Windy-Shingle Decision Memoa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… ·...

Windy-Shingle Decision Memo

i


1

Decision Memorandum Windy-Shingle Project

U.S. Forest Service Salmon River Ranger District

Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forests Idaho County, Idaho

SUMMARY

After careful consideration of public input, the recommendations of appropriate resource specialists, and the requirements of applicable laws and regulations, I have decided to implement the Windy-Shingle vegetation management project which includes harvest of trees on 2,510 acres, rehabilitation of 44 acres, prescribed fire on harvested and unharvested acres, construction of a fuel break; and road work such as maintenance, improvement, reconstruction, decommissioning, and temporary road construction.

BACKGROUND

Overview of the Project Area The Windy-Shingle vegetation management project is located in Idaho County, Idaho. The northern extent of the project area is located approximately five miles west of Riggins and the southern extent of the project area is located approximately three miles southwest of Pollock (Figure 1). The project area is approximately 24,000 acres, however, treatments are only proposed on 2,709 acres.

The project area is located on National Forest System (NFS) lands in Township 24 North (T24N), Range 1 West (R1W), Sections 9-17, 20-29, 32-35; T23N, R1W, Sections 1-10, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36; T23N, R1E, Sections 7, 19, 30, 31, 32; T22N, R1W, Section 1; and T22N, R1E, Sections 5, 6, Boise Meridian. The project area includes S. Creek, P. Creek, Rough Creek, Shingle Creek, and other tributaries to the Lower Salmon River; and unnamed tributaries from Windy Ridge and Indian Creek to the Little Salmon River. A small area of private land exists within the project area, but not within one mile of any treatment area. Private land lies adjacent to several treatment areas located along the NFS boundary. No activities are will be undertaken on private lands as part of this project.

The Windy-Shingle project area was designated as part of an insect and disease treatment program in accordance with Title VI, Section 602, of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), as amended by Section 8204 of the Agriculture Act (Farm Bill) of 2014.

To be designated, areas must be:

1) Experiencing forest health decline based on annual forest health surveys; 2) At risk of experiencing substantially increased tree mortality based on the most recent Forest Health Protection Insect and Disease Risk Map; or 3) Contain hazard trees that pose an imminent risk to public infrastructure, health or safety.


2

The project area is located in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) as defined by the Idaho County Community Revised Wildland-Urban Interface Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan. That plan identified the need for projects in this area to reduce hazardous fuels.

Vegetation management activities are planned primarily on lands in Management Areas (MAs) suitable for range and timber management, including MAs 10, 12, 16, and 17, as described in the 1987 Nez Perce Forest Plan (and amendments.) Several other MAs that are generally unsuitable for timber management other than activities to improve public safety and wildlife habitat; control insect and disease epidemics; or protect facilities and assets as defined in the Forest Plan may occur as inclusions within treatment units. The MAs and activities therein subject to this decision are summarized in “Management Areas within the Windy-Single Project Treatment Areas” on the Project Webpage.

Figure 1. Windy-Shingle Project Vicinity Map

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/105126_FSPLT3_4093415.pdf


3

The Project Area includes portions of the Rapid River and Salmon Face Idaho Roadless Areas (IRA). No treatments are planned in the IRAs. A portion of the Rapid River Wild and Scenic River corridor lies within the project area but no treatments are planned within or adjacent to the designated corridor.

Conditions Observed in the Project Area Vegetation Conditions Insects, disease and successful fire suppression have reduced the overall health and productivity of the forest in the project area. Stand surveys indicate root rot, bark beetle and mistletoe-induced mortality and decay at varying levels throughout the proposed treatment areas. Stands are overstocked and stressed and the potential for catastrophic disturbance exists, particularly in periods of drought.

Forest succession in the absence of fire or vegetation management has significantly altered the composition and structure of stands in the area. Relative to historic, “natural,” reference conditions:

• There has been a shift towards dominance by less fire resistant and more insect and disease susceptible tree species.

• There has been a corresponding increase in canopy layers and crown closure as shade tolerant, fire intolerant species have become established and grown.

• Stand densities have increased, resulting in physiological stress and increasing vulnerability to insect and disease depredation, particularly in periods of drought.

• Fuel accumulation and increasing density has increased the potential for extreme fire behavior. • Forest species diversity has decreased across the landscape.

In August 2016, a pathologist and an entomologist from the U.S. Forest Service Northern Region Forest Health Protection Group visited the project area to document the forest health conditions. Their visit report states:

• The Windy-Shingle Proposed Project Area has experienced persistent insect and disease activity. • Left unmanaged, dwarf mistletoe will spread to other susceptible species, leading to an overall

decline in condition and eventual mortality. • Root diseases will continue to weaken and reduce productivity of standing susceptible trees. • Mountain pine beetle activity has recently increased in and near several proposed treatment units,

particularly in the northern units, and can be expected to continue to increase without treatment. Hazardous Forest Fuels and Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous forest fuels were also considered as the project area is designated as wildland-urban interface (WUI). The insects and diseases noted above are killing and/or weakening trees in most of the forest stands in the project area. This causes accumulations of surface fuels on the forest floor and creates small openings in the upper forest canopy where understory trees can grow and develop into “ladder fuels.” This can create conditions where surface fires can jump into the upper crowns and quickly travel great distances with winds. Crown fires are the most difficult and dangerous to supress. In addition to insect and disease causes, fuels have been elevated to hazardous levels through the practice of supressing wildfires, along with normal fores successional processes. This has created an overall hazardous condition to people living in, recreating in, or traveling through the area. See the Fire and Fuels Specialist Report on the Project Webpage for additional discussion on fire risk and fuels management.





4

Purpose & Need Based on observed existing conditions, as well as other supporting information (e.g. annual insect and disease aerial detection surveys, national insect and disease risk maps, community wildfire protection plan, input from local community members), there is a need to reduce vegetative susceptibility to subsequent insect and disease activity to minimize tree mortality that would contribute to surface fuel loadings, as well as a need to maintain fuel loadings at levels that are not conducive to active, crown independent wildland fires during severe weather conditions.

The objectives of the Windy-Shingle proposed action are to:

• Reduce the risk or extent of, or increase resilience to, insect or disease infestations in the project areaby improving resiliency of stand structure, function and composition;• Reduce wildfire risk to the local communities and surrounding federal lands.

DECISION TO BE IMPLEMENTED

I have decided to authorize the vegetation and fuels management activities displayed in Table 1. My decision also includes implementing the Design Features, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements described in Appendix A. In response to public comments and collaboration, this decision is different than the action proposed in the February 2017 scoping letter (see Changes in Proposed Action Following Scoping Document Release in this section). These activities are in compliance with law, regulation and policy, to include the Nez Perce Forest Plan (as amended).

Project Activities Vegetation management activities include intermediate and regeneration harvest (see tables in Appendix B and maps in Appendix C). Intermediate treatments will occur on 1,304 acres and are a suite of treatment types that leave a stocked stand when completed. Intermediate treatments remove trees in areas where there is opportunity to maintain or enhance the growth of western larch or ponderosa pine and move stands towards desired structural stages. The trees selected for removal would generally be smaller or less dominant in the stand. They would also be species not desired for future stand composition, and diseased or dead trees

that are not needed to meet future stand objectives (Figure 2).

Regeneration treatments will occur on 1,206 acres and seek to create a new age class of preferred, more resilient species as the only age class in a stand, except for tree patches or single leave trees. A few trees

Figure 2: An example of intermediate harvest unit, approximately two years after harvest f h


5

are left in a regeneration harvest unit and regenerated stands will be replanted within five years after treatments are completed. Plantings will consist of western larch, or a western larch - ponderosa pine combination. Eight areas within harvest units, or combinations of harvest units, would have openings greater than 40 acres, ranging from 63 to 237 acres in size. These openings would contain both individual leave trees as well as leave tree areas of diverse shapes and sizes (Figure 3).

Post-harvest fuel treatment activities will include underburning, grapple piling, slash and grapple piling, or slash and underburning. The post-harvest fuel treatments necessary to achieve vegetation management, fuel level and coarse woody debris objectives will be determined when final silvicultural prescriptions are completed.

A fuel break will be established by hand on NFS lands adjacent to private land in Unit 5. The approximately 29 acre fuel break would act to slow advancing fires and provide improved ingress and

egress opportunities in the event of a wildfire. The fuel break will be approximately 200 feet wide, with the exact width determined on a site-specific basis (Figure 4). Thinning of larger live trees within the fuel break could occur during commercial harvest in Unit 5.

Prescribed burning, or underburning without harvest, involves deliberately introducing fire to a forested area without any prior modification of stand structure. This treatment will be applied to the 126-acre Unit B2, where desirable, fire-resistant species dominate the stand. This type of burning is low intensity and intended to consume surface fuels and ladder fuels without impacting the canopy.

Rehabilitation will be applied to one 44-acre treatment unit (1B). This stand of non-commercial-sized grand fir and

Douglas-fir pole timber is infested with mistletoe and will be clearcut, burned, and replanted to western larch.

Road management activities are required to allow for implementation of vegetation and fuel management work. Maintenance, consisting of surface shaping and blading, light roadside brush removal, culvert maintenance, and other minor repairs will occur as needed on up to 31.3 miles of primary routes to meet required standards to implement project activities. Road improvements with more intensive grading and shaping, ditch cleaning and shaping, culvert repair or replacement, and other repairs, will occur on up to 18.3 miles (Figure 5).

Figure 3: An example of regeneration harvest, with treesretained in patches

Figure 4. An example of a fuel break planned for part of Unit 5.

Figure 5. An example of a maintained Forest System road.


6

Approximately three miles of road reconstruction is required on FS road 624 and other roads to re-establish a functioning road bed, surface, and ditches, and widen curves to accommodate safe timber haul. Road decommissioning is proposed for 5.6 miles of roads within the project area through abandonment or obliteration. Construction of approximately 3.9 miles of temporary roads (including on the existing road prism) will occur and these roads will be decommissioned within three years of project completion. The remainder of roads and road segments not needed for implementation activities will remain with no work proposed. No permanent roads will be constructed.

Table 1: Summary of Proposed Vegetation Management Activities

Proposed Activity Size (Acres) Regeneration Harvest 1,206

Clearcut with Reserves 966 Seedtree with Reserves 117

Shelterwood with Reserves 123 Intermediate Harvest (Thin) 1,304 TOTAL HARVEST AREA 2,510 Rehabilitation (Clearcut/burn/plant) 44 Prescribed Burn Only 126 Fuel Break 29

Changes in Proposed Action Following Scoping Document Release The Proposed Action scoping document included construction of a new temporary road in Unit 1C. During analysis, it was determined that road was not needed and it was dropped from the proposed plan that was analyzed by the specialists. That portion of Unit 1C was later dropped from the project.

Unit 6D, as presented during scoping, was split by a riparian area excluded from treatment, making it appear as if there were two subunits. The western portion retained the Unit 6D label, while the eastern portion was renamed Unit 6F. There was no change to the proposed prescription of either unit.

The scoping document referenced proposed construction of approximately two miles of new temporary road and 0.6 miles of new temporary swing roads. Unintentionally omitted from the scoping document were additional temporary roads to be established on existing unmaintained road prisms. During analysis, some of those planned new roads were deemed unneeded and dropped from analysis; while others were extended to better meet the project goals. Specialists analyzed approximately four miles of temporary roads, consisting of approximately 1.2 miles of new temporary roads and two miles of temporary road on the existing prism, and approximately 0.7 miles of new temporary swing roads.

The scoping document did not address expansion of the McClinery pit by approximately three acres. During analysis, expansion was determined to be necessary to support this and future projects in the area. The McClinery pit is located on the edge of Unit 6F, just off the FS road 517F. The pit was developed in 1990 to support the Shingle Forks Timber Sale, and has available room for expansion. Crushing surface and base aggregate sources at this site would provide a source for future aggregate placement projects in the area and provide a source of aggregate for maintenance needs on the nearby roads. The area of disturbance, including stockpile areas and pit excavation, would be approximately


7

three acres. Disturbance would include clearing and grubbing source areas, crushing and sorting operations during production, reserving topsoil where available and reclaiming the pit area with topsoil, seeding and placing slash where appropriate. Reactivation of the McClinery pit was analyzed in specialist reports as appropriate to the resource.

Comments from the public and collaborative efforts undertaken before and after the release of the scoping document changed the project as well. The Proposed Action scoping document included harvest on 93 acres in six units in the Salmon Face IRA. Many commenters expressed concern with harvesting in roadless areas. The proposed harvest had silvicultural and ecological benefits in addressing insect and disease infestations threatening the resiliency of those stands. However, their distance from inhabited areas lessened their contribution to protection of the Wildland-Urban Interface. Therefore, I have decided to drop these harvest areas, based on consideration of those two factors, and public comments on the issue. I consulted with the fuels specialist and believe that we can still meet the purpose and need for the project without harvest in the roadless area. Specialists considered this change and documented any issues of significance to their effects conclusions in the project record.

Collaboration with area landowners resulted in the addition of 198 acres of harvest and fuel treatment in Unit 5. This addition was made after the public meeting and was described in the Proposed Action scoping document. Collaboration efforts are described in more detail later in this document.

RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE DECISION Project Objectives First and foremost, I want to reduce the fuels on National Forest System lands adjacent to private property. The actions I am choosing to take will reduce risk to firefighters and landowners by modifying vegetation and fuel loads, reducing potential fire frequency and intensity, and increasing the probability of success for fire suppression. This is particularly important in the project areas due to the Hells Canyon Wilderness area to the west, and the Rapid River Roadless Area to the south of the primary treatment areas. The limited access there increases the complexity of fire suppression efforts. Wildfires in Hells Canyon tend to move upslope and eastward toward the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. As recently as 2014, a Hells Canyon fire burned onto the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, and options to construct fire line or utilize natural fuel breaks to protect nearby subdivisions were limited by terrain and fuels. A fire fighter was seriously injured while fighting that fire. My primary obligation is protect people; those I employ, those who use the forest, and those who live nearby.

After reviewing the proposed action and the ID Team resource specialists’ analysis of effects, I have determined the activities authorized in this decision will achieve the purposes and needs for this project.

Forest Health (Insects & Disease)

Objective: Reduce the risk or extent of, or increase resilience to, insect or disease infestations in the project area by improving stand structure, function and composition.

The proposed vegetation management activities will accomplish this objective by trending vegetation towards desirable conditions featuring lower levels of dwarf mistletoe, root disease, mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, and other hazards. Creating a mosaic of heterogeneous age classes and species will generally make the area more resilient to insects and pathogens. The removal of dwarf mistletoe hosts through regeneration harvests will decrease Douglas-fir mistletoe and root disease levels


8

and reduce bark beetle hazard. Shifting species composition to favor ponderosa pine and western larch by retaining them as shelterwood and seed trees, and removing infected Douglas-fir will reduce future root disease mortality. Planting a site-appropriate mixture of Ponderosa pine and western larch seedlings in regeneration harvest areas will further shift species composition toward a more fire-tolerant, insect and disease resistant (functional) state. In intermediate harvest areas, ponderosa pine and western larch would be favored as leave trees. This will move those parts of the landscape toward a more desirable, open and diverse stand structure that more accurately reflects historic conditions.

The resulting landscape would have improved resistance to pathogens, fire and climatic variability; and more varied wildlife habitat, as described in the Vegetation and Wildlife reports. For specific explanations of how treatments will affect different insects and pathogens currently acting in the project area (e.g. mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle and dwarf mistletoe), see additional discussion in the Vegetation Report. Wildfire Behavior

Objective: Reduce wildfire risk to the local communities and surrounding federal lands.

In areas proposed for treatment, current fuel hazard ratings are generally in either high to medium or medium to low hazard ranges. Post-treatment hazard ratings are anticipated to be reduced to low for most treated areas.

The proposed vegetation and fuel treatment activities, combined with other fuel reduction actions in the project area on private and federal lands, will modify potential wildfire behavior by contributing to the overall reduction of surface, ladder and crown fuels. This will reduce fire intensity and crown fire potential within the project area, while still maintaining required levels of coarse woody debris. Modifying the fuel profile will trend area towards conditions where flame lengths and/or fire intensity are reduced, thereby reducing wildfire risk to local communities and surrounding federal lands. This modification, combined with a reduction of snags and standing dead and dying trees (while still meeting the Forest Plan snag standards), will also allow for more effective fire management actions and safety for the public recreating in the project area. See additional discussion in the Fire and Fuels Report.

Category of Exclusion - Insect & Disease Infestation Section 8204 of the 2014 Farm Bill amended HFRA to add Sections 602 and 603. Section 603 establishes a categorical exclusion for qualifying insect and disease projects in designated areas on National Forest System lands. An insect and disease project that may be categorically excluded under this authority is one designed to reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation in the areas.

I have determined that this decision can be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). This categorical exclusion may be used to carry out a collaborative restoration project in an insect and disease treatment area designated by the Chief under section 602. The applicable category of actions is identified in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30, Section 32.3 (Categories Established by Statute), #3., Insect and Disease Infestation. This category is applicable for this project because:

1. The project is in an area designated in accordance with section 602(b) and (c) of HFRA. 2. The entire project is in a WUI, or if outside of a WUI, in an area in Condition Class 2 or 3 and in

Fire Regime Group I, II. Or III.






9

3. The project is not located in congressionally designated Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas; in areas where the removal of vegetation is restricted or prohibited by statute or by Presidential proclamation; or in areas where the activities described above would be inconsistent with the applicable Land and Resource Management Plan.

4. The number of acres treated does not exceed 3,000. 5. The project does not include the establishment of permanent roads. Temporary roads will be

constructed but will be removed no later than three years after the project is completed. Maintenance or repairs will be conducted on permanent roads that are already in the project area.

6. Public notice and scoping was conducted. 7. The project was developed through a collaborative process that includes multiple interested

persons representing diverse interests and was transparent and non-exclusive. 8. The best available scientific information was considered to maintain or restore ecological integrity,

including maintaining or restoring the structure, function, composition and connectivity. 9. The project maximizes the retention of old growth and large trees, as appropriate for the forest

type, to the extent that the trees promote stands that are resilient to insects and disease.

Finding that No Extraordinary Circumstances Exist After review of effects findings for pertinent resources and consideration of responses received to scoping of the proposed action, I find there are no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. Cumulative effects were considered by resource specialists as needed for a categorical exclusion. I took into account resource conditions identified in agency procedures that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances might exist.

Table 2: Summary of Resource Conclusions for Extraordinary Circumstances

Resource CONCLUSION

Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat; species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat; or Forest Service sensitive species

Wildlife Threatened and Endangered Species Canada Lynx (Threatened): No Effect -- The project does not occur within a Lynx Analysis Unit and there is no suitable habitat within the project area. The Nez Perce NF is considered “unoccupied secondary habitat” and there is no designated Critical Habitat. Therefore, this project would have no effect on Canada Lynx.

Grizzly Bear (Threatened): No Effect – The species is not known or suspected on the Nez Perce or Clearwater National Forests. For these reasons, the project would have no effect on Grizzly Bear. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not require the Forests to consult regarding this species and planned management activities.

Species Proposed for Listing or Proposed Critical Habitat Wolverine: Not Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence of the Species – Maternal denning habitat for wolverine is not present within the project area based on the model proposed by Inman (2013). There


10

Resource CONCLUSION

are approximately 3,712 acres of persistent snow (Copeland model) within the project, 187 acres of which fall within the proposed treatment areas. Any disturbance to wolverine as a result of project activities would be temporary, and ample displacement habitat is available in adjacent areas. The habitat changes as a result of this project would have minor effects on this species. The effects to habitat would be minute relative to the scale of a wolverine home range. As a result, potential impacts to wolverine or their habitat would be discountable (small in scale) and insignificant (proposed activities are not considered to be a threat to the species). All project activities were covered in the Wolverine Programmatic Biological Assessment; are routinely conducted on National Forest System Lands and were found not to be a threat to wolverine. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the Forest Service’s determinations within the Wolverine Programmatic Biological Assessment and found that conferencing is not required.

Sensitive Species Bald Eagle, Black Swift, Coeur d’Alene Salamander, Common Loon, Fisher, Harlequin Duck, and Long-billed Curlew: No Impact – Not currently known or suspected to be present in the proposed treatment areas, and there are no treatment prescriptions in any units that would impact essential habitat in the project area.

May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species: Black-backed woodpecker is known to occur in the project area. Nesting and foraging habitat are potentially impacted and activities may disturb/displace individuals. With available suitable habitat on the Forest due to recent fires and insect infestations, combined with the thousands of acres of potential habitat (i.e., mature, densely stocked fire-prone stands), the impacts from implementation of the proposed action would be very minor in nature.

Flammulated Owl and White-headed woodpecker are known in the project area. Pygmy nuthatch habitat exists within the project area, however neither the NRIS Wildlife nor Idaho Conservation database show any records within the Windy-Shingle project area. The short-term direct impacts of the vegetative treatment on these species are the potential for loss of nesting and foraging habitat, and incidental disturbance and temporary displacement may occur as a result of treatment activities. Long term displacements due to the modification of habitat could occur at the treatment area scale. Following snag management guidelines will help to mitigate the potential loss of nesting and roosting habitat. Displacement would likely be to other undisturbed


11

Resource CONCLUSION

habitat within the analysis area or adjacent areas.

Mountain Quail: The Windy-Shingle project area provides nesting and foraging habitat for mountain quail. Portions of the southern treatment areas have been identified as a population stronghold. Mountain quail could be impacted by harvest activities and prescribed burning treatments. A design feature to preferentially burn in fall in Mountain quail nesting habitat will be applied to reduce impacts to nesting birds. Burn treatments would reduce competition for nutrients and result in greater production of understory species, including shrubs, a key component of mountain quail habitat.

Gray Wolf: Wolves are known in the project area. Vegetation treatments will alter the seasonal use of areas by big game species that are prey species for wolves. Activities would not notably affect wolves, since wolves would key in on other parts of big game seasonal range.

Long-eared Myotis, Long-legged Myotis, Fringed Myotis, and Townsend’s Big-eared bat have been found in the Windy-Shingle project area. Caves, cliff crevices, and rocky outcrops may provide roosting opportunities within the project area. Short-term impacts are potential incidental disturbance as a result of human activities associated with treatment activities. Displacement would likely be to undisturbed habitat within the analysis area or adjacent areas. Access is administratively controlled to the cave known to be used by Big-eared bats and microhabitat immediately adjacent to the entrance point would not change. Meeting snag management standards will maintain some existing and potential future roosting habitat. Bighorn Sheep: Potential forage areas exist in the project area outside of treatment areas, however, escape terrain is limited and sporadic, making some areas unusable. Project activities may disturb/displace individuals. There is ample habitat adjacent to act as refugium during project activity periods. There are no domestic sheep or goat allotments within the project area and the nearest active allotment is >15 km away, limiting potential interaction.

Boreal/Western Toad: Records from the Idaho Conservation database and the NRIS Wildlife database indicate toads are present within the Windy-Shingle project area. Design criteria will protect breeding and rearing areas by applying riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). A low level of vehicle-related mortality of is expected where toad distribution overlaps with roads. However, it is not expected that vehicle-related mortality will result in a downward population.

Peregrine Falcon: A known Peregrine falcon territory exists in the project area. If the eyrie is active during project execution mechanical


12

Resource CONCLUSION

operations, including helicopter use and related activities, may be suspended within up to ½ mile of active nest areas from March 15 to July 31 to promote nesting success. Harvest will not modify vegetation at a scale that will affect availability of songbirds as prey and there is ample habitat within and adjacent to the project area available for temporarily displaced individuals.

Ringneck Snake: Timber harvest and fire can reduce snake habitat by reducing large, down wood, or benefit ringnecks by creating more open understories to support prey species and allow more sunlight and heat to reach the forest floor. The greatest effect is reduction of habitat or inadvertent physical harm (including death) to individuals that might occupy the site. RHCA buffers will protect habitat immediately adjacent to many of the harvest units. The majority of the project area remains untreated leaving ample habitat undisturbed for breeding and foraging. Available habitat would continue to be available and well distributed throughout the project area.

Fish Threatened and Endangered Species Bull trout (Threatened): No Effect - There would be no effects to bull trout and their critical habitats as neither are found in the prescription watersheds and/or project area streams (other than the Rapid River) where activities are proposed to occur. Bull trout are not known to spawn in any of the watersheds that would receive treatments. All PACFISH standards and guidelines for protection of RHCAs will be implemented.

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (Threatened) and Steelhead trout (Threatened): There are approximately 6.4 miles of designated critical habitat for in the project area (~3.4 miles on the Rapid River, ~3.0 miles in S. Creek). Other than the Rapid River, project area streams provide minimal amounts of suitable habitat due to small stream size, moderate to high stream gradients, and low amounts of suitable spawning habitat. Juveniles may use the areas near the mouths of the streams as thermal refugia during the summer months or to escape high spring flows. NOAA mapping does not indicate spring Chinook are distributed within the project area streams;

The effects to Spring/Summer Chinook and Steelhead trout and their habitat are not expected to be discernable due to distance from proposed activities, and the limited amount of sediment likely to be generated by the project activities. Effects would be minimized through design features and BMPs. All PACFISH standards and guidelines for


13

Resource CONCLUSION

protection of RHCAs will be implemented. Coho Salmon are considered extirpated from the region but the description and determination is common with Chinook salmon.

Fall Chinook and Sockeye Salmon - There is no designated critical habitat for fall Chinook or Sockeye salmon and no known occupancy of either species within project area tributaries Sensitive Species No Effect Pearlshell Mussels and Pacific Lamprey: Western pearlshell mussels are not likely present and none were observed during 2016 field surveys. No lamprey are known to occur within the project area. They prefer low gradient stream channels and stable habitats near banks with coarse sand, and cobble or boulder substrates. There is very limited habitat for pearlshell mussels in the project area streams, generally due to high stream gradients. The mainstem of the Little Salmon River (outside the project area) provides migration, rearing and spawning habitat for the lamprey. The Nez Perce Tribe is actively restoring Pacific lamprey populations to the basin.

May Impact Individuals Or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing Or Cause a Loss of Viability To the Population or Species Westslope Cutthroat trout are present in the project area in S. Creek and Shingle Creek. Cutthroat can typically occupy smaller streams with lower flows than steelhead and salmon. They require, and can utilize, pockets of small sized substrates common in the middle and upper reaches of streams. Their distribution is the widest among all salmonid species found in the area. They may be present near the mouth of Indian Creek but the habitat is marginal, and Indian Creek is considered non-fish bearing.

Redband trout are a resident (non-anadromous) form of Steelhead trout. Redband rainbow trout are likely found within the project area streams and generally occupy similar habitats as Westslope cutthroat trout and thus may be distributed as such.

All PACFISH standards and guidelines for protection of RHCAs will be implemented.

Plants Threatened and Endangered Species or Critical Habitat Macfarlane’s four-o’clock (Threatened): No Effect –Potentially suitable habitat for this species is not present in any areas proposed for


14

Resource CONCLUSION

treatment under this project.

Spalding’s catchfly (Threatened): No Effect - Approximately four percent of the modeled habitat in the project area appears to occur in areas proposed for management. Close evaluation of this potential habitat through photo interpretation and field surveys indicate these sites are not suitable and in reality support inappropriate open forest, xeric grassland communities on poor soils or topographic positions that do not provide habitat.

Sensitive Species May Impact Individuals Or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing Or Cause a Loss of Viability To the Population or Species Whitebark Pine is a Northern Region sensitive species, as well as candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Even aged management will occur on 20 acres of modeled habitat, while intermediate treatment will occur on about seven acres. The proposed harvest may eliminate or damage existing whitebark pine trees; however, the overall habitat will be improved as this early seral species should see increased germination and growth in more open stand conditions. Design features require retention of Whitebark Pine during harvest, where possible.

Broadfruit mariposa: Modeling indicates approximately 189 acres of potential habitat in the project area. Proposed harvest will occur on a few acres of modeled habitat. It is unlikely that such habitats would be subjected to harvest, especially regeneration harvest, thus the co-occurrence of habitat and harvest is likely a product of mapping error. Project activities have the potential to cause an increase in weeds in the area that may have a negative indirect impact.

Puzzling halimolobos: Modeling indicates many areas of unsurveyed habitat, including 2,346 acres in the project area. Surveys revealed suitable habitat for this species, but no occurrences were noted. Substrate disturbance is believed to be beneficial to the establishment of this early seral species. Approximately three percent of the modeled habitat for this species may undergo some form of management. While the proposed activities may affect existing plants, the overall effects on the habitat would be beneficial through maintenance or expansion. However, the benefits of site disturbance would also favor aggressive introduced weeds that may have a competitive advantage. Thus effects of management on this species in the project area would likely be mixed.

Remaining Forest-listed sensitive plant Species: Habitat components for the remaining sensitive plant species listed for the Forest may exist


15

Resource CONCLUSION

within the proposed treatment areas but no activities will be implemented that will contribute to a trend towards federal listing. All sensitive species are addressed in the Botany specialist report.

Visual Quality Objectives

Minimal Impact –The proposed action includes harvest activities within the Retention VQO adjacent to Seven Devils Road and the Partial Retention VQO within the middleground viewsheds of the Seven Devils Road and the Heavens Gate Lookout. There are no units visible from the Rapid River Road, the Rapid River trail system or the Rapid River Wild and Scenic River Corridor. Design measures will be used to create openings that meet the 1987 Nez Perce National Forest Plan VQOs; including leaving more vegetation within shelterwood and seed tree harvest areas nearest the road; and leaving low cut stumps and removing slash piles within the immediate foreground of the road. Leave trees will be selected and arranged to best emulate natural forest openings.

Flood plains, wetlands or municipal watersheds

Minimal Impact – Riparian areas would be avoided and PACFISH buffers applied for fish-bearing streams (300 feet either side); perennial non-fish bearing streams (150 feet either side); ponds, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and seasonal or intermittent streams (100 feet either side).

Landslide prone and other mass failure potential areas were removed from treatment units. Small areas discovered on site will be removed from logging consideration to maintain site stability. Some of the inclusions of landslide prone areas may receive treatment such as hand thinning and pile burning to improve fire and fuels management.

It is expected that project related sediment impacts to streams, stream channels, floodplains, and wetland areas will be negligible with the application of PACFISH buffers and use of best management practices. There are no Total Maximum Daily Loads established by the state of Idaho for any streams in the project area.

There are no municipal watersheds in the project area.

Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or National Recreation Areas; or designated Wild and Scenic Rivers

No Impact – There are no wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas in the project area; therefore no activities are proposed in these designated areas. The Hell’s Canyon National Recreation Area (NRA) is located west of the project area on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The eastern boundary of the NRA is located approximately seven miles from the westernmost treatment area (Unit 8B), thus there are no impacts on the NRA. The Rapid River is a designated wild river under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The reach below the confluence of the West Fork and Rapid River lies within the project area. No activities are proposed within, bordering upon, or adjacent to the Rapid River Wild and Scenic River corridor or in the Rapid River drainage, except in Shingle Creek, below where the


16

Resource CONCLUSION

Rapid River is designated as a Wild River. Thus, this project will not affect WSR ORVs.

Inventoried Idaho Roadless Areas or potential wilderness areas; Research Natural Areas

No Impact – There are two inventoried Idaho Roadless Areas (IRA) in the project area; Salmon Face (#855), and Rapid River (#922). No activities are proposed in either IRA. The Windy-Shingle project was presented to the Idaho Roadless Commission twice and no objections were voiced to the harvest within the IRA. Some members of the public, however, were opposed to commercial harvest in the IRA. Since the Purpose and Need could be fully met without that harvest (pers. Communication with Barger, 2017), I decided to remove any commercial harvest in the IRA from this decision. No potential wilderness or research natural areas (RNAs) in the project area boundary and therefore no activities are proposed in these types of areas. No RNAs or potential wilderness areas are near the project area or proposed activities.

American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural Sites; Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas

No Impact – There are six known cultural resources sites within the Windy-Shingle Project area: three historic mining sites, a historic petroglyph, and two presumed Native American rock cairns. The cairns are National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible sites but are not within treatment areas. None of the six sites will be impacted by project activities. Design features require avoidance or protection of known NRHP Eligible/historically significant properties or sites during project implementation; and ceasing all ground-disturbing activities if cultural resources are discovered during project execution. SHPO consultation has been completed.

Other Wildlife and Fish Considerations Management Indicator Species (MIS) as identified in the Nez Perce Forest Plan, or their potential habitat, are known to occur in the project area. MIS species for the Nez Perce National Forest include elk, moose, marten, northern goshawk, and pileated woodpecker. Also considered MIS on the Nez Perce National Forest, and previously discussed above, are grizzly bear, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, bighorn sheep, gray wolf, fisher, westslope cutthroat trout, summer steelhead, and spring chinook. Implementation of the proposed activities may have minor and temporary impacts on some MIS but will not impact forest-wide populations of any MIS species. Additional discussion on MIS, as well as Migratory Birds, can be found in the Wildlife and Aquatics reports.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT - COLLABORATION, SCOPING, AND PUBLIC NOTICE Initial outreach and Communication The collaborative process for the Windy-Shingle project began in late 2015 through early discussions with various groups with interest in the Forest. Throughout 2016 Salmon River District personnel discussed the project with area residents, county officials, and the Nez Perce Tribe. The collaborative process is detailed in the “Public Involvement – Collaboration, Scoping, and Public Notice” document





17

on the Project Webpage.

Public Meeting and Scoping A public meeting was held on January 31, 2017 in Riggins, Idaho, to provide information to interested members of the public and receive their input to the proposed actions. News releases appeared in the Lewiston Morning Tribune announcing the public meeting and invitations were sent to over 200 interested persons and parties. Seventeen members of the public attended.

Scoping began when the Scoping Letter published to the project web page on February 15, 2017, meeting the public notice requirement under Section 603(f). Electronic or hard copy versions of the Scoping Letter and Proposed Action were mailed on February 16, 2017 to interested parties. Others on the mailing list were sent a link to the project web page informing them that the scoping documents were available. The scoping letter requested comments be provided within 30 days. All 27 scoping comments received from individuals, organizations, or agencies were posted on the project web page (under the "Scoping" tab) for further review by those with interest in the project.

Collaborative Input, Interdisciplinary Project Development and Scoping Comments Community members living near Seven Devils Road requested the project address hazardous fuel reduction in the area where private and NFS lands meet. Subsequently, 198 treatment acres were added to Unit 5, along with a handline fuel break at the private-public land interface.

Community members living in the Whitewater Wilderness Ranch (WWR) area contended fuel levels in Units B5 and 11 did not warrant the prescribed burn proposed for Unit B5, or the timber harvest in Unit 11. Unit B5 was eliminated, in part due to these concerns, and in part to facilitate the additional harvest area in Unit 5. At a site visit the District Ranger explained to landowners that Unit 11 is valued as a line of defense if fire was to approach the area. Timber harvest will enhance that capability. Unit 11 remains an intermediate harvest area, with post-harvest pile burning activity.

During the April site visit, several WWR residents expressed concern that project activities could lead to increased post-harvest traffic which could affect elk and deer use of the project area and adjacent private land. They were also concerned that vehicle encroachment into seasonally or administratively closed areas could increase. The Wildlife report analyzed elk security and determined there would be no substantive effects from the project. Residents were encouraged to report encroachment into closed areas to the District Ranger so that additional law enforcement patrols could be provided, if warranted.

Community members living near the Seven Devils Road area identified concerns regarding containment and air quality during burns. Burning will be conducted in accordance with a prescribed fire burn plan developed for the project area, with the intent to produce a low intensity ground fire with some areas of moderate intensity. Burn plans address weather, air quality, and contingency resources and are implemented in compliance with the IDEQ air program with coordination through the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group.

Community members at the public meeting noted that protecting riparian areas has led, or could lead, to them becoming unmanaged pathways for fire to spread. PACFISH standards prohibit active treatment in riparian buffer areas. Prescribed burns will not be initiated in riparian areas, but fires will be allowed to naturally burn into those areas. Addressing the current policy regarding riparian areas and PACFISH requirements is beyond the scope of the analysis of this project.

Local community members desire for firewood gathering areas in treatment areas following timber



http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=50250


18

harvest, but prior to road decommissioning. Firewood harvest is a normal part of public use of the Forest, and was considered an existing condition during analysis. Visitor and worker safety, equipment security, and wildlife considerations such as elk security areas, will be weighed by the Forest Service in determining if firewood cutting could be compatible with the project goals in treatment areas.

A local industry representative suggested that there be smaller timber sale units offered, rather than one large unit for the project. Timber sale unit groupings will be determined by the Forest Service based on the most efficacious means of accomplishing the project goals.

Snag and Live Tree Retention. During analysis, the Interdisciplinary Team had considerable discussion regarding the retention of snags and green trees in regeneration harvest areas, and several comments were received on the issue. The final design features meet or exceed Forest Plan standards and align with current Region 1 recommendations. The site ecology approach specifies a minimum snag and live replacement tree (replacements for snags lost to decay and windthrow) for dry forests (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and dry grand fir sites); moist forests (moist grand fir and western red cedar sites); and subalpine forests (subalpine fir sites). A minimum of four snags and eight live trees will be left per acre on dry sites; six snags and 12 live tree replacements on moist sites; and six snags and eight live tree replacements on subalpine sites. In accordance with the Forest Plan, the retention will be applied on a 100 acre basis, with leave trees clumped and distributed throughout the cutting units.

Those clumps will provide pockets of wildlife habitat, travel corridors, and soften the edges of treatment areas. Selection of both snags and live tree replacements will emphasize retention of the largest specimens and most persistent species, such as ponderosa pine and western larch. See the Design Features for Vegetation in Appendix A, and the Vegetation report for a more detailed description of the snag and live tree replacement retention measures.

Written comments received during scoping raised a number of issues in addition to those above. Many comments provided no suggested design change or remedy, and most resource-specific issues raised were addressed in specialist reports. A summary of all comments received and how they were addressed is included in the project record. The most common comments are addressed below:

- Public meeting was poorly timed and inadequately publicized, and another meeting or field trip shouldbe conducted. RESPONSE: Information about the project, the public meeting, project scoping, andhow to access additional information was mailed to over 200 individuals and organizations, and emailwas used to contact parties who expressed interest in the project. Local media was informed of thepublic meeting via news releases. The Windy-Shingle project page on the publically-accessiblePlanning, Appeals, and Litigation System (PALS) web page was updated as new public documentsbecame available. The District Ranger held meetings with landowners near the Seven Devils Road, andthe Whitewater Wilderness Ranch after the public meeting to discuss the project and their concerns.

- Farm Bill insect and disease categorical exclusion not appropriate for the Windy-Shingle Project.RESPONSE: For reasons listed in the scoping letter and in this decision memorandum, the scope andscale of this project is appropriate for the Farm Bill Insect & Disease CE. No disqualifying conditionsor extraordinary circumstances were determined to exist during project analysis that would require thepreparation of an EA or EIS.

- Water quality and upward trend in prescription watersheds; project-related sediment; and effects onlisted fish species and habitat. RESPONSE: The Aquatics, Hydrology and Soils reports analyze andaddress these issues. No extraordinary circumstances were discovered.



19

- Timber harvest in the Salmon Face Idaho Roadless Area is inappropriate to roadless areas: RESPONSE: Timber harvest in the IRA was dropped from the project at the decision phase.

- Project effects on Mountain quail. RESPONSE: Mountain quail, and many other wildlife species, were analyzed in the Wildlife report.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAW AND/OR RELATED TO OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 1. Consistency with the Nez Perce Forest Plan The NFMA requires that projects and activities be consistent with the governing Forest Plan (16 USC 1604(i)). The Nez Perce Forest Plan (as amended) establishes management direction for the Nez Perce portion of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests. This management direction is delineated as goals and objectives, standards and guidelines, as well as Management Area goals and accompanying standards and guidelines. Harvest activities will occur within Forest Plan MAs 10, 12, 16, and 17. These MAs and the activities therein subject to this decision are summarized in “Management Areas within the Windy-Single Project Treatment Areas” in the Project Record. This project is consistent with all applicable Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Further resource-specific discussion of consistency related to Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines as well as applicable laws is contained in the resource specialist reports. 2. Suitability for Timber Production The Nez Perce Forest Plan identifies which Management Areas are suitable for timber production. All timber harvest authorized in this Decision Memorandum will be located within areas classified as suitable for timber production. Stands identified for harvest were examined by a certified silviculturist, soil scientist, and other resource specialists, who determined the lands are physically suited for timber harvest. All vegetation treatments are designed to attain multiple-use objectives and prescriptions will take suitability considerations into account. 3. Timber Harvest All projects that involve timber harvest for any purpose must comply with four requirements found in 16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(E). (i) Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged. The Forest Service fully assessed the potential effects of timber harvest on soil and water resources. The analysis is documented within the Soil, Hydrology, and Aquatics reports. Soil and watershed conditions will be protected because Design Features (see Appendix A) effectively minimize potential impacts. Portions of proposed units with mass failure potential were dropped during the project development process. (ii) There is assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within five years after harvest. All regeneration harvest areas will be planted with western larch, ponderosa pine, or a combination of


20

those species. Natural restocking by western larch and ponderosa pine is expected to supplement planting efforts. Potential limitations related to regeneration success (vegetation competition, species suitability, parent material) would be assessed in unit-specific silvicultural prescriptions. (iii) Protection is provided for streams, stream-banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperature, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat. The application of stream buffers and forestry BMPs (see Design Features for Hydrology and Aquatics) will effectively protect water resources. (iv) The harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return. The specific vegetation treatments and harvest systems included in the Windy-Shingle project were chosen and developed to most effectively address forest health issues and increase forest resilience while allowing other management objectives to be met. Harvesting systems were chosen to minimize resource impacts and trend stands from existing to desired conditions. 4. Clearcutting and Even-aged Management When timber is to be harvested using an even-aged management system, a determination that the system is appropriate to meet the objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan must be made and, where clearcutting is to be used, must be determined to be the optimum method. a. For clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(F)(i)]: The specific vegetation treatments were chosen to most effectively address forest health issues and increase forest resilience while allowing other management objectives to be met. A variety of regeneration treatments are prescribed as well as intermediate treatments where existing vegetation conditions warrant. All treatments will have silvicultural prescriptions prior to implementation. These will consider site-specific factors such as physical site, soils, climate, habitat type, current and future vegetative composition and conditions, interdisciplinary team objectives, NEPA decisions, other regulatory guidance, and Forest Plan goals, objectives and standards. Regeneration harvest is proposed and in some cases will result in openings greater than 40 acres. See additional discussion under (d), below. b. The interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary has been completed and the potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic impacts on each advertised sale area have been assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale with the multiple use of the general area [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(F)(ii)]: Full interdisciplinary review has been completed for this project. All treatments meet the multiple use goals and objectives in the Nez Perce Forest Plan for designated Management Areas.


21

c. Cut blocks, patches or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(F)(iii)]:

Treatment areas are designed to blend as much as possible with the existing terrain. This was given extensive consideration during project development. Design features related to scenery and vegetation management include leave areas, green tree retention requirements, and stump and slash height limits. d. Cuts are carried out according to the maximum size limit required for areas to be cut during one harvest operation, provided, that such limits shall not apply to the size of areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm [FSM Region I supplement 2400-2001-2-2471.1, 16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(F)(iv)]:

Forest Service Manual 2471.1 (R1 Supplement 2400-2001-2) requires a 60-day public review and Regional Forester approval for even-aged regeneration harvest openings exceeding 40 acres. Regional Forester approval was received on June 29, 2017. The following addresses the documentation required in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2471.1:

• A concise statement that summarizes why it is deemed desirable to treat units larger than the

maximum size specified above by even-aged regeneration cutting methods. Regeneration harvest is proposed for units 1, 3A, 5B, 6D and F, 8C and D, 8F and 9, 12B, and 14A, where openings larger than 40 acres may be created. Large portions of these units are occupied by increasingly dense, shade tolerant stands of Douglas-fir, grand fir, and lodgepole pine. These stands are at increased risk of insects and diseases as they age, increase in density, and their composition shifts towards more shade tolerant species. Promoting species diversity and creating a mosaic of age and size classes across the landscape was recommended to reduce insect and disease hazards by Forest Health Protection program personnel. This approach avoids widespread mortality and increased fuel accumulation. Limiting treatments to smaller, discontinuous areas would be far less effective due to the large, contiguous areas of high hazard trees that would remain on the landscape. Given the large, contiguous areas occupied by insect and disease affected Douglas-fir, grand fir and lodgepole pine, regeneration openings larger than 40 acres are needed to effectively implement this hazard reduction strategy.

• A statement confirming that each treatment is supported by a silvicultural diagnosis and that a detailed prescription will be written or reviewed by a certified silviculturist.

Silvicultural diagnosis of treatment units was done by a silviculturist in 2016. All vegetative treatments associated with the project will have silvicultural prescriptions approved by a certified silviculturist prior to implementation. These prescriptions would consider site-specific factors such as physical site, soils, climate, habitat type, current and future vegetative composition and conditions, interdisciplinary team objectives, NEPA decisions, other regulatory guidance, and Forest Plan goals, objectives and standards. • Identification of adjacent stands, their acreage, and their present status of recovery.




22

The eight proposed openings larger than 40 acres are not immediately adjacent to any past even-age regeneration harvests that still qualify as openings. No appreciable timber harvest has occurred on National Forest System lands in the project area since the close of the Shingle Forks Timber Sale in the early to late 1990’s. Units associated with this sale have effectively recovered over the past 15 or more years. Stocking levels are adequate to meet desired future stand conditions as outlined in the Nez Perce National Forest Stocking Guides and in the timber management prescriptions. Average tree height in these units is well over 2 ½ feet at this point and they are no longer “open” from a timber management perspective. • A statement of when the 60-day public notice began or when it will begin. The 60-day public review period started February 15, 2017 when notice was provided in the Windy-Shingle scoping letter.

e. Such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber resource [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(F)(v)]:

Documentation of the effects on other resources is contained in the Project File. Effects of regeneration harvest and those units that would contribute to openings greater than 40 acres were also considered by resource specialists during analysis. Protection of all resource values is maintained. All sites considered for treatment will use established harvest methods. Treatments are designed to sustain and perpetuate native seral species. Design Features and applicable Best Management Practices will be sufficient to protect soil and water resources.

5. Sensitive Species Federal law and direction applicable to sensitive species include the NFMA and Forest Service Manual 2670. The NFMA directs that land management plans provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives [16 USC 1604 Sec.6 (g)(3)(B)]. The Nez Perce Forest Plan contains standards for sensitive species (those plants and animals for which population viability is a concern). The Regional Forester has approved the sensitive species list (FSM 2610.5). The analysis and projected effects on all sensitive species listed as occurring or possibly occurring on the Nez Perce - Clearwater National Forests is documented in the Biological Evaluations contained in the project file and summarized in the Extraordinary Circumstances section of this document. These findings document that the authorized action will have No Adverse Impacts on some sensitive species, but May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not contribute to a trend toward federal listing for others (see Table 2). The diversity of plant and animal communities will be maintained, consistent with the NFMA. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Under provisions of the ESA, Federal agencies are directed to seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and to ensure that actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of these species. As displayed in the Extraordinary Circumstances section (Table 2), the Forest Service determined that authorized activities will have No Effect on grizzly bear and Canada lynx or designated


23

critical habitat. Wolverine is a species proposed for listing, and implementing this project is Not Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence of the Species. Bull trout is a federally listed threatened fish with habitat present within the Rapid River portion of the project area, but no activities are planned within that prescription watershed. Bull trout are not known to spawn in any of the watersheds that would receive treatments. For these reasons, the Forest Service has determined that authorized activities will have No Effect on bull trout. Spring/Summer Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout are federally listed threatened species with designated critical habitat within in the project area. The Forest Service has determined that this project May Affect, But is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Spring/Summer Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout. The effects to these species and their habitat are not expected to be discernable due to their lack of proximity to proposed activities, and the limited amount of sediment likely to be generated by the project activities. The NOAA – National Marine Fisheries Service concurred with these findings. Macfarlane’s four-o’clock and Spalding’s catchfly are both Federally-listed threatened plant species. Potentially suitable habitat for Macfarlane’s four-o’clock is not present in any treatment areas. Spalding’s catchfly is associated with grasslands that are not the subject of treatments under this project. For these reasons, the Forest Service has determined there is No Effect to these two plant species resulting from the activities associated with this project. Whitebark pine is a species proposed for listing. Most project activities will occur below the typical elevation of Whitebark pine stands, but elevation-based modeling identified approximately 27 acres of potential habitat in treatment areas. Silvicultural prescriptions will specify that Whitebark pine encountered during treatment implementation will be designated for retention, where possible. Proposed harvest may eliminate or damage individual trees, however these impacts would not further contribute to the trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population. See Table 2 for further discussion supporting the summary statements made here. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (and Executive Order 13186) Project activities have the potential to affect migratory birds by altering habitat and displacing birds through disturbance. In areas where activities are ongoing, breeding birds may avoid or abandon habitats to avoid human activities and disturbance. Activities would be limited in time and spatial extent, so effects would be temporary and on a small scale. Proposed activities would not affect migratory birds at the planning unit scale. The project will maintain a mosaic of vegetation types and age classes to provide for a diversity of species, consistent with this Act and Executive Order. Idaho State Water Quality Standards and Clean Water Act (CWA) The CWA makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for logging roads are not necessary; however, any other necessary permits will be obtained prior to implementation. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is the lead agency for implementation of its Idaho Nonpoint Source Management Plan, under the authority of Section 319 of the CWA. The resource protection measures for Aquatics, Hydrology, and Soils in the Design Features section, will protect water quality. Thus the project is consistent with these regulatory requirements.



24

Idaho Forest Practices Act The Idaho Forest Practices Act (IFPA) identifies standards for logging, road building, reforestation, streamside protection and other forest practices. The Idaho Department of Lands is responsible for administration of the IFPA and ensuring compliance with best management practices (BMPs) to control nonpoint sources of pollutants. IFPA BMPs are incorporated into the project design features Idaho Roadless Rule The Windy-Shingle project area includes portions of the Rapid River and Salmon Face roadless areas. Proposed treatment areas were dropped during the project development and decision phases. No treatment will occur in the Roadless area. Treatment will occur on units adjacent to Roadless Areas. The Idaho Roadless Commission was briefed on this project at two meetings. Clean Air Act (CAA) Three elements of the Clean Air Act generally apply to management activities that produce emissions: (1) protection of ambient air quality standards; (2) conformity with state implementation plans; and (3) protection of visibility in Class 1 airsheds. Burning activities will be coordinated through the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group to ensure compliance with the CAA. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 of the NHPA directs all Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the NRHP. There are six known cultural resources sites within the Windy-Shingle Project area, of which two are NRHP-eligible. The two eligible sites are not within treatment areas and none of the six sites will be impacted by project activities. The Idaho State Historic Preservation Office has concurred with these findings. Recognizing the potential exists for unidentified sites to be encountered or disturbed during project activity, standard provisions for their protection will be included in the contract to implement this project. These provisions will allow the Forest Service to unilaterally modify or cancel a contract to protect heritage resources, regardless of when they are identified. This provision will be used if a site is discovered after project activities have begun. This project is in compliance with the Region 1 programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) This project is in an area designated as part of an insect and disease treatment program and meets the criteria for using the categorical exclusion created under Section 603, Title VI of HFRA. (See previous discussion under the Categorical Exclusion section.) Environmental Justice Executive Order


25

The transparent, non-exclusive collaborative process used to develop this project, as well as consultation with tribes, ensured fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. No environmental justice issues were identified for this project as it is not expected to lead to disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OPPORTUNITIES Decisions that are categorically excluded from documentation in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement are not subject to an administrative review process (pre-decisional objection process) (Agriculture Act of 2014, Subtitle A, Sec. 8006).

IMPLEMENTATION DATE The project is expected to start implementation in the summer of 2018.

CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision, contact: B. Craig Phillips, Project Team Lead, Idaho Panhandle National Forest, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815, 208-765-7248; or Jeff Shinn, District Ranger, Salmon River Ranger District, 304 Slate Creek Road, White Bird, ID 83554, 208-839-2730.


26

APPENDIX A: DESIGN FEATURES, MITIGATION MEASURES & REQUIRED MONITORING The following design features and mitigation measures are included in the decision and they provide for consistency with the Forest Plan and other laws, regulations, policy or guidance, and/or they minimize potential impacts to the applicable resources. Design Features Aquatics (Hydrology & Fisheries)

1. All work will comply with the Idaho Forest Practices Act (Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code) and the Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook 2509.22 to prevent harvest-created sediment from being delivered to streams in the project area.

2. PACFISH default buffers apply to project activities and will be used to define vegetation treatment unit boundaries. No harvest or road construction activity will occur: a. Within 300 feet of fish-bearing streams b. Within 150 feet of perennial non-fish bearing streams; water and wetlands; bogs, seeps and

springs; larger than one acre c. Within 100 feet of intermittent streams; water and wetlands; bogs, seeps and springs; less

than one acre d. Within 100-foot slope distance from verified landslide prone areas. e. Buffers apply to known and discovered streams, waters, wetlands, bogs, seeps, springs, and

landslide prone areas 3. Culvert replacement, removal, and other in-stream work:

a. No culvert replacements, culvert removals, and/or in-stream work within streams containing spring Chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat trout and/or steelhead trout fish or fish habitat is permitted prior to July 15 or after August 15 to protect spawning, incubation, and rearing periods.

b. Any in-stream work occurring after October 1 will be coordinated with the District fisheries biologist to assess site impacts and to determine if weather conditions would permit such activities.

4. No ground based skidding is allowed on slopes over 35%. 5. Limit operating periods to avoid saturated soils and prevent resource damage (indicators include

excessive rutting, soil displacement and erosion). Operations would be limited to periods when soils are dry, or when ground is frozen or covered by approximately 6 or more inches of snow. Harvest operations will be suspended during wet or thawing conditions.

6. Limit tractor crossings over ditchlines where possible, by installing temporary culverts or crossing logs. Reconstruct ditch crossings, cut slopes, and fill slopes to standard after harvest.

7. Locate and design skid trails, landings and yarding corridors prior to harvest activities to minimize the area of detrimental soil effects. Space tractor skid trails a minimum of 80 feet apart, except where converging, and reuse existing skid trails where practicable.

8. Minimize use of excavated skid trails and landings. Excavated trails and landings will be scarified, recontoured, and reseeded to restore hydrology and soil productivity. Available slash (reachable by


27

equipment from the working area) will be applied to the scarified surface. Non-excavated skid trails and landings that are compacted or entrenched three inches or more will be decompacted to a depth of 4 - 14 inches to restore soil permeability. 7-15 tons per acre of slash will be scattered over recontoured and decompacted areas on skid trails and landings

9. Retain 7-15 tons per acre of coarse woody debris (greater than or equal to 3 inches in diameter) following completion of activities.

10. Temporary road construction will be in accordance with the following: a. Temporary roads will predominantly be located on slopes less than 35%, over existing road

templates where possible, and in areas where excavation would be minimized b. Out-sloped drainage is preferred where feasible and when safety and discharge to water

bodies is not at risk c. All temporary roads shall be closed to the public and decommissioned within three years,

but preferably immediately following use. If a temporary road has to overwinter, it will be closed to motorized use and put into a hydrologically stable condition consisting of out sloping, water barring, and/or seeding or mulching to minimize surface erosion potential.

d. Decomissioning by obliteration will consist of recontouring the road prism, including all cut and fill slopes restored to natural ground contour. Decommissioning by abandonment will occur only when a road is currently revegetated and stable with no culverts.

Botany

11. Silvicultural prescriptions will specify that any whitebark pine encountered during treatment implementation will be designated for retention, where possible.

12. If activities impact previously unknown sensitive plant occurrences, the Forest botanist will be notified.

Fire/Fuels

Fireline Construction

13. Fire line would be constructed when necessary to contain prescribed burns and/or protect resource concerns. Fire line may be constructed by hand or mechanically. Fire line construction will be 18 -24 inches wide to mineral soil. Fire line can include black lining, line constructed by hand or mechanical means (including chainsaws), pruning and hose lays.

Prescribed burning

14. Limit spring prescribed burning to those units that cannot be burned in summer/fall due to safety and risk and still meet management objectives, to minimize impacts on wildlife in breeding, nesting, and denning periods and to improve forage response.

15. Prescribed burning will be based on weather and site-specific conditions and take place under the guidelines set forth in a prescribed fire burn plan developed for this project area. Prescribed fire will not be ignited in, but may be allowed to creep into PACFISH buffer areas.

16. Prescribed burn plans will comply with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality air program, and be coordinated through the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group.

17. Prescribed burning would be conducted in the spring and fall when fuel moisture in the 1, 10, and 1000 four fuels is high.

Heritage


28

18. Known historic (NRHP Eligible/historically significant) properties or sites will be avoided or protected during project implementation.

19. Halt ground-disturbing activities if cultural resources are discovered until an Archaeologist can properly evaluate and document the resources in compliance with 36 CFR 800. The discovery must be protected until notified in writing to proceed by the authorized officer (see 36 CFR 800.13(b)(3)).

Roads/Transportation System

20. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) would be applied during project implementation and no permanent roads will be established.

21. Decommission all temporary constructed roads in accordance with feature 10.d. 22. Use gates, barricades, or earthen barriers to close roads not open to public motorized use during

project implementation. Barricade devices will be considered on an as needed basis when decommissioning temporary roads.

23. Implement temporary traffic control measures for public safety in accordance with Forest Service signing policy and the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

24. Restrict hauling seasonally to prevent hauling on wet/soft roadbeds. Hauling should be done when the roads are dry or when frozen in the winter.

25. Road/ditch maintenance will be done in a manner to minimize sedimentation, and selectively where the maintenance will improve overall condition.

Scenery/Visuals

26. Within retention viewsheds and harvest areas within 200 feet of the viewing platform, (i.e., roads or recreation sites): a. Cut stumps to 8 inches or less in height b. Remove, burn, chip or lop to a height of 2 feet or less, any slash, root wads and other debris.

27. Within all viewsheds, created openings within treatment units should not be symmetrical in shape. Straight lines and right angles should be avoided. Created openings should resemble the size and shape of those found in the surrounding natural landscape. Treatments should follow natural topographic breaks and changes in vegetation if possible.

Soils

28. PACFISH buffers (Feature 2.d) will be applied to landslide prone areas and no construction of roads or skid trails, use of heavy ground-based machinery, or harvest is allowed in landslide prone areas. Landslide prone features identified during unit layout will be avoided and should be considered as locations for tree retention to provide sufficient living trees to uptake water and reduce subsurface lateral flow associated with mass wasting events.

29. All new skid trails would be laid out to take advantage of topography and existing road prisms and minimize disruption of natural drainage patterns and depressions in the landscape which may have higher moisture content.

30. Coarse woody debris (diameter greater than 3 inches) and fine organic matter (all organic matter less than 3 inches) will be retained on the ground for sustained nutrient cycling as in feature 9. a. Leave all stumps and roots in place following tree removal to provide soil cohesion and

support. b. Retain live and snag trees to provide down wood recruitment as in feature 35


29

31. Prescribed burning will be limited to areas where conditions would ensure light to moderate fire severity, including timing to minimize the blackened surface duration; litter/duff/soil moisture conditions that limit the loss of litter and duff; and ignition techniques that promote a mosaic burn pattern to limit continuous burned areas on erodible slopes and promote establishment of erosion-minimizing vegetation. Pile burning will be limited to occur only when climatic conditions will minimize detrimental burning of soils, such as when the ground is frozen or soil moisture is sufficiently high.

Trails and Developed Recreation Sites

32. Coordinate directly with District Recreation staff prior to implementation activities in developed, dispersed, and outfitter assigned recreation sites.

33. Protect system Trails 110, 115, 134, and 166 by directionally felling, cutting stumps to 8 inches or less, and no slash piles within 6 feet of centerline of the trails.

Vegetation

Snag and Live Tree Retention

34. Snag and green tree retention will be as follows to minimize the size of post-treatment areas devoid of snags and/or green trees: a. Dry Forest (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and dry grand fir habitat types): 4 snags and 8 live tree

replacements/acre from the largest trees. b. Moist Forest: (Moist grand fir and western red cedar habitat types) 6 snags and 12 live tree

replacements/acre from the largest trees. c. Subalpine Forest: (Subalpine fir habitat types) 6 snags and 8 live tree replacements/acre from

the largest trees. 35. Selection of snags and live tree replacements would emphasize retention of the largest and most

persistent trees, such as ponderosa pine and western larch to assure the highest probability for long-term retention. High hazard snags and snags in the advanced stages of decay would not be used to meet retention objectives.

36. In addition to the retention of individual trees and snags, leave areas of diverse shapes and sizes would be retained both within, and between regeneration harvest units. a. These leave areas would be centered on existing concentrations of large trees, large course

woody debris, snags, seeps, rock outcroppings, wetlands, landslide-prone areas or other unique structural and/or habitat features and not be limited to riparian habitat conservation areas.

b. Leave areas would include representation of all tree species that are present in the pre-harvest stand.

c. Leave trees should be grouped into 1-2 acre clumps distributed throughout cutting units. Groups of snags and recruits as well as individuals would be left across regeneration units.

37. Retain the desired number of trees on a 100-acre, rolling average, basis to promote desirable distribution of post-harvest structure including snags.

38. Snags or live trees replacements with existing cavities or evidence of use by woodpeckers or other wildlife would be favored for retention.

39. Retain snags far enough away from roads or other areas open to public access to reduce the potential for their removal (generally more than 150 feet).

Restocking


30

40. A combination of artificial regeneration with desirable species (western larch and ponderosa pine) from site-adapted seed sources in combination with natural regeneration would be used to restock harvested areas.

41. Reduction of fuels and shrub competition sufficient to establish desired regeneration would occur using prescribed fire, mechanical treatments or a combination of both.

42. Site preparation, fuels treatment, and planting activities would occur within five years following timber harvest in regeneration units. Site preparation and/or fuels treatment may include a combination of prescribed burning, grapple piling, and hand piling, depending on post-cutting conditions.

Layout and Implementation

43. The layout for implementation of treatment units would account for any timber production-related suitability limitations encountered on a site-by-site basis. Harvest and site preparation treatments would consider the short and long-term potential negative effects (including blow down, fire mortality, etc.) of proposed activities on adjacent trees and stands with site-by-site prescription modifications, such as changes in unit boundaries and modification of fuel treatment prescriptions.

44. All vegetative treatments would have silvicultural prescriptions approved by a certified silviculturist prior to implementation. These prescriptions would consider site-specific factors such as physical site, soils, climate, habitat type, current and future vegetative composition and conditions, interdisciplinary team objectives, NEPA decisions, other regulatory guidance, and Forest Plan goals, objectives and standards.

45. Vegetation prescriptions would encourage the regeneration and/or the continued presence of hardwoods including aspen.

Weeds/Range

46. Prior to harvest, prescribed burning, and other activities, contact the Rangeland Management Specialist to notify permittees and facilitate movement of livestock, as needed.

47. Protect range improvements from damage during implementation (e.g. livestock, cabins, corrals, barns, water developments, and fences).

48. Remove all mud, soil and plant parts from equipment (off road, road maintenance or instream) before moving into the project area. Conduct cleaning off National Forest system lands.

49. Use Forest Service approved seed mix to meet erosion control needs and other management objectives. Apply only certified weed-free seed.

50. Use rock only from Forest Service approved sources. 51. Identify and report invasive species infestations, on or adjacent to the activity sites, to the District

Weed Coordinator. Wildlife

Sensitive, threatened, or endangered species discovery

52. Active nesting or denning sites of any sensitive, threatened, or endangered species discovered or located in or near the project area not covered by a more specific design feature outlined for this project, would be buffered from project activity in a manner recommended by a qualified Forest Service wildlife biologist

Migratory Bird Species


31

53. A no activity area of 40-acres would be placed around any newly discovered goshawk nest or anynest that has been recently occupied in the past five years. Occupied or recently occupied refers tothe use of a nest area, PFA, or home range by a breeding pair of goshawks and its young during thebreeding season. Note that determining non-use of an area where a breeding pair has beenpreviously documented may require monitoring the area for occupancy during the breeding seasonover a 5-year period. Protocol surveys within the PFA to determine occupancy will be used.

54. Mechanical operations, including helicopter use and related activities may be suspended within upto ½ mile of active nest areas from April 15 to August 15 to promote nesting success and provideforage opportunities for adults and fledgling goshawks during the fledgling dependency period.

55. If peregrine falcons are found to have an active eyrie within the project area protective measureswill be applied, as determined by the District Biologist. Mechanical operations, including helicopteruse and related activities, may trigger a limited operating period within up to one-half mile of activenest areas from March 15 to July 31 to promote nesting success.

Wildlife Security

56. The integrity of existing access management restrictions would be maintained within the planningarea for wildlife security purposes by closing existing gates (consistent within current motor vehiclerestrictions) daily during the Contractor's non-operating hours.

57. Any temporary roads for the project would be signed to prohibit unauthorized motorized or othertravel by visitors during the project. All of these temporary routes would be thoroughlydecommissioned within 3 years of project completion.

Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are included in my decision to avoid impacts to the applicable resources.

Soils

1. Due to the high existing detrimental soil disturbance in units 11 and 12B, specific mitigation to preventexceeding the Regional Soil standard for detrimental soil disturbance must be implemented. Existingtemp roads, skid trails, or compacted areas in units 11 and 12B will be reused. Additionally, these skidtrails and compacted areas will be restored by decompacting the affected areas.

Required Monitoring 1. Monitoring would occur after burning to determine if the slashing, piling, pile burning, broadcast

burning, and any other prescribed fire application met the objectives to modify fire behaviorcharacteristics and reach desired fuel loading in units. Monitoring will also identify areas requiring weedtreatments.

2. The effectiveness of seeding disturbed areas would be evaluated upon completion of the activity.Monitoring will also identify areas requiring weed treatments.


32

APPENDIX B: PROPOSED TREATMENTS & TEMPORARY ROADS BY UNIT REGENERATION HARVEST UNITS

INTERMEDIATE HARVEST UNITS

TEMPORARY ROADS BY UNIT

Unit Treatment Prescripition System Acres Replant*1A Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Tractor/Jammer 107 WL1B Rehabilitation Slash/clearcut and burn Tractor/Jammer 44 WL1C Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Cable/Tractor/Jammer 45 PP and WL3A Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Tractor/Jammer 73 WL5B Regeneration Shelterwood with reserves Helicopter 123 PP and WL5D Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Cable 37 PP and WL6B Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Tractor 20 WL6D Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Cable 120 PP and WL6F Regeneration Seedtree with reserves Cable 117 PP and WL8B Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Cable 36 WL8C Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Cable 23 WL8D Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Cable 40 WL8F Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Cable/Tractor 153 WL9 Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Helicopter 89 WL10B Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Cable 12 WL12B Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Tractor/Jammer 100 PP and WL13B Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Tractor 9 PP and WL14A Regeneration Clearcut with reserves Cable 102 PP and WLTOTAL REGENERATION AND REHABILITATION HARVEST ACRES 1250

* WL = Western larch PP = Ponderosa pine

Unit Harvest Type Prescripition System Acres2 Intermediate Commercial thin Tractor/Jammer 1363B Intermediate Commercial thin Tractor/Jammer 334 Intermediate Commercial thin Tractor/Jammer 75A Intermediate Commercial thin Cable 646A Intermediate Commercial thin Tractor 476C Intermediate Commercial thin Cable 1876E Intermediate Commercial thin Tractor 357 Intermediate Commercial thin Tractor 358E Intermediate Commercial thin Tractor 5610A Intermediate Commercial thin Cable 17011 Intermediate Commercial thin Tractor 3312A Intermediate Commercial thin Cable/Tractor/Jammer 12813A Intermediate Commercial thin Cable 10914B Intermediate Commercial thin Cable 264

1304TOTAL INTERMEDIATE HARVEST ACRES

Temp Road Unit Location Mileage2 0.73A 0.45A 0.65B 0.66B 0.614A 1TOTAL 4


33

APPENDIX C: MAPS OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

(MAPS REMOVED FROM THE ELECTRONIC VERSION TO REDUCE FILE SIZE. MAPS MAY BE FOUND ON THE PROJECT WEB PAGE UNDER THE DECISION TAB )

Map of vegetation management and temporary road construction activities in the Windy-Shingle Project Area.

Map of vegetation management and temporary road construction activities in the northern portion of the Windy-Shingle Project Area

Map of vegetation management and temporary road construction activities in the southern portion of the Windy-Shingle Project Area

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50250





36

APPENDIX D: LITERATURE CITED

Hoffman, J.T. 2004. Management guide for dwarf mistletoe, Arceuthobium spp. Forest Health Protection and State Forestry Organizations. 12.0 Dwarf Mistletoe Management Guide

Hagle, S.K. 2004. Management guide for root diseases. Forest Health Protection and State Forestry Organizations. 11.0 Root Disease Management Guide

Inman, R. M., B.L. Brock, K.H. Inman, S.S. Sartorius, B.C. Aber, B. Giddings, S.L. Cain, M.L. Orme, J.A. Fredrick, B.J. Oakleaf, K.L. Alt, E. Odell, and G. Chapron. 2013. Developing Priorities for Metapopulation Conservation at the Landscape Scale: Wolverines in the Western United States. Biological Conservation 166:276–286

See specialist reports on the project webpage for other references/literature cited in resource-specific analysis that supports this decision.

http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=50250

Windy-Shingle Decision Memoa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… ·...

Documents

Transcript of Windy-Shingle Decision Memoa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… ·...