CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Project Name: Flower Creek Timber Sale Proposed Implementation Date: Summer of 2008 Proponent: Libby Unit, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Location: Sec 1 6 T30N R31 W (429 Acres); approximately 2 air miles southwest of Libby, MT. County: Lincoln I. TYPE AND PURPOSE OF ACTION The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), Libby Unit, is proposing a commercial timber harvest approximately 2 air miles southwest of Libby, MT in Section 1 6, Township 30 North, Range 31 West (Attachment A, Vicinity Map). Under the proposed Flower Creek Timber Sale, DNRC would harvest and sell approximately 4 million board feet of wood products from 5 harvest units totaling 429 acres (352 acres of seedtree/shelterwood cut and 77 acres of a selection cut) using ground based logging equipment. As a result of this proposed timber sale, an estimated $730,000 would be generated for the Common Schools Trust. Additional actions would include the construction of 0.75 mile temporary roads that would be reclaimed at the end of the sale, the reconditioning and maintenance of 1 .5 miles of existing road, and the construction of 0.75 mile of new road that would remain closed after harvest activities are complete(Attachment A, Road Development). Post timber harvest operations on 352 acres would include scarification and planting ponderosa pine and western white pine. Logging slash would be treated to meet state laws by means other than burning (i.e. chipping for hog fuel, or hauling a way the slash). Timber sale activities are likely to begin in the summer of 2008 and conclude in the year 2010. Site specific objectives for the project area are: promote historic forest stand conditions and species compositions, and control tree densities for maintaining vigorous individual tree growth and reduce susceptibility to insects, disease and fire in the project area. Lands involved in this proposed project are held by the State of Montana in trust for the Common Schools (Enabling Act of February 22, 1 889: 1 972 Montana Constitution, Article X Section 11). The Board of Land Commissioners and the DNRC are required, by law, to administer these trust lands to produce the largest measure of reasonable and legitimate return over the long run for these beneficiary institutions (Section 77-1 -202, MCA). The DNRC would manage lands involved in this project in accordance with the State Forest Land Management Plan (DNRC 1996), the Administrative Rules for Forest Management (ARM 36.1 1 .401 through 450), and all other laws applicable to timber harvest activities on State lands. II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 1. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AGENCIES, GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED: Provide a brief chronology of thie scoping and ongoing involvement for this project. Public notices were placed in the Western News June, 2006. Scoping letters were sent to adjacent landowners and other interested parties on the Libby Unit mailing list for scoping notices. Those involved in project development from DNRC include: Garrett Schairer, wildlife biologist; Tony Nelson, soil and hydrology specialist; Jim Bowers, Fisheries Program Specialist; Patrick Rennie, archaeologist; Doug Turman, project leader & forester; and John Shotzberger, Libby Unit Manager. Comments and concerns were addressed and incorporated in the Environmental Assessment. 2. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTION, LIST OF PERMITS NEEDED: DNRC would need to apply for four 124 permits from MT Dept. Fish, Wildlife and Parks that would allow stream crossings during road construction. Have contacted Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the City of Libby and informed them of the proposed logging activities that will be occurring upslope of a reservoir on Flower Creek that is the municipal water supply intake for the city. At this time there was no major concern of the proposed timber sale activities. DS-252 Version 6-2003 3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No Action: Under the No Action Alternative, no activity would be undertaken. No timber would be harvested and no road construction or improvements would occur. The No Action alternative would result in decreased growth rates, continued decline of stand conditions and increased fuel loading within the project area. This alternative would not produce revenue for the Common Schools Trust grant. Effects of the No Action Alternative are show in the Checklist and Attachments and can be used to compare effects of the proposed action. Action: The Action Alternative is shown in Section 1 , Type and Purpose of Action. No other action alternatives were identified during project scoping or analysis; therefore only forest product removal and sale are being analyzed for in the EA Checklist. Mitigations would be incorporated into the proposed action. III. IMPACTS ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT • RESOURCES potentially impacted are listed on the form, followed by common issues that would be considered. • Explain POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS following each resource heading. • Enter "NONE" If no impacts are identified or the resource is not present. 4. GEOLOGY AND SOIL QUALITY, STABILITY AND MOISTURE: Consider the presence of fragile, compactable or unstable soils. Identify unusual geologic features. Specify any special reclamation considerations. Identify any cumulative impacts to soils. The Kootenai National Forest land system inventory (LSI) identified no areas of soils at high risk for mass movements in the project area. Ground based yarding can create soil impacts through displacement and compaction. The impacts anticipated with the action alternative are below the range analyzed for in the Expected Future Conditions section of the State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP), and well within the 20% impacted area established as a level of concern in the SFLMP. Cumulative effects to soils may occur from repeated entries into a forest stand. Best Management Practices would be implemented to protect soil resources and limit the magnitude or severity of adverse impacts. These include: allowing ground based equipment operations when soil moisture is dry, or ground is frozen or snow covered; retaining woody debris and green slash on site for maintaining long term site productivity; incorporating slash into skid trails and temporary roads and water-barring them; and reusing existing skid trails from past harvest activities where appropriate. For detailed analysis, please refer to Attachment B, Soils Analysis. For a complete list of Soil Resource Mitigations, please refer to Attachment G, Summary of Mitigations. 5. WATER QUALITY, QUANTITY AND DISTRIBUTION: Identify important surface or groundwater resources. Consider the potential for violation of ambient water quality standards, drinking water maximum contaminant levels, or degradation of water quality. Identify cumulative effects to water resources. A DNRC hydrolo gist has reviewed the project a re a, transportation system and harvest plan. The project area is located mostly within the Flower Creek watershed but sm all portions of the projectile outside of this watershed and have a very low risk of sediment delivery or water yield increases. The project area is drained by an unnamed class 2 tributary to Flower Creek. There are four stream crossings that will be developed and used. Two existing crossings are currently at risk of overtopping during high runoff, these pipes will be upsized and replaced. Another pair of crossings will be developed for logging access and reclaimed after sale activities. These activities in association with road construction, reconstruction and maintenance during the sale activities would generate sediment to the stream for 2-3 years after the com pie tic n of the project because of exposure of bare soil. This risk of sediment delivery would decrease to near pre -project levels as the site revegetates. Ten acres of the proposed project area is located above the Libby water supply reservoir, approximately 9 acres are proposed for harvest in Unit 4. These acres have a very low risk of sediment delivery to the Libby water supply reservoir because no portion of the unit is located closer than 1 75 feet from the reservoir, and all proposed harvesting is located above a topographic bench above Flower Creek. The presence of flat benches lowers the risk of runoff and sediment delivery, and all applicable BMPs would be used to minimize sediment delivery. DS-252 Version 6-2003 For detailed analysis, please refer to Attachment C, Watershed and Hydrology Analysis. For a complete list of Water Resource Mitigations, please refer to Attachment G, Summary of Mitigations. 6. AIR QUALITY: What pollutants or particulate would be produced? Identify air quality regulations or zones (e.g. Class I air shed) the project would influence. Identify cumulative effects to air quality. The project area is located in Montana Airshed 1 and inside the Libby impact zone. Based on located of the timber sale in the Airshed 1 , the slash will be abated by other means then burning. Dust may be created from log hauling on portions of native surface roads during summer and fall months. Approximately 1/3 mile of the main haul road that is closest to residences would be graveled, this would reduce the amount of dust created. 7. VEGETATION COVER, QUANTITY AND QUALITY: What changes would the action cause to vegetative communities? Consider rare plants or cover types that would be affected. Identify cumulative effects to vegetation. The project area is bordered by USFS, industrial private and small private ownerships. The private ownerships are intensively managing their lands for timber, recreation, grazing, and residential uses. The project area currently is dominated by Mixed Conifer and Western larch/Douglas-fir cover types. Silvicultural prescriptions will promote historic stand conditions favorable for the conversion or maintenance of approximately 90 acres to the western white pine cover type, 325 acres to ponderosa pine cover type and 14 acres of mixed conifer will be maintained. This treatment would assist Libby Unit in meeting its unit wide desired future condition cover types. Rare plants or cover types listed by the Montana Natural Heritage program have not been found within the project area. There are no old-growth stands located within the project area. An integrated weed management approach would be implemented to limit the potential for the spread and introduction of noxious weeds into the project area. For detailed analysis, please refer to Attachment D, Vegetative Analysis. For a complete list of Vegetative Resource Mitigations, please refer to Attachment G, Summary of Mitigations. 8. TERRESTRIAL, AVIAN AND AQUATIC LIFE AND HABITATS: Consider substantial habitat values and use of the area by wildlife, birds or fish. Identify cumulative effects to fish and wildlife. The project area provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including a host of species that require mature forests and/or use snags and coarse woody debris. Deer, elk, and moose use the project area most of the year. Approximately 579 acres of mule deer and elk winter range, and 346 acres of moose winter range exist in the project area. Big game hiding cover exists in the project area. Under the action alternative, approximately 429 acres of western larch/Douglas-fir and mixed conifers would be removed, leading to younger, more open stands. This would alter habitats for wildlife species requiring mature forests, while creating habitats for species needing more open stands of younger forest. Present and future deadwood material would be reduced during the proposed timber harvesting; however several snags and snag recruits would be planned for retention. The action alternative would reduce thermal cover on 429 acres (74%) of the 579 acres of mule deer and elk winter range and 1 37 acres (40%) of the 346 acres of moose winter range, largely eliminating habitat attributes enabling winter use by these big game species. Roughly 21 9 acres of the 236 acres in the state parcel that could be suitable elk security habitat would be harvested with this alternative. No changes in legal motorized access to the state parcel would be anticipated under this alternative, however the new roads proposed to be constructed and closed after use could facilitate an increase in foot traffic and illegal motorized vehicular traffic. Flower Creek flows south to north through the El/2 of the section and supports native fisheries, including bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout and sculpins, and nonnative fisheries such as eastern brook trout and stock rainbow trout. Since the proposed actions will not occur anywhere within 150' of Flower Creek, no measurable or detectable effects to that stream are expected to occur, and a field review of applicable physical variables was not conducted. An unnamed tributary to Flower Creek flows west to east from the SW1/4 to the NE1/4 of the section between Unit 3 and Unit 4 and through Unit 1. Based on observations this should not be considered a fish-bearing stream. For detailed analysis, please refer to Attachment E, Wildlife Resources Analysis and Attachment F, Jim Bowers Fisheries Memo. For a complete list of Wildlife Resource Mitigations, please refer to Attachment G, Summary of Mitigations. DS-252 Version 6-2003 9. UNIQUE, ENDANGERED, FRAGILE OR LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES: Consider any federally listed threatened or endangered species or habitat identified in the project area. Determine effects to wetlands. Consider Sensitive Species or Species of special concern. Identify cumulative effects to these species and their habitat. Flower Creek flows south to north through the E1/2 of the section and supports native fisheries, including bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout and sculpins, and nonnative fisheries such as eastern brook trout and stock rainbow trout. Since the proposed actions will not occur anywhere within 1 50' of Flower Creek, no measurable or detectable effects to that stream are expected to occur. Potential habitat exists in the project area for fisher, pileated woodpeckers, and flammulated owls. The action alternative would remove roughly 4 acres of riparian fisher habitats included in the regeneration-type treatments and another 25 acres would be harvested with a selection harvest method designed to meet the SMZ law. Most of the 429 harvested acres within the project area would be largely too open to be considered pileated woodpecker habitat after proposed harvesting; however the silvicultural prescriptions would retain healthy western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir while retaining snags to benefit long-term pileated woodpecker use. Additionally, most of the stands on the 429 acres proposed for harvesting would be more open with an increasing percentage of ponderosa pine, which would result in minor positive benefits to flammulated owls. For detailed analysis, please refer to Attachment E, Wildlife Resources Analysis and Attachment F, Jim Bowers Fisheries Memo. For a complete list of Wildlife Resource Mitigations, please refer to Attachment G, Summary of Mitigations. 10. HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: Identify and determine effects to historical, archaeological or paleontological resources. The DNRC staff archaeologist inspected the proposed project area. No heritage properties were identified in the area of potential effect. No additional archaeological investigative work is recommended. See project file. Resource Analysis, Archeologist findings (e-mail communication). 11. AESTHETICS: Determine if the project is located on a prominent topographic feature, or may be visible from populated or scenic areas. What level of noise, light or visual change would be produced? Identify cumulative effects to aesthetics. Upper elevation harvest units would be visible from Montana Highway 37 north of Libby. Active forest management is prevalent in this area on adjacent private ownerships. Within the project area, harvested stands would look more open with fewer trees per acre. The proposed project would be expected to have a low risk of negatively affecting the aesthetic quality of the area. Some noise from harvesting equipment and log hauling may be heard within the area and on haul routes. This is expected to be short in duration. 12. DEMANDS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF LAND, WATER, AIR OR ENERGY: Determine the amount of limited resources the project would require. Identify other activities nearby that the project would affect Identify cumulative effects to environmental resources. No impacts are likely to occur under either alternative. 13. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THE AREA: List other studies, plans or projects on this tract Determine cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of current private, state or federal actions in the analysis area, and from future proposed state actions in the analysis area that are under l\AEPA review (scoped) or permitting review by any state agency. There are no other environmental documents that pertain to the project area. DS-252 Version 6-2003 IV. IMPACTS ON THE HUMAN POPULATION • RESOURCES potentially impacted are listed on tlie form, followed by common issues that would be considered. • Explain POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS following each resource heading. • Enter "NONE" If no impacts are identified or the resource is not present 14. HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY: Identify any health and safety risks posed by the project Harvesting would result in a short term increase of flashy fuels within the project area from the resulting logging slash, thereby increasing the potential fire hazard. Slash treatments prescribed as part of the action plan would meet or exceed the standards for treating logging slash under the Fire Hazard Reduction Law and associated administrative rules. A short term increase in logging traffic on Libby's city streets would occur during active harvest operations under the action alternative. Signs would be posted on the Upper Flower Creek Road warning oncoming traffic of commercial use. 15. INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES AND PRODUCTION: Identify how the project would add to or alter these activities. Commercial logging would occur on 429 acres of state land over a 1-2 year period. 16. QUANTITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT: Estimate the number of jobs the project would create, move or eliminate. Identify cumulative effects to the employment market. People are currently employed in the wood products industry in the region. Due to the relatively small size of the timber sale program, there will be no measurable cumulative impact from this proposed action on employment. 17. LOCAL AND STATE TAX BASE AND TAX REVENUES: Estimate tax revenue the project would create or eliminate. Identify cumulative effects to taxes and revenue. Due to the relatively small size of the timber sale program, there will be no measurable cumulative impact from this proposed action on tax base or revenues. 18. DEMAND FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES: Estimate increases in traffic and changes to traffic patterns. What changes would be needed to fire protection, police, schools, etc. ? Identify cumulative effects of this and other projects on government services There will be no measurable impacts related to demand for government services due to the relatively small size of the timber sale program. There would be short-term increases in traffic, and the small possibility of a few people temporarily relocating to the area. 19. LOCALLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS AND GOALS: List State, County, City, USES, BLM, Tribal, and other zoning or management plans, and identify how they would affect this project The DNRC operates under the State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP, DNRC 1996) and Administrative Rules for Forest Management (ARM 36.1 1 .401 through 450, DNRC 2003). The SFLMP established the agency's philosophy for management of forested trust lands. The Administrative Rules provide specific guidance for implementing forest management projects. 20. ACCESS TO AND QUALITY OF RECREATIONAL AND WILDERNESS ACTIVITIES: Identify any wilderness or recreational areas nearby or access routes through this tract Determine the effects of the project on recreational potential within the tract Identify cumulative effects to recreational and wilderness activities. DS-252 Version 6-2003 The area is used frequently for hiking, hunting, cross-country sibling, snowmobiling and general recreating. Currently, roads through the area are closed to motorized use and used only for administrative purposes. There would be no change in road closure status and the selection of either alternative would not affect the ability of people to recreate on this parcel. 21. DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AND HOUSING: Estimate population changes and additional housing the project would require. Identify cumulative effects to population and housing. There will be no measurable cumulative impacts related to population and housing due to relatively small size of the timber sale program, and the fact that people are already employed in this occupation in the region. 22. SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND MORES: Identify potential disruption of native or traditional lifestyles or communities. The communities and lifestyles of this area have traditionally been and still are dependent on forest management and timber production for employment and other benefits received from this type of land use and management. The action alternative would be consistent with current and traditional lifestyles in this area. 23. CULTURAL UNIQUENESS AND DIVERSITY: How would the action affect any unique quality of the area? No impacts related to cultural uniqueness and diversity would be expected under either alternative. 24. OTHER APPROPRIATE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES: Estimate the return to the trust. Include appropriate economic analysis. Identify potential future uses for the analysis area other than existing management. Identify cumulative economic and social effects likely to occur as a result of the proposed action. Costs, revenues and estimates of return are estimates intended for relative comparison of alternatives. They are not intended to be used as absolute estimates of return. The estimated stumpage is based on comparable sales analysis. This method compares recent sales to find a market value for stumpage. These sales have similar species, quality, average diameter, product mix, terrain, date of sale, distance from mills, road building and logging systems, terms of sale, or anything that could affect a buyer's willingness to pay for. No Action: The No Action alternative would not generate any return to the trust at this time. Action: The timber harvest would generate additional revenue for the Common Schools Trust. The estimated return to the trust for the proposed harvest is $730,000 based on an estimated harvest of 3,500 thousand board feet (1 7,500 tons) and an overall stumpage value of $41 .75 per ton. Costs, revenues, and estimates of return are estimates intended for relative comparison of alternatives, they are not intended to be used as absolute estimates of return. EA Checklist Prepared By: Name: Doug Turman Date: 11/01/07 Title: Management Forester V. FINDING 25. ALTERNATIVE SELECTED: Upon review of the Checklist EA and appendices I find Action Alternative (alternative 2) as proposed meets the intent of the project objectives as stated on page 1 , Type and Purpose of Action. It complies with all pertinent environmental laws, DNRC State Forest Land Management Plan, and a consensus of professional opinion on limits of acceptable environmental impact. The No Action Alternative (alternative 1 ) does not meet the project objectives. For these reasons I have selected the Action Alternative for implementation on this project. DS-252 Version 6-2003 26. SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS: After a thorough review of the scoping documents, Department policies, standards, guidelines, and the State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP), I find all the identified resource management concerns have been fully addressed in this Checklist EA and it's appendices. Specific mitigation measures for each resource concern are listed in Appendix F. The action alternative provides for income to the school trust and promotes the development of a healthy, biologically diverse, and productive forest. It also provides the opportunity to improve access and road maintenance within the project area. I find there will be no significant impacts to the human environment as a result of implementing the action alternative. Specific project design features and various resource management specialist recommendations have been implemented to ensure that this project will fall within the limits of acceptable environmental change and result in no significant effects. 27. NEED FOR FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: EIS More Detailed EA No Further Analysis EA Checklist Approved By: Name: John Shotzberger Title: Libby Unit Manager Signature: /s/ John Shotzberger Date: 11/08/2007 DS-252 Version 6-2003 Flower Creek Timber Sale Attachment A Vicinity Map N /V Highways /V Other Roads /V County line Lal14" dbh) snags/acre were observed in the project area. Cumulative effects were analyzed on the 8 surrounding sections (totaling approx. 5,811 acres) using a combination of field evaluation and aerial photograph interpretation. Factors considered within the analysis area included the amount of open, mature stands of ponderosa pine and amount of dense, mixed conifer stands. In the analysis area, much of the area (roughly 60%) has been harvested in the recent past, which in many cases, removed the large tree structure needed by flammulated owls. Additionally, modern fire suppression has allowed Douglas-fir in-growth to create denser stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas- fir in portions of the analysis area, which has reduced habitat quality for flammulated owls. Therefore, the amount of habitat for flammulated owls in the analysis area is relatively low. Direct and Indirect Effects on Flammulated owls No Action Alternative Much of the project area is densely forested with few openings, therefore these areas are poor quality flammulated owl habitats, and no changes to habitat quality or quantity in the project area would be expected. In the long term, stands once dominated by ponderosa pine would continue to be converted to Douglas-fir stands through succession, become densely stocked, and exist at high risk to insects, disease and stand-replacement fire. Therefore, habitat sustainability and quality for flammulated owls would continue to decline. Thus, minor direct and indirect effects to flammulated owls would be anticipated. Action Alternative Flammulated owls are tolerant of human disturbance (McCallum 1994), however the elevated disturbance levels associated with harvesting could negatively impact flammulated owls should they be using existing habitat during the nesting period. Proposed timber harvest would open the canopy while favoring western larch and ponderosa pine. Elements of the forest structure important for nesting flammulated owls would be retained, including snags, coarse woody debris, numerous leave trees, and snag recruits. Realistically, however, some snags would likely be removed due to safety and/or logistical concerns, which further affects flammulated owls now and into the future. The more open stand conditions, the retention of fire Attachment E : Wildlife Resources adapted tree species, and the maintenance of snags would move the proposed project area toward historical conditions, which is preferred flammulated owl habitat. After implementation, most of the stands on the 429 acres included in this alternative would be more open with an increasing percentage of ponderosa pine, which would result in minor positive benefits to flammulated owls. Thus, minor positive direct and indirect effects to flammulated owls would be anticipated. Cumulative Effects on Flammulated owls No Action Alternative Poor quality flammulated owl habitat would persist in the state parcel. Portions of the analysis area have become increasingly dense and with a larger proportion of shade-tolerant species. Harvesting has occurred in the analysis area on roughly 3,470 acres in recent years, potentially improving flammulated owl habitats by creating foraging habitats and reversing a portion of the Douglas-fir encroachment, however retention of large ponderosa pine was not necessarily a consideration in many of these harvest units; thereby minimizing the benefits to flammulated owls. Thus, negligible cumulative effects to flammulated owls would be anticipated. Action Alternative Habitat would be enhanced through a reduction in encroaching Douglas-fir and other conifers while retaining mature ponderosa pine on approximately 429 acres. This would increase the amount of the analysis area that has been harvested in the recent past from 3,470 acres to 3,902 acres. However, the enhanced habitat created with this harvesting would not likely affect flammulated owl populations appreciably as habitat is somewhat limited throughout the larger analysis area. Habitats on adjacent parcels could gradually improve if the seed trees and retention trees are allowed to continue to grow and mature as the newly established stands mature, however it is unknown if management objectives for these parcels include open stands of large ponderosa pine. Thus, negligible positive cumulative effects on flammulated owls might be expected. Big Game •Elk (Cervus elaphus) Security Issue: There is concern that timber harvesting and associated activities could remove elk security habitat and increase elk vulnerability. The proposed project area falls within the hunting district 104. The hunting district is within the Lower Clark Fork Elk Management Unit (EMU), which covers approximately 2,896 square-miles (DFWP 2004). Moderate road densities facilitate hunter access to much of the unit. Timber harvesting can increase elk vulnerability by changing the size, structure, juxtaposition, and accessibility of areas that provide security during hunting season (Hillis et al. 1991). As visibility and accessibility increase within forested landscapes, elk and deer have a greater probability of being observed and, subsequently, harvested by hunters. Because the female segments of the elk and deer populations are normally regulated carefully during hunting seasons, primary concerns are related to a substantial reduction of the male segment and subsequent decrease in hunter opportunity. Dense, large (> 250 acres) forest patches at least Vi mile from an open road that would provide elk (and subsequently deer) security (Hillis et al. 1991) are absent from the state parcel; however a portion of the project area that is far enough from the open roads that could serve as security cover in conjunction with available habitat on adjacent ownerships. It is expected that when elk security is substantially compromised, effects to deer can also be expected (albeit to a lesser degree than for elk). Summer use of the proposed project area by deer and elk was documented during field visits. Cumulative effects were analyzed on hunting district 104 (488,568 acres) using field evaluations and aerial photograph interpretation. Factors considered within the analysis area include amount of the analysis area recently harvested and the level of road access in the area. Much of the district is managed by USES (74%), with much smaller private (12%) and Plum Creek Timber Company Lands (11%) components. DNRC parcels only make up 2% of the hunting district. The district is dominated by western Attachment E : Wildlife Resources larch/Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifers in the lower elevations. Upper elevations in the district are a mix of conifers, including mountain hemlock, subalpine fir, whitebark pine, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce. Additionally, areas of regenerating forest are intermixed within this matrix of mature forests, and non-forested areas are common in some of the lower elevations. Reasonable vehicular and foot access to the analysis area exists on open and closed roads; however, there are also areas that lack road access. Direct and Indirect Effects on Elk Security No Action Alternative No changes in elk security cover or hiding cover would be expected. Elk security would still be largely absent from the project area. No changes would be anticipated in disturbance and elk vulnerability due to hunting. Thus, no direct or indirect effects to elk security would be anticipated. Action Alternative By definition, no changes in elk security cover would be expected since much of the proposed project area would still remain within Vi mile of an open road, and that portion that is far enough away from the open road is too small to provide elk security habitat. Roughly 219 acres of the 236 acres in the state parcel that could be suitable elk security habitat would be harvested with this alternative. No changes in legal motorized access to the state parcel would be anticipated under this alternative, however the new roads proposed to be constructed and closed after use could facilitate an increase in foot traffic and illegal motorized vehicular traffic. Increased sight distances and the reduction in hiding cover may decrease big game survival in the project area. Thus, low-moderate direct or indirect effects to elk security would be anticipated. Cumulative Effects on Elk Security No Action Alternative No changes would be anticipated in elk security cover, big game hiding cover, or hunter accessibility. Over time, recently harvested stands would mature and hiding cover would improve, but this would likely be partially offset by the reductions associated with ongoing harvesting. Temporal shifts in security cover in the analysis area can be expected as successional stages change, but long-term changes would not be expected. Human access on open and closed roads would persist. Thus, no cumulative effects to elk security would be anticipated. Action Alternative Increased sight distances could reduce big game survival. No appreciable changes in long-term elk security cover would be expected. Proposed road construction could facilitate an increase in foot traffic and illegal motorized vehicular traffic. Short-term reductions in hiding cover would be also expected with this alternative. Access in the analysis area is relatively easy given the amount of open roads and access points. Portions of the analysis area have been harvested, reducing hiding cover, but appreciable hiding cover exists within the analysis area. In general, minor cumulative effects to big game security cover, hiding cover, or survival at the analysis area level would be expected. •Big Game Winter Range Issue: There is concern that timber harvesting and associated activities could remove thermal cover on big game winter ranges, which could reduce carrying capacity of the winter range. Winter ranges enable big game survival by minimizing the effects of severe winter weather conditions. Winter ranges tend to be relatively small areas that support large numbers of big game, which are widely distributed during the remainder of the year. These winter ranges have adequate midstory and overstory to reduce wind velocity and intercept snow, while moderating ambient temperatures. Besides providing a moderated climate, the snow-intercept capacity effectively lowers snow depths, which enables big game movement and access to forage. Snow depths differentially affect big game; deer are most affected, followed by elk, then moose. Attachment E : Wildlife Resources Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks identified approximately 579 acres of mule deer and elk winter range, and 346 acres of moose winter range in the project area. The winter ranges in the state section are parts of larger mule deer (12,452 acres), elk (12,452 acres), and moose (47,758 acres) winter ranges, respectively. In the past roughly 73 acres in each of these winter ranges has been harvested by DNRC and is not yet providing winter range attributes. Winter snow depths and suitable microclimates influence big game distribution and use within the vicinity. Mature Douglas-fir/western larch, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer stands in the project area are providing attributes facilitating use by wintering big game. Proximity to human developments and open roads has likely slightly reduced winter range capacity of the winter range in the project area. Evidence of summer use by deer and elk was noted throughout the project area during field visits. Cumulative effects were analyzed on the contiguous 12,452-acre elk winter range using a combination of field evaluation and aerial photograph interpretation. Factors considered within this analysis area include acres of winter range harvested and level of human disturbance and development. Presently, a variety of stands across the winter range are providing thermal cover and snow intercept for big game. Roughly 4,944 acres (40%) of the 12,452-acre elk winter range have been harvested in the last 30 years, likely limiting the usefulness of these acres for wintering big game. Human disturbance within the winter range is largely associated with the town of Libby, and additional disturbance to the winter range can be attributed to recreational snowmobile use, other forms of winter recreation, and commercial timber harvesting, likely influencing wintering elk. Direct and Indirect Effects on Big Game Winter Range No Action Alternative Big game thermal cover in the project area would not be altered in the near term. In the longer-term, continued succession could reduce forage production while increasing thermal cover in these stands. Thus, no direct or indirect effects to big game winter range would be anticipated. Action Alternative Some displacement would be expected as a result of the proposed harvesting operations. This action alternative would reduce thermal cover for big game. Within the proposed units, 429 acres (74%) of the 579 acres of mule deer and elk winter range and 137 acres (40%) of the 346 acres of moose winter range would be harvested, largely eliminating habitat attributes enabling winter use by these big game species. Collectively with past harvesting, these reductions would result in approximately 86% of the elk and mule deer winter ranges and 61% of the moose winter range in the state parcel that would no longer be suitable as winter range. Some pockets of thermal cover would likely exist within these units after treatment, particularly within unit 5, where retention would be expected to be slightly heavier. Timber harvesting would not prevent big game movement through the area. Proposed harvesting could stimulate browse production for big game species. Thus, there would be moderate direct and indirect effects to big game winter range. Cumulative Effects on Big Game Winter Range No Action Alternative No changes would be anticipated in thermal cover and snow intercept. Stands that are providing thermal cover would be expected to continue providing this resource under this alternative. Continued winter use of the larger winter range would be expected. Harvesting on private ownerships could continue to displace wintering big game and reduce available winter range habitats. Human disturbance levels would be anticipated to continue at similar levels, affecting wintering elk. Thus, there would be no cumulative effects to big game winter range as a result of this alternative. Action Alternative Thermal cover would be largely removed from approximately 429 acres of the elk winter range, which would increase the amount of the winter range that has been harvested from 4,944 acres to 5,376 acres (-43%); thus this reduction in thermal cover and snow intercept on winter range would be additive to ongoing and past reductions across the elk winter range. Portions of the winter range are expected to start Attachment E : Wildlife Resources providing some habitat attributes suitable for winter big game use in the near future as they continue maturing with time. Displacement associated with this alternative could also be additive to the displacement associated with ongoing timber sales should activities be conducted during the winter. In addition to the direct displacement associated with harvesting, human disturbance levels could increase slightly with the increasing openness that could facilitate increased use. Besides the increase in use, the increases in sight distance associated with this disturbance may increase the distance any particular disturbance (including existing disturbances) affects big game wintering in the area. Thus, minor cumulative effects to big game winter range to would be anticipated. Literature Cited Aney, W. and R. McClelland. 1985. Pileated woodpecker habitat relationships (revised). Pages 10-17 m Warren, N. eds. 1990. Old growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the Northern Rocky Mountains. USPS, Northern Region, Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program Rl-90-42. 47pp. Bull, E. L. and J. A. Jackson. 1995. Pileated woodpecker: Dryocopus pileatus. American Ornithologists' Union. Washington DC. 24pp. DFWP. 2004. Montana Draft Elk Management Plan. Montana Dept. Fish, WildUfe, and Parks. WildUfe Division. Helena, Montana. 397pp. Foresman, K. R. 2001 The wild mammals of Montana. Special Publication No. 12. The American Society of Mammalogists. Lawrence, Kansas. 278pp. Heijl, S. J. and R. E. Woods. 1991. Bird assemblages in old-growth and rotation-aged Douglas- fir/ponderosa pine stands in the Northern Rocky Mountains: a preliminary assessment. Pages 93-100 in D. M. Baumgartner and J. E. Lotan, eds. Proc. Symposium: Interior Douglas-fir: the species and its management. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 306pp. Hillis, M. 1993. Lolo National Forest snag monitoring: Methodology, results, and long-term concerns with snag protection. Paper presented at the 1993 Region 1 Fish and Wildlife Congress. HilUs, J.M., and M.J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan, and D.W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining elk security: the Hillis paradigm. Pages 38-43 in A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Lonner, comps., Proc. Elk Vulnerability Symp., Mont. State Univ., Bozeman, Montana. 330pp. Jones, J. L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in north-central Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 147 pp. Lenard, S; J. Carlson, J. Ellis, C. Jones, and C. Tilly. 2003. P.D. Skaar's Montana Bird Distribution, 6"" Edition. Montana Audubon, Helena, Montana. Maxell, B. A., J.K Werner, P. Hendricks, D.L. Flath. 2003. Herptetologv in Montana: a historv, status summarv, checklists, dichotomous keys, accounts for native, potentiallv native, and exotic species, and indexed bibliographv. Northwest Fauna Number 5. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. Olympia, Washington. 138pp. McCallum, D. A. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: flammulated owls. Pages 14-46 in G. D. Hayward and J. Verner, tech eds. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, Colorado. McClelland, B.R. 1979. The pileated woodpecker in forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Pages 283- 299 in J. G. Dickson, R. N. Conner, R. R. Fleet, J C. KroU, and J. A. Jackson, eds. The role of insectivorous birds in forest ecosystems. Academic Press, New York, New York. Attachment E : Wildlife Resources Parks, C.G. and D.C. Shaw. 1996. Death and decay: A vital part of living canopies. Northwest science. Vol 70, special issue: 46-53. Powell, R. A. and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, tech eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, Colorado. Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Mighton, B. Nanaey, T. Tinaldi, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson, L. Lewis, B. Holt, G. Patton, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, S. Gniadek, 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment (2nd Edition). USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Missoula, Montana. 122 pp USFWS. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, Montana. 181pp. Suggested Wildlife Mitigations • Cease all operations if a threatened or endangered species is encountered. Consult a DNRC biologist and develop additional mitigations that are consistent with the administrative rules for managing threatened and endangered species (ARM 36.11.428 through 36.11.435). • Favor western larch and ponderosa pine in retention and regeneration decisions for pileated woodpecker and flammulated owl nesting and foraging habitats. • Manage for snags, snag recruits, and coarse woody debris, particularly favoring western larch and ponderosa pine (ARM 36.11.439(l)(b)). • Effectively close roads after the proposed activities to reduce the potential for unauthorized motor vehicle use and/or loss of snags to firewood gathering. • Reduce views into harvest units along the open road where feasible using a combination of topography, group retention, roadside vegetation buffers, and retention of pockets of advanced regeneration. • Prohibit contractors and purchasers conducting contract operations from carrying firearms while operating on restricted roads (ARM 36.11.432(l)(m)). Attachment F: Fisheries IVIemo DNRC - Forest Management Bureau 2705 Spurgin Rd Missoula, MT 59804 Memo To: Tony Nelson, NWLO Hydrologist From: Jim Bower, FIVIB Fish Biologist CC: Doug Turman, Libby Unit Fire Supervisor Date: 13 July 2007 Re: Flower Creek Timber Sale: Fisheries technical support for Tony Nelson On 21 May 2007 a field review of the Flower Creek Timber Sale area was conducted by the project ID team. I was asked to participate in this field review in order to provide Tony Nelson with fisheries technical support for MEPA analysis. The section reviewed was T30N R31 W Seel 6. FLOWER CREEK Flower Creek flows south to north through the El/2 of the section and supports native fisheries, including bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout and sculpins, and nonnative fisheries such as eastern brook trout and stock rainbow trout. Since the proposed actions will not occur anywhere within 1 50' of Flower Creek, no measurable or detectable effects to that stream are expected to occur, and a field review of applicable physical variables was not conducted. UNNAMED TRIB TO FLOWER CREEK An unnamed tributary to Flower Creek flows west to east from theSW1/4 to the NE1/4of the section, which was the focus of the fisheries assessment. At the time of the field review this stream conducted continuous flow throughout the section, and flows ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 CFS. No fish were visually observed on any reach of the stream throughout the section. Potential salmonid fisheries habitat is very poor; no wintering habitat was observed and potential spawning and rearing habitat was very limited and very poor quality. The average BFW is 2.0 feet, gradients range from 0.5 to 2.0%, typical substrates include 95% silts and 5% sands, and much of the channel flows through sedge meadows with a skunk cabbage component. During base flows this stream likely only conducts intermittent very low surface flows or no surface flows at all, which is likely the primary limiting variable for salmonid and sculpin species. The unnamed tributary flows from Plum Creek lands west of Section 1 6. Plum Creek has indicated that the stream has not been identified as fish-bearing. A single water quality sample (during the field review) from the stream near the Plum Creek and state boundaries indicated the stream is nutrient poor and slightly acidic during peak seasonal flows. Based on these observations, this unnamed tributary should not be considered a fish-bearing stream. Attachment G: Summary of Mitigations Incorporated in the Action Alternative Soil Resource Mitigations: 1 . In order to prevent soil resource impacts, ground based mechanical felling or yarding are restricted to periods when one or more of the following conditions occur: a. Soil moisture content at 4" depth less than 20% oven-dry weight. b. Minimum frost depth of 3. c. Minimum snow depth of 18 inches, loose, or 8 inches, packed. 2. Slash would be retained and distributed on site to contribute nutrients to the soil. 3. Coarse woody debris would be retained on site for maintaining soil productivity. 4. Slash would be trampled and incorporated into skid trails for erosion control. 5. Slopes in excess of 45% would be avoided during skidding or skid with skyline or helicopter logging systems. Water Resource Mitigations: 1. Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) 50 to 100 feet in width (dependant on slope and benches) would be marked along all streams. Harvesting would be minimal within the SMZs. 2. Road surface drainage and erosion control features would be added or improved on existing roads and installed as part of the road construction to reduce erosion rates and reduce the risk of sediment delivery. 3. Grass seed and fertilizer would be applied to newly disturbed culvert installation sites and road cuts and fills to stabilize erodable slopes and minimize sediment production. 4. Temporary roads would be reclaimed after harvest activities are complete. Vegetation Resource Mitigations: 1. Larger diameter snags will be protected as needed to assure retention of 2 snags per acre in all units. 2. Ponderosa pine, western larch, western white pine and Douglas-fir would be favored leave trees in all canopy levels. 3. All trees infected with dwarf mistletoe and blister rust would be removed. 4. To deter further establishment of noxious weeds along roads, grass seed and fertilizer would be applied to areas with soil exposed during road construction and maintenance activities. 5. To minimize noxious weed invasion away from roads, "off road" logging equipment would be inspected and required to be free of weed parts prior to moving onto the site. 6. Grass seed would be applied or slash incorporated into heavily used trails with bare soil exposed to limit establishment of noxious weeds. Wildlife Resource Mitigations: 1. Should an eagle next or wolf rendezvous site be observed within one mile of the project area, all operations would be suspended until consultation with a DNRC biologist provided appropriate mitigations. 2. Security for big game would be provided by maintaining the closure of roads to recreational motorized use after harvest is completed. 3. Public access would continue to be restricted to reduce potential loss of residual snags to firewood gathering. 4. Minimal harvest activities in the SMZs would retain patches of heavy forest cover for structural diversity and connectivity through ownerships.