISTANCE1
300'
300'
300'
300'
300'
300'
300'
300'
N/A
300'
300'
SELECTED
(Yes OR
No)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
TABLE 6. INSTREAM AND CULVERT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH POSSIBLE TAKE IN CROOKED RIVER
STREAM NAME
LOWER CROOKED
RIVER
RELIEF CREEK
CROOKED RIVER
NARROWS
MIDDLE CROOKED
RIVER
NUMBER OF
STRUCTURES
40
40
6
50
STEELHEAD
{TOTAL AGE
1/2+
ESTIMATED)2
2740
3.22/100M2
1808
1449
BULL TROUT
(TOTAL
ESTIMATED)2
35
2.04/100M2
22
24
SEDIMENT
PLUME
DISTANCE2
300'
300'
300'
300'
SELECTED
(YES OR
No)
Y
Y
Y
Y
1 Distance is a measure of stream gradient, size, and amount of disturbance or excavation.
2 Distance is a measure of stream gradient, size, and amount of disturbance or excavation.
3 Fish density from Clearwater BioStudies, (1990); Fish Density from Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Bull Trout Study SFCR (1999)
Appendix P
Page P-15
-------
Biological Evaluation and Assessment for Listed and Sensitive Species
American and Crooked River Project, Red River Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest
February 2005
TABLE 7. PROJECT DESIGN AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE AMERICAN AND CROOKED RIVER PROJECT
Design and mitigation measures would apply to all actions. Forest Plan standards and other
Agency direction, along with information derived from monitoring past projects, were used to
identify design and mitigation measures applicable to the action. Mitigation measures are
practices used during implementation of the activities.
# | PROJECT DESIGN AND MITIGATION MEASURE | IMPLEMENTATION METHOD J EFFECTIVENESS
AREAS EXCLUDED FROM TIMBER HARVEST OR FUEL REDUCTION ACTIVITIES
1
2
3
No timber harvest or mechanical fuel
reduction activities would occur in Forest
Plan allocated existing or replacement old
growth, Inventoried Roadless Areas,
streamside RHCAs, or high hazard landslide
prone areas
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription,
and field prep.
High, based on
available inventory
and monitoring data
VEGETATION
Falling would be done to minimize breakage
and damage to residual trees.
Silvicultural prescriptions would be written for
each unit, including slash treatment and burn
guidelines to meet Riparian Management
Objectives
Field preparation, contract
and contract
administration/ inspection
Silvicultural prescription
High, based on sale
administrators'
observations
High, based on
protocols for
Silvicultural
certification
RIPARIAN HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
4
5
6
No cutting of trees would be allowed in
PACFISH default streamside or wetland
RHCAs, except at temporary road crossings,
instream habitat improvements, and to
facilitate anchoring of cable yarding systems.
Post harvest burning will occur in harvest
units to reduce slash and fuel resulting from
the harvest activities. The burning will be
designed and implemented with the intent of
restricting burning to stay within the unit
boundary. Fire that moves outside the
external unit boundary will be sup-pressed.
On occasion fire will move into small RHCA
inclusions within the unit. Burning will not be
ignited within these areas, but may be
allowed to back into these areas under
conditions where fire intensity will be low and
burning will not result in extensive reduction
in canopy cover or exposure of bare soil in
these RHCA inclusions.
Landslide prone areas are also considered
Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas
(RHCAs). No timber harvest would occur in
Field preparation, contract
and contract
administration/inspection
FS Fuels management
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription,
and field prep.
High, based on
inventory and
monitoring data
High, based on
Research, PNW Lab,
Starkey Project
High, based on
landslide inventory
data
Appendix P
Page P-16
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
#
PROJECT DESIGN AND MITIGATION MEASURE
areas of high landslide hazard, as described
in (1) above. Timber harvest, road
construction, or fuel reduction in areas of
moderate landslide risk would be modified as
needed to protect slope stability. If
additional, unmapped landslide prone areas
are found during project implementation,
areas would be dropped or activities would
be modified with watershed specialist
oversight to protect slope stability.
IMPLEMENTATION METHOD
EFFECTIVENESS
SOILS, WATER QUALITY, AND FISH HABITAT
7
8
9
10
11
Planned activities would be modified in any
proposed timber harvest or fuel reduction unit
that is found to have previously unidentified
significant soil impacts from past human-
caused disturbance. The planned activities
in that unit would be modified or dropped to
ensure that cumulative impacts would not
exceed Forest Plan soil quality standard
number 2 (percent of area detrimentally
impacted upon completion of activities). Site-
specific review of treatment units prior to
implementation would identify extent of
detrimental soil disturbance.
Timber harvest or fuel reduction activities
would be coordinated with soil restoration
activities for greatest efficiency.
Broadcast burning would be applied in
preference to excavator piling wherever
practical to reduce physical soil damage and
to encourage natural regeneration.
Temporary roads would be built, used, and
decommissioned within a 1 to 3-year period,
in order to reduce the amount of sediment
production. Coordination of temporary road
use and decommissioning with the BLM
Eastside Township project would be
required.
New, temporary roads would be constructed
using minimal road widths and out-sloped
surface drainage. Road cuts, fills, and treads
would be stabilized with annual grass cover
where roads are held more than one year.
Temporary roads would be located to avoid
live water and high-risk landslide prone
terrain. If avoidance of live water is not
possible, stream crossings would be
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription,
and field prep.
Contract administration
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription,
and contract.
NEPA project design and
contract administration
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate, based on
research and forest
monitoring data
(Cullenetal., 1991,
Froelich et al., 1983,
USDAFS1988b,
1990, 1992, 1999, and
2003D).
Expected to be
moderate, little data.
High, to the degree
implemented; based
on forest monitoring
data(USDAFS
1988b,1990, 1992,
999, and 2003D).
Moderate, based on
implementation
monitoring of timber
sale contracts and
Burroughs and King,
1989.
High, based on
literature (Water/Road
Interaction Technology
Series, USDA Forest
Service, San Dimas
Technology and
Development
Program, 1999;
Burroughs and King,
Appendix P
Page P-17
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
PROJECT DESIGN AND MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION METHOD
EFFECTIVENESS
designed consistent with criteria described
below and in Forest Plan Amendment 20
(PACFISH)
1989)
12
Coarse woody debris greater than 3 inches
diameter would be retained in timber harvest
or fuel reduction units in amounts to meet
guidelines in Appendix K.
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription,
contract, and contract
administration.
High effectiveness,
based on Graham et
al., 1994 and Harvey
etal. 1987.
Implementation
effectiveness has not
been monitored.
13
Minimize whole tree yarding. Whole-tree yard
boles only, leave tops and limbs on site to
main-tain foliar nutrients. Over-winter slash
at least one winter to allow nutrients to leach
into the soil.
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription, BD
plan, and contract.
High (Garrison and
Moore, 1998; Moore et
al., 2004)
14
Winter harvesting would only occur during
frozen conditions. Frozen conditions are
defined as greater than 4 inches of frozen
ground, a barrier of snow greater than two
feet in depth (unpacked snow), or one foot in
depth (packed snow).
Contract administration
Moderate, based on
forest monitoring data
(1987 report in project
file)
15
Timber harvest,-fuel reduction, and soil and
stream restoration activities would be limited
when soils are wet, such that resource
damage may occur, to reduce rutting,
displacement and erosion.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate, based on
forest monitoring
(USDAFS 1988b,
1990, 1992, 1999, and
2003D).
16
Skid trails, landings, and yarding corridors
would be located and designated to minimize
the area of detrimental soil effects. Tractor
skid trails would be spaced 80 to 120 feet
apart, except where converging on landings,
to reduce the area of detrimental soil
disturbance. This does not preclude the use
of feller bunchers if soil impacts can remain
within standards.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate, based on
forest monitoring
(USDAFS 1988b,
1990, 1992, 1999, and
2003D).
17
On excavator piled units, additional trail
construction would be minimized, machines
would be restricted to existing trails as much
as possible, number of passes would be
minimized, and excavator piling would be
minimized, to reduce soil compaction.
Numerous small piles are preferred to few
large piles to avoid nutrient losses and soil
alteration that favor weed invasion.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate, based on
forest monitoring
(USDAFS 1988b,
1990,1992,1999, and
2003D).
18
Cable systems would use one-end or full
suspension wherever possible to minimize
soil disturbance.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High where
implemented (USDA
FS 2003a; Krag, 1991)
19
Excavated skid trails and landings with cut
Contract and contract
High (Plotnikoff etal.
Appendix P
Page P-18
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
#
PROJECT DESIGN AND MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION METHOD
EFFECTIVENESS
slopes of more than 1 foot would be scarified
and recontoured, replacing topsoil as feasible
on all landings and trails not needed for
harvest within the next 15 years. Winged
subsoiler, excavator, or similar equipment is
preferred to restore permeability and soil
structure.
administration/inspection
1999; Sanbornetal.
1999A, Sanbornetal.
1999B)
20
Fine organic matter and slash would be
scattered over recontoured and
decompacted areas on skid trails and
landings with a goal of achieving 10 tons per
acre of fines and 15-20 tons per acre of
larger material, up to 35 tons total where
acceptable to fuel managers. Water bars
and seeding of approved weed-free annual
or native species would be added as needed
for supplementary erosion control.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High (Sanborn et al.,
1999)
21
Soil restoration areas would be stabilized
within 14 days, using erosion barriers, slash,
or mulch as needed. Any soil restoration in
an activity area would be completed within
one operating season, with allowance for
additional planting and subsequent seasons.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate, based on
past experience.
22
Non-excavated skid trails and landings not
needed for harvest within the next 15 years,
that have been cut, compacted or entrenched
3 inches or more would be scarified to a
depth of 4 - 10 inches, or as directed by
contract administrator, to restore soil
permeability. Excavator, winged subsoiler, or
similar equipment is preferred, to avoid
mixing surface ash layer and subsoil.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate to high
(Froelichetal., 1983;
Froelich et al,
1985;Foltzand
mallard, 2004; Luce,
1997)
23
Sediment and erosion control measures such
as dewatering culverts, sediment barriers,
rocking road surfaces and/or ditches, etc.,
would be used as needed when constructing,
reconstructing, and decommissioning roads
to protect fish habitat and water quality.
Contract and contract
administration
High, based on
iterature, San Dimas,
Road/Water
Interaction
24
Activities including stream crossing road
mprovements would be conducted in fish
bearing streams between July 1 and August
15 to avoid sediment deposition on emerging
steelhead or Chinook redds, or disturbance
to bull trout moving to natal streams. These
dates may be site-specifically adjusted
hrough coordination with the Central Idaho
Level I team and other agencies.
NEPA project design,
contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate to high,
based on past
experience.
25
Stream crossing structures would provide for
channel width, flow velocities, substrate
MEPA project design,
contract and contract
High, based on
iterature, San Dimas
Appendix P
Page P-19
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
PROJECT DESIGN AND MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION METHOD
EFFECTIVENESS
condition, and stream gradients that
approximate the natural channel and
accommodate passage of streamflow, debris,
fish, and other aquatic organisms, and would
use PACFISH standards. When designing
new structures, consider and give preference
to open-bottom arches, bridges and
oversized culverts.
administration/inspection
Road/Water
Interaction
26
During instream habitat improvement
activities, tree felling in RHCAs would occur
only where that activity would not affect
Riparian Management Objectives for shade
and woody debris recruitment. Wood for
instream placement would be taken from
outside the RHCA wherever feasible.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High, based on past
experience.
27
Prior to instream habitat improvement
activities, heavy equipment would be
inspected to assure no leakage of oil, fuel, or
hydraulic fluid.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate to high,
based on past
experience.
28
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures Plan (40 CFR 112) would
be prepared and implemented that
incorporates the rules and requirements of
the Idaho Forest Practices Act Section 60,
Use of Chemicals and Petroleum Products;
and US Department of Transportation rules
for fuels haul and temporary storage; and
additional direction as applicable.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High, based on past
experience.
29
For instream activities in fish-bearing streams
that contain listed species, fish are expected
to disperse from the activity area. If needed,
additional measures would be used to ensure
fish are not harmed or killed by instream
activity. If electrofishing were necessary, it
would be conducted in accordance with
NOAA Fisheries electrofishing guidelines
found at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate, based on
past experience.
30
The State of Idaho Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and Forest Service Soil
and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs)
would be applied. These are incorporated by
reference.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High, based on past
experience.
TRAILS/RECREATION
31
Coordination would minimize conflict with
winter hauling on roads used as groomed
snowmobile routes.
Project design, contract
and contract
administration/ inspection
Moderate, based on
past experience.
32
Trails 820, 832, 838, 844, 848, and others as
identified, would be protected during
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High, based on past
experience.
Appendix P
Page P-20
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
PROJECT DESIGN AND MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION METHOD
EFFECTIVENESS
activities. Designate all system trails as
Protected Improvements in the Timber Sale
Contract. No skidding across trails, except
over snow, fall trees away from trails, cut
stumps less than 12" in height within 100 feet
of trails, leave regeneration within 100 feet of
trails to create a visual buffer between
treatment areas and trails, construct firelines
to protect the regeneration buffer and trail
during slash treatment, and trails are not to
be used a firelines.
ACCESS/PUBLIC SAFETY
33
Temporary roads would be closed to public
motorized use, except as specifically
authorized.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate for sediment
reduction and wildlife
security, based on
monitoring
34
Operator would be required to set up warning
signs advising of equipment operations or
hazards for public safety.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High, based on past
experience.
AIR QUALITY
35
Procedures outlined in the North Idaho
Smoke Management Memorandum of
Agreement would be followed, including
restrictions imposed by the smoke
management-monitoring unit.
FS fuels management
High, based on
burning approval-
required daily by
smoke monitoring unit.
36
Prescribed burning would be conducted over
several years to reduce the amount of smoke
in any one year. Priority in scheduling would
be given to units accessed by temporary
roads scheduled for decommissioning
FS fuels management
High, based on past
experience, and
availability of burn
windows and/or
personnel.
37
Additional restrictions, beyond those imposed
by the smoke management-monitoring unit,
would be considered for prescribed burning
for local air quality reasons, including visual.
FS fuels management
High, based on past
experience.
WILDLIFE
38
Snag and snag replacement green trees
would be retained in numbers consistent with
Regional Guidelines (Appendix K)
Field preparation, NEPA
project design, contracting
and contract
administration
High except where
safety concerns or
wood cutting result in
loss.
39
Should any of the following be sighted in the
project area during project implementation,
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Unit
biologist would be notified: lynx or a lynx den,
bald eagle, new wolf den or rendezvous site,
active goshawk nest. Appropriate protection
measures would be implemented where
deemed necessary to protect these species.
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription,
field prep, contract
administration/inspection,
and USFWS monitoring
Moderate; based on
public sightings
reports and ESA
section 7 consultation.
40
Should an active goshawk nest be discovered
within a 450 feet distance of timber harvest or
Field prep, contract and
contract administration/
Moderate; based on
IDFG, et al, 1995,
Appendix P
Page P-21
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
#
41
PROJECT DESIGN AND MITIGATION MEASURE | IMPLEMENTATION METHOD
fuel reduction activities, the nest tree will be
protected, as well as a 30 acre no-treatment
buffer area around the nest tree, as
designated by the unit biologist to provide for
foraging and nesting sites.
The integrity of existing access management
restrictions would be maintained within the
planning area for wildlife security purposes.
Current access management restrictions
would apply to existing reconstructed roads
after implementation of activities to maintain
or improve existing access and wildlife
security. No contractor or their
representatives may use motorized vehicles
to hunt or trap animals on a restricted road.
inspection
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
EFFECTIVENESS
State Conservation
Effort
High except close to
roads; based on
standard timber sale
contract clauses and
past results monitoring
HERITAGE RESOURCES
42
43
Known historic properties or sites would' be
avoided or protected.
If additional cultural resources are discovered
during project operations, all ground-
disturbing activities would be halted until such
cultural materials can be properly
documented and evaluated by the Forest
Archaeologist in compliance with 36 CFR
800.
NEPA project design, field
prep, contract, and
administration/inspection
Contract and contract
administration/ inspection
High, objective to
achieve a "no adverse
effect" on these
resources
Moderate based on
recognition of
resource and contact
with Heritage
Personnel
Noxious WEEDS
44
45
46
Desirable vegetation would be promptly
established on all disturbed areas, using
native and non-native plant species, as
approved by the Forest botanist.
All named plant cultivars used in revegetation
will be certified blue-tagged. All non-certified
seed will be tested by a certified seed
laboratory against the all state noxious weed
list and documentation of the seed inspection
test provided to the contract administrator. All
straw and mulch would be certified as free of
noxious weed seed.
All mud, soil and plant parts would be
removed from all off-road equipment
associated with the project before moving into
the project area to limit the spread of weeds.
Cleaning must occur off National Forest
lands. This applies to all ATVs used on and
off. roads in the project area, but does not
apply to service or hauling vehicles that would
stay on the roadway, traveling frequently in
and out of the project area.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Contract and contract
administration and
inspection
Contract and contract
administration and
inspection
Moderate based on
experience
High, based on
experience
High; based on past
experience.
Appendix P
Page P-22
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
#
47
48
PROJECT DESIGN AND MITIGATION MEASURE | IMPLEMENTATION METHOD | EFFECTIVENESS
All private rock used for surfacing would be
county-certified as free of noxious weed seed.
Forest Service rock sources will be reviewed
for invasive weeds by a forest weed specialist
or botanist. Borrow pits and stockpiles will
not be used if it is determined that it is
infested with an invasive plant that is not
found in the area where the material will be
placed.
All small outbreaks of invasive weeds within
the project risk zones (Map 16b), and along
main travel routes leading to weed risk zones
will be pretreated prior to ground disturbing
activities.
Contract and contract
administration/ inspection
Field prep, contract
Moderate; based on
past experience
High: based on past
experience
TES PLANTS
49
50
Candystick, a Region 1 sensitive plant
species, occurs in some management units.
Where live lodgepole are associated with
candystick, groups of live lodgepole pine
would be left to protect candystick from
management activities.
During implementation, if activities would
impact previously unknown sensitive plant
occurrences, appropriate protection
measures would be implemented.
Appropriate measures will vary depending
upon the ecology of the species involved and
nature of the proposed action and would be
directed by a botanist.
NEPA project design, field
prep, contract and contract
administration/ inspection
Silvicultural prescription,
field preparation, contract,
and contract
administration/inspection
High based on past
monitoring and
experience.
High based on
monitoring,
experience, and logic.
ROADSIDE SALVAGE1
51
52
53
Roadside salvage would be limited to dead or
dying trees, with no harvest of standing trees
more than 20 inches in diameter.
(Windthrown trees would not be subject to the
diameter limit.)
Salvage would be limited to areas adjacent to
haul roads. No tree cutting or yarding would
occur in RHCAs or in allocated existing or
replacement old growth.
All yarding would be done from the road.
Areas above steep cutslopes that cannot be
protected from yarding damage would be
omitted from sal- vage. Yarding distance
would not exceed 100 ft.
Contractor permit
Contractor permit
Contractor permit
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
High; bcjsed on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
High; b.ased on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
1 Treatments would include roadside salvage within 100 feet of main haul roads. This component of the
action would comply with all applicable design criteria developed for the action as a whole. These design
criteria are not intended to limit or interfere with brushing, clearing, or hazard reduction activities
associated with routine road maintenance.
Appendix P
Page P-23
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
#
PROJECT DESIGN AND MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION METHOD
EFFECTIVENESS
54
No more than 80 dead or dying trees per mile
(approximately 8 trees/acre) could be
designated for cutting on each side of the
road.
Contractor permit
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
55
Maximum opening size is one acre on each
side of a road, or a maximum of 400 feet
along the road.
Contractor permit
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
56
Openings would be separated from other
forest openings by at least 200 feet of pole
size or larger forest along the road, on both
sides, to provide cover for wildlife crossing.
Contractor permit
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
57
Slash from salvage would be lopped and
scattered, hand piled and burned in the
woods, or removed from the site at the
discretion of the District Ranger considering
the Forest objective of maintaining less than
12 tons per acre of fine fuels.
Contractor permit
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
MONITORING
FOREST PLAN MONITORING
As part of implementing the Nez Perce Forest Plan, the Nez Perce Forest monitors a multitude
of effects and conditions within the Forest. The Forest Plan Monitoring items are displayed on
pages V-4 through 8 and Appendix O of the Nez Perce Forest Plan. These monitoring activities
are applied on a sample basis randomly across the Forest or among projects. Some of that
monitoring may occur within the American and Crooked River analysis area. Forest Plan
monitoring is reported in an annual monitoring and evaluation report.
PROPOSED MONITORING FOR THIS PROJECT
Monitoring is a process of gathering information through observation and measurement to
assure the goals, objectives and standards of the Nez Perce Forest Plan are implemented and
to ensure implementation and effectiveness of design criteria or mitigation. Monitoring will also
be designed to meet the needs of the Biological Opinions from NOAA Fisheries and U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service regarding possible take of listed rainbow/steelhead trout and bull trout.
Two forms of monitoring are proposed: 1) implementation 2) effectiveness. These two types of
monitoring are described below:.
• Implementation monitoring is used to determine if management practices are
implemented as planned in the Nez Perce Forest Plan, the American and Crooked River
FEISandorthisBE/BA.
• Effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if management practices, as designed and
executed, are effective in meeting project objectives as defined in the FEIS as well as
the BE/BA and Biological Opinion. Also included are the goals, objectives, and
standards of the Plan (Nez Perce Forest Plan.
The results of all monitoring will be shared with NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service biologists on the Level 1 Team. Any actions requiring additional information will be
Appendix P
Page P-24
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
identified and corrective actions will be designed using recommendations from the Level 1
Team.
MONITORING APPLICABLE TO ALL ACTIVITIES
Implementation monitoring of the design criteria and mitigation would be conducted on a
sample basis. Monitoring would be accomplished by agency representatives overseeing
the action, as well as an interdisciplinary and/or multi-party team through a combination
of any of the following methods:
• Review contract specifications
• Review designs and plans of operation
• Review contract administration reports (daily diaries)
• Review activities on the ground before, during, and after implementation.
Implementation monitoring will focus on design. criteria and mitigation as well as the
Biological Opinion terms and conditions for ground disturbing activities like temporary road
construction and subsequent decommissioning, timber harvest and subsequent slash
disposal, road maintenance, culvert replacement, instream improvements and road
decommissioning. Inventory forms will be made available listing the appropriate design and
mitigation measures from Table 7 above. These monitoring forms will be reviewed and
maintained in the District files. Reports will be made of significant erosional events.
Problems will be noted and corrective actions taken within the scope of contract provisions.
• -Effectiveness monitoring (qualitative and quantitative) to determine if design criteria
achieve their objectives and if treatments help meet goals and objectives, as described
in Chapters 1 and 2 of the American and Crooked River EIS as well as the
corresponding Biological Opinions. Sampling will also be conducted to monitor turbidity
and compliance with the Idaho State Water Quality Standards and Clean Water Act.
Effectiveness monitoring would be accomplished using established protocols specific to
each criterion.
Effectiveness monitoring (quantitative) will focus on activities adjacent to and within
occupied habitat for listed rainbow/steelhead and bull trout. The effect pathways with the
greatest potential for change are sediment and water temperature and monitoring will focus
on channel morphology and fish habitat. A sample of the annual activities will be identified
in cooperation with NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sites chosen will be
inventoried for baseline conditions using agreed upon methodologies. Follow up monitoring
at these sites will be completed immediately after the action and the year fcilowing. A
review of the data from the following year will determine the effectiveness of the mitigation
and design criteria and whether subsequent monitoring is needed.
Turbidity monitoring will require water samples being taken while in stream activities are
occurring in or directly above occupied habitat. Samples will be taken at the mixing zone as
described by the Idaho State Water Quality Standards. The State DEQ will be notified along
with NOAA Fisheries and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service if these standards are exceeded.
The mitigation and design criteria will be modified to address the cause for 'ncreaiAed
suspended sediment or the project will be re-designed. .
Effectiveness monitoring in American River will tier to data gathered by the Bureau of Land
Management. Two permanent monitoring stations have been established by the Bureau of
Appendix P
Page P-25
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
w^ww^^^wwiw..™^^
Land Management, and monitored over time in American River. This work will continue with
cooperation from the Bureau of Land Management.
A permanent station will be established in lower Crooked River to set baseline conditions
with follow up monitoring to determine trends in sediment and water temperatures.
Before and after stream surveys will be conducted in Crooked River where instream
improvements are planned. This monitoring will track upward trend, with expected
increases in pool habitat and pool quality. In general, these instream improvements are
expected to increase the carrying capacity for fish in Crooked River, moving this stream
toward its fish/water objective. Permanent stations will be located to document fish
population responses. These stations will be established in coordination with existing parr
monitoring stations monitored by Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Monitoring in Crooked River will reference USFS stream survey information, Clearwater
BioStudies, Inc. 1990 Fish Habitat Characteristics, Riparian Conditions and Salmonid
Abundance in the Crooked River Study Area, USDA South Fork Clearwater River Habitat
Enhancement 1983-1991 (P. Siddall, 1992), Intensive Evaluation and Monitoring of Chinook
Salmon and Steelhead Production Crooked River and Upper Salmon River Sites BPA
Annual Reports 1993, 1995 (R. Kiefer, June, 1995 and October, 1999, along with Weir
counts from the Crooked River weir manned by Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
FISH MONITORING
The isolated westslope cutthroat trout populations in Whitaker and Queens Creek will have
genetics samples taken to document existing genetic make up for comparison with fish
populations in a connected system. Dialog will continue with Bureau of Land Management,
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and research biologists as to benefits associated with
connecting streams to the mairistem river.
SOUTH FORK CLEARWATER RIVER MONITORING
Condition and trend monitoring of the mainstem river will be tiered to the upcoming (Spring
2005) State Water Quality TMDL.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES
The FEIS maps 8a and 8b display the distribution of fish species as well as prescription
watershed .boundaries within the project area.
AMERICAN RIVER AND CROOKED RIVER INCLUDE PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR LISTED
STEELHEAD/REDBAND TROUT AND NOT FOR LISTED BULL TROUT.
STEELHE/AD TROUT
Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) in the Snake River steelhead ESU, currently
compromised of only anadromous forms is listed as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act (Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 159, August 18, 1997). Resident forms
(redbanc' rainbow) are proposed for inclusion in the ESU, also as a threatened species. The
ESU includes all natural-origin populations of o. mykiss in the Snake River Basin of southwest
Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho downstream from long-standing barriers. Certain
Appendix P
Page P-26
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
hatchery stocks in the Snake River Basin are proposed for listing. In the action area, resident
O. mykiss proposed for listing, and listed steelhead may occupy the same streams. These life-
history forms cannot readily be distinguished from one another as juveniles, consequently,
juvenile O. mykiss are referred to as "rainbow/steelhead" when their lineage as anadromous or
resident life-history forms cannot be determined.
Steelhead trout are distributed throughout the South Fork Clearwater sub basin and the
American and Crooked River watersheds (USDA 1999). The South Fork Clearwater sub basin
and all accessible tributaries were proposed as critical habitat for steelhead (Federal Register
Vol. 64, No. 24, February 5, 1999), but this proposal was recently rescinded, and the critical
listing process has been recently reinitiated. It is likely that the South Fork Clearwater River and
American and Crooked Rivers will be included as critical habitat when this designation is final.
Steelhead trout in Idaho are the anadromous form of rainbow trout, which have been further
classified as redband trout of the Columbia River basin (Behnke 2002). "Anadromous" refers to
a life history whereby fish spawn and rear in freshwater but migrate to the ocean before
maturing and returning to fresh water to spawn. Steelhead trout and most species of salmon
follow an anadromous life history, and adults of both may attain large size as a result of time
spent in the ocean. Populations of redband trout in the Columbia River basin, including those in
Idaho, generally follow either an anadromous or resident life history. Some stream systems
may support both types of individuals.
Steelhead trout spawning and rearing in the American River and Crooked River area generally
enter fresh water in late summer and fall, spend the winter in the lower and middle Clearwater
River below Kooskia, and migrate up the South Fork Clearwater River in early spring.
Spawning usually occurs in April and May, probably in the mainstem and lower reaches of
tributary streams. Juveniles usually spend about two years in streams and rivers, sometimes
three, before migrating downstream to the ocean during the spring runoff period in May and
June (Behnke, 2002).
In the American River, juvenile steelhead trout have been documented in Upper, Middle, and
Lower American River, East Fork American River, Flint Creek, and Box Sing Creek. In Crooked
River, juvenile steelhead trout have been documented in Lower Crooked River, Relief Creek,
Middle Crooked River, Silver Creek, and Quartz Creek.
INTERIOR REDBAND
Interior Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) includes both anadromous steelhead
(discussed above) and native resident rainbow trout that do not migrate to the ocean (Behnke,
2002). They are classified as the same species, except fish included in this category spend
their entire lives in a stream or river, often at or near their natal area. Both resident and the
anadromous form are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Federal
Register/Vo.69, No. 113, 33119).
In most anadromous steelhead populations, a portion of the juveniles do not migrate to the
ocean and remain as resident redbands throughout their lives (Behnke, 2002). This is the likely
scenario in the American and Crooked River watersheds. Most juveniles migrate to the ocean
but small percentages probably remain as resident fish. There are no known isolated
populations that are exclusive resident, although redband spawning was observed in East Fork
Appendix P
Page P-27
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Relief Creek (W. Paradis personal observation, 2003) such populations exist elsewhere on'the
Nez Perce National Forest and in the South Fork Clearwater sub basin.
BULLTROUT
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Columbia River basin have been listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 111, June 10, 1998). Critical
habitat for bull trout has been proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Federal Register
Vol. 67, No. 71235, 2002) and is under review at this time. American River and Crooked River
are included as proposed critical habitat, likely including tributary streams like East Fork
American River and Kirks Fork.
Bull trout are actually a char and are included in the genus Salvelinus, along with brook trout,
lake trout, Dolly Varden, and Arctic char. The bull trout and Dolly Varden were long considered
the same species and are generally similar in appearance, but skeletal and genetic analyses
have shown they are separate species (Behnke 2002). Large bull trout are known as voracious
predators of other fish, although small bull trout typically feed on invertebrates. Bull trout spawn
in the fall, typically in the coldest reaches of smaller tributaries. Clean substrate (rocks), cold
water temperatures, and the presence of cover are important attributes of preferred bull trout
habitat.
Bull trout are especially vulnerable to human-induced factors that increase water temperature
and sediment loads, change flow regimes, block migration routes, and establish non-native
trout, particularly brook trout (Behnke, 2002).
Bull trout are present in the South Fork Clearwater River and many of its tributaries, including
American River and Crooked River. Bull trout have been documented in American River, Upper
American River East Fork American River, and Kirks Fork. One bull trout was observed in the
1989 survey of Flint Creek and no bull trout have been documented using Box Sing Creek.
Crooked River is an important stream for bull trout. The weir at the mouth of this system is
managed by Idaho Department of Fish and Game. They observe both adult and juvenile bull
trout moving in and out of the system. The headwaters provide important spawning and rearing
habitat for this fish and the mainstem is a well-used travel corridor. Bull trout have been
observed using Lower Crooked River, Relief Creek, Middle Crooked River, and Silver Creek.
The upper Crooked River watersheds (outside the project area) are recognized as very
important for spawning and rearing of bull trout.
There is no proposed critical habitat in the project area for American River or Crooked River.
Both watersheds are managed under the Nez Perce Forest Plan, which includes Amendment
20. The Federal Register/ Vol. 69, No. 193 page 60021 (October 6, 2004) revises the proposed
critical habitat designation (Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 230 (November 29, 2002) to exclude
all stream reaches regulated under PACFISH.
FALL CHINOOK SALMON
Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) is listed as a threatened species in the
Clearwater River basin (Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 78, 14653, April 22, 1992). Fall chinook
salmon are not found in the American and Crooked River area, but they do occur downstream in
the lower reaches of the South Fork Clearwater River and in the mainstem Clearwater River.
Appendix P
Page P-28
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Snake River fall chinook salmon were -historically less well-distributed across the upper Snake
River basin than spring and summer chinook, although the Snake River basin, including the
Clearwater River, was considered to support the highest production of fall chinook salmon in the
entire Columbia River basin. The historic importance of the Clearwater River in providing
spawning and early rearing habitat is presently unclear, but it is assumed it sustained a
significant component of the entire population.
Snake River fall chinook begin entering the Columbia River in August and continue through
October, with peak migration occurring in early September. Returning adults have generally
spent three or four years in the ocean. Adults generally arrive in the Clearwater River in
October with fish present from September through December. Spawning occurs from
November through early December. Fry emerge from late winter to early spring, juveniles rear
over the ensuing spring and summer months, then migrate to the ocean in the fall before they
are a year old.
SENSITIVE AND STATE LISTED SPECIES
In a letter dated March 12, 1999, the USDA Forest Service Northern Region Sensitive Species
list was updated to include interior redband.trout, boreal toad, northern leopard frog, and other
wildlife and plant species on the Nez Perce National Forest.
SPRING CHINOOK SALMON
Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) are considered a sensitive species in
the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service and are a species of special concern in the State of
Idaho. They are not listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in the
South Fork Clearwater sub basin because indigenous populations were likely eliminated from
the Clearwater River by construction of Lewiston Dam in the early 20th century (Schoen et al.
1999; Murphy and Metsker, 1962). Naturalized populations of spring chinook salmon, however,
have been re-established in the South Fork Clearwater sub basin, including American River and
Crooked River, as a result of reintroduction efforts (Schoen et al. 1999) by federal and state
agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe.
Both the American River and Crooked River watershed have a high inherent capacity to support
spring chinook salmon (USDA 1998), based on features such as climate, relief, and geology.
These river systems are comprised of significant lengths of low gradient, meadow reaches that
provide optimal spawning and rearing habitat for this species, offering large areas of
appropriately-sized spawning gravels as well as preferred low gradient rearing habitat for
juveniles (USDA, 2003).
Historically, significant numbers of spring chinook salmon spawned and reared in these systems
as well as other tributaries of the South Fork Clearwater River. Currently, adult returns vary but
are generally low. In 2003, the weir at the mouth of Crooked River counted 1360 returning adult
spring chinook. The 1990 fish habitat survey conducted by Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. (Fish
Habitat Characteristics, Riparian Conditions and Salmonid Abundance In The Crooked River
Study Area, November, 1990) identified 9810 square meters of spawning gravel available in the
mainstem river from the mouth to Orogrande. If this habitat were fully seeded, even in the
existing condition, there is potential to produce over 500,000 spring chinook smolts annually in
Crooked River. The American River is a very similar system. Both rivers have been dredge
mined using large floating bucket line dredges which resulted a loss of pool habitat, removal of
acting and potential woody debris and wider more shallow streams.
Appendix P
Page P-29
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Spring chmook salmon have been identified in Upper, Middle, and Lower American River East
Fork American River, Kirks Fork, Flint Creek and Box Sing Creek. In Crooked River they have
been identified in Lower Crooked River and Middle Crooked and are likely to also'use Relief
Creek, Silver Creek, and Quartz Creek.
WESTSLOPE CUTTHROAT
Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) are considered sensitive in the
Northern Region, U.S. Forest Service, and a species of special concern by the State of Idaho
Currently, they are not listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act In a
letter dated June 10, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "determined that a petition to list
the westslope cutthroat trout...presented substantial information indicating that the requested
action may be warranted". Cutthroat trout are widely distributed across the Clearwater basin
although the current abundance is probably less than historic abundance.
Westslope cutthroat trout are widespread in the project area, and have been found in virtually
every tributary where surveys have been conducted. Populations may also be present in
additional areas where surveys have not been conducted or where existing information is
insufficient to define species presence or absence. Strong populations of resident fish have
been observed in Quartz Creek and Silver Creek.
The isolated populations in Queen and Whitaker offer unique opportunities to study genetic
differences between isolated fish and those subject to hybridization with non-native rainbow
trout. There is also the opportunity to connect these streams to the mainstem and monitor fish
dispersal and genetic changes.
Although population status of resident westslope cutthroat trout is thought to be strong in some
streams, the larger fluvial fish, those moving out of the tributaries and rearing in the mainstem
are showing very low densities, making this species at risk.
Primary existing threats to westslope cutthroat trout in the project area include habitat
degradation, loss of connectivity among populations, competition with non-native brook trout
and harvest of adults by anglers.
PACIFIC LAMPREY
Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) is considered a State of Idaho species of special
concern. Recent sampling in the South Fork Clearwater River indicated the presence of
juvenile lampreys along the mainstem river and some of the tributaries (Cochnauer and Clair,
2003). Similar sampling conducted in Crooked and American Rivers in 2001 did not identify any
lampreys (Cochnauer, Clair BPA Annual Reports 2001 and 2002). Much of American River and
the lower reaches of Crooked River were likely historic habitat for lamprey (Clair, per. Comm.,
INTRODUCED NON-NATIVE FISH
Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) have been introduced to the area and are present in both
American River and Crooked River.
Appendix P
Page P-30
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its implementing regulations, 50
CFR Part 600.920, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS regarding any of their actions
authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that
may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Magnuson-Stevens Act, section 3,
defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding,
or growth to maturity." Federal agencies may incorporate an EFH Assessment into ESA
Biological Assessments. EFH habitat for coho is not in the project area and is limited to the
mainstem Clearwater River over 50 miles downstream
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) (see above for detailed life history) EFH for
Chinook salmon includes all historically accessible reaches of the Clearwater drainage (except
the North Fork above Dworshak Dam). EFH for chinook is present in both American River and
Crooked River.
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) were once native to the Clearwater River basin. Their
distribution was primarily associated with tributaries of the Lower Clearwater River. Historic
runs were extirpated and we are mostly dealing with a fish that the Nez Perce Tribe is stocking
from area hatcheries. The Clearwater River coho enter the Columbia River in August and
September. They reach the Clearwater River in October and spawn in November and
December. The juvenile fish emerge in March and April and they out-migrate in May and June
after spending one to two years rearing in their natal stream. There is some sign of movement
to mainstem habitats for winter rearing. Clearwater coho return in 1.5 years as adults (Jody
Brostrom, FWS and Sherman Sprague Nez Perce Tribe, personal communications).
Appendix P
Page P-31
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Baseline Conditions for Soils, Watershed, and Fish
SOILS
Geology in the Crooked and American River watersheds consists of Precambrian metamorphic
rock that is mainly gneiss, schist, and associated quartzites. They weather to sandy loam
toamy sand, or sand parent materials and are moderate to highly erodible. The granitic rocks in
Uooked and American Rivers are mostly biotite granodiorite, which is part of the Idaho
? M J^eS& 9ranites weather to loamy sands and sand parent material, and are typically
nigniy erodible.
Most soils in project area have surface layers formed in volcanic ash-influenced loess A layer
of volcanic ash influenced loess was deposited on the project area approximately 6700 years
ago after the eruption of Mt. Mazama in Oregon.
LANDFORMS FOR CROOKED AND AMERICAN RIVER
Soil response to disturbance depends not only on soil type, but topographic setting and slope
hydrology. Landforms have characteristic slope shape, steepness, and stream dissection
which affect erosion and sediment delivery to streams.
AMERICAN RIVER LANDFORMS
ROLLING HILLS
This is the most common landform in American River, mapped over 80 percent of the
watershed. The volcanic ash influenced soil surface layers buffer against erosion except where
soil substrata are exposed, as in roads or mines. Substfatum erosion hazard from roads is
moderate to high. Slopes are gentle to moderate (20-45 percent) and sediment is delivered to
streams with moderate efficiency. Unstable slopes are uncommon, and typically occur as small
areas on lower slopes or near stream headlands. West and south facing slopes at low elevation
may have thin or mixed ash surface layers. These soils do not hold moisture as well as ash-
influenced soils and are more liable to surface erosion. Mass wasting and in-channel failures
such as debris torrents are uncommon. The streams in these settings are moderate to high
gradient in headwater streams, and flow into lower gradient alluvial valleys.
STREAM BREAKLANDS AND STEEP MOUNTAIN SLOPES
Stream breaklands and steep mountain slopes are of limited extent in the watershed (8
percent). In comparison to rolling hills, breaklands have steep slopes, shallower soils thin or
mixed loess surface layers, higher surface erosion risk, higher risk of mass failure arid more
rapid delivery of sediment to streams. Substratum erosion hazard from roads is high Debris
torrents can occur in headwater channels after intense rainstorms or rain-on-snow events.
CONVEX RIDGES
Convex slopes are found at upper elevations (5 percent of the area). These landforms occur in
the upper elevation areas around Anderson Butte on the east watershed divide of American
Appendix P
Page P-32
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
River watershed and the Elk Summit area on the west watershed divide of American River. The
elevation is above 5000 feet ranging to 6700 feet. In comparison to rolling hills, convex slopes
have broader ridges, lower drainage density, and bedrock is usually deeply fractured. Volcanic
ash surface layers are typically present and buffer against surface erosion. Substratum erosion
hazard from roads is high. Slopes are gentle to moderate (10-45 percent) and sediment is
delivered to streams with low efficiency. Unstable slopes are uncommon, and typically occur as
small areas on lower slopes or near stream headlands.
ALLUVIAL VALLEYS
Alluvial valleys form along low gradient stream channels (3 percent of the watershed). Soils are
mainly derived from alluvium and sediments deposited on floodplains. They are often poorly
drained and subject to water transport most of the year. Substrata are coarse sands with gravel
and cobble. Substratum erosion hazard is high in coarse alluvium. Sediment delivery efficiency
is very high (USDA FS, 1987); most of this landform is a riparian area. Valley gradients in the
alluvial valleys are gentle and streams within this landform are most commonly C channels, with
some B channels in steeper sections. Historically, large areas of the alluvial valleys and
floodplains were dredge mined in the late 1800's leaving large tailings piles in the alluvial valleys
of American River.
CROOKED RIVER LANDFORMS
ROLLING HILLS
Rolling hills occur in the headwaters of the tributaries of lower Crooked River (14 percent of the
watershed). The landforms in this portion of the Crooked watershed are similar to the rolling
uplands in American River. Refer to the description of Rolling Uplands landforms under
American River landform discussion.
CONVEX RIDGES
Convex slopes are found at upper elevations (42 percent of the area). In comparison to rolling
hills, convex slopes have broader ridges, lower drainage density, and bedrock is usually deeply
fractured. The convex ridges drop into forested breaklands on the lower reaches of 3rd and 4th
order watersheds flowing into Crooked River and the slopes above main Crooked River.
Convex ridges occur above 5000 feet in the Crooked River watersheds. Volcanic ash surface
layers are typically present and buffer against surface erosion. Substratum erosion hazard from
roads is high. Slopes are gentle to moderate and sediment is delivered to streams with low
efficiency. Unstable slopes are uncommon, and typically occur as small areas on lower slopes
or near stream headlands.
STEEP GLACIATED LANDS
Alpine glaciated slopes and till deposits occur at the highest elevations (3 percent of the
watershed). They are most common in the headwaters of the West Fork of Crooked River.
These landforms have exposed bedrock or glacial till, and moderate to steep slopes.
Substratum erosion hazard from roads is high. Sediment is delivered to streams with moderate
to high efficiency. Debris torrents can occur in headwater channels after intense rainstorms or
rapid snowmelt.
Appendix P
Page P-33
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
STREAM BREAKLANDS AND MOUNTAIN SLOPES
Stream breaklands and steep mountain slopes are common in the watershed (37 percent)
rnntLape ^TV^ 6° PerC6ntd TheV occur most commonly along the mainstem
Crooked Rjven and the lower slopes of 3rd and 4th order streams, and face watersheds flowing
into Crooked River In comparison to rolling hills, breaklands have steep slopes, shallower soils
thin or mixed loess surface layers, higher surface erosion risk, higher risk of mass failure and
more rapid delivery of sediment to streams. Debris torrents can occur in headwater channels
after intense rainstorms or rain-on-snow events. The substratum erosion hazard from roads is
high. First and second order stream channels have steep A channel types Debris torrents are
not extremely common, but can occur after fire or under conditions of saturated soil conditions
intense rainstorms, or rain-on-snow floods.
ALLUVIAL VALLEYS
Alluvial valleys form along low gradient stream channels (2 percent of the watershed) The
linear alluvial valley along mainstem Crooked river is the primary alluvial valley in this
watershed. Soils are often poorly drained and subject to water transport most of the year
Substrata are coarse sands with gravel and cobble. Substratum erosion is high in coarse
alluvium Some have been dredge mined and only coarse mine spoils remain. Hydrologic and
riparian functions of alluvial soils were also lost as a result of the dredge mining. Sediment
delivery efficiency is very high (USDA FS, 1987); most of this landform is a riparian area. Valley
gradients in the alluvial valleys are. gentle and streams are most commonly C channels with
some B channels in steeper sections.
SUMMARY
Crooked and American River watersheds have been heavily managed in the past Eight
percent of Crooked River has been tractor logged and/or dozer piled in the past and 19 percent
of American River has been tractor logged and/or dozer piled in the past. Soil compaction alters
runoff patterns and soil water availability. Areas of compacted skid trails, landings, and roads
can change hydrologic processes by increasing overall water yield and increasing efficiency of
runoff into stream channels. Mining, especially in the alluvial valley bottoms has had a great
influence on soil disturbance and displacement, especially along mainstem Crooked and
American Rivers. The scope of the effects of soil compaction applies to the immediate area
impacted, and cumulatively affects watershed scale hydrologic processes, as discussed above.
Soil displacement removes the nutrient-rich volcanic ash surface soils from the site and the
underlying granitic, gneiss, and schist soils are less productive and more highly'erodible
Typically, on areas that have been tractor logged and not dozer piled, about 15 to 25 percent of
the unit has suffered detrimental compaction and displacement (USDA Forest Service Nez
Perce National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Reports. 1990 and 1991) On units that'have
been tractor logged and dozer piled, about 30-70 percent of the unit may have suffered
detrimental compaction or displacement (forest plan monitoring data and data on file for the
Meadow Face EIS and Red River EAWS).
Appendix P
Page P-34
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
WATERSHED
CLEAN WATER ACT AND IDAHO STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The Clean Water Act stipulates that states are to adopt water quality standards. Included in
these standards are provisions for identifying beneficial uses, establishing the status of
beneficial uses, setting water quality criteria, and establishing BMPs to control non-point
sources of pollution.
Under the Idaho Water Quality Standards, designated beneficial uses exist for American and
Crooked Rivers (IDAPA 58.01.02). Tributaries of American and Crooked Rivers within the
project area do not have designated beneficial uses. However, they do support existing
beneficial uses and these are protected under the water quality standards. There are numerous
private and two State water uses adjacent to or downstream of the project area. Designated
and existing beneficial uses are detailed in Sections 3.2.1. (American River) and 3.2.2.
(Crooked River).
The South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) addresses water quality limited streams listed under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act (IDEQ et al, 2004). The Assessment and TMDLs is a joint effort of the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Nez Perce Tribe. The
Nez Perce National Forest participated in the assessment and TMDL development, with
technical input and representation on the Watershed Advisory Group. The South Fork
Clearwater River subbasin TMDLs applicable to the project area are for water temperature and
sediment and were approved by the EPA in July, 2004.
Using the currently approved 1998 list, there are no 303(d) listed streams within the project
area. However, the entire project area contributes to the South Fork Clearwater River, which is
listed for water temperature and sediment. TMDLs were developed for the South Fork
Clearwater River for water temperature and sediment. The sediment TMDL targets a 25
percent reduction in human-caused sediment yield to the South Fork Clearwater River. No
specific targets were set for tributaries, but it was recognized that much of the sediment yield
reduction would need to take place in the tributaries. The water temperature TMDL calls for
canopy density or shade targets on a stream reach basis throughout the subbasin. Different
analytical approaches were used for forested reaches than for the non-forested reaches and the
mainstem South Fork Clearwater River.
In June 2003, the IDEQ issued a draft Integrated 303(d)/305(b) Report for Idaho. The following
project area streams were proposed for listing under Section 5 as impaired waters for water
temperature: American River (below East Fork American River), Crooked River, East Fork
Crooked River, Relief Creek, and Sawmill Creek. The South Fork Clearwater River was
proposed for listing for water temperature and sediment. EPA approved the South Fork
Clearwater River TMDLs in Ju.ly, 2004. It is assumed that all of the streams above will be
moved to Section 4a, as waters having an approved TMDL.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires permits to dredge or fill within waters of the United
States. The US Army Corps of Engineers administers these provisions. Most of the instream
activities proposed under the American and Crooked River Project will require authorization
under Section 404, through application of either nationwide or site-specific permits.
Appendix P
Page P-35
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
WATERSHED CONDITION
Watershed condition indicators are a series of metrics that can be used to index the level of
disturbance in a watershed. They are usually expressed as densities or discrete amounts of
various disturbances within a watershed. For example, road density expressed in miles of road
per square mile of watershed area (mi/mi2) is a common watershed condition indicator
Extensions of that include road density within riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) or
landslide prone terrain (LSP). Other indicators include various forms of timber harvest density
such as percent of the watershed harvested, percent of RHCAs harvested and percent of LSP
terrain harvested.
Various guidelines have been employed to rate watershed condition based on these indicators
One local version is a matrix that rates watersheds into low, moderate, or high condition based
on assembling a broad array of indicators (NOAA Fisheries et al, 1998).
INDICATOR OF WATERSHED CONDITION - ROAD DENSITY
Existing watershed condition indicators were compiled for American River using corporate
databases and CIS overlays. They are summarized in the table below:
TABLE 8. WATERSHED CONDITION INDICATORS
Watershed
Name
Upper American
River
Middle American
River3
East Fork American
River3
Flint Creek
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Box Sing Creek
Kirks Fork
Lower
American River3
Entire
American River
Area
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
condition, 1-3 mi/mi2 is moderate and >3 mi/mi2 is low (NOAA Fisheries, et al 1998). Of the 9
project prescription watersheds in American River, 5 are in the low condition category and only
1 is in the high condition category.
The density and distribution of roads within most of the subwatersheds indicate there is a high
probability that the hydrologic regime (i.e. timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of
runoff) is substantially altered. Road surfaces limit infiltration which causes surface runoff
during storm events and snow melt. Insloped roads with ditches have the greatest effect.
Native surface roads with traffic can often develop ruts, which cause runoff to be concentrated
on the road surface. Roads are also subject to surface and mass erosion. Surface erosion is
the dominant erosion process on roads in American River. Field inventories have identified
problem areas and prioritized needs.
Timber harvest has affected a relatively high proportion of Queen, Whitaker, and Flint Creeks.
This has affected water yield and timing through reductions in forest canopy and soil
compaction from skid trails and landings. A relatively high proportion of RHCAs have been
harvested in Whitaker and Queen Creeks. Though unquantified, a considerable amount of
timber harvest has occurred in Lower American River. Mass erosion is a relatively minor
process in American River. There is a minimal amount of past reading and timber harvest on
landslide prone terrain.
TABLE 9. AMERICAN RIVER POST-PROJECT ROAD DENSITY
Watershed Name
Upper American River
Middle American River1
East Fork American River1
Flint Creek
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Box Sing Creek
Kirks Fork
Lower American River1
Entire American River
Area
(mi2)
10.1
5.1
8.6
9.2
1.4
1.7
1.4
9.8
6.8
91.6
Alt A
(existing)
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.1
3.9
4.3
3.3
0.6
2.0
2.3
AltD
2.0
2.5
0.9
2.8
3.4
3.0
2.9
0.6
1.9
2.2
AltD
additional.
1.9
2.2
0.8
2.1
3.4
2.7
2.7
0.6
1.9
2.1
1 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds
Appendix P
Page P-37
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 10. CROOKED RIVER POST-PROJECT ROAD DENSITY
Watershed Name
Middle Crooked River1
Relief Creek
Lower Crooked River1
Entire Crooked River
Area
(mi2)
22.6
11.7
14.8
71.3
Alt A
(existing)
1.8
3.3
3.2
1.9
AttD
1.6
2.9
3.1
1.8
AltD
additional
1.6
2.6
3.0
1.7
SEDIMENT YIELD/SUBSTRATE
Sediment yield is defined as the movement of sediment past a point in the stream system over a
P.®r!?fLof time' On the Nez Perce National Forest, sediment yield is generally modeled using
NEZSED, which is the Forest's adaptation of the R1R4 Sediment Yield Guidelines (USDA
Forest Service, 1981). The model accounts for natural background sediment and activity
sediment generated from roads, timber harvest, and fire. The activity sediment is estimated
from surface erosion processes and small mass failures (< 10 yd3). Sediment yield is commonly
expressed as tons/year or percentage over baseline. Appendix A of the Nez Perce National
Forest. Plan stipulates guidelines for sediment yield and entry frequency on a subwatershed
basis (USDA Forest Service, 1987).
The proposed timber harvest, road activities, and watershed improvement activities could affect
sediment yield over time. Harvest and road related activities have the potential to increase
sediment production and delivery into streams. Watershed improvement projects have the
potential to produce sediment in the short-term, but many are designed to result in long-term
reductions in sediment on a watershed basis. Sediment yield modeling is used as one indicator
to determined trends in water quality and fish habitat conditions.
Q0 haS been tested US'ng locally collected sediment yield data (USDA Forest Service
1998). Results of the individual tests varied with some predictions being over and under with
others being close, to measured values. The net result is that the model has been determined
to be a reasonably realistic tool for alternative assessment. The model has limitations in that it
does not incorporate certain processes related to activity-generated sediment yield including
stream bank erosion and mass failures >10 yds3 in size. Further disclosures of NEZSED model
limitations and field tests are found in Appendix B.
Long term monitoring of sediment is limited in this area. Work in the Red River watershed can
provide some insight into what may occur in American and Crooked Rivers The following
narrative is an excerpt from Red River EAWS, Chapter 4, pp 4-60 to 4-61 :
Trend data exists for three aquatic monitoring stations within the Red River
watershed; one each on upper Red River (just below Shissler Ck.), lower Red
River (above Red R. Ranger Station), and Trapper Creek (at gaging station
above Rd 421 crossing). These stations, although limited in number, allow for
some inference of trends in aquatic conditions in three of four ERUs established
for this EAWS (Upper and Lower Red River and South Fork, respectively).
Monitoring data were collected in five different years at the upper Red River
station, three years at the lower Red River station, and two years at the Trapper
Creek station.
Appendix P
Page P-38
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
w>»»»ww«*wwM»>ww»y«w«*^^
Weighted cobble embeddedness at the upper Red River monitoring station (all
transects combined) shows a statistically significant (p=0.048) improving trend
(illustrated by a negative slope and decreasing embeddedness over time) since
the late 1980s. Four of five transects at the upper Red River station show an
improving trend (negative slope) in weighted cobble embeddedness over this
same time period. At the lower Red River monitoring station, two of five transect
show an improving trend in weighted cobble embeddedness. The trend for the
lower Red River monitoring station as a whole (transects combined) is unclear;
regression analysis reveals an overall declining trend in condition (positive slope)
although statistical evaluation of that trend is not significant (p=0.597). Weighted
cobble embeddedness values were only recorded in two years at the Trapper
Creek monitoring station making statistical evaluation of trend data inappropriate.
Two of five transects at the Trapper Creek station showed higher levels of
(weighted) cobble embeddedness in 2002 than in 1989. However, data
combined across all transects suggests a possible improving trend (slope = -
0.32) at this station.
TABLE 11. AMERICAN RIVER - PERCENT (%) OVER BASE SEDIMENT YIELD
Watershed Name
Middle American River1
East Fork American River1
Flint Creek
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Box Sing Creek
Area
(mi2)
23.8
18.4
9.2
1.4
1.7
1.4
Year
2003
2005
2012
2003
2005
2012
2003
2005
2012
2003
2005
2012
2003
2005
2012
2003
2005
Alt A
(existing)
13
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
15
66^
31
31
37
37
37
21
21
2012 | 21
AltD
13
14
12
12
17
10
15
23
12
66
38
30
37
57
32
21
34
19
AltD
additional
13
14
11
12
17
9
15
23
11
66
36
30
37
58
31
21
34
19
1 Composite watersheds were combined with upstream watersheds for sediment yield analysis.
2 Reflects private land harvest in 2003
Appendix P
Page P-39
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Watershed Name
Kirks Fork
Lower
American River1
Area
(mi2)
9.8
91.6
Year
2003
2005
2012
2003
2005
2012
Alt A
(existing)
5
5
5
16
15
15
AltD
5
9
5
16
17
14
AltD
5
9
5
16
17
14
Sediment yields in the peak activity year of 2005 stay below Forest Plan sediment yield
guidelines. Entry frequency guidelines are also met with this action. In most cases the chronic
sediment yield over base is lower in 2012 than in pre-project conditions. This reflects the effect
of decommissioning and improvements on existing roads.
TABLE 12. CROOKED RIVER PERCENT (%) OVER BASE SEDIMENT YIELD
Watershed Name
Middle Crooked River1
Quartz Creek
Silver Creek
Relief Creek
Lower Crooked River1
Area
(mi2)
44.8
4.1
4.2
11.7
71.3
Year
2003
2005
2012
2003
2005
2012
2003
2005
2012
2003
2005
2012
2003
2005
2012
Alt A
(existing)
5
5
5
7
7
7
18
18
18
17
17
17
9
9
9
AltD
5
7
4
7
15
7
18
42
12
17
28
15
9
13
8
AltD
5
7
4
7
15
7
18
43
12
17
28
14
9
13
8
All peak year sediment yield increases fall below the Forest Plan sediment yield guideline of 30
percent over base. Entry frequency guidelines are also met with this action. Silver and Quartz
Creeks are not Forest Plan prescription watershed and therefore do not have established
sediment yield guidelines. Given their channel types and beneficial uses, these guidelines
1 Composite watersheds were combined with upstream watersheds for sediment yield analysis.
Appendix P
Page P-40
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
would likely be set at not to exceed 45 percent over base. All of the alternatives fall below that
level.
WATER YIELD
Equivalent Clearcut Area (EGA) analysis is a tool used to index the relationship between
vegetation condition and water yields from forested watersheds. The basic assumptions of the
procedure are that removal of forest vegetation results in water yield increases and that EGA
can be used as an index of these increases. Depending on the interaction between water yield,
sediment yield, and stream channel conditions, such increases could have impacts on stream
channels.
Water yield increases can be directly modeled, but equivalent clearcut area (EGA) is often used
as a surrogate. The EGA model is designed to estimate changes in mean annual streamflow
resulting from forest practices or treatments (reading, timber harvest, and fires), which remove
or reduce vegetative cover, and is usually expressed as a percent of watershed area (Belt,
1980). The index takes into account the initial percentage of crown removal and the recovery
through regrowth of vegetation since the initial disturbance. For purposes of this assessment,
EGA will be used to index changes in water yield through time based on timber harvest and
reading disturbances.
There are a number of physical factors that determine the relationship between canopy
conditions and water yield. These include interception, evapo-transpiration, shading effects and
wind flux. These factors affect the accumulation and melt rates of snow packs and how rainfall
is processed. The EGA analysis takes into account the initial percentage of crown removal and
the recovery through vegetative re-growth since the initial disturbance in the case of timber
harvest or fire. Within the habitat types being treated under this project, the time frame for
complete EGA recovery to occur is estimated to be 65 to 85 years (USDA Forest Service,
1974).
Additional factors affecting water yield include compacted surfaces due to roads, skid trails, and
landings. Existing and new roads are considered as permanent openings in the EGA model.
Decommissioned roads are considered as openings, so the road decommissioning projects do
not contribute to reductions in EGA.
Various EGA thresholds of concern have been in use in the Northern Region since the 1960s
(Gerhardt, 2000). Early cutting guides recommended a limit of 20-30 percent EGA within a
watershed (Haupt, 1967). Recently, concern over water yield changes relative to stream
channel condition has focused on smaller headwater catchments. Research in the nearby
Horse Creek watershed study have demonstrated instantaneous peak flow increase up to 34
percent and maximum daily flow increases up to 87 percent, resulting from road construction
and timber harvest in small catchments (King, 1989). Recent observations have suggested that
channel erosion from these streams may be contributing to increased bedload sediment in the
3rd order-receiving channel (Gerhardt, 2002).
The studies by Belt (1980) and King (1989) have also served as field tests of the EGA
procedure. Belt concluded that the EGA procedure is a rational tool for evaluation of hydrologic
impacts of forest practices. King recommended local calibration of the model and a greater
emphasis on conditions in 1st and 2nd order headwater streams. Limitations of the EGA model
are further disclosed in Appendix B.
Appendix P
Page P-41
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
Water and sediment yield can interact to change channel morphology conditions through
erosion of stream channels or deposition of sediment. Channel morphology can also be
affected directly through activities such as road encroachment, stream crossings and in-channel
improvements. Sediment delivery and routing processes vary by upland settings, stream types
and disturbance level and type.
Sediment routing considers the disposition of sediment within the watershed system, including
processes of erosion, deposition, storage and transport. It includes upslope and instream
components. The upslope component includes initial detachment, erosion and delivery
efficiency. The instream component includes suspended and bedload sediment yield, as well
as substrate deposition and composition. The instream component also includes consideration
of streamflow and channel morphology, both of which influence the capability of the stream to
transport or deposit sediment.
Indicators of channel morphology: Channel type, stream geometry and substrate composition.
WATER QUALITY (Toxics AND TEMPERATURE)
Water quality includes physical and chemical characteristics of water. Parameters commonly
measured include pH, alkalinity, hardness, specific conductance, nutrients, metals, sediment
and water temperature. Many of these parameters are affected to only a slight degree by forest
practices. Water temperature controls the rate of biologic process, is of critical concern for fish
populations, and is a primary indicator of habitat conditions.
Changes in streamside shading in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas could result in changes
in water temperature. Changes in shading can be due to succession, mortality, and human
activities. (See Appendix B for details on existing water Temp.)
Indicators of water temperature: Water temperature, canopy density in forested reaches, and
percent shade in non-forested reaches
Water temperature was recorded at several locations in the American River watershed during
the summer of 2003. These sites were American River at the Forest boundary, East Fork
American River, Flint Creek, Queen Creek, Kirks Fork, and American River at the mouth.
These data are shown in Appendix B. The data show a considerable variation across the
watershed. Violations of the Idaho salmonid spawning criterion of not-to-exceed 13° C were
noted at all sites at certain times. Violations of the Idaho cold water communities of not-to-
exceed 22° C were noted at American River at the Forest Boundary and at the mouth.
Violations of the EPA criterion of not-to-exceed 10" C (as a 7-day average of daily maximums)
were noted at all sites. Some basic metrics from the 2003 data are shown in Table 13 below.
Appendix P
Page P-42
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 13 - SUMMARY OF 2003 WATER TEMPERATURE DATA
Stream Name/Site
American River at Forest Boundary
East Fork American River
Flint Creek
Queen Creek
Kirks Fork
American River near mouth
Number of Days >
20°C
31
0
0
0
7
46
Maximum Instantaneous
ro
22.9
17.5
19.8
17.0.
20.6
25.6
Under the no action alternative, insect and disease agents may tend to reduce shade over time
in some riparian stands. Shade in dredge-mined reaches would tend to increase very slowly
over time as these areas are naturally recolonized by riparian vegetation. These reaches are
mostly outside the project area.
A number of water quality parameters were sampled at stream sites in American River during
the period 1977-1981. Summaries of data for pH, conductivity and hardness for Upper
American River, Flint Creek, and Lower American River are found in Table B.6 (see Appendix
B). These data show that pH is near neutral to slightly acidic, which is considered normal for
area streams. Conductivity and alkalinity are both relatively low, indicating relatively low
amounts of dissolved constituents and also relatively low biological productivity.
FISH HABITAT ELEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
I will first provide a narrative description of the prescription watersheds where project activities
are planned to occur. This discussion will begin with American River and it will be followed by
Crooked River. Following, will be a listing of the elements used to describe in general, how we
determine exiting conditions for fish and fish habitat. This analysis will focus on six elements of
fish habitat: sediment, large woody debris, pool habitat, water yield, water quality, habitat
connectivity. These elements use a combination of DFC and RMO attributes and all are linked
to the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition This general discussion will be
followed by a detailed description and how these elements will change as a result of this project.
We will end with a discussion of cumulative effects.
AMERICAN RIVER
AMERICAN RIVER (UPPER, MIDDLE AND LOWER)
PRESCRIPTION WATERSHEDS -#17060305-05-09,06,16
American River is a large watershed with important aquatic values and a high priority for
restoration of aquatic processes. The mainstem river is broken into three prescription
watersheds. Upper American River is above the Elk City Township and primarily includes lands
administered by the Forest Service. Middle American River extends into the township and has
experienced extensive amounts of placer mining and fish habitat degradation. Lower American
Appendix P
Page P-43
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
*»**»w»'*ww™w*y«»ww^^
River is within the township and has experienced similar impacts. The Bureau of Land
Management administers lands within this area and much of the survey data and background
information comes from their work (BLM, American River BA/B.E, March 1999). Steelhead trout,
bull trout, cutthroat trout, spring/summer chinook salmon, rainbow trout, pacific lamprey'
mountain whitefish, sculpin, and dace are present in the American River watershed. Their
distribution is widespread, with the exception of bull trout for which the distribution is not well
known. Brook trout are also present and widely distributed. Spring chinook salmon and
steelhead trout abundance is low. Westslope cutthroat trout populations vary; some areas are
devoid of cutthroat trout while others have relatively high densities. The higher densities of
cutthroat appear correlated with undeveloped areas in American River. There are very few
large-sized migratory cutthroat trout.
Migratory bull trout are present in American River, although at low levels. The extent of resident
bull trout in American River is not well known. Currently, it appears that the East Fork American
River potentially provides the only spawning and early rearing areas for bull trout in the
watershed. This project proposes only road decommissioning in East Fork American River.
Surveys conducted by Forest Service in 1998 did not document occurrences of bull trout in
upper American River. Recent fish surveys conducted by Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (1996-2003) documented bull trout in
mainstem American River, East Fork American River, and lower Kirks Fork.
The Bureau of Land Management, surveyed Lower American River in 1992 using a modified
Hanki.n and Reeves (1988) survey methodology. The dominant channel type was B, average
gradient was 2 percent, and unstable stream banks averaged 2 percent. Lower American River
occurs within the Elk City Township and a large amount of the stream bottom has been dredge
mined. Yearlong and seasonal residences occur along some stream reaches. Dredge mining
has reduced quality of pools and large woody debris is lacking. Dredge mining activity has
reduced large woody debris recruitment along some reaches. High summer water temperatures
and deposited sediment also reduce fish habitat quality.
The Forest Service last did an extensive survey of American River (upstream from Bureau of
Land Management boundary) in 1993 using the Nez Perce basin-wide methodology. During the
survey, approximately 69 percent of its length was classified as a B type stream channel. The
remaining portion was classified as C and A channel types, 24 percent and 7 percent
respectively
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have completed various stream
improvement projects in the past, which include installation of rock check dams; log check
dams, large woody debris, and habitat rock placement.
SUMMARY OF FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION
The American River area includes habitat for listed steelhead trout and bull trout.
Appendix P
Page P-44
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 14. KNOWN AND SUSPECTED DISTRIBUTION OF TROUT, SALMON, AND CHAR IN AMERICAN RIVER
Stream Name
(Middle) American
River
Upper American River
East Fork American
River
Kirks Fork
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Flint Creek
Box Sing Creek
Lower American River
Westslope
Cutthroat
Known Present
Known Present
Known Present
Known Present
Known Present
Known Present
Known Present
Known Present
Known Present
Bull Trout
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Probably
Absent
Probably
Absent
Known
Present
Probably
Absent
Known
Present
Spring
Chinook
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Absent
Known
Absent
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Steeihead
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Probably
Present
Known
Absent
Known
Absent
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Brook Trout
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Status
unknown
Known
Present
Status
unknown
Known
Present
Probably
Present
Known
Present
EAST FORK AMERICAN RIVER - PRESCRIPTION WATERSHED -#17060305-05-10
East Fork American River flows into American River at river mile 10.6, and provides habitat for
steelhead, bull trout, spring chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat trout, brook trout, mountain
whitefish, sculpin, and dace. Bull trout use the stream for adult and sub adult rearing. Fish
population surveys of the stream in recent years by Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (1996 - 2003) have documented the
presence of bull trout, however, numbers were low and most fish were found in the middle
reach. The stream may be used for bull trout spawning and early rearing, further investigations
are needed for verification.
The lower reaches to mid reaches of the stream flow through a timbered bottom with some
stringer meadows. A culvert installed at the mouth may be a partial/full fish passage barrier. A
private residence occurs near the mouth. A trail parallels the creek. The lower reaches
crossing Bureau of Land Management lands are not leased for grazing, however, Forest
Service lands are permitted for grazing.
The East Fork American River was surveyed by the Bureau of Land Management in 1992 from
the mouth to Forest Service boundary (stream mile 2.33). In 1993, the Forest Service surveyed
from that point to the headwaters. Both surveys used a modified Hankin and Reeves survey
methodology (Hankin and Reeves 1988).
The dominant channel type in lower reaches was B3, and unstable stream banks were 2
percent. The seven-day running average maximum temperature during steelhead and cutthroat
spawning periods for East Fork American River is 13.4 degrees C, and is rated high (SM 0.1 -
1995). No data on rearing temperatures are available for the middle reach, but spot monitoring
Appendix P
Page P-45
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
during fish surveys in 1998 found cool water temperatures, which rated high for steelhead and
bull trout rearing. The seven-day running average maximum temperature for bull trout spawning
was 14.4 degrees C, and is rated low (SM 0.1 - 1995). The seven-day running average
maximum temperature for rearing is 16.1 degrees C, and is rated moderate for steelhead and
low for bull trout (SM 0.1 - 1995). Primary limiting factors include high levels of deposited
sediment and lack of good quality pools.
Recon surveys were conducted in 2003 in support of this project. The 2003 surveys included
Rosgen stream channel classification with Wolman pebble count data (Rosgen, 1994), stream
gradient and channel profiles. Cobble embeddedness was measured. R1 Stream Reach
Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation forms (Pfankuch, 1978) were completed and the Nez
Perce Forest stream survey was also completed (USFS, 1995).
The Nez Perce Forest Plan established a fish/water quality objective for this watershed of 90
percent habitat potential. The Plan set the existing condition at 60 percent of potential, making
this stream below its' Forest Plan objective. Reduced cattle grazing in the watershed has
improved fish habitat conditions on the low gradient meadow reaches. High cobble
embeddedness persists, pools are limited and poor in quality and acting woody debris is also
below objective (Table 15).
KIRKS FORK - PRESCRIPTION WATERSHED -#17060305-05-11
Kirks Fork flows into American River at river mile 6.9, and provides habitat for steelhead, bull
trout, spring chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat trout/brook trout, mountain whitefish, sculpin,
and dace. Bull trout use the stream for adult and sub adult rearing. Fish population surveys of
the stream in recent years by Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (1996 - 2003) have documented the presence of bull trout,
however, numbers were low. -A full fish passage barrier at all flows occurs at stream mile 2.3
(18 foot falls/cascades). The upper reaches of the stream consist of high quality westslope
cutthroat trout habitat. The lower reaches receive moderate grazing use; and roads and logging
have impacted the stream to varying levels.
The limited amount of management activities in this watershed and the high quality fish habitat
is not reflected above with the Forest Plan showing this stream well below its' fish/water quality
objective of 90 percent of habitat potential. The plan shows existing conditions at only 50
percent and actual conditions are likely higher.
A ford crosses the stream near the mouth. Bureau of Land Management monitoring of cobble
embeddedness was 45 percent (stream mile 0.15 - 1995) and spawning gravels had 30 percent
fines less than 6.3 mm (1995). Kirks Fork was surveyed by the Bureau of Land Management in
1992 from the mouth to Forest Service boundary (stream mile 0.55). The Forest Service
surveyed from the Bureau of Land Management boundary upstream in 1991. Both surveys
used a modified Hankin and Reeves (1988) survey methodology. The Nez Perce Forest fish
habitat stream survey was completed in 2003.
The stream flows through a confined timbered stream bottom. The dominant channel type in
lower reaches was B3 and average gradient ranged from 2-3 percent, and unstable stream
banks varied from 3-5 percent. Bureau of Land Management data shows the seven-day
running average maximum temperature during steelhead and cutthroat spawning periods for
Kirks Fork is 13.9 degrees C, and is rated high (SM 0.05 - 1995). The seven-day running
Appendix P
Page P-46
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
average maximum temperature for bull trout spawning was 14.8 degrees C, and is rated low
(SM 0.05 - 1995). The seven-day running average maximum temperature for rearing was 16.7
degrees C, and was rated moderate for steelhead and low for bull trout (SM 0.05 - 1995). The
2003 water temperature data is displayed in Appendix B. Primary limiting factors include high
levels of deposited sediment and lack of good quality pools.
The Nez Perce Forest Plan established a fish/water quality objective for this watershed of 90
percent habitat potential. The Plan set the existing condition at 50 percent of potential, making
this stream below its' Forest Plan objective. The upper watershed has not been developed and
the stream supports a strong population of westslope cutthroat trout in these upper reaches (D.
Mays, Pre. comm.). It is likely that this stream exists at higher than 50 percent of potential as
stated in the Plan. Elements like cobble embeddedness and percent surface fines indicate
higher quality fish habitat (Table 15)
WHITAKER CREEK - PRESCRIPTION WATERSHED -#17060305-05-12
Whitaker Creek flows into American River at river mile 8.5, and provides habitat for cutthroat
trout brook trout, dace and sculpin (Final Report YA-515-IA7-15, University of Idaho, 1978).
Dredge mining has altered the mouth of the stream leaving no above ground channel for the
stream. The stream flow enters American River sub-surface thus isolating the fish populations
above. Roads, logging, and mining have impacted the stream to varying levels. Two private
residences occur at the mouth of the creek. Extensive private land timber harvest has recently
(2003) impacted the watershed.
The Bureau of Land Management surveyed Whitaker Creek in 1991 from the mouth to. Forest
Service boundary (stream mile 1.5) using a modified Hankin and Reeves (1988) survey
methodology. The Forest Service surveyed their lands upstream in 1989 using the same
methodology. Surveys were conducted for this analysis in 2003. The surveys included R1
Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch, 1978), and Fish Habitat
Reconnaissance Survey (USFS, 2000). The Bureau of Land Management has completed
surveys from the mouth to the headwaters in 2004.
The stream flows through a confined timbered stream bottom. The channel types starting from
the mouth are C3 (short mouth area reach), B4, and A3; and average gradient ranges from 1 to
12 percent, and unstable stream banks were less than 3 percent. Primary limiting factors
include high levels of deposited sediment, lack of good quality pools, and low flows.
The Nez Perce Forest Plan established a fish/water quality objective for this watershed of 70
percent habitat potential. The Plan set the existing condition at 70 percent of potential. Habitat
elements of cobble embeddedness and pool to riffle ratio remain in poor condition (Table 15).
QUEEN CREEK - PRESCRIPTION WATERSHED -#17060305-05-13
Queen Creek flows into American River at river mile 9.4, and provides habitat for cutthroat trout.
Dredge mining has altered the mouth area and the stream flows into a dredge pond and has no
connecting channel with American River. The stream flows subsurface through dredge tailings
into American River thus isolating the westslope cutthroat population. This stream was electro-
fished in 2003, 22 westslope cutthroat and 6 dace were identified in a 23 square meter reach.
Mining, roads, and logging have impacted the stream to varying levels.
Appendix P
Page P-47
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
The Bureau of Land Management surveyed Queen Creek in 1991 and again in 2004 from the
mouth to the headwaters using a modified Hankin and Reeves (1988) survey methodology The
Forest Service surveyed from the Bureau of Land Management upstream in 1989. Recon
surveys were completed for this project in 2003, these surveys included a Stream Reach
Reconnaissance Survey (USFS, 2000), R1 Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability
Evaluation (Pfankuch, 1978), Rosgen Stream Channel Classification with Wolman pebble count
and channel profiles (Rosgen, 1994), and cobble embeddedness measurements.
The stream flows through a wide valley bottom at the mouth, while upstream reaches flow
through a confined timbered stream bottom. The channel types starting from the mouth are C2
(mouth area), B3, and A3; and average gradient ranges from 2-7 percent, and unstable stream
banks were less than 3 percent. Primary limiting factors include high levels of deposited
sediment, lack of good quality pools, and low flows.
The lower miles of Queen Creek indicate that there has been a moderate level of disturbance
from past dredge mining and placer mining activities. Tailing piles are scattered in small piles
across the valley floor, and an old access road parallels the stream on the North side. Both
Queen Creek and Whitaker Creek offer unique opportunities to study isolated populations of
westslope cutthroat trout. These paired watersheds are similar in size and share a history of
land disturbing activities.
The Nez Perce Forest Plan established a fish/water quality objective for this watershed of 70
percent habitat potential. The Plan set the existing condition at 70 percent. Habitat elements in
Table 15 below indicate this stream is likely at 70 percent of habitat potential.
FLINT CREEK - PRESCRIPTION WATERSHED -#17060305-05-14
Flint Creek is a third order tributary of the East Fork American River. Flint Creek enters East
Fork American River from the North approximately 2 miles upstream of the confluence East
Fork American River and American River. Flint Creek is a low (0.5 percent) to moderate (4
percent-6 percent) gradient stream. Flint Creek is primarily characterized as being Rosgen
stream types "B" and "C" with most channel slope gradients ranging from 0.5 percent to 7
percent. There are a few short sections of stream type "A" in the upper headwaters of the
stream. The stream flows through a "U" shaped valley formation. The upslope environment
consists of moderately steep (30-45 percent) mid elevation granitic uplands.
Historic stream surveys from 1970 and 1982 indicated that there had been a high level of
livestock grazing disturbance within the Flint Creek drainage. The grazing strategies
implemented as a result of the steelhead trout being listed under ESA have improved stream
bank stability in Flint Creek. The drainage has also had large fire events in the 1800's and early
1900's. The Flint Creek Trail (Forest Service Trail #832) parallels the stream beginning
approximately 0.75 miles upstream of the confluence with East Fork American River. Flint
Creek supports westslope cutthroat and steelhead trout, bull trout, and spring/summer chinook
salmon.
The Forest Service surveyed Flint Creek using the basinwide methodology in 1989. Recon
surveys and basinwide surveys were conducted in 2003. In addition, The R1 Stream Reach
Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation, Rosgen Stream Channel Classification, and Cobble
embeddedness were measured in support of the American and Crooked River Project. Primary
limiting factors include high levels of deposited sediment and lack of good quality pools.
Appendix P
Page P-48
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
The Nez Perce Forest Plan established a fish/water quality objective for this watershed of 90
percent habitat potential. The Plan set the existing condition at 40 percent of potential, making
this stream below its' Forest Plan objective. Reduced cattle grazing in the watershed has
improved fish habitat conditions on the low gradient meadow reaches. High cobble
embeddedness persists, pools are limited and poor in quality and acting woody debris is also
below objective (Table 15).
Box SING CREEK - PRESCRIPTION WATERSHED -#17060305-05-15
Box Sing Creek flows into American River at river mile 8.5, and provides habitat for steelhead
and cutthroat trout. Dredge mining has altered the mouth area of the stream and the lower
segment flows across the dredge mined stream bottom of American River. Livestock grazing
occurs in the lower reaches; and roads and logging have impacted the stream to varying levels.
A ford crosses the stream near the mouth.
The Bureau of Land Management surveyed Box Sing Creek in 1991 from the mouth to Forest
Service boundary (stream mile 0.67) using a modified Hankin and Reeves (1988) survey
methodology. The Forest Service surveyed the upstream reaches using the same methodology
in 1989. Recon surveys were conducted in 2003 in support to this project. Surveys included
Stream Reach Reconnaissance Survey (USFS, 2000), Rosgen Stream Channel Classification
with channel profiles, Wolman pebble count (Rosgen, 1994), R1 Stream Reach Inventory, and
Channel Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch, 1978).
The stream flows through a confined timbered stream bottom. The dominant channel type in
lower reaches was B4 and average gradient was 2 percent, unstable stream banks were less
than 3 percent. Primary limiting factors include high levels of deposited sediment, lack of good
quality pools, and low flows.
Box Sing is approximately 5.7 miles long. The lower 2.0 miles of Box Sing Creek indicate a
moderate level of disturbance from past dredge mining and placer mining activities. Tailing
piles are scattered in small piles across the valley floor, and an old access road parallels the
stream on the North side.
The Nez Perce Forest Plan established a fish/water quality objective for this watershed of 70
percent habitat potential. The Plan set the existing condition at 70 percent. Habitat elements in
Table 15 below indicate low pool to riffle ratio and a stream lacking in acting woody debris.
SUMMARY
Below is a summary of conditions observed by both the BLM and FS for streams affected by
this action. Whitaker Creek and Queen Creek do not support steelhead and therefore percent
surface fines were not measured. All of the project area streams in American River accept
Whitaker Creek and Queen Creek are below their Forest Plan fish/water quality objectives.
Project activities include road decommissioning and culvert replacements that reduce non-point
sediment sources in these systems. Winter rearing habitat has been identified as the primary
limiting factor in these systems.
Appendix P
Page P-49
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 15. AMERICAN RIVER EXISTING CONDITION OF FISH HABITAT INDICATORS COMPARED TO OBJECTIVES
Prescription
Watershed
River
17060305-05-09
Lower American
River
17060305-05-16
East Fork American
River 17060305-05-10
Kirks Fork
17060305-05-11
Whitaker Creek
17060305-05-12
Queen Creek
17060305-05-13
Flint Creek
17060305-05-14
Box Sing Creek
17060305-05-15
Cobble
Embeddedness
%
(Forest Plan BO
standard)
Objective
<30
<30
<30
<30
<40
<40
<30
<40
Existing
51
31
40
32
61
42
58
44
Pool: Riffle
Ratio
(DFC Standard)
Objective
45:55
45:55
45:55
45:55
30:70
30:70
45:55
30:70
Existing
13:87
20:80
20:80
33:67
5:95
9:91
20:80
7:93
Acting Large
Woody Debris/
pieces per
100m
(DFC Standard)
Objective
45
45
45
45
35
35
45
35
Existing
18
2
28
33
51
63
20
12
Percent Surface
Fines
(Steelhead/Bull
Trout Matrix
Standard)
<20
<20
<20
<20
NA1
NA1
<20
<20
18
8
51
22
30
20
20
. 28
DEPOSITED SEDIMENT (COBBLE EMBEDDEDNESS AND PERCENT FINES)
TABLE 16. EXISTING CONDITION OF SELECT FISHSED VARIABLES, WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE
DEPOSITED SEDIMENT INDICATOR
Watershed Name
Upper American River
(Middle) American River
Lower American River
East Fork American River
Kirks Fork
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Flint Creek
Box Sing Creek
Existing
Cobble
Embeddedness
(%)
51
50
31
40
32
61
42
58
44
Existing Summer
Rearing Capacity
(Percent of
Optimal)
83
83
94
89
93
75
88
77
87
Existing Winter
Rearing Capacity
(Percent of
Optimal)
27
27
45
35
44
20
34
22
32
Steelhead do not currently use this system.
Appendix P
Page P-50
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
CROOKED RIVER
The watershed encompasses an area of approximately 45,659 acres with important aquatic
values. Crooked River has been significantly affected by human activities primarily in the lower
section (Lower Crooked River, Relief Creek and Middle Crooked River). The predominant
feature is the historic dredge mining along and through the mainstem river, which has highly
altered riparian processes and function. A streamside road for most of its length further affects
the mainstem of Crooked River. This streamside road encroaches on riparian and stream
process for about half of its length. The upper half of the watershed is mostly unroaded with
reaches in the upper watershed supporting strong populations of westslope cutthroat trout and
bull trout at some of the highest densities in the sub basin. Steelhead spawning and juvenile
rearing primarily occurs in the mainstem and the lower 0.5 miles of each fork of Crooked River.
The East and West Forks of Crooked River are in nearly pristine condition.
Crooked River is considered a stronghold for westslope cutthroat, a habitat stronghold for bull
trout, and a historic stronghold for spring chinook and steelhead (USDA 1998).
Although the aquatic habitat condition in the upper watershed is good, the overall condition of
this watershed is considered low. Crooked River is considered well below its 90 percent Forest
Plan fish/water quality objective condition (USDA 1998).
Habitat complexity has been greatly reduced from the historic mining activities. Road 233
parallels a 3.4 mile section of stream, within a narrow canyon. This road has reduced the large
woody debris recruitment in this stretch of stream. Because of reduced habitat complexity and
elevated cobble embeddedness levels, summer rearing and over wintering conditions are
believed to be the limiting factors for fish.
The Nez Perce National Forest with funding provided by the Bonneville Power Administration
added approximately 400 habitat improvement structures in Crooked River during the 1980s (P.
Siddall, 1992).. About 30 percent of these are still functioning as intended (Clearwater
BioStudies, Inc., 1990) and provide improved fish habitat in many areas. Crooked River has
been subject to intensive monitoring (Intensive Evaluation and Monitoring of Chinook Salmon
and Steelhead Trout Production, Crooked River and Upper Salmon River Sites, BPA 1995
Annual Report). In this work IDFG fisheries biologist Russ Kiefer makes the following
observations:
• Our research indicates that in streams degraded by dredge mining, connecting off-
channel ponds to the stream can increase the carrying capacity for chinook salmon parr
(Kiefer and Forster, 1991), and complex instream structures can increase the carrying
capacity for steelhead trout parr (Kiefer and Lockhart, 1995a).
• We observed a shift in spawning areas by adult chinook salmon to cleaner gravel areas
produced by habitat rehabilitation structures in Crooked River (Kiefer and Lockhart,
1993). In streams with more than 30% sand in spawning areas, habitat structures that
collect cleaner gravel with less than 30% should increase smolt production.
• Complex habitat enhancement structures apparently can increase the carrying capacity
for age-1+ steelhead trout in streams with low habitat complexity. Dredge mining has
reduced the habitat complexity in the upper meadow section of Crooked River (Middle
Crooked River) by forcing the channel against the canyon wall on the east side of the
meadow. We observed more than double the density of age-1+ steelhead in complex
habitat study sites than we observed in control or simple sill log habitat sites in 1992
(Kiefer and Lockhart, 1995).
Appendix P
Page P-51
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
This project will include activities designed to improve existing habitat enhancement structures,
add additional structures, improve side channels connecting ponds, and further improve riparian
and stream conditions impacted by past mining activities. While these activities represent the
greatest short term risks to listed fish, they also represent proven ways to achieve an upward
trend in fish/water quality, leading to increased carrying capacity for steelhead and bull trout.
The aquatic habitat condition in the upper watershed is good, supporting strong populations.of
westslope cutthroat trout, and bull trout at some of the highest densities in the sub basin.
Although the habitat condition of the mainstem is low, it continues to support steelhead and
spring chinook. Brook trout, present primarily in the upper West Fork and in the lower
mainstem, pose a risk to downstream bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout (USDA 1998).
Idaho Department of Fish and Game Facilities: A weir and fish-trapping facility, part of the
Lower Snake River Compensation Project, are located on Crooked River approximately 1/2 mile
upstream from the mouth. A rearing facility with acclimation ponds and a settling pond for
wastes is approximately 10 miles further upstream. These activities are being covered in a
separate consultation and are not evaluated in this document.
SUMMARY OF FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION
The Crooked River area includes habitat for listed steelhead/redband trout and for listed bull
trout. Steelhead trout are present in all of the watersheds. Bull trout have been observed in
Lower and Middle Crooked River, Relief Creek and Silver Creek. They also use the South Fork
Clearwater River for migration and rearing during periods of the year. FEIS Map 8a and 8b
display fish distribution within the analysis area.
TABLE 17. KNOWN AND SUSPECTED DISTRIBUTION OF TROUT, SALMON AND CHAR IN CROOKED RIVER
Stream Name
Lower Crooked
River
Relief Creek
Middle Crooked
River
Silver Creek
Quartz Creek
Westslope
Cutthroat
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Bull Trout
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Probably
Absent
Spring
Chinook
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Probably
Present
Probably
Present
Steelhead
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Brook Trout
Known
Present
Known
Present
Known
Present
Status
unknown
Status
unknown
Appendix P
Page P-52
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
LOWER CROOKED RIVER PRESCRIPTION WATERSHED #17060305-03-01
Landforms associated with Lower Crooked River suggest that the stream should be a Rosgen
stream type "C". Observations indicate that Lower Crooked River should have a well-developed
floodplain, be a slightly entrenched stream and be relatively sinuous with channel slopes of 2
percent or less. Historical mining disturbance has altered floodplain development, indicated by
the presence of large mine tailings dispersed haphazardly across the valley floor.
The Lower Crooked River sub watershed is 9487 acres in size and includes the mainstem of
Crooked River and sixteen 1st order tributaries, five 2nd order tributaries and two 3rd order
tributaries. Included in these tributaries are unnamed streams referred to in this document as
Section 11 and Section 14.
The Nez Perce Forest Plan established a fish/water quality objective for this watershed of 90
percent habitat potential. The Plan set the existing condition at 50 percent of potential, making
this stream below its' Forest Plan objective (Table 18). High cobble embeddedness persists.
Large pools have been created at the meander bends by past dredge mining. These pools are
sand bottom with little to no cover. Acting woody debris is very limited in this reach. Bank cover
and potential woody debris are also very limited
RELIEF CREEK - PRESCRIPTION WATERSHED #17060305-03-03
Relief Creek is a low gradient stream encompassing 7475 acres. Relief Creek enters Middle
Crooked River 6.8 miles upstream of the confluence of Crooked River and South Fork
Clearwater River. Relief Creek from its confluence with Crooked River upstream approximately
1.4 miles is a low relief stream that has been highly disturbed by dredge mining activities. The
mine tailings from dredge activities were dispersed entirely across the valley floor. Often the
tailings were mechanically piled to form long continuous pilings along one side of the valley floor
or the other. These piles are approximately 10 feet high and have literally cut off the upslope
drainage characteristics of the lower reaches of Relief Creek. This disturbance activity has
likely interrupted the natural water yield and timing of the drainage. During the mechanical
piling process the tailings located adjacent to the stream were heavily compacted resulting in a
loss of vegetation along the stream banks, as well as, a loss of stream channel sinuosity.
Floodplain development has also been interrupted because of the high level of disturbance
associated with the dredge mining activities. Presently the lower reach of Relief Creek is a
Rosgen stream type "B". Road construction and timber harvest activities have resulted in high
levels of cobble embeddedness, and depositional filling of the pool areas.
In 1989, approximately 200+ rock and log weirs were installed in Relief Creek from the mouth of
Relief Creek upstream to the confluence of the East Fork Relief (1.4 miles). The objective of
this fish habitat improvement program included creation of pool habitat, establishment of flows
conducive to deposition of cobbles suitable for spawning and improved sediment transport
capabilities. During the 2003 field season, a preliminary field review indicates that most of the
rock structures have been altered by high flows. The log structures are still in place according
to the original design and placement and are creating some additional scour pools. The existing
high numbers of acting debris are associated with these improvement structures.
Surveys in support of this project were conducted in 2003, including a Stream Reach
Reconnaissance Survey, Nez Perce Forest Fish Habitat Survey, Rosgen Stream Channel
Appendix P
Page P-53
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
WVWHWWMWWKMWWWWWWWMVJ^^
Classification, cobble embeddedness,. and R1 Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability
Evaluation. The water temperature data is displayed in Appendix B. The Nez Perce Forest
Plan established a fish/water quality objective for this watershed of 90 percent habitat potential.
The Plan set the existing condition at 60 percent of potential, making this stream below its'
Forest Plan objective. Habitat alteration from historic mining combined with high levels of fine
sediment and loss of connectivity are primary limiting factors in Relief Creek. This project is
designed to improve conditions tied to these elements.
MIDDLE CROOKED RIVER - PRESCRIPTION WATERSHED -#17060305-03-04
This prescription watershed includes the mainstem of Crooked River from the top of the narrows
to Orogrande. This is not a true watershed; true watersheds include all lands draining through a
stream reach. This prescription watershed drains only the center lands of the Crooked River
watershed. Several named tributaries enter Crooked River through this section including
Sawmill, Silver, Quartz, Baker Gulch, Rainbow Gulch, Five Mile, and Umatilla Creeks. A short
summary of each of the tributaries affected by this action is included below. The existing
condition DFC and RMO analysis is based on mainstem Crooked River fish habitat conditions
surveyed in 1990 as well as recon surveys conducted in 2003. Stream survey information
gathered in 2003 will describe conditions- in Silver Creek and Quartz Creek. Forest Plan
Appendix A (Appendix B) has identified Middle Crooked River as meeting its objective with
habitat conditions at 90 percent of optimum. This is likely an error in the plan as it is well
recognized that the dredge mining of the mainstem, combined with past reading and timber
harvest, have.simplified the fish habitat well below the 90 percent level, as identified below
(Table 18). This project is designed to increase stream complexity and improve instream
habitat for fish.
SAWMILL CREEK
Sawmill Creek enters Middle Crooked River 8.3 miles upstream of the confluence of Crooked
River and the South Fork Clearwater River. Sawmill Creek is 1.89 miles long and can be
characterized as a Rosgen "B" stream type. The R1 Stream Reach Inventory and Channel
Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch, 1978) found this stream in "fair" condition, cobble
embeddedness was estimated at 40 percent, and water temperature was 12 degrees centigrade
on July 15 at 1130 hours. No fish were observed in this small stream.
SILVER CREEK
Silver Creek is a moderate to high gradient stream entering Crooked River 9.2 miles upstream
of the confluence of Crooked River with South Fork Clearwater River. Silver Creek is
characterized as a Rosgen stream type "B" with channel slope gradients ranging from 1.5 to 5
percent. There are a few short sections of stream type "C" in the lower 2.0 miles of the stream,
and some relatively short sections of stream type "A" in the middle to upper portions of the
watershed. Silver Creek supports steelhead and bull trout. The upper reaches support a strong
westslope cutthroat trout population (D. Mays, per. comm.). Surveys in support of this project
were conducted in 2003, including a Stream Reach Reconnaissance Survey (USFS,2000), Nez
Perce Forest Fish Habitat Survey (USFS, 1995), Rosgen Stream Channel Classification
(Rosgen, 1994), cobble embeddedness, and R1 Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability
Evaluation (Pfankuch, 1978). Fish habitat is limited by increased fine sediment and poor quality
pool habitat.
Appendix P
Page P-54
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
QUARTZ CREEK
Quartz Creek is a low (2 percent) to high (4-20 percent) gradient stream entering Crooked River
10.2 miles upstream of the confluence of Crooked River with South Fork Clearwater River.
Quartz Creek can be primarily characterized as a Rosgen stream type "B" with short sections of
stream type "C" in the upper headwaters of the stream, and some relatively short sections of
stream type "A" in the middle to upper portions of the watershed Surveys in support of this
project were conducted in 2003, including a Stream Reach Reconnaissance Survey (USFS,
2000), Nez Perce Forest Fish Habitat Survey (USFS, 1995), Rosgen Stream Channel
Classification (Rosgen, 1994), cobble embeddedness, and R1 Stream Reach Inventory and
Channel Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch, 1978).
Quartz Creek has experienced a history of mining and logging activities. The lower reach is
privately owned, supporting several seasonal/full time residences. The stream inventories
identified both channel degradation and aggradation occurring within various reaches of the
stream. The historic mining disturbance, coupled with past timber harvest activities within the
drainage, appear to have contributed to channel degradation through accelerated bank erosion,
increased sediment supply and decreased sediment transport capabilities.
Below is a summary of the conditions inventoried for Crooked River streams affected by this
action.
TABLE 18. CROOKED RIVER EXISTING CONDITION OF FISH HABITAT INDICATORS COMPARED TO OBJECTIVES
Prescription
Watershed
Lower
Crooked River
17060305-03-01
Relief Creek
17060305-03-03
Middle
Crooked River
17060305-03-04
Silver Creek1
Quartz Creek1
Cobble
Embeddedness
%
(Forest PlaruBO
standard)
Objective
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
Existing
80
55
35
55
49
Pool: Riffle Ratio
(DFC Standard)
Objective
45:55
45:55
45:55
45:55
45:55
Existing
13:87
21:79
36:64
56:44
23:77
Acting Large
Woody Debris/
pieces per 100m
(DFC Standard)
Objective
45
45
45
45
45
Existing
8
51
6
87
75
Percent Surface
Fines
(Steelhead/Bull
Trout Matrix
Standard)
Objective
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
Existing
Not
available
55
Not
Available
15
15
These streams are not prescription watersheds, although they are true watersheds.
Appendix P
Page P-55
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 19. EXISTING CONDITION OF SELECT FISHSED VARIABLES, WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE
DEPOSITED SEDIMENT INDICATOR
Watershed Name
Lower Crooked River
Relief Creek
Middle Crooked River
Silver Creek
Quartz Creek
Existing
Cobble
Embeddedness
(%)
801
55
35
55
49
Existing Summer
Rearing Capacity
(Percent of
Optimal)
56
80
92
80
84
Existing Winter
Rearing Capacity
{Percent of
Optimal)
12
24
40
24
28
ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS
SEDIMENT/SUBSTRATE ANALYSIS
Existing measured or estimated cobble embeddedness in analysis area streams was also used
to estimate summer and winter rearing capacities for trout and salmon, using the FISHSED
model (Stowell et al. 1983). The FISHSED model was then used to display changes to fish
habitat resulting from the American and Crooked River Project and compare the action to
existing conditions using both existing cobble embeddedness measurements and predictions of
NEZSED. The limitations of both the NEZSED and FISHSED models are detailed in Appendix
B. These elements were used to roughly predict amount of change in summer and winter
rearing capacity using mathematical relationships in the FISHSED model. These changes were
calculated for all alternatives and are an indication of the amount of sediment expected as a
result of surface sediment erosion. Sediment from sources other than surface sediment
erosion, including bank erosion, mass movement (landslides), and watershed and stream
improvements are not included in model estimates.
The FISHSED model includes calculations for fish embryo survival, summer rearing capacity,
and winter rearing capacity. Fish embryo survival is an estimate of predicted fine sediment by
depth in cobble stream bottoms. Summer and winter rearing capacity reflect how the degree of
fine sediment in the stream bottom affects the stream's ability to support fish during these
seasons. For the American and Crooked River analysis, the model was not used to estimate
changes in embryo survival because percent fine by depth data, which are substrate core data
measurements, were not available. In general, the Nez Perce National Forest has not collected
substrate core data since the late 1980s. One reason these data are no longer collected is
research published in 1988 suggested modeling embryo survival in egg pockets does not
accurately reflect conditions faced by embryos or emerging fry in real-life stream situations
(Chapman, 1988).
Model results, as displayed below in Tables 20-25 are reasonable estimates and not absolute
numbers with high statistical precision. The capability of the FISHSED model in analyzing and
1 Channel highly altered by historic mining.
Appendix P
Page P-56
-------
American and Crooked River Project- Final EIS
displaying change at the levels shown in these tables is somewhat limited. In this case, data
from FISHSED are most useful in comparing the relative effects among alternatives. The model
also reflects short-term changes only and does not show the long term recovery, projected in
NEZSED
For the purposes of this modeling exercise, the two sediment peaks in the next decade
predicted by NEZSED were combined into one peak, as if all sediment would be delivered to the
streams in the same year. Combining these two peaks reflects the additive nature of cumulative
sediment effects that occur over a relatively short period of time. In a sense, this is a "worst
case scenario", in that these sediment peaks would not occur all in one year, and a measure of
recovery may occur between peaks. Sediment transport capabilities in streams, however,
depend on channel factors such as bed roughness, gradient, stream flow, and sinuosity.
All modeling was conducted for age 0+ steelhead trout. The data shown for Alternative A is the
existing condition. Cobble embeddedness was measured in most streams and estimated in
others.
The analysis of effects on fish resources from increased sediment is based on the Watershed
analysis of sediment in the Watershed section above and in Appendix B. The model results
displayed below in Tables 20-25 display existing conditions with high cobble embeddedness
and poor winter rearing capacity. The results of FISHSED show slight increases in cobble
embeddedness and corresponding decreases in percent of optimum summer and winter rearing
capacity for all fish-bearing streams. Modeled activities include temporary road construction,
road reconstruction, timber harvest and road decommissioning. It does not include site
treatments for watershed restoration, instream fish habitat improvements, and roadside salvage.
The following numbers have been modified to reflect recent changes.
To better view the upward trend for sediment/substrate, please refer to Appendix. B Sediment
Yield Graphs and the Aquatic Trend Analysis.
AMERICAN RIVER
TABLE 20. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED COBBLE EMBEDDEDNESS (CE) BY ALTERNATIVE
Stream/Composite
Middle American River
East Fork American River
Flint Creek
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Box Sing Creek
Kirks Fork
Lower American River
A
50
40
47
61
42
44
32
31
D
52
43
49
64
47
47
33
34
D
additional
52
43
49
64
46
46
33
34
Appendix P
Page P-57
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 21. COMPARISON OF SUMMER REARING CAPACITY (SRC) BY ALTERNATIVE
Stream/Composite
Middle American River
East Fork American River
Flint Creek
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Box Sing Creek
Kirks Fork
Lower American River
A
83
89
85
75
88
87
93
94
D
82
88
84
72
85
85
93
93
D
additional
82
88
84
72
86
86
93
93
TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF WINTER REARING CAPACITY (WRC) BY ALTERNATIVE
Stream/Com posite
Middle American River
East Fork American River
Flint Creek
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Box Sing Creek
Kirks Fork
Lower American River
A
27
35
29
20
34
32
44
45
D
26
33
28
19
29
29
43
42
D
additional
26
33
28
19
30
29
43
42
CROOKED RIVER
TABLE 23. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED COBBLE EMBEDDEDNESS (CE) BY ALTERNATIVE
Stream/Composite
Middle Crooked River
Quartz Creek
Silver Creek
Relief Creek
Lower Crooked River
(Highly altered by past mining)
A
35
49
55
55
80
D
36
50
59
56
82
0
additional
36
50
58
56
82
Appendix P
Page P-58
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 24. COMPARISON OF SUMMER REARING CAPACITY (SRC) BY ALTERNATIVE
Stream/Composite
Middle Crooked River
Quartz Creek
Silver Creek
Relief Creek
Lower Crooked River
A
92
84
80
80
56
D
91
83
77
79
54
D
additional
91
83
77
79
54
TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF WINTER REARING CAPACITY (WRC) BY ALTERNATIVE
Stream/Composite
Middle Crooked River
Quartz Creek
Silver Creek
Relief Creek
Lower Crooked River
A
40
28
24
24
12
D
40
27
22
22
12
D
additional
40
27
22
23
12
Predicted increases are not at a magnitude where measurable changes would be expected to
occur. All increases, as modeled, are all within the margin of error for the model. The
FISHSED analysis and the numbers above do show a trend. There is a slight difference
between Alternative A (no action) and the action alternatives, reflecting the short term spike
from the actions, not including the restoration activities.
The basic model assumption behind FISHSED is that an inverse relationship exists between the
amount of fine sediments in spawning and rearing habitats and fish survival and abundance. In
general, when sediment yields are increased over natural rates in Idaho batholith watersheds,
especially on a sustained basis, fish biomass decreases. Fine sediment is known to degrade
salmonid spawning and rearing habitat (Chapman and McCleod, 1987; Bjornn and Reiser,
1991), as suggested by the FISHSED model. Specifically, high sediment levels can impair
habitat for spawning and rearing by: (1) trapping fry in redds when they are attempting to
emerge; (2) depleting intergravel oxygen levels in redds, smothering eggs contained within; (3)
limiting aquatic invertebrate populations used a food source; (4) filling and thereby reducing the
number of large pools which serve as primary feeding and resting areas for juvenile salmonids;
and (5) filling spaces between rocks that serve as over wintering refuge for juvenile salmonids
(NMFS Biological Opinion, 1998). We expect that changes in substrate condition from
(modeled) increased surface sediment yield are not of a magnitude that effects on fish would
occur. Although, recent findings suggest that there is no threshold below which increased fine-
sediment delivery will be harmless (Suttle, 2004). That same study found that sediment
reduction could produce immediate benefits for salmonid restoration. When combining the
modeled activities with the instream improvements, increased sediment is likely.
An important concept in assessing effects on fish habitat from increases in surface sediment
erosion for this project is that both the FISHSED and NEZSED models represent peak sediment
yields, which in this case are temporary, with a final result of reduced road density and
improvement in the existing baseline condition. The consequence of long-term improvement in
Appendix P
Page P-59
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
watershed condition is a short-term increase, or pulse, in surface sediment yield, which must
occur in order for the long-term goal of improvement to occur. Roads cannot be obliterated, and
vegetation treatments cannot occur, without a pulse of sediment. Short-term risks of increased
sediment yields should be considered in the context of long-term improvement in watershed and
stream habitat condition.
WATERSHED AND STREAM RESTORATION
It is clear from the above tables that modeled sediment increases are not at a level of high
concern to fish and fish habitat. What is also evident is that existing conditions are well below
what is desired. This project includes activities designed to improve conditions for fish. These
activities are not modeled. The short-term sediment increases expected from these actions
especially riparian and instream work in Crooked River, could introduce streambed and stream
bank sediments to a degree that could affect listed and sensitive fish. This short term increase
in sediment yield is necessary to achieve a long-term improvement in fish habitat.
For a complete listing of the activities covered in this section, please see Tables 1 and 2 above,
and Appendix A. In general, these actions are associated with areas within streamside riparian
areas. In-channel work is planned for up to 14.6 miles of stream. Listed (ESA) fish are present
in the area. The in channel disturbance from this work would cause sediment to be
reintroduced. This short-term impact must be weighed against the long-term benefit as
illustrated above with road obliteration. The NEZSED model is not designed for use with this
type of project.
Mitigation measures are designed to minimize the short-term sediment being introduced.
Aquatic specialists on the Forest would review project designs for all activities planned under
this section. Forest personnel would monitor the implementation and effectiveness of this work.
In-channel activities may also result in disturbance to individual fish, both within the immediate
work area and downstream. Increased turbidity during work may locally affect individual fish but
would not be at a magnitude where serious harm or mortality would occur. Timing restrictions
for in-channel work would result in avoidance of spawning fish or redds. A detailed analysis of
restoration activities and the resulting upward trend is included in Appendix B.
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS ANALYSIS
Large woody debris (LWD) is a component of habitat quality and complexity and is also an
important contributor to stream productivity, cover, and food production for fish and other
aquatic organisms. Large wood in the streams also contributes to channel stability in small, low
order streams, and is thus an important element even in streams where fish are not present.
Under natural conditions, large wood is contributed to streams from the surrounding riparian
areas as trees fall over and may be recruited either discretely (one or two here and there) or in
large numbers over a short period of time. The latter often occurs in response to a significant
disturbance event, such as wildfire or an extreme weather event where floods or debris torrents
wash large amounts of material into the stream. The existence of debris jams in streams is
generally evidence of a past event of this type.
The amount of large woody debris in a stream is usually measured in the field during stream
surveys by counting the number of large woody pieces present in the stream. Future woody
debris recruitment is estimated by counting the number of trees in the riparian area that could
fall into the stream.
Appendix P
Page P-60
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Some stream reaches in the project area have been determined to be debris-deficient; most of
these reaches occur in the streams that have been placer mined like mainstem American River
and Crooked River as well as tributaries like Relief Creek.
AMERICAN RIVER
No timber harvest is proposed in streamside RHCAs, therefore no change is expected in
potential woody debris.
CROOKED RIVER
Instream improvement work along with riparian improvements will greatly increase the numbers
of both acting and potential large woody debris. The addition of LWD to 11.1 miles of mainstem
Crooked River and Relief Creek will create more complex pool habitat leading to increased
carrying capacity for listed fish.
POOL HABITAT ANALYSIS
Poohriffle ratio is an indicator of habitat quality and complexity, both of which are important
elements for salmonid fishes in streams. In addition, the quality of pools is an important
consideration. Pool quality is generally indicated by pool volume and pool depth, with larger,
deeper pools offering greater quality.
Stream survey data have provided estimates of the number and quality of pools for streams in
the American and Crooked River area that have been surveyed. The summarized data present
pool information as pookriffle ratio, with a ratio of 50 percent or more pools as highly desirable.
The number of pools in a stream and the quality of those pools can be affected by: (1) long-term
increases in sediment yield, a phenomenon that can result in pool-filling and eventual loss of the
pool; (2) increased bedload accumulation that also results in pool-filling; and (3) lack of large
woody debris and other pool-forming structures, which can significantly affect streams that are
dependent on large wood as the primary pool-forming mechanism. Therefore, changes in
sediment yield and the amount of large wood available to fall in the stream are indicators for
predicting changes in the number and quality of pools over time, as well as number of trees
felled or placed into streams. In addition, pools may be artificially created during channel
restoration or other habitat improvement projects.
Sediment generated with these action alternatives would slightly impact pool habitat. Instream
improvement projects would greatly increase both the number and quality (complexity) of pool
habitat in Crooked River. Alternative D would require improvement work in 11.1 miles and allow
for an additional 3.5 miles when funding becomes available. This work will be important in
moving this stream toward its' Forest Plan objective. This work will be important in moving both
Relief Creek and Crooked River toward their Forest Plan objective. Increasing the number and
quality of pool habitat will also improve the carrying capacity for listed steelhead and bull trout.
AMERICAN RIVER
No instream improvement work is planned in American River. Pool habitats would be impacted
slightly, in the short term, by deposited sediment. See sediment (FISHSED) analysis
(Appendix B) for details. Watershed improvement projects and road obliteration work would
reduce sediment sources and improve pool habitat over time.
Appendix P
Page P-61
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
CROOKED RIVER
Sediment generated with alternative D would slightly impact pool habitat. Instream
improvement projects would greatly increase both the number and quality of pool habitat in
Crooked River. Alternative D would improve pool habitat over 14.6 miles of stream. This work
will be important in moving this stream toward its' Forest Plan objective as well as assisting in
the recovery of listed, sensitive fish species. The Aquatic Trend Analysis (Appendix B) provides
details of this analysis, supported by Russell Kiefer's work (IDFG Report Number 00-15
October) as reported to BPA in the Annual Progress Report (1995).
WATER YIELD ANALYSIS
Equivalent Clearcut Area (EGA) is used as a tool to assess potential changes in water yield.
EGA is discussed in more detail in the Watershed section. Increases in water yield may
indirectly affect fish habitat through increased bank erosion, channel down cutting, increased
accumulation of larger streambed materials, reduction in number of pools, and overall
simplification of habitat.
EGA was calculated by prescription watershed. The calculations take into consideration effects
of harvest and temporary road construction. Prescribed fire was assumed to not create
additional EGA given the low severity objectives. Road decommissioning was not modeled as
decreasing EGA even though the roads would recover vegetation over time. The EGA analysis
does not include the effects of insect and disease agents.
Table 26 shows the estimated per year EGA for each prescription watershed in American River.
Alternative A represents existing condition. Year 2005 represents the modeled peak activity
year. EGA recovery begins the following year and occurs gradually from then on.
AMERICAN RIVER
The highest levels of EGA increase are found in Queen, Box Sing, and Whitaker Creeks,
respectively. These are small prescription watersheds with channels that would be considered
relatively sensitive to changes in watershed conditions. Queen Creek and Whitaker Creek do
not support listed fish.
Road decommissioning and soil restoration would contribute to a reduction in compaction, thus
improving infiltration and reducing surface runoff.
Appendix P
Page P-62
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 26. PERCENT (%) EGA (2005)
Watershed Name
Middle American River*
East Fork American
River*
Flint Creek
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Box Sing Creek
Kirks Fork
Lower American River*
Area
(mi2)
23.8
18.4
9.2
1.4
1.7
1.4
9.8
91.6
Alt A
(existing)
3
7
8
10
13
6
2
9
AltD
4
9
12
13 •
18
14
6
10
"Composite watersheds were combined with upstream watersheds for EGA analysis
CROOKED RIVER
Among Forest Plan prescription watersheds, the highest EGA levels are found in Relief Creek.
Though not Forest Plan prescription watersheds, Silver and Quartz Creeks were also evaluated
separately. With the exception of Silver Creek, none exceed 20 percent EGA.
Road decommissioning and soil restoration would contribute to a reduction in compaction, thus
improving infiltration and reducing surface runoff. Road miles of decommissioning and acres of
soil restoration by prescription watershed are found in Appendix A.
TABLE 27. PERCENT (%) EGA BY ALTERNATIVE (2005)
Watershed Name
Middle Crooked River*
Quartz Creek
Silver Creek
Relief Creek
Lower Crooked River*
Area
(mi2)
44.8
4.1
4.2
11.7
71.3
Alt A
(existing)
2
2
8
8
5
AltD
5
8
26
15
8
*Composite watersheds were combined with upstream watersheds for EGA analysis
WATER QUALITY
TOXICS
Water Quality analysis includes introduction of toxic materials. We currently are proposing no
tools for predicting the amount of toxic materials entering streams because we are implementing
mitigation such that the risk of toxic materials entering streams is very low, and we do not
expect a measurable effect from the use of these materials.
Appendix P
Page P-63
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
AMERICAN RIVER AND CROOKED RIVER
Toxic materials used under alternative D include herbicides and fossil fuel derivatives, including,
diesel fuel, hydraulic fuel, various petroleum-based lubricants, and gasoline. The two factors
determining the degree of risk from toxic materials are the toxicity of the chemical and the
likelihood that non-target organisms would be exposed to toxic doses (Norris et al., 1991).
Toxicity alone does not make a chemical hazardous; exposure to a toxic dose must also occur.
Chemicals may enter water by one or more of the following routes: direct application, drift, and
mobilization in ephemeral stream channels, overland flow, and leaching (Norris et al., 1991).
Since no aerial application of herbicides is proposed, and hand application of herbicides would
be restricted in streamside RHCAs, all the above mechanisms for delivery to streams are
unlikely to occur. Given constraints on application of herbicides, introduction of herbicides to
water, particularly in concentrations necessary to elicit an effect on aquatic organisms, is highly
unlikely.
In addition, fueling and storage of fuels is prohibited in RHCAs, unless fuels in the storage area
are completely contained such that an accidental spill would not leach into soil or water.
Transport of fuels is regulated through mitigation that minimizes the risk of accidents or
accidental introduction of these materials to streams. Therefore, the risk of fuel delivery to
streams is considered discountable (extremely unlikely to occur).
ESA consultation with NOAA Fisheries and USFWS, for application of herbicides, will be
conducted annually on a project-by-project basis until programmatic consultation has been
completed.
WATER TEMPERATURE
Potential increases in stream temperature are addressed by assessing the degree of activities
in riparian areas that may result in increased or decreased solar radiation to streams. Appendix
B provides information on existing water temperatures. Current water temperatures do not meet
State Standards. See the Watershed section above for a detailed discussion of this element.
AMERICAN RIVER
Since harvest of timber within wetland and streamside RHCAs is not proposed, the risk of effect
from timber harvest and road building on stream temperature is discountable, or extremely
unlikely to occur.
CROOKED RIVER
Stream improvements included with this alternative include riparian planting to increase stream
shade. It can be expected that overtime; this work could improve water temperatures.
Alternative D provides for 14.6 miles of riparian and instream improvement.
HABITAT CONNECTIVITY/FISH PASSAGE
The ability for fish to move between habitats as conditions change and for individuals to move
between fish populations is an important component for short-term survival and long-term
population genetic diversity. Culvert improvement work associated with this action will focus on
both increased culvert size for better passing of flood flows and movement of aquatic biota up
and down stream.
Appendix P
Page P-64
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Habitat connectivity will simply be a measure of increased stream miles displayed and perennial
or intermittent stream miles above culvert improvements. Not all sites involve fish passage.
AMERICAN RIVER
The American and Crooked River project area offers' opportunities for increasing connectivity of
fish populations. Future additions to this work include Queen, Whitaker, and Telephone Creeks
in American River. Dredge mining has blocked access to these streams from the mainstem
American River. Bureau of Land Management is currently proposing to connect these systems
through their Eastside Project. Some culverts have been identified and are included with the
restoration activities associated with this action. The additional 3 miles of accessible habitat will
add to the improving trend in American River.
TABLE 28. AMERICAN RIVER MILES OF STREAM WITH IMPROVED ACCESS.
Alternative
D
Perennial
3
Intermittent
1.5
CROOKED RIVER
Projects include hardening of existing fords as well as replacing culverts to allow for high flows
and passage of aquatic biota. Increasing connectivity allows individual fish to migrate in and out
of tributaries to seek cool water. Increased connectivity also promotes genetic exchange
between populations thus increasing diversity. This work will add to the improving trend in
Crooked River.
TABLE 29. CROOKED RIVER MILES OF STREAM WITH IMPROVED ACCESS.
Alternative
D
Perennial
28.2
Intermittent
14.2
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TO FISH HABITAT
The cumulative effects for fisheries resources include the effects of future State, tribal, or private
actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. The action area considered in
this biological assessment is detailed above. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the
proposed action are not considered because they require separate consultation. There are
numerous past, current, and future planned actions in the South Fork Clearwater subbasin. The
South Fork Clearwater River is at high risk of cumulative sediment and temperature impacts.
The South Fork Clearwater River TMDL (see Watershed above) for sediment and water
temperature will govern activities on State and private lands as well as Federal lands. Under
this guidance, aquatic conditions should continue to improve in American River and Crooked
River.
The selected alternative of the Bureau of Land Management's Whiskey South Project includes
timber harvest,, temporary road construction, and prescribed fire treatments in Lower Crooked
River. These activities were evaluated for sediment yield and peak year EGA and the results for
EGA are combined with those of the American/Crooked Project in Table 30 below:
Appendix P
Page P-65
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 30. PERCENT (%) EGA FOR 2005 (INCLUDING WHISKEY SOUTH PROJECT)
Watershed
Name
Lower Crooked River*
Area
(mi2)
71.3
Alt A
(existing)
5
AitO
9
*Composite watersheds were combined with upstream watersheds for EGA
analysis
The addition of 243 acres of EGA from the Whiskey South Project increased the 2005 Lower
Crooked River EGA by 1 percent in Alternative D.
SOUTH FORK CLEARWATER RIVER
Both American River and Crooked River, and the South Fork Clearwater River have been
subject to a variety of natural and human-caused events in the past 200'years (USDA, 1998).
Findings for aquatic resources in American River, Crooked River, and the South Fork
Clearwater River include substantial physical changes since the initiation of significant human
disturbances in the 19th century. Specific activities include but are not limited to intensive in-
channel mining, timber harvest throughout the sub basin, road construction and encroachment
on streams, domestic livestock grazing, home construction and private land development,
agriculture and cultivation, fire suppression, and many others. It is generally accepted that
water quality and habitat in the South Fork Clearwater River is in a degraded condition, both
from sediment and temperature impacts (USDA, 1998; USDA 1999).
Actions associated with the proposed projects may contribute to and/or reduce cumulative
sediment in the South Fork Clearwater River downstream of project area, dependent on the
analysis timeframe. The NEZSED model was used to calculate the predicted cumulative effects
sediment yield based on the proposed timber harvest, road construction, road maintenance, and
road reconstruction. As discussed in the Watershed Cumulative Effects section, these effects
would be short-term only, and improvements in watershed condition over time would contribute
to improved conditions in the river, assuming concurrent negative impacts do not occur off
National Forest lands.
Several estimates of annual sediment yield have been made for the South Fork Clearwater
River, generally covering the area upstream of the Forest Boundary at the Mt. Idaho Bridge
(USDA Forest Service 1998, 1999 and IDEQ et al, 2004, page L-8). These estimates were
made using two methods: 1) the NEZSED model; and 2) computations from suspended
sediment samples collected during 1988 through 1992. The range of these estimates is from
14,600 to 17,800 tons/year. For purposes of comparing the alternatives, a figure of 16,000
tons/year is used. This is very close to the mean of the estimates. It is also very close to the
figure computed in the South Fork Clearwater TMDL, when using NEZSED at the Forest
Boundary. Thus, it forms a benchmark for the TMDL analysis.
Additional sediment yield from ongoing and foreseeable actions totals 170 tons/year. This is the
combined peak year figure from the Meadow Face, Red Pines, and Whiskey South Projects.
Thus, the benchmark figure to which the American/Crooked Project is compared is 16,170
tons/year.
Appendix P
Page P-66
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
The comparisons are done in terms of the sediment yield associated with a percent of the
estimated annual sediment yield in the South Fork Clearwater River. The estimates are for
routed sediment yield delivered from American and Crooked Rivers to the South Fork
Clearwater River for the peak activity year of 2005 (Table 31).
TABLE 31: SEDIMENT YIELD FROM AMERICAN AND CROOKED RIVERS TO THE SOUTH FORK CLEARWATER RIVER
Alternative Generated Sediment Yield
(tons/yr)
Alternative Generated Sediment Yield (%
ofSFCR)
Total Routed Sediment Yield (tons/yr)
Total Routed Sediment Yield (% of SFCR)
Alt A (existing)
0
0
902
5.6
AJtD1
46
0.3%
947
5.9
AltD
Discretionary
47
0.3%
948
5.9
The amount of sediment estimated to be delivered to the main stem South Fork Clearwater
River as a direct result of the action is 0.3 percent of the estimated annual yield of the river.
When natural, alternative and pre-existing activity sediment are added, the estimated
contribution from American and Crooked Rivers is 5.9 percent. This difference is relatively
inconsequential, when considered in relation to the total sediment yield of the South Fork
Clearwater River at the Forest Boundary.
If the Forest Plan guidance of upward trend in aquatic conditions for below objective watersheds
is followed, along with the South Fork Clearwater River TMDLs for sediment and water
temperature, aquatic conditions should continue to improve in the South Fork Clearwater River,
when considered at the Forest Boundary near Mt. Idaho Bridge.
The following tables list known non-federal activities with completed ESA consultation within the
South Fork Clearwater River and known non-federal activities. Cumulative effects for this
consultation only consider non-federal actions.
First figure includes required watershed improvement projects only; second figure includes required and
discretionary watershed improvement projects
Appendix P
Page P-67
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 32 - PROJECTS IN THE SOUTH FORK CLEARWATER RIVER ABOVE THE FOREST BOUNDARY
Forest Service Projects
Blanco Burn1
. Red River Roadside Hazard
Noxious Weed Program
Crooked River Recreational Mining
Activity
Meadow Face2
Red River DSP
Orogrande DSP
Newsome Town site DSP
Crooked River Demonstration
806
Red River Road Surfacing
Otter Wing TS
Blue Ridge Ridge2
McComas meadow burning2
South Fork Corridor
Red Pines EIS
Slims fire complex1
Lucky Marble
East Fork Crooked River Bridge
Pet Site Mine
Hungry Mill2
Activity
1 ,000 acres of rehabilitation
Pruning, precommercial thinning,
brush and sapling removal to create
defensible space within 200 feet of
structures on FS land.
Spot treatments of herbicide
applications
Placer Mining
Aquatic and Terrestrial Restoration
Defensible space burning project
Defensible space burning project
Defensible space burning project
Thinning and pruning to reduce fuels
Defensible space burning project
T.S.
Prescribed burning project
Prescribed burning project
Prescribed burning project
Fuels Reduction
Catastrophic fire line restoration
Fuels work
New bridge construction
Considered in
Baseline Y/N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1 Above the mouth of Crooked/American - Upper South Fork
2 Below the mouth of Crooked/American - Upper South Fork
Appendix P
Page P-68
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 33 - STATE OF IDAHO PROJECTS
State of Idaho
Projects
School District Timber
Sale
Lower Red River
Meadows Restoration 1
Activity
Timber removal on approximately 16
acres
Instream and riparian improvements
Time Period
Foreseeable
Future
Ongoing
Considered in
the Baseline
Y/N
Y
Y
TABLE 34 - NEZ PERCE TRIBAL PROJECTS
Nez Perce Tribal
Projects
Upper Red River
Mill Creek
Upper Newsome
Activity
Culvert replacement
Culvert replacement
Culvert replacement
Time Period
Foreseeable Future
Foreseeable Future
Foreseeable Future
Considered in
the Baseiine
Y/N
Y
Y
Y
TABLE 35 - PRIVATE LAND PROJECTS
Private Land
Projects
Bennett Logging
Logging on Private
Land
Elk City Alliance
Framing Our
Community
Activity
Timber removal on approximately 640
acres and reading
Timber removal on approximately 1 00
acres and reading
Thinning and pruning to reduce fuels
Thinning and pruning to reduce fuels
Time Period
Past
Past
Ongoing
Ongoing
Considered
in the
Baseline Y/N
Y
Y
Y
Y
INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT EFFECTS
These are actions that are part of the larger action and dependent on the larger action for their
justification (interrelated) and actions having no independent utility apart from the proposed
action (interdependent).
There are no known interrelated or interdependent actions associated with the American and
Crooked River Project.
1 Above the mouth of Crooked/American - Upper South Fork
Appendix P
Page P-69
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Determination
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is designated for Chinook and coho salmon in the Clearwater River
HUC (170603). EFH habitat for coho is limited to the mainstem river. EFH for Chinook includes
areas historically accessible, which would include American River and Crooked River. Direct
effects of the proposed project are expected to have short-term negative effects on spring
chinook salmon EFH in these drainages.
The negative effects of the project are expected to be short term, resulting in an overall
improvement to salmon habitat in both drainages. The project over time will reduce the risks of
road failures and improve fish passage and habitat.
This project will have no measurable effects to the mainstem river or EFH for coho.
DETERMINATION OF EFFECT BY SPECIES
The determinations of effect for this project are displayed in the following table. The
determination of effect on critical habitat is made for these activities because there is designated
critical habitat for listed species in the project area. The determination of effect for redband is
the same as for steelhead.
TABLE 36. DETERMINATION OF EFFECT BY SPECIES
Species
Fall Chinook
Spring Chinook
Steelhead/Redband
Bull Trout
Westslope
Cutthroat
Lamprey
No
Effect
X
Not Likely
to
Adversely
Affect
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
X
X
May Affect
individuals but
Not Likely to
Cause a Trend
to Federal
Listing or Loss
of Viability
X
X
X (If Listed)
Essential
Fish
Habitat/
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
X
Proposed
Critical
Habitat
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
X
DETERMINATION RATIONALE
SUMMARY
The use of herbicides within the project area is not covered under this BE/BA. Project specific
consultation will be required with NOAA Fisheries and USFWS.
Appendix P
Page P-70
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
The success of restoring the watershed processes by decompacting soils, decommissioning
roads, and instream and riparian improvements will depend on successfully implementing the
projects and following up on the implementation monitoring.
The actions taking place must consider the fact that we are operating in priority watersheds for
the recovery of the ESA listed steelhead trout and bull trout. There is a risk of possible take of
these species relating to harm of individuals from instream and riparian improvements, and
culvert replacements.
The short term degrade of the sediment yield indicator will be followed by a long term benefit or
reduction in sediment yield as measured in NEZSED.
Increased connectivity by replacing undersized culverts will increase species distribution and
diversity.
The long-term improvement in Crooked River related to over 11 miles of in channel and riparian
improvements is expected to increase the carrying capacity for listed steelhead and bull trout,
leading to an upward trend in fish/water quality. Streamside shade will improve over these
same miles with riparian plantings.
BULL TROUT
The U.S. Forest Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and Bureau of Land
Management have surveyed Bull trout fish populations, from the mouth to the headwaters in
both American River and in Crooked River. Bull trout were observed during the surveys in both
river systems. These fish use the mainstem of both rivers for rearing and migration. In
American River, the East Fork is a known cold water source with bull trout present. Upper
Crooked River is recognized as important spawning and rearing habitat. Bull trout have also
been observed using Relief Creek and Silver Creek. The effects of this action are shown in the
Analysis of Effects (tables 37-39). The short term "degrade" for sediment yield expected to
occur from in channel improvements and restoration activities coupled with timber harvest and
temporary road construction and reconstruction will be followed by a long term improvement of
fish habitat. There will be a measurable improvement in pool volume and pool quality, acting
and potential woody debris and overtime stream temperatures in Crooked River. The long-term
benefits associated with the project especially in Crooked River and Relief Creek, will improve
conditions for bull trout over time.
PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF BULL TROUT CRITICAL HABITAT
The following elements were considered in designing the American and Crooked River Project.
Mitigation is in place (PacFish) to assure no further impacts will occur to these important
elements. Where possible improvements will be made such as increased riparian plantings and
additional in channel improvements.
AMERICAN RIVER
1) Permanent water having low levels of contaminants such that normal reproduction,
growth, and survival are not inhibited.
a) Pathway: Water Quality
b) Indicator: Chemical contamination/nutrients
c) Analysis in support of Determination: Project Design and Mitigation Measures Items
29, 30 and 31 are designed to meet these needs.
Appendix P
Page P-71
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
2) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 degrees C (36 to 59 degrees F), with
adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range.
Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life history
stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as
that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence.
a) Pathway: Water Quality
b) Indicator: Temperature
c) Analysis in support of Determination: No timber will be harvested in PacFish
streamside RHCAs. Project activities include riparian plantings to increase stream
shade.
3) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools,
and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and instream
structures.
a) Pathway: Habitat Elements
b) Indicators: Large woody debris, pool frequency and quality, large pools, off channel
habitat, refugia.
c) Analysis in support of Determination: RHCS will be managed to protect and achieve
the Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs).
d) Pathway: Channel conditions and Dynamics
e) Indicators: Wetted width/maximum depth ratio, streambank condition, floodplain
connectivity
f) Analysis in support of Determination: RHCS will be managed to protect and achieve
the Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs).
4) Substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and
embryo over winter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile
survival. A minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.63 cm (0.25 in) in diameter
and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions.
a) Pathway: Water Quality
b) Indicator: Sediment
c) Analysis in support of Determination: Restoration activities in American River
associated with this action are designed to reduce non-point sediment sources and
improve substrate conditions overtime. Existing roads will be decommissioned.
d) Pathway: Habitat Elements
e) Indicator: Substrate embeddedness
f) Analysis in support of Determination: Restoration activities in American River
associated with this action are designed to reduce non-point sediment sources and
improve substrate conditions overtime. Existing roads will be decommissioned.
5; A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic
ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull
trout populations.
a) Pathway: Flow/Hydrology
b) Indicator: Change in peak/base flows
Appendix P
Page P-72
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
c) Analysis in support of Determination: See EGA/ Water yield discussion above. No
significant increase in water yield is anticipated in American River or its tributaries. The
increases in EGA associated with this project are not likely to disturb the existing
hydrograph.
6) Springs, seeps, and groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to
contribute to water quality and quantity.
a) Pathway: Channel Condition and Dynamics
b) Indicator: Floodplain connectivity
c) Analysis in support of Determination: RHCS will be managed to protect and achieve
the Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs). Streamside and wetland RHCAs will be
protected as called for in The Nez Perce Forest plan including Amendment 20 (PacFish)
d) Pathway: Flow/Hydrology
e) Indicator: Change in peak/base flows
f) Analysis in support of Determination: See EGA/ Water yield discussion above. No
significant increase in water yield is anticipated in American River or its tributaries. The
increases in EGA associated with this project are not likely to disturb the existing
hydrograph.
7) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or chemical barriers between
spawning, rearing, over wintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or
seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows.
a) Pathway: Habitat Access
b) Indicator: Physical barriers
c) Analysis in support of Determination: Undersized culverts and fish migration barriers
will be replaced (3-9).
d) Pathway: Water quality
e) Indicator: Chemical contaminants/nutrients, temperature
f) Analysis in support of Determination: Project design and Mitigation Measures #4 and
32 are designed to maintain existing water quality and improve water temperature.
g) Pathway: Flow/Hydrology
h) Indicator: Change in peak/base flows
i) Analysis is support of Determination: See EGA/ Water yield discussion above. No
significant increase in water yield is anticipated in American River or its tributaries. The
increases in EGA associated with this project are not likely to disturb the existing
hydrograph.
8) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic
macro invertebrate, and forage fish.
a) Pathway: Water Quality, Habitat Elements, Channel Condition and Dynamics, Habitat
Access
b) Indicators: All 13 associated with these 4 pathways
c) Analysis in support of Determination: See above
Appendix P
Page P-73
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
9) Few or no predatory, interbreeding, or competitive nonnative species present.
a) Diagnostic: Population structure
b) Indicator: Persistence and genetic integrity
c) Analysis in support of Determination: Little is known of persistence or genetic
integrity. Brook trout are present throughout the system.
d) Pathway: Habitat access
e) Indicator: Physical barriers
f) Analysis in support of Determination: Culverts being replaced will not increase brook
trout distribution.
CROOKED RIVER
1) Permanent water having low levels of contaminants such that normal reproduction,
growth and survival are not inhibited.
a) Pathway: Water Quality
b) Indicator: Chemical contamination/nutrients
c) Analysis in support of Determination: Project Design and Mitigation Measures Items
29, 30 and 31 are designed to meet these needs.
2) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 degrees C (36 to 59 degrees F), with
adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range.
Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life history
stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as
that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence.
a) Pathway: Water Quality
b) Indicator: Temperature
c) Analysis in support of Determination: No timber will be harvested in PacFish
streamside RHCAs. Project activities include riparian plantings to increase stream
shade.
3) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools,
and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and instream
structures.
a) Pathway: Habitat Elements
b) Indicators: Large woody debris, pool frequency and quality, large pools, off channel
habitat, refugia.
c) Analysis in support of Determination: RHCS will be managed to protect and achieve
the Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs). Instream structures will be added to 15-
20 miles of mainstem Crooked River and 1.6 miles of Relief Creek, increasing LWD,
pools and pool quality.
d) Pathway: Channel conditions and Dynamics
e) Indicators: Wetted width/maximum depth ratio, streambank condition, floodplain
connectivity
Appendix P
Page P-74
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
f) Analysis in support of Determination: RHCS will be managed to protect and achieve
the Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs).
4) Substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and
embryo over winter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile
survival. A minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.63 cm (0.25 in) in diameter
and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions.
a) Pathway: Water Quality
b) Indicator: Sediment
c) Analysis in support of Determination: Restoration activities in Crooked River
associated with this action are designed to reduce non-point sediment sources and
improve substrate conditions over time. Existing roads will be decommissioned.
d) Pathway: Habitat Elements
e) Indicator: Substrate embeddedness
f) Analysis in support of Determination: Restoration activities in Crooked River and
Relief Creek associated with this action are designed to reduce non-point sediment
sources and improve substrate conditions over time. Existing roads will be
decommissioned.
5; A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic
ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull
trout populations.
a) Pathway: Flow/Hydrology
b) Indicator: Change in peak/base flows
c) Analysis in support of Determination: See EGA/ Water yield discussion above. No
significant increase in water yield is anticipated in Crooked River or its tributaries. The
increases in EGA associated with this project are not likely to disturb the existing
hydrograph.
6) Springs, seeps, and groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to
contribute to water quality and quantity.
a) Pathway: Channel Condition and Dynamics
b) Indicator: Floodplain connectivity
c) Analysis in support of Determination: RHCS will be managed to protect and achieve
the Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs). Streamside and wetland RHCAs will be
protected as called for in The Nez Perce Forest plan including Amendment 20 (PacFish)
d) Pathway: Flow/Hydrology
e) Indicator: Change in peak/base flows
f) Analysis in support of Determination: See EGA/ Water yield discussion above. No
significant increase in water yield is anticipated in Crooked River or its tributaries. The
increases in EGA associated with this project are not likely to disturb the existing
hydrograph.
7) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or chemical barriers between
spawning, rearing, over wintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or
seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows.
Appendix P
Page P-75
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
a) Pathway: Habitat Access
b) Indicator: Physical barriers
c) Analysis in support of Determination: Undersized culverts and fish migration barriers
will be replaced (9-25).
d) Pathway: Water quality
e) Indicator: Chemical contaminants/nutrients, temperature
f) Analysis in support of Determination: Project design and Mitigation Measures #4 and
32 are designed to maintain existing water quality and improve water temperature.
g) Pathway: Flow/Hydrology
h) Indicator: Change in peak/base flows
i) Analysis is support of Determination: See EGA/ Water yield discussion above. No
significant increase in water yield is anticipated in Crooked River or its tributaries. The
increases in EGA associated with this project are not likely to disturb the existing
hydrograph.
8) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic
macro invertebrate, and forage fish.
a) Pathway: Water Quality, Habitat Elements, Channel Condition and Dynamics, Habitat
Access
b) Indicators: All 13 associated with these 4 pathways
c) Analysis in support of Determination: See above
9) Few or no predatory, interbreeding, or competitive nonnative species present.
a) Diagnostic: Population structure
b) Indicator: Persistence and genetic integrity
c) Analysis in support of Determination: Little is known of persistence or genetic
integrity. Brook trout are present throughout the system.
d) Pathway: Habitat access
e) Indicator: Physical barriers
f) Analysis in support of Determination: Culverts being replaced will not increase brook
trout distribution.
STEELHEAD/REDBAND TROUT
Steelhead trout are found throughout both American River and Crooked River although
densities are low. The existing condition of this habitat is degraded. The baseline as defined in
the SFCR BA (1999) shows Moderate and Low Habitat Condition for Watershed Road Density,
Streamside Road Density, Riparian Vegetation Condition, Stream bank Stability, Water
Temperature, Cobble Embeddedness, Large Woody Debris, Pool Frequency, and Pool Quality.
The riparian vegetation condition and stream bank stability ratings are a direct result of early
mining in both mainstem and tributaries
The effects of this action are shown in the Analysis of Effects (Tables 37-39). The short term
"degrade" for sediment yield is expected to occur from in channel improvements and restoration
activities coupled with timber harvest and temporary road construction and reconstruction will be
Appendix P
Page P-76
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
followed by a long term improvement offish habitat. There will be a measurable improvement in
pool volume and pool quality, acting and potential woody debris and possibly overtime stream
temperatures in Crooked River. There may be other site specific improvements associated with
the stream restoration and soil restoration work, but the ratings are for the overall American
River and Crooked River watersheds and for the most part, we will maintain most elements as a
result of this action.
The project as defined in the American and Crooked River FEIS and in this Biological
Assessment/Evaluation contains risks to the existing conditions and possible impacts. The
long-term objective for the project is to restore the watershed conditions to a more natural,
functioning condition. The only way this can be achieved is with a short-term impact to that
system and the fish it supports.
FALL CHINOOK SALMON
Fall chinook are likely using the lower South Fork Clearwater River. Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries
personnel have observed a redd at this location. The small increase of sediment from this
project would be insignificant when measured on site over 20 miles downstream. The long-term
reduction will help improve fish habitat in the mainstem.
WESTSLOPE CUTTHROAT TROUT
Both American River and Crooked River support high concentrations of westslope in the
headwater reaches. Fish in the mainstem and lower tributaries may experience a short-term
reduction in winter and summer rearing habitats. The project results in long term improvement
to this habitat. The overall westslope populations in the South Fork are well distributed.
SPRING CHINOOK SALMON
The non-listed spring/summer chinook use the mainstem rivers and tributaries for spawning and
rearing. Excess fish from Dworshak Fish Hatchery and other neighboring hatcheries like Clear
Creek are often used to supplement these fish. Individual fish may experience a short-term
reduction in winter and summer rearing habitats. The project results in long term improvement
to this habitat.
PACIFIC LAMPREY
The Pacific Lamprey is facing the same migratory hazards and habitat degradation as other
anadromous fish species in Idaho. The number of spawning adults in the S.F. Clearwater River
is suspected to have totaled fewer than 50 Pacific lamprey annually .1998-2001. Suitable
habitat remains in the upper Red River, Newsome Creek, American River, and Crooked River,
but Pacific lamprey ammocoetes and macrothalmia were not found (BPA, Project Number 2000-
028-00). Individual lamprey may experience a short-term reduction in winter and summer
rearing habitats. The project results in long term improvement to this habitat.
Appendix P
Page P-77
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
TABLE 37: ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS OF THE ACTION FOR STEELHEAD AND BULL TROUT AMERICAN RIVER
Pathways
Indicators
Watershed Road Density
Streamside Road Density
Landslideprone Road Density
Riparian Veg Condition
Peak/Base Flow
Water Yield (EGA)
Sediment Yield
Channel Conditions and Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio
Streambank Stability
Floodplain Connectivity
Temperature
Suspended Sediment
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers - Adult
Physical Barriers - Juvenile
Habitat Elements
Cobble Embeddedness
Percent Surface Fines
Percent Fines by Depth
Large Woody Debris
Pool Frequency
Pool Quality
Off-channel Habitat
Habitat Refuqia
Harassment
Redd Disturbance
Juvenile Harvest
Bull Trout Subpopulation
Subpopulation Size
Growth and Survival
Life History Diversity and Isolation
Persistence and Genetic Integrity
Integr. of Spec, and Hab. Cond.
Environmental
Baseline Condition1
High
X
X
X
Mod.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Effects Of The Action(s)2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
1 Indicators of high, moderate, or low habitat condition
2 "Restore" means to change the function of an indicator for the better, or that the rate of restoration is increased. "Maintain" means to that the function of an
indicator will not be degraded and that the natural rate of restoration for this indicator will not be retarded. "Degrade" means to change the function of an indicator
for the worse, or that the natural rate of restoration for this indicator is retarded. In some cases, a "not properly functioning" indicator maybe further worsened, and
this should be noted.
*- Short Term Degrade with Long Term Improvement
Appendix P
Page P-78
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Table 38: Analysis Of Effects Of The Action For Steelhead and Bull Trout Crooked River
Pathways
Indicators
Watershed Conditions
Watershed Road Density
Streamside Road Density
Landslideprone Road Density
Riparian Veg Condition
Peak/Base Flow
Water Yield (EGA)
Sediment Yield
Channel Conditions and Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio
Streambank Stability
Floodplain Connectivity
Water Quality
Temperature
Suspended Sediment (No Data)
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers - Adult
Physical Barriers - Juvenile
Habitat Elements
Cobble Embeddedness
Percent Surface Fines
Percent Fines by Depth
Large Woody Debris
Pool Frequency
Pool Quality
Off-channel Habitat
Habitat Refuqia
Take
Harassment
Redd Disturbance
Juvenile Harvest
Bull Trout Subpopulation Characteristics
& Habitat Integration
Subpopulation Size
Growth and Survival
Life History Diversity and Isolation
Persistence and Genetic Integrity
Integr. of Spec, and Hab. Cond.
Environmental
Baseline Condition1
High
X
X
X
X
X
Mod.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Low
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Effects Of The Actlon(s)2
Improve
X
X long term
X
X
X
X
X
X
Maint.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
Degrade
X short term
1 Indicators of high, moderate, or low habitat condition
2 "Restore" means to change the function of an indicator for the better, or that the rate of restoration is increased. "Maintain" means to that the function of an
indicator will not be degraded and that the natural rate of restoration for this indicator will not be retarded. "Degrade" means to change the function of an
indicator for the worse, or that the natural rate of restoration for this indicator is retarded. In some cases, a "not properly functioning" indicator maybe further
worsened, and this should be noted.
*- Short Term Degrade with Long Term Improvement
Appendix P
Page P-79
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Table 39:Analysis Of Effects Of The Action For Steelhead and Bull Trout South Fork
Clear-water River
Pathways
Indicators
Watershed Conditions
Watershed Road Density
Streamside Road Density
Landslideprone Road Density
Riparian Veg Condition
Change in Peak/Base Flow
Water Yield (EGA)
Sediment Yield
Channel Conditions and Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio
Streambank Stability
Floodplain Connectivity
Water Quality
Temp. (Steelhead) -Spawning
Temp. (Steelhead) - Rear, and Migr.
Temp. (Bull Trout)
Suspended Sediment/Turbidity
Chemical Contaminants/Nutrients
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers - Adult
Physical Barriers - Juvenile
Habitat Elements
Cobble Embeddedness
Percent Surface Fines
Percent Fines by Depth
Large Woody Debris
Pool Frequency
Pool Quality
Off-channel Habitat
Habitat Refugia
Take
Harassment
Redd Disturbance
Juvenile Harvest
Environmental
Baseline Condition1
High
—
X
—
—
—
X
Mod.
X
X
X
—
X
X
X
X
—
—
—
X
Low
X
X
X
X
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
—
—
X
X
X
Effects Of The Action(s)2
Improve
Maint.
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
L *
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Degrade
1 Indicators of high, moderate, or low habitat condition
2 "Restore" means to change the function of an indicator for the better, or that the rate of restoration is increased. "Maintain" means to that the function of an
indicator will not be degraded and that the natural rate of restoration for this indicator will not be retarded. "Degrade" means to change the function of an
indicator for the worse, or that the natural rate of restoration for this indicator is retarded. In some cases, a "not properly functioning" indicator maybe further
worsened, and this should be noted.
*- Short Term Degrade with Long Term Improvement
Appendix P
Page P-80
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
References
Bjornn, T.C: and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In:
Influences of forest and range/and management of salmonid fishes and their habitats.
Meehan, editor. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, MD.
Chamberlin, R. D. Harr, and F. H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and
watershed processes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 181-205.
Chapman, D.W. and K.P. McCleod. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment in the
northern Rockies Ecoregion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Report 910/9-87-
162, Washington, DC.
Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. 1990, Fish habitat characteristics, riparian conditions and salmonid
abundance in the crooked river study area. P.O. No. 43-0295-0-2017
Espinosa, Al. 1992. DFC Fisheries Model and Analysis Procedures. Clearwater National
Forest. Spring.
Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 297-323.
Gloss, Dave. 1995. Evaluation of the NEZSED Sediment Yield Model Using Data from
Forested Watersheds in North-Central Idaho. MS Thesis. University of Idaho.
Hicks, B. J., J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson, and J. R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat
changes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 483-518.
Jones, Julia A. et al. 2000. Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance
patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology: Volume 14, No. 1. February. 76-85.
Kiefer, R.B., and J.N. Lockhardt. 1995, Intensive Evaluation and Monitoring of Chinook Salmon
and Steelhead Trout Production, Crooked River and Upper Salmon River Sites. BPA Annual
Report 1995 Project Number 91-73
Montana and Idaho State Airshed Group, 1999. North Idaho Smoke Management
Memorandum of Agreement.
NMFS Biological Opinion, 1998.
Norris, L. A., H. W. Lorz, and S. V. Gregory. 1991. Forest chemicals. American Fisheries
Society Special Publication 19: 207-296.
Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, technical editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem
components in the interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service. Volumes I-V. Pacific
Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382. 303 pp.
Appendix P
Page P-81
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
Ringe, R.R. and Lukens, J.R., Idaho Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Survey of streams in
he Emerald Empire and Cottonwood Resource Areas of Idaho, 1978 Final Report
Interagency Agreement No. YA-515-IA7-15
RiV6r Habitat Enhance™nt, Project 84-5, Agreement
D- Guide f°r Predictin9 Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields in Idaho
Bathohth Watersheds. USDA Forest Service. August.
Suttle, Kenwyn B. et al 2004. How fine sediment in riverbeds impairs growth and survival of
juvenile salmonids. Ecological Applications 14(4), pp. 969-974.
Trombulak, Stephen C., and Christopher A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of
roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology Volume 14 No 1
February. 18-30. . • •
USDA Forest Service. 1981. Guide for predicting sediment yields from forested watersheds.
USDA Forest Service, unpublished. 1999. Programmatic Biological Assessment for noxious
weed control.
USDA Forest Service. 1987. Nez Perce National Forest Plan: Final environmental impact
statement.
USDA Forest Service. 1998. South Fork Clearwater River biological assessment. April.
USDA Forest Service. 1998. South Fork Clearwater River landscape assessment 2 vols
March.
USDA Forest Service. "Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National
Forest Transportation System." August 1999.
USDA Forest Service. 1990 and 1992a. Nez Perce Forest Plan monitoring reports.
William. 2000. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook.
USDA Forest Service. 1999d. South Fork Clearwater River Biological Assessment. Nez Perce
National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. Nez Perce National Forest. 2003. Red River Ecosystem Analysis at the
Watershed Scale.
Appendix P
Page P-82
-------
American and Crooked River Project - Final EIS
APPENDIX A - WATERSHED AND FISH HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS
Watershed and fish habitat improvement projects are part of each alternative. The projects are designed to achieve the upward
trend and soil quality requirements of the Nez Perce National Forest Plan, to achieve recovery of important habitats to ESA-listed fish
and/or to meet Clean Water Act requirements, including TMDLs. A summary of projects by alternative is found below:
TABLE A.1: SUMMARY OF PROJECTS BY ALTERNATIVE
Project Type
Road Decommissioning
(miles)
(1000$)
Watershed Road
Improvement (miles)
(1000$)
Watershed Road
Improvement (sites)
(1000$)
Stream Crossing
Improvement (sites)
(1000$)
Instream Improvement
(miles)
(1000$)
Recreation and Trail
Improvement (miles)
(1000$)
American River
B
4.9
46.1
7.4
13
0
0
3
70.0
0
0
1.6
8.3
C
7.5
71.9
.7.4
13
0
0
3
70.0
0
0
1.6
8.3
D
8.4
80.9
7.4
13
0
0
3
70.0
0
0
1.6
8.3
E
19.5
152.9
7.4
13
0
0
9
220.0
0
0
2.4
12.3
Crooked River
B
9.0
66.4
8.6
33.5
1
10.0
7
54.0
10.3
182.5
0.7
7.0
C
9.8
73.8
9.2
43.0
3
11.0
7
54.0
11.1
222.5
0.7
7.0
D
10.5
70.3
9.2
52.3
3
11.0
10
199
11.1
222.5
0.7
7.0
E
17.5
117.2
17.2
100.0
3
11.0
25
764.0
14.6
737.0
2.2
14.5
Project Total
B
13.9
112.5
16
46.6
1
10
10
124.0
10.3
182.5
2.3
15.3
C
17.3
145.7
16.6
56.0
3
11.0
10
124.0
11.1
222.5
2.3
15.3
D
18.9
151.2
16.6
65.3
3
11.0
13
269.0
11.1
222.5
2.3
15.3
E
37.0
270.1
24.6
113
3
11.0
34
984.0
14.6
737.0
4.6
26.8
Appendix P
Page P-83
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Project Type
Recreation and Trail
Improvement (acres)
(1000$)
Mine Site Reclamation
(acres)
(1000$)
Soil Restoration (acres)
(1000$)
Grand Total Cost (1000$)
American River
B
0
0
0
0
4.4
10.0
147
C
0
0
0
0
8.1
18.3
182
D
0
0
0
0
9.6
25.6
198
E
0
0
0
0
20.4
49.9
448
Crooked River
B
.1
2
7
15
13
29.8
400
C
8.1
52
7
15
18
48.6
527
D *
8.1
52
7
15
23
59.2
688
E
8.1
52
9
25
37
89.6
1910
Project total
B
.1
2
7
15
18
39.8
547
C
8.1
52
7
15
26
70.0
711
D
8.1
52
7
15
32
84.8
886
E
8.1
52
9
25
58
139.5
2,358
Note: Alternative D units and costs are those associated with required projects only. When additional projects are factored in, the units and costs
are the same as Alternative E.
Appendix P
Page P-84
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
In the context of watershed improvement projects, road decommissioning applies to existing
roads and can include treatments ranging from abandonment to recontouring. The selection of
treatment type is based on the condition of the road, proximity to resource values such as
streams, cost, and other factors. The objectives of road decommissioning are to reduce
negative resource impacts and reduce maintenance costs by removing roads that are not
needed for access. Most of the roads planned for decommissioning within this project were
identified through a roads analysis process. Some roads were added or deleted based on field
reconnaissance. These were screened with Forest and District personnel to ensure that future
access needs were being met. Temporary roads constructed and decommissioned as part of
this project are not considered to be watershed improvements and are not listed in this
appendix.
Several roads were identified as having improvement needs due to adverse effects on aquatic
resources. The proposed work would improve drainage and reduce erosion from these roads.
Techniques could include adding drainage structures, shaping the road, adding rock surfacing in
places, hardening fords, and revegetation. In general, roads being reconstructed primarily for
timber haul purposes are not listed as watershed improvements. There are some exceptions,
however, which are identified by an underscored "Y" or "N" in the alternative columns of the
following tables. These exceptions consist of roads that require reconstruction or reconditioning
for timber haul purposes, and the treatment activities are deemed to be a benefit to watershed
health.
Stream crossing improvements are done to improve upstream passage of aquatic organisms,
particularly spawning salmonids, and/or to reduce risk of culvert failure during runoff events. In
some cases, culverts can be upgraded by retrofitting with baffles or other means. In other
situations, they may be replaced with larger culverts or other stream crossing devices.
Instream improvements include'a variety of treatments. Large woody debris (LWD) placement
is done to improve aquatic habitat and restore natural function of stream systems. LWD is
placed in stream reaches where there is deficiency in this habitat feature. Riparian planting is
done to improve streamside shade, restore bank stability, and improve aquatic ecological
function. It is done using adapted native species and can include sedges, forbs, shrubs, or
trees. Maintenance generally involves improvements to existing fish habitat structures in the
channel and can include floodplain enhancement adjacent to existing improvements. Channel
reconstruction includes the above and often re-establishing stream meanders.
Soil restoration treats areas that have negative impacts to soil productivity or stability.
Objectives of soil restoration include improvement of soil productivity and reduction of adverse
effects to hydrologic function. Treatments can include soil de-compaction, recontouring of
excavated skid trails and landings, replacing surface soil and organic material, stabilization of
erosion features such as rills and gullies, and revegetation. The soil restoration units identified
with this project are primarily associated with roads planned for decommissioning, but some
legacy temporary roads are also proposed for recontouring. An estimated 1 to 6 percent of the
gross stand area associated with many of the roads proposed for decommissioning would
receive actual treatment.
Appendix P
Page P-85
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
AMERICAN RIVER
Table Notes: Alternative Codes: Y = Yes (considered in alternative), N = No (not considered in alternative); Underscore in
alternative column indicates road is used as haul route, with roadwork possibly funded by a timber sale or stewardship contract.
MIDDLE AMERICAN RIVER (17060305-05-06)
TABLE A.2: EXISTING ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road
Number
443C
9835
78480
78481
78482
78483
Decommissioning
Level
Moderate
reconstruction and
recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments :
Haul route; eroding cuts and bare
travelway with poor drainage;
sediment depositing into American
River
0.5 miles within project boundary
1.0 miles in upper American.
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road. 0.12 miles in Flint
Creek.
Ridgetop road
Alternative
B
Y
N
N
N
N
N
c
Y
N
N
N
N
N
D
Y
N
N
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.18
0.2
Unit
Cost
$1,740
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Cost
$1,400
$8,000
$9,000
$1,000
$1,000
$900
$1,000
Priority
5th Code
M
L
L
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
M
L
L
L
L
L
TABLE A.3: INSTREAM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name
Telephone Creek
-site id 100
Stream
Name
. Telephone
Creek
Description/Comments
Channel reconnect. BLM project
Alternative
B
N
C
N
D
N
E
N
Units
(miles)
NA
Unit
Cost
NA
Cost
NA
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
Appendix P
Page P-86
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.4: RECREATION AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project
Name
Trail #510
- site id
22
Telephone
Creek
ATV
Location
,'
American River
Telephone
Creek - from
mouth upstream
Description/Comments .
Trail improvement, erosion, and
crossing improvements. Decrease
surface erosion and reduce sediment
and impacts at stream crossing. ATV
use occurring on trail closed to
motorized use, except for
snowmobiles. Restrict access with a
physical barrier.
Road-to-trail conversion. BLM project
- trail extends onto FS land.
Coordinate with rec/trails
Alternative
B:
N
N
c
N
N
D
N
N
E
Y
N
Units
. (ac/mi)
0.8 mi
NA
Unit
Cost
$5,000
NA
Cost
$4,000
NA
Priority
5th Code
L
Priority
6th Code
L
TABLE A.5: SOIL RESTORATION PROJECTS
Stand
Number
81107085
81206009
81206009
81107088
81206007
81206049
81207018
81207005
81107010
Adjacent
Road
Number
443
443C
443C
78480
78481
78483
78550
981 2F
9835
Description/Comments
Recontour unclassified road and
associated skid trails
Recontour skid trail and landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 landings
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
1.0
.3
.5
.2
.4
.3
.6
.1
.2
Unit
• Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
2500
700
1100
500
900
700
1400
300
500
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
M
M
L
L
L
M
M
L
Appendix P
Page P-87
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
UPPER AMERICAN RIVER (17060305-05-09)
TABLE A.6: EXISTING ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road
Number
9835
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Description/Comments
0.5 miles within project boundary;
0.9 miles in middle American.
Alternative
B
N
c
N
D
N
,E
Y
Units
(miles)
1.0
Unit
Cost
$10,000
Cost
$10,000
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
EAST FORK AMERICAN RIVER (17060305-05-10)
TABLE A.7: EXISTING ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road
Number
981 2E
9812E1
78526
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
This road is trashed with saturated
template. In old harvest unit; cut and fill
failures exist. Accesses private land and
will require coordination with landowner.
Alternative
B
N
N
C
N
N
D
N
N
E
y
Y
Units
(miles)
1.0
0.1
0.15
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
Cost
$5,000
$500
$1,500
Priority
5th Code
L
L
M
: Priority
6*hCode
L
L
M
TABLE A.8: STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
1810
Private
.Crossing
Number
811
1005
Stream
East Fork
American
East Fork
American
Description/Comments
48" culvert with 20' fill; recommend
upgrade by adding baffles for
aquatic organism passage
72" culvert with 6" fill, partial fish
barrier, BLM project, connected
action
Alternative
B
N
N
C
N
N
D
N
N
E
Y
N
Units
(sites)
1
1
Unit
Cost
$15,000
Cost "•
$15,000
Priority
5th Code
L
Priority
6lh Code
L
Appendix P
Page P-88
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.9: SOIL RESTORATION PROJECTS
V'Stand,-' ;
Number,
;-
81205076
Adjacent
'.,.:'- Roac| "
/•'"' Number
9812E
\ Description/Comments >•:
Recontour 2 landings
/ Alternative
B
N
. i •
c
N
;D;'
N
"E
Y
Units
(acres)
.4
Unit
Cost
2260
Cost
1000
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
L
KIRKS FORK (17060305-05-11)
TABLE A.10: EXISTING ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road
Number
1810C
1810E
9832A
77328
Decommissioning
Level
Moderate
reconstruction and
recontour
Recontour
Maintenance and
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Gullied road with little or no drainage;
restore riparian function; first 0.69
miles to be reconstructed and
maintained, last 0.23 miles to be
decommissioned
Haul route; road vegetated and
drivable, but not needed for future.
Decommission from stream crossing.
Need to coordinate access needs with
BLM, though it may not be used for
Eastside Township project. Last one
out recontours the road.
.Alternative ; ,;,,,
B
Y
Y
Y
c
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.23
0.33
1.42
0.21
0.33
Unit
Cost
$10,000
$10,000
$1,740
$10,000
$10,00
Cost
$2,300
$3,300
$2,500
$2,100
$3,300
Priority
5th Code
H
M
H
H
Priority
6th Code
M
M
H
H
Appendix P
Page P-89
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.11: WATERSHED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
9832
Improvement
Level
Maintenance
Description/Commertt$
Improve drainage on first 0.1 miles (in
lower American River); repair or remove 2
failing culverts near end of road (in Kirks
Fork); Haul route. Alt E treats only 1st 0.7
miles. Road is also proposed for haul
under Red Pines EIS
Alternative
B
Y
C
Y
D
Y
E
Y
Units
(miles)
4.0
Unit
Cost
$250
', Cost ' /
$1,000
, Priority
5th Code
M
''" Priority
6*'Code
M
TABLE A.12: STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
1810B
Crossing
Number
873
Stream
Unnamed
trib to Kirks
Fork
Description/Comments
30" culvert with 10' fill;
recommend larger pipe for
hydraulics
Alternative
B
N
C
N
D
N
, E
Y
Units
(sites)
1
Unit
Cost
$10,000
Cost
$10,000
Priority
5th Code
L
Priority
e^Code
L
TABLE A.13: RECREATION AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project
Name
Trail #846 -
site id 23
Location
Kirks Fork
Description/Comments
ATV trail should be evaluated for
possible improvement needs.
Coordinate with BLM.
Alternative
B
Y
C
Y
D
Y
£
Y
. Units
(ac/m!)
1.16
miles
Unit
Cost
5000
_;,y-Cast"-
$5,800
Priority
5th Code
L
.Priority
6th Code
M
Appendix P
Page P-90
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.14: SOIL RESTORATION PROJECTS
Stand
Number
81602063
81602066
81605021
81605019
81605005
Adjacent Road
Number
1810
1810
77326
77328
9832A
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour 2 landings
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
N
N
N
Y
Y
C
N
N
N
Y
Y
D
N
N
N
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.3
.5
.2
.4
.5
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
700
1100
500
1000
1100
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
M
M
M
H
H
WHITAKER CREEK (17060305-05-12)
TABLE A.15: EXISTING ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road
Number
78485
78525
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Varied
Description/Comments
Road borders old plantation, several
skid trail throughout
Alternative
B
N
C
Y
D
Y
F
Y
Units
(miles)
0.52
0.12
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$5,000
Cost
$2,600
$600
Priority
5th Code
M
L
Priority
L6th Code
H
M
TABLE A.16: WATERSHED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
1809B
1809B
1809C
Improvement
Level
Moderate
reconstruction
Minor
reconstruction
Major
Reconstruction
Description/Comments
Ditched, but some ponding; 2 low risk
culverts should be removed; failed log
culvert; 0.62 miles to be used for haul
Non-haul route - see comments above.
Ongoing erosion due to failing drainage.
Planned for use under BLM Eastside
township project. Coordinate w/ BLM
Alternative
B
Y
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
0.62 mi
1.28 miles
0.78
Unit
Cost
$1,000
$2,000
$10,000
Cost
$620
$2,560
$7,800
Priority
5th Code
L
L
M
Priority
6th Code
L
L
H
TABLE A.17: STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Appendix P
Page P-91
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Road
Number
1809
1809C
Crossing
Number
890
884
Stream
Unnamed
trib to
Whitaker
Creek
Whitaker
Creek
Description/Comments
24" culvert with 20' fill; replace
with larger pipe for hydraulics
and possible fish passage
Replace failing log culvert; to be
used by BLM
Alternative
• B
N
Y
C
N
Y
D
N
Y
E
Y
Y
Units
(Sites)
1
2
Unit
Cost
$20,000
$10,000
Cost
$20,000
$20,000
Priority
5{h Code
L
M
Priority
6th Code
L
H
TABLE A.18: INSTREAM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name
Whitaker Creek
-site id 101
Stream
Name
Whitaker
Creek
Description/Comments
Channel reconnect, wetland
restoration. BLM project
Alternative
B
N
C
N
D
N
e
N
Units
(miles)
NA
Unit
Cost
NA
Cost
NA
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
TABLE A.19: SOIL RESTORATION PROJECTS
Stand
Number
81307014
81307002
81303002
Adjacent Road
Number
1809B1
78485
78525
, Description/Comments
Recontour unclassified road, trail,
and landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
N
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
N
•E
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
1.2
.3
.1
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
Cost
2260
700
300
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
Appendix P
Page P-92
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
QUEEN CREEK M 7060305-05-13)
TABLE A.20: EXISTING ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road
Number
1809A
1810D
78486
78487
78488
78489
78489A
78489B
Decommissioning) Level
Moderate reconstruction
and recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Haul route alts C & D.
Gullied road with little or no
drainage; restore riparian function
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
D
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
' E-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
{miles)
0.92
0.8
•0.5
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.15
Unit
Cost
$3,800
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Cost
$3,500
$9,200
$8,000
$5,000
$1,000
$2,000
$2,000
$1,000
$750
Priority
5th Code
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
M
M
L
L
L
TABLE A.21: STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
1809
1809
Crossing
Number
977
1090
Stream
Queen
Creek
Unnamed
trib to Queen
Creek
Description/Comments
36" culvert with 25' fill; seepy
site; possible replacement for
hydraulics and fish passage;
haul route
36" culvert with 20' fill; possible
replacement for hydraulics and
fish passage; haul route
Alternative
B
N
N
C
N
N
D
N
N
E
Y
Y
Units
(sites)
1
1
Unit
Cost
$50,000
$50,000
Cost
$50,000
$50,000
Priority
5th Code
L
L
Priority
6th Code
M
M
Appendix P
Page P-93
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.22: INSTREAM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name
Queen Creek -
site id 102
Stream
Name
Queen Creek
Description/Comments
Channel reconnect, wetland
restoration. BLM project
Alternative
B
N
C
N
D
N
E
N
Units
(miles)
NA
Unit
Cost
NA
Cost
NA
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
TABLE A.23: SOIL RESTORATION PROJECTS
Stand
Number
81307013
81307014
81308003
81308037
81308003
81308003
81308003
81308007
81308002
Adjacent Road
Number
1809A
1809B1
1810
1810A
1810D
1810D
1810D
78489
78489A
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour road to rock pit
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
• Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
D
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.6
.4
.5
.5
.2
.3
.8
.2
.2
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
1500
900
1100
1100
500
700
1800
500
500
Priority
5th Code
Priority
!;6tKC6de
H
M
M
M
H
H
H
L
H
Appendix P
Page P-94
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
FLINT CREEK (17060305-05-14)
TABLE A.24: EXISTING ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road
Number
443F
1125B
1125B1
9807A
9807A1
9807B
9807B1
981 2A
981 2B
981 2C
981 2D
981 2F
9812F1
981 2G
981 2H
9834B
78482
78586
78587
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
' Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Maintenance and
Recontour
Recontour
Moderate
Reconstruction and
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Moderate
Reconstruction and
Recontour
Major Reconst.
and Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Major reconst and
recontour
Reconstruct and
Recontour
Description/Comments
Ridgetopjoad
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road. Includes soil restoration
Ridgetop road
Most of road is to be maintained, but recommend
decommissioning end of road in existing clearcut (-0.6
mi). Road is 2.2 miles long
Ridgetop road
Haul route, followed by decommissioning; first 0.25 mi
used for haul in alts B & E; entire road used for haul alt
C & D; the 1st 0.72 miles rd. in fairly good condition; at
Saddle Rd becomes more vegetated, eroding cut & fill
slopes pose threat to mass wasting into trib of
American River.
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Has plugged culverts
Haul route; ridgetop road holding water; soils are
compacted, and productivity low; decompact to
increase soil productivity, reduce mass wasting. Used
for BLM Eastside Township project
Same as 981 2F. Used for BLM Eastside township
project.
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road
Ridgetop road. 0.18 miles in Middle American
Ridgetop road.
Road not used in alt C.
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
C
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
F,
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.04
0.95
1.0
0.41
1.25
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.12
0.5
0.6
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$1,130
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$2,950
$10,000
$3,480
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$2,270
$5,000
$3,480
$10,000
Cost
$4,500
$1,000
$500
$2,000
$2,000
$6,000
$200
$1,100
$9,500
$5,000
$2,050
$12,500
$2,100
$7,000
$700
$2,000
$1,500
$3,000
$1,000
$600
$1,100
$2,500
$2,100
$6,000
Priority
5th Code
M
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
H
L
H
L
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
Appendix P
Page P-95
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.25: STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
9812
Crossing
Number
766
Stream
Unnamed trib
to Flint Creek
Description/Comments
-30" culvert with 50% scour line;
recommend replacement for
hydraulics and accommodating
fish passage; haul route
Alternative
B
Y
C
Y
D
Y
E
Y
Units
(sites)
1
Unit
Cost
$50,000
Cost
$50,000
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
TABLE A.26: SOIL RESTORATION PROJECTS
Stand
Number
81202027
81202027
81202027
81206001
81202003
81202008
81202031
81205028
81205030
81205083
81205027
81205026
81205024
81205031
81207004
81203001
81203008
Adjacent
Road
Number
1125
1125B
1125B1
78482
9807
9807A
9807B
9812
9812A
981 2 A
9812B
9812C
9812D
9812D
9812F1
9812H
9812H
Description/Comments
Recontour landing
Recontour landing
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour road extension
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour 3 skid trails
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.2
.2
.2
.6
.4
.2
.2
.6
.1
.3
.8
.6
.9
.6
.3
.3
.2
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
500
500 '
500
1300
900
500
500
1400
300
700
1700
1400
2200
1400
700
700
500
Priority
5th
Code
L
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
M
M
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Appendix P
Page P-96
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Stand
Number
81204001
81204009
Adjacent
Road
Number
9834
9834
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Alternative
B
N
N
c
N
N
D
N
N
E
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.4
.2
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
Cost •
900
500
Priority
5th ,
Code
Priority
6th Code
M
M
Box SING CREEK (17060305-05-15)
TABLE A.27: EXISTING ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road
Number
78516
78517
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Mid-slope road
Mid-slope road
Alternative
*R
N
N
0
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
F
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.20
0.10
Unit
Cost
$10,000
$10,000
Cost
$2,000
$1,000
Priority
5th Code
L
L
Priority
6th Code
M
M
TABLE A.28: WATERSHED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
1810C
Improvement
Level
Moderate
reconstruction
Description/Comments
Haul route; 1' deep ruts in road.
Decommission 0.23 mi in Kirks Fork.
Alternative
B
Y
C
Y
D
Y
E
Y
Units
(miles)
0.69
Unit
Cost
$1,500
Cost
$1,035
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
TABLE A.29: STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
1810
Crossing
-Number
1028
; Stream '
Box Sing
Description/Comments
24" pipe w/ 10' fill; 50% scour
line; replace for hydraulics
, Alternative,
B
N
e
N
D
N
-E
Y
Units
(sites) ,
1
Unit
Cost
$5,000
Cost
$5,000
Priority
5th Code
L
Priority
6th Code
L
Appendix P
Page P-97
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.30: RECREATION AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project
Name
Trail 830 and
807
crossings -
site id 20
Location
Junction with
road trail 807
and Trail 810
crossings on
Box Sing
Creek
Description/Comments
Crossing on Box Sing Creek in poor
condition; decrease sediment into
Box Sing Creek. Trail up Box Sing
Creek needs recreation use
management prescription.
Alternative
B
Y
C
Y
D
Y
E
Y
Units
(ac/mi)
0.5 mi
Unit
Cost
$5,000
Cost
$2,500
Priority
5th Code
M
Priority
6th Code
H
TABLE A.31: SOIL RESTORATION PROJECTS
Stand
Number
81308001
81308020
81308031
81308002
Adjacent
Road
Number
1810
1810A
78489
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trail
Restore rock pit
Recontour 3 skid trails
Alternative
B
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
D
N
Y
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.3
.5
.7
Unit
Cost
2260
10000
2260
Cost
700
5000
1700
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
L
M
M
LOWER AMERICAN RIVER (17060305-05-16)
TABLE A.32: SOIL RESTORATION PROJECTS
Stand
Number
81708025
81708044
Adjacent
Road
Number
9832A
9832A
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trail
Restore landing
Alternative
B
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
b
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.2
.2
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
' ''' ' ;
Cost •'
500
500
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
L
L
Appendix P
Page P-98
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
CROOKED RIVER
LOWER CROOKED RIVER (17060305-03-01)
TABLE A.33: EXISTING ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road .
Number
522F1
9816F
9847
78404
78405
78406
78407
78532
78533
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Recontour
Reconstruct &
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Includes soil restoration
Ridgetop road. Starts in Red River
Wet draws pose threat to mass
wasting into Crooked River. Haul
route.
Ridgetop road. 1st 0.26 mi outside
proj area
Ridgetop road.
Ridgetop road. Most of road
outside proj area.
Ridgetop road.
Outside analysis area boundary -
used by BLM in Whiskey South;
coord decom by BLM.
Alternative
B
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.40
0.61
1.30
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.2
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$5,000
$1,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
Cost
$2,000
$3,050
$1,300
$13,000
$3,500
$1,000
$500
. $500
$5,000
$4,000
Priority
5th Code
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
Appendix P
Page P-99
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.34: WATERSHED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
233
1110
9831
Improvement
Level
Minor
Reconstruction
Minor
Reconstruction
Maintenance
Description/Corn merits
County road - the "narrows". Spot
treatment. See also Crooked River
"narrows" in-stream improvement projects.
MP 2.56 to 6.06
Aggregate surfacing and ditch rock, cutslope
revegetation. Haul route. 2-3 locations over
length of rd - approx 0.3 mi total. From mp
4.83 to mp 5. 13
Drainage improvement, cutslope
stabilization. MP 1.07 to 1.13.
Alternative
B
N
Y
Y
c
N
Y
Y
D
N
Y
Y
-E
Y
Y
Y
Units
3.5 miles
0.3 miles
0.06
miles
Unit
Cost
$15,000
$15,000
$80,000
Cost
$52,500
$4,500
$4,800
Priority
5th Code
M
M
M
Priority
6th Code
M
M
M
TABLE A.35: STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
233
233
9805
9805
9805
9831
Crossing
Number
1665
1548
1935
1959
1967
1702
Stream
Unnamed trib to
Crooked R
Unnamed trib to
Crooked R
Sec 14 trib to
Crooked R
Sec 14 trib to
Crooked R
Sec 14 trib to
Crooked R
Unnamed trib to
Crooked River
Description/Comments
County road. Replace culvert for
hydraulics; low fill height; Approx
MP2.3.
County road. Replace culvert for
hydraulics.
48" culvert; 10' fill height. Add
baffles for fish passage (possible
replacement)
48" culvert; 10' fill height. Add
baffles for fish passage (possible
replacement)
48" culvert; 10' fill height. Add
baffles for fish passage (possible
replacement)
30" culvert; 10' fill height.
Replacement for hydraulics, remove
debris below outlet
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
E-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(sites)
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Cost
$20,000
$20,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$20,000
Cost
$20,000
$20,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$20,000
Priority
§th Code
M
M
L
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
M
M
L
L
L
L
Appendix P
Page P-100
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.36: INSTREAM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name
Lower Crooked River
forced meanders - site
id1
Lower Crooked River
narrows - site id 2
Lower Crooked River
narrows to Relief Creek
- site id 3
Stream
Name
Crooked
River
Crooked
River
Crooked
River
Description/Comments -
Riparian planting and maintenance
of existing improvements.
Riparian planting & bioengineering to
improve habitat and road-stream
interactions; reestablish sinuosity in
select areas - see also Crooked
River "narrows" under watershed
road improvements.
Riparian planting and maintenance
of existing improvements.
Alternative
B
Y
N
Y
c
Y
N
Y
D
Y
N
Y
e
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
3.2
3.2
3.5
1.7
1.7
Unit,
Cost
$10,000
$20,000
$50,000
$25,000
$50,000
Cost
$32,000
$64,000
$175,000
$42,500
$85,000
Priority
5lh Code
H
M
H
Priority
6th Code
H
M
H
TABLE A.37: SOIL RESTORATION PROJECTS
Stand Number
82201170
82201022
82201022
82201093
82201133
82201130
82101064
82201011
82001040
82203083
82203084
82203085
82203087
Adjacent Road
Number
1110
1110B
1110B
1110B
1110F
1110H
522F1
77329A
78533
9804
9804
9804
9804
Description/Comments
Recontour trail and landing
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour road extension
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour temp road and skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour 2 landings
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.4
.2
.3
.5
.4
.2
.2
.2
.8
.2
.6
.3
1.2
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost ,
900
500
700
1100
900
500
500
500
1800
300
1400
700
2700
Priority 5th
Code
Priority 6th
Code
M
L
L
L
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
Appendix P
Page P-101
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Stand Number
82203057
82203080
82203003
82101061
82001134
82001131
82001117
82001042
82201135
82202049
82101027
82101007
82202098
82101057
Adjacent Road
Number
9804
9805
9805A
9816
9816F
9831
9831
9831
9844
9844
9847
9847
9850
9870A
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trail/old mine road
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trails and landing
Recontour landing
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
, ^Alternative
,B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
,D
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.9
.5
.2
1.0
.7
.2
.4
.2
.4
.2
.2
.1
.1
.2
Unit
, Cost,
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
2100
1100
500
2260 .
1600
500
900
500
900
500
500
300
300
500
Priority 5*
Code
Priority 6th
Code
H
H
H
M
H
L
L
L
L
L
M
H
L
L
RELIEF CREEK (17060305-03-03)
TABLE A.38: ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road
Number
522 B1
522J
78496A
Decommissioning
Level
Reconstruct/
recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
This road will be reconstructed for haul
in Alt C and D. Planned for
decommissioning, but might be used
to replace portion of 522B.
Road is ponded and located in riparian
zone on Relief Creek. Road is 0.2 mi
long; first 0.1 mi to be maintained,
remainder recontoured .
Ridgetop road. NEPA coverage in
Red River Salvage. Road starts in
Red River, including, additional
Alternative
B
Y
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
E-
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
1.10
.10
0.2
Unit
.Cost
$1,150
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
Cost
$1,300
$11,000
$1,000
$1,000
Priority
5* Code
M
M
L
Priority
6th Code
H
H
L
Appendix P
Page P-102
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Road
Number
78496B
78496B1
78496C
78497
78497A
78497B
78497B1
78498
78499
78499A
78499A1
78500
78511
78512
78513
78514
78539
78540
Decommissioning
'•••v,. Level :.-. •'
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Varied
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Varied
Partial recontour
Description/Comments ,
INFRA mileage
Same as 78496A
Same as 78496A
Same as 78496A
Ridgetop road. Road is compacted,
but in generally good condition with
effective water bars. Decompaction
would increase soil productivity
Ridgetop road. Same as 78496A
Ridgetop road.
Ridgetop road.
Reclaimed by landscape, trees and
shrubs could be planted
Same as 78499
Same as 78499
Ridgetop road.
Ridgetop road.
Streamside encroachment
0.8 miles in Middle Crooked
Major reconstruction for haul route,
followed by decommissioning
Alternative
6
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
c
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
V
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
.40
.70
.5
.20
.30
0.1
0.2
.50
0.2
.20
.26
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$4,280
$10,000
$10,000
Cost
$1,500
$2,000
$1,500
$5,500
$1,000
$2,000
$1,000
$4,000
$700
$500
. $200
$3,000
$500
$1,000
55,000
$1,000
$900
$2,000
$2,600
Priority
5th Code
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
Priority
6th Code
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
H
L
L
H
L
H
H
Appendix P
Page P-103
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.39: WATERSHED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
522
522 B
9837
9839
Improvement
Level
Maintenance
Moderate
reconstruction
Major
reconstruction
Moderate
reconstruction
Maintenance
Maintenance
Description/Comments
Add -10 cross-drains, -0.5 mi ditch rock
and possibly revegetate cutslopes
pending further analysis. From mp 4.87
to mp 5.5.
Road has poor drainage and is heavily
rutted; drain and grade and close during
wet season or obliterate to reduce
sediment; also covered under Red River
Salvage EA. 0.56 miles of 522B are
located in Deadwood Creek - 1.70 miles
in Relief Creek. MP 2.07 to 2.2 used for
haul in Alts B, C, and E.
MP 1 .32 to 2.2 is major reconstruction for
haul in Alt D.
Road needs immediate maintenance
attention; planned for haul route. Active
cut sloughing on upper slope road.
Watershed improvement recommended
on 0.57 miles (mp 1 .23 to mp 1 .8), road
is 3,2 miles long.
Decrease mass wasting into Relief
Creek. Active cut slumping onto road
with seepage at approx MP 0.2 and 0.3
(from mp 0.2 to mp 0.7). Road is 1.2 mi
long.
Alternative
B
N
Y
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
v
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
0.63 mi
2.2 mi
0.88
1.32
0.57 mi
0.5 mi
Unit
Cost
$15,000
$4,400
$15,000
$4,400
$1,500
$2,000
Cost
$9,450
$9,680
$13,200
$5.800
$900
$1,000
Priority
5th Code
M
M
M
M
Priority 6ih
Code
H
M
H
M
Appendix P
Page P-104
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Road
Number
9859
9876-
site id 1
9876-
site id 2
Improvement
. Level
.
Moderate
reconstruction
Temporary
stabilization
(i e road
storage
Temporary
stabilization
(i e road
storage
Description/Comments
Road used for private land access;
remove log culverts on steep side slopes;
sediment delivery to Relief Creek; Road
is 1 .05 mi long; see also crossing no
1964 stream crossing improvements.
Further coord w/ temp rd access between
draft & final.
Site at mp 1 .43. Pull back fill at stream
crossing to restore hydrologic function.
See also crossing nos. 1907 & 1926.
Site at mp 2.16. Pull back fill at stream
crossing to restore hydrologic function.
See also crossing nos. 1907 & 1926.
Alternative
B
Y
N
N
C
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
0.45 mi
1 sites
1 sites
Unit
Cost
$3,000
$500
$500
Cost
$1,350
$500
$500
Priority
5th Code
M
M
M
Priority 6th
Code .
H
H
H
TABLE A.40: STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
1803
1803
1803
Crossing
Number
1969
2024
2055
Stream
East Fork
Relief Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Description/Comments
Replace 48" culvert for fish
passage
24" culvert with 30' fill depth; .
replacement for hydraulic
capacity; check for aquatic
organism passage.
30" culvert with 30' fill depth;
replacement for hydraulic
capacity and fish passage;
scour line 50%+; good habitat
above.
Alternative
8
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Units
(sites)
1
1
1
Unit
Cost
$100,000
$20,000
$60,000
Cost
$100,000
$20,000
$60,000
Priority
5th Code
M
L
M
Priority
6* Code
H
M
M
Appendix P
Page P-105
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Road
Number
1803
1803
1803
9837
9859
9876
9876
Crossing
Number
2212
2234
2241
2213
1964
1907
1926
Stream
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Relief Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
E Fk Relief
Cr
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Unnamed
trib to Relief
Creek
Description/Comments
24" culvert; 30' fill; limited
habitat above; steep A channel.
Replacement for hydraulic
capacity; check for aquatic
organism passage.
24" culvert with 20' fill; replace
with larger pipe for hydraulic
capacity; pipe needs
maintenance.
Replace 48" culvert for fish
passage
18" culvert with 10' fill; no fish &
little water above; probable
replacement with larger pipe for
hydraulic capacity; road needs
maintenance
Remove failing log bridge and
consider replacing- with
hardened ford for private land
access; potential cost share;
see also watershed road
improvements.
Crossing removed, but
encroaching fill remains; restore
stream channel, floodplain, and
wetland. Spot treatments on
road before crossing location -
see watershed road
improvement treatments above.
Same as #1907
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
C
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
D
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(sites)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Cost
$30,000
$20,000
$120,000
$5,000
$10,000
$2,000
$2,000
cost-:
$30,000
$20,000
$120,000
$5,000
$10,000
$2,000
$2,000
Priority
5* Code
L
M
H
L
H
L
L
Priority
6th Code
L
M
H
L
H
M
M
Appendix P
Page P-106
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.41: INSTREAM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name
Relief Creek
Instream
Improvement -
site id 4
Relief Creek
Instream
Improvement -
site id 5
Stream
Name
Relief and
East Fork
Relief Creeks
Relief and
East Fork
Relief Creeks
Description/Comments
Streamside planting in old harvest units
and mined areas; Large woody debris
placement; existing structure
maintenance.
Streamside planting in old harvest units
and mined areas; Large woody debris
placement; existing structure
maintenance. Adds channel sinuosity
restoration & flood plain restoration to 0.5
mile of site id 4.
Alternative
B
Y
N
N
c
Y
N
N
D
Y
N
N
E
N
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
1.6
1.1
0.5
Unit
Cost
$7,500
$150,000
Cost
$12,000
$75,000
Priority
5fh Code
M
M
Priority
6th Code
H
M
TABLE A.42: SOIL RESTORATION
Stand
: Number
82104025
82102024
82103004
82104069
82104094
82102032
82102001
82102001
82102038
82102001
82102001
82102004
82102005
82102003
82102001
82105034
82104001
82104001
82105008
Adjacent Road
; Number
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
522B
522B
522B
522B1
522B1
522B1
78497
78497B
78500
78511
78539
9836A
9836A
9837
<: Description/Comments
Recontour landing
Recontour trail
Recontour trails and landing
Partial stabilization of rock pit
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
RECONTOUR SKID TRAILS
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
C
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.3
.2
1.3
1.0
.2
.6
.1
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.2
.4
.2
.4
.5
.1
.5
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
10,000
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
700
500
2900
10,000
500
1400
300
900
700
700
500
500
500
900
500
1000
1100
300
1100
Priority
5** Code
Priority
6th Code
L
L
M
M
L
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
Appendix P
Page P-107
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Stand
Number
82105011
82105037
82104013
82104047
82104090
82103002
82103001
82103001
82103001
82102003
82102023
Adjacent Road
Number
9837
9837
9837
9855A
9855A
9856A
9857
9857
9857
9876
9876
Description/Comments
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Landing and skid trail decompaction
Landing and skid trail decompaction
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour temp road and landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
c
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.2
.5
.6
.6
.6
.3
.4
.1
.7
.3
.4
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
500
1100
1500
1300
1300
600
900
300
1600
700
900
Priority
5th Code
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
MIDDLE CROOKED RIVER (17060305-03-04)
TABLE A.43: ROADS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED
Road
Number
9833
9836
9836B
9836B1
9836C
78514
78534
78538
Decommissioning
Level
Recontour
Road to trail
conversion
Recontour
Recontour
Varied
Recontour
Recontour
Recontour
Description/Comments
Decommission last 1.4 miles; total road length
3.3 miles.
Road to trail conversion from Crooked River to
-4700' elev. Maintain rd width for snowmobile
groomer. Trail to remain open for motorized
trail vehicles.
DECOMMISSION FROM CROSSING 2285 TO END OF
ROAD
Road parallels small intermittent
stream
C road parallels B road entrance camo'd
w/slash pile. Decrease potential mass wasting
into Silver Cr.
0.2 miles in Relief Creek
Alternative
B
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
D
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(miles)
1.6
1.46
0.24
0.1
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.5
Unit
Cost -'
$10,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Cost
$16,000
$7,350
$2,400
$1,000
$4,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,500
Priority
5lh Code
H
H
M
M
M
L
L
L
.Priority 6th
Code
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
TABLE A.44: WATERSHED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Appendix P
Page P-108
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Road
Number
233A-
site id 3
9836
9838A
9848
9848B
Improvement
Level
Minor
reconstruction
Moderate
reconstruction
reconstruction
Minor
reconstruction
Maintenance
Description/Comments
Road involves private land and mining
access. Site at mp 0.18. See also
improvements at two stream crossings.
High flows (Quartz Creek) run out of bar
and down rd to private residences.
This road is in bad shape and leads to
Crooked River. Varying (w/ alt)
lengths will be reconstructed for timber
haul. Watershed improvement needs
1st 3.4 miles. See also rd-trail
conversion under rd decom.
Spurs off main road are heavily used
by ATV's creating large gullies and are
high concern for sediment
transportation. Decrease sediment
transportation. Haul route.
Improve drainage with cross drains
and spot gravel; improve stream
crossings; recommend
decommissioning sediment trap (mp
3.17); stabilize slump (mp 3.2) above
sediment trap; cost share with
minerals program
Improve drainage with cross drains;
possible rd-trail conversion (has
current ATV use); coord w/ recreation
Alternative
B
Y
Y
Y
N
N
C
Y
Y
Y
N
N
D
Y
Y
Y
N
N
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
1 site
3.4 mi
1.11 mi
3.4 mi
1.1 mi
Unit
Cost
$10,000
$3,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
Cost
$10,000
$10,200
$1,110
$3,400
$1,100
Priority
5m Code
M
H
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
H
H
M
M
M
Appendix P
Page P-109
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.45: STREAM CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Road
Number
233
233
233A
233A
9836
9836
9836B
9838
9848
Crossing
Number
2092
2136
2340
2341
2205
2243
2285
2335
2371
Stream
Baker Gulch
Rainbow
Gulch
Quartz Creek
Quartz Creek
Sawmill
Creek
Unnamed trib
to Crooked
River
Unnamed trib
to Silver
Creek
Unnamed trib
to Silver
Creek
Unnamed trib
to Crooked
River
Description/Comments
36" culvert; shallow fill; replacement
for hydraulics and fish passage;
county road (discretionary).
24" culvert; shallow fill; replacement
for hydraulics and fish passage;
county road (discretionary).
Old bridge laying in channel;
remove bridge; harden and improve
existing ford; near private land; see
also watershed rd improvements.
Same as 2340
18" culvert; shallow fill; replacement
for hydraulics; on haul route
18" culvert; 10' fill depth;
replacement for hydraulics; on haul
route
18" culvert; 20' fill depth; inlet
ripped, culvert partially mashed;
replacement for hydraulics;
recommend decommissioning from
crossing to end of road
48" culvert; recommend
replacement with pipe arch;
evaluate for fish passage (cost
includes passage provisions)
Designed as temporary sediment
trap; decommission sediment trap
and replace pipe for hydraulics.
.Alternative
B
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
c
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
D
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
•E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(sites)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Cost
$70,000
$50,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$120,000
$15,000
Cost
$70,000
$50,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$120,000
$15,000
Priority
5th Code
H
H
H
H
L
L
M
L
M
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
H
M
L
M
L
H
Appendix P
Page P-110
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.46: INSTREAM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name .'-.-
Middle Crooked
River Habitat
Improvement
Maintenance - site
id 6
Crooked River
near Silver Creek
- site id 7
Baker Gulch - site
id8
Rainbow Gulch -
site id 9
Quartz Creek
Riparian Planting
-site id 10
Stream
: Name
Crooked
River
(Relief Creek
to Fivemile)
Crooked
River
(Fivemile to
Orogrande)
Baker Gulch
Creek
Rainbow
Gulch Creek
Quartz Creek
Description/Comments; -
Riparian planting and maintenance
of existing improvements. Includes
stabilization of fillslope on private
land and Baker Gulch side channel
maintenance.
New fish habitat improvements on
0.8 miles of stream. Work includes
adding stream meanders, floodplain
creation, large woody debris
placement, and riparian planting.
Reconnect channel mouth to
Crooked River to restore stream
connectivity.
Reconnect channel mouth to
Crooked River to restore stream
connectivity.
Plant RHCA along harvest unit.
"Alternative
B
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
C""
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units,
(miles)
2.8
2.8
0.8
0.8
0.02
0.02
1.0
, : Unit
Cost
$25,000
$50,000
$50,000
$200,000
NA
NA
$6,000
* Cost
$70,000
$140,000
$40,000
$160,000
$10,000
$10,000
$6,000
Priority
5th Code
H
M
H
H
L
Priority
6* Code
H
H
H
H
H
Appendix P
Page P-lll
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.47: RECREATION AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project
Name
Trail 807 - site
id 12
Crooked River
Camp-grounds
-site id 10
Crooked River
Camp-grounds
- site id 1 0
Old Orogrande
Hotel - site id 9
Unauthorized
Bridge on
Quartz Creek
Location
Near Fivemile
Campground
Upstream of
Orogrande
above Road
#233
Upstream of
Orogrande
above Road
#233
At Old
Orogrande
confluence of
West and East
Forks of
Crooked River
Upper Quartz
Creek NE NW
Sec 18. End
of FS Road #
9848B
: Description/Comments ,
Trail is very steep and rutting, was rebuilt, but still
dangerous for the user. Surface erosion to
ephemeral channel during rainstorm and
snowmelt events. Decrease surface erosion and
rutting on steep section, decrease sediment
routing to ephemeral channel. User-created trail
also associated with this trail.
Crooked River Campgrounds above Orogrande
and ATV raceway" 15' wide x 100' long. Manage
sites to restrict motorized use to designated
areas, improve soil productivity, reduce erosion
and sediment delivery into Crooked River.
Crooked River Campgrounds above Orogrande
and ATV raceway" 15' wide x 100' long. Manage
sites to restrict motorized use to designated
areas, improve soil productivity, reduce erosion
and sediment delivery into Crooked River.
Control parking on meadow adjacent to Road
#233 and across from historic hotel, decompact
and seed area, designate parking with boulders.
Decrease soil compaction, erosion, sediment
delivery, and invasion of weeds. Construct
sanitation facilities.
User-built bridge to cross the headwaters of
Quartz Creek. Use associated with recreation
within the Diamond Hitch Mine Prospects and
accesses road system closed to motorized use,
except for snowmobiles. Remove bridge and
restore site.
Alternative
B
N
N
N
N
Y
C
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
.Units
(ac/mi)
1.5 mi
5 ac
5 ac
2ac
0.1 ac
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
NA
Cost
$7,500
$25,000
$25,000
$20,000
$2,000
Priority
5th Code
M
M
M
M
L
Priority
6th Code
M
M
M
M
M
Appendix P
Page P-112
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Project
Name
Unauthorized
ATV trail
connects FS
Road # 9848B
with FS Road #
9838 - site id 3
Private ATV
Access to the
Quartz Creek
ATV Loop -
site id 21
Location
Trail
Originates
from the end of
the 9848B
Road and
travels upslope
to the end of
the 9838 road.
Private road
access north
01 it nf
Orogrande.
Description/Comments
Trail is deeply rutted in places. Active erosion
from trail into Quartz Creek. Trail accesses road
system closed to motorized use, except for
snowmobiles. Rehabilitate trail and manage
access.
The public is using a road accessing private land
to reach FS Rd # 9838A, which is closed to
motorized access, except for snowmobiles.
Manage road as access to private land and
restrict unauthorized use of Rd #9838A.
Alternative
B
Y
Y
C
Y
Y
D
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Units
(ac/mi)
0.2 mi
0.5 mi
Unit
Cost
$10,000
$10,000
Cost
$2,000
$5,000
Priority
5th Code
L
M
Priority
6th Code
H
H
Appendix P
Page P-113
-------
American River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.48: MINE SITE RESTORATION
Project
Name
Pond and
mine site
near
Petsite.
site id 8
Diamond
Hitch - site
id1
Unnamed
Mine#1 -
site id 7
Unnamed
Mine #2 -
site id 6
Location
Hpari nf
I ICCIxJ \Ji
tributary in
Quartz Creek
thp MW9W
LI 1C 1 N V V O V V
Sf>r 7
Ods /
End of Road
#98486 in
Quartz Creek
On Quartz
Creek 0.2
miles
upstream
from mouth
near end of
Road #233A
On Quartz
Creek 0.1 7
miles
upstream
from mouth
along Road
#233A.
Description/Comments
Old pond at the head of the trib, accessed by old
road, pond overflow eroding, wetland damage,
old mine site. Drain and recontour pond,
recontour road into mine site. Restore wetland,
clean up mine site. Decrease sediment
overflowing out of pond into wetland. Decrease
erosion from road into trib, restore wetland
Test adit seepage and mine tailings for metals.
Restore and stabilize tailings in and adjacent to
Quartz Creek. Test adit seepage and mine
tailings for metals.
Restore and stabilize placer mining site.
Alternative
B
N
Y
Y
Y
C
N
Y
Y
Y
D
N
Y
Y
Y
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
2
5
1
1
Unit
Cost
$5,000
$1,000
$5,000
$5,000
Cost
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Priority
.5* Code
L
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
M
M
M
M
Appendix P
Page P-114
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE A.49: SOIL RESTORATION PROJECTS
Stand
Number
83102023
83102019
83102026
83102066
83102069
83102028
83102029
83102008
83102038
83101005
83101005
83102002
83102002
83101050
83101061
83101061
83101053
83101046
83101042
83101041
83101004
83101002
83102001
83102017
83102001
Adjacent Road
Number
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
1803
77325
78514
78514
78534
78534
78538
9833
9833
9833
9836
9836
9836
9836
9836
9836B
9836B1
9836C
Description/Comments
RECONTOUR 2 SKID TRAILS AND
LANDING
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail system and
fireline
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour landing
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour trail
Recontour landing
Recontour temp road
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour skid trail
Recontour 2 skid trails
Recontour landing
Recontour skid trail
Alternative
R
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
n
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
.4
.1
.4
.2
.3
.5
.6
.4
.5
.2
.2
.2
.1
.1
.5
.2
.6
.6
.7
.4
.2
.2
.8
.2
.5
Unit
, Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
1000
500
1000
500
700
1100
1400
900
1100
500
500
500
300
500
1100
500
1400
1300
1600
1000
1000
500
1800
500
1100
Priority
5th Code
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
Priority
6th Code
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
Appendix P
Page P-115
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Stand
Number
83102082
83102064
83103010
83103007
83102058
83103018
83103028
Adjacent Road
Number
9838A
9838
9838
9838
9838
9838
9838
Description/Comments
Recontour legacy temporary road
Recontour unclassified road and
landing
Recontour unclassified road
Recontour unclassified road
Recontour skid trail
Recontour skid trails
Recontour 2 skid trails
Alternative.
B
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
D
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
E-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Units
(acres)
1.2
1.0
.4
.8
.2
.2
.4
Unit
Cost
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
2260
Cost
3100
2260
1000
1300
500
700
1400
Priority
5th Code
M
L
M
M
L
L
L
Priority
6th Code
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
Appendix P
Page P-116
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix B - Information Supporting the Watershed and
Fisheries Analysis
FISH/WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Appendix A of the Nez Perce National Forest Plan lists fish/water quality objectives by
prescription watershed for streams in the analysis area. Fish/water quality objectives
displayed below provide management direction in terms of maximum sediment yield
over baseline conditions that can be approached of equaled for a specified number of
years per decade, ranging from one to three times. Watersheds with fish/water
objectives of 90 percent are allowed one entry per decade, those with 80 percent are
allowed two entries per decade and those with 70 percent are allowed three entries per
decade. All objectives are relative to full habitat potential of 100 percent.
FISHERY/WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES IN APPENDIX A OF THE NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST PLAN
TABLE B.1: AMERICAN RIVER
Prescription
Watershed
17060305-05-06
17060305-05-09
17060305-05-10
17060305-05-11
17060305-05-12
17060305-05-13
17060305-05-14
17060305-05-15
17060305-05-16
Prescription
Watershed Name
Middle American
River1
Upper American
River1
East Fork -
American River1
Kirks Fork1
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Flint Creek1
Box Sing Creek
Lower American
River3
Beneficial
Use
A
A
A
A
R
R
A
R
A
Current
Fishery
Habitat
Condition
(%)
50%
60%
60%
50%
70%
70%
40%
70%
50%
Fishery
Water
Quality
Objective
(% habitat
potential)
90%
90%
90%
90%
70%
70%
90%
70%
90%
Sediment
Yield
Guideline
(% over
baseline)
30 %2
30%
30%2
30%
60%
60%
30%
60%
30 %2
Entry
Frequency
Guideline
(per decade)
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
These streams are suffering from both a lack of diversity (similar to category 1) and excess sediment from
past reading and timber management activities. Along with increasing diversity through direct habitat
improvement, state-of-the-art techniques will be used to remove sediment from the gravel environment.
Improvements will be scheduled between 1986 and 1995. Timber management can occur in these
watersheds, concurrent with habitat improvement efforts, as long as a positive, upward trend in habitat
carrying capacity is indicated.
2 These prescription watersheds, unlike most, are not true watersheds. By definition, a true watershed
includes all the lands draining through a stream reach. These footnoted watersheds drain only part of such
a hydraulic unit and generally contain the downstream reaches of relatively large streams. For sediment
yield analysis on these downstream reaches, all upstream prescription watersheds are combined into a true
watershed. Sediment yield guidelines (Column 6) apply only to true watersheds. Entry frequency guidelines
(Column 7) apply to prescription watersheds regardless of whether they are true watersheds.
3 Lower American River was not included in Appendix A of the Forest Plan. Objectives and guidelines are
those recommended for use in the American/Crooked Project.
Appendix P
PageP-117
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE B-2: CROOKED RIVER
Prescription
Watershed
17060305-03-01
17060305-03-03
17060305-03-04
Prescription
Watershed
Name
Lower Crooked
River1
Relief Creek1
Middle Crooked
River
Beneficial
Use
A
A
A
Current
Fishery
Habitat
Condition
(%)
50%
60%
90%
Fishery
Water
Quality
Objective
(% habitat
potential)
90%
90%
90%
Sediment
Yield
Guideline
{% over
baseline)
30 %2
30%
30 %2
Entry
Frequency
Guideline
(per decade)
1
1
1
In Forest Plan Appendix A, there were three general beneficial use designations,
anadromous fisheries (A), resident fisheries (R) and municipal watershed (MW). Only
the first two are present in project area watersheds.
The watershed numbering and nomenclature system has evolved over the past twenty
years. At the time of the Forest Plan (1987), the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) system
was nationally coordinated to -the 4th code HUC (e.g. South Fork Clearwater River
subbasin = 17060305). Efforts are currently underway to nationally coordinate HUCs to
the 6th code level. This analysis relies on the older codes.
At the time of the Forest Plan, 6th code watersheds were referred to as prescription
watersheds. Current nomenclature refers to those as subwatersheds. Also, 5th code
watersheds were referred to as NFS (National Forest System) watersheds. Current
nomenclature refers to those as simply watersheds.
Prescription watersheds such as Lower American River and Lower Crooked River pose
a unique situation in that they are not a single complete drainage (see footnote above).
At the time of the Forest Plan, these were called face drainages. Current terminology
refers to them as composite watersheds. Those watersheds called true watersheds at
the time of the Forest Plan are now referred to as pure watersheds. The maps below
show how composite and pure watersheds are related in the project area.
1 Streams listed in the category are below carrying capacity due primarily to a lack of diversity (pool
structure). This problem is caused by the removal of all large boulders and woody debris from the stream
through placer mining. These habitat components will be replaced through direct habitat improvement
projects. Work will be scheduled in the latter part of the first decade (1989-1995). Work in Crooked River is
underway, with an expected completion date of 1989. Timber management activities can occur in these
drainages, concurrent with habitat improvement efforts, as long as a positive, upward trend in habitat
carrying capacity is indicated.
2 These prescription watersheds, unlike most, are not true watersheds. By definition, a true watershed
includes all the lands draining through a stream reach. These footnoted watersheds drain only part of such
a hydraulic unit and generally contain the downstream reaches of relatively large streams. For sediment
yield analysis on these downstream reaches, all upstream prescription watersheds are combined into a true
watershed. Sediment yield guidelines (Column 6) apply only to true watersheds. Entry frequency guidelines
(Column 7) apply to prescription watersheds regardless of whether they are true watersheds.
Appendix P
PageP-118
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
Figure B.1: Composite v Pure Watersheds - American River
Middle American River
East Fork
American River
Lower American River
Appendix P
PageP-119
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE B.2: COMPOSITE v PURE WATERSHEDS - CROOKED RIVER
-
Middle Crooked River
01
06
,-
"
05
:
Lower Crooked River
For purposes of water yield (EGA) and sediment yield (NEZSED) analysis, composite
watersheds are compiled into larger pure watersheds. This is done in order to maintain
integrity with the assumptions used to develop the EGA and NEZSED procedures. Both
of these models assume the water yield and sediment yield reflect the conditions in the
entire pure watershed above the analysis point (also known as pour point).
Each of the maps above shows the relationship between composite and pure
watersheds for the American and Crooked River watersheds. Using Lower Crooked
River as an example, when'ECA or NEZSED results are reported, they include all of the
shaded subwatersheds. For more detail on the watershed boundaries and associated
stream systems, see Maps la and 7b.
UPWARD TREND
The Nez Perce Forest Plan provides direction that timber harvest in sediment-limited
watersheds that do not meet their Fish/Water Quality objectives, as listed in Appendix A,
would occur only where concurrent watershed improvement efforts result in a positive
upward trend in habitat condition. Many of the area streams do not meet their objectives
and are in this category. Those are the watersheds with footnotes 1/ and 2/in Tables B.1
and B.2.
THE DFC TABLES
To estimate natural fish habitat potential and quantify existing stream conditions as
required by the Forest Plan, the Nez Perce National Forest is using a Desired Future
Condition (DFC) Model developed on the Clearwater National Forest (Espinosa 1992).
This model addresses specific conditions and channel types found on the Nez Perce
Forest using a habitat quality index. Values for the habitat parameters are quantified in
a set of desired future condition (DFC) tables. The DFC tables list the specific fish
Appendix P
Page P-120
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
habitat parameter and a value or range that a stream should have in order to be at a
given percentage of the streams potential and to meet the Forest Plan Objectives for
that watershed. The DFC values, habitat parameter data and their relationships are
stratified by channel types and fish species. The values for the fish habitat parameters
listed in the DFC tables are considered achievable for streams under natural conditions
in the absence of major disturbances or are reflective of what good fish habitat should
be. Most of the habitat parameters are consistent for each species, and they very
slightly by channel type. Past work has shown a need to adjust some of the elements to
better-fit natural conditions and what is achievable. The DFC for acting and potential
woody debris in a meadow channel is often used as an example of this.
FOREST PLAN RIPARIAN AREA DIRECTION
In addition, the Nez Perce Forest Plan defines standards for vegetation management in
riparian areas (Management Area 10), which are collectively defined as lakes, lakeside
lands, perennial streams, seasonally flowing streams supporting riparian vegetation, and
adjoining lands that are dominated by riparian vegetation (NPFP IH-30-33). This area
includes the floodplains of streams and the wetlands associated with springs,, lakes, and
ponds. Guidelines include the following:
• Consider cumulative impacts of proposed actions on the entire riparian
ecosystem
• Manage riparian areas to maintain and enhance their value for wildlife, fishery,
aquatic' habitat, and water quality.
• Maintain sufficient streamside vegetative canopy to ensure acceptable water
temperatures for fish and to provide cover.
• Management activities shall not be permitted to adversely change the
composition and productivity of key riparian vegetation. Riparian areas now
degraded by management should be rehabilitated before any further
nondependent resource use.
• Planned ignitions, when within prescription, would be allowed to burn to enhance
resource values.
FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT 20 f PACFISH)
The PACFISH Environmental Assessment amended the Nez Perce Forest Plan in 1995
and is incorporated as Amendment 20. PACFISH establishes riparian goals, riparian
management objectives (RMOs), and defines riparian habitat conservation areas
(RHCAs). It includes specific direction for land management activities within riparian
areas adjacent to streams, lakes, wetlands, and landslide-prone terrain. Riparian goals
establish an expectation of the characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds,
riparian areas, and fish habitat. The goals direct the Forest to maintain or improve
habitat elements such as water quality, stream channel integrity, instream flows, riparian
vegetation, and several others.
Riparian management objectives (RMOs) for stream channel condition provide the
criteria against which attainment, or progress toward attainment, of the riparian goals is
measured. They include habitat attributes such as number of pools, amount of large
Appendix P
Page P-121
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
wood in the channel, stability of the stream banks, and width-to-depth ratio. The areas
adjacent to streams and wetlands (RHCAs) were established in PACFISH to maintain
the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Healthy riparian areas are essential to maintaining
or improving the quality offish habitat in streams. This analysis will use a combination of
DFC and RMO values to define existing conditions in watersheds where activities occur.
DIRECTION IN PACFISH SPECIFIC TO TIMBER MANAGEMENT/SILVICULTURE INCLUDES THE
FOLLOWING:
PROHIBIT TIMBER HARVEST. INCLUDING FUEL WOODCUTTING. IN RHCAs. EXCEPT IN THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
• Where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect
damage result in degraded riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuel wood
cutting in RHCAs only where present and future debris needs are met, where
• cutting would not retard or prevent attainment of RMOs, and where adverse
effects on anadromous fish can be avoided.
« Apply silviculture practices for RHCAs to acquire desired vegetation
characteristics where needed to attain RMOs. Apply silviculture practices is a
manner that does not retard attainment of RMOs and that avoid adverse effects
on listed anadromous fish.
DIRECTION IN PACFISH SPECIFIC TO FIRE/FUELS MANAGEMENT AND RELEVANT TO THIS
PROJECT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:
• Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions so
as not to prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, and to
minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation.
• Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify
those instances where fire suppression or fuel management actions could
perpetuate or be damaging to long-term ecosystem function, listed anadromous
fish, or designated critical habitat.
DIRECTION IN PACFISH SPECIFIC TO RECREATION MANAGEMENT AND RELEVANT TO THIS
PROJECT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:
• Design, construct, and operate recreation facilities, including trails and dispersed
sites, in a manner that does not retard or prevent attainment of Riparian
Management Objectives and avoids adverse effects on listed anadromous fish...
Relocate or close recreation facilities where Riparian Management Objectives
cannot be met or adverse effects on listed anadromous fish avoided.
• Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent
attainment of RMOs or adversely affect listed anadromous fish. Where
adjustment measures such as education, use limitations, traffic control devices,
increased maintenance, relocation of facilities, and/or specific site closures are
not effective in meeting RMOs and avoiding adverse effects on listed
anadromous fish, eliminate the practice or occupancy.
DIRECTION IN PACFISH SPECIFIC TO FISHERIES/WILDLIFE RESTORATION INCLUDES THE
FOLLOWING:
• Design and implement fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement
actions in a manner that contributes to attainment of RMOs.
Appendix P
PageP-122
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY AND SEDIMENT ROUTING
Stream gradient is an important parameter that has implications for sediment transport
and deposition. It is also related to fish habitat quality, since many species prefer lower
gradient stream reaches for certain life stages. Lower gradient reaches on 3rd to 5th
order streams in the project area are particularly well-suited for Chinook salmon and
steelhead spawning. The data below were compiled with CIS methods using the
1:24,000 scale NHD stream layer and 30 meter DEM data.
TABLE B.3: PERCENT STREAM LENGTH BY GRADIENT CLASSES - AMERICAN RIVER
Watershed Name
Middle American River1
East Fork American
River1
Flint Creek
Whitaker Creek
Queen Creek
Box Sing Creek
Kirks Fork
Lower
American River1
Stream Miles
12.8
19.6
23.8
4.6
4.8
4.1
26.8
17.7
<2%
45
12
13
6
6
11
8
53
2-4%
12
12
20
2
12
6
8
4
4-10%
34
28
34
46
67
36
37
12
10-20%
9
39
26
33
16
46
35
29
20-40%
0
9
7
12
0
0
11
2
>40%
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
TABLE B.4: PERCENT STREAM LENGTH BY GRADIENT CLASSES - CROOKED RIVER
Watershed Name
Middle Crooked River2
Relief Creek
Lower Crooked River1
Stream Miles
50.2
23.2
40.0
<2%
10
14
20
2-4%
8
5
2
4-10%
26
36
15
10-20%
39
34
39
20-40%
17
11
21
>40%
0
0
4
SEDIMENT ROUTING
Sediment routing considers the disposition of sediment within the watershed system,
including processes of erosion, deposition, storage and transport. It includes upslope
and instream components. The upslope component includes initial detachment, erosion
and delivery efficiency. The instream component includes suspended and bedload
sediment yield, as well as substrate deposition and composition. The instream
component also includes consideration of streamflow and channel morphology, both of
which influence the capability of the stream to transport or deposit sediment.
Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds
2 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds
Appendix P
Page P-123
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
EROSION AND DELIVERY PROCESSES
The erosion process initiates with detachment of material. Detachment can occur
through weathering processes such as frost heave or raindrop impact. Erosion can
occur as dry ravel, surface erosion (e.g. sheet, rill and gully) and mass erosion (e.g.
debris avalanches, slumps and earthflows). The rate of each is dependent on climate,
landforms, geology, soils and exposure of mineral soil. For freshly exposed materials,
surface erosion is probably the dominant process in the Red River landscape. Transport
occurs when rainfall or snowmelt generate water in sufficient quantities to carry the
detached materials.
In most cases, a large proportion of eroded material is stored on the landscape without
being delivered to the channel system. Storage can take place in hollows and flats or
behind obstructions. It can also occur on slopes if the water transporting the material
infiltrates. Delivery efficiency has been estimated for each landtype on the NPNF.
Sediment is considered to be delivered to the channel system when it reaches a stream
with defined bed and banks. Within the sediment model, this is assumed to occur at a
catchment area of 1 mi2 (USDA Forest Service, 1981).
INSTREAM PROCESSES
Once sediment is delivered to the channel system, it is subject to transport or deposition.
Transport can occur as suspended or bedload sediment. Fine materials, such as clay,
silt and fine sand are transported in the water column as suspended sediment. This
material usually travels through the system rapidly and only deposits in still water. It
contributes to the turbidity that is seen during runoff events. During active runoff periods
the travel time of suspended sediment through the Red River watershed and out of the
South Fork Clearwater River subbasin is less than 24 hours. Monitoring at gaging
stations in nearby Red River has indicated that suspended sediment constitutes about
40 percent to 60 percent of the annual sediment yield (Gloss, 1995). Recent analyses
with a larger dataset suggest that suspended sediment may be a higher proportion of
total sediment yield.
Bedload sediment moves along the channel bottom and typically consists of medium
and coarse sand, gravel and cobble. Boulders may occasionally move as bedload, but
only for short distances in any given event. Bedload transport and deposition is a
complex and intermittent process. It is highly dependent on stream energy in terms of
streamflow and channel morphology. Under given conditions of streamflow, a river
could transport or deposit bedload sediment in different reaches or habitat units,
depending on gradient and cross-sectional characteristics. Bedload transport is an
episodic process that occurs at higher streamflows, with the majority occurring at
discharges approaching bankfull and above. Under low and moderate flow conditions,
very little if any bedload is in transport.
Materials of various sizes are deposited between episodes of transport. Deposition can
involve fines (i.e. sand) intruding into coarse substrates or covering the stream bottom.
When large amounts of coarse substrates are deposited, aggradation and changes in
bedforms can result. In some cases this can lead to further adjustments, such as bank
erosion and changes in channel morphology. Storage of deposited sediment within a
Appendix P
PageP-124
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
given habitat unit or reach may be relatively short, for example between flow events or
seasons. In other cases, storage can be on the order of years to indefinitely.
Stream gradients for the American and Crooked River watersheds are described above
in Tables E.3 and E.4. Lower gradient reaches are particularly susceptible to sediment
deposition and relatively long term storage. With regard to sediment deposition and
transport, one classification system suggests that channels with <3 percent gradient can
be considered response reaches and channels with >3 percent gradient can be
considered either transport or source reaches (Montgomery and Buffington, 1993).
In subwatersheds affected by project activities in American River, Middle American and
Lower American both have >45 percent of their channel system with gradient <2
percent. Conversely, the other subwatersheds all have >60 percent of their channel
system with gradient >4 percent. In subwatersheds affected by project activities in
Crooked River, all have >60 percent of their channel system with gradient >4 percent.
FLOW REGIME
The flow regime for American and Crooked Rivers is similar to the upper South Fork
Clearwater River. The data represented below were collected by the USGS just
upstream of the mouth of Crooked River. Though discontinued in 1974, this stream
gage was re-established in 2002 and is currently in operation.
FIGURE B.3: ANNUAL HYDROGRAPH
SFK
4000
3500
3000 -
2500
(/) ^-^UU
u. 2000
1500
1000
500
n -
Clearwater River nr Elk City
1945-1974
— — Median Daily Flow .... Min Daily Flow
1
ft/1 J
J'J
F
I
U\
|
1 1 n
jJLk>JlrJW
Oct Nov
/^ A
\(i^r^ s+*
v^J s^ ^. •
K\
1 -
Vs
\
V,
>-V>^.__
Dec1-flan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept
Appendix P
Page P-125
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
AQUATIC MODEL DISCLOSURES
This section discloses the assumptions, limitations, management thresholds, and field
tests associated with the three aquatic effects models used in the American and
Crooked River project analysis. The models are Equivalent Clearcut Area (EGA),
NEZSED, and FISHSED.
EQUIVALENT CLEARCUT AREA (EGA)
The EGA model procedures are derived from Forest Hydrology, Part II (USDA Forest
Service, 1974). Equivalent Clearcut Area (EGA) analysis is a tool used to index the
relationship between vegetation condition and water yield from forested watersheds.
The basic assumptions of the procedure are that removal of forest vegetation results in
water yield increases and that EGA can be used as an index of these increases.
Depending on the interaction between water yield, sediment yield, and stream channel
conditions, such increases could have impacts on stream channels.
Water yield increases can be directly modeled, but equivalent clearcut area (EGA) is
often used as a surrogate. The EGA model is designed to estimate changes in mean
annual streamflow resulting from forest practices or treatments (reading, timber harvest,
and fires), which remove or reduce vegetative cover, and is usually expressed as a
percent of watershed area (Belt, 1980). The index takes into account the initial
percentage of crown removal and the recovery through regrowth of vegetation since the
initial disturbance. For purposes of this assessment, EGA will be used to index changes
in water yield through time based on timber harvest and reading disturbances.
There are a number of physical factors that determine the relationship between canopy
conditions and water yield. These include interception, evapotranspiration, shading
effects and wind flux. These factors affect the accumulation and melt rates of snow
packs and how rainfall is processed. The EGA analysis takes into account the initial
percentage of crown removal and the recovery through vegetative re-growth since the
initial disturbance in the case of timber harvest or fire. Within the habitat types being
treated under this project, the time frame for complete EGA recovery to occur is
estimated to be 65 to 85 years (USDA Forest Service, 1974).
Additional factors affecting water yield include compacted surfaces due to roads, skid
trails, and landings. Existing and new roads are considered as permanent openings in
the EGA model. Decommissioned roads are considered as openings, so the road
decommissioning projects do not contribute to reductions in EGA.
The EGA model does not directly account for the effects of peak flows. Peaks flows in
the project area are nearly always associated with spring snowmelt, at times
accompanied by rainfall. This can be seen in Figured E.3. Winter rain-on-snow events
are historically rare and only infrequently exceed the spring runoff peak. About 3
percent of annual peak flow events have occurred during the winter months of
November through March (USDA Forest Service, 1998). The effects of peaks flows are
considered using professional judgment in the interpretation of EGA effects on stream
channels.
Various EGA thresholds of concern have been in use in the Northern Region since the
1960s (Gerhardt, 2000). Early cutting guides recommended a limit of 20-30 percent
Appendix P
PageP-126
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
EGA within a watershed (Haupt, 1967). More recently, EGA thresholds have been
rejuvenated through consultation under the Endangered Species Act. A recent
Biological Opinion stipulated that watershed analysis should be conducted prior to
actions that would increase EGA in 3rd to 5th order priority watersheds where EGA
exceeds 15 percent (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1995).
Recently, concern over water yield changes relative to stream channel condition has
focused on smaller headwater catchments. Research in the nearby Horse Creek
watershed study have demonstrated instantaneous peak flow increase up to 34 percent
and maximum daily flow increases up to 87 percent, resulting from road construction and
timber harvest in small catchments (King, 1989). Recent observations have suggested
that channel erosion from these streams may be contributing to increased bedload
sediment in the 3rd order receiving channel (Gerhardt, 2002).
The studies by Belt (1980) and King (1989) have also served as field tests of the EGA
procedure. Belt concluded that the EGA procedure is a rational tool for evaluation of
hydrologic impacts of forest practices. King recommended local calibration of the model
and a greater emphasis on conditions in 1st and 2nd order headwater streams.
NEZSED
NEZSED is a computer model tiered to the R1R4 guidelines (Cline, et al, 1981),
developed by hydrologists and soil scientists from the Intermountain Research Station
and the Northern and Intermountain Regions of the Forest Service. The model
estimates the average annual natural or base rate of sediment yield, and surface erosion
sediment yield produced from roads, logging, and fire. The model is limited in that it
does not consider the effects of activities on mass erosion greater than 10 cubic yards.
It also does not include the effects of grazing and most instream and mining activities.
Effects of land uses other than roads, logging and fire are analyzed using other
information and techniques.
For this analysis, NEZSED was used to model timber harvest, temporary road
construction, reconstruction of existing roads and road decommissioning. Activities
under this project that are not modeled are soil restoration, trail improvements,
recreation site improvements and stream channel restoration. The effects of these other
activities were considered in the overall aquatic analysis and conclusions.
Though the model shows annual variations in response to land use, it does not estimate
variations due to climate or weather events. NEZSED is not an event-based model in
that sediment yield does not vary in accordance with specific assumed runoff or erosion
events. It estimates average annual sediment yields. However, modeling coefficients
are the result of a research base that includes the cumulative result of individual storm
and runoff events. Thus, the effects of storm events are incorporated into the model
coefficients, though the model results are expressed in terms of average annual yields.
Though NEZSED does not model large activity-related mass erosion events, effects of
such events are considered in the effects analysis. This is done through mapping of
landslide prone terrain and avoidance of areas deemed to possess high hazard and
mitigation of areas deemed to possess moderate hazards. Mass erosion occurrences
were also noted during field inventories.
Appendix P
PageP-127
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
Management thresholds for sediment yield were established in Appendix A of the Nez
Perce National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1987). These include sediment yield
guidelines, expressed as peak year percent over base sediment yield, and entry
frequency guidelines, expressed as the number of times per decade that sediment yield
guidelines can be equaled. For the American and Crooked River project, these
guidelines are found in Tables E.1 and E.2.
NEZSED has been tested against field sampled data in several studies at three scales of
watersheds across the Nez Perce National Forest (Gerhardt, 2005). The first study
compared measured and modeled natural sediment yields at fifteen small watersheds
that are tributaries to .Horse Creek, which is a tributary of the Meadow Creek watershed
draining into the Lower Selway Subbasin (Gerhardt and King, 1987). These watersheds
ranged in size from 0.08 to 0.57 square miles. Annual sediment yield was sampled with
sediment detention basins, suspended sediment samples, and streamflow gaging. Of
the fifteen tributaries sampled, the model over-predicted sediment yield on nine sites and
under-predicted on six sites. The mean result was that the model over-predicted by
about 23 percent.
The second study evaluated data from eight stream gaging stations on the Nez Perce
National Forest, ranging in size from 5.7 to 113 square miles. Three of these were
located within the South Fork Clearwater Subbasin (Gloss, 1995). At six stations, the
field data consisted of suspended and bedload sediment samples, along with streamflow
gaging. At two stations, sediment yield was estimated through the use of sediment
detention basins and streamflow gaging. This study found that NEZSED under-
predicted sediment yields at six stations and over-predicted at two stations, when
compared to observed data from field sampling during water years 1986 through 1993.
For the three stations within the South Fork Clearwater Subbasin, field-sampled
sediment yields averaged about 30 tons/mi2/yr. and modeled sediment yields averaged
about 12 tons/mi2/yr. In general, the model predicted better in average to below average
water years, and more significantly under-predicted in above average water years.
A third study to test the NEZSED model compared field sampled and modeled sediment
yield at the subbasin scale, using data from the South Fork Clearwater and Selway
Rivers. Sampling in both rivers occurred between 1988 and 1992 and consisted of 52
suspended sediment samples. The South Fork data were collected at the Mt. Idaho
Bridge, near the forest boundary where the watershed area is about 830 square miles.
When calculated as annual sediment yield, these data suggest an annual sediment yield
at this site of 17,880 tons/year, or about 22 tons/mi2/yr. Sediment yield.predictions at
this site, based on NEZSED, were estimated to be 15,080 tons per year, or about 18
tons/mi2/yr (USDA Forest Service, 1998).
The Selway River data were collected at the USGS gage near Ohara Creek, where the
watershed area is about 1910 square miles. When calculated as annual sediment yield,
these data suggest a sediment yield at this site of 54,900 tons/year, or if adjusted to the
mouth, 55,700 tons/year. The watershed area at the mouth is 1974 square miles, so the
sediment production is 28 tons/mi2 /yr. Sediment predictions based on modeled
sediment at the mouth of the Selway River were 54,400 tons/year or about 27.5
tons/mi2/yr (USDA Forest Service, 2001).
A fourth study (Thomas and King, 2004) tested NEZSED against measured data at
stream gages in Red River and South Fork Red River. Results showed that NEZSED
Appendix P
PageP-128
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
predicted 74 percent and 89 percent, respectively, of field-sampled sediment yield over a
16-year period at these two gaging stations. The model results were closer to measured
values at these two stations than found in the Gloss study.
FISHSED
The Guide for Predicting Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields in Idaho Batholith
Watersheds (Fishsed model) has been used in this project to predict the effect of
sediment yields on stream habitat and fish populations. This model is based on
assumptions and has limitations.
The assumptions of the Fishsed model are listed in Appendix A of the model
documentation (Stowell et al, 1983). Some of the key assumptions with influence on the
limitations of this model include: 1) on those Forests in which mass erosion is a
significant hazard, predicted sediment yield will include a mass erosion component. The
American and Crooked River Project does not occur in a landscape where mass erosion
is a significant hazard. 2) The relative response of salmonid fish populations to
increased levels of sediment and percent fines in the substrate as depicted in laboratory
studies approximates the response under natural conditions. The model documentation
(p. 6) describes studies that support this assumption and others that show some
differences.
The Fishsed model has other recognized limitations including: 1) the model simplifies an
extremely complex physical and biological system and is developed from limited
scientific knowledge (p. 2). The complex sequence of sediment movement from the
slopes to the channel, transport down, and deposition in a channel reach, and its effect
on fish habitats and populations have not been fully described (p. 5). 2) The method
was developed for watersheds and fish species associated with the Idaho Batholith (p.
4), using data from the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forest. Given the source of
the original data, the model is applicable to the American and Crooked River Project. 3)
The specific fish response curves in this model were partially developed from laboratory
experiments and may constitute only partial simulation of natural conditions (p. 6). 4)
The model evaluates embryo survival, winter carrying capacity, and summer rearing
capacity. While invertebrate insect abundance may be directly affected by sediment, the
relationship between sediment deposition and invertebrate production is not included in
the model (p. 10). 5) The utilization of channel types to stratify fish response, particularly
with respect to the modeling of "A" channel types, may not realistically represent
changes in fish habitat (p. 21). 6) The model does not include a 'recovery function' that
predicts the changes in substrate condition based on natural flow events. 7) The model
was calibrated to the original Nez Perce Forest sediment model and landtypes, which
have been updated since model development. No subsequent testing or validation of
the model has occurred on the Forest. 8) The model outputs are reasonable estimates,
but are not absolute numbers of high statistical precision (p. 6). As appropriate given
this limitation, the model ^outputs have been used by the fisheries biologists in this
project in combination with sound biological judgment.
SEDIMENT YIELD GRAPHS
The following graphs show percent over base sediment yield by alternative for each
analysis point in the American and Crooked River watersheds. These are the same data
Appendix P
Page P-129
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
shown in tables in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Section 3.2. - Watershed,
except for the entire 10-year modeling period.
AMERICAN RIVER
FIGURES B.4A-H: SEDIMENT YIELD - AMERICAN RIVER
Middle American
0)
(A
rc
00
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
Flint Cr
Forest Guidelines -•— alt a -*- alt b -*— alt c -*— alt d -•— alt e
% Over Base
70,
60 *
50 -
40 T
or» .
oU
20 -
10 -
0 -
Whitaker Cr
•\ 1 * — » » •» -• ' A.
\ I
"^^•^^'^•^ • • • I
* • • I I I
u ^ ' ' ' "' i T r 1 t
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
-•- Forest Guidelines -*- alt a -A- alt b -*- alt c -*- alt d -•- alt e
Appendix P
Page P-131
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
Queen Ck
0)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
• Forest Guidelines-
• alt a
-altb
• altc
-altd
• alte
Kirks Fk
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
•#REF!
•alt a
•altb
altc
altd
•alte
Appendix P
PageP-132
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
0)
(A
m
0
o
Lower American
35 y— ~— ™____^^
30 <
20 -
15 1
10 -
5 -
0 -
20(
•
'
j
' ™ 'III l~ 1 1 ; 1
)3 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
-•-Forest Guidelines+-alt a-«-alt b-*-alt c-a-alt d-*-alt e
CROOKED RIVER
FIGURES B.SA-C: SEDIMENT YIELD - CROOKED RIVER
Middle Crooked River
35 00
3000
8> 25 00
CO
m 20 00 -
> 1500-
o
v£ 10 00
5.00-
000
|
• -^-* |
uv/ ' ' ' ' — i r— 1 — "-I " ' • |. -......-;
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
-•- Forest Guidelines -•_ alt a -A- alt b -*_ alt c -»- alt d -•- alt e
Appendix P
PageP-133
-------
American River/Crooked River -Environmental Impact Statement
Relief Creek
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
-*-
Forest
Guidelines
-•-alt a
-A-
altb
-*-
altc
-K-
altd
-•-
alte
0)
V)
m
CO
i_
o>
O
55
35.00 -
ic r\r\
ZO.UU
on <~\n
£.(J.(J(J
15.00
10.00 -
.00
Lower Crooked River
|
|
I
|
•——^^H3^^^Sf^^—!5HBS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^jit^_^__M-——^-— •-———-—• I
I
. UU -' ~T"" " " r~ T" T ' ""r " ' '
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
—•— Forest Guidelines • alt a — A— alt b >< alt c — «— alt d • alt e
WATER TEMPERATURE
Water temperature data were collected in the American/Crooked project watersheds
during the summer of 2003. These data are shown in Figures B-7 and B-8. Data have
been collected on the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River at the Mt. Idaho Bridge
since 1993. These are summarized in Table B-5 to provide a perspective on the 2003
summer. It is apparent that 2003 was the warmest summer in the past 10 years in terms
of water temperature in the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin.
Appendix P
PageP-134
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE B.BA-D: AMERICAN RIVER 2003 WATER TEMPERATURE
American River Daily Max Temps 2003
COCNlCQ
OO
h- T-
r^r^-i —
ooo
i i i i—m—TT~T—i i i i i—rr-
yi^^S£^£-8£i?;§§2£8S8
fe£§§§§§§l§ggggggg
American River @ Mouth -*- American @ Bdry — EF American
O
American River Daily Max Temps 2003
American River @ Mouth -*- American @ Bdry — — EF American
Appendix P
PageP-135
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
American River 7-day Max Temps 2003
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
07/14 07/24 08/03 08/13 08/23 09/02 09/12 09/22
-American River @ Mouth m American @ Bdry EF American
American River Tribs 7-day Max Temps 2003
08/23 09/02 09/12 09/22
i i i i — i
07/14 07/24 08/03
-Flint Creek —•— Kirks Fk —•—Queen Creek
Appendix P
Page P-136
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
FIGURE B.TA-D: CROOKED RIVER 2003 WATER TEMPERATURE
24
?o
o
0)
8 12
Crooked River Daily Max Temps 2003
A
••
•i
Crooked Mouth
ief Cr
Crooked River Tribs Daily Max Temps 2003
o
S5
• I
I I
•Quartz Creek Relief Creek —x— Silver Creek
Appendix P
PageP-137
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
Crooked River 7-day max
24
o
(A
S
O)
0)
16
O>
o
'I' I" I I I I I "|""|""l""l | "I I "I' I ' i M
CD CM O
I1 I I I I I' 1"l I I I illl Mil Mill I
CD ' CO O CD
^
o
OO
o
OO
o
OO
o
OO
o
CO
o
}
o
I I I "I
CO
35
o
I I I I I 1 I I I I 'I
o r—
CT>
o
O)
o
Crooked Mouth
Crooked blw Relief Cr
Crooked River Tribs 7-day max
Quartz Qeek
Relief Creek
Sil\«r Creek
WATER QUIALJTY DATA
Water quality data were collected by the Nez Perce National Forest at several locations
in the project area during the period of 1974 - 1981. These are useful for general
characterization of water quality conditions. The lowest numbers of samples were taken
for pH and the larger numbers of samples were taken for conductivity and alkalinity.
Some key water quality parameters are summarized in the tables below:
Appendix P
Page P-138
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE B.5: WATER QUALITY DATA - AMERICAN RIVER
Site Name
Upper
American
Flint
Creek
Lower
American
STORET
Number
NEXY04
NETW20
NEXT05
Number of
Samples
15-49
4-29
5-37
PH
Mean
6.7
6.9
6.8
Range
6.3-
7.4
6.4-
7.4
6.8-
6.8
Conductivity
(Mmhos)
Mean
27
20
22
Range
20-45
16-29
18-33
Alkalinity
(mg/l)
Mea
n
15
11
12
Range
8-26
7-18
6-21
TABLE B.6: WATER QUALITY DATA- CROOKED RIVER
Site Name
Crooked
River
Relief Creek
STORET
Number
NETWO
NETW10
Number of
Samples
12
24-50
PH
Mean
NA
7.1
Range
NA
6.2-
8.0
Conductivity
(umhos)
Mean
21
22
Range
12-31
10-34
Alkalinity
(mg/l)
Mea
n
NA
14
Range
NA
10-21
Sampling in Crooked River-was limited in the studies summarized above. A subsequent
water quality study was conducted in 1986 and 1987. In four samples taken under this
study, pH ranged from 7.3 to 7.5, conductivity ranged from 35 to 47 umhos, and
alkalinity ranged from 18 to 20 mg/l (Mann and Von Lindern, 1988).
AQUATIC TREND ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION TO TREND ANALYSIS
To assess the expected trend in aquatic habitat condition, from the variety of influences
both quantitative and qualitative, the activities and their expected contribution to aquatic
condition are summarized in a table below. The table is a summary of the expected
influence of the alternatives on the aquatic conditions in the American and Crooked
River watersheds respectively. It does not represent an assessment of cumulative
effects, or expected trend within specific subwatersheds. Various activities are
considered with respect to the variety of aquatic processes that they potentially affect.
The contribution to the overall aquatic condition is estimated in terms of positive
influence (denoted by "+") where the activity is expected to contribute to an improvement
in condition, and a negative influence (denoted by "-") where the activity is expected to
contribute to degradation in aquatic condition. The amount of influence a specific activity
is expected to have on the overall aquatic condition (either positive or negative) is
represented by a ranking of high (H), moderate (M), or low (L). Activities rated "High-
are those that are expected to have a significant effect at the watershed scale
(considering both scope and magnitude). Those rated as "Moderate" are those activities
Appendix P
Page P-139
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
that are expected to have a significant local effect (i.e. at the subwatershed scale), but
not result in a significant effect at the watershed scale. Those activities rated "Low" are
expected to have only a negligible effect both at the subwatershed and watershed scale.
All of the processes potentially affected by an activity are listed in the table. No ranking
represents 'no expected' influence on conditions from this project. The expected
contribution of a specific activity on aquatic condition is considered both in terms of
short-term and long-term. Short-term influence is judged to be the immediate results of
implementing the activity, generally expected to be around a 5-year timeframe. Long-
term influence is judged to be the influence the activity will have on aquatic condition as
a result of changes in processes and resource conditions that will over time result in
changes in aquatic habitat condition. The timeframe for this influence is greater than 5
years.
TREND ANALYSIS - AMERICAN RIVER
TABLE B.7: AQUATIC TREND ANALYSIS - AMERICAN RIVER
Action
"c
o
GO
£
§
o
•c
0
CO
o
-L
-L
-M
-L
§
en
o
O
±;
•c
2
3
cr
a>
£
§ >
« "c
5-°
o
£
V)
Q
-L
-L
-M
-L
•o
tt C
i-o
D)
5
a
•a
2
3
a _
£ n
i ~
H 'S
°!
^ +
Q
±i
-L
-L
-M
-L
•o
0)
3
o-
V —
a: g
§"<
3
Q
I
£
•c
O
CO
UJ
-L
-L
E
H
O)
C
o
UJ
•4-*
Appendix P
Page P-140
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
Action
•o
CD "c
r- Q)
o E
O CD
cc o
~° c"
c£
O)
c
.g
U)
E
0
o
r
o
to
CO
-M
-L
+L
-L
+L
+L
O)
1
CO
+L
+L
+L
+L
«
o
ta
o
-M
-L
+L
-L
+L
+L
E
ro
o
0
+L
+L
+L
+L
ll
If
IQf
o
Q
£
-M
-L
+L
-L
+L
+L
1
'5
0
E
0 '
01
1
o
+L
+L
+L
+L
"O
2
5
V
« _
Ct n
i!
to
Q
*:
-M
-M
+M
-L
+M
+M
0
"3
0 —
te. m
§1
O
+M
+M
+M
+M
L
t:
o
(0
UJ
x
-L
-M
+M-
-L
+M
+M
E
0
0)
1
UJ
+M
+M
+M
+M
Appendix P
Page P-141
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
Action
C
g
"ro
o
"55 '
o
"o
c
0) O
® E
c ^
is 8
. cc
jo
*i
_E
Process
Affected
Surface
erosion
Mass
failure risk
Infiltration,
runoff,
peaks
Riparian
Shade
Surface
Erosion
Infiltration,
runoff, etc.
Riparian
Interaction
, shade
Surface
Erosion
Infiltration,
Runoff,
etc.
Riparian
Interaction
, Shade
Characteristic
indicator
Pulse & chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian
Condition
Pulse &
Chronic
Sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian
Conditions
Pulse &
Chronic
Sediment
Hydrologic
Processes
Riparian
Condition
0)
r
o
V)
5
E
TO
1
<
1' •.:"-.:: -::;;; :. . , .:- ; - -: %, • :• v-:;: '\&&. - : *•;•.}* - :* -:; v. ;
;j|f;iy^8i'po^s®:
• "••"•-1"1 .•••..••:-•-• ••••••.• •-:-:-•-•;•-'••:-:::_ JJ^' :;"•::
<
+L
+L
E
O)
o
CD
<
+L
+L
a>
r
o
CO
o
"*'
+L
+L
D)
O
0
<
+L
+L
I
3
0)
«"c
o
to
a
S£
+L
+L
TJ
£
3
cr
0)
,* "=
•-o
O)
o
o
JS
+L
+L
T3
2
3
O1
O _
C£. m
E .0
i?
to
a
±i
+M
+L
irig Terrri Required 1 1
fAdlitibnalf^r^lS'?!
_i
Q
+M
+L
£
o
«
o
to
UJ
**
+M
+L
E
5
01
o
ill
+M
+L
The expected short-term consequences of the American and Crooked River project on
aquatic condition in American River are fairly balanced between positive and negative
influences. The factors contributing to a short-term reduction in aquatic condition are
principally related to the sediment pulse generated from the implementation of the action
(timber harvest, temporary road construction, road decommissioning, road
reconstruction and improvement, and culvert replacement. The temporary road
construction is judged to be the largest contributor to this influence, followed by the
harvest activities, road decommissioning, and road reconstruction and improvement.
The factors contributing to an immediate short-term improvement in aquatic condition
are related to; the reduction in chronic sediment and improvement in the hydrologic
process from road decommissioning, road reconstruction and improvement, and soil
restoration; and the immediate improvements in habitat accessibility from culvert
upgrades and road decommissioning are judged to be the largest contributors to this
improvement.
Appendix P
Page P-142
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
The expected long-term consequences of the American and Crooked River project on
aquatic condition in the American River watershed are all positive. The road
decommissioning and improved habitat accessibility from the culvert upgrades are
judged to be the largest contributors to long-term improved aquatic conditions. The
reduction in chronic sediment and improved hydrologic process from the road
decommissioning, road improvement, and soil restoration are the other contributors to
this expected improvement. The amount of the improvement associated with this later
group of activities is rated low due to the amount of this work being completed with this
project with respect to the remaining amount of degraded mainstem habitat, roads and
compacted soils in the American River watershed. These will continue to contribute
negatively to these aquatic processes. Planned Bureau of Land Management work in
this drainage will further improve in channel and riparian conditions along the mainstem
as well as tributary streams.
The above ratings by activity can be summarized by the effect pathways by assigning a
value to the Low, Moderate, and High ranking (L=1, M=2, H=3). The table below
summarizes the alternatives by the effect pathway and for the alternative in general
(total).
TABLE E 8: AQUATIC TREND SUMMARY - AMERICAN RIVER
Action
£.
E
w
Process
Affected
Surface
Erosion
Mass Failure
Risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Riparian
Shade
LWD
Recruitment
Fish passage
Habitat
Quality
Characteristic
Indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian shade
Acting LWD
Habitat
availability
Channel
Dimensions
TOTAL
£
0)
r
0
V)
4-1
O)
o
2
<^
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
u
-2
1
r
o
to
CO
^
-6
0
1
0
0
1
U
-4
I-
o>
o
CO
*-f
«3I
2
0
3
0
0
1
U
6
i
i-
0
tn
u
^
-6
0
1
0
0
1
U
-4
I
D)
§
O
^
2
0
3
0
0
1
U
fi
I
o-
o
a:
If
1~* ^"^
O
/>
3
s
4
-6
0
1
0
0
1
0
-4
•a
P
3
«T
«
1- <•
§
— I
a
•**
2
0
3
0
0
1
0
fi
?
o-
(U _
a; jS
l|
^
c +
o
D
W
-7
0
4
0
0
2
0
-1
Y
"5
JT
0) —
1-2
ffi »
"B
o +
o
**
3
0
6
0
0
2
0
11
I
r
o
x:
UJ
-4
0
5
0
0
2
0
3
3
0)
o
_1
UJ
7
3
0
6
0
0
2
0
11
The No Action alternative in American River suggests no change in the short term, but a
slight negative trend in the long term related to fire risk associated with untreated stands.
Alternatives B, C, and D (the latter with only required improvement projects) suggest a
short term negative effect, followed by long term improving trend. Alternative D,
including the required and additional improvement projects, suggests a slight short-term
Appendix P
Page P-143
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
negative effect, followed by a greater long term improving trend than the previous action
alternatives. Alternative E suggests a slight short term improvement, followed by a
similar long term improving trend as Alternative D, when both required and additional
improvement projects are considered. The larger amount of improving trend in
Alternatives D and E occur in large part as a result of the greater amount of road
decommissioning, when both required and additional projects are considered.
TREND ANALYSIS - CROOKED RIVER
TABLE B.9: AQUATIC TREND ANALYSIS - CROOKED RIVER
Action
tn
"c
o>
"(3
h-
O
3
Q)
D)
0)
C
O
"55
c
•3
0
cc
2
0
a.
tu
c »-
i— Q)
o £
O 0)
£K o
73 R
Co £-
O —
a:
Process
Affected
Surface
Erosion
Mass Failure
Risk •
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Solar heating
LWD
Recruitment
Surface
erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Fish passage
Riparian
shade
LWD
Recruitment
Surface
erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Fish passage
Characteristic
indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian shade
Potential LWD
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Habitat
availability
Riparian condition
Potential LWD
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse Sediment
Hydrologic
process
Habitat
availability
|
•c
O
.E
CO
«-»
o
0>
o
*••
-L
-L
<3
t;
o
CO
CD
*•*
-M
-L
-M
-L
-M
E
o
O)
1
CO
*;
O
•c
O
i" c
ll
-M
-L
-M
-L
-M
£ >
o
Q^
O i-
-""5
to
£§
m "f"
i?
CO "0
•o S
*• "5
< IT
0)
DC
-M
-L
-M
-M
-M
(0
m *"
*~ ~o
ol
0)
0£
E
i*
•c
o
CO
UJ
-M
-L
-M
-L
-M
E
r~
O)
1
ill
*•»
Appendix P
Page P-144
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
Action
en
'E
o
'to
I
E
0
0)
Q
•o
8
CC
D)
0 g
E 2
ro Q.
(I) P
CO
CO
~
CD
o c
08 "2
0) •«
CD CC
O
c
c
o
CD
1
=
1 0
CO
Process
Affected
Surface
erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Fish Passage
Riparian
Shade
LWD
Recruitment
Surface
erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
runoff, peaks
Fish passage
Construction
sediment
Habitat
Quality
Riparian
shade
LWD
Recruitment
Surface
erosion
Mass failure
risk
Infiltration,
unoff, peaks
Riparian
Shade
Characteristic
indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Habitat
availability
Riparian
Condition
Potential LWD
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Habitat
availability
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Channel
Dimensions
Riparian
Condition
Acting LWD
Pulse & chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian
Condition
J
Q)
C
M
*-•
<
-L
i
0)
O
**"
-L
-L
-L
o>
•e
o
£
CO
CO
4
-L
+L
-L
+L
+L
-L
+M
+M
+L
§
ra
o
CO
<
+L
+L
+L
+L
+M
+L
+M
+L
0)
•c
O
CO
o
<
-L
+L
-L
+L
+L
-L
+M
+M
+L
!
D)
O
O
161
+L
+L
+L
+L
+M
+L
+M
+L
I""
E >
o c
II
CO ";
<
-L
+L
-L
+L
+L
-L
+M
+M
+L
£>
II
Q E
<
+L
+L
+L
+L
+M
+L
+M
+L
M
1 Q) •'
o
< j
c
-M
+M
-M
+M
+M
-M
+H
+H
+M
n
l|
r!
-j-o
Q 2
< 0
0)
o:
+M
+L
+M
+M
+M
+H
+M
+H
+M
1 E
•c
o
to
in
<
-M
+M
-M
I+M
+M
-M
+H
+H
+M
1
t-
D)
j
UJ
<
+M.
+L
+M
+M
+M
+H
+M
+H
+M
Appendix P
Page P-145
-------
American River/Crooked River -Environmental Impact Statement
Action
c
0) O
CO ]S
o £
1 8
OZ
.2
= "c
E a
Process
Affected
Surface
Erosion
Infiltration,
runoff, etc.
Riparian
Interaction,
shade
Surface
Erosion
Infiltration,
Runoff, etc.
Riparian
Interaction,
Shade
Characteristic
indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian
Conditions
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Hydrologic
Processes
Riparian
Condition
E
0
•c
o
to
<
*•
if
E
0
O>
1
<
•*-•
^
£
0
r
o
to
to
*j
rf
-L
+L
+L
+L
E
0
TO
1
CD
4->
^
+L
+L
+L
+L
E
0
r
o
JC
to
0
•+••
^
-L
+L
+L
+L
E
0
O)
1
O
4->
^
+L
+L
+L
+L
E >,
0 c
»i
'*— ft*
^
-L
+L
+L
+L
E>
H O
§1
-J'5
™-1 A*
^
+L
+L
+L
+L
(0
M
°> iS
1?
tO TJ
•o E
•E *"3
< CT
oe
-L
+L
+L
+L
(D
C
E .0
Q) JJJ
O +
Q ®
±; '5
< 0
0
cc.
+L
+L
+L
+L
E
i°
o
.E
to
UJ
•<-"
^
-L
+L
+L
+L
E
0
O)
o
Ui
^
+L
+L
+L
+L
The expected short-term consequences of the American and Crooked River project on
aquatic condition in the Crooked River watershed is fairly balanced between positive and
negative influences. The factors contributing to a short-term reduction in aquatic
condition are principally related to the sediment pulse generated from the
implementation of the action (timber harvest, temp road construction, road
decommissioning, road reconstruction and improvement, soil restoration, and in-channel
aquatic improvements). The temporary road construction is judged to be the largest
contributor to this influence, followed by the harvest activities, road decommissioning,
and road reconstruction and improvement. The factors contributing to an immediate
short-term improvement in aquatic condition are related to: the reduction in chronic
sediment and improvement in the hydrologic process from road decommissioning, road
reconstruction and improvement, and soil restoration; and the immediate improvements
in habitat accessibility and riparian and instream conditions from the direct improvement
projects (culvert upgrades, riparian planting, and in channel improvements). The in
channel and riparian restoration are judged to be the largest contributor to this
improvement, followed by the road decommissioning, culvert upgrades, soil restoration,
recreation site and mine site improvements.
The expected long-term consequences of the American and Crooked River project on
aquatic condition in the Crooked River watershed are all positive. The in channel habitat
and riparian restoration work is judged to be the largest contributor to long-term
improved aquatic conditions. The reduction in chronic sediment and improved
hydrologic process from the road decommissioning, road improvement, culvert
Appendix P
Page P-146
-------
American River/Crooked River-Environmental Impact Statement
upgrades, soil restoration, and mine and recreation site improvements are the other
contributors to this expected improvement. The amount of the in channel and riparian
work will contribute correspondingly to the degree of long-term improvement in Crooked
River.
The above ratings by activity can be summarized by the effect pathways by assigning a
value to the Low, Moderate, and High ranking (L=1, M=2, H=3). The table below
summarizes the alternatives by the effect pathway and for the alternative in general
(total).
TABLE B.10: AQUATIC TREND SUMMARY - CROOKED RIVER
Action
TO
E
CO
TOTAL
Process
Affected
Surface
Erosion
Mass
Failure Risk
Infiltration,
.runoff,
peaks
Riparian
Shade
LWD
Recruitment
Fish
passage
Habitat
Quality
Characteristic
Indicator
Pulse & Chronic
Sediment
Pulse sediment
Hydrologic
process
Riparian shade
Acting LWD
Habitat
availability
Channel
Dimensions
E
£
•c
o
JC
CO
4-1
<
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
E
«
O)
o
•4-1
<
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
-1
-3
E
0)
•c
o
CO
ffl
*•»
<
-9
0
3
0
2
1
2
-1
£
<
Is
CO '5
H ^
!l
° §
-------
American River/Crooked River -Environmental Impact Statement
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix P
Page P-148
-------
Appendix Q - Biological Evaluation and Assessment
Biological Assessment
For
ESA Listed Terrestrial Wildlife Species
Canada Lynx (Felis lynx)
Gray Wolf (Cam's Lupus)
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
American and Crooked River Project
Red River Ranger District
Nez Perce National Forest
March 2005
Prepared By: Joanne Bonn, Wildlife Biologist
Mary Ann High, Wildlife Biologist
Reviewed and Approved By:
Mary Ann High, Acting Forest Wildlife Biologist
PAGE 1 OF 24
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix Q
Page Q-2
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Of Effects To
Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Wildlife Species For The
AMERICAN and CROOKED RIVER PROJECT
Introduction
This biological assessment tiers to the Nez Perce Forest Plan and EIS (1987). It incorporates information
from the the South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (SFLA) (1998) and the Draft American
and Crooked River Environmental Impact Statement (ARCR DEIS) (May 2004) including references.
This biological assessment has been prepared to address the potential effects of the preferred alternative
D as described here and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the American and Crooked
River (FEIS) on Canada lynx, gray wolf, and bald eagle.
This document has been prepared in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(as amended), 50 CFR 402.12, CFR 219.9 of the NFMA regulations, and Chapter 2670 of the Forest
Service Manual. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list SP#1-4-04-SP 612 dated September 01,
2004 lists the Canada lynx, gray wolf, and bald eagle as known or suspected to occur on the Nez Perce
National Forest. Notification of lynx listing as threatened was announced on March 24, 2000, and this
analysis uses and applies the Conservation Measures criteria in the Canada Lynx Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (LCAS 2000), along with LCAS-based habitat mapping criteria reviewed and
clarified by the National Lynx Biology Team. Due to lack of occurrence of the grizzly bear on the Forest,
the Fish & Wildlife Service has temporarily released the Forest from analysis requirements, thus grizzly
bear and its habitat will not be discussed.
This biological assessment must be modified, and consultation reinitiated following concurrence by the
USFWS, if: (1) activities other than those described under the Project Description section of this
document are implemented; (2) new information becomes available that could influence the accuracy of
the determination; (3) required mitigation is not implemented; (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat
not addressed in this document is designated; or (5) the project in any way affects an ESA listed species
to an extent not previously considered in this BA.
THE DECISION
The project will implement the preferred Alternative D of the American-Crooked River Project, with
modifications including additional watershed improvements from Alternative E- this became the Selected
Alternative, described below.
VEGETATION TREATMENTS
Up to 3,452 acres of timber harvest will occur. Appendix H of the Final EIS describes in detail all of the
treatment types by unit for each action alternative. The selected alternative includes all of the units in
preferred Alternative D, with the following exceptions. During additional analysis between the Draft and
Final EIS, Units 99, 99.2, 105, and 329 (about 62 acres) were identified as meeting the Forest Plan
criteria for old-growth. These units were dropped from consideration for harvest. Units 541 542 and 543
were added to American River (112 acres).
Appendix Q
Page Q-3
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Of the planned harvest acres, about 34 percent will be clearcut, and the remaining acres will be partially
cut or thinned. Harvest methods include ground-based tractor (52% of the project acres) and cable
systems (34%); the remaining acres (14%) are anticipated to be roadside salvage. This harvest is
estimated to produce 25.4 million board feet (MMBF) of timber.
The transportation system proposed in Alternative D was adopted, with minor modifications, for the
selected alternative. To facilitate timber harvest activities, an estimated 14.3 miles of temporary roads will
be constructed. Each of these temporary roads will exist on the landscape for one to three years and will
be decommissioned following timber harvest activities.
In addition to temporary roads, the selected alternative will require a combination of annual and deferred
maintenance to prepare existing classified roads for timber haul. Maintenance will be required on about
90.5 miles of road. Of this roadwork, approximately 7.4 will be decommissioned after use and the
remaining 83.1 miles will be maintained as part of the long-term transportation system for the analysis
area. Table 2 (Table R-2 in the EIS) and Map 4a and 4b display the road maintenance and temporary
road construction needed to facilitate timber removal.
Table 1. Vegetation Treatment Activities with the Selected Alternative
Proposed Activity - Total Project
Acres of
Treatment
Tractor Yard/Machine Pile
Cable Yard/Broadcast Burn
Roadside Salvage
Total Acres Treated
Percent Clearcut
Percent Partial Cut/Thin
Temporary road construction (miles)1
Road improvement (for timber harvest) (miles)'2
AltD
1813
1173
466
3452
34%
66%
14.3
90.5
1 Temporary roads will be decommissioned within one to three years of construction.
2 Road improvement covers a range of activities, such as surface blading, drainage repair, and roadway brushing with
occasional culvert installations, slump repairs, and stabilization work. Road widening could occur with major
reconstruction. Road improvements stated in this table are not to be considered or confused with routine road
maintenance that may include but not limited to road prism brushing, clearing, or hazard reduction activities.
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENTS
The watershed improvements proposed for Alternative D were adopted for the selected alternative.
A minimum of 19.0 miles of road will be eliminated from the transportation system through a variety of
decommissioning methods. This road decommissioning is required as mitigation for the planned timber
harvest in order to meet watershed objectives, and will be accomplished within 7-10 years of this
decision. In areas where a road proposed for decommissioning is needed for timber harvest activities,
the timber harvest activities will occur prior to the decommissioning.
Also included as part of the selected alternative, are the additional watershed improvements that were
identified in Alternative E. These actions are not required as mitigation for the proposed timber harvest
activities and are discretionary; they may be implemented as additional funds become available.
Appendix Q
Page Q-4
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2. Watershed Improvements with the Selected Alternative
Proposed Activity - Total Project
Miles of decommissioned roads1
Miles of Watershed Road Improvements
Number of sites of Watershed Road Improvements
Stream crossing improvements^
Miles of instream improvements
Miles of Recreation and Trail improvements
Acres of Recreation and Trail improvements
Access change for vehicle use - motorized trail use
(ATV) to restricted use (miles)3
Acres of Mine Site Reclamation
Acres of Soil Restoration
Required
19.0
16.6
3
13
11.1
2.3
8.1
1.0
7
32
Total
Approved
37.2
24.6
3
34
14.6
4.6
8.1
1.0
9
58
1 Road decommissioning for this project covers a range of activities, from recontouring to abandonment due to grown-in conditions.
It includes 7.4 miles of roads to be used for timber harvest and decommissioned upon completion of harvest activities See
Appendix F in the Final EIS.
2 Stream crossing improvements include upgrading or improving culverts and bridges to improve fish passage and
peak water flows and are listed as the number of sites.
3 This is an access change, which restricts use to two wheeled vehicles or snowmobiles over snow, from previous all
terrain vehicle use (ATV).
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL BY WATERSHED
The activities will be scheduled and implemented so that a balance will be achieved between vegetation
and watershed improvement activities. The life of a typical timber sale contract is 7-10 years and all
required activities would be completed in this time frame. There are three types of restoration activities 1)
those road related activities and riparian plantings that can be completed separate from timber sale
actions 2) road related activities that are needed for the timber sale activities and 3) Instream restoration
projects which will require planning, designs, permits and additional funding. Type 1 activities will
proceed once this decision is final and can be completed in advance or concurrent of the timber sale
actions. Type 2 activities must be scheduled with the timber sale actions and coordinated in a way that
will not impede either. These could continue through the life of the sale(s). The in channel work (type 3)
requires planning, design work and permitting, all of which take time. Implementation of this work will
occur within the time frame of the timber sale contract.
Table 3: American River Watershed, and Table 4: the Crooked River Watershed display the activities for
the proposed action. Activities included under Alternative D modified are included for consideration under
this BA. The tables below include Miles road Improvement and Miles of Watershed Road Improvement.
Road improvement miles include activities designed to make the road usable for logging traffic. Activities
would include blading, adding relief culverts, cleaning ditches, brushing etc. on roads that are mostly
already stable. Miles of Watershed Road Improvement include similar activities but the road conditions
will improve from a watershed perspective. The items listed under "Alt D modified discretionary", are
included for analysis and consultation under this BA. They are shown as discretionary and as such will
be completed when and if funding becomes available. The items listed under "required" will be completed
under this action.
Appendix Q
Page Q-5
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3. Activities in the American River Watershed.
Proposed Activity - American River
Acres of Treatment
Tractor Yard/Machine Pile
Cable Yard/Broadcast Burn
Roadside Salvage
Total Acres Treated
Percent Clearcut
Percent Partial Cut/Thin
Miles temporary road construction1
Miles road improvement2
Miles of decommissioned roads3
Miles of Watershed Road Improvement
Number of sites of Watershed Road Improvement
Stream crossing improvements4
Miles of instream improvements
Miles of Recreation and Trail improvements
Acres of Recreation & Trail improvements
Acres of Mine Site Reclamation
Acres of Soil Restoration
Access change for vehicle use - motorized trail use
(ATV) to restricted use (snowmobiles over snow)5
Access change for vehicle use - road to trail6
AltD
modified
required
841
239 .
137
1,217
29%
71%
8.1
33.9
8.4
7.4
0
3.0
0
1.6
0
0
9.0
0
1.6
AltD
modified
discretionary
11.1
6.0
0.8
12.0
1 Temporary roads would be decommissioned within one to three years of construction.
2 Road improvement covers a range of activities, such as surface blading, drainage repair, and roadway brushing with
occasional culvert installations, slump repairs, and stabilization work. Road improvements stated in this table are not
to be considered or confused with routine road maintenance that may include but not limited to road prism brushing,
clearing, or hazard reduction activities.
3 Road decommissioning for this project covers a range of activities, from recontouring to abandonment due to grown
in conditions. See Appendix F
4 Stream crossing improvements include upgrading or improving culverts and bridges to improve fish passage and
peak water-flows and are listed as the number of sites.
5 This is an access change, which restricts use to two wheeled vehicles or snowmobiles over snow, from previous all
terrain vehicle use (ATV).
6 This is an access change of miles of roads to trails use.
Appendix Q
Page Q-6
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 4. Alternatives in the Crooked River Watershed.
Proposed Activity - American River
Acres of Treatment
Miles temporary road
Tractor Yard/Machine Pile
Cable Yard/Broadcast Burn
Roadside Salvage
Total Acres Treated
Percent Clearcut
Percent Partial Cut/Thin
construction7
Miles road improvement8
Miles of decommissioned roads9
Miles of Watershed Road Improvement
Number of sites of Watershed Road Improvement
Stream crossing improvements10
Miles of instream improvements
Miles of Recreation and Trail improvements
Acres of Recreation &
Trail improvements
Acres of Mine Site Reclamation
Acres of Soil Restoration
Access change for vehicle use - motorized trail use
(ATV) to restricted use (snowmobiles over snow)11
Access change for vehicle use - road to trail12
AltD
modified
required
972
934
329
2,235
36%
64%
6.2
56.6
10.5
9.2
3
10.0
11.1
0.7
8.1
7.0
23.0
1.0
1.5
AltD
modified
discretionary
7.0
8
15.0
3.5
1.5
2.0
14.0
7 Temporary roads would be decommissioned within one to three years of construction.
8 Road improvement covers a range of activities, such as surface blading, drainage repair, and roadway brushing with
occasional culvert installations, slump repairs, and stabilization work. Road improvements stated in this table are not
to be considered or confused with routine road maintenance that may include but not limited to road prism brushing,
clearing, or hazard reduction activities.
9 Road decommissioning for this project covers a range of activities, from recontouring to abandonment due to qrown
in conditions. See Appendix F
10 Stream crossing improvements include upgrading or improving culverts and bridges to improve fish passage and
peak water flows and are listed as the number of sites.
11 This is an access change, which restricts use to two wheeled vehicles or snowmobiles over snow from previous all
terrain vehicle use (ATV).
12 This is an access change of miles of roads to trails use.
Appendix Q
Page Q-7
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 5. Culvert Activities Associated With Possible Take in Crooked River
Stream
Name
Relief
Creek.
Relief Creek
Relief Creek
Relief Creek
Baker Gulch
Rainbow
Gulch
Quartz
Creek
Quartz
Creek
Sawmill
Creek
Silver Creek
Crooked
River
Culvert
Number
2234
1964
1907
1926
2092
2136
2340
2341
2205
2285
2371
Road
Number
1803
9859
9876
9876
233
233
233A
233A
9836
9836B
9848
Steel head
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
Bull Trout
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
Sediment
Plume
Distance*
300'
300'
300'
300'
300'
300'
300'
300'
N/A
300' _,
300'
Selected
(Yes or No)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Distance is a measure of stream gradient, size, and amount of disturbance or excavation.
Table 6. Instream and Culvert Activities Associated With Possible Take in Crooked River
Stream Name
Lower Crooked
River
Relief Creek
Crooked River
Narrows
Middle
Crooked River
Number of
Structures
40
40
6
50
Steelhead
(total age 1/2+
estimated)**
2740
**.22/100m2
1808
1449
Bull Trout
(total
estimated)**
35
**.04/100m2
22
24
Sediment Plume
Distance*
300'
300'
300'
300'
Selected
(Yes or
No)
Y
Y
Y
Y
• *Distance is a measure of stream gradient, size, and amount of disturbance or excavation.
• **Fish density from Clearwater BioStudies, (1990)
• ***Fish Density from IDFG Bull Trout Study SFCR (1999)
Appendix Q
Page Q-8
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 7- Project Design and Mitigation Measures for the American and Crooked River Project
Design and mitigation measures would apply to all actions. Forest Plan standards and other Agency direction, along with information derived from
monitoring past projects, were used to identify design and mitigation measures applicable to the action. Mitigation measures are practices used
during implementation of the activities.
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
Project Design and Mitigation Measure
Areas Excluded from Timber Harvest or Fuel
No timber harvest or mechanical fuel reduction activities would occur in
Forest Plan existing or replacement old growth, Inventoried Roadless Areas,
streamside RHCAs, or high hazard landslide prone areas
Implementation Method
Reduction Activities
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription, and
field prep.
Vegetation
Falling would be done to minimize breakage and damage to residual trees.
Silvicultural prescriptions would be written for each unit, including slash
treatment and burn guidelines to meet Riparian Management Objectives
Field preparation, contract
and contract administration/
inspection
Silvicultural prescription
Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas
No cutting of trees would be allowed m PACFISH default streamside or
wetland RHCAs, except at temporary road crossings, instream habitat
improvements, and to facilitate anchoring of cable yarding systems
Post harvest burning will occur in harvest units to reduce slash and fuel
resulting from the harvest activities. The burning will be designed and
implemented with the intent of restricting burning to stay within the unit
boundary. Fire that moves outside the external unit boundary will be
suppressed if it poses a threat to riparian resources. On occasion fire will
move into small RHCA inclusions within the unit. Burning will not be
ignited within these areas, but may be allowed to back into these areas
under conditions where fire intensity will be low and burning will not result
in extensive reduction in canopy cover or exposure of bare soil in these
RHCA inclusions.
Landslide prone areas are also considered Riparian Habitat Conservation
Areas (RHCAs). No timber harvest would occur in areas of high landslide
hazard, as described in (1) above. Timber harvest, road construction, or fuel
reduction in areas of moderate landslide risk would be modified as needed
Field preparation, contract
and contract administration/
inspection
FS Fuels management
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription, and
field prep.
Effectiveness
High, based available
inventory and
monitoring data
High, based on sale
administrators'
observations
High, based on
protocols for
Silvicultural
certification
High, based on
inventory and
monitoring data
High, based on
Research, PNW Lab,
Starkey Project
High, based on
landslide inventory
data
Appendix Q
Page Q-9
-------
-line, ican Rivc:r/v-iOOi\ed rdvti - i inai cnviroin Denial impact
#
Project Design and Mitigation Measure
Implementation Method
Effectiveness
to protect slope stability. If additional, unmapped landslide prone areas are
found during project implementation, areas would be dropped or activities
would be modified with watershed specialist oversight to protect slope
stability.
Soils, Water Quality, and Fish Habitat
Planned activities would be modified in any proposed timber harvest or fuel reduction unit
that is found to have previously unidentified significant soil impacts from past human-
caused disturbance. The planned activities in that unit would be modified or dropped, or
post-harvest restoration implemented to ensure that cumulative impacts would not exceed
Forest Plan soil quality standard number 2 (percent of area detrimentally impacted upon
completion of activities). Site-specific review of treatment units prior to implementation
would identify extent of detrimental soil disturbance.
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription, and
field prep.
Moderate, based on
research and forest
monitoring data
(Cullenetal, 1991,
Froelich et al., 1983,
USDAFS 1988B,
1990, 1992, 1999, and
2003D).
Timber harvest and fuel reduction activities would be coordinated with soil
restoration activities for greatest efficiency.
Contract administration
Expected to be
moderate, little data.
Broadcast burning would be applied in preference to excavator piling
wherever practical to reduce physical soil damage and to encourage natural
regeneration.
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription, and
contract.
High, to the degree
implemented; based on
forest monitoring data
(USDAFS 1988B,
1990, 1992, 1999, and
2003D).
10
Temporary roads would be built, used, and decommissioned within a 1 to 3-
year period, in order to reduce the amount of sediment production.
Coordination of temporary road use and decommissioning with the BLM
Eastside Township project would be required.
NEPA project design and
contract administration
Moderate, based on
implementation
monitoring of timber
sale contracts and
Burroughs and King,
1989.
New, temporary roads would be constructed using minimal road widths and
out-sloped surface drainage. Road cuts, fills, and treads would be stabilized
with annual grass cover where roads are held more than one year.
11 Temporary roads would be located to avoid live water and high-risk
landslide prone terrain. If avoidance of live water is not possible, stream
crossings would be designed consistent with criteria described below and in
Forest Plan Amendment 20 (PACFISH)
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High, based on literature
(Water/Road Interaction
Technology Series, USDA
Forest Service, San Dimas
Technology and Development
Program, 1999; Burroughs and
King, 1989)
Appendix Q
Page Q-10
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
#
Project Design and Mitigation Measure
Implementation Method
Effectiveness
12
Coarse woody debris greater than 3 inches diameter would be retained in
timber harvest or fuel reduction units in amounts to meet guidelines in
Appendix K .
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription,
contract, and contract
administration.
High effectiveness,
based on Graham et al.,
1994 and Harvey et al.,
1987. Implementation
effectiveness has not
been monitored.
13
Minimize whole tree yarding. Whole-tree yard boles only, leaving tops and
limbs on site, to maintain foliar nutrients. Overwinter slash at least one
winter to allow nutrients to leach into the soil.
NEPA project design,
silviculture prescription, BD
plan, and contract.
High (Garrison and
Moore, 1998; Moore et
al., 2004)
14
Winter harvesting would only occur during frozen conditions. Frozen
conditions are defined as greater than 4 inches of frozen ground, a barrier of
snow greater than two feet in depth (unpacked snow), or one foot in depth
(packed snow).
Contract administration
Moderate, based on
forest monitoring data
(1987 report in project
file)
15
Timber harvest, fuel reduction, and soil and stream restoration activities
would be limited or suspended when soils are wet, such that resource
damage may occur, to reduce rutting, displacement and erosion.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate, based on
forest monitoring
(USDAFS 1988B,
1990, 1992, 1999, and
2003D).
16
Skid trails, landings, and yarding corridors would be located and designated
to minimize the area of detrimental soil effects. Tractor skid trails would be
spaced 80 to 120 feet apart, except where converging on landings, to reduce
the area of detrimental soil disturbance. This does not preclude the use of
feller bunchers if soil impacts can remain within standards.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate, based on
forest monitoring
(USDAFS 1988B,
1990, 1992, 1999, and
2003D).
17
On excavator piled units, additional trail construction would be minimized,
machines would be restricted to existing trails as much as possible, number
of passes would be minimized, and excavator piling would be minimized, to
reduce soil compaction. Numerous small piles are preferred to few large
piles to avoid nutrient losses and soil alteration that favor weed invasion.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate, based on
forest monitoring
(USDAFS 1988B,
1990, 1992, 1999, and
2003D).
18
Cable systems would use one-end or full suspension wherever possible to
minimize soil disturbance.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High where
implemented (USDA
FS 2003A; Krae, 1991)
19
Excavated skid trails and landings with cut slopes of more than 1 foot
would be scarified and recontoured, replacing topsoil as feasible on all
landings and trails not needed for harvest within the next 15 years. Winged
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High(Plotnikoffetal.,
1999; Sanbornetal.
1999A, Sanborn et al.,
Appendix Q
PageQ-11
-------
20
21
22
23
24
25
River/u oo*ed rovei - nnai environmental impact bcatemenc
Project Design and Mitigation Measure
subsoiler, excavator, or similar equipment is preferred to restore
permeability and soil structure.
Fine organic matter and slash would be scattered over recontoured or
scarified areas on skid trails, decommissioned roads, and landings with a
goal of achieving 10 tons per acre of fines and 15-20 tons per acre of larger
material, up to 35 tons total where available and acceptable to fuel
managers. Water bars and seeding of approved weed-free annual or native
species would be added as needed for supplementary erosion control.
Soil restoration areas would be stabilized within 14 days, using erosion
barriers, slash, or mulch as needed. Any soil restoration in an activity area
would be completed within one operating season, with allowance for
additional planting in subsequent seasons.
Non-excavated skid trails and landings not needed for harvest within the
next 15 years, that have been cut, compacted or entrenched 3 inches or more
would be scarified to a depth of 4 - 10 inches, or as directed by contract
administrator, to restore soil permeability. Excavator, winged subsoiler or
similar equipment is preferred, to avoid mixing surface ash layer and
subsoil.
Sediment and erosion control measures such as dewatering culverts,
sediment barriers, rocking road surfaces and/or ditches, etc., would be used
as needed when constructing, reconstructing, and decommissioning roads to
protect fish habitat and water quality.
Activities including stream crossing road improvements would be
conducted in fish bearing streams between July 1 and August 15 to avoid
sediment deposition on emerging steelhead or Chinook redds, or
disturbance to bull trout moving to natal streams. These dates may be site-
specifically adjusted through coordination with the Central Idaho Level I
:eam and other agencies.
Stream crossing structures would provide for channel width, flow velocities,
substrate condition, and stream gradients that approximate the natural
channel and accommodate passage of streamflow, debris, fish, and other
aquatic organisms, and would use PACFISH standards. When designing
new structures, consider and give preference to open-bottom arches, bridges
and oversized culverts.
Implementation Method
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Contract and contract
administration
NEPA project design,
contract and contract
administration/inspection
NEPA project design,
contract and contract
administration/inspection
Appendix Q
Page Q-12
Effectiveness
1999B)
High (Sanbom et al.,
1999A)
Moderate, based on past
experience.
Moderate to high
Froelich et al., 1983;
7roelich et al, 1985;Foltz
md Mallard, 2004; Luce,
1997)
High, based on literature,
an Dimas, Road/Water
nteraction
Moderate to high,
based on past
experience.
High, based on literature,
an Dimas, Road/Water
nteraction
-------
American'River/Crooked River- Final Environmental Impact Statement
Project Design and Mitigation Measure
Implementation Method
Effectiveness
26
During instream habitat improvement activities, tree felling in RHCAs
would occur only where that activity would not affect Riparian
Management Objectives for shade and woody debris recruitment. Wood for
instream placement would be taken from outside the RHCA wherever
feasible.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High, based on past
experience.
27
Prior to instream habitat improvement activities, heavy equipment would be
inspected to assure no leakage of oil, fuel, or hydraulic fluid.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate to high,
based on past
experience.
28
A Spill Prevention Control and Counter-measures Plan (40 CFR 112) would
be prepared and implemented that incoiporates the rules and requirements
of the Idaho Forest Practices Act Section 60, Use of Chemicals and
Petroleum Products; and US Department of Transportation rules for fuels
haul and temporary storage; and additional direction as applicable.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High, based on past
experience.
29
'or instream activities in fish-bearing streams that contain listed species,
fish are expected to disperse from the activity area. If needed, additional
measures would be used to ensure fish are not harmed or killed by instream
activity. If electrofishing were necessary, it would be conducted in
accordance with NOAA Fisheries electrofishing guidelines found at
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate, based on
past experience.
30
The State of Idaho Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Forest Service
Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) would be applied. These
are incorporated by reference.
Contract and contract
admin istrati on/inspecti on
High, based on past
xperience.
P rails/Recreation
31
Coordination would minimize conflict with winter hauling on roads used as
groomed snowmobile routes.
Project design, contract and
contract administration/
inspection
Moderate, based on
past experience.
32
Trails 820, 832, 838, 844, 848, and others as identified, would be protected
during activities.
Designate all system trails as Protected Improvements in the Timber Sale
Contract. No skidding across trails, except over snow, fall trees away from
trails, cut stumps less than 12" in height within 100 feet of trails, leave
regeneration within 100 feet of trails to create a visual buffer between
treatment areas and trails, construct firelines to protect the regeneration
buffer and trail during slash treatment, and trails are not to be used a
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
High, based on past
experience.
Appendix Q
Page Q-13
-------
River/u ooi\ed rovei - nnai environmental impact bcatemenc
#
Project Design and Mitigation Measure
firelines.
Implementation Method
Effectiveness
Access/Public Safety
33
34
Temporary roads would be closed to public use, except as specifically
authorized.
Operator would be required to set up warning signs advising of equipment
operations or hazards for public safety.
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Moderate for sediment
reduction and wildlife
security, based on
monitoring
High, based on past
experience.
Air Quality
35
36
37
Procedures outlined in the North Idaho Smoke Management Memorandum
of Agreement would be followed, including restrictions imposed by the
smoke management-monitoring unit.
Prescribed burning would be conducted over several years to reduce the
amount of smoke in any one year. Priority in scheduling would be given to
units accessed by temporary roads scheduled for decommissioning
Additional restrictions, beyond those imposed by the smoke management-
monitoring unit, would be considered for prescribed burning for local air
quality reasons, including visual.
FS fuels management
FS fuels management
FS fuels management
High, based on burning
approval required daily
by smoke monitoring
unit.
High, based on past
experience, and
availability of burn
windows and/or
personnel.
High, based on past
experience.
Wildlife
38
39
40
Snag and snag replacement green trees would be retained in numbers
consistent with Regional Guidelines (Appendix K)
Should any of the following be sighted in the project area during project
layout and implementation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and unit
biologist would be notified: lynx or a lynx den, bald eagle, new wolf den or
rendezvous site, active goshawk nest. Appropriate protection measures
would be implemented where deemed necessary to protect these species.
Should an active goshawk nest be discovered within a 450 feet distance of
timber harvest or fuel reduction activities, the nest tree will be protected, as
Field preparation , NEPA
project design, contracting
and contract administration
NEPA project design,
silvicultural prescription,
field prep, contract
administration/inspection,
and USFWS monitoring
Field prep, contract and
contract administration/
High except where
safety concerns or
wood cutting result in
loss.
Moderate; based on
public sightings reports
and ESA section 7
consultation.
Moderate; based on
1DFG, etal, 1995,
Appendix Q
Page Q-14
-------
American River/Crooked Rivef- Final Environmental Impact Statement
#
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Project Design and Mitigation Measure
well as a 30 acre no-treatment buffer area around the nest tree, as
designated by the unit biologist to provide for foraging and nesting sites
The integrity of existing access management restrictions would be
maintained within the planning area for wildlife security purposes. Current
access management restrictions would apply to existing reconstructed roads
after implementation of activities to maintain or improve existing access
and wildlife security. No contractor or their representatives may. use
motorized vehicles to hunt or trap animals on a restricted road
Implementation Method
inspection
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Heritage Resources
Known historic properties or sites would be avoided or protected.
If additional cultural resources are discovered during project operations, all
ground-disturbing activities in that area will be halted until such resources
can be properly documented and evaluated by the Forest Archaeologist in
compliance with 36 CFR 800.13b3
NEPA project design, field
prep, contract, and
administration/inspection
Contract and contract
administration/ inspection
Noxious Weeds
Desirable vegetation would be promptly established on all disturbed areas,
using native and non-native plant species, as approved by the Forest
botanist.
All named plant cultivars used in revegetation will be certified blue-tagged.
All non-certified seed will be tested by a certified seed laboratory against
the all state noxious weed list and documentation of the seed inspection test
provided to the contract administrator. All straw and mulch would be
certified as free of noxious weed seed.
All mud, soil and plant parts would be removed from all off-road equipment
associated with the project before moving into the project area to limit the
spread of weeds. Cleaning must occur off National Forest lands. This
applies to all ATVs used on and off roads in the project area, but does not
apply to service or hauling vehicles that would stay on the roadway,
traveling frequently in and out of the project area.
All private rock used for surfacing would be county-certified as free of
noxious weed seed. Forest Service rock sources will be reviewed for
Contract and contract
administration/inspection
Contract and contract
administration and inspection
Contract and contract
administration and inspection
Contract and contract
administration/ inspection
Effectiveness
State Conservation
Effort
High except close to
roads; based on
standard timber sale
contract clauses and
past results monitoring
High, objective to
achieve a "no adverse
effect" on these
resources
Moderate based on
recognition of resource
and contact with
Heritage personnel
Moderate based on
experience
High, based on
experience
High; based on past
experience
Moderate; based on
past experience
Appendix Q
Page Q-15
-------
River/uooi\ed Kivei - nnai tfnvirornDenial impact scatemenc
#
48
Project Design and Mitigation Measure
invasive weeds by a forest weed specialist or botanist. Borrow pits and
stockpiles will not be used if it is determined that it is infested with an
invasive plant that is not found in the area where the material will be
placed.
All small outbreaks of invasive weeds within the project risk zones (Map
16b), and along all haul routes leading to weed risk zones will be pretreated
prior to ground disturbing activities under the existing wee management
program.
Implementation Method
Field prep, contract
Effectiveness
High: based on past
experience
TES Plants
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Candystick, a former Region 1 sensitive plant species, occurs in some
management units. Where live lodgepole are associated with candystick,
groups of live lodgepole pine would be left to protect candystick from
management activities.
During implementation, if activities would impact previously unknown
sensitive plant occurrences, appropriate protection measures would be
implemented. Appropriate measures will vary depending upon the ecology
of the species involved and nature of the proposed action and would be
directed by a botanist.
NEPA project design, field
prep, contract and contract
administration/ inspection
Silvicultural prescription,
field preparation, contract,
and contract
administration/inspection
High based on past
monitoring and
experience.
High based on
monitoring, experience,
and logic.
Roadside Salvage13
Roadside salvage would be limited to dead or dying trees, with no harvest
of standing trees more than 20 inches in diameter. (Windthrown trees
would not be subject to the diameter limit.)
Salvage would be limited to areas adjacent to haul roads. No tree cutting or
yarding would occur in RHCAs or in allocated existing or replacement old
growth.
All yarding would be done from the road. Areas above steep cutslopes that
cannot be protected from yarding damage would be omitted from salvage.
Yarding distance would not exceed 1 00 feet.
No more than 80 dead or dying trees per mile (approximately 8 trees/acre)
could be designated for cutting on each side of the road.
Maximum opening size is one acre on each side of a road, or a maximum of 400 feet
Contractor permit
Contractor permit
Contractor permit
Contractor permit
Contractor permit
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
High; based on based
Treatments would include roadside salvage within 100 feet of main haul roads. This component of the action would comply with all applicable design criteria developed for the action
as a whole. These design criteria are not intended to limit or interfere with brushing, clearing, or hazard reduction activities associated with routine road maintenance.
Appendix Q
Page Q-16
-------
American River/Crooked River'- Final Environmental Impact Statement
#
56
57
Project Design and Mitigation Measure
along the road.
Openings would be separated from other forest openings by at least 200 feet
of pole size or larger forest along the road, on both sides, to provide cover
for wildlife.crossing.
Slash from salvage would be lopped and scattered, hand piled and burned in
the woods, or removed from the site at the discretion of the District Ranger
considering the Forest objective of maintaining less than 12 tons per acre of
fine fuels.
Implementation Method
Contractor permit
Contractor permit
Effectiveness
experience and
accessibility to sites
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
High; based on based
experience and
accessibility to sites
Appendix Q
Page Q-17
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
The analysis area is composed of approximately 39000 acres within American River and Crooked River
drainages which occur north and south of Elk City, Idaho. The analysis area lies within Township 28 and
30 North by Range 7, 8 and 9 East, Boise Meridian. Mountain pine beetle infested stands of mid and
late-serai lodgepole pine is predominant, with intermixed stands of mixed conifer and lodgepole pine
scattered across the landscape.
SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND HABITATS
LYNX
Canada lynx have been federally listed as a threatened species and is also a Region 1 sensitive species.
Although lynx have sometimes been portrayed as a late-successional forest species, lynx appear to be
more closely associated with a mosaic of late- and early-successional stages (Roloff 1995).
No formal surveys for actual lynx occupation on the Forest or the analysis area have been completed to
date, but confirmed reports and unconfirmed sightings of lynx presence have been documented within the
Forest boundary. Lynx analysis unit (LAU) delineations and habitat mapping actions directed by the
Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS, 2000), have been completed for the entire
Forest including the project area.
Most of the American and Crooked river project analysis area contains no designated lynx habitats (refer
to the updated lynx habitat map dated January, 2004). However, the overall project analysis area does
partially overlap portions of two large lynx analysis units (LAUs #3020306 and #3050401) that may be
partially affected by some of the harvest units or project actions.
Lynx habitat mapping of the Nez Perce Forest has undergone recent adjustments as recommended by
the National Lynx Biology Team. Their recommendations were based on an on-site field review
conducted in October, 2003. The Conservation Measures and mapping direction in the Lynx
Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS), and the most recent changes to the Forestwide lynx
habitat map (Forest CIS file:c/fsfiles/gis/projects/lynx_habitat/lynx_habitat.mxd 20 April 2004), per direct
review and adjustments by the National Lynx Biology Team - Oct., 2003, are used and applied in this
analysis. Very little designated lynx habitat occurs within the American-Crooked project area.
Lynx habitat conditions and acreage within LAUs within the American-Crooked Project
LAU
3020306
3050401
Total Habitat
Acres
19,764
25,469
% Denning
18
27
% Foraging
81
72
% Unsuitable
1
1
Drainage
American
Crooked
Currently, both LAUs have ample denning habitat (above the 10% LCAS guideline), and neither LAU has
enough mapped "unsuitable" habitat to be of concern with respect to the LCAS 30% limit on conversion of
suitable to unsuitable habitat.
GRAY WOLF
During 1995 and 1996 wolves were reintroduced into central Idaho. Gray wolves are large, wide-ranging
carnivores which have recently populated the American/Crooked planning area. Within the state, wolf
populations have multiplied dramatically based on monitoring results, and continue to approach and
maintain recovery population levels. Recovery decisions from the 1995 EIS and reintroduction decision
have modified the status of wolves within the Nez Perce National Forest including the overall planning
area to an "experimental/nonessential" (Section 10J) status. Wolves have populated the entire Nez
Appendix Q
Page Q-18
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
twV^>T.y^wsrwmw^>y.,wW.Jw«m^
Perce National Forest quickly and thoroughly. There are now 5 confirmed wolf packs within and around
the perimeter of the American and Crooked river project area.
There are currently a total of at least 20 active packs in the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Area. The Wolf
Reintroduction Final Rule (Federal Register Nov. 22, 1994) stated that, "when six or more breeding pairs
are established in an experimental population area, no land-use restrictions may be employed outside of
national parks or national wildlife refuges, unless wolf populations fail to maintain positive growth rates
toward population recovery levels for 2 consecutive years". Currently, wolf populations locally are
increasing.
Based on most recent Forest Plan populations monitoring and statewide monitoring results, wolf
populations are at or exceed recovery levels now. The Red River Ranger District is home to 5 confirmed
wolf packs. Relative to the American-Crooked River proposal, only one known wolf den is known to exist
in the analysis area. The nearest harvest unit is just over 2 miles to the east of the den site. Though
denning and rearing take place in early spring/summer, proximity of the harvest unit and related activities
is not expected to interfere with denning or rearing at this location. In addition, the "no land-use
restrictions may be employed" provision of the Wolf Reintroduction Final Rule is now applicable to wolves
throughout the entire Nez Perce Forest including the project area.
Management of quality wolf habitat is largely dependent on availability of an ample supply of large
ungulate prey such as deer, elk and moose. Maintenance of quality ungulate habitats is fundamental to
maintaining quality wolf habitats in the long term. Based on confirmed wolf numbers (7 packs on the
Forest), recovery criteria have been met for wolves in Central Idaho. Wolf numbers continue recovering.
In 2003, a new pack denning site was identified within the American River drainage. During this year
also, a new rendezvous area within the Crooked River drainage was identified by Nez Perce Tribe wolf
recovery crews.
BALD EAGLE
Bald eagles are large, endemic representatives of the fish or sea eagle family. In Idaho, wintering bald
eagles occur near open water throughout the state (USDI, 1986). No bald eagle occupation is known
within the American/Crooked analysis area. No bald eagle nesting is known to take place anywhere on
the Nez Perce Forest or within the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin. Bald eagles occupy the lower
and middle elevations of the South Fork Clearwater River during winter and early spring, from Mill Creek
to Lightning Creek due to availability of ungulate carcasses there and relatively ice-free river conditions
during winter. Sites most commonly used are at least 20 miles downstream from the analysis area. Due
to ice-up of the South Fork Clearwater river at higher elevations in winter and lack of fish and waterfowl
availability, relatively little or no use of the analysis area drainages occurs by bald eagles during most
winters.
Population trends across the forest as a whole indicate local population trends on the Forest are stable or
slightly increasing (Nez Perce NF 12th Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 1999, p. 16-17). In
Idaho, bald eagles scavenge on deer and elk carrion from nearby winter ranges during winter. By late
spring in Idaho, fish may become more predominate in the diets of bald eagles (USDI, 1986, p. 19).
Increasing and maintaining early serai habitat by reducing conifer densities on low elevation big game
winter ranges is a high conservation action priority (South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment,
p. 102-103 and Meadow Face Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, p. 64). There is virtually no
low elevation big game winter range within the analysis area, however indirect effects of upriver actions
including harvest activities on private lands, may have limited secondary impacts to anadromous fish and
waterfowl habitats along the river's lower elevations.
INVENTORIES AND SURVEYS:
LYNX
Actual lynx occupation of the analysis area is assumed but uncertain. A few unconfirmed lynx sightings
have occurred within or near the project area. No formal surveys for lynx have been conducted within the
Appendix Q
Page Q-19
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
analysis area to date. Designated lynx habitat is very limited within the project analysis area occuring only
in the southern-most portion of the Crooked River drainage, and the northeastern portion of American
River.
GRAY WOLF
The ^introduction and new "experimental/nonessential" Section 10(j) status of the wolves, have reduced
the need for surveys of individual wolves. Primary recovery efforts now focus on packs, dens, and
rendezvous area occupation. Such surveys have been limited, however the Nez Perce Tribe monitors
radio-collared wolves and sightings or multiple animal sign or sightings continue to be documented. The
result of the 1995-96 Central Idaho reintroductions have yielded successful reproduction of wolves
throughout the state. Wolf recovery has been achieved within the state of Idaho. Wolves remain
federally listed however.
BALD EAGLE
Bald eagles use the lowest elevations of the analysis area in winter months. Winter bald eagle monitoring
counts are conducted annually on the South Fork Clearwater River and other major rivers in the general
area . Based on mid-winter surveys, bald eagle numbers have generally maintained or increased along
the South Fork Clearwater River since 1984 (Nez Perce NF 10th Annual Monitoring & Evaluation Report,
p. 14). Bald eagle population status in the western U.S. has improved to the point that they are being
considered for federal delisting by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS
LYNX
The South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment management theme for both American and
Crooked River drainages proposes to "produce early serai habitat" as a very high priority, and identifies
treatment objectives which include "creating forest openings by fire or timber harvest". From the
perspective of the landscape assessment, the goal to benefit lynx habitat would be to "create dense
stands of deciduous brush and young conifers, attractive to snowshoe hare". Despite substantial past
harvesting in the analysis area, advanced regeneration of trees and cover in plantations has maintained
habitat connectivity and travel corridors as defined for lynx in the analysis area. Habitat management for
lynx primarily addresses maintenance or improvement of vegetation structure for lynx and their prey.
Lynx are considered relatively tolerant of human presence and activities. Preliminary information (from
the Lynx Conservation Assessment & Strategy (2000), page 7-10), suggests that lynx may not avoid
roads, except at high traffic volumes. Therefore, at this time, there is little compelling evidence to
recommend management of road density to conserve lynx.
Several important landscape vegetation limitations must be followed when conducting timber harvest and
fuel reduction actions in designated lynx habitats in order to comply with measures in the Lynx
Conservation Assessment and Strategy, 2000 (LCAS). LAUs must maintain at least 10 percent denning
habitat, unsuitable acres created cannot exceed the total 30 percent maximum threshold, and no more
than 15 percent of the suitable habitat can be converted to unsuitable within a decade.
Both LAUs within the project area currently hold more than 10 percent denning habitat and neither LAU
is near the 30 percent maximum unsuitable habitat threshold. For this reason, since denning habitat is
relatively abundant, and unsuitable habitat acres (before planned harvest), are well below LCAS
thresholds, there is ample opportunity for creation of lynx foraging habitat while staying within all LCAS
guidelines. The analysis criteria for lynx and their habitats will be relative amounts of suitable condition
lynx habitats that are converted to early serai foraging habitat condition while meeting all LCAS
measures.
The preferred alternative (D), would directly affect 47 acres (1%) of denning and 204 acres (1%) of
foraging habitat in LAU #3020306 which amounts to a total of 1 % of the available lynx habitat. Such
harvest would be assumed to convert 1 % from suitable to unsuitable. Over 98% of the lynx habitat in this
Appendix Q
Page Q-20
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
LAD would remain in suitable condition after harvests. Remaining denning habitat would amount to over
17%, well in excess of LCAS 10% minimums. No precommercial thinning takes place.
The preferred alternative (D), would directly affect 253 acres (3.5%) of denning and 947 acres (5%) of
foraging habitat in LAU #3050401 which amounts to a total of 5% of the available lynx habitat. Such
harvest would be assumed to convert 5% of lynx habitat from suitable to unsuitable. Over 95% of the
lynx habitat in this LAU would remain in suitable condition after harvests. Remaining denning habitat
would amount to over 24%, well in excess of the LCAS 10% minimum. No precommercial thinning takes
place.
LYNX: LCAS CRITERIA CHECKLIST:
Fire-related Conservation Measures
Prescription fire (when applied in lynx habitat) is used as a tool to maintain or restore lynx
habitats by moving toward landscape patterns consistent with historical succession and
disturbance regimes. True _X_ False NA Mechanical pre-treatment followed by
ignitions, if needed to restore fire as an ecological process, have been considered. Yes X
No NA .
All planned burns in harvest units are in lodgepole pine or mixed conifer habitats with 60-65% lodgepole
pine. Fire is the dominant disturbance regime in these forest types.
If more than 30% of lynx habitat within a LAU is currently in UNSUITABLE CONDITION, no further
reduction of suitable conditions occurs as a result of vegetation management activities by this
project. True_X False NA (NOTE: This criteria may be waived if better
guidance is available resulting from a local, broad-scale landscape assessement of historical
processes, vegetation patterns, age class distributions, etc.)
LAUs are anywhere near the 30% threshold for unsuitable habitat and the preferred alternative does not
harvest enough in designated lynx habitat to change that.
Within the project's LAU(s), the planned action maintains potential denning habitat on at least
10% of the area that is capable of producing stands with these characteristics. Yes X
No "
Denning habitat is very abundant and well in excess of 10% on both LAUs (see table above ). No action
reduces denning habitats below 10%.
Habitat connectivity within and between LAUs is maintained. Yes__X__ No NA
Planned harvest units and fuel reductions help to reduce localized fuel loading in treatment sites,
maintaining habitat connectivity within or between LAU's consistent with historical landscape patterns.
Prescription burns in aspen or lodgepole pine types are designed to regenerate or create
snowshoe hare habitat. Yes_X___ No Not Applicable
Post-harvest fuel treatments will regenerate dense lodgepole pine.
Adequate lynx denning habitat ( minimum of 10% per LAU) has been maintained in design of
prescription fires and suppression actions. Yes_X__ No Not Applicable
No suppression actions planned. Prescription burns would be designed to reduce fuel-loading, thereby
indirectly offering some protection to nearby denning habitats. Denning habitats are very abundant
within the analysis area.
TIMBER MGMT-related Conservation Measures
Management actions (timber sales, salvage sales) do not change more than 15 percent of lynx
habitat within an LAU to an unsuitable condition within a 10-year period. Yes_X__ No
Not Applicable
Appendix Q
Page Q-21
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Implementation-related changes in both affected LAUs converts less than 1 percent (LAD #3020306) and
less than 3% (LAU #3050401) of suitable habitat to unsuitable condition throughout the life of this project.
Post-project unsuitable lynx habitat would amount to less than 2% (LAU 3020306) and less than 4% (LAU
#3050401).
In lynx habitat, precommercial thinning will be allowed only when stands no longer provide
snowshoe hare habitat )(e.g., self-pruning processes have eliminated snowshoe hare cover and
forage availability during winter conditions with average snowpack). Yes No Not
Applicable X
Precommercial thinning is not part of this project.
FOREST ROADS/TRAILS-related Conservation Measures
On federal lands in lynx habitat, no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes
and snowmobile play areas are allowed by LAU. This criteria will be satisfied.
There are no net increases in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or play areas are proposed.
Lynx Cumulative Effects - Private land harvesting near Elk City and on private industrial lands has not
impacted designated lynx habitats to any measureable degree due to the limited amount of lynx habitat
in the project area. Based on the mapping, all lynx habitat in the project area is on Forest Service
administered lands. Nevertheless, relatively limited acres of designated lynx habitat are impacted by this
alternative despite having the greatest effects to habitats. Given the current condition of the habitat due to
past fire impacts, harvests, reading, human disturbance, motorized travel and other land-disturbing
activities, this alternative adds minor negative effects in addition to positive effects cumulatively to the
habitat conditions for lynx by creating early-serai habitats.
GRAY WOLF
The analysis area contains habitat for gray wolves and the area is fully occupied by wolf packs. The
cumulative effects of increased human use of the areas along with the increased risks of disturbance of
individual wolves will have the potential to temporarily displace animals. Risks of human presence or
potential for individual wolf mortality will remain relatively unchanged in the longer term. Risks of direct
disturbance or displacement of individuals or packs during implementation of activities, remains present.
Because of the "experimental/nonessential", status of the gray wolf these risks are not considered
threatening to overall wolf populations recovery in general.
The project activities will modestly improve wolf habitat relative to increased forage for ungulate prey.
Beneficial impacts for wolves will result from improvements in big game foraging habitat. Watershed
restoration actions, and post-harvest slash treatments using fire are not expected to negatively impact
elk or their habitats to a significant degree, except that fire use would help cycle plant nutrients back to
the soil increasing vigor and nutritive quality of post-burn forage plants. Noxious weeds that could
pioneer burned sites would negatively impact elk foraging areas by displacing desirable plants, but this
would not be expected to be sufficiently extensive or widespread enough to be of major significance
under any alternatives.
Summer Elk Habitat Effectiveness - EHE is displayed as percent of potential habitat effectiveness
achieved in each Elk Analysis Unit (EAU). Note: Calculation of road effects includes trails. For the
purposes of assessing relative effects of open roads and related human disturbance impacts on wolf prey
and other species, the summer elk habitat analysis provides perspective.
ELK ANALYSIS UNITS
FP objective
Existing
Martin
Meadows
75
84
American
River
50
72
Queen
Creek
50
77
Kirkjs Fork
75
83
Relief Creek
50
60
Appendix Q
Page Q-22
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Condition
Alternative D
87
72
80
88
58
Elk habitat effectiveness is maintained above Forest Plan standards. Most EAU effectiveness is
improved over the existing conditions in every EAU except Relief Creek, due to reduced levels of road
decommissioning there. In all, elk habitat effectiveness is improved by the preferred alternative (D), thus
wolf prey habitat will improve.
Wolf Cumulative Effects - Human activities related to implementation will temporarily increase human
disturbance risks given past, present and foreseeable future human uses of the project areas. Risks of
human-induced mortality would decline but would not be completely eliminated. Some wolves may be
temporarily displaced by burning, harvest, road work or other project-associated activities or their prey
may be forced to change use areas for the short-term which may impact wolves to some degree.
Resulting forest mosaic of age class variation and improved availability and quality of ungulate forage
would improve habitat for wolves.
BALD EAGLE
Bald eagles generally use elevations well below those of the American and Crooked River Project during
winter. There is relatively little direct relationship between planned activities in American or Crooked
River drainages and bald eagles or their habitats. Perch trees and snags along the lower elevations of
the South Fork Clearwater river (including predominantly fire-resistant ponderosa pine) would not likely
be harmed by project activities.
Indirect and minor cumulative effects to water quality and fish prey habitats would potentially occur from
harvest, temporary road building, noxious weeds, road decommissioning, watershed restoration actions,
and post-harvest slash treatments using fire, and similar ground-disturbing actions within the project
areas. The magnitude of these impacts are considered to be minor.
Bald Eagle Cumulative Effects - Planned activities would add indirect, short-term human-induced soil
and water disturbances and minor aquatic habitat changes from harvests, road
reconstruction/decommissioning, application of prescription fire and other ground disturbing actions to
past effects on aquatic prey and habitats related to road development, timber harvest, broadscale fire
exclusion, current human and vehicular disturbance levels and mortality risks associated with an already
established transportation network. The overall long-term sum of all cumulative impacts would be very
low.
MITIGATION ACTIONS (WILDLIFE & TERRESTRIAL TES ASSOCIATED MITIGATIONS AND
DESIGN FEATURES)
Should any of the following be sighted in the project area during project implementation, the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service and Unit biologist would be notified: lynx or a lynx den, bald eagle, new wolf den or
rendezvous site, active goshawk nest. Appropriate protection measures would be implemented.
Timing of prescribed burning would be coordinated with the unit biologist, silviculturist, and fuels
management specialist to achieve objectives and reduce impacts to species during important
reproductive and natal period, as well as other resources.
The integrity of existing access management restrictions would be maintained within the planning area for
wildlife security purposes. Current access management restrictions would apply to existing reconstructed
roads after implementation of activities to maintain or improve existing access and wildlife security. No
contractor or their representatives may use motorized vehicles to hunt or trap animals on a restricted
road.
Appendix Q
Page Q-23
-------
American River/Crooked River - Final Environmental Impact Statement
CONCLUSIONS
LYNX
The cumulative disturbance and/or risks of incidental human-induced mortalities or disturbances from
human disturbances, harvest activities, vehicular traffic or road decommissioning in combination with
vegetative changes from planned burns has the potential to affect the lynx and small amounts of lynx
habitats. Effects would be slightly negative but also positive with overall probable impacts more beneficial
in the long-term than harmful in the short-term. The project is in compliance with the LCAS and Lynx
Science Report. As a result, a determination of " MAY AFFECT, BUT NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT" is hereby made.
GRAY WOLF
Wolves occur within the analysis and project areas. They are abundant in the adjacent drainages as well.
Wolves may travel, hunt, and reproduce within the project areas before and/or during project activities.
They may be temporarily displaced by harvest and other project activities and human disturbances.
Vegetative impacts and slightly improved ungulate prey habitats would definitely benefit wolves and their
habitats in the longer term. Overall impacts would be beneficial, but cumulative impacts from increased
short-term human disturbance levels in treated areas would result in a "NOT LIKELY TO JEOPARDIZE
THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE SPECIES OR LEAD TO DESTRUCTION OR ADVERSE
MODIFICATION OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT" (NLJCE) determination for the gray wolf.
BALD EAGLE
Based on the analysis herein, the planned activities would yield a "MAY AFFECT, BUT NOT LIKELY TO
ADVERSELY AFFECT" conclusion.
IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
The project activities will not result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that
foreclose the formulation or implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives which would violate
Section 7 (a) (2)...Jeopardy.
REFERENCES
Roloff, Gary J. 1995. Conservation Strategy for Lynx in Idaho. IN: Habitat Conservation Assessments
and Strategies for Forest Carnivores in Idaho. May 10, 1995. Prepared by Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game,
Nez Perce Tribe, Sawtooth National Forest.
Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick,
A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation
Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National
Park Service. Forest Service Publication # R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142pp.
USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Portland, OR. Pages 1, 8, and 19 (160 pp.).
USDA, Forest Service, 1998. Southfork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (Volume 1 -
Narrative). Nez perce national Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. 209 pp.
USDA, Forest Service, 1999. Draft Meadow Face Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS).
Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. Page 64.
USDA, Forest Service, Nez Perce National Forest, Forest Plan 12th Annual Monitoring and Evaluation
Report-1999.
USDA, Forest Service, Nez Perce National Forest, Forest Plan 10th Annual Monitoring and Evaluation
Report-1997.
Appendix Q
Page Q-24
------- |