Alaska
EPA910/&-87-178 United States Region 10 Idaho
Environmental Protection 12¦ iOc.
i , - a r\
, vL • -
-------
PLANNED AND ACTUAL IMPACTS
ON FISH AND WATER QUALITY ON
THREE NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTHERN IDAHO
Submitted by
Chr1st1ne M. Kelly
Prepared for the-
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Network for Water Policy Research and Analysis
Pilot Project
NOVEMBER, 1987
iliiiiiiil
KX000001A03
-------
ABSTRACT
Much land within the State of Idaho is reserved as National
Forests. The major type of water pollution from these reserves
is nonpoint source, primarily sediment. Before silvicultural
activities take place on the National Forest lands, they undergo
extensive planning, in part to mitigate their impacts to water
resources.
After detailing the planning process, this study examines
three particular silvicultural operations on National Forests in
northern Idaho. A comparison of planning and implementation of
these operations assesses whether practices were carried out as
planned and whether impacts were mitigated as predicted. The
study then discusses problems with the process. Lack of
monitoring and evaluation of forest operations was found to be
the greatest problem. This lack of follow-up data limited
assessment of agreement between planned and implemented practices
and between predicted and actual impacts. According to the
limited information that was available, practices overall seem to
be carried out as planned and actual impacts on fish and water
quality are fairly accurately predicted. However, before one can
properly assess this agreement, more specific information must be
included in environmental analyses and much more documented
monitoring of implemented activities must be conducted. The
study concludes with recommendations for further research.
i
-------
Acknowledgments
I wish to express my appreciation to all those at the
Environmental Protection Agency who made this study possible
all those who developed the National Network for Water Policy
Research and Analysis Pilot Program, who acquired the funding for
this study, and who aided me in defining this study. I also wish
to thank the many United States Forest Service personnel who
spent hours explaining project operations and directing me to
further information. A special thanks to D.B. and Brendan
Marshall for all their encouragement and patience. And finally,
thanks to the fish.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract i
Acknowledgments ii
Table of Contents iii
Introduction 1
Summary of Observations 4
Planning Procedure for Forest Activities 13
General Planning 13
Specific Planning 16
Constraints for Preservation of Water Quality 22
Case Studies 26
Forest Background 26
Specific Studies 29
East Bruin Timber Sale 32
Lower Salmon Road '....43
Simmons/Butte Road 57
Agreement Throughout the Process 62
EA Compliance with Forest-wide Plans.... 63
Contract Agreement with EA 65
Implementation Agreement with Pre-Contract Planning 67
Implementation Agreement with Contract 69
Problems With the General Process 70
Specificity of Environmental Assessments 70
Problems With Planning/Implementation/Monitoring 76
A) Planning 76
B) Implementation 77
C) Monitoring 78
Further Research 82
Ref erences 83
i i i
-------
INTRODUCTION
During the 1985 public comment period following the release
of several proposed plans for National Forests in Idaho, several
government agencies and citizens' organizations expressed concern
over the lack of specificity contained in the plans with respect
to fish and water quality impacts. The United States Forest
Service (USFS) responded that the forest-wide plans by their
nature had to be fairly general and that site-specific measures
are addressed in the Environmental Assessments (EAs) prepared for
each particular operation. With this in mind, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded this study of
operations on National Forest lands in Idaho under its National
Network for Water Policy Research and Analysis Pilot Study.
The primary objective of this study was to assess if actual
impacts to fish and water quality were as predicted and if
implemented practices for mitigation of impacts agreed with
planned practices. Actual monitoring of impacts was beyond the
scope of this preliminary study. Rather, USES planning documents
and follow-up evaluations were relied on to assess this agreement
throughout the planning-impleraentation process. As time
permitted, interviews were conducted with those familiar with the
operations for their views on the conformity between planned and
implemented practices and on the overall adequacy of mitigation
measures.
As will be shown, the timing of this project is somewhat
premature to meet this objective. Operations planned recently
1
-------
enough to come under the present national planning directives
have generally been insufficiently implemented to assess
agreement. However, this prematurity difficulty aside, the
greatest hindrance to this study was the lack of past monitoring
and evaluation of project implementation.
Since EPA's concern was with protection and enhancement of
water quality, water quality measures are the focus of this
report. Most water quality impacts from silvicultural activities
are due to nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution, primarily
sediment. Therefore, although some other water quality issues
are presented by the case studies, they are given only minimal
attention in this report. In Idaho, water quality standards are
based-on designated uses of water bodies. Most waters on
National Forest lands are designated for coldwater biota or
salmonid spawning, each requiring high water quality standards.
Because of these designations, this report contains extensive
discussion of the fisheries resources in the project areas.
This report first sets forth the general planning procedure
for forest-wide plans and specific operations. A discussion of
water quality regulations follows. The bulk of the report is a
presentation of three case studies. It is hoped this
presentation will familiarize the reader with the typical
procedure involved in planning timber harvests and road
construct ions, the evolving nature of the planning process, the
complexities involved in putting together these activities, the
variety of adjustments included to resolve resource conflicts,
2
-------
and the degree of planning flexibility between forests. The case
studies are followed by an evaluation of agreement between
planning and implementation, a discussion of issues raised
concerning this process, and suggestions for further research.
3
-------
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS
I. PLANNING PROCEDURE FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES.
1) Both the planning procedure and the technical parameters
included in forest planning documents change with time. What is
considered to be important when the projects are implemented may
not have been important during the planning phases.
2) The decision to conduct an environmental analysis on a
proposed project seems to include the decision to go ahead with
development.
3) After an Environmental Assessment is prepared, the
responsible line officer almost always files a Finding of No
Significant Impact instead of deciding to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement.
4) The planning procedure for specific timber sales and road
constructions may take up to ten years to complete.
II. CASE STUDIES.
A) East Bruin Timber Sale, Idaho Panhandle National Forests.
1) Of the three forests considered in this study, the
Panhandle is doing the least amount of interdisciplinary or
multi-disciplinary follow-up monitoring.
2) Other than use of project inspectors and timber sale
-------
administrators, the only routine evaluation on the Panhandle is
one administrative inspection per district per year. This
inspection basically serves to educate timber sale administrators
and obtain uniformity of administration between districts.
3) The Idaho Panhandle National Forests did not begin tying
its specific project planning to NFMA policy and guidelines until
the proposed forest plan was released in 1985.
4) The East Bruin EA included only one of the forest
biologists' recommendations for mitigating impacts to fish and
water quality, and this recommendation was justified in terms of
allowing increased harvesting in the future.
5) The other recommendations of the biologists were not
included in any planning documents in the East Bruin file.
6) During implementation, timber sale administrators
contacted forest specialists when a serious soil erosion problem
was encountered.
7) .Evaluation of erosion control and water quality
protection was not included in the standard checklist for
contract closure.
B) Lower Salmon Road Construction, Clearwater National Forest.
1) During the early planning stages for the Lower Salmon
project, numerous comments from forest personnel reflected
concern over unstable soils in the project area.
2) The Lower Salmon EA was the most specific of the three
5
-------
EAs studied, both in terms of describing the present status of
the project area and in terms of presenting general mitigating
measures.
3) In the Lower Salmon EA, the risk of watershed degradation
from all of the development alternatives was considered to be
high.
4) The Forest Supervisor's Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) was based in part on no expected degradation of watershed
stability.
5) The use of an EA and FONSI for this project appears to
have been inadequate to meet NEPA requirements. A full EIS
should have been prepared.
6) The Lower Salmon project raises the question of
compliance with the statutory intent of NFMA, since NFMA
prohibits harvesting where watershed conditions will be
irreversibly damaged.
7) The EA's 15-year recovery period for the streams was
considered to be inadequate by the forest fisheries biologist.
He suggested a 30-year stream recovery period was more accurate.
8) This was the only operation considered in this study that
had water- or fish-related comments from non-USFS organizations.
9) This was the only EA considered in this study that
included monitoring requirements.
10) Inspections by an interdisciplinary team were conducted
during road construction, and reports on at least some of these
inspections were filed.
5
-------
C. Simmons/Butte Road Construction, Nezperce National Forest.
1) The interdisciplinary team preparing the Simmons/Butte EA
intended to consider sediment production and impacts on fish as
limiting the degree of development rather than merely as
consequences of development.
2) This project was postponed because of concerns voiced by
environmentalists.
III. AGREEMENT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
A. Agreement Between EA and Forest-wide Plan.
1) The Lower Salmon EA was the only one of the three studied
that was sufficiently tied to the forest plan to allow
comparison.
2) Many standards in the Clearwater National Forest Plan
were reflected in the Lower Salmon EA.
3) The high fishable standard contained in the Lower Salmon
EA and the Clearwater Forest Plan seems to preclude any present
activity in the area, since sediment levels already exceed the
allowable increase and, apparently, will continue to do so for
more than the allowable duration.
7
-------
B) Agreement Between Contract and EA.
1) The EA does not appear to be intented to direct specific
practices during implementation. Rather, it seems to serve the
function of identifying broad issues, identification of which
automatically triggers inclusion of standard contract language.
2) The contract is the document that contains specific
practices to be used during implementation.
3) Since the interdisciplinary team does not prepare the
contract, the general measures in the EA do not always get
translated into specific practices at all necessary sites.
C) Agreement Between Implementation and Pre-Contract Planning.
1) Documented monitoring of implementation is inadequate to
thoroughly assess agreement between implementation and pre-
contract planning materials.
2) What documented monitoring and evaluation is available
suggests fairly thorough agreement between implementation and the
EA.
3) Several recommendations of biologists were not
implemented.
3
-------
D) Agreement Between Implementation and Contract.
1) Documented monitoring of implementation is inadequate to
thoroughly assess agreement between implementation and the
contract.
2) What documented monitoring and evaluation is available
suggests fairly thorough agreement between implementation and the
contract with respect to fish and water quality measures.
IV. PROBLEMS WITH THE GENERAL PROCESS.
A) Specificity of EAs.
1) EAs are frequently not specific enough for publics to
comprehend proposed activities, mitigation measures, and
predicted impacts.
2) For the East Bruin and Simmons/Butte projects, the EAs
were not more specific than the forest-wide plans with respect to
standards and mitigation measures to protect fish and water
quali ty.
3) Many measures contained in the EAs are rather vague and
leave much room for interpretation. "Escape clauses" (such as
minimize ditches, reduce hazard to acceptable levels, and
maintain favorable flows) do not really require any level of
compli ance.
9
-------
4) EAs do not contain very specific forest practices for
mitigating anticipated impacts, nor very specific descriptions of
proposed activities and their impacts on the environment.
5) The contract is the document that contains the specific
forest practices that are to be followed during a particular
activity. The design maps accompanying the contract contain the
specific sites for activities.
6) Unlike the EA, the contract is not subject to public
review prior to adoption.
7) The fact that publics cannot obtain from these site-
specific EAs sufficient information to adequately assess the
proposed action raises significant legal issues on the compliance
of this process with NEPA,
B) Planning.
1) Because of the lack of baseline data, fish and water
quality will likely continue to receive low priority during
planning. For example, the proposed plan for the Idaho Panhandle
National Forests had set 1994 as the target date for
accomplishment of fish habitat surveys, spawning site analyses,
and lake surveys. The final plan eliminated target dates
altogether, requiring accomplishment, instead, as budgets allow.
2) The fisheries biologists for all three forests indicated
that multiple resources personnel are adequately involved during
planning, but these personnel do not have enough time for
13
-------
monitoring and evaluation.
B) Implementation.
1) Concern was expressed by both USFS personnel and outside
organizations that extensive multiple resource planning is for
naught when activities are inspected only by engineers or
foresters.
2) Several USFS personnel indicated that districts vary in
in their priorities during implementation: some districts are not
as concerned with fish and water quality as others. The same
variation in implementation has often been raised by outside
organizations with respect to the different forests.
C) Monitoring.
1) The greatest problem with the process is lack of
documented monitoring.
2) Even if inspectors and administrators do not consciously
have a pro-timber bias in their resolution of conflicts, the fact
remains that these personnel are trained foresters, forest
technicians, or engineers, not aquatic biologists or
hydrologists.
3) There is very little documented evaluation of how well
operations have been conducted.
4) In some cases, there has even been very little
11
-------
observation of how well operations have been conducted.
5) Some forest supervisors and regional administrators are
resisting monitoring to the degree desired by some USFS personnel
and outside agencies.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS.
1) To improve the degree of specificity in EAs, it may be
necessary to make standards and guidelines in the forest-wide
plans specific enough to be directly incorporated into the EAs.
This seems to be particularly crucial for monitoring and
evaluation requirements.
2) To have input on specific practices, outside agencies
should work with the Regional Offices for adoption of standard
contract language in addition to periodically reviewing specific
operations on the individual forests.
3) The Lower Salmon project is a good candidate for annual
review during and after timber harvest.
4) A study similar to this one should be conducted at a
later date after more forest operations that are tiered to the
forest-wide plan have been implemented.
-------
PLANNING PROCEDURE FOR FOREST ACTIVITIES
General Planning.
The planning procedure for activities on the National
Forests has changed substantially in the last decade. General
planning is now governed by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) (16 U.S.C.$1600 et seq.) and
regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended by the National
Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). Prior to RPA-NFMA,
functional planning predominated. Separate plans were prepared
for each resource and principal planning efforts were directed
toward the timber function. Under RPA-NFMA, forest planning
became integrated land and resource management planning with
interdisciplinary consideration of all forest resources,
particularly outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed,
wildlife and fish, and wilderness.
RPA-NFMA provides for planning at the national, regional,
and forest levels. At the national Level, the Chief of the
Forest Service prepares an RPA Assessment that includes an
analysis of present and anticipated uses, an inventory of present
and potential renewable resources, and an evaluation of
opportunities for improving the yield of goods and services from
renewable resources. Based on data in the Assessment, the Chief
prepares an RPA Program which includes identification of national
renewable resource goals and objectives for outputs and other
benefits and tentative assignment of objectives for each region
13
-------
and forest planning area.
At the regional level, the regional forester develops a
regional guide which includes an analysis of the existing
management situation, establishment of regional standards and
guidelines, and tentative assignment of objectives for each
forest.
At the forest level, the level of particular interest here,
the forest supervisor develops a land and resource management
plan which directs and establishes management standards for all
subsequent activities on the forest. According to planning
regulations, ten steps are involved in the forest-wide planning
process:
(1) Identification and evaluation of public issues,
management concerns, and resource use and development
opportunities (ICOs);
(2) Preparation of planning criteria;
(3) Collection of inventory data and information;
(4) Analysis of the management situation;
(5) Formulation of alternatives;
(6) Estimation of effects of alternatives;
(7) Evaluation of alternatives;
(8) Recommendation of the preferred alternative;
(9) Approval of plan; and
(10) Monitoring and evaluation during implementation of plan
(36 C.F.a. * 219.12).
14
-------
Preparation of the forest plan takes place in the forest
Supervisor's Office by an interdisciplinary team selected by the
Supervisor. Regulations instruct the team to "integrate
knowledge of the physical, biological, economic and social
sciences, and the environmental design arts in the planning
process [and to] consider problems collectively, rather than
separating them along disciplinary lines (36 C.F.R. $219.5)."
As well as providing direction from the national level down
to the forest districts, this whole process is meant to send
feedback from the ground up to the national level. On-the-
ground, district-planned operations test the feasibility of the
forest-wide plan; data for the forest-wide plan determine if
regional goals can be met; and regional feedback may result in
reevaluation of national targets.
Planning under RPA-NFMA must follow the procedural
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 CJ.S.C. H 4321 et seq.). This includes extensive public
participation throughout the planning stages and preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concurrent with plans.
Several of the planning steps listed above are largely a
reiteration of NEPA requirements, as is the use of an
interdisciplinary team. The NEPA procedure is intended to inform
publics of federal actions a"d to aid federal officials in making
decisions that include consideration of environmental
consequences.
15
-------
NEPA procedures must insure that environmental
information is available to public officials and
citizens before decisions are made and before actions
are taken. The information must be of high quality.
Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments,
and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.
. . . Ultimately, of course, it is not better
documents but better decisions that count. . . . The
NEPA process is intended to help public officials make
decisions that are based on understanding of
environmental consequences, and take actions that
protect, restore, and enhance the environment (40
C.F.R. 1500.1).
Forest and regional plans must also be coordinated with
related planning efforts by other agencies — federal, state,
tribal, and local. This would include, for example, the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game's (IDFG's) five-year fish managment
plans and the Northwest Power Planning Council's Fish and
Wildlife Program.
Specific Planning.
While t
on the groun
NEPA require
analysis gui
USFS policy
National "Ga
early 1980s.
:he NFMA forest plan provides direction for activities
id, it is not intended to plan specific operations,
iments for an interdisciplinary, environmental
de the planning procedure for individual operations,
for planning specific operations is presented in the
ites" System, a scheduling format developed in the
16
-------
Timber sale preparation must pass through critical
quality control, scheduling, and accomplishment
reporting points, called "gates," each of which require
(sic) specific outputs prior to proceeding to the next
gate. The processes leading toward these gates follow:
GATE NOMBER GATE TITLE PROCESSES (ACTIVITIES) KEY ACTIVITIES
r- Position Position statement Scoping, sale area
Statement Development selection, silvicul-
tural exams, area
logging/trans-
portation analysis,
economic feasibili-
ty, budget, and
scheduling
2 Decision Sale Area Design Environmental and
economic analysis,
resource reviews,
project transpor-
tation/logging
analysis, decision
making, prepare
project activity
plan, and silvi-
cultural prescrip-
tions
Includes all field
layout activities,
document items for
use in preparing
appraisal, contract
preparation,
offering, and sale
area improvement
plan
Timber Sale Sale Plan
Preparation implementation
Report
4 Advertisement Final Package Appraisal, sample
or Notice Preparation, contract, adver-
Review, Appraisal, tisement, prospectus
and Offering
5 Bid Opening Bid Opening Review bids, hold
Date auction, tentative
high bidder
6 Sale Award Sale Award Complete award
activities
(Forest Service Manual $2431). This system permits procedural
17
-------
and substantive flexibility between regions and between forests.
It specifically allows variation in the order of accomplishing
the various activities. However, as formal USFS policy, it
requires preparation of specific documents before passage through
each gate. To assure compliance with NEPA requirements, the
system specifically prohibits any sale plan implementation until
the environmental analysis is completed.
The typical procedure followed on the Clearwater National
Forest for sales greater than two million board feet (MMBF)
demonstrates these procedures, individual operations are planned
and implemented at the district level with some review at the
Supervisor's Office. Once district personnel identify an area
for a specific project, the district ranger sends a Project
Initiation Letter or Letter of Management Intent to interested
publics and forest personnel requesting ICOs. This initiates
public involvement and generally signals placement of the
proposed sale on the 10-year plan. From the ICOs, the district
ranger develops a Position Statement, a preliminary assessment of
project feasibility. This statement is sent to the Forest
Supervisor for determination whether to continue planning the
project. After approval by the Supervisor, an interdisciplinary
team appointed by the district ranger conducts an environmental
analysis that usually results in a formal Environmental
Assessment (EA). The EA is generally reviewed by staff at the
Supervisor's Office before the Supervisor's approval and
signature of the Decision Notice and Finding Of No Significant
18
-------
Impact (FONSI). The Decision Notice formally serves to notify
publics of the decision, and the FONSI serves to determine no EIS
is required. Since this process is meant to resolve anticipated
problems before the EA reaches his desk, the Supervisor's
"decision" is generally pro forma. While material is being
gathered for the EA, a Transportation Plan is prepared if the
project entails new road construction or appreciable
reconstruction. Logging Systems Plans and Silvicultural
Prescriptions are also prepared at the same time as the EA.
After the EA is signed, the district office completes the
Project Plan, the paper design of the preferred alternative that
directs implementation on the ground. This step includes
locating P-lines and landings for a road construction and setting
timber sale boundaries (unless boundaries are a particular issue
needing coverage by the EA). The Project Plan typically includes
a Sale Area Improvement (SAI) Plan. The latter plan grew out of
a 1930 act, in which Congress authorized the Secretary of
Agriculture to require cash deposits from a timber purchaser to
cover costs of regeneration and stand improvement (16 U.S.C. $
576b). NFMA subsequently authorized the use of these K-v funds
(so named after the authors of the 1930 act) for preservation and
enhancement of all the renewable resources of forest lands.
These sale area improvement operations are frequently planned as
opportunities to improve fish habitat.
After the Project Plan is completed, actual ground
preparation takes place: for example, layout of the logging
19
-------
units, marking and cruising of timber, and survey of the
transportation system. It is at this point that mitigation
measures or management constraints are located. These include
identification of riparian management zones, erosion control
areas, floodplains, wetlands, and other protected habitat. The
Timber Sale Report that summarizes data from this on-the-ground
activity is used to develop the Appraisal and Contract. At this
point, the process moves into the business of advertising the
operation, awarding the bid, and execution of the contract. This
procedure, from initiation to sale, may take up to ten years to
complete.
From here the process moves into implementation. For large
timber sales, full implementation may take up to seven years. To
assure compliance during implementation, several precautions are
taken. A Contracting'Officer out of the Supervisor's Office is
assigned to the operation and is solely responsible for
administration of the contract. Under the Contracting Officer
are a Forest Service Representative, an Engineering
Representative, and a Timber Sale Administrator. For larger
sales, a Harvest Inspector and a Road Inspector may also be
appointed. The different positions have authority over different
portions of the ground activities. Bach position carries with it
authority to alter plans when ground conditions dictate. For
example, the Timber Sale Administrator has authority to alter
length or location of culverts, modify slash placement, and
lengthen operating season when weather permits. When ground
20
-------
conditions require an actual change in the sale contract, only
the Contracting Officer has the authority to make such a change.
Contract changes are typically minor alterations (e.g., cost
discrepancies). If ground conditions reveal that the EA cannot
be met, only the person who signed off on the EA has authority to
amend the document, if a significant change is dictated, the
amendment must go through the public review process. Each of the
administrators, representatives, and inspectors maintains a diary
of activities observed at the site, problems that arise, and
resolution of problems. The Timber Sale Administrator and Road
Inspector typically spend more time on-site than the other
representatives. Approval of the road upon final inspection is
usually assured because of the daily monitoring and correction of
activities. Other than the final road inspection, evaluations of
projects after completion vary from forest to forest and project
to project, as demonstrated below by the case studies.
21
-------
CONSTRAINTS FOR PRESERVATION OF WATER QUALITY
Statutory constraints for preservation of water quality are
contained in RPA-NFMA itself. The Act requires that the RPA
Program include recommendations that "recognize the fundamental
need to protect and, where appropriate, improve the quality of
soil, water, and air resources (16 U.S.C. 4 1602(5)(c))." The
Act also requires that regulations promulgated for development of
forest plans specify guidelines which:
[I]nsure that timber will be harvested from National
Forest System lands only where—(i) soil, slope, or
other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly
damaged; (ii) there is assurance that such lands can be
adequately restocked within five years after harvest;
(iii) protection is provided for streams, streambanks,
shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water
from detrimental changes in water temperatures,-
blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment,
where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely
affect water conditions or fish habitat (16 U.S.C. $
1604 (g) (3) (E)) .
The Act also requires that plans provide for multiple use and
sustained yield management in accordance with the Multiple-Use
Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. § 528 et seq.). The
multiple uses include watershed and wildlife and fish.
Compliance with NEPA is also emphasized in NFMA and its
regulations. So, for example, when high water quality and
fisheries are identified as concerns, NEPA requires assessment of
impacts on these resources.
The regulations promulgated pursuant to RPA-NFMA contain
numerous provisions for preservation of fish and. water resources.
For example, lands are to be classified as unsuitable for timber
22
-------
production if "[t]echnology is not available to ensure timber
production from the land without irreversible resource damage to
soils productivity, or watershed conditions." All management
prescriptions must "[cjonserve soil and water resources [and]
protect streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and
other bodies of water [and] provide for adequate fish and
wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations." Even-aged
timber cuts must be "carried out in a manner consistent with the
protection of soil, watershed, fish and wildlife." For riparian
areas, "[n]o management practices causing detrimental changes in
water temperature or chemical composition, blockages of water
courses, or deposits of sediment shall be permitted within these
areas which seriously and adversely affect water conditions or
fish habitat (36 C.F.R.# 219.14(a), 219.27(a), (c), & (e))."
The regulations also specifically require compliance with
the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act (CWA) (36
C.F.R. % 219.23(d)). Although not totally unrelated (e.g.,
turbidity does affect the cost and efficacy of treatment for
potability), the Safe Drinking Water Act is presently not used
for NPS control. MPS pollution is primarily regulated through
CWA provisions. Under the CWA, NPS is essentially controlled by
the states, with EPA approval of plans and programs required for
receipt of federal CWA funds.
In Idaho, water quality is regulated by the Idaho
Environmental Protection and Health Act (Idaho Code k 39-101 et
seq.) and the Water Quality Standards (16 IDAPA $ 01.2000 et seq.)
23
-------
promulgated by the Division of Environment within the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW-DOE). Idaho's Water
Quality Standards are based on designated beneficial uses of
water bodies and criteria to protect those uses. The water use
classifications are agricultural water supplies, domestic water
supplies, cold water biota, warm water biota, salmonid spawning,
primary contact recreation, and secondary contact recreation.
Most waters on the National Forests considered in this report are
classified for cold water biota or salmonid spawning. Criteria
for these two classifications are dissolved oxygen greater than 6
mg/1; pH between 6.5 and 9.0; total dissolved gas less than or
equal to 110% saturation; un-ionized ammonia at a mean of 0.04
rag/1; and temperature no greater than 13°C with a daily average
no greater than 9*C for salmonid spawning, and no greater than 22°
C with a daily average no greater than 19*C for cold water biota
(15 IDAPA 1-2100, 1-2250.04, & 1-2250.05).
With respect to silvicultural practices, IDHW-DOE has
approved the Idaho Forest Practices Act rules and regulations as
Best Management Practices (BMPs). This means that the rules and
regulations, administered by the Idaho Department of Lands, are
recognized as the means to minimize NPS pollution from
silvicultural sources. These regulations specifically apply to
State and private lands within Idaho.
For silvicultural practices on National Forest lands, Idaho
and the USFS entered into a Cooperative Agreement in 1976 that
requires USFS activities to meet or exceed Idaho BMPs. Since
24
-------
1980, this agreement has also specifically required the USFS to
monitor sample operations. "The Forest Service agrees: ... To
accomplish water quality management requirements by: ...
Monitoring and evaluating selected management activities to
determine how well objectives are being or have been met,
followed by timely incorporation of necessary adjustments into
plans and future management activities to reasonably insure
maintenance of environmental quality (Addendum to Cooperative
Agreement)." Revision of this agreement to include recent
regulatory changes is presently being discussed (Bauer 1987). To
date, the USFS has only partially fulfilled its obligations under
this agreement. One study has shown that USFS practices do, for
the most part, indeed meet or exceed Idaho BMPs. In a review of
25 forestry operations on State, private, and National Forest
lands, Idaho's Silvicultural Task Force found that USFS sites
overall "use practices in excess of those required in the
proposed [Idaho Forest Practices Act] Rules. Administration of
forest practices provided high levels of water quality protection
(IDHW-DOE 1985a)." However, as will be demonstrated by the case
studies, the USFS has been remiss in its compliance with the
monitoring requirement of the Cooperative Agreement.
25
-------
CASE STUDIES
Forest Background.
Specific operations on three northern Idaho National Forests
were examined to assess the consistency between planned and
implemented forest practices and water quality impacts. All
three forests (the Clearwater, the Nezperce, and the Panhandle)
are located in Region 1, the Northern Region of the USFS (Figure
1). Table 1 compares general information on the three forests.
As the table shows, all three forests produce substantial amounts
of timber and all three support significant coldwater fisheries
and very high water quality. Also shown are appreciable
increases in projected timber harvest and coad construction.
Each of the- three forests released a proposed forest plan
and draft EIS in 1985 and the final documents in 1987. Each
forest plan presents forest-wide goals and objectives for the
various resources of the forest. The goals and objectives that
specifically apply to fish and water resources are presented in
Appendix A. Forest-wide standards are also provided for the
resources on each forest. These standards supplement national
and regional policies, guidelines, and standards. One general
standard contained in all three forest plans is to make all
existing and future permits and contracts consistent with the
NFMA Plan. The Clearwater Plan also contains general, procedural
standards for first entry into roadless areas. These standards,
along with the pertinent resource standards for all three Plans
are shown in Appendix B.
26
-------
Figure 1.
U.S. DepertMeRt of Agrleulture
FOREST SERVICE REGIONS
in the
STATE OF IOAHO
Panhandle
National Forest
i*2
Clearwater
National Forest
Nez Perce
National Foreat
NORTHERN
RIGION
IDAHO
INTXftMOUNTAIN REGION
27
-------
TABLE 1. GENERAL FOREST INFORMATION.
Clearwater1
Size (acres)
Annual Timber Cut (MMBF)
Projected Cut, 1st Decade
Projected LTSY4 Cut
Existing Roads (miles)
Nezperce^ Panhandle^
Projected Road Construe-
tion, 1st Decade
Roadless (acres)
Wilderness (acres)
Fisheries Habitat
(stream miles)
Anadromous
Resident
Fisheries Potential
Anadromous, smolts
adults
Resident, trout
kokanee present
white fish present
Number of Lakes
Acres of Lakes
Inventoried Riparian
(acres)
Overall Water Quality
1/837,116
170
173
440
4/275
690
950,311
259,165
714
4,304
288,800 St.
7,300 st,
13,400 ch.
598,435
NA
NA
171
1,909
116,000
Excellent
2,218,040
102
108
210
2,050
608
503,162
926,188
8,800
10,000
705,000
•>7
«
7
364,000
NA
NA
130
32,000
Good to
Excellent
2,500,000
269
280
544
6,000
1,760
853,000
9,440
NA
4,710
NA6
NA
NA
451,300
1,600,000
28/800
80
78,000
Good to
Excellent
¦'¦Information from Clearwater Forest Final EIS (1987) .
information from Nezperce Forest Final EIS (1987).
^Information from Panhandle Forest Final EIS (1987).
4LTSY * Long-Term Sustained-Yield
^st. ¦ steelhead, ch. ¦ chinook salmon
6NA » Not Applicable
7? * Information not provided in the EISs.
28
-------
In addition to forest-wide goals, objectives, and standards,
each of the three Plans divides its respective forest into
specific management areas (MA) and each MA has specific goals and
standards. The Clearwater has 17 MAs, the Nezperce has 26 MAs,
and the Panhandle has 19 MAs (Appendix C). For comparison, the
goals and standards for the Riparian Management Areas are given
in Appendix D.
To ensure that these general goals and standards are met
during planning and implementation of specific operations, NFMA
requires monitoring and evaluation of projects (16 U.S.C.
1604(g)(3)(C)). Each of the three forest plans contains a
monitoring and evaluation section. This section includes goals,
an action plan for monitoring, a decision flow diagram to guide
evaluation of data, and requirements for evaluation reports. In
addition, the Nezperce Plan includes more monitoring details in
an appendix. The monitoring and evaluation portions of the plans
are shown in Appendix E.
Specific Studies.
The following operations were studied:
(1) East Bruin Timber Sale on the Panhandle,
(2) Lower Salmon Road Construction on the Clearwater, and
(3) Simmons/Butte Road Construction on the Nezperce.
Operations were chosen at the recommendation of USFS personnel as
representative of the planning, implementation, and monitoring
29
-------
process for recent activities and/or as having at least some
evaluation of activities to allow comparison of plans with
implementation.
The procedure used in planning these sample operations did
not completely parallel the National "Gates" System discussed
above. The "Gates" process was being developed and tested when
these sample operations were in the early planning stages. This
situation illustrates the evolving nature of the planning
procedure for specific operations on the National Forests.
Similarly, the technical parameters addressed in planning
documents evolves with changes in management direction. Just a
few years ago, for example, watershed management was largely
concerned with alterations in water yield. Today, watershed
specialists emphasize minimizing erosion and sediment delivery to
streams. The evolving nature of both the procedure and the
substance of planning documents should be kept in mind when
comparing the three case studies.
While it was hoped that documented evaluation of operations
would be sufficient to assess agreement between plans and
implementation, it was found that monitoring and evaluation of
operations, as anticipated by NFMA, had not yet been adopted. Of
the three forests, the Panhandle is doing the least amount of
interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary follow-up monitoring.
Other than use of road inspectors and Timber Sale Administrators
as discussed above, the only routine evaluation on the Panhandle
is one administrative inspection per district per year (Faulkner
30
-------
1987). This inspection, which is not of a multi-disciplinary or
interdisciplinary nature, basically serves to educate Timber Sale
Administrators and obtain uniformity of administration between
districts. The East Bruin Timber Sale will illustrate how
particular operations were planned, implemented, and monitored
prior to NFMA forest-wide planning. Since it is the only
operation of the three that is now completed, the East Bruin Sale
will also show the extent of material included in the permanent
public files.
More recent operations have been planned in accordance with
NFMA. The Lower Salmon Road Constuction was planned using NFMA
policy and guidelines and forest standards developed under early
drafts of the forest-wide plan. Description of this operation
will serve to illustrate (1) the extent of involvement of
multiple-resource personnel in planning and (2) the anticipated
procedure under the approved forest plan for the Clearwater
National Forest. The Simmons/Butte Road Construction was planned
about the same time as the East Bruin Creek Sale: planning had
some influence of the forest-wide planning process, though not as
much as for the Lower Salmon project on the Clearwater. Both the
Lower Salmon and Simmons/Butte projects were chosen for this
study because of their inclusion of monitoring during
implementation of part of the projects. Neither project,
however, has yet been established as a sample operation for
monitoring under the forest plan monitoring action plan.
31
-------
East Bruin Timber Sale, Idaho Panhandle National Forests.
The East Bruin Sale was proposed and internal scoping for
ICOs took place in 1981; the EA was prepared in 1982; the sale
took place in 1984; the operation closed in 1987. This sale is a
good example of pre-NFMA planning. Onlike the Clearwater and
Nezperce National Forests, the Idaho Panhandle National Forests
did not begin tying its specific project planning to NFMA policy
and guidelines until the proposed forest plan was released in
1985. Prior to 1985, it followed the guidelines of pre-NFMA land
use plans: concerning general multiple use objectives of the
East Bruin Sale, for example, the silvicultural prescriptions
refer to the 1975 Idaho Panhandle Forest Land Use Plan.
The sale area was located in the lower portions of the Bruin
Creek drainage on the Red Ives District, which is now part of the
Avery District (Figure 2). The total area comprised 4,050 acres,
of which 1,635 acres had already been harvested. When the sale
was initially proposed in 1981, it was reviewed by various
personnel in the Supervisor's Office and the District Office.
Comments applicable to fisheries or water quality were submitted
by the forest hydrologist and the wildlife biologist for Avery
District. At that time, the major impacts to Bruin Creek were
seen as having already occurred from previous logging activities
in the drainage. Despite these impacts, the creek was classified
as being in "fair" condition, a stability rating that could be
raised to "high-fair" if some debris cleanup took place. No
further significant impacts to the creek were anticipated. For
32
-------
Figure 2
)"""' Y c h 1r t\ Ci-\
*a fire*rdCnj-f
barn
| ] lk.K<)pi) 4 11 i«'»< Of
^ V -j# Q-reippIt Pi If S
«Wrei
/// lc< sK i *\ ^
\
r-^/
\v\W\\ r^'
wvw I - '
i*
^7
>\
-------
fisheries, it was noted that (apparently natural) log recruitment
into the creek and the road culvert at the mouth of the creek
were barriers to migration of trout. The wildlife biologist
recommended some harvesting in the riparian zone to reduce log
recruitment into the creek, emphasizing directional tree felling
to avoid bank degradation and sedimentation, and collection of K-
V funds for stream cleanout, habitat improvement, and mitigation
of impacts from the road culvert barrier (Gertsch 1981) .
The EA text (which consisted of just over 6 pages) contained
no mention of fish, fisheries habitat, or water quality. The
document presented a proposed action and three alternatives. The
"No Action" alternative was rejected apparently because "Removing
the overstory at some later date ... would result in greater
potential for logging damage to the residual stand (East Bruin EA
p.6). The preferred alternative proposed harvest of 4.5 MMBF on
290 acres, a harvest level approximately midway between the other
two development alternatives. No new road construction was
foreseen, and reopening of existing roads was restricted to the
minimum necessary for the logging operation. Mitigating measures
included closing and seeding all reopened roads, collecting K-V
funds for stream cleanout of Bruin Creek, and incorporating the
aforementioned wildlife biologist's recommendations where
feasible. The EA sections on affected environment and
environmental impacts included soils and watershed. The EA
predicted low surface erosion potential and low to moderate road
prism erosion hazard. The existing, closely spaced logging roads
34
-------
that laced the project area were considered to be very stable
with only a few, minor cutbank failures. Watershed impact
discussion centered around an increase in water yield with only
passing mention of sediment loading increases due to harvesting
activities. The allowable water yield increase had been set at
8% with the preferred alternative water yield increase estimated
at 6.5%. No specific timber harvest or road construction
practices were included in the EA.
Commenting on the EA, the fisheries biologist in the
Supervisor's Office expected little impact on the fish habitat in
Bruin Creek, a stream with the potential to produce more than
5,000 smolts. To avoid sediment delivery to Bruin Creek, she
recommended that roads be adequately maintained with sufficient
cross-drains and road dips at all stream crossings followed by
closure and seeding after the sale. She also recommended some
timber harvest in the riparian zone, particularly in areas where
large trees were falling into the stream creating sediment
problems and barriers to fish movement. To provide St. Joe River
cutthroat spawners access to Bruin Creek and to increase spawning
habitat, the fisheries biologist recommended that the following
enhancement opportunities be added to the EA: (1) correction of
barriers from debris jams, cascade blocks, and the road culvert
at the mouth of Bruin Creek and (2) installation of log pool
structures. The total cost of these projects was estimated at
about 34,300 (Wise 1982).
In addition to these suggestions, the Forest Supervisor
35
-------
wrote the Red Ives District Ranger when approving the EA stating,
"There is opportunity to significantly improve fisheries I would
like you to consider. Please consult our fisheries biologist for
recommendations (Kizer 1982)." No EA ammendments or other
documents reflecting these suggestions were included in the East
Bruin Creek Timber Sale file.
The sale area was composed of 12 harvest units ranging in
size from 9 to 73 acres, each with a specific silvicultural
prescription that was prepared at about the same time as the EA.
A sample prescription is shown in Appendix F. The following
pertinent objectives were included in each silvicultural
prescription.
la. Protect and enhance existing and potential
wildlife, bird, and fisheries habitat for both game
and non-game species ....
2a. Protect and enhance the soil and water resource as
per Forest Watershed Quality guidelines.
The remainder of the prescriptions dealt primarily with timber.
Harvest practices were not delineated in the silvicultural
prescriptions. Although one unit did include a marking plan
which presented practices for marking leave trees and wildlife
trees, the only specific mention of harvest practices was a
multiple use objective stating, "Optimize timber production
through the use of silvicultural practices which are consistent
with [the silvicultural] objectives below (IPNF 1982b)."
The Timber Sale Report and Appraisal was the major document
36
-------
prepared after the GA. This report included a Cruise Plan, a
Slash Treatment Plan, Fuels Management Prescriptions, and a Sale
Area Improvement and K-V Collection Plan. The latter included
provision for stream cleanup and road seeding. For stream
cleanup, however, only economic data were given: no particular
activities were described.
The only portion of the Timber Sale Prospectus that
addressed non-timber resources dealt with measures for wildlife;
this portion was later replaced by further provisions for timber
harvesti ng.
The actual Timber Sale Contract is a lengthy document
consisting of two main parts: the standard provisions, which are
all applicable unless specifically stated otherwise, and the
special provisions for each individual sale. The last standard
provisions portion was written in 1973 and is presently
undergoing revision. The specific special provisions are chosen
from pre-formulated provisions; any changes in wording must
receive advance approval from the Regional Forester.
Particularly pertinent standard provisions included in the East
Bruin Creek Timber Sale Contract are those for streambank
protection and erosion prevention and control:
B6.5 Streamcourse Protection. "Streamcourses" which
are subject to provisions of this Section are shown on
Sale Area Map. Unless otherwise agreed, the following
measures shall be observed to protect Streamcourses:
(a) Purchaser's Operations shall be conducted to pre-
vent debris from entering Streamcourses, except as may
be authorized under paragraph (d). In event Purchaser
causes debris to.enter Streamcourses in amounts which
may adversely affect the natural flow of the stream,
water quality or fishery resource, Purchaser shall
37
-------
remove such debris as soon as practicable, but not to
exceed 48 hours and in an agreed manner that will cause
the least disturbance to Streamcourses.
(b) Culverts or bridges shall be required on Temporary
roads at all points where it is necessary to cross
Streamcourses. Such facilities shall be of sufficient
size and design and installed in a manner to provide
unobstructed flow of water and to minimize damage to
Streamcourses. Trees or products shall not be other-
wise hauled or yarded across Streamcourses unless fully
suspended.
(c) Wheeled or track-laying equipment shall not be
operated in Streamcourses except at crossings
designated by Forest Service or as essential to
construction or removal of culverts and bridges.
(d) Flow in Streamcourses may be temporarily diverted
only if such diversion is necessary for Purchaser's
planned construction and Forest Service gives written
authorization. Such flow shall be restored to the
natural course as soon as practicable and in any event
prior to a major storm runoff period or runoff season.
B6.6 Brosion Prevention and Control. Purchaser's Oper-
ations shall be conducted reasonably to minimize soil
erosion. Equipment shall not be operated when ground
conditions are such that excessive damage will result.
The kinds and intensity of erosion control work done by
Purchaser shall be adjusted to ground and weather con-
ditions and the need for controlling runoff. Erosion
control work shall be kept current immediately
preceding expected seasonal periods of precipitation or
runoff. If Purchaser fails to do seasonal erosion con-
trol work prior to any seasonal period of precipitation
or runoff, Forest Service may temporarily assume re-
sponsibility for the work and any unencumbered deposits
hereunder may be used by Forest Service to do the work.
If needed for such work, Purchaser shall make
additional deposits on request by Forest Service (USDA-
FS, Timber Sale Contract, p.121).
Other standard erosion prevention provisions are shown in
Appendix G. Special provisions in the East Bruin Creek Contract
that supplement these standard provisions are as follows:
C6.51 - Felling of Timber Along Streamcourses. (10/82)
Trees designated for felling along Streamcourses shown
on Sale Area Map shall be felled, insofar as topography
and lean permit, so that tops land at least 50 feet
from Streamcourse. Jse of felling wedges to control
direction of fall shall be required.
38
-------
C6.6 - Erosion Prevention and Control. (11/74)
h~. Purchaser shall locate Temporary Roads according
to operating schedule ....
B. Skidding with tractors within 100 feet of live
streams shall not be permitted except in places
designated in advance by Forest Service, and in no
event shall skid roads be located in live or
intermittent Streamcourses. Skid trails shall be
located high enough out of draws, swales, and valley
bottoms to permit diversion of runoff water to natural
undisturbed forest ground cover.
C. During periods of accelerated water runoff,
especially during the spring runoff and periods of
heavy rainfall, Purchaser shall inspect and open
culverts and drainage structures, construct special
cross ditches for road runoff, and take other
reasonable measures needed to prevent soil erosion and
siltation of streams.
D. Tractor skid trails in excess of 20 percent shall
be permitted only upon written agreement.
E. Temporary Road surface width shall be limited to
truck bunk width plus 4 feet ....
P.Unless otherwise agreed in writing. Purchaser shall
keep erosion control work current with his operations,
under the sale and in any case not later than 15 days
after completion of skidding on each unit or
subdivision.
C6.601 - Erosion Control Seeding. (10/75) Following
completion of skidding and yarding operations in an
area, Purchaser shall seed those exposed areas of
critical raw soil on skid trails, landing, firebreaks,
and Temporary Roads where other erosion control
measures described in C6.6 will not result in
satisfactory control of soil movement. Soil on areas
to be seeded shall be left in a roughened condition
favorable to the retention and germination of the seed
(Idaho Panhandle National Forests 1984).
In addition, contract provisions contain the specific timber
harvesting and road construction practices to be observed by
operators. For example, under Conduct of Logging, standard
language requires particular stump heights, bucking lengths,
felling procedures, etc.
After the contract was signed, personnel were appointed with
39
-------
specific authority to represent the Government in the
administration of project activities. Each of the
representatives was assigned particular responsibilities. These
personnel reported activities throughout the duration of the
operation. Most reports were routine explanations of what was
observed on particular days at various sites. One Daily Diary
report o£ the Engineering Representative mentioned a possible
drainage problem with one of the road ditches; no further
discussion of the problem was found in the file. The Timber Sale
Inspections of the Sale Administrators addressed several relevant
problems encountered during on-the-ground activities. They
recorded the need for more waterbars in roads of three units,
discussions with purchaser representatives regarding erosion
control items to be in place before leaving for the winter, and
the investigation of a road slump. This latter problem
eventually led to a substantial contract amendment. The first
Timber Sale Administrator reported on July 2, 1985, "I
investigated a road slump in Unit 12 on the 3376 A Road.
Reconditioning as planned would likely increase the risk of mass
failure. The entire unit can still be harvested as designed
because the slump area is less than 200 feet from the end of the
unit boundary. Whether or not harvesting the timber would
increase the risk of failure is not known. I will involve soils
and/or geotech personnel in this decision (Sheridan 1985a)." On
July 18th, he reported, "The road slump concern on #3376 has been
resolved. The road be (sic) reconstructed to the slump and the
40
-------
unit will be harvested as planned (Sheridan 1985b)." On October
30th, the second Timber Sale Administrator reported, "There has
been an unusual amount of soil movement observed in unit 12. I
have contacted Jerry Niehoff the soil specialist from the
[Supervisor's Office] to look over this area. Until that time I
have instructed the purchaser and contractor not to operate in
unit 12 until we have a report from the soil specialist (Bess
1985)." On October 31st, the soil scientist sent a report of his
inspection to the Forest Supervisor detailing what he had
observed and what effects timber harvesting would have in the
unit, and recommending that Unit 12 be withdrawn from the sale
with existing trees remaining on site to stabilize the area
(Niehoff 1985). Shortly thereafter, the sale contract was
amended deleting unit 12 from the sale.
Both the district office and the Supervisor's Office had
checklist forms that were completed before closing the sale.
Neither form contained any mention of satisfactory stream
conditions, satisfactory soil conditions, or satisfactory erosion
prevention measures. Rather, these forms only checked whether
certain paperwork had been completed.
The stream cleanup provided for in the K-V Plan was
conducted in field season 1987. Forty-six barriers from natural
conditions and previous activities in the drainage were partially
removed. According to the district wildlife biologist, partial
removal is preferable to complete removal to prevent excess
sediment from moving downstream and to enhance cover and food for
41
-------
fish. The biologist felt a good job was done on the cleanup
(Okula 1987).
Throughout this discussion, mention of Bruin Creek's present
fishery was intentionally avoided, because no mention was made in
any of the file documents. However, an interview with the
district's wildlife biologist revealed that this stream is
classified as very important spawning and rearing habitat for the
St. Joe River westslope cutthroat and bull trout (Okula 1987) .
42
-------
Lower Salmon Road, Clearwater National Forest.
This timber sale and road construction project is ongoing,
and, thus, not all planning materials are on file in the
Supervisor's Office. To date only the road is completed. The
area abuts the north shore of the upper end of Dworshak Reservoir
and encompasses Salmon Creek, Syringa Creek, Milk Creek, and two
unnamed drainages (Figure 3). It is located on the North Fork
Ranger District, on the portion formerly known as Canyon
District. The planning area was previously unroaded, although
logging and road construction had occurred in the headwaters of
Salmon Creek during the 1960s. The nearest road was the Salmon
Ridge Road #700. Extensive wildfire activity around 1930 led to
considerable sediment transport to the creeks through debris
avalanches. Most of the area shows evidence of mass-wasting.
Sediment impacts to Salmon Creek are extensive: levels estimated
as high as 500% over natural levels occurred during the early
1970s. The watersheds are considered to be very unstable with
natural sediment production twice as high as average watersheds.
"Practically any disturbance risks extended degradation (Lower
Salmon EA p.24)."
Salmon and Milk Creeks have resident cutthroat fisheries
ranging up to 8" in size. Both have significant spawning and
tearing habitat, although cobble-embeddedness i3 presently around
70%. Syringa and the unnamed creeks primarily serve as water
quality feeder streams, but do have minor spawning potential and
support a limited cutthroat fishery. Surveys to date have not
43
-------
LOWER SALMON TIMBER SALE PROPOSAL
I
2
I
LTERNATIVE 3
—•-» m M Study Area Boundary
, > cdt3 NE" roads--First entry
Harvest unit BoundariesItentative)
r¦ « «"« m Clearcut harvest system
1 SEED TREE HARVEST SYSTEM
Selection sysiehIsahitatiom/satv.
3 Commercial thinning
Eigure 3.
-------
found the kokanee salmon of Dworshak Reservoir utilizing any of
these streams.
The project was initially planned before NFMA became law.
The Engineers' Reconnaissance Report of 1975 presented the
management alternatives established under the old plans as
timber, wildlife (elk), and recreation. The report anticipated
that logging this area would require more paper planning than
usual due to difficulties of placing roads in this mass-wasted
area. Public impacts identified at the time included possible
loss of water quality and degradation of fisheries. The district
originally designated a sale of 15 MMBF in 1980. This plan was
later withdrawn because of the area's essentially roadless
characteristics.
In early 1982, after the area was released from further
roadless area consideration, the district began assessment of
ICOs for a sale in the area. At that time, the wildlife
biologist identified no fisheries concerns or opportunities. A
Project Feasibility Letter (PFL) formally soliciting ICOs
(apparently something akin to a Position Statement) was
distributed in March, 1982. The objectives of the project were
stated as developing a management plan for the area and logging
some 13 MMBF of mature and overmature timber to help meet the
district's assigned timber sell for 1984. The PFL considered the
most probable equipment access and log transportation route to be
Dworshak Reservoir.
Several comments to the PFL included water quality and water
45
-------
use issues. The zone engineers noted that because of slopes and
soils, "the only environmentally safe access is via Dworshak
Reservoir." Further, they found the area to be "valuable for
wildlife and water." They identified several significant
problems and data needs from the special circumstances involved
in barging equipment up the reservoir and transporting logs down
the reservoir. Finally, they cited "pollution from tree bark and
sinking logs" not only as a critical public issue and management
concern, but also as an opportunity to improve fishing (Card and
Flowers 1982). Another comment at this time stated, "It appears
that we should concentrate on a feasible road location(s) on the
ground, soon as that will determine what we can, and have to
do, in logging. Evidently there is much concern over the geology
and soils of the area, so we need the lead time (Gale 1982)." In
response to the PFL, the soil scientist for the forest filed
comments based on a reconnaissance study of the area he and the
forest hydrologist had made the previous summer. He found that
the unique soils and lack of an ash cap could present a "severe
soil compaction problem" and "Unusual silviculture and stability
problems could present cutting restrictions and surface soil
erosion problems (Wilson 1982)." He noted that extensive mass
wasting had followed the ca. 1930 wildfire. In addition to these
soil and topography concerns, the forest hydrologist noted,
"Streams are unstable and are sensitive to sediment loading
(Patten 1982)." The hydrologist further cited failures of the
Salmon Sidge Road #700 -hat caused damage to nearby streams as
46
-------
demonstrative of the risks involved here. He recommended
extensive survey and site specific prescriptions for the sale and
careful planning of the landings at the reservoir where massive
slumping would likely result from the fluctuating water level.
The fisheries biologist for the forest suggested maintenance of
water quality and aquatic habitat as a resource objective for the
project and suggested maintenance of cobble-embeddedness at less
than 25% as an evaluation criterion. At that time, the biologist
included no recommendations for fish preservation, apparently
because of a misunderstanding that surveys of the creeks showed
no fish to be present. However, he did recommend inclusion of
mitigation measures regarding riparian zone management and road
placement for erosion control purposes (Espinosa 1982) . Another
Forest Service employee suggested fish should be a lesser concern
here with respect to road placement because the slow-moving
waters in the area made cemented gravels unimportant (Kuested
1982). Several comments were filed requesting access to the area
by road instead of, or in addition to, access by water. Without
land access, harvest costs would be too high, competitive bidding
would be infeasible, and after-harvest access for management by
CJSFS would be very difficult. Furthermore, dependence on
permanent use of Army Corps of Engineers' barges on Dworshak
Reservoir would be unreliable. One comment even went so far as
to recommend disregard for watershed impacts if necessary to get
road access to the area (Kuested 1982).
For this project, much of 1982 and 1983 was spent developing
47
-------
road plans for location of roads within the project area and for
connection to existing roads for land access. Field surveys of
the area reported in a Stabilization Summary revealed 29 slides
in excess of 10 cubic yards, 19 in excess of 50 cubic yards, and
9 in excess of 100 cubic yards. The forest hydrologist reported
an investigation of an alternate route and stream crossing which
found, "Although it traverses some very steep ground on the east
side and some old slump topography, the risks of significant soil
movement with incipient stream damage through blockages and/or
long term sedimentation are reduced to a manageable and feasible
level .... The stream crossing location is much improved due
to the fact that the stream is well confined in its channel at a
stable control section (Patten 1982)." For mitigation and
stabilization, the hydrologist recommended some full-benching and
subsurface drainage, surface erosion control measures, dispersion
of sediment-laden drainage water, and minimization of the
velocity of culvert discharge during peak flows.
The Transportation Plan described the area as "generally
unstable with numerous natural slumps having been observed
throughout the area (Lower Salmon TP p.l).n It required the
transportation system to be "located, designed, and managed
according to the Lower Salmon Environmental Assessment report"
and required the design to include the hydrologist's
recommendations related above. The remainder of the plan
described typical engineering criteria (such as width of road,
design vehicle, and construction of the Log dump landing),
-------
transportation alternatives by water and land, and an economic
analysis of the alternatives. No mitigation measures were
specifically enumerated in the Transportation Plan.
The EA released in 1984 was considered by many comments to
be one of the more thorough reports reviewed. Apparently the
original EA was modified after comments were received; only the
final EA was on file in the Supervisor's Office. The stated
purposes for the action were winter forage for big game, forest
products, timber management, and transportation development in
this unroaded area. No mention of fish, water quality, or
riparian zone management was included in the specific concerns
identified during the initial scoping process for the EA.
However, soil stability was listed as a major concern. The EA
referred to discussions after the initial scoping process
regarding resource conflicts which concluded, "The highly
unstable soils left no doubt about the potential for watershed
and fishery impacts and higher than normal road maintenance costs
(Lower Salmon EA p.2)." The interdisciplinary team (composed of
a silviculturist, a wildlife biologist, a watershed specialist,
and a fuels specialist) did include fish and water issues in its
refined list of ICOs. Flow conditions in the creeks, mass-
wasting, surface erosion, destabilization of slopes, and fish
productivity were all included as management concerns. The team
also found ample opportunity to enhance fisheries from K-V funds.
The EA considered six alternatives. In addition, other
alternatives had been proposed but eliminated from further study:
49
-------
some road alternatives posed too great a threat to fish habitat
and watershed stability and one helicoptor logging alternative,
which would have reduced impacts on fish and water, was
considered too costly. The "Mo Action" alternative was rejected
apparently because it would not improve elk habitat and would
indefinitely postpone development in this area that was scheduled
for roaded management. The development alternatives ranged from
"Optimum Wildlife" to "Maximum Silviculture." The objectives of
the preferred alternative were to improve big game habitat within
the constraints imposed by a connector road for land access to
the area. Numerous management requirements addressed fish and
water quality needs. -The road construction measure required
roads to be located, designed, and timed in a manner that would
maintain watershed stability and a "high fishable" level of
productivity in the creeks. This included review of road
location and design by soils and watershed specialists; special
design of stream crossings to maintain fish habitat and
watershed; provision of fish passage; completion of road segments
within the season begun; and several other measures to reduce
erosion and maintain fish habitat and watersheds. Watershed and
soils measures required management for favorable flows; deferment
of harvest in unstable areas; riparian zone management; and
control of soil compaction. The fish habitat requirement was
maintenance of a "high fishable" level, i.e., 80% or more of
potential productivity. While not specifically stated, the
preferred alternative apparently also included pertinent
50
-------
mitigation and monitoring requirements: "Include watershed,
wildlife, recreation, and timber projects that mitigate impacts
or enhance values in the SAI plan" and "Evaluate, primarily by
observation, and document the immediate effects (first five
years) of constructing roads in this area (Lower Salmon EA
p.11)
In evaluating the alternatives with respect to water
quality, the EA stated all of the development alternatives "would
substantially change the potential for mass erosion and resulting
sediment production and transport, because the roads by necessity
would be constructed over and through mass wasted landforms
(Lower Salmon EA p.18)." The single largest risk from the
project was considered to be the connector road from this area to
Smith Ridge Road #700; the connector road was part of the
preferred alternative. The risk of watershed degradation from
all of the development alternatives was considered to be high.
Concerning recovery of fish productivity impacted by past natural
events, the EA stated that all development alternatives would
delay flushing out of sediment, although none would significantly
degrade habitat or productivity beyond its presently degraded
state. The "No Action" alternative would have allowed the
streams to continue recovering from past sediment loads with
trends toward improvement of watershed stability and fishery
productivi ty.
Comments on the EA reveal coordination of the project with
the 5JFMA forest plan. Designations, objectives, and standards of
51
-------
management areas were discussed, primarily with respect to elk
management.
Comments pertinent to water quality and fish included those
of the forest fisheries biologist and of two departments of the
State of Idaho. The fisheries biologist recommended an
alternative other than the preferred alternative as better
meeting the intent of management standards for fish and water
quality and also suggested a 30-year stream recovery period as
more accurate than the 15-year period in the EA (Espinosa 1984) .
This was the only operation considered in this study that had
water- or fish-related comments from non-USFS organizations. The
IDHW-DOE suggested an alternative other than the preferred
alternative would better minimize water quality impacts (IDHW-DOE
1984). The IDFG had participated in the early scoping process of
the sale, but had confined its early concerns to big game
habitat. After the EA was released, IDFG also expressed
skepticism of the ability to control sedimentation problems in
the area and requested that maximum effort be made to minimize
erosion (IDFG 1984).
In the Decision Notice/FONSI signed in 1984, the Forest
Supervisor's finding was based on consideration of, among other
things, "no degradation of watershed stability or fish
productivity [and] a moderate, but reasonable management risk of
water quality degradation (Bates 1984).
Included in this project were water quality issues other
than nonpoint source that warrant brief mention. The log dump on
52
-------
Dworshak Reservoir required a CWA 404 Dredge and Fill Permit
from the Army Corps of Engineers. Processing of this permit
entailed review by the Idaho State Department of Water Resources
and review and recommendations by EPA. The permit issued in 1984
included provisions to minimize adverse impacts to water quality,
fish, and other environmental values. Also, transport of
equipment to the site and logs from the site involved some
pollution risks from fuel spills and organic debris. Further,
storage of logs in the reservoir before transport raised issues
regarding water quality degradation from debris and breakdown of
logs. Since these particular water quality aspects of the
project are from infrequent USFS activities that involve problems
other than the NPS control of interest here, no further
discussion of them is included.
The public works road contract is the contract of concern
here since only the road construction has been undertaken so far.
(The timber sale has not yet been awarded.) Similar to the
forest practices for timber harvest in the East Bruin Creek
Contract, the forest practices for road construction are
comprised of standard and specific provisions. The major
provision regarding fish and water quality is Special Provision
Standard 204 shown in Appendix H. This provision involves
specific measures to control soil erosion and water pollution,
measures such as drainage devices, sediment basins, riprap, and
seeding. Activities are scheduled to minimize erosion at all
times, particularly during wet conditions and at the end of the
53
-------
construction season. Particular measures are included to
minimize impacts to stream channels: for example, unless
specifically authorized by the Engineer, construction of
temporary culverts and operation of mechanized equipment in
streams are forbidden. In addition to the road specifications
portion of the contract, one special contract provision is also
pertinent here. The Landscape Preservation provision reiterates
minimization of erosion and prevention of siltation. It also
prohibits discharge of harmful materials near rivers and
operation of equipment in streams without prior approval from the
Contracting Officer.
Several inspections by interdisciplinary teams occurred
during road construction. At least three memoranda on those
inspections have been filed. The first, by the forest
hydrologist reported an inspection when the road had been cut
about a mile into the project area from Salmon Ridge Road #700.
The hydrologist noted that Best Management Practices had "tracked
well through the planning-design-contract-implementation process
(Patten 1986a)." But two practices had been observed that could
impact water quality. First, culverts at water crossings were
too short at some small tributaries to protect against sediment
from sloughing soils caused by runoff, construction, and
maintenance activities. The culverts met engineering
specifications, but these specifications were written to maintain
the integrity of the fill and, in this case, were ineffective in
preventing sediment, entry into streams. The hydrologist
-------
recommended that the additional, needed length would depend on
each site, but that five additional feet of pipe would
significantly alleviate the problem. Second, slash-filter
windrows were incorrectly constructed at some stream crossings.
Apparently the finer material that acts as a sediment trap was
not used. This practice was due to an oversight in the contract:
it seems the contract merely called for placement of base logs
and not the finer limbs and tops at all necessary sites. The
hydrologist also cited a problem that had escaped all notice
during planning. "Gravel pit development and operations are
significant actual and potential sources of water pollution, but
they do not seem to receive the same planning, engineering, and
administrative consideration as other sources (Patten 1986a)."
In this case, waste material from the rock pit had been cast over
the edge of the road. Much was perched on a steep slope and
could be retrieved, but some had entered Salmon Creek damaging
the water resources.
The second inspection report took place during construction
of a major stream crossing, which was the focus of the
inspection. This report, also by the hydrologist, noted
effective trapping of work site drainage, less than expected
accumulation of sediments from the initial stream diversion, no
sediment evidence from other sources, and overall competent
development and implementation of practices meant to protect the
watershed (Patten L986b).
The third report, by the forest geologist, summarized an
55
-------
interdisciplinary team survey of a portion of proposed road. The
report only concerned further design recommendations for
construction through slump topography (Brown 1986).
One pertinent amendment to the contract occurred during this
road construction. Instead of clearing slash by scattering, the
road contractor requested use of windrows. The windrow clearing
method was seen as a superior erosion control measure, since the
windrows would serve as sediment traps.
In an interview with the North Fork District Resource
Assistant who prepared the EA for this project, it was learned
that the district was very pleased with the overall road
construction and the way the road contractor improved some
aspects of the design to further minimize environmental impacts.
While the CJSFS had planned on construction taking two field
seasons, the contractor and his crew finished in one. Anytime
partial construction over winter can be avoided, much degradation
is avoided. District personnel hope that this construction work
will serve as a standard for other projects (Anderson 1987).
56
-------
Simmons/Butte Road, Nezperce National Forest.
This project area of 6,775 acres was located on the Elk City
Ranger District. About two-thirds of the acreage was located in
the Simmons Creek watershed and about one-third in the Butte
Creek watershed (Figure 4). Both drainages were roadless before
the present project. Both drainages suffered from wildfire
damage at the turn of the century, but the streams had recovered
to natural rates of sediment deposit by the time the project was
proposed. Both creeks are tributaries to Meadow Creek, a
significant tributary of the Selway River. The Selway River
system is a major producer of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and
resident trout. Habitat for these fish exists in both Simmons
Creek and Butte Creek.
Although this project was planned under the management
direction of a 1967 multi-use plan and a 1973 timber management
plan and road program, it was influenced by early drafts of the
NFMA Plan, originally expected to be released during the same
year as the EA. Feasibility Reports of 1980 added this area to
the Five-Year Timber Sale Program recommending a 10 MMBF harvest
from the Simmons Creek drainage and a 6-8 MMBF harvest from the
Butte Creek drainage. Soils surveys, wildlife surveys, stand
examinations, and a viewshed analysis were conducted during 1981.
Fairly extensive solicitation for public input also took place in
1981: the four comments received were used along with
interdisciplinary team concerns to develop alternatives for the
-------
Figure 4
i
' ,:/5IMMQN&£
!;£Nvibqn^'
A f~f~
?<¦l.as^.rMlLg/' ft
* /SrM 1
Cpr
/r±\
'"^TENTAljlWeiJ
^Apeffssvyj^
T ROADS?
TATtVE
5RIDQR:
'" v>
aouN»Rr.'7'
TpJ.^' .-^ ¦¦¦¦ • . v
-J7', , . • ^A-yg".'// ?
"1
58
-------
The EA was released in 1982. Major concerns were timber,
water quality and fisheries, wildlife, and aesthetics. The
preferred alternative was developed to ensure maintenance of
anadromous fish production at 90% of potential. This standard
set a threshold limit of 30% increase in sediment production.
This limitation, in turn, set the maximum amount of road
construction at ten miles with a timber harvest of 7 MMBF. This
method of alternative development illustrates the
interdisciplinary team's intent to consider "sediment levels and
fisheries impacts as a limiting factor to development rather than
only as an environmental consequence (Simmons/Butte EA p.17)."
It was estimated that 10 - 15% of the riparian zone within the
project area would be-adjacent to or within harvesting units.
However, "[b]rush growing adjacent the.stream and the dilution
effect of subterranean water flow and feeder streams would result
in no significant increase in stream temperature even if the 151
of the riparian zone acreage were to be clearcut (Simmons/Butte
EA p.14). The EA depended on standard contract language to
alleviate impacts from soil compaction due to machinery, since
standard contract language'restricts equipment operation within
100 feet of streams. Although the EA cited operations occurring
in and planned for other drainages of Meadow Creek, it did not
address potential cumulative effects from the various activities.
• a
-------
The current 'state-of-the-art' is not accurate enough
to calculate the combined impacts of sales in different
prescription watersheds on an entire river system. ...
[E]ach sale is designed to fall within Forest guide-
lines in terms of sediment delivered to a 'key reach.'
... This procedure is based on the premise that
protecting each tributary from adverse impacts also
protects the main stream. Also, since Meadow Creek
above the confluence with Simmons and Butte Creeks has
seven to eight times the volume of water as the
combined volumes of Simmons and Butte Creeks, a
substantial dilution of sediment reaching Meadow Creek
would occur a short distance downstream (Simmons/Butte
EA p.5) .
The road contract was awarded in 1984. The pertinent
contract provisions were the same as those for Lower Salmon
except for the specific scheduling of Table 204.01 (Appendix H).
The road leading to the project area was completed in 1986,
»
but construction of roads within the unit was postponed.
According to the fisheries biologist for the forest, comments
received by environmentalists following release of the proposed
forest plan led to delaying entrance into this unroaded area for
another ten years (Stowell 1987).
The Meadow Creek planning unit has long been an area over
which much controversy has occurred. Therefore, fisheries
biologists began collecting baseline data on fisheries and
habitat in 1982 and 1983. The 1986 connector road was
constructed primarily in the South Fork Clearwater drainage: only
about a half-mile of construction took place within the Meadow
Creek drainage, and that half-mile was about 2000 feet above
Meadow Creek. Some sediment was put into the system, but,
according to the fisheries biologist, Che forest plan assumed
that sediment would never be detected in Meadow Creek itself. To
60
-------
test this assumption and to collect further baseline data for
future entries into the area, fisheries biologists surveyed
Meadow Creek again in 1987. Comparison of fish densities is
given in Table 2.
TABLE 2.
COMPARISON OF 1982, 1983, AND 1987 FISH DENSITIES IN MEADOW CREEK
Species/Age
Number/M2
1982
1983
1987
Steelhead
Fry
0
0
.023
0 +
.05
.05
.05
1+
.16
.14
.18
2 +
.09
.05
.12
Chinook
Fry
0
0
0
0+
.01
0
.01
1 +
.001
.001
.008
2+
0
0
.01
Cutthroat (All)
.005
.003
.003
From this data was concluded, "Steelhead
virtually unchanged in the 0+ and 1+ age
densities remained
classes and increased in
the 2+ age class. (Chinook densities showed minor fluctuations
in all age groups.) It should be noted that 4 2+ chinook were
observed. Cutthroat trout densities remained fairly constant
(Stowell 1987b)." Fish habitat surveys have yet to be analyzed.
Plans are to continue surveying the area.
-------
AGREEMENT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS
The lack of documented monitoring prevents proper assessment
of compliance of implementation with planning. Furthermore,
interviews with interested parties shed little light on this
compliance issue. Some DSFS personnel feel that operations are
generally implemented as planned; others feel actual practices
frequently vary from those planned. All (JSFS personnel
questioned feel impacts are fairly well predicted during the
planning process. Several outside agencies and citizens'
organizations feel that implementation of activities on the
National Forests generally complies with planning. However#
involvement of outside groups during planning is very limited,
and these same groups feel that more documented evaluation of
operations is absolutely necessary to assure that implementation
does comply with plans.
The three operations considered here show overall agreement
throughout the planning/implementation process. However, as
others have observed, the dependability of this assessment is
very limited since so little documented evaluation is available.
t 2
-------
EA Compliance With Forest-wide NFMA Plan.
Neither the East Bruin Timber Sale EA nor the Simmons/Butte
Road Construction EA were written with the intent to comply with
early drafts of forest plans. Also, neither contains adequate
descriptions of management requirements and mitigation measures
to compare with forest plan directives. Therefore, this
comparison can apply only to the Lower Salmon EA. As far as I
can tell, this EA largely complies with the forest plan's
specified goals, objectives, and standards for water quality and
related uses, with one major exception. The EA requires
management of the fish habitat in the project area at "high
fishable" levels of productivity. The Clearwater Forest Plan
defines "high fishable" as follows:
Maximum short-term reduction of water quality that
is still likely to maintain a fish habitat potential
that can support an excellent fishery relative to the
stream system's natural potential, and that will
provide the capability for essentially full habitat
recovery over time.
Maximum short-term sediment loading that is not
likely to cause more than a 20 percent reduction from
full biological potential of the habitat for the
appropriate fish indicator species. Threshold levels
of sediment should not be exceeded for more than 10 out
of 30 years.
The approximate maximum sediment loadings that
generally support this criteria are [55% over natural
sediment loadings for streams such as Lower Salmon]
(CNF Plan p.K-3).
This high fishable standard seems to preclude any activity in the
area, since sediment levels already exceed the allowable increase
and, apparently, will continue to do so for more than ten years
of the next thirty. This conclusion is based on a watershed
analysis statement in the 3A; "Sediment impacts in the early
-------
1970 's (sic) may have reached 500 percent increase over natural
levels. Under these conditions/ the watershed would not return
to natural conditions for another 25 to 30 years (Lower Salmon GA
p.24). "
The only other exception may be the following plan
objective: "During further analysis (project or area analysis)
specifically define and map riparian areas (CNF Plan p.II-7)." I
found no maps specifically delineating riparian areas. However,
because this is an on-going project, I did not have access to all
the working materials.
Besides compliance with the Plan per se, the Lower Salmon
operation raises the question of compliance with the statutory
intent of NFMA itself. NFMA requires that timber be harvested
only where "soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not
be irreversibly damaged (16 U.S.C. $ 1604(g)(3) (E)(i))."
Throughout the planning stages of this project, however, much
skepticism was voiced regarding stability of soils and the high
potential for mass-wasting. It is unclear how these concerns and
statutory requirement were reconciled with the decision to go
ahead with the project. The only decision criterion documented
in the files at the Supervisor's Office was the Supervisor's
finding of "no [expected] degradation of watershed stability
(Bates 1984)
64
-------
Contract Agreement with EA.
Because the East Bruin Creek EA was so vague with respect to
water quality measures, the lack of any water quality protection
provisions in the contract would have conformed to the intent
expressed in the EA. As it was, the contract contained many
provisions addressing water quality and erosion control, probably
the same provisions as would have been included for a project
with a more detailed EA.
The Simmons/Butte EA was similarly lacking in specific
direction for fish and water quality protection. The only
requirement was for the standard contract language of restricted
equipment use within 100 feet of streams. On the other hand, the
Lower Salmon EA contained numerous management requirements to
mitigate effects on fish and water quality.
Despite these differences in EA preparation, the road
construction contracts for the two projects contained essentially
the same provisions for soil erosion and water quality. This
suggests that the EA is not intented to direct further planning
or specific practices. Rather, it seems to serve the function of
identifying broad issues, identification of which automatically
triggers inclusion of standard contract language.
Whether the Lower Salmon contract embodied all of the
"directives" of the EA is unclear. Many of the EA measures
primarily applied to harvest techniques, many were too vague to
assess uniformity, and many required evaluation after the
operation to determine if the contract provisions actually met
55
-------
the directive. Of the EA measures that readily correlate with
the road contract provisions, two demonstrated some
inconsistencies between the EA and the contract. First, the GA
required that "roads be brought to final grade, have final
drainage installed, and have stream crossings surfaced with
gravel and the slash windrow filters in place within the season
pioneered (Lower Salmon EA p.8)." The contract allowed 1320
linear feet of unfinished road without drainage after the season
ends. However, the contract did require that all surfacing at
stream crossings be in place by the end of the season. Second,
the EA required that "stream crossings ... be given special
design emphasis ... to satisfy fish habitat and watershed
requirements {Lower Salmon EA p.8}." According to the
hydrologist's report discussed above, the length of culverts
called for in the contract was too short to adequately protect
streams from sediment, and windrows at some stream crossings were
not adequately delineated in the contract. Although these are
the only obvious inconsistencies, the contract overall does not
particularly seem to be tied to the EA. Except for scheduling,
the contract practices are preformulated. For that matter, the
management requirements for fish and water resources in the EA
would easily apply to any other project with a significant
salmonid fishery, road construction, and unstable soils, as long
as the other stream names were substituted. As such, it seems a
better job could be done of matching the canned language :: the
EA is supposed to provide direction for ground operations.
-------
Implementation Agreement with Pre-Contract Planning Documents.
Planning documents for the East Bruin Sale recommended
several measures to protect fish and water resources. First, the
wildlife biologist, the fisheries biologist, and the EA all
recommended collection of K-V funds for stream cleanup. This
measure became part of the SAI Plan, and K-V funds were used to
remove numerous barriers in the 1987 field season with good
results (Okula 1987). Second, the EA recommended incorporating
the biologist's provisions, one of which was riparian zone
harvesting. This recommendation was not carried out because the
timber was not merchantable. Instead, the logs were removed
during the stream cleanup in the 1987 field season (Sheridan
1987) . Third, the biologists recommended use of K-V funds for
habitat improvement and correction of the road culvert block at
the mouth of Bruin Creek. Neither of these measures were
included in the SAI plan, and no K-V funds were used to carry out
these improvements. The district wildlife biologist was unaware
that this important St. Joe cutthroat habitat was blocked by the
road culvert. He felt that if the culvert did indeed block Bruin
Creek, it was a major problem that should be remedied, although
K-V funds would likely be inadequate for such an undertaking
(Okula 1987). The Panhandle Plan lists Bruin Creek as completely
blocked by a correctable barrier (IPNF Plan p.P-5).
In addition, the East Bruin EA predicted low surface erosion
potential, low to moderate road prism erosion hazard, stable road
conditions, and low water yield increase from the harvest. The
n 7
-------
outcome of these predicted impacts has not been documented.
The only available evaluation of implementation of the
Simmons/Butte operation is the fish survey of Meadow Creek.
According to the fisheries biologist, forest personnel predicted
no discernible impact on fish and fish habitat in Meadow Creek
(Stowell 1987a). To date, this prediction has held true for fish
densities (Stowell 1987b).
The only information on implementation of the Lower Salmon
project comes from the hydrologist1s reports on monitoring during
construction and from an interview with the district resource
assistant. Both sources indicate agreement between planning and
implementation as well as impressive construction work overall
with respect to mitigating effects on the environment. The only
exceptions were the specific practices that should have been
covered by the contract. These were discussed under contract
agreement with EA. The district resource assistant is presently
under the impression that all problems identified in these
reports were resolved and sufficient mitigation of impacts on
fish and water quality was achieved (Anderson 1987).
The planning materials for the Lower Salmon project also
predicted "no degradation of watershed stability or fish
productivity (Bates 1984)" and maintenance of "high fishable"
streams, whether these predictions will be realized will not be
known until further monitoring and evaluation i3 conducted.
58
-------
Implementation Agreement with Contract.
The only documented information available indicates fairly
thorough agreement between contract and implementation with
respect to fish and water quality measures. If it can be
presumed that the daily diary and timber sale inspections for the
East Bruin Creek Sale reported any inconsistencies, then few
inconsistencies were observed by those administering the sale.
Of those inconsistencies reported, lack of waterbars and
malfunctioning drainage ditch, later inspection forms did not
report correction except for one area needing waterbars.
Therefore, we can only assume all problems were corrected before
the final inspection.
From the file materials available, there was no indication
of inconsistencies between contracts and implementation of the
Simmons/Butte and Lower Salmon construction projects. Those
problems on the Lower Salmon Road Constuction identified by the
hydrologist were not inconsistencies between implementation and
contract, but were instead a lack of certain mitigation measures
in the contract. The one major difference between construction
and original contract requirements went through contract revision
and was considered an improvement in sedimentation control.
-------
PROBLEMS WITH THE GENERAL PROCESS
Specificity of Environmental Assessments.
As noted in the introduction, this study grew out of a
concern by several agencies over the USES claim that more
specific measures for water quality protection could not be
included in forest-wide plans but were included in operation-
specific EAs. In their comments on the proposed forest plans,
these agencies requested more specific information on present
fish densities and habitat, potential habitat, present water
quality other than fish habitat, present soils data, past
activities, land topography, stability of landforms, source and
reliability of data, site-specific activities, and site-specific
standards and practices. Thus, whether the EAs are indeed more
specific is worth reviewing. If the three documents studied here
are indicative of EAs generally, EAs are more specific insofar as
they relate measures to specific streams and watersheds, but they
are frequently not specific enough for publics to comprehend
proposed activities, mitigation measures, and predicted impacts.
The East Bruin Creek EA was woefully inadequate in its site-
specific discussion of fish and water quality issues. This EA
contains no mention of present fish species, present fish
densities, or present fish habitat. It contains no estimate of
potential fish habitat, no indication of riparian zone conditions
or special management for chese areas. Anticipated changes in
water yield are addressed, but not changes in water quality.
70
-------
While it does present dominant landtypes, it does not describe
slopes or soil conditions. It predicts low surface erosion
potential, but does not present how this prediction was
determined or the reliability of the data leading to this
prediction. It does not discuss any possibilities of mass-
wasting. It does not state how many miles of old logging roads
must be reopened and reconstructed to permit the proposed
harvest. It states that past harvests have occurred in the
drainage and have damaged the creek conditions/ but it does not
give details on past activities or their impacts. It does not
present where logging units will be located, which roads will be
used, or how many stream crossings will be involved: it merely
circles out an area and declares a harvest will take place using
existing roads for access. It does not include any site-specific
standards or practices to protect fish and water resources. The
only mention of measures to mitigate impacts on water resources
is collection of K-V funds for stream cleanup to minimize water
yield increases. (Even this measure is later justified in terms
of timber harvest: "Stream cleanout of Bruin Creek should improve
the channel stability enough to permit an allowable water yield
increase of 12% rather than 8% for future timber sales (East
Bruin EA p. 5).") On the other hand, the Panhandle Plan contains
dozens of measures (however general) regarding water resources,
none of which were part of the project EA.
The EA is also woefully inadequate as a document from wnich
to choose an environmentally sound alternative and to decide that
-------
no significant environmental impacts will occur. No decision
criteria were listed for fish and water quality values; the only
decision criterion for watershed was expected water yield
increase.
This EA appears to have been written essentially for in-
house review, not for public participation. The clearest example
of this is reference to, without enumeration of, the wildlife
biologist's recommendations that should be incorporated in sale
plans where feasible. This type of statement is of no value to
interested publics and appears to have been of little value, to
in-house planners: the recommendations that were not explicitly
listed in the EA itself were never included in the sale plans.
The Sinunons/Butt6 EA also contains far fewer mitigation
measures than the Nezperce forest-wide plan. However, this EA
does present specific information on present fish species,
present fish habitat, and potential fish habitat; information on
what data were lacking and how values were estimated to overcome
this void; information on presence of riparian areas and unstable
areas; and information on impacts to fish resources, including
some description of methods used to assess impacts.
For these two earlier operations, then, the project EAs were
not more specific than the forest-wide plans with respect to
standards and mitigation measures to protect fish and water
quality. The Simmons/Butte EA was more specific with respect to
describing many of the present conditions and potential impacts.
The Lower Salmon EA is even more comprehensive than the
72
-------
Simmons/Butte EA in its description of soils and fish and water
resources. In addition, it is the only EA of the three that
contains numerous measures particularly aimed at managing for
water resources. Some of these provisions are essentially a
rewording of measures in the forest plan. This rewording is seen
in the following comparison of measures in the Clearwater Forest
Plan with the Lower Salmon EA.
The minimum coordinating requirements for projects on
land types with high or very high mass stability or
parent material erosion hazard ratings are: (1) The
field verification of the mapped unit and predicted
hazard rating. (2) Review road locations using a team
consisting of a engineering geologist, hydrologist,
soil scientist, and a silvicul-tur ist .... (3) After
the "PM line has been located, stake mitigating road
designs, using the original ID team members and road
designer (CNF Plan p.11-33).
Control the location, design, timing of construction
... by requiring at a minimum that: a. road locations
be approved after review and consultation with
geologists, soil scientists, hydrologists, logging
engineers, road engineers, etc., b. a "plan-in-hand"
review of the final designs be conducted with
involvement of soils, geology, and watershed
specialists at a minimum (Lower Salmon EA p.7).
Other provisions in the EA were essentially the same as those in
the forest plan, except for inclusion of specific sites in the
former. The following provisions demonstrate this degree of
specificity:
Secure favorable conditions of flow by maintaining the
integrity and equilibrium of all stream systems in the
Forest (CNF Plan p.11-27).
Manage the activities within the Salmon, Syringa, the
unnamed streams, and Milk Creek systems so maintain
favorable conditions of flow (i.e. watershed stability)
(Lower Salmon EA p.13).
Some provisions of the EA, however, do indeed elaborate on
-------
measures in the forest plan. Compare the following requirements:
Require that drainage structures and erosion control
measures be installed on constructed and reconstructed
roads prior to the normal wet season (CNF Plan p.III-
71).
Control the location, design, timing of construction
... by requiring at a minimum that: ... roads be
brought to final grade, have final drainage installed,
and have stream crossings surfaced with gravel and the
slash windrow filters in place within the season
pioneered (Lower Salmon EA pp.7,8).
In addition to this comparison between forest-wide measures
and "site-specific" measures, it should be noted that many
measures contained in the EAs are rather vague and leave much
room for interpretation. For example, the East Bruin EA
requires, "limit reopening of old roads to the minimum necessary
for logging (East Bruin EA p.l);" the Simmons/Butte EA requires
treatment of slash "to reduce the (fire?] hazard to acceptable
levels (Simmons/Butte EA p.7);" and the Lower Salmon EA requires
"the use of ditches be minimized," "spot surfacing be used where
effective in reducing erosion," and management of activities "to
maintain favorable conditions of flow (Lower Salmon pp.8,10)."
These "escape clauses" do not really require any level of
compliance.
The Lower Salmon EA is clearly the most specific of the
three EAs studied, both in terms of describing the present status
of the project area and in terms of presenting general mitigating
measures. For the most part, however, even the Lower Salmon SA
does not contain very specific forest practices for mitigating
anticipated impacts, nor very specific descriptions of proposed
74
-------
activities and their impacts on the environment. As shown under
the case studies above, the contract is the document that
contains the specific forest practices that are to be followed
during a particular activity. The design maps accompanying the
contract contain the specific sites for activities. Some of the
reasons practices and proposed activities are not specific in the
EAs are (1) very little actual ground surveying has been done at
the time the EA is written and (2) the EAs seem to be used more
for identifying issues, concerns, and opportunities than for
directing management of operations.
Therefore, examination of these three examples leads to* the
conclusion that review of EAs for specific projects will not
provide agencies (such as EPA) an understanding of what specific
practices will be followed during land- and water-disturbing
activities. For that information, the contract must be
consulted. However, project contracts are not subject to public
review prior to adoption. As a consequence, to have significant
input on specific practices, outside agencies should work with
the Regional Offices for adoption of standard contract language
in addition to periodically reviewing specific operations on
individual forests.
It should also be pointed out that the NEPA document here is
an EA, not a full-scale EIS, and, therefore, by its nature, is
less detailed. But the fact that publics cannot obtain from
;hese site-specific NEPA documents sufficient information to
adequately assess the proposed action raises significant legal
-------
issues on the compliance of this process with NEPA (issues that
are, however, beyond the scope of this study).
Problems with Planning/Implementation/Monitoring.
During the course of this research, several potentially
major problems with the process were noticed.
A) Planning*
The first deals with planning for protection of fish and
water quality. It was suggested by USFS personnel and outside
organizations that, with lack of baseline data, budget
constraints, and resource conflicts likely to occur, fish and
water quality are among the resources likely to receive lowest
priority. The IDFG, in its comments on the Panhandle Proposed
Forest Plan, for example, expressed concern that almost a decade
would pass before baseline data for many fisheries resources
parameters are gathered (IDFG Comments p.11). The proposed plan
had set 1994 as the target date for accomplishment of fish
habitat surveys, spawning site analyses, and lake surveys (IPNF
Proposed Plan p.11-15). The final plan eliminated target dates
altogether, requiring accomplishment, instead, as budgets allow
(IPNF Plan p.11-16).
Furthermore, since more personnel, more influential
personnel, and traditional (JSFS tendencies are inclined toward
emphasizing timber management and road construction, resources
.such as fish and water quality are often neglected when resource
conflicts arise during project plannirtg (Espinosa 1987). This
-------
problem of neglect is reflected in one of the case studies. The
East Bruin Creek Sale, the most traditional of the operations
considered, was very minimal in its planning treatment of
resources, such as fish and water quality, that conflict with
timber interests. However, such was not the case during the
planning for the Lower Salmon and Simmons/Butte projects. To the
contrary, fish and water quality concerns played a large role in
decision-making during planning of the Simmons/Butte project.
Whether neglect of fish and water quality is the more typical
case is beyond the scope of this study. However, the fisheries
biologists for all three foresfs indicated that adequate
involvement of multiple resources personnel has occurred during
planning. The shortcomings have been that these personnel only
have time for the planning aspects of each project, not for
monitoring and evaluation.
B) Implementation.
Another possible problem has to do with implementation.
Concern was expressed by both USFS personnel and outside
organizations that extensive multiple resource planning is for
naught wnen activities are inspected only by engineers or
foresters. It was indicated that day-to-day conflicts tend to be
resolved in favor of timber or engineering concerns; that a
traditional "good-old-boy" network exists between some
administrators and some purchasers/contractors; and that those
multiple resource personnel who were involved in planning
projects are often not consulted when conflicts arise during
-------
implementation. This study found that the mechanism is in place
to avoid most of these concerns. Various personnel have only
limited authority over different aspects of the project.
Implementation of the East Bruin project indicated that
specialists are consulted when problems arise. Both of the
Timber Sale Administrators consulted the forest soils specialist
when assessing the problems with the road slump in harvest unit
12. Whether the inspectors and administrators regularly ignore
contract requirements and planning direction is unknown. No
evidence of such was found for the operations considered here,
but then, such activities, if they occur, would not likely be
documented. Several USFS personnel indicated that districts vary
in implementation (and planning, for that matter): some districts
are not as concerned with fish and water quality as others. The
same variation in implementation has often been raised by outside
organizations with respect to the different forests.
C. Monitoring.
The greatest problem with the process is lack of monitoring.
Even if inspectors and administrators do not consciously have a
pro-timber bias in their resolution of conflicts, the fact
remains that these personnel are trained foresters, forest
technicians, or engineers, not aquatic biologists or
kydrologists. To some degree, they undoubtedly make decisions
that unconsciously favor timber because timber is what they know,
rtore multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary monitoring is
needed. This study clearly demonstrates this need. There is
-------
very little documented evaluation of how well operations have
been conducted. And in some cases, there has even been very
little observation of how well operations have been conducted.
The Lower Salmon EA is the only one of the three studied that
included any monitoring requirements; these were included because
the district resource assistant, who prepared the EA, was
particularly interested in evaluating the operation.
More monitoring and evaluation is required by the forest
plans. Monitoring will be on a sampling basis with five-year
reports evaluating problems and agreement between planned and
implemented practices and between predicted and actual impacts.
The Idaho Panhandle National Forests must undergo a big change to
comply with these forest-wide plan requirements. Procedures for
monitoring are now being developed (LeBrun 1987). The Clearwater
and Nezperce National Forests are in a little better position,
although neither has begun compliance with the actual monitoring
programs in the forest plans. No increases in personnel are
expected at any of these forests for monitoring and evaluation:
all three forests hope to incorporate this new function into the
present operating schemes.
The forest-wide monitoring programs were heavily criticized
during the 1985 public review period for the proposed forest
plans. For each of the forests of interest here, comments of
IDHW-DOE summarized many of the criticisms. Regarding the
proposed monitoring program, IDHW-DOE commented that the tabular
program was a useful guide but could not be considered an
-------
adequate monitoring plan in and of itself. The Department
requested that detailed plans for water quality and fish be
included in the final forest-wide plans (IDHW-DOE 1985b, 1985c,
1985d). However, only the final plan for the Nezperce National
Forest included more specific monitoring information (Appendix
E). The lack of specificity in the final plans for the
Clearwater and Panhandle National Forests may have been due to a
directive from the Region 1 Office. In a letter to the Regional
Forester, IDHW-DOE referred to the new regional directive:
The essence of this direction is that the monitoring
plans will be described by only a brief table as was
used in the draft forest plans. The purpose of this
direction is apparently to retain maximum flexibility
by not committing to specifics in the plan. We believe
this cursory treatment of monitoring would jeopardize
the credibility of the forest plans and provides a very
strong justification for appeal (IDHW-DOE 1987b).
Several programs to improve monitoring on the National
Forests are also being developed independent of the forest-wide
plans. First, IDHW-DOE has been revising its silvicultural
management program. The draft includes more monitoring by the
USFS to comply with the "feedback loop" concept incorporated in
the State water quality standards in February 1987 whereby
deficiencies in forest practices observed through monitoring will
lead to improvements in BMPs (IDHW-DOE 1987a).
Second, the USFS has been developing a national strategy for
implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring.
Implementation monitoring is to determine whether plans and
prescriptions are implemented as planned; effectiveness
monitoring is to determine if plans and prescriptions achieve
30
-------
objectives and standards; and validation monitoring is to
determine if objectives and standards meet overall goals (Region
1 Monitoring Task Force 1987) .
Third, the Region 1 Office of the USFS has been reviewing
needs for more monitoring. A task force studying this issue with
respect to fish and water quality recently released its findings
that more monitoring is needed at several levels (Region 1
Monitoring Task Force 1987). At the administrative level, plans
should be monitored by an interdisciplinary team to determine if
(1) they comply with State BMPs, (2) they contain a monitoring
plan that will adequately assess the effectiveness of BMPs, and
(3) a mechanism is included to revise BMPs if necessary.
Extensive field review should include (1) on-site monitoring by
sale administrators, (2) tributary monitoring of first and second
order streams to determine changes in stored sediment and channel
geometry, and (3) main stream monitoring to measure changes in
fish habitat and populations.
Despite the present emphasis on improving monitoring, some
Forest Supervisors relegate monitoring to a low priority, a
position that IDHW-DOE perceives "as a unfortunate trend being
established in the regional offices (IDHW-DOE 1987b).
31
-------
FURTHER RESEARCH
No claim is made that the operations studied here are
representative of operations on the three forests. More research
is needed to determine "normal" operating procedure. To obtain a
representative sample, more operations should be studied, and the
distribution between districts must depict the overall
distribution of operations.
Furthermore, a similar study should be conducted at a later
date. This project was in many ways premature to meet its
objective. The forest planning process is constantly evolving.
Very few forest operations were found for this study that had
been planned recently enough to include NFMA policy and
guidelines and, at the same time, had already been sufficiently
implemented to compare planning and implementation. For some
operations that met this criterion, the data that had been
collected to compare predicted and actual impacts was incomplete
and unanalyzed. Therefore, it is suggested that a similar study
in two or three years would be more helpful than this study in
assessing the consistency between planned and implemented forest
practices and between predicted and actual impacts.
92
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, K. 1987. Personal Communication with the North Fork
District Resource Assistant, Clearwater National Forest,
Orofino, Idaho (October 20, 1987).
Bates, J.C. 1984. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant
Impact for the Lower Salmon Project, Canyon District,
Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.
Bauer, S. 1987. Personal Communication with Silvicultural
Nonpoint Source Specialist, Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare-Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho (September 2,
1987).
Bess, S.E. 1985. Timber Sale Inspection Report from Timber Sale
Administrator for the East Bruin Project, Red Ives District,
Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
(October 30, 1987).
Brown, T. 1986. Letter from the Forest Geologist to the Forest
Road Development Engineer on the Lower Salmon Project, North
Fork District, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho
(October 20, 1986).
Card, L.B. & R.N. Flowers. 1982. North Zone Engineering Comments
on the Lower Salmon Project, Canyon District, Clearwater
National Forest, Orofino, Idaho.
Clearwater National Forest. 1983. Transportation Plan for the
Lower Salmon Project, Canyon District, Clearwater National
Forest', Orofino, Idaho. (Cited as Lower Salmon TP.)
Clearwater National Forest. 1984. Environmental Assessment for
the Lower Salmon Project, Canyon District, Clearwater
National Forest, Orofino, Idaho. (Cited as Lower Salmon EA.)
Clearwater National Forest. 1987. Forest Plan, Clearwater
National Forest, Orofino, Idaho (Cited as CNF Plan).
Espinosa, A. 1982. Forest Fisheries Biologist's Comments on the
Lower Salmon Project, Canyon District, Clearwater National
Forest, Orofino, Idaho (March 10, 1982)."
Espinosa, A. ca. 1984. Forest Fisheries Biologist's Comments on
the EA for the Lower Salmon Project, Canyon District,
Clearwater National Forest, Otofino, Idaho.
Espinosa, A. 1987. Personal Communication with Forest Fisheries
Biologist, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho
(September 3, 1987).
Faulkner, D. 1987. Personal Communication with Contract
Specialist for Timber, Idaho Panhandle National Forests,
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (September, 22, 1987).
Gale, L. 1982. In-file Comments on the Lower Salmon Project,
Canyon District, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho
(March 11, 1982) .
Gertsch, R.M. 1981. Letter from Avery District Wildlife Biologist
to Project File for East Bruin Project, Red Ives District,
Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1984. Comments on EA for the
Lower Salmon Project, Canyon District, Clearwater National
33
-------
Forest, Orofino, Idaho (July 9, 1984) .
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Comments on the Proposed
Forest Plan and Draft EIS for the Idaho Panhandle National
Forests. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise Idaho (No
Date).
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-Division of Environment.
1984. Comments on EA for the Lower Salmon Project, Canyon
District, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho (June
5, 1984).
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-Division of Environment.
1985a. Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Task Force Final
Report. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-Division of
Environment, Boise, Idaho.
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-Division of Environment.
1985b. Comments on the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft EIS
for the Nezperce National Forest. Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare-Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho '
(July 12, 1985) .
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-Division of Environment.
1985c. Comments on the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft EIS
for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare-Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho
(August 19, 1985) .
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-Division o£ Environment.
1985d. Comments on the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft EIS
for the Clearwater National Forest. Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare-Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho
(August 30, 1985).
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-Division of Environment.
1987a. Draft—State of Idaho Forest Practices Water Quality
Management Plan. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-
Division of Environment, Boise, Idaho (March 1 1987).
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-Division of Environment.
1987b. Letter to James C. Overbay, Regional Forester,
Region 1. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-Division
of Environment, Boise, Idaho (June 15, 1987).
Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 1982a. Environmental Assessment
of East Bruin Project, Red Ives Ranger District, Idaho
Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. (Cited as
East Bruin EA.)
Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 1982b. Silvicultural
Prescription for Unit 1, East Bruin Project, Red Ives
District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.
Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 1984. Contract for East Bruin
Project, Red Ives District, Idaho Panhandle National
Forests, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 1985. Proposed Forest Plan,
Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
(Cited as IPNF Proposed Plan.)
Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 1987. Forest Plan, Idaho
Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. (Cited as
34
-------
IPNF Plan.)
Kizer, R.D. 1982. Letter from Forest Supervisor to District
Ranger for Red Ives District, Idaho Panhandle National
Forests, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (May 10, 1982).
Kuested, F.R. 1982. In-file Comments on the Lower Salmon Project,
Canyon District, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho
(March 16, 1982).
LeBrun, P. 1987. Personal Communication with Planner, Idaho
Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (October 8,
1987).
Nezperce National Forest. 1982. Environmental Assessment for the
Simmons/Butte Project, Elk City District, Nezperce National
Forest, Grangeville, Idaho.
Nezperce National Forest. 1987. Forest Plan, Nezperce National
Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. (Cited as NPNF Plan.)
Niehoff, J. 1985. Letter from Forest Soils Scientist to Forest
Supervisor, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho (October 31, 1985).
Okula, J. 1987. Personal Communication with the Avery District
Wildlife Biologist, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho (October 29, 1987).
Patten, R. 1982. Forest Hydrologist's Comments on the Lower
Salmon Project, Canyon District,Clearwater National Forest,
Orofino, Idaho (March 11, 1982).
Patten, R. 1982. Letter from Forest Hydrologist to Canyon
District Ranger, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho
(October 27, 1982),
Patten, R. 1986a. Letter from the Forest Hydrologist to the North
Fork District Ranger on the Lower Salmon Project, North Fork
District, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho (June
6, 1986)
Patten, R. 1986b. Letter from the Forest Hydrologist to the North
Fork District Ranger on the Lower Salmon Project, North Fork
District, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho (July
11, 1986).
Region 1 Monitoring Task Force. 1987. Review Draft—Timber
Management/Sediment/Fish Issue: Monitoring Needs and
Guidelines. Monitoring Task Force, Region 1, Missoula,
Montana (October, 1987).
Sheridan, P.R. 1985a. Timber Sale Inspection Report from Timber
Sale Administrator for the East Bruin Project, Red Ives
District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho (July 2, 1985) .
Sheridan, P.R. 1985b. Timber Sale Inspection Report from Timber
Sale Inspector for the East Bruin Project, Red Ives
District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho (July 18, 1985).
Sheridan, P.R. 1987. Personal Communication with the Timber Sale
Administrator for the East Bruin Timber Sale, Avery
District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho (November 20, 1987).
Stowell, R. 1987a. Personal Communication with the Forest
35
-------
Fisheries Biologist, Nezperce National Forest, Grangeville,
Idaho (November 7, 1987).
Stowell, R. 1987b. Biologists' Report on 1987 Meadow Creek Fish
Survey, Nezperce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho.
Wilson, D. 1982. In-file Comments on the Lower Salmon Project,
Canyon District, Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho
(March 10, 1982) .
Wise, S.B. ca. 1982. Comments of the Forest Fisheries Biologist
on the EA for the East Bruin Project, Red Ives District,
Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
-------
APPENDIX A
FOREST-WIDE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISH AND WATER QUALITY
In addition to the specific fish and water quality goals and
objectives listed here, the forest plans contain goals and
objectives for wild and scenic rivers, wetlands, floodplains and
other resources that relate to water quality.
For the Clearwater National Forest, goals are as follows:
• • •
7. Fisheries
Manage the Forest's fishery streams to
achieve optimum levels of fish production by:
1) maintaining high quality habitat in
existing high quality streams and, 2)
rehabili-tating and improving degraded
streams on certain developed portions of the
Forest; and then maintaining the optimum
levels.
• • •
I0• Water Quality and Soil
a. Manage watersheds, soil resources, and
streams to maintain high quality water that
meets or exceeds State and Federal water
quality standards, and to protect all
beneficial uses of the water, which include
fisheries, water-based recreation, and public
water supplies.
b. Insure that soil productivity is
maintained and no irreversible damage occurs
to soil and water resources from Forest
management activities.
• • •
12. Roads
Locate, design and manage Forest roads to
meet resource objectives and public concerns,
and to provide optimal soil and watershed
protection.
-------
For the Clearwater National Forest, objectives are as follows:
• • •
6. Wildlife and Fish
• • •
c. Restore selected, presently degraded fish
habitat through habitat improvement projects
designed to achieve stated objectives for
particular streams by 1997.
• • •
9. Water and Soil
a. Secure favorable conditions of flow by
maintaining the integrity and equilibrium of
stream systems of the Forest.
b. Develop watershed activity schedules for
key watersheds.
• • •
d. Apply best management practices during
forest Plan implementation to help ensure
that Forest water quality goals will be met.
10. Riparian Areas
During further analysis (project or area
analysis) specifically define and map
riparian areas.
• • •
12. Roads
a. Incorporate transportation planning into
all project and area analysis to determine
road construction/reconstruction needs,
appropriate road standards, and mitigation
measures needed to minimize adverse effects.
• • •
c. Implement a road management program that
is responsive to resource protection needs,
water quality goals, and public concerns.
For the Nezperce National Forest, goals are as follows:
• • •
2. Provide and maintain a diversity and quality
of habitat that ensures a harvestable surplus
of resident and anadromous game fish species.
• • •
20. Maintain or enhance stream channel stability
and favorable conditions for water flow.
21. Provide water of sufficient quality to meet
or exceed Idaho State Water Quality Standards
and local and downstream beneficial uses.
22. Protect or enhance riparian-dependent
resources.
-------
For the Nezperce National Forest, objectives are as follows:
Soils
Soil productivity will be maintained and soil erosion will be minimized through the application of
best-management practices, careful riparian area management, use of fish/water quality drainage objec-
tives, and soil and water resource improvement projects. If soil productivity or erosion approach un-
acceptable levels, project design will be modified, more effective best-management practices will be
utilized, or projects will be dropped or rescheduled.
Water
The current Idaho Water Quality Standards will be meit or exceeded. This will be accomplished through
fishery/water quality drainage objectives and resulting sediment budgets; careful riparian area man-
agement; application of best-management practices; and soil, water, and fishery resource improvement
projects. These management objectives and activities will minimize soil erosion and any resulting stream
sedimentation. Effectiveness of these drainage objectives, conservation practices, and improvement
projects will be evaluated by water quality monitoring and fishery habitat surveys.
Stream channel stability and integrity will be maintained by limiting increases in water yields. Channel
stability will be evaluated by stream inventories. Water needed for National Forest purposes will be secured
by making appropriate filings and following State water-right procedures. Effects of small hydropower
projects on water-related beneficial uses and channel stability will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Riparian
Manage riparian areas to maintain and enhance their value for wildlife, fishery, aquatic habitats, and water
quality through the application of riparian area standards for timber management, grazing, and recreation.
Preferential treatment will be given to riparian-dependent species on those areas where conflicts with other
resource uses may occur.
• i •
Fishery
Anadromous fish habitat potential will be increased to 87 percent, a 1-percent increase above the present
level of 86 percent of habitat potential, through four measures: direct habitat improvement, soil and water
resource improvement, use of fishery/water quality objectives for individual drainages, and maintenance of
current high habitat levels in areas designated to remain roadless. These improvement measures will also
benefit identified sensitive fish species (Chinook salmon, summer steelhead trout, bull trout, and westslooe
cunhroat trout) and other resident fish.
Emphasis will be placed on structural improvements and re-establishment of riparian vegetation in those
areas degraded through past dredge mining. In addition, projects which address existing excess sediment
m the habitat will be given priority. The effectiveness of these improvement practices and drainage
objectives will be monitored using standardized fish habitat survey techniques.
-------
For the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, goals are as follows:
4. Manage to emphasize the uniqueness of the
visual quality, water quality, wildlife,
fisheries and recreation around Hayden,
Priest, Pend Orielle and Coeur d'Alene Lakes.
• • •
13. Manage fisheries habitat to provide a
carrying capacity that will allow an increase
in the Forest's trout population.
• • •
18. Maintain high quality water to protect
fisheries habitat, water based recreation,
public water supplies, and be within state
water quality standards.
19. Manage resource development to protect the
integrity of the stream channel system.
• • ~
For the Idaho Panhandle National forests, objectives are as
follows:
i. Kiparias Areas
Xipiriin areas will be managed to feature dependent resources
(fish, water quality, maintenance of natural channels« certain
vegetation, and wildlife communities) while producing other
resource outputs at levels compatible for the objective for
dependent resources.
j. Fisheries
The Idaho Panhandle National Forests will be managed to maintain
and improve fish habitat capacities in order to achieve
cooperative goals with the State Fish and Game Department and co
comply with state water quality standards. Sedimentation arising
from land management activities will be managed so chat in forest
fisheries streams the objective is to maintain 80 percey^ of fry
emergence success as measured from pristine conditions.
Appendix I details the analysis process.
Fishery and timber riparian management activities will be
coordinated in order co maximize the contribution of riparian
vegetation to aquatic habitats. An annual program of direct
habicac improvement work w-.l! be pursued. Several unroaded
scream and river segments will be managed as low public access
areas co maintain a diversity of fishing experiences on the
Torest.
-------
Soil*
Management activities on Forest lands will not significantly
impair the long-term productivity of the soil or produce
unacceptable levels of sedimentation resulting from soil
erosion. This will be accomplished using technical guides
developed in conjunction with the soil survey and Best Management
Practices necessary to protect soil productivity and minimize
sedimentation.
Water
Management activities will comply with state water quality
standards. This will be accomplished through the use of the Best
Management Practices (Appendix S is available upon request). The
outcome of these best management practices will be monitored to
determine their effectiveness. Water quality that is below
Forest standards will be improved through restoration projects
(see soil objective) and through the scheduling of timber harvest
and road building activities where appropriate.
Lands within public water systems, as identified on the
Management Area Map, trill be managed for multiple-uses within the
water quality standards for public water supplies.
The application of appropriate conservation practices will ensure
that the quality of individual water bodies will not be
significantly affected by sediment production.
-------
APPENDIX B
FOREST-WIDE STANDARDS FOR FISH AND WATER QOALITY
For the Clearwater National Forest, standards are as follows:
• • »
5. Wildlife and Fish
• • •
j. Cooperate with Idaho Fish and Game, Indian
tribes, and other agencies in the management
of wildlife and fish habitat,
k. The following wildlife and fish species
have been selected as indicator species on
the Clearwater National Forest:
« • •
Steelhead Trout
Chinook Salmon
Rainbow and Brook Trout (in some streams)
• 0 •
8. Water
a. Secure favorable conditions of flow by maintaining the integrity and
equilibrium of all scream systems in the Forest.
b. Manage water quality and stream conditions to assure that. National
Forestamanagement activities do not cause permanent or long-term damage
to existing or specified beneficial uses. (See Appendix K. Section
A.)
c. Apply best management practices (BMP) to project activities to ansure
water quality standards are met or are exceeded. (See Soil and Water
Conservation Handbook in Forest Service Handbook 25C9.22.)
d. Manage ail waters in the Forest under a basic standard. (See Appendix
K, section 9.) This standard will.be supplemented where applicable by
the standards in "e" or other criteria related to local uses or
conditions.
e. In addition to standard d., manage all watershed systems in the Forest
that are considered important for the fishery resource (anadromous and
resident fish) to meet standards 1. through '4. below (in descending
order of quality): (See Appendix K. Section B.)
(1) No Effect - Applies to the Middle Fork of the Clearwater River
(Forest boundary to the confluence of the Lochsa and Selway
Rivers): the Lochsa River; White Sand Creek; Crooked Fork ; Brushy
Fork (mouth to Spruce Creek); North Fork of the Clearwater River
(low pool to Meadow Creek); Little North Fork Clear-water River;
Kelly Creek; Weitas Creek (aouth to Windy Creeki; Cayuse Creek
(mouth to Howard Creek); Hungery Creek: and all the waters wichin
wilderness
-------
(2) High Fishable - Applies to most of the waters of the North Fork,
Lochsa, and Powell Ranger Districts including most of the main
tributaries of the North Fork of the Clearwater River, Little North
Fork of the Clearwater River, Kelly Creek, Cayuse Creek, Weitas
Creek, Middle Fork of the Clearwater River, Lochsa River, White
Sand Creek, Brushy Fork, and Crooked Fork; the main tributaries of
Weitas Creek and Lolo Creek and its main tributaries on the Pierce
Ranger District; and Elk Creek above Deer Creek on the Palouse
Ranger District.
(3) Moderate Fishable - Applies to some of the waters within the
developed portion (roaded as of 1984) of the Canyon area of the
North Fork Ranger District, including Beaver Creek; and to Middle
Creek on the Pierce Ranger District.
(4) Low Fishable - Applies to some of the waters within the developed
portion (roaded as of 1984) of the Pierce Ranger District including
Orofino Creek, French Creek, and Orogrande Creek; but excluding
Lolo Creek and its tributaries (Yoosa Creek and Eldorado Creek).
(5) Minimum Viable - Applies to most of the waters within the Palouse
District including the mainstems of the Palouse River and the
Potlatch River and their tributaries, except for the mainstem of
Elk Creek above Deer Creek. (See item [2].)
f. Monitor, analyze, and evaluate water quality within critical reaches of
specified streams, which are generally third or fourth order streams
witli watersheds ranging from 4 to 40 square miles. A list of specific
stream systems and their respective standards is in Appendix K, Section
C. Unlisted streams will be evaluated at the area or project level,
and additional criteria will be developed if appropriate, using public
input.
g. Design, schedule, and implement management practices at the project
level that:
(1) will maintain water quality and stream conditions that are not
likely to cause sustained damage to the biological potential of the
fish habitat.
(2) will not reduce fish habitat productivity in the short-term below
the assigned standards;
(3) will maintain water quality in a condition that is not likely to
inhibit recovery of the fish habitat for more than the stated
duration (see Appendix K for these recovery periods); and
(4) will require a watershed cumulative effects feasibility analysis of
projects involving significant vegetation removal, prior to
including them on implementation schedules, to ensure -.hat the
project, considered with other activities, will not increase water
yields ir sediment beyona icceptaDie limits. Also require tnat
this analysis identify any opportunicies for nicigating mverse
Forest Standards
-------
effects on water-related beneficial uses, including capital
investments for fish habitat or watershed improvement.
h. Where standards e(l), e(3). eCO. and e(5) have been exceeded prior to
January 1984, design further management activity to re-establish the
pre-project water quality and stream conditions and any pre-project
recovery trends within 5 years of the activity. No further National
Forest activities will be initiated that would result in any additional
delays (beyond the 5 year delay) until the criteria are met, unless:
1) additional delays are fully justified and documented with social or
economic considerations; or 2) it is unlikely that the Forest can
affect water quality or the achievement of the water quality objectives
due to actions beyond its control (i.e., other ownership activities,
natural disasters, etc.).
i. In watersheds with significant mixed ownership, major mining impacts,
etc. improvement will be done through cooperative management schedules
worked out with the appropriate landowners under coordinated leadership
by the State of Idaho. The Forest will cooperate with other owners in
mitigation of adverse effects, at least to the extent that Forest
management activities have caused these adverse effects.
j. Eliminate the watershed restoration backlog by 2000.
k. Conduct nonpoint source activities in accordance with applicable best
management practices as referenced in Idaho Water
-------
Soils
a. Manage activities on lands with ash caps such that bulk densities on at
least 85 percent of the area remain at or below 0.9 gram/cubic
centimeter.
b. Design resource management activities to maintain soil productivity and
minimize erosion.
c. The minimum coordinating requirements for projects on land types wieh
high or very high mass stability or parent material erosion hazard
ratings are:
(1) The field verification of the mapped unit and predicted hazard
rating.
(2) Review road locations using a team consisting of a engineering
geologist, hydrologist, soil scientist, and a silviculturist.
Assess concerns and possible mitigation measures to determine if a
geotechnical investigation is needed.
(3) After the HP" line has been located, stake mitigating road designs,
using the original ID team members and road designer.
d. Review silvicultural prescriptions and unit locations on land type 50
(old slumps) to determine whether vegetation removal (timber
harvesting) may contribute to slope instability.
e. Give special attention to compacted glacial tills in the Powell area.
When projects are proposed in areas where compacted tills are known to
occur or suspected to occur, an intensive soil map will be prepared ana
ground verified. Mitigation measures should be applied that will
assure that water tables will not be raised or that subsurface water
will not be converted to surface flows. Measures will also be applied
to assure that soil erosion and resulting lowering of soil productivity
will not occur.
-------
For the Nezperce National Forest, standards are as follows:
• • •
Wildlife and Fish
• • •
3. Monitor population levels of all Management
Indicator Species on the Forest. These
include . . . westslope cutthroat trout,
summer steelhead, and spring Chinook. These
species have been selected because (a) they
are threatened and endangered; (b) they have
special habitat needs that may be influenced
significantly by planned management programs;
(c) they are commonly hunted# fished, or
trapped? (d) they are non-game species of
special interest; or (e) their population
changes are believed to indicate the effects
of management activities on other species of
selected major biological communities or on
water quality.
• » •
20. Ose the "Guide for Predicting Salmonid
Response to Sediment Yields in the Idaho
Batholith Watersheds" to evaluate the
attainment of fish habitat objectives.
21. Meet established fishery/water quality
objectives for all prescription watersheds...
22. Schedule'fishery habitat and watershed
improvements in those streams where the
existing fishery habitat potential is below
the stated objective. Complete an analysis,
during fiscal year 1988/ that will provide
more details on: (a) the problems with each
stream that is currently below the stated
objective; (b) the type of habitat or
watershed improvement that is needed in each
stream; and (c) which streams will receive
improvements first.
« • i
Water
Apply State water quaiity standards and 'Best Management Practices* to land-disturbing activities to
ensure State water quality standards are met or exceeded. In Idaho, 'Best Management Practices."
as defined by State regulation or agreement between the State and Forest Service, include the
'idaho Forest Practices Rules,' 'Best Management Practices for Road Activities." and "Rules and
Regulations and Minimum Standards For Stream Channel Alterations.' Tfeese documents are ap-
pended to, and are part of, this Forest Plan and are available upon request (see Appendix L).
in the absence ol estabtisned 'Best Management Practices," activities will be conducted in a manner
that demonstrates a knowledgeable and reasonable effort to minimize adverse water quality im-
pacts.
Use tne 'Guide for Predicting Sediment vieids from Forested Watersneds' and 'Forest Hydrology,
Part ll-Hyarotogtc tffects or Vegetation Manipulation' to compare alternative effects on sediment
and water yields.
-------
3. Evaluate site-specific water quality effects as pan of project planning. Design control measures to
ensure that projects will meet Forest water quality goals; projects that will not meet State water
quality standards shall be redesigned, rescheduled, or dropped.
4. Perform a watershed cumulative effects feasibility analysis of projects involving significant vegetation
removal, prior to including them on implementation schedules, to ensure that the project, con-
sidered with other activities, will not increase water yields or sediment beyond acceptable limits.
Such analysis shall identify any opportunities for mitigating adverse effects on water-related ben-
eficial uses, including capital investments for fish habitat or watershed improvement.
5. Evaluate and respond to applications for hydro-power, water diversion, water storage, and other
water-related facilities on a case-by-case basis. Provide timely comments to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) or to the appropriate State agency. Recommendations to FERC or
other agencies shall be based on Forestwide and management area goals as stated in this Forest
Plan. Applicants may be required to use private consultants or their own personnel to make
environmental evaluations needed by the Forest Service and/or State agencies. Close cooperation
and coordination with other agencies will be sought where appropriate.
6. Issue no special use permits for construction of small hydro-power developments in the Salmon
River Basin until FERC has completed its Cluster Impact Analysis Project.
7. Analyze all small hydro-power developments for individual and cumulative adverse impacts following
FERC's Cluster Impact Analysis Project. In watersheds where Forest management activities aiso
occur, adverse impacts that are compounded with increased sediment yields from Forest activities
will be evaluated.
8. Meet established fishery/water quality objectives for all prescription watersheds as shown in Ap-
pendix A.
Soils
1. Evaluate the potential for soil displacement, compaction, puddling, mass wasting, and surface soil
erosion for all ground-disturbing activities.
2. A minimum of 80 percent of an activity area shall not be detrimentally compacted, displaced, or
puddled upon completion of activities. This direction does not apply to permanent-recreation
facilities and other permanent facilities such as system roads.
3. Maintain sufficient ground cover to minimize rill erosion and sloughing on road cut ana fill slopes
and sheet erosion on other activity areas.
Riparian Areas
1. Allow no management practices in riparian areas that will cause detrimental changes in water
temperature or chemical composition, blockages of water courses, or deposits of sediment that
seriously and adversely affect water conditions and fish habitat.
2. Give preferential consideration to riparian-area-dependent resources in cases of unresoivable con-
flict (resources such as fish, certain wildlife, certain water-dependent vegetation, and water are
totally dependent upon riparian areas).
Actions within or affecting riparian areas will include protection and, where applicable, improvement
of ripanan-dependent resources.
-------
Effects on wetlands and floodpiains must be considered for all alternatives during the environmental
analysis process.
Delineate and evaluate riparian areas in project areas prior to implementing any project activity.
Manage riparian areas to maintain cover and security for riparian-dependent species with emphasis
on maintaining and enhancing habitats for threatened and endangered species. Use "Guidelines for
Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho* to evaluate the need for and to
provide adequate hiding cover and security areas for big game. Biological evaluations, during
site-specific project analysis, shall identify needs and recommendations.
# • •
Roads and Trail*
6. Plan, design, and manage all access to meet land and resource management objectives, meet the
State Water Quality Standards, and meet Best Management Practices (BMPs).
7. Plan to implement post-project activities, including access prescriptions, within two field seasons of
the last planned land-disturbing activity. Minimize the total time that roads will be open for con-
struction and timber harvest activities.
8. Minimize impacts from construction in identified key riparian and wildlife areas. Develop reha-
bilitation plans for existing access facilities that are producing significant impacts on ripari-
an-dependent resources.
9. Design all proposed road systems to mitigate at least 60 percent of the sediment predicted. Utilize
proven mitigation procedures in the design and construction of roads te meet up to 90 percent of
the sediment predicted, where needed to meet resource management objectives.
# I <
-------
For the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, standards are as
follows:
Range
« • #
5. Riparian rone and scream bank stand
will be specified in each allotment
survey system (COWSED) will be used
of fisheries streams within grazing
correcting stream bank problems.
rds, with periodic monitoring,
plan. The IPNF stream condition
by 1990 on approximately 100 miles
allotments to develop the data for
Facilities
9. Provide fish passage to suitable habitat areas, by designing road
crossings of streams to allow fish passage.
Fisb
1. Activities on National Forest lands will be planned and executed Co
maintain existing water uses. Maintain is defined as "limiting
effects from National Forest activities to maintain at least 80
percent of fry emergence success in identified fishery streams." The
percent is measured from pristine conditions. Current methodology
will not detect an impact of less than 20 percent. During the life of
the plan, new technologies may permit more precise assessments;
however, the goal of this standard will remain as "to maintain 80
percent of fry emergence success."
-------
2. Screams providing spawning and rearing habitat, which, are considered
critical to the maintenance of river and lake populations of special
concern, will be managed at a standard higher than the 80 percent
standard. Monitoring will be needed to detect this higher standard.
The high value streams are:
HIGH VALUE STREAMS
Upper Marble
Catspuv
Foehl
Lund
Canyon (Avery R.B.)
Boundary
South Fork Granite
Blacktail (Priest Lake R.D.)
Horth Fork Cranite (Priest Lake)
Trestle
North Fork Grouse
Lightning (below falls)
Beaver (Priest Lake R.D.)
Hughes Fork
Grass
Deer (Bonners Ferry R.D.)
Upper Priest
Upper Pack
Upper Grouse
East Fork Lightning
Porcupine
Wellington (below falls)
Ratfrfe
Gold (Avery R.D.)
Skookum
B ird
Eagle (Avery R.D.)
Quartz (Avery R.D.)
Johnson
North Fork llayden
East Fork Hayden
Granite (Sandpoint R.D.)
Cold (Sandpoint R.D.)
North Gold (lower portion)
Upper North Fork Coeur d'Alene
(upstream of Iron Cr.)
Upper Simmons
Upper Cd'A (upstrm. of Spruce
Marie Cr.)
Upper Wolf Lodge
Cougar
West Fork, East Fork Steamboat
Brown
Trail
Upper Tepee (upstrm. of Trail
Big Elk/ Creek)
Savage
3. The stream and river segments listed below will be managed as low
access fishing opportunities to maintain a diversity of fishing
experiences for the public and to protect sensitive fish populations.
Special road management provisions will be used to accomplish this
object ive.
LOW ACCESS FISHI1IC STREAMS
LIJF Clearwater River Foehl Cr.
(downstream of Mowich Cr.)
Canyon Cr (Avery R.D.) Declaration Cr.
Sawtooth Cr. Marie Cr.
Long Canyon Cr. j, Blacktail Cr.
Upper Priest River FW Slate Cr.
Presently losed to fishing by the State of Idaho.
-------
LOW ACCESS FISHING STREAMS (Cant.)
Upper Coeur d'Alene
(between Tepee & Martin)
Independence Cr.
St. Joe River
(Between Red Ives & Heller Cr.)
Freezout Cr.
Black Prinrt' Cr.
Skookum Ci .
MF Big Ci.
Marble Cr.
(upstream of Hobo Cr.)
Clear Cr.
Siwash Cr.
WF Big Cr.
EF Big Cr.
4. Provide fish passage to suitable habitat areas, by designing road
crossings of streams to allow fish passage or removing in-stream
migration barriers.
5. Utilize data from stream, river, and lake inventories to prepare
fishery prescriptions that coordinate fishery resource needs with
other resource activities. Pursue fish habitat impiovement projects
to improve habitat carrying capacities on selected streams.
6. Coordinate management activities with water resouice concerns as
described in MA 16, Appendix I, and Appendix 0.
-------
1. Management activities on Forest lands will not significantly impair
Che long-term productivity of the water resource and ensure that state
water quality standards will be met or exceeded*
2. Maintain concentrations of total sediment or chemical constituents
within State standards.
3. Implement project level standards and guidelines for water quality
contained in the Best Management Practices (Appendix S, available upon
request) i including those defined by State regulation or agreement
between the State and Forest Service such as:
a. Idaho Forest Practices Rules
b. Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards for Stream Channel
Alterations
c. Best Management Practices for Road Activities*
A. Cooperate with the states to determine necessary instream flows for
various uses. Instream flows should be maintained by acquiring water
rights or reservations.
5. Manage public water system plans for multi-pie use by balancing present
and future resources with public water supply needs. Project plans
for activities in public water systems will be reviewed by the water
users and Che State.
Streams not defined as public water systems, but used by individuals
for such purposes, will be managed to Che standards stated below or to
the fisheries standards whichever is applicable.
6. Activities within non-fishery drainages, including first and second
order streams, will be planned and executed to maintain existing
biota. Maintenance of existing biota will be defined as maintaining
the physical integrity of these streams. Best Management Practices
(Appendix S), Appendix 0, and riparian guidelines will be used to
accomplish this objective.
7. Ic is the incenc of chis plan chat models be used as a tool co
approximaCe the affects of Sacional Forest acicivities on water
quality values. The models will be used in conjunction with field
data, monicoring results, conCinuing research and professional
judgment, co further refine estimated effects and to make
reconmendac ions.
-------
APPENDIX C
MANAGEMENT AREAS
Management Areas for the Clearwater National Forest:
A2 - Elk Creek Falls Recreation Area
A3 - Dispersed Recreation in Unroaded Setting
A4 - Visual Travel Corridor
A5 - Developed Recreation
A6 - Historic/Visual Travel Corridor
A7 - Wild and Scenic River
B1 - Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
B2 - Recommended Wilderness
CI - Key Big-Game Summer Range
C3 - Key Big-Game Winter Range/Unsuitable for Timber Mgt
C4 - Key Big-Game Winter Range/Timber Management
C6 - Key Fishery Habitat
C8S - Big-Game Summer Range/Timber Management
El - Timber Management
E3 - Aerial Harvest Systems/Timber Management
Ml - Research Natural Areas and Special Areas
M2 - Riparian Areas.
Management Areas for the Nezperce National Forest:
1 - Dispersed Nonforest Lands
2 - Administration
3 - Cultural Preservation
4 - Mineral Exploration and Development
6 - Research Natural Areas
7 - Developed Recreation
8.1, 8.2, 8.3 - Wild and Scenic Rivers
9.1, 9.2, 9.3 - Wilderness Areas
10 - Riparian Zone
11 - Fisheries/Water Quality
12 - Timber Production
13 - Timber Production/Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs)
14 - Timber Production/VQOs/Deer and Elk Winter Range
15 - Timber Production/Deer and Elk Winter Range
16 - Deer and Elk Winter Range
17 - Timber Production/VQOs — High to Medium Sensitivity
18 - Deer and Elk Winter Range/VQOs
19 - Livestock Forage
20 - Old-growth Habitat
21 - Moose Winter Range
22, 23 - Public Water Supplies
-------
Management Areas on the Panhandle National Forests:
1 - Timber Production
2 - Timber Production/Grizzly Bear Habitat
3 - TimberProduction/Grizzly Bear/Big Game Winter Range
4 - Timber Production/Big Game Winter Range
5 - Big Game Winter Range
6 - Timber Product ion/Elk Summer Range
7 - Caribou Management
9 - Lands Unsuitable for Timber Production
10 - Semi-primitive Recreation
11 - Wilderness Areas
12 - Wild and Scenic Rivers
13 - Special Management Areas (Scenic, Botanical, Historic)
14 - Research Natural Areas
15 - Unsuitable for Timber Production/Primary Range
16 - Riparian Zone
17 - Developed Recreation
18 - Administration
19 - Semi-primitive Recreation/Timber Production
20 - Unroaded Semi-primitive Recreation/Unroaded Timber
-------
APPENDIX D
RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT AREAS
For the Clearwater National Forest:
MANAGEMENT AREA M2
(107,263 Acres)
A. DESCRIPTION
Riparian areas Include all perennial water (streams and lakes), wetlands,
floodplalns, and by definition, the land within at least 100 feet of perennial
water. Riparian areas Include or directly influence the quality of riparian
dependent resources (i.e., water resources, fish habitat, certain wildlife,
recreation, etc.). The primary functions are:
- flood control and moderation
- water quality maintenance
• stream channel structural maintenance
- water temperature control
- fish habitat (spawning; rearing, food source)
- upslope sediment and water yield buffer
- wildlife habitat
- aquatic and riparian-type vegetation.
Riparian Management Area
L.
••wm lim
¦**»*1AN ARCA -
(M2)
fllMrw* Zam-
¦ Tarrmnal ZtM
The M2 Management Area consists of only those riparian areas in the Forest that
are associated with El, E3, C8S, C4, A4, a6, and C3S Management Areas which are
suitable for timber management. Total available riparian acres associated with
these management areas are 107.200 acres.
Riparian areas which exist within unsuitable. Management Areas (Bl, B2, A2, A3,
CI, C3. C6 and Ml) will be managed in accordance with the management direction
for that management area.
Because oz che iar?e number ana generally narrow width, they are not shown on
the small scale Forest ?lan aap but -fill be delineated on the project maps as
needed.
These narrow corridors should be considered an integral part of surrounding or
adjacent lands.
-------
B. GOALS
Manage under the principles of multiple use as areas of special consideration,
distinctive values, and integrated with adjacent management areas to the extent
that water and other riparian dependent resources are protected.
Evaluate onsite and cumulative effects of proposed action, resolving
significant conflicts in favor of riparian dependent resources.
C. GOALS AND STANDARDS BY RESOURCE
The Forestwide management direction included in Chapter II applies to this
management area.
1. Recreation
Goal
Manage settings for dispersed recreation commensurate with the settings of
the surrounding or adjacent management area(s).
S tandards
a. Locate and establish recreational facilities on dry, well-drained
areas, preferably on the periphery of the area.
b. Manage areas seen from Management Areas A4. A5. and A6 to meet or
exceed the adopted visual quality objectives shown in Appendix G.
c. Protect characteristics of potential Wild and Scenic River corridors.
(See Appendix M.)
2. Wildlife and Fish
Goal
Remove structures (log jams, etc.) that are identified as fish barriers.
Retain those that enhance habitat. Construct new structures to improve or
restore degraded habitat.
Standard
Maintain streamside vegetation to provide adequate cover and habitat
components for fish.
3. Range
Goals
a. Manage range allotments to achieve stable soil and streambanks.
b. Design grazing systems ".a promoce recovery of degraded riparian
vegetation.
Management Area M2
-------
c. Discourage concentrated livestock use.
4. Timber
Goal
Use site preparation methods which maintain the sediment filtering function
of duff and ground vegetation.
Standards
a. Manage vegetation to:
(1) Provide a diversity of vegetation for dependent wildlife species.
(2) Maintain an overmature component for dependent wildlife species and
for large woody debris recruitment as necessary for stream
stability and fish habitat.
(3) Maintain the buffering function of organic debris and vegetative
cover such that landslides, potential water yields, and sediment
delivery from upslope management activities are moderated.
b. When utilizing regeneration harvests, use small, irregularly shaped,
and widely spaced regeneration harvest units near streams.
c. Restrict, or prohibit applications o£ approved chemicals that may be
damaging to dependent resources.
d. Specify the loc.ation and use period of temporary stream crossings to
avoid high-risk areas and control sedimentation.
e. Locate skid trails on margins or outside of riparian areas when
possible. If not possible, designate skid trails and provide erosion
control prior to the wet season. Require timely restoration.
5- Water and Soil
Goal
a. Conduct watershed and stream improvements that will:
(1) Enhance riparian and water resources.
(2) Rehabilitate and/or mitigate the adverse effects of fire, flood,
and other natural or management related causes.
S tandard
Meet Forestwide water quality standards.
Management Area M2
-------
6. Minerals
Goal
Locate production facilities outside management area when possible to avoid
impacts on riparian values.
Standard
Prohibit extraction or disposal of common variety minerals within the
normal high water line of any perennial water body.
7. Lands
Goal
Permit special uses, including hydropower development, when they do not
conflict with riparian-dependent resource objectives, or if conflicts can
be resolved or adequately mitigated.
Standards
a. Retain National Forest System Lands and consider acquisition of r.ew
lands when such actions can improve or better protect riparian and
watershed values.
b. Locate needed rights-of-ways, including utility corridors, on margins
or outside of riparian areas where possible.
8. Facilities
Goal
Maintain trails to preserve riparian values.
Standards
a. Require that drainage structures and erosion control measures be
installed on constructed and reconstructed roads prior to the normal
wet season.
b. Avoid new road construction near or adjacent to streams except at
specified crossings.
c. Design mitigation measures that will effectively reduce sediment from
road construction, use, and maintenance. (Typically at least 70
percent mitigation.)
d. Design road fills, landings, canker fills, etc., thae will maintain chs
functions of the riparian areas, including flood moderation, and
prevent direct resource damage.
Management Area M2
-------
e. Design stream crossings for protection of water resource values such as
fish passage, nonerosive velocities, channel stability, to avoid
ponding and flooding, and to provide erosion control of road fills and
surfaces.
9« Protection
Goals
a. Use activity fuel and hazard reduction methods that minimize
disturbance of aquatic ecosystem and allows native riparian vegetation
to recover naturally.
b. Utilize prescribed fire from unplanned ignitions as needed to achieve
Forest Plan direction.
Standards
a. Confine, contain, or control wildfires.
b. Avoid use of heavy equipment for fire line construction.
c. Apply erosion control measures as a part of fire control and line
construction.
d. Use prescribed fire from planned ignitions to tre&t activity fuel
loadings.
D. SCHEDULE OF ANTICIPATED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The schedule of management area practices is not intended to act as a limit or
target. Figures listed are projections and will be monitored to test for
long-term application and achieving Forest Plan direction. The second decade
figures are shown only for information about what would happen if the
management direction of this Plan would continue in the second decade.
Average Annual
Decade 2
8.5
4938.0
6436.0
711.0
0
36.5
219.0
Management Practice
Units
Decade
Total Timber Sales
MMBF
5.2
Acres
3516.0
Compartment/Stand Exam
Acres
10726.0
Reforestation
Acres
1758.0
Road Construction
Miles
0
Soil and Water Improvement
Acres
86.5
Fish Habitat Improvements
Acres
219.0
Management Area M2
-------
E. MONITORING AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS
The monitoring requirements from Chapter IV that are applicable to this
management area are shown in Table IV-2 in Chapter IV. The procedures outlined
in Chapter IV will be followed to evaluate the data gathered during monitoring.
Management Area '12
-------
For the Nezperce National Forest:
Chapter III
Management Area Direction
MANAGEMENT AREA 10 (11,859 acres)
A. Description
Management Area 10 consists of lakes, lakeside lands, perennial streams, seasonally flowing streams
supporting riparian vegetation, and adjoining lands that are dominated by riparian vegetation. The width of
the components of this management area varies and is determined by the riparian vegetation and the
valley bottom width. Riparian vegetation is vegetation requiring a high level of soil moisture. The area is
often nearly flat and is subject to various degrees of flooding or saturation. As additional acres of riparian
areas are identified and mapped during project planning, the acres in this management area will increase.
This area includes the ftoodplains of streams and the wetlands associated with springs, lakes, and ponds.
The natural and beneficial values of riparian areas include groundwater recharge, moderation of flood
peaks, maintenance of water quality, visual and recreational enjoyment, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural
resources, and timber and forage production.
This management area contains inclusions of other management areas as shown below:
in addition to the 11,859 acres mapped for this management area, there are 10,214 acres of this
management emphasis which occur as inclusions in other management areas.
Manage riparian areas to maintain and enhance their value for wildlife, fishery and aquatic habitat, and
water quality. Manage timber, grazing, and recreation to give preferential consideration to ripari-
an-dependent species on that portion of the management area "suitable" for timber management, grazing,
or recreation.
The goal for summer eik habitat in this management area is to manage 1,615 acres to achieve at 'east 75
percent of habitat potential: 6.315 acres to achieve at least SO percent of habitat potential: 3nd 2.373 acres
vo achieve at 'east 25 aercent of habitat potential. Specific metnoas y- 'now to achieve :ms .viil pe
determined on a site-soeafic basis during orqecr planning (see Aooencix 3).
Management Area Inclusion Acres
12
16
17
20
21
41
249
682
149
298
55
3. Goals
-------
Chapter III
Management Area Direction
C. Standards
RESOURCE ELEMENT
STANDARDS
The Fcrestwide management direction included in Chapter II of thia Plan applies to this
management area.
Consider cumulative impacts of proposed activities on the entire riparian ecosystem.
RECREATION
Dispersed Recreation
1. Limit and distribute use as necessaiy to protect riparian areas.
RANGE
Rang* Management
1. Manage existing grazing to protect or enhance riparian-dependent resources.
2. Oevelop or improve range management plans for each allotment
3. Maintain riparian habitat in good or better condition by developing intensive grazing
systems and structural improvements, or by reductions in stock.
WILDLIFE AND FISH
Habitat Management
1. Maintain sufficient streamside vegetative canopy to ensure acceptable water temper-
atures for fish and to provide cover.
2. Management activities shall not be permitted to advereely change the composition and
productivity of key riparian vegetation. Riparian areas now degraded by management
should be rehabilitated before arty further nondependent resource use of the immediate
area is permitted.
3. Schedule habitat imorovemsnts in all drainages presently below stated objectives.
Improvements will include in-stream structures. :nannel changes, and rioarian revegeta-
tion. Use in-stream improvements and barrier removal to enhance those drainages where
nabitat capacity is undisturbed.
4. Maintain sufficient streamside vegetstive structure, composition, and diversity for travel
corridors between old-growth stands.
"IMBER
Timber Harvest
<. Lands are classified as 'suitable* for timber management: scneauie timber narvest.
2. Design timber harvest activities to protect or enhance ripanan-deoendent resources.
Emphasize multi-layered stand conditions end a vegetative mosaic.
3. Locate timber harvest landings outside of riparian areas.
4. Require directional felling of trees away from stream courses.
5. Prohibit harvesting equioment that will result in significant ground Disturbance.
6. Suspend logs completely when possible when crossing riparian areas.
7. Prohibit management activities that would change stream geomorpnoiogy by acverseiy
altering streambanks, channel dimensions, or cnannei seaiment.
-------
Chapter III
Management Area Direction
RESOURCE ELEMENT
STANDARDS
WATER
1. MMt established fishery/water quality objectives for all prescription watersheds as
shown in Appandix A.
facilities
Roade and Traij»
Trails
Utility Corridors
t. Design mitigation measures to reduce sediment from roads constructed in riparian areas
by at least 70 percent
2. Minimize crossings in riparian area*. Cross streame at as near a right angle as practical.
Construction parallel to streams (in riparian areas) should be avoided. Opportunities to
remove road* and traits from riparian areas should be considered if they are producing
significant impacts on riparian-dependent resources.
3. Motorized recreation vehicles (other than on-snow types) should generally not be
allowed off of roads and trails in riparian areas.
4. Maintain trails to reduce environmental damage. Design reconstruction projects to
mitigate sediment.
5. Manage area as a 'category 1 avoidance area.'
MINERALS
Exploration and Development
Stream Alteration or Oiversion
1. Recommend 'no surface occupancy' in mineral leases.
2. Address reestabllshment of fish habitat in all reclamation plana where habitat may be
damaged by proposed mineral exploration or development activities.
3. Require specific mitigation and reclamation measures which address stream bed and
stream bank stabilization, proper location and cor srrucnon of settling ponds, and timely
^establishment of riparian vegetation.
=ROTECT)ON
Insect and Oisease
rire Management
1. Apply integrated pest management to minimize losses and orotect riparian area values.
2. Wildfire management strategies are control, eontain. and confine. The specifics on
implementation snail aepend uoon location, exoected fire oebavior, ana values at risk.
Decision criteria shall be soeetfied in the Fire Management Action Plan.
3. Planned ignitions, when within prescription, will be allowed to burn to enhance resource
values.
-------
Chapter III
Management Area Direction
D. Schedule of Management Practices
| Management Practice
Average Annual Units
Decade 1
Decade 2
Fish Habitat Improvement 1/
Acres
400
40
Soil & Water Improvement 1/
Acres
160
25
Timber Harvest
Clearcut
MBF
1,565
1.726
Acres
50
55
Shelterwood-Removal Cut
MBF
60
60
Acres
30
30
Selection
MBF
698
898
Acres
100
100
Salvage/Sanitation
MBF
0
0
Acres
0
0
Total Timber Harvest
MBF
2,523
2.684
Acres
180
185
Silviculture/Stand Exams
Acres
2.600
2.600
Timber Compartment Exams
Acres
SOO
3
Reforestation (KV)
Acres
180
i
185 j
i
Road Construction
Miles
0.5
1
0.5
Road Reconstruction
Miles
0.5
0 i
1/ Includes structural habitat improvements.
E. Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements
The monitoring requirements from Chapter V that are applicable to Management Area 10 are: id, le, ih,
1 j, 2a, 2e, 2g, 2h, 2i, 2j, 2k, 4, 5, 5, 7, 10. The procedures outlined in Chapter V will be followed to evaluate
the data gathered during monitoring.
-------
For the Idaho Panhandle National Forests:
Management Area 16
(32,500 acres)
Dcacriptioo:
Areas wieh distinctive resource values and characteristics that are
comprised of an aquatic ecosystem and adjacent upland areas that have
direct relationship* wieh the aquatic system. This includes floodplains,
wetlands, and all areas within a horizontal distance of approximately 100
feet from the normal high water line of a stream channel or from, the
shoreline of a standing body of water.
This management area includes the important fisheries streams on the Idaho
Panhandle National Forests. The area receives the highest concentrated
recreation use on the Forest with most existing campground and undeveloped
campsites within or adjacent to the area. The area represents a great
diversity of vegetation from meadow lands to old-growth timber to stands of
Cottonwood.- Wildlife habitat is also abundant and diversified, with many
species utilizing the variety of habitat found here. Productive timber
lands represent some of the most productive sites on the Forest. This
management area also provides the main access to National Forest lands with
major roads either within or adjacent to the management area. Included
within this management area are 4,637 acres of non-forest lands, lands not
capable of producing industrial products and lands physically unsuited for
timber production. The majority of lands within this management area are
of a high visual sensitivity level.
Management Goals;
Manage riparian areas to feature riparian dependent resources (fish, water
quality, maintenance of natural channels, certain vegetation and wildlife
communities) while producing other resource outputs at levels compatible
with the objectives for dependent resources and:
- meet or exceed state water quality standards
- protect soil productivity
- provide cost effective timber production
- provide for big game and non-game wildlife habitat
- provide opportunities for dispersed recreation consistent with riparian
protection requirements
- meet visual quality objectives
-------
NaugoHBt Area 16 cone.
Standards;
Resource
Element
RECUATIOH
Developed Recreation
Management
Dispersed RecreaCion
Management
Visual Management
Trail Management
WILDLIFE
AJID FISH
Wildlife Habitat
Management
Standards
Locate catuping and picnic ing facilities
at least 100 feet from screams and lakes,
where conflicts with riparian dependent
resources occur.
Manage for rdaded natural and
semi-primitive ROS experiences.
Approximately 5,700 acres of this
management area are wichin Management
Area 10 (not included in the total acres
of MA 10).
Use off-site and on-site mterpietation
signing for site protection and
informat ion.
Manage for approximately 13,300 acres of
retention VQO and 17,800 acres of partial
retention VQO. The remaining area has a
VQO of modification or maximum
modification. Existing areas that do not
meet VQO will be brought up to standard
as it is cosc effective to do so.
Trail construction and reconstruction is
permitted where compatible with
management area objectives.
Manage for a diversity of deciduous and
coniferous vegetation. Provide habitat
for old-growth dependent species through
extended rotations and timber harvest
scheduling.
Establish and maintain waterfowl habitat
improvement areas as appropriate.
-------
Management Area 16 cone.
Resource
Slcwcnt
Fisheries Management
RANGE
Range Management
TIMBER
Timber Harvesting
Standard*
Maintain and improve fisheries habitat to
T.eet or exceed Che Forest fish population
goals. Habitat improvements may include
such items as rearing ponds, rearing pens
and spawning channels.
Maintenance of natural channels and
adequate streamside vegetation will have
a high priority in range allotment plans
and prescriptions. A specific objective
for stream bank protection will be
included in all allotment plans where
second order or larger streams are
involved.
Manage all allotments to obtain no more
than five percent streatnbank trampling
damage (bare soil).
Consider development of alternative water
sources outside riparian zone.
Timber management regimes will be based
upon analysis of site specific objectives
considering among other items, the
riparian resource needs, cost efficiency
and cost effectiveness. Both even-aged
and uneven-aged regeneration syscems will
be used to protect and maintain riparian
resource values. Even-aged management
will generally open nci more than 600 feet
along a stream or lake, and no more than
5 to 6 percent of a stream in one decade
except as needed for riparian dependent
resources. Rotations may be extended co
maintain or enhance riparian dependent
resources. Intermediate harvests will be
used to meet f mber management
objectives.
Minimise surface disturbance by not
operating during wee periods and through
the selection of logging systems.
-------
Management Area 16 coot
Resource
Element
Refores tat ion
Scaadarda
Salvage will bp accomplished when
riparian resources can be protected.
Harvest restricted to low use periods for
wildlife and recreation.
Planting v/ill be used as needed to meet
resource objectives as prescribed in the
Stand Silvicultural Prescription.
Reforestation of currently non-stocked
lands and rehabilitation of cull and
stagnated stands will be based upon
analysis of cost efficiency, cost
ef f ectiveness, resource goa?5 and
objectives of the specific site. Site
preparation generally by means other than
machine scarification.
Timber Stand
Improvement
Precoinmercia 1 thinning will be used
consistant with the level of management
intensity when not in conflict with
riparian objectives.
WATER AND SOIL
Soil and Water
Protect ion
Refer to Che Best Management Practices
Handbook.
'•¦'ater Resource
Improvement
Continu.ng unacceptable sediment sources
on all high value fisheries streams will
bo corrected as necessatv to meet ';ccer
quality standards.
FACILITIES
Road Construction Except for stream crossings, limit new
and Reconstruction construction to cases where no reasonable
environmentally sound alternative exists,
as determined by an environmental
assessment.
Pursue replacement of existing stream
crossing barriers with structures
allowing fish passage where continued
blockage will interfer with the
attainment of Forest fishery <»oa!s.
-------
Management Area 16 cout<
Resource
Element
PROTECTIOH
Insects and Disease
Prescribed Fire
Fire Protection
Staodardi
Integrated pest management will be used
where needed to meet management area
objectives. Biological control will be
given priority.
Prescribed fire will be used as needed to
meet siIvicultural objectives as
prescribed in the stand SiIvicu!tura1
Prescription. Pile slash at least 30
feet back from scream channels o; above
high water mark or topographic breaks.
Attempt to pile slash during tl.e log^in^,
operation but before rhe next high flow
period.
Confine, contain, and contiol Cues
within the management area.
Use of dozers only when needed to piotect
riparian resource va'ues.
Schedule af Manayeaeat Practices:
Proposed Program (First Decade)
Management Practice;
Timber Harvest
(Allowable Sale Quantity)
Clearcut
Sheltevvood-Seed Cut
She1terwood-Removal Cut
5election
Total
Reforestation
Timber Stand Improvement
Average Annual
7oluae
Actm HHBF
55
20
0
115
123
0.S
0.2
0
1.4
-------
Management Area 16 cone.
Hilea
Road Construction 5
Road Reconstruction
Total 7
VJ i l dl i f e/Fish Habitat Imp: ovement
Acrea
fish Habitat Improvement 239
Projected Program fSacond Dgeade)
Average Annual
Voluac
PraeCiee«: Afi£g8 MHBf
Timber Harvest
(Allowable Sa'.e Quantity)
CIcarcut r,<5 0.8
She Itervood-Seed Cut ?.i: 0.2
She 1tervood-Remova! Cut 0 0
Selection 40 0.4
Total 115 1.4
Reforestation 131
Timber Stand Improvement 0
tliieA
Road Construetion 2.0
Road Sleconscruc c u>n OjJj,
Total 2.5
i Id 1 Lf e/F L3r» 'laoitat Imoroveraenr
Acxea
Fish Habitat Improvement 239
Monitoring and Evaluation RcquireacnLa;
The raonitoiing requirements from Chapter TV chat are applica&le to the
management area are: A-i , A-2 , B-l , B-2, B-3 , B-4, B-5, C-l , 0-1, E-l , F-
T-2 , F-3 , C-l, G-2 , G-3 , G-4 , H—I , T —1 , J-l , and K-l . The procedures
outlined in Chapeer -V will be followed to evaluate the data gathered dur;
niun itor mt, •
-------
APPENDIX E
FOREST-WIDE MONITORING PLANS
For the Clearwater National Forest:
G. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring and evaluation comprises the management control system for the Forest
Plan. It will provide the information on the progress and results of
implementing the Forest Plan to the decisionmaker and public.
Monitoring and evaluation entails comparing the end results being achieved to
those projected in the Plan. Costs, outputs, and environmental effects,- both
experienced and projected, will be considered.
To do this, a comparison will be made on a sample basis of overall progress in
implementing the Plan as well as whether the overall relationships on which the
Plan are based have changed over time. When changes occur, they will be
evaluated as to their significance and appropriate amendments or revisions made.
The goals for monitoring and evaluating this Forest Plan are to determine:
- how well the Forest is meeting its planned goals and objectives;
- if existing and emerging public issues and management concerns are being
adequately addressed;
- how closely the Forest Plan's management standards are being followed;
-------
Table IV-1 cont. Forest Plan Monitoring Requirements - Action Plan
NFMA
Requirement
^6 CFR 219
Item
No.
Actions, Effect, or
Resources to be Measured
. 12(10 (4a)
Expected
Precision
.12(K)(4b)
Expected
Reliability
.12(K)(4b)
Reporting
Time
.12(K)(4c
26
Moose
Moderate
Moderate
5-Yr Rpt
27
White-tailed Deer
Moderate
Moderate
5-Yr Rpt
28
Belted Kingfisher
High
Low
5-Yr Rpt
29
Pileated Woodpecker and
Goshawk
High
Low
5-Yr Rpt
30
Pine Martin
Moderate
Moderate
5-Yr Rpt
31
Anadromous Fish Indicators
High
Moderate
5-Yr Rpt
32
Resident
Fish Indicators
Population Trend of T I E
Species
High
Moderate
5-Yr Rpt
33
Gray Wolf
Low
Moderate
5-Yr Rpt
3*»
Bald Eagle
Low
High
5-Yr Rpt
35
Grizzly Bear
Low
Moderate
5-Yr Rpt
•22(f)
36
Minerals Resource Availability
Moderate
Moderate
5-Yr Rpt
-------
Table IV-2.
Monitorinc
Requirements Applicable To Each
Management Area
Management Areaa
Monitorinc
I terns
1 A21
*11
A4|
A«j|
a6 |
*71
B1 I
B2|
CI |
cll
C4|
c6|
c8s 1
El 1
*31
Ml 1
M2I
1
Performance Outouta
1 1
I X I
X 1
X 1
xl
X 1
X 1
1
X 1
X 1
X 1
1
xl
X 1
1
X 1
x 1
X 1
x 1
1
X 1
1
xl
2
Recreation Oosort.
1 1
1 X 1
X 1
xl
xl
xl
xl
1
X 1
x 1
X 1
1
xl
xl
1
xl
X 1
X 1
1
1
1
X i
3
Vlaual Quality
1 1
1 xl
xl
X 1
xl
X 1
X 1
1
xl
xl
xl
1
xl
X 1
1
xl
X 1
X 1
X j
1
x I
t
*1
k
Cultural Resource
1 1
I X1
xi
X 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
1
xl
X 1
xl
1
xl
X 1
1
X 1
X 1
X 1
x 1
1
X 1
1
xl
•i
W1lderness
i 1
1 1
1
xl
X 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
6
livestock Parsce
1 1
1 1
x 1
1
x 1
1
1
X 1
1
xl
x !
X {
X 1
1
[
1
xl
7
Oive rs i ty
1 I
1 x i
x i
X 1
x 1
X 1
X 1
1
X 1
X 1
x 1
1
xl
X 1
1
x 1
X 1
X 1
x 1
1
X 1
j
X !
8
Water Quality
1 1
i xl
X 1
X 1
xl
X 1
xl
1
1
1
xl
X 1
1
X )
x 1
x 1
X 1
1
1
1
X 1
9
Peat Mcmt Praet.
1 1
1 X 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
X i
X 1
1
1
1
X 1
X 1
1
X 1
X 1
X 1
X {
1
1
1
x 1
10
Riparian Area
1 .1
1 xl
X 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
!
xl
u
Site Productivity
! 1
xl
X I
xl
X 1
1
1
1
xl
xl
1
X 1
x 1
X 1
X 1
1
I
1
xl
12
Land Adjustment
1 1
1 X i
X 1
x i
X 1
1
x 1
x ;
1
X 1
X 1
!
X 1
x 1
x 1
X 1
1
1
X '
11
toad Hanasement
! 1
I 1
x 1
X 1
x 1
1
I
1
X 1
1
x !
X 1
x i
1
'< 1
14
Off-Road vehicles
1 1
1 1
X j
x 1
X 1
x i
1
1
x 1
X 1
1
x 1
X 1
1
x 1
* 1
x 1
1
X i
^5
linerais Develonment
1 |
• x 1
x 1
X {
X t
x i
i
X 1
i
11
X 1
i
X 1
x i
x i
x I
X 1
X'
16
Trail Management
1 x 1
x i
x 1
X 1
1
X 1
X 1
X 1
x 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
j
X !
17
Unit Costs
1 1
1 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
1
X i
X 1
X 1
1
X 1
xl
1
X 1
x 1
x 1
x 1
1
1
xl
18
ftestockins
1 1
1 1
X {
X 1
1
1
1
1
1
X 1
1
1
x 1
X 1
x i
1
1
X !
-------
(Tablt IV-2 cont.) Monitoring
Raquiraaanta Applicable To Each
Management Area
Management Areaa
Monitoring
Ite»a
1 A21
*31
A4|
*51
a6|
*71
B11
B21
CI 1
C3I
CA|
C6 1
C8S|
El I
"31
Mil M?|
19 Suitable/Unauitabla
1 1
! x 1
1
X 1
1
1
1
X 1
1
1
1
X 1
1
1
1
X 1
1
X 1
1
X 1
1
x 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
xl I
20 Size of Osaninaa
i i
i i
1
|
1
xl
1
1
1
X 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
X 1
1
1
1
X 1
1
X i
1
X 1
1 1
1 "1
21 Inaact 4 Diaaaaa
i i
1 X I
1
xl
1
X 1
1
xl
1
xl
1
xl
1
xl
1
xl
1
xl
1
xl
xl
1
xl
1
X 1
1
x 1
1
xl
1 1
xl ,1
22 Cffaeta en Adiacant
1 1
1 xl
1
X 1
1
xl
1
x 1
1
x 1
1
X 1
1
xl
1
xl
1
xl
1
xl
x 1
1
X 1
1
X 1
1
x 1
1
X 1
1 1
xl *|
23 EfTecta on N.F.
1 1
! xl
1
X 1
1
X 1
1
X 1
1
xl
1
X 1
1
X 1
1
xl
1
x 1
1
xl
X 1
1
X 1
1
X 1
1
x 1
1
X 1
1 1
xl „l
24 Retearch Need*
i i
t x i
1
xl
X 1
1
x 1
1
x 1
1
xl
1
xl
1
x 1
1
X 1
1
xl
x 1
1
X 1
1
X 1
1
x 1
1
X 1
1 1
xl v!
1 |
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 I
2? Elk Habitat
i i
x 1
X 1
1
xl
1
1
x 1
X 1
X 1
x 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
1 1
26 Mooae
i i
L. 1
1
X t
1
X 1
1
1
1
X 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
X 1
1
X 1
X 1
1
X 1
1
X 1
1
x 1
1
X 1
1 1
1 „l
27 White-tailed Deer
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
X 1
1
1
1
X 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
X 1
X 1
1
1
1
1
1
x 1
1
X 1
1 1
28 Kingflaher
1 1
| |
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
xl
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1 1
1 v 1
29 WoodDeeker/Coahawk
1 1
1 X 1
1
x 1
1
x 1
1
1
1
x 1
1
xl
1
X 1
1
x i
x 1
1
X 1
X 1
1
x 1
1
x 1
1
X 1
1
X 1
1 1
xl vl
70 Pine Martin
1 1
1 x i
1
X j
1
X j
1
1
1
x 1
1
X 1
1
* x i
1
X i
1
X 1
1
X 1
X {
1
X {
1
X f
1
X I
X 1
x I
*nadromous Pl»«
i i
1
x 1
1
x 1
1
1
1
x 1
1
x 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
x 1
x 1
1
x 1
1
* !
x 1
1
X 1
12 Resident Fish
i i
! x 1
1
X 1
1
x 1
1
1
1
X 1
1
x 1
1
1
1
1
1
x 1
1
1
x!
1
x 1
1
X 1
1
X 1
i
*1
1
1 1
i i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7 7 3 ray wo if
! 1
x i
X 1
1
X 1
I
L
1
x i
x 1
x i
11
X 1
X 1
X 1
I |
1
j
1
1
1
1
!
1
1
1
I
1
74 3ald Eagle
X 1
X 1
1
X 1
x 1
1
X 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' ¦*!
I |
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IS Grizzly 3aar
1 1
X 1
X 1
1
X 1
1
I
!
X 1
X )
X 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
X 1
' i
1 1
1 |
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ~ '
76 Minerals Availability
i x t
X I
X 1
1
X 1
x 1
1
1
X 1
X 1
x 1
X 1
X }
X 1
X 1
xl J
-------
For the Uezpeece National Forest:
0. Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation comprise the management control system for the Forest Plan. They will provide
the decisionmaker and the public information on the progress and results of implementing the Forest Plan.
Monitoring and evaluation entails comparing the end results being achieved to those projected in the Plan.
Costs, outputs, and environmental effects, both experienced and projected, will be considered.
To do this, a comparison will be made, on a sample basis, of overall progress in implementing the Plan as
well as whether the overall relationships on which the Plan is based have changed over time. When
changes occur, they will be evaluated as to their significance, and appropriate amendments or revisions
made.
The goals for monitoring and evaluating this Forest Plan are to determine:
1. How well the Forest is meeting its planned goals and objectives;
2. If existing and emerging public issues and management concerns are being adequately addressed;
3. How closely the Forest Plan's management standards are being followed;
4. If outputs and services are being provided as predicted;
s. if the effects of implementing the Forest Plan are occurring as predicted, including significant
changes in the productivity of the land;
5. if the dollar and manpower costs of implementing the Forest Plan are as predicted;
7. if implementing the Forest Plan is affecting the land, resources, and communities adjacent to or near
the Forest;
8. If activities on nearby lands managed by other Federal or other governmental agencies, or under the
jurisdiction of local governments, are affecting management of the Forest;
9. If research is needed to support the management of the Forest, beyond that identified in Chapter II of
the Forest Plan; and
-------
Chapter V
Implementation
10. If there is a need to amend or revise the Forest Plan.
The monitoring requirements for this Forest Plan are outlined in Table V-1, Forest Plan Monitoring
Requirements. These requirements address the items to be monitored, expected precision and reliability,
and reporting period. Most of the monitoring items are applicable to specific management areas; a listing
of applicable monitoring items is included in the direction for each Management Area (Chapter III). More
details on each monitoring requirement are contained in Appendix 0.
Other monitoring items are more applicable to broad areas or are Forestwide in nature, and will be
evaluated from such sources as the data base, Forest attainment reports, public involvement processes,
and non-Forest Service sources. These items are listed in Table V-1.
An annual monitoring program, developed in accordance with the monitoring requirements listed in Table
V-1, will be prepared as part of the Forests annual work program. This program will be based on available
funds. If funds are inadequate to properly monitor the Forest Plan goals and objectives, an analysis will be
made to develop a further course of action. This may include Forest Plan amendment or revision, revising
implementation schedules or dropping projects.
Evaluation of data gathered during monitoring will be guided by the Decision Flow Diagram detailed in
Figure V-1. As indicated in the diagram, the results of this evaluation lead to decisions on further action of
the following types:
1. Continuing the management practices;
2. Referring the problem to the appropriate line officer for improvement of the application of the
management practice;
3. Modifying the management practices as a Plan amendment;
4. Modifying the land management prescriptions as a Plan amendment;
5. Revising the schedule of outputs;
5. Revising the cost/unit output; or
7. Initiating revision of the Plan.
The document resulting from the use of the Decision Flow Diagram constitutes the Evaluation Report. As
applicable, the following will be included in each Evaluation Report:
1. A quantitative estimate of performance comparing outputs and services with those projected by the
Forest Plan;
2. Documentation of measured effects, including any change in productivity of the land:
3. Unit costs associated with carrying out the planned activities as compared with unit costs estimated
aunng Forest Plan development:
4. Recommendations for changes;
5. A list 3f needs ;or continuing evaluation or management systems and for alternative neihoas or
management;
-------
Chapter V Implementation
6. A list of additional research needed to support the management of the Forest; and
7. Identification of additional monitoring needs to facilitate achievement of the monitoring goals.
The results and trends of monitoring will be evaluated annually. By March 1 of each year a report will be
prepared summarizing the results of the past year's monitoring efforts. This report will be available and
sent to those members of the public who request a copy.
The Forest will maintain a mailing list of those members of the public who want to stay informed about
Forest Plan implementation activities (e.g., monitoring and evaluation activities and results, project level
analysis and decisions, etc.).
Table V-1 - Forest Plan Monitoring Requirements
NFMA Requirement
36 CFR 219
Item
No.
Action*, Effects, or Resource* to be
Measured
Expected
Precision
Expected
Reliability
Reporting Time
1a
Recreation Visitor Days.
low
Low
S years
.12(K)(1)
1b
Acre* of ROS category.
Low
Low
5 years
•12(K)(1)
1e
Big-Game Habitat Carrying
Capacity.
Moderate
Moderate
5 years
id
Nongame Habitats
Moderate
"Moderate
5 years
.12(K)0)
1a
Acres of big-game habitat Improve-
ments.
High
High
Annually
12(K)(1)
1f
Acres/number fish habitat Improve-
merits.
High
High
Annually
12(K)(1)
Anlmei Unit Month* Grazing
Permits.
High
High
Annually
I2(K)(t)
th
Allowable Sale Ouamrtv by
comoonents.
High
High
j
Annually
.12(K)(1)
11
Acrea timber harvest by method
(including precommencai thinning).
High
High
Annually
•12(H)(1)
1i
Soil and Water rehabilitation and
improvements.
High
High
Annually
.12(K)(1)
Ik
Acres and Numbers of Wildfires.
High
High
S years
. 12(K)(2)
2a
Ott-rosd vthicl* impacts
Low
Low
5 years
12(K)(2)
2b
Adequacy of cultural resource
protection, impacts on
cultural resources.
Moderate
Moderate
5 years
12(K)(2)
2c
Limits of Acceptable Change in
Wildernesses.
Low
Low
S years
.12(K)(2)
2d
Achievement of visual quality
objectives.
Moderate
Moderate
S years {
-------
Chapter V
Implementation
Table V-1 (Continued) - Forest Plan Monitoring Requirements
NFMA Requirement
36 CFR 219
Item
No.
Action*, Effects, or Resources to b«
Measured
Expected
Precision
Expected
Reliability
Reporting Time
• 12(K)(2)
2e
Fish habitat trend* by drainage.
High
High
1
2f
Vegetative ra*pon*« to traatmanta.
Moderate
Moderate
S years
•12(K)(2>
29
Impacts of management activities
on toils.
Moderate
Moderate
Annually
•12(K)(2)
2h
Impacts of management activities
on water quality.
Moderate
High
Annually
•12<2>
21
Impaeta of management activities
on riparian areaa.
Moderate
Moderate
Annually
•12(K)(2)
2k
Mitigation maaauree used for and
impacts of transportation facilities
on resource*.
Moderate
Moderate
S years
•12(K)(2)
21
Adequacy of transportation facilitie*
to meet resource objective* and
uaer needs.
Moderate
Moderate
S years
12(K><2)
2m
Adequacy of Mining Operating
Plana arid Reclamation Bond*.
Low
High
Annually
.12(K)(3)
3
Costs of implementing resource
management prescriptions.
High
High
Annually
.12(K)(3)
3a
Forest resource-derived revenues.
High
High
Annually
.12(K)(5a>
4
Acres of harvested land restocked
within S years.
High
High
S years
12(K)(5b)
S
Unsuited timber lands examined to
determine suitability.
High
High
10 years
I2(K)(5c)
6
Maximum size of opening for
harveet units.
High
High
Annually
'2(K)(Sd)
7
Insect and disaaae activity.
Low
Moderate
Annually
.7(f)
8
Effects of National Forest Manage-
ment on lands, resources, and com*
munities adjacent to the Forest
Moderate
High
Annually
7(f)
3
Effects of other Government agen-
cies' activities on the National
Forest
Moderate
Moderate
Annually
. 19(6)
10
Population trends of indicator
species-wildlife and fish.
Moderate
Moderate
3-S years
12(K) (2)
11
Validation of resource prediction
model*: wiidlif*. water Quality,
fisnenes. timber.
Moderate
Moderate
2-S yesrs
-------
Chapter V
Implementation
Figure V-1 - Decision Flow Diagram
VI
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION *• »«*»T "0- a-
PAGE 910/9-87-178
3. MdlMnfi Accastlon No.
4. ntia and suMttta ,pianned ^nd Actual Impacts on Fish And Water Quality
On Three National Forests In Northern Idaho
S. Hinit Data
November, 1987
c.
7. Authorts)
Christine M. Kellv, Graduate Student
•. MenMni Organization Rwt No.
t. Performing Organization Nam* and Mdraw
Department of Fisheries
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83843
10. Freteet/Tasli/Wef* Unit No.
XL CawwcKO of Grant(Q) No.
(O
12. Seenaertn« Organization Nam* and AdiHaaa
Water Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Wa 98101
IX Tjrpa o1 Itepoft 4 Partod Covarad
Final, August-Nov.1987
14.
M. Supptamaotary Notaa
Project Officer: Elbert Moore, Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinator
EPA Seattle, WA 98101 FTS 399-4181
It. Abatiaul (Urntt 300 wocda)
The report summarizes the planning process used on National Forests lands.
It then examines three operations on National Forest in Northern Idaho. A comparsion
of planning and implementation of these operations assesses whether practices were
carried out as planned and whether impacts were mitigated as predicted. The study
provides a summary of observations and recommendations.
17. OoeunMflt Analysis «. Oaacrleton
b. idowtMara^Opan- tndaa Tarmi
e- COSATI ntM/Qfwa
IS. AvmllmiHIHv ttatamant
Release :o mbiic
If, Iwmrtty C1«M (TM« fNnort) f 21. N«. *4 P««m
Unclassified j !
3L jMunty CUsa iTh»* Pa«M 1 32, ^rie*
'^classified 1
3m ]m IWWmmii on »mm arnoNAL /ami 37J twn
(Femwlv MTIW3S)
Omrtwwi a* Commimv*
------- |