Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment -IkT ■■■. .-«£" ^ ■ '.'^^'^1^ April 11,2007 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Southwestern Land Office Missoula Unit TABLE OF CONTENTS FINDING 1. Alternative Selected. 2. Significance of Impacts a. Soils b. Water Quality c. Cumulative Watershed Effects 2 d. Cold Water Fisheries 2 e. Air Quality 2 f. Noxious Weeds 2 g. Forest Conditions and Forest Health 2 h. Log Truck Use of Public Roads 2 i. ORV Access 2 j. Visual Quality 2 k. Wildlife 2 1. Economics 2 3. Precedent Setting and Cumulative Impacts 3 4. Should DNRC Prepare and Environmental Impact S»atemen» 3 COVER SHEET 4 HOW TO READ THIS EA 5 1.0 Chapter 1; Purpose of and Need for Action 6 1.1 Pioposed Action: Harvest 6 1.2 Project Need 6 Figure I . I Timber Creek Project Vicinity 7 1.3 Objectives of the Proposed Action (Desired Outcomes and Conditions) 8 1.4 Decisions to be made 8 1.5 Relationship to the State Forest Land Management Plan and Rules 8 1.6 History of tbe Planning and Scoping Process 9 1.7 Other Environmental Assessments (EAs) Related to this Project 9 l.S Permits, Licenses and other Authorizations Required 9 1.9 Issues and Concerns 9 1.9.1 Issues Studied in Detail 11 1.9. 1.1 Geology/Soil Resources 1 1 1.9.1.2 Water Quality U 1.9.1.3 Cumulative Watershed Effects 11 1.9.1.4 Cold Water Fisheries 11 1.9.1.5 Noxious Weeds 11 1.9. 1.6 Forest Conditions and Forest Health 1 1 1.9.1.7 Heavy Truck Traffic and Public Safely 12 1.9.1. S ORV Access 12 1.9.1.9 Visual Quality 12 1.9. 1.10 Economic Benefits and Projecl Revenue 12 1.9-1.11 Fire Hazard 12 1.9.1.12 Endangered Species 12 1.9.1.12.1 Grizzly Beai's 12 1.9.1.12.2 Canada Lynx 12 1.9.1.12.3 Gray Wolves 12 1.9.1.13 Sensitive Species 13 1.9.1.13.1 Flammulated Owls 13 1.9.1.13.2 Pilealed Woodpeckers 13 1.9.1.13.3 Fishers 13 1.9.1.14 Big Game 13 1.9.1.14.1 White-lailed Deer and Elk 13 1.9.1.14.2 Moose 13 1.9.1.15 Other Species 13 1.9. 1.15 J Northern Goshawk 13 1 .9.2 Issues Eliminaled From Further Sludy 13 1.9.2.1 Endangered Species 13 1.9.2.1.1 Bald Eagles 13 1.9.2.2 Sensitive Species 14 1.9.2.2.1 Black-backed Woodpecker 14 1.9.2.2.2 Peregrine Falcon 14 1.9.2.2.3 Townsend^s Big Eared Bat 14 1.9.2.2.4 Coeurd^Alene Salamander 15 1.9.2.2.5 Colombian Shaip-tailed Grouse 15 1.9.2.2.6 Common Loon 15 1.9.2.2.7 Harlequin Duck 15 1.9.2.2.S Mountain Plover 15 1.9.2.2.9 Northern Bog Lemming 15 2.0 Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 16 2. 1 Intixxluction 16 2.2 Development of Alternatives 16 2.2.1 History and Process Used to Formulate Alternatives 16 2.2.2 Selection Criteria 16 2.3 Description of Alternatives 16 2.3.1 Alternaiive A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 17 2.3.2 Alternative B: Hai-vest 17 Figure 2. 1 : Map of Alternative B: Harvest 18 2.4 Mitigation Measui-es of Ahernative B: Hawest 19 2.4.1 Water quality. Soils, Cumulative Watershed Effects and Fisheries Mitigations 19 2.4.1.1. Haivest Unit Design 19 2.4.1.2 Road Design and Location 19 2.4.1.3 Temporarj' Bridge Design and Installation 20 2.4.2 Noxious Weed Mitigations 20 2.4.3 Forest Conditions and Forest Health Mitigations 20 2.4.4 Heavy Truck Traffic and Public Safety Mitigations 21 2.4.5 OR V Access Mitigations 21 2.4.6 Visual Quality Mitigations 21 2.4.7 Wildlife Mitigations 21 2.4.7.1 General Wildlife Mitigations 21 2.4.7.2 Grey Wolf Mitigations 21 2.4.7.3 Grizzly Beai' Mitigations 22 2.4.7.4 Canada Lynx Mitigations 22 2.4.7.5 Northern Goshawk Mitigations 22 2.4.7.6 Big Game (White- tailed Deer. Elk and Moose) Mitigations 22 2.4. S Fire Hazard Mitigations 22 2.5 Description of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future DNRC Activities Not Pail of the Proposed Action 23 2.5.1 Past Relevant Actions 23 2.5.1.1 Timber Management 23 2.5.2 Present Relevant Actions 23 2.5.2.1 Recreation 23 2.5.3 Future Relevant Actions 23 2.5.3.1 Timber Management 23 2.5.3.2 Recreation 23 2.5.3.3 Road Management 23 2.6 Summary Compaiison of Activities, the Pi-edicted Achievement of the Pi-oject Objectives, and the Predicted Envii-on mental Effects of All Alternatives 24 2.6, 1 Summary Comparison of Activities 24 Table 2.1 Summary Comparison of Activities 24 4.1.1 Predicted Attainment of Project Objectives 24 Table 2.2 Predicted Attainment of Project Objectives 25 2.6.3 Summary Comparison of Predicted Environmental Effects 26 Table 2.3 Summary Comparison of Predicted Environmental Effects..., 26 3.0 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 30 3. 1 Intixxluction 30 3.2 Description of Relevant Affected Resourees 30 3.2.1 Geology and Soils 30 3.2.2 Water Quality and Affected Watershed 31 3.2.2.1 Existing Conditions 31 3.2.2.2 Water Quality Regulations and Uses 31 3.2.3 Cumulative Watershed Effects 32 Figure 3.1 Watershed Analysis Area 33 Table 3.1 Summary of Existing Watershed Condhions 34 3.2.4 Cold Water Fisheries 34 3.2.5 Noxious Weeds 35 3.2.6 Forest Condilions and ForesI Health 35 Table 3.2 Cover Type Conditions within the Pi-ojecl Area 35 3.2.7 Heavy Truck Traffic and Public Safety 36 3.2.8 ORV Access 36 3.2.9 Visual Quality 36 3.2J0 Fire Hazard 37 3.2J I Endangered Species 37 3.2.1 I.I Grey Wolves 37 3.2.11.2 Grizzly Bears 37 3.2.11.3 Canada Lynx 3S 3.2. 12 Sensitive Species 38 3.2.12.1 Flammulated Owls 38 3.2.12.2 Pileated Woodpeckers 39 3.2.12.3 Fisher 39 3.2.13 Big Game 40 3.2.13.1 White-tailed Deer and Elk 40 3.2.13.2 Moose 40 3.2J4 Other Species 40 3.2.14.1 Northern Goshawk 40 4.0 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 42 4.1 Introduction 42 4.2 Predicted Effects of Alternatives on Relevant Resources 42 4.2.1 Soil Resources 42 4.2.1.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects 42 4. 2 J. 2 AhernativeB: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 42 4.2.1.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 43 4.2.2 Water Quality 43 4.2.2.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action)- Direct and Indirect Effects 43 4.2.2.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 43 4.2.3 Cumulative Watershed Effects 44 4.2.3.1 Alternative A: Deferred Haivest (No Action)- Direct and Indirect Effects 44 4.2.3.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 44 Table 4.1 Summary of Predicted Watershed Conditions of Action Alternative 44 4.2.4 Cold Water Fisheries 45 4.2.4.1 Alternative A: Deferred Haivest (No Action)- Direct and Indirect Effects 45 4.2.4.2 Alternative B: Han'esI - Direct and Indirect Effects 45 4.2.4.3 Cumulative Effects of Ailernative B: Harvest 45 4.2.5 Air Quality 46 4.2.5.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects 46 4.2.5.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 46 4.2.5.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 46 4.2.6 Noxious Weeds 46 4.2.6.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects 46 4.2.6.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 46 4.2.6.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 47 4.2.7 Eoresl Conditions and Forest Health 47 4.2.7.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects 47 4.2.7.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 47 4.2.7.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 4S 4.2.8 Heavy Truck Traffic and Public Safety 4S 4.2.8.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects 48 4.2.8.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effecis 48 4.2.9 ORV Access 48 4.2.9.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effecis 48 4.2.9.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effecis 49 4.2.10 Visual Quality 49 4.2.10.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effecis 49 4.2.10.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 49 4.2.10.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 49 4.2. 1 1 Economics 50 4.2.1 I.I Alternative A: Deferred Haivesl (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effecis 50 4.2.11.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 50 4.2.12 Eire Hazard 50 4.2.12.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effecis 50 4.2.12.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 51 4.2.13 Endangered Species 4.2.13.1 Grey Wolves 51 4.2.13.1.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effecis 51 4.2.13.1.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 51 4.2.13.1.3 Alternative B: Hai-\est - Direct and Indirect Effects 5\ 4.2.13.1.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Hai-vest 51 4.2.13.2 Grizzly Bears 52 4.2.13.2.1 Allernative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direcl and Indirect Effects 52 4.2.13.2.2 CumnlaliveEffectsof Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 52 4.2.13.2.3 Alternative B: H ai-\e si - Direcl and Indirect Effects 52 4.2.13.2.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 52 4.2.13.3 Canada Lynx 53 4.2.13.3.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direcl and Indirect Effects 53 4.2.13.3.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 53 4.2.13.3.3 Alternative B: Hai^esl - Direcl and Indirect Effects 53 4.2.13.3.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 53 4.2.14 Sensitive Species 54 4.2.14.1 Flammulated Owls 54 4.2.14. 1. 1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direcl and Indirect Effects 54 4.2.14.1.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 54 4.2.14.1.3 Alternative B: Hai-vest - Direct and Indirect and Cumulative Effects 54 4.2.14.2 Pileated Woodpeckers 54 4.2.14.2.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direcl and Indirect Effects 54 4.2.14.2.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 54 4.2.14.2.3 Alternative B: H ai-\e si - Direcl and Indirect Effects 54 4.2.14.2.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 55 4.2.14.3 Fislier 55 4.2.14.3. 1 Allern-itive A; Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Diieci and Indirect Effects 55 4.2.143.2 CumulativeEffectsof Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 55 4.2.14.3.3 Alternative B: Hai-vest - Direct and Indirect Effects 55 4.2.14.3.4 CumulativeEffectsof Alternative B: Harvest 56 4.2.15 Big Game 56 4.2.J5.1 White-tailed Deer and Elk 56 4.2.15. 1. 1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action)- Direct and Indirect Effects 56 4.2.15.1.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 56 4.2.15.1.3 AltemaliveB: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 56 4.2.15.1.4 CumulativeEffectsof Alternative B: Harvest 57 4.2.J5.2 Moose 57 4.2.15.2.1 Alternalive A: Deferred H awe st (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects 57 4.2.15.2.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 57 4.2.15.2.3 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 57 4.2.15.2.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 58 4.2.16 Other Species 58 4.2.16.1 Northern Gosliawk 58 4.2. 16. 1. 1 Alternative A: Deferred Hai-vesl (No Action)- Direct and Indirect Effects 58 4.2.16.1.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 58 4.2.16.1.3 Alternalive B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 58 4.2.16.1.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 59 4.2.17 CumulativeEffects Associated with other DNRC Projects 60 Table 4.1: Other DNRC Missoula Unit Activities 60 S<0 List of Individuals Associated with the Project 61 6,0 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted and/or Provided Copies of this EA 62 7,0 References 63 FINDING TIMBER CREEK TIMBER SALE An interdisciplinary team (ID Team) has completed the Environmental AssesFment (EA> for the proposed Timber Creek Timber Sale prepared by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). Afliei a reviev/ of the EA pioject file, pubUc coire^ondence. Department Administrative Rules, policies, and the State Potest Land Management Plan (SFLMP), 1 have made the following decisions; 1. ALTERNATIVE SELECTED Tvjo alternatives were presented and the effects of each alternative were fully analyzed in the EA; 1. AJtemativ* A; Deferred Harvest { No Action Altetnative) 2. Altcmatlvfi B: Harvest [Action Altetnative ) Altetnative B proposes to harvest approximately 1,500.000 board feet of timber on ?43 acres. Alternative A does not include the harvest of any timber. Subsequent reviev/ determined thai the alternatives, as presented, constituted a reasonable range of potential activities. For thr following reasons, Ihivr relerted the Action Altemativr mthout additionil modifications: a) The Action Alternative meets the Project Need and the specific project objectives as described on pages 6 thiough S of the EA. The Action Alternative ■would produce an estimated $300,000 [J200/MBF) return to the Common School {GS} Trust, ■^rfiile providing a mechanism ivhereby the esi sting timber stands ■would be moved towaids conditions more like those, vjhich existed historically. b) The analysis of identified issues did not disclose any reason compelling the DNRC to not implement the timbei sale. c) The Action Alternative includes mitigation activities to address en^viranmenlal concerns identified during bath the Public Scoping phase and the project analysis. 2. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS Fordje following re atoTnL T itlnd. thar the Inplrm^vrsllan of AJitmsUve B will net have algnlflrutt impacli on the human en^vironmenl: a} Soils^ Leaving 10-15 tons of large, woody debris on site ■will proi/ide for long-teim soil pioductivity. Harvest mitigation measures such as skid trail planning and season of use limitations will Hmit the potential for severe soil impacts. b) Witfr QuiMly-The Action Alternative ■would improve the surface drainage on e si sting roads, install culverts, clean ditches and culverts and place gravel and silt fences in isolated ate as, thereby reducing the amount of current sedimentation ■within the project aiea. Water Quahty Best Management Practices for Montana Forests {BMP's) and the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) la^wwill be strictly adhered to during all operations involved v/ith the implementation of the Action Alternative. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment c> Gumultdve WsCfrshed EPPecU-Estimate din creases in annual water yield for the proposed action hap be en determined to be ne^igible by the DNRC Hydiologiat. Increase f in sediment yield are expected to be negligible due to the amount of area treated, location along the landscape, replacement and/or improvement of eMisting culverts and mitigations designed to minimize erosion. d) Cold Warei Fi^trlri- Due to planning and associated mitigation, it is unlikely that the proposed dmbei sale will affect large woody debris recruitment, shade or in-atream temperature in any lidi -bearing streams within the project area. e) Air Quallly-Any slash burning conducted as par: of the Timber Creek Timber Sale will be conducted in coordination with the Montana/Idaho Airslied group in order to ensure that ideal smoke dispersion conditions exist prior to ignidon and throughout the duration of any burning operations. As a result, impacts to air quality ^ould be minor and short in duration. f) NoitIdus Wee dt- Equipment ■will be cleaned prior to entering the project area, ■which ■will reduce the likelihood of weed seeds being introduced onto treated areas. The DNRC wrill monitor the project area for two years after harvest and ■will use an Integrated Weed Management strategy to control weed infestations should they occur. g) FoicEt Conditions and Forest Health- The proposed harvest will begin the process of reluming the timber stands within the project aieato those conditions that most likely existed on the site(s) prior to organized lire suppression. h} Log Truck Uwi of Public Ronds- Implementation of the recommended mitigatiDns-i.e. strict adherence to posted speed limits, dust control if necessary and restrictions on the use of compression brakes should minimize the opportunity for conflicts between log trucks, other traffic and/or residences within the project area. i) ORV Ac cess- Construction of earthen barriers across nev/ and existing roads and extensive signing notifying the public that ORV use is not allo^wed ■within the project area should address the esi sting problem of unauthorized ORV use. }) Visual QuTlli^-The Umited amount of ne^v permanent roads, a harvest prescription that leaves the largest, healthiest trees within treated stands, and minimizing the v/idth of cable corridors when yarding sleeper slopes ■will result in a minimal visual impact in the short term. The aesthetic quality of the project area should improve in the long term as trees remaining ■within treated stands increase in size and their crowns expand. k) Wildliff-The proposed harvest operations present a minimal likelihood of negative impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species. Those potential impacts that do exist have been mitigated to levels within acceptable thresholds. The same is true for those species that have been identified as "sensitive" by the DNRC. The effects of the proposed action on Big Game species would be lov? to moderate due to the closuie of 0.5 miles of exiting road and 1.39 miles of ne^v road and the retention of riparian buffers on Timber Creek and the West Fork of Timber Creek. 1) Economics- The Action Alternative would provide approximately 1300.000 (1200/MBF) in short-term revenue to the Common School Trust and doesnot limit the DNRG's options for generating revenue from these sites in the future. Timber Creek Timber Sale Envii-onmental Assessment 3. PRECEDENT SETTING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS- The project area if located on State-owned lands, which are "principally valuable for the timber that is on them or for growing timber or for watershed" (MCA 77-1-407}. The proposed action ia similar to pastprojectsthat have occurred in the area. Since the EA does not identify fuiure actions chat are new or unusual, [he proposed limber harvest is not setting precedence for a fucure action with signiii cant imp a cl s. Taken individually and cumulatively, the identiJied impacts of the proposed timber sale are wiihin p^ablished thie^old limits. Proposed timber sale activides aie common practices and none of the projecl activities are being conducted on fragile or unique dtes. The proposed timber sale canfoims to the management philosophy adapted by DNRG in the SFLMP and is in compliance with existing lavjs. Administrative Rules, and standards applicable to this type of action. 4. SHOULD DNRC PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)? Based on the following 1 find thai an. EIS doesnoineedto be prepared; a) TheEAadequaHely addressed the issues identified during project development, and displayed the infoimarion needed to make the peicinen: decisionSr b) Evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed timber sale indicates that significant impacts to the human environment will not occur as aresuli of the implementation of the Ac tion Al t e m ati ve . c) The ID Team provided suificient opportunities for public review and comment during project development and analysis. /jonethan E. Hansen Mjgaoula Unit Manager ApTil 23. 2007 Timber Creek Timber Sale Envirotimenlal Assessment Timber Creek Timber Sale Cover Sheet Proposed Action: The Montana Depailment of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), proposes I he harvest of timber on stale School Trust Lands. The sale under consideration would har\'esl approximately 1.5 million board feet of timber from approximately 243 acres in Sec! ion 16 T19N R30W (Figure 1.1). The proposed action would be implemented as early as July 2007 and could be completed by June 2009. Slash work and bnrning associated with the sale may not be completed until 2010. These dates are approximate. Type of document: Lead agency: Envii'onmental Assessment Montana Deparlment of Natural Resources and Conser\'ation (DNRC) Responsible official: Jonathan Hansen Unit Manager/Decision Maker Missoula Unit 1500 Tower Missoula, MT 59804 (406)542-5803 For further informahon: Wayne Lyngholm Managemenl Forester Missoula Unit 1500 Tower Missoula, MT 59804 (406) 542-4245 Special Nole: Comments received in response lo this Environmental Assessment will be available for public inspection and will be released in their entirely, if requested, pursuant to the Montana Constitution. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment How to Read this EA (Environmental Assessment) To read this EA more effectively, carefully study this page. Following Stale reguliitions^ we have designed and written this EA (1) to provide the Projecl Decision Maker with sufficient informalion to make an informed, reasoned decision concerning the proposed Timber Creek Timber Sale and (2) lo inform members of the affected and intere^led public of this project so that Ihey may express Iheir opinions lo the Project Decision Maker. This EA follows the organizalion and content established by ihe Environmental Quality Council (EQC) Regulations (ARM 36.2.521-36.2.543). Thi^ EA consisis of the following chapters. KO Purpose and Need for Action 2.0 Alternatives, Including Ihe Proposed Action 3.0 Affecled Environmenl 4.0 E n V iron men lal C on s eq u en ces 5.0 List of Preparers 6.0 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted 7.0 References 8.0 Appendix Chapters 1 and 2 together serve as an Executive Summary. We have written Ihese two chapters so that non-technical readers can undersland Ihe potential environmenlal, technical* economic, and social consequences of taking and of not taking action. • Chapter 1 inlroduces the Timber Creek Timber Sale, ll provides a very brief descriplion of the proposed Timber Creek Timber Sale and Ihen explains three key ihings about the projecl; (1) the relevant environmental issues. (2) the decisions that the Project Decision \faker nnist make concerning this projecl, and (3) the relevani laws, regiilalions, and consultations wilh which the DNRC must comply. Chapter 2 serves as Ihe heart of this EA. It provides delailed descriplions of Allernative A; Deferred HarvesI (No Aclion) and Alternalive B: HarvesI. Mosi importani, il includes a summary comparison of Ihe predicted effects of these two alternatives on the human environment, providing a clear basis for choice between Ihe two allernatives for the Projecl Decision Maker and Ihe Public. Chapter 3 briefly describes the pasi and curreni conditions of the relevani resources (issiies) in the project area thai would be meaningfully affecled, establishing a part of the baseline used for the comparison of the predicted effects of the alternatives. Chapter 4 presents the detailed, analytic predictions of Ihe consequences of implementing Alternalive A and Allernative B. These predictions include Ihe direct, indirect, short term, longterm, irreversible, irretrievable, and cumulative effects of implementing the alternalive Timber Creek Timber Sale Enviroiiniental Assessment 1.0 Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 1.1 Proposed Action: Harvest The Montana Departmenl of Nalural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) proposes (o hai-vesl timber in the Timber Creek area. The proposed pi-ojecl is located in Section 16, TI9N R30W of Mineral County appioximalely 3 miles northwest of Haugan, Montana (see Figure 1.1). Timber Creek is tributary to the St. Regis River. Under Alternative B: Harvest, the DNRC would harvest approximately 1.5 million board feet of limber from 243 aci'es. The proposed action would be implemented as early as July 2007 and could be completed by June 2009. Slash work and burning associated with the sale may not be completed until 2010. 1 .2 P roject N eed The lands involved in this proposed project are held by the State of Montana in trust for the support of specific beneficiaiy institutions. These include public schools, state colleges and universities, and other specific slate institutions such as the School for the Deaf and Blind (Enabling Act, February 22, 1889; 1972 Montana Constitution, Article X, Section II). The Boaid of Land Commissioners and Departmenl of Nalural Resources and Conservation are required by law to administer these Trust Lands to produce the largest measure of reasonable and legitimate advantage over the long run for these beneficiaiy institutions (Section 77-1-202, MCA). On May 30, 1996, Ihe Department released the Recoid of Decision on the State Foi^est Land Management Plan (SFLMP). The Land Board appi-oved the implementation of the SFLMP on June 17, 1996. The SFLMP outlines Ihe philosophy of DNRC for the management of state forested Trust Lands. The Departmenl will manage the lands involved in this project according to the philosophy in the SFLMP, which states the following: Our preiii ise is thai the bt si w ay to product long-lenn iucom e for the trusi is to m anage intf nsively for lieallhy and biologically d iverse forests. jr understand in g is that a diverse fores! is a stable fores! !ha! w ill produce Ihe m os! reliable and highest long -!erm revenjt stream . ... In Ihe foreseeable future iim ber niana^emenl vi ill continue lo be ourprimary source of revenue and our primary loo [ for achieving biod iversily objectives iD N RC , SFLM P Record of D ecision 1996 |ROD-l]J.' M ouniain pine beetle [dendrocionous ponderosae) has infected the lodgepole pine dominated stands in the pi-oject area, resulting in declining forest heahh and increased fuel loading. Treatment is necessary to recover the value of dying limber for the trust beneficiaiy and improve the productivity of these stands. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment Figure 1.1 Timber Creek Project Vicinity Section 16 T19N R30W River/l-90 West Tim ber Creek Pro|ect Area 6 Miles N Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 1.3 Objectives of the Proposed Action (Desired Outcomes and Conditions) In order lo meet Ihe goals of llie management pliilosopliy adopted llirough programmatic review in Ihe SFLMP, the Depailmenl has set the following specific piojecl objectives: • Harvest sufficient limber volume lo generate revenue for Ihe Common School (CS) Trusl grant. • Recover Ihe value of lodgepole pine thai is dead, dying or Ihrealened by mountain pine beetle. • Manage Ihe pi-ojecl area for heallhy and biologically diverse forests to maximize long term income for the Trust. 1.4 Decisions to be made The Decision Maker will analyze Ihe project and provide a decision in Ihe Finding at the end of this document. Specifically, the Decision Maker will perform the following: • Determine if alternatives meet the project objectives. • Determine which alternative should be selected. • Determine if the selected aUemative would cause significant effect(s) to the human environment, requiring the preparation of an Envii-onmental Impact Statement (EIS). • Determine the economic and logistical feasibility of the project. 1.5 Relationship to the State Forest Land Management Plan and Rules The State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP) established the agency's philosophy for the management of forested Trust Lands. The management direction provided in the SFLMP comprises the framework for project planning and forest management activities. The plan philosophy and appropriate rules have been incorporated into the design of the proposed action. The pi-oposed action is limited to specific management activities that are needed to implement the project and provide resource protection. This assessment documents site- specific analysis and is not a general management plan or a programmatic analysis of ihe area. The scope of this envii-on mental assessment (EA) was determined thiough DNRC intei-disciplinary analysis and public involvement. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 1.6 History of the Planning and Scoping Process Commenls from Ihe general public, interest gi-oups, and agency specialisis were solicited in 2005. A newspaper ailicle was published in The Mineral Independent in Febmary, 2005. Public notices legarding the pi-oposed sale were posted along roads adjacent to the sale area. Written and/or verbal comments were I'eceived from the following individuals and/or organizations: Re.\ Lincoln, Jeanie Sage, The Ecology Center Inc» Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks and Alliance for the Wild Rockies. The following resource specialists were involved in the project design, assessment of potential impacts^ and development of mitigation measures: Wayne Lyngholm - DNRC Forester, Missoula Unit Jeff Rupkalvis- DNRC Supervising Forester, Missoula Unit Jon Hansen - DNRC Missoula Unit Manager Jeff Collins - DNRC Hydrologist/Soil Scientist, Southwest Land Office Mike McGrath - DNRC Wildlife Biologist, Southwest Land Office Pat Rennie - DNRC ArcheologisI, Agricuhure and Grazing Management Bureau, Helena. 1.7 Other Environmental Assessments (EA's) Related to this Project Removitl of m itierial from the stale gravel pit for road improvements is addressed in a separate EA . 1.8 Permits, Licenses, and Other Authorizations Required Reconstruction of a temporaiy bridge across the West Fork of Timber Creek would require 124 permit authorization fi-om the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. An approach fi-om county maintained road to proposed road construction i-equires authorization from planning and road departments of Mineral County. 1.9 Issues and Concerns Communication within the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and comments received through scoping were used to identify issues related to the pioject. A summaiy of these concerns is presented below. • Lodgepole pine mortality would continue in the absence of treatment, resuUing in lost revenue to the trust and increased fire hazard. • Stand productivity and tree vigor would continue to decline in the absence of treatment, reducing long-term benefit to the trust. • Slash from timber harvest activities could increase fire hazard and temporarily reduce the aesthetic quality of the site. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment Equipmenl operalion could temporarily impact the aesthetic quality of adjacent residences and |X)lenlially create a fire hazaid. Equipment and log truck operation could interfere with snowmobile recreation on groomed trails. Log trucks could create noise^ dust and threaten public safety on roads. The proposed project could spread noxious weeds. Increased soil compaction and erosion could occur as a resuU of the proposed projecl. The proposed projecl could have a direct effect on water quality, cold-water fisheries and fish habitat. The proposed project could impact species classified as threatened and endangered including Canada lynx. Grizzly bears, Gray Wolves and Bald Eagles. The proposed project could impact species classified as sensitive including Elammulated Owls, Pileated Woodpeckers, Eishers, Black-backed Woodpeckers, Peregrine Ealcons, Townsend's Big -eared Bats, Coeurd'Alene Salamanders, Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse, Common Loons, Harlequin Ducks, Mountain Plovers and Noilhem Bog Lemmings. The proposed project could impact other protected species including Northern Goshawks. The proposed project could impaci big game including White-tailed deer. Elk and Moose. Cultural or archeological sites may exist on the si(e that could be altered by the proposed project. Use of Off Road Vehicles (ORV*s) is occurring off road and on roads closed to motorized vehicles in the project area and could increase as a resuh of new i-oad construction. Timber hai^est could create stand conditions differing fi-om those that existed historically. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 10 1.9.1 Issues Studied in Detail 1.9.1.1 Geology/Soil Resources The pioposed maiiagemeiil aclivilies could adversely effect geologic or soil resources Ihiough displacement or compaction. Equipment ojieralioiis and limber harvest on wet sites or sensitive soils could result in soil impacts that effecl soil productivity depending on the area and degree of soil unpads. 1.9.1.2 Water Quality Land management activities such as timber harvest and load construction could impact water quality primarily by accelerating sediment deliveiy to local stream channels and draw bottoms. These impacts are caused by erosion from road surfaces, skid trails, log landings and by the removal of vegetation along stream channels. 1.9.1.3 Cumulative Watershed Effects Cumulative watershed effects can be characlerized as impacts on water quality and quantity that resuh fi-om the interaction of disturbances, both human-caused and natural. Timber harvest activities can affect the timing of runoff, increase peak flows and increase (he total annual water yield of a particular drainage. 1.9.1.4 Cold Water Fisheries Land management activities such as timber harvest and i-oad construction can impact fish habitat primarily by accelerating sediment delivery to local stream channels and by decieasing large woody debris recruitment through the removal of trees near the stream channel. 1.9.1.5 Noxious Weeds Following disturbance events such as limber hai-vesl aclivilies, invasion and spread of noxious weeds is more prevalent than in undisturbed areas. Noxious weed invasion and spread negatively influences surface cover, erosion and native species. 1.9.1.6 Forest Conditions and Forest Health Timber harvest aclivilies could produce stand conditions (e.g. structure and species composition) that differ from historic conditions. Conversely, forest productivity and individual tree health would continue to decline in the absence of treatment. Lodgepole pine moilality could accelerate due to increasing mountain pine beetle infestation, resuhing in heavy dead fuel accumulation. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 11 1.9.1.7 Heavy Truck Traffic and Public Safety Log hauling on public roads could creale dust, noise and may pose a Iraffic safety hazard. 1.9.1.8 ORV access Construction of new i-oads and removal of natural barriers (trees and logs) could allow incieased occuirence of ORV (four wheelers and motorcycles) use in areas closed to motorized vehicles. l.y.1.9 Visual Quality Thiiber harvesting and load construction associated with the pro|X)sed action could adversely affect the aesthetic value of this arca. Roads, skid trails, skyline yarding corridors and canopy openings may appear unnatural from a distance. Untreated logging slash, damaged trees, stumps, skid trails, uniform thinning and canopy cover reduction may detract from the natural appearance associated with un-managed forests. 1.9.1.10 Economic Benefits and Project Revenue Concern has been raised that the pioposed pi-oject might not be economically viable. 1.9.1.11 Fire Hazard Operation of logging equipment and logging slash pi-oduction could increase the risk of wildfire. Conversely, the continued mortality of dense lodgepole pine stands could create hazardous dead fuel accumulations. 1.9.1.12 Endangered Species 1.9.1.12.1 Grizzly Bears Timber harvest and associated activities could alter habitat or create disturbance (hat could be detrimental to grizzly bears. 1.9.1.12.2 Canada Lynx Timber harvest and associated activities could alter habitat orcreale disturbance (hat could be detrimental to lynx. 1.9.1.12.3 Cray Wolves Timber harvest and associated activities could alter habitat or create disturbance that could be detrimental to giay wolves. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 12 1.9.1.13 Sensitive Species 1.9.1.13.1 Flammulated Owls Timber harvesling cou[d alter habitat or create disturbance that could be detrimental to Ihe Ftammulated owl. 1.9.1.13.2 Pileated Woodpeckers Timber harvest and associated activities could alter habital orcreale disturbance Ihat could be detrimental to pileated woodpeckers. 1.9.1.13.3. Fishers Timber harvest and associated activities could alter habita( or create disturbance that could be detrimental to fishers. 1.9.1.14 Big Game 1.9.1.14.1 White-tailed Deer and Elk Timber harvest and associated activities could alter habitat orcreale disturbance that could be detrimental to whhe-tailed deer and elk summer range. 1.9.1.14.2 Moose Timber harvest and associated activities could alter habitat or create disturbance that could be detrimental to moose winter range. 1.9.1.15 Other Species 1.9.1.15.1 Northern Goshawk Timber harvest and associated activities could alter habital orcreale disturbance Ihat could be detrimental to noilhern goshawks. 1.9.2 Issues Eliminated from Further Study 1.9.2.1 Endangered Species 1.9.2.1.1 Bald Eagles There is concern that the proposed action and resuhing habitat alterations could create conditions that ai'e detrimental to bald eagles. Bald eagles typically nest and roost in large diameter trees within 1 mile of open water. They are sensitive to a variety of human caused disturbances, ranging fi-om residential activities to resource use and heavy Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 13 equipment operation, aiiiong others (Montana Bald Eagle Working Group 1994). Bald eagle response to such aclivilies may range fiom spatial and temporal avoidance of disturbance activities to total repixxluctive failure and abandonment of breeding areas (MBEWG 1994). While foraging, they typically pereh within 500 m of shoreline habital (Mersmann I9S9); and roost in trees ranging in diameter from 12 to 39 inches and 49 to 200 feel in height (Stalmaster 1987). The neaiest known bald eagle territories are located approximately 17 miles northeast of the project area. Due to the distance involved, there would be minimal risk of direct, indiiect, and cumulative effects to this species as a resull of the proposed action. 1.9.2.2 Sensitive Species 1.9.2.2.1 Black-backed Woodpecker There is concern thai timber harvesi aclivities would disturb black -backed woodpeckers. This species is most often associated with areas that recently experienced stand -rep lacing fire (Hutto 1995). There aie no recently burned aieas near the project area. As a result, the pro|X)sed action would likely have low risk of direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this s|iecies due to a lack of potentially suhable habitat in close proximity to the pi-oject area. 1.9.2.2.2 Peregrine Falcon There is concern that timber harvesi aclivhies would disturb nesting peregrine falcons. The nearest known peregrine falcon nest is located appioximately 32 miles east of the project area. Thus, the proposed action would have minimal risk of direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this species. 1.9.2.2.3 Townsend^s Big-eared Bat Townsend's big-eared bats occur in a wide vaiiety of habitats, yet its dislribution tends lo be strongly correlated with the availability of caves and old mines for roosting habitat. Population concentrations occur in areas with substantial surface exposures of cavity forming rock, and in old mining districts (Pierson et al. 1999). This species is primarily a cave dwelling species that also roosts in old mine workings. It is a relatively non- migratory bat, for which no long-distance migrations have been reported. The Townsend's big-eared bat does not generally associate with other species in hs i-oosts, pailicularly at maternity and hibernating sites. The generally accepted mitigations for this species (e.g., Pierson et al. 1999) recommend a 500 fl radius buffer around mine and cave entrances to minimize disturbance around I'oost shes. Much of the mining activity in which adhs or mine shafts are used occur >0.75 mile from the project area. As a resuh, there would be low risk of direct, indirect, or cumulalive effects to this species as a resuh of the pi-oposed action. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 14 1.9.2.2.4 Coeiir d'Alene Salamander There is concern that limber liarvesl aclivities could affect Ihis species. This s|>ecies requires waleifall spray zones, talus, or cascading streams. There are no known areas of talus, waterfalls, or splash zones within the affected area. Thus, the proposed action would have low risk of direct, indirect, or cumulative effects (o Ihis species. 1.9.2.2.5 Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse There is concern lha( limber harvesi aclivities could affect this species. The nearest known population of Columbian Sharp-tailed grouse occurs near Ovando, MT. Because of the distance involved, the proposed action would likely have kjw risk of direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this species. 1.9.2^.6 Common Loon The common loon is a fish-eating bird that breeds and nests on lakes and ponds. The neaiesl known observation foi' common loons is on Flathead Lake (Montana Naluial Heritage Database). Thus, this area is not connected through the stream network with the pro|X)sed project area. Therefore, there is a low risk of direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to common loons as a resuh of ihe proposed project and this species will not be analyzed further in this document. 1.9.2.2.7 Harlequin Duck Harlequin ducks require white-water streams with boulder and cobble substrates, as well as dense riparian vegetation. Such conditions do not exist within, or downstream of the analysis area. Thus, there would be low risk of direct, indirecl, or cumulative effects to (his species. 1.9.2.2.8 Mountain Plover The short -grass prairie habitats, or heavily grazed taller grass prairie habitats, required by this species are not present within the harvest area. Thus, the pioposed action would have low risk of direct, indirecl, or cumulative effects to this species. 1.9.2.2.9 Northern Bog Lemming The sphagnum meadows, bogs or fens with thick moss mats required by this species are not present within the hawest area. Thus, the proposed action would have low risk of direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this species. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 15 2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2.1 Iiilroduction Chapter 2 describes Ihe allernalives developed and considei-ed in this EA. Summaries and comparisons are included for the aclivities associated with each aUernative. The potential environmental consequences of these activities are included for comparison. Information regarding alternatives is presented in greater del ail in chapters 3 and 4. 2.2 Development of Alternatives 2.1.1 History and Process Used to Formulate Allernatives Public scoping was initiated in December of 2004. Three wntten responses to scoping were received from external parlies (Rex Lincoln, Montana FWP and The Ecology Center) and the project leader held discussions with individual adjacent landowners. In July of 2006, a DNRC Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) began project aiea analysis and internal review to develop a management plan. Scoping res|X)nse and IDT input identified issues and sliaped alternatives. Issues identified during the scoping process are summarized in Chapter 1 . The Action Alternative was developed to address relevani issues and meet the requirements of the Administrative Rules for Forest Management and the Trust Land Mandate. 2.2.2 Selection Criteria The DNRC IDT identified the following design and evaluation criteria: • Compliance with the/ State of Montana Trust Land Mandate • Compliance with the Montana En vii-on mental Policy Act (MEPA) • Compliance with the Montana Administrative Rules for Forest Management aiid Montana Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) Law • Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) • Compliance with all other applicable Federal and State of Montana Laws and Regulations. 2.3 Description of Alternatives Alternative B: Harvest was developed to address relevant issues, comply with applicable regulations, provide effective mitigation for potential impacts and achieve project objectives. Consequently, only the Harvest and No Action ahernatives will be considered within this document. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 16 2.3.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) Activities associated with Alternative B: Hawest would nol occur on the pi-oject area at this lime. No re venue would be generated for the Common School Trust for the specific lands included within Ihe project area. DNRC approved activities would continue in the project area. Lodgepole pine mortality would likely continue, resulting in lost revenue to the trust, non-compliance with the trust mandate and continued accumulation of hazardous tliels. 2.3.2 Alternative B: Harvest The proposed hawest would include removal of approximately 1. 1 MMBF (million board feet) of dead, dying and threatened lodgepole pine fi-om approximately 220 acres thiough a combination of Individual Tree Selection and Overstory Removal prescriptions (Figure 2. 1: Alternative B: Haivesl). The vast majority of existing mature western larch, western white pine, Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine would be retained, as well as the established advanced regeneration that currently occupies the understory. 23 acres of overstocked Douglas-fir and |x>nderosa pine stands would be commercially thinned to reduce competition and improve stand productivity (Figure 2.1: Ahernative B: Hai^est). This thinning would remove appioximately 400 MBF (thousand board feet) of saw logs. Slash would be processed in Ihe woods or return skidded from the landings lo facilitate nutrient cycling. Protection of established regeneration and beaUhy retention trees from equipment damage would be a priority. Approximately 1.39 miles of new load consliuction would provide permanent access to the east half of the section. Approximately I mile of existing road would be impi-oved to meet Best Management Practices (BMP) standards for forest roads in conjunction with the implementation of Alternative B: Harvest. A temporary bridge would be installed on an existing site on the West Fork of Timber Creek. 2.39 miles of roads would be |x>sted and closed to motor vehicles with earthen and vegetative bairiers upon completion of the sale. Planting of western larch and western white pine seedlings and weed spraying may occur after harvesi to achieve forest impiovemenl objectives. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 17 Figure 2.1 Alternative B: Harvest Legend E:rove road suiface stability and surface blading. • New roads would be closed to motor vehicles upon completion of harvest activilies. • N cw If CDBSIructEd or Ki:or&lrji:ied roid cul^, hJIs asd di&liLrbcd soils « on Id be i|rass seed f d im m ed iaiely afler ei c a wiion . • Road ditches with direct delivery to streams or ephemeral draws would be fihered at the ditch outlet by using slash or filter fabric and straw bales. 2.4.1.3 Temporary Bridge Deagn and Installation • Filler fabric fence or appropriate erosion control would be installed between fill and stream banks. • Bridge pad and installation would meet the requirements of the FWP 124 permit issued for this project for stream protection. 2.4.2 Noxious Weed Mitigations • All road construction and hawest equipment would be cleaned of plant parts, mud and weed seed to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds. • Equipment would be subject lo inspection by the Forest Officer prior to moving on- site. • Newly constructed or reconstructed load cuts, fills and disturbed soils would be grass seeded immediately after excavation. 2.4.3 Forest Conditions and Forest Health Mitigations • Predominant natural disturbance regimes are required prog ram malic ally (ARM 36. 1 1 .408) to be the basis for determining silvicuhural systems and associated treatment prescriptions. • Treatments would be designed to achieve the appropriate stand cover types defined by TheDNRC Stand Level Inventory (DNRC S LI 2004) as inquired by ARM 36.11.405. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 20 2.4.4 Heavy Truck Traffic and Public Safely Mitigations • Posted truck speed limils in residential areas would be 25 mph. • As a contract stipulation, dusl control would be applied near residences on unpaved iv^ads. • As a contract stipulation^ compression brake use near residences would be prohibited. 2.4.5 ORV Access Mitigations • Earthen barriers would be constructed across new road and existing road segments. • Signs would display road closure restrictions where roads enter the project area. 2A.6 Visual Quality Mitigations • As a contract stipulation, all species other than [odgepole pine would be retained in Individual Tree Selection (ITS) harvest unhs. • Retention tree canopy would effectively hide skyline coriidors and roads in cable harvest units. 2.4.7 WrWIife Mitigations 2.4.7.1 General Wildlife Mitigations • If active den sites or nest sites of threatened, endangei'ed, senshive species, or raptors were located within the Project Area, activhies would cease until a DNRC wildlife biologist could review the site and develop species appropriate protective measures. • ORV access within the Project Area would be restricted to minimize wildlife disturbance, incidental affects to important habitat features such as snags and downed woody debris, to reduce |X)tential moilality effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive s|>ecies, and lo reduce big game harvest vulnerability. • Motorized vehicle restricticms would be maintained and earthen and slash vehicle barriers installed. 2.4.7.2 Cray Wolf Mitigations • 0.5 mile of existing road would be effectively closed. • Approximately 1.39 miles of proposed new road would be effectively closed after harvest operations cease. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmenlal Assessment 21 • Riparian buffers of 75 feel or greater would be retained on Timber Creek and the We si Fork Timber Creek. 2.4.7.3 Gri'Liiy Bear Mitigations • Effect ive closure of appi-oximately 0.5 mile of existing road. • Approximately 1.39 miles of pro|x>sed new road would be effectively closed after harvest operations cease. • Retention of riparian buffers on Timber Creek and West Fork Timber Creek (minimum 75 ft width). 2.4.7.4 Canada Lynx Mitigations • Riparian buffers would be retained on Timber Creek and West Fork Timber Creek (minimum 75 ft width). • Snag recruits would be clustered within I tree length of ripaiian buffers lo provide future prey habitat. 2.4.7.5 Northern Goshawk Mitigations • Retention of riparian buffers on Timber Creek and West Fork Timber Creek (minimum 75 ft width). • Cluster snag recruits within 1 tree Pength of riparian buffers to provide future nesting and foraging habitat. 2.4.7.6 Big Game (White-tailed Deer. Elk and Moose) Mitigations • Effeclive closure of appi-oximately 0.5 mile of existing road. • Effective closure of approximately 1.39 miles of proposed road post-harvest. • Retention of riparian buffers on Tiinber Creek and West Fork Timber Creek (minimum 75 ft width). 2.4.8 Fire Hazard Mitigations • During periods of high fire danger, timber harvest may be balled or allowed with night-time operating restrictions. • Equipment and operators would be requiied to possess and maintain fire suppression equipment during periods of high fire danger. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 22 2.5 Description of Relevant Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future DNRC Activities Not Part of the Proposed Action. 2.5.1 Past Relevant Actions 2.5.1.1 Timber M an agem en t Approximately 200 acres within the pi-qject area were commercially thinned in 1996. Approximately 1 .5 miles of lemporaiy roads were constructed and rehabililaled in conjunction with this projecl. 2.5.2 Present Relevant Actions 2.5.2.1 Recreation Motorized and non-motorized recreation occurs in the project ai'ea. ORV's commonly opeiate on gated closed roads and off i-oad. Snowmobile riding occurs on groomed public roads in the vicinity. 2.5.3 Future Relevant Actions 2.5.3.1 Timber Management ^e-commei-cial thinning would be appropriate within a decade of the completion of hai"vest activities lo reduce competition, select for desirable s|>ecies and reduce understory fuel accumulation. Firewood cutting would likely continue in the absence of hai-vest. Commercial timber harvest could likely occur within 10-30 years. 2.5.3.2 Recreation Barriers and signs would be installed to manage illegal ORV use behind locked gales. Snowmobiling and non-motorized recreation would continue. 2.5.3.3 Road Management DNRC administered roads in the project area would be maintained to comply with current BMP^s. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmenlal Assessment 23 2.6 Summary Comparison of Activities, the Predicted Achievement of the Project Objectives, and the Predicted Environmental Effects of All Alternatives 2.6.1 Summarj' Comparison of Activities The following lable provides a comparison of activilies associated with each alternative. Table 2.1 Summary Comparison of Activities Activity Alt. A: No Action Alt. B: Harvest Estimated Harvest Volume (million board feet) 1.5 Estimated Gioss Revenue to the Stale (est. stumpage rate of $200/mbf + Forest Improvement Income of Sl6.27/mbf) $324,405 Estimated Net Revenue to the Common School Trust (est. stumpage rate of $200/mbf) $300,000 Estimated Forest Improvement Income ($l6.27/mbf) $24,405 Acres of Projecl Area Lodgepole Pine Stands Treated 215(77^) Total Acres within Project Area 400 400 Total Project Area Acres Treated 248(62^) Individual Tree Selection Prescription (acres) ISS Overstoiy Removal Prescription (acres) 37 Commercial Thin Prescription (acres) 23 Tractor Yarding (acres) 225 Cable Yarding (acres) 23 New Road Construclion (miles) 1.39 Open Roads (miles) 1.4 .9 Closed Roads (miles) .5 2.5 2.6.2 Predicted Achievement of Project Objectives By design. Alternative B: Harvest would meet the project objectives. Appi-oximalely $3 1 5,000 of gioss revenue would be generated to benefit the Common Schools tiust as required by the trust mandate. Dead, infected and threatened lodgepole pine would be removed from 215 acres. 23 acres of overstocked mature Douglas- fir would be thinned to reduce competilion. The alternative would apply natural disturbance emulating prescriptions to achieve desired future stand conditions. Treatment would favor an appi-opriale mix of stand structures and maintain stand productivity. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmenlal Assessment 24 The following table piovides a summaiy of predicted achievement of project objeclives by alternatives. Table 2.2 Predicted Attainment of Project Objectives Project Objective Indicator of Alternative A: Alternative B: Attainment Deferred Harvest (No Action) Harvest Harvest sufficient timber volume to Volume to be No saw timber Approximately 1.5 geneiate revenue Harvested. would be harvested million board feet for the Common to generate revenue of saw timber School (CS)trusl for the Common would be harvested ^rant. Schools Trust. to venerate revenue Recover the value of lodge|X)le pine Percent of pi-ojecl No lodgepole pine Approximately that is dead. i^yiKg area lodgepole pine stands would be 17% of project area or threatened by stands treated. treated. lodgepole pine mountain pine stands would be beetle. treated. Manage the project area for healthy Acres to be treated Approximately 250 and biologically through a|>plicalioii No treatment would acies would be diverse forests to of appropriate OCCUI\ treated. maximize long silvicultural term income for prescription. the Trust. Thnber Creek Timber Sale EnvironmenCal Assessment 25 2.6.3 Summary Comparison of Predicted Environmental Effects The following (able provides a sunimaiy compaiison of the predicted effects of alternatives. Table 2.3 Summary Comparison of Predicted Ef ects of Alternatives Issue Allernalive A-Deferied Alternative B-HaiTest Harvest (No Action) Minimal effects on soil Harvest mitigation resources. Existing roads measures (e.g., skid trail would require routine maintenance to help reduce planning and limits on season of use) would limit potential future impacts. soil impacts to \5% or less of haivest area. Retention Soil Resources of coarse woody debris would facilitate long term nutrient cycling, maintain long-term soil pi-oductivity and I'educe on-sile ei-osion. Low risk of direct, indirect or cumulalive impacts to soil resources. Minimal effects on water Harvest activities and road quality. Wildfii'e hazard construction are not associated with stand level expected to increase Water Oi's'ily lodgepole pine mortality could uhimately cause water quality impacts in the absence of harvesl. sediment yield to stream channels through implementat ion of B M P' s mitigations. Low risk of unpacts to water quality or downstream beneficial uses. No change from current The action alternative condition. Slight water presents low risk of yield increase could occur cumulative effects from from continued lodgepole increased water yield or Cumulative Watershed pine morlahty. sedimentation. Ei-osion Effects control and site specific mitigation measures would prevent long-term impacts to downstream water quality or beneficial uses. Timber Creek Timber Sale EnvironmenCal Assessment 26 Issue Alternative A: Deferred Har\est (No Action) Alternative B: Harvest Cold Water Fisheries No effects to fisheries are predicted under the Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) Low risk of changes in stream function, sedimentation or lemperalure impacts to fish habitat based on implementation of the SMZ Law and Forest Management Administrative Rules, Best Management Practices and site- specific mitigations. Noxious Weeds Gradual increase in weed density over time. Integrated weed management efforts would continue on the site. Potential increase in noxious weed density and occurrence compared to the Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) due to soil disturbance and decreased tree canopy, integrated weed management efforts would continue on the site. Control effoils would emphasize ti'eatment of any new noxious weeds. Fores( Conditions Lodgepole pine moilality would likely increase due to an epidemic |X)pulalion of mountain pine beetle. Dead fuel accumulation could increase |X)tential risk of stand replacing fire and hazard to adjacent propeily Harvesting would move the stands closer to pre- sett lenient conditions dominated by serai s|>ecies and promote recruitment of western larch and western white pine. Growth rates and health of trees would improve due to a reduction in stocking levels Heavy Truck traffic and public safety No change fiom current condition. Dust level may be reduced through dust abatement adjacent to homes. Log tiTJck traffic may create a temporary' noise disturbance and safety hazard to adjacent residents. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 27 Issue Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) Alternative B : Harvest Visual Qi'Eility No change fixjm current state. Increased potential for stand replacement wildfire. Treated stands would have a more open appearance. Sleeper slopes that are visible from a distance would have a mottled gi-een and white appearance in the winter in contrast to their solid green appeaiance now. Retention trees would mostly obscure new i-oads. Skid trails, slash and stumps may cieate a short term negative impact. Fire Hazard Dead fuel accumulation would likely increase in conjunction with ladder fuel development in the understory. Temporaiy low to moderate risk of fire hazard due to equipment ignition sources and slash production. Fire hazard would be reduced in the long term by lemoving dead standing fuel accumulations. Endangered Species Canada Lynx No change fiom current condition would be expected. Low risk of direct, indirect and cumulative effects to Canada lynx from the pi-oposed action. Grizzly Bear No change fiom current condition would be expected. Low risk of direct, indirect and cumulative effects to Grizzly Bears fi-om the pi-oposed action. Gray Wolf No change fi-om current condition would be expected. Low risk of direct, indirect and cumulative effects to wolves from the proposed action. Sensitive Species Flammulated Owl No change fi-om current condition would be expected. Low risk of direct, indirecl and cumulative effects to faulted owls from the pi-oposed action. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 28 Issue AUeniative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) Alternative B: Harvest Pilealed woodpecker No change fi-oni current condition would be expected . Low to moderate risk of direct, indirect and cumulative effects to pileated woodpeckers fi-om the pioposed action. Fisher No Change from current condition would be expected. Low risk of direct, indirecl and cumulative effects to fishers from the pro|X)sed action. Bjg Game White-tailed deer and Elk No change fiom current condition would be expected. Low risk of direct, indirect and cumulative effects to deer and elk summei' range habitat from the proposed action. Moose No change fioni current condition would be expected Low risk of direct, indirect and cumulative effects to moose winter range habitat fi-om the i>roposed action. 111 er Sp ecies Northern Gosliawk No change fioiii current condition would be expected. Low to moderate risk of direct, indirect and cumulative effects from Ihe pioposed action. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 29 3.0 Affected Environment 3.1 liilroduction Chapter 3: Exisling Condilions describes Ihe relevant resoui\:es Ihat would affect or be affected by the alternatives if I hey were implemented. This chapter also describes the existing envii-onmenl and includes effects of past and ongoing management activities within the analysis area Ihat might affect project implementation and operation. In conjunction with the description of the Alternative A: Deferred Haivest (No Action) in Chapter 2 and with the predicted effects of the alternatives, the public can compare the effects of Alternative B: Harvest. 3.2 Description of Relevant Resources 3.2.1 Geology & Soils The proposed harvest is located in the Timber Creek alluvial valley and foothills above (he Si. Regis River. Primary parent materials ai'e deep alluvium. Lake Missoula sediments and glacial tills derived fiom Belt series, limestone bedrock. The majority of the project area is located on mainly moderate slopes of 4-35^ with lesser areas of 35 to 60'it. No unstable or unique geology occurs on the project aiea. Shallow bedrock may occur on steeper slopes in the noilhwest, but should be ripable and not restrict road construction. Primary soils are Savenac silt loams forming the gently rolling terraces in the center of section bounded by Drexel shaly siU loams, Holloway stony loams and included ai'eas of Craddock soils, on the fool slopes (as referenced in StRegis-Ninemile Soil Survey and DNRC review). Savenac soils have a I'eddish brown, volcanic ash silt loam surface, over deep sihy clay subsoils fi-om mixed glacial Lake Missoula and alluvial sediments. Savenac soils in this area have a higher content of gravels and cobbles than typical. These soils have poor bearing strength and are susceptible to compaction and rutting if operated on when wet, but are suitable for ground based equipment operations if dry or frozen. Erosivity is moderate and increases to high on sleeper slopes. Eiosion can be effectively controlled with standard drainage practices. Soil displacement and compaction hazards are moderate for harvest o|>erations and can be mitigated by limiting disturbance and season of use. Unsurfaced roads are prone to rutting if operated on when wet. These soils are productive, suppoiling lodgepole, Douglas fir» larch and white pine. Drexel and Craddock soils are well drained, deep shaly sih loam subsoils. Craddock and Holloway soils have a volcanic ash surface and are more productive than Drexel soils, which occur on drier sites and have little or no ash surface. Primaiy concerns aie compaction and displacement. These limitations can be overcome by limiting operations to dry, frozen or snow conditions. Drexel and Holloway soils have the longest season of use. Predominate slo|>es of 10-45*^ are well suited to giound based skidding operations. Skidding on slopes over 40% are at higher risk of soil displacement and erosion. Deeper Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmenlal Assessment 30 soils m swales and ripariaii areas supporling aspen remain wel laler in Ihe spring and are prone lo rulting if operated on when wel. Relatively dry or frozen soils are resislant lo rulling and compaction. A previous commercial thinning harvest in 1996 used well placed skid trails and season of use limitations consistent with Best Management Practices. Operations occurred on 20*^ of the area within the harvest units and soil impacts arc estimated to be 10% or less of the area based on field rcview of the harvest units and previous monitoring (Collins 2004). No previous harvest effects have occuired in the pi-oposed cable harvest areas. No eroded trails or BMP depailures were noted and large woody debris is well dispersed across the arca from the previous harvest. 3.2.2 Water Quality and Effected Watershed 3.2.2.1 Existing Conditions The watershed analysis area for this project includes the Timber Creek drainage that supports a mixed forest of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, pondeiosa pine, western white pine and spruce. The pi-oposed Timber Creek Timber Sale project is located on state trust land within Section 16, T19N, R30W of Mineral County (Figure 3.1). The project area is on the foothill slopes in the lower poilion of the Timber Creek watershed (HUC 17010204) about 1 mile north of Haugen, Montana. Timber Creek is a Sixl order perennial tributary to the St. Regis River and the Claik Fork River Basin. Timber Creek drains a watershed area of appioximalely 5,300 acres. The Lolo National Forest owns appi-oximately 75% of the watershed, the State of Montana owns 7%, Plum Creek Timberlands owns 4% and non-industrial private landowners own the remaining 13% of the watershed as forest, range and residences. The main stem stream channel of Timber Creek and Ihe West Fork of Timber Creek are class \ streams that flow across the DNRC parcel within section 16. The watershed arca also includes several wetlands and springs. Average prccipitation ranges from a high of 70 in/yr in the Timber Creek headwaters near Hawk Mountain (elevation 559S fl) to a low of 24 in/yr on the valley floor near Haugen (elevation 3130 ft.). Within section 16, the average precipitation is moderate at 25 in/yr and elevation range is 3220 to 3600 ft. Precipitation occurs mainly as snow, and spring runoff is not flashy due to moderate stream gradients and slopes. 3.2.2.2 Water Quality Regulations and Uses The Timber Creek drainage is tributaiy to the St. Regis River, and is classified as B-l in the Montana Surface Water Quality Slandaids (ARM 17.30.623). Waters classified B-l are suitable for drinking, culinary and food processing purposes after conventional treatment for removal of naturally present impurities. Water quality must also be suitable for bathing, swimming and recreation; giowth and propagation of salmonid fishes, and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricuUural and industrial water supply (ARM 17.30.623 (I&2)). Among other cnteria for B-l waters, no increases are allowed above naturally occurring concentrations of sediment, (except as permitted in 75- Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 31 5-318, MCA) which wi[f or are likely lo create a nuisance or renders the waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to public health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild animals, biids, fish or other wildlife (ARM I7.30.623(2)(0). Naturally occurring includes I'esource conditions or materials present from runoff on developed land where all i-easonable land, soil, and water conservation practices have been applied. Reasonable practices include methods, measures, or practices that protect present and reasonably anticipated beneficial uses. The State has adopted Forestry Best Management Practices (BMP's) through its Nonpoint Source Management Plan as the principle means of controlling non-point soui'ce pollution fi-om silvicultural activities. DNRC provides further protection of water quality and sensitive fish thiough implementation of the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) Laws and Foi-est Management Rules. Downstream beneficial uses in Timber Creek include: domestic surface water rights, fisheries, irrigation, and livestock watering. Timber Creek is not part of a municipal watershed and fully supports the listed beneficial uses. Timber Creek is not listed as impaired on the Staters 303(d) list of impaired bodies of water (MTDEQ 1996 & 2006). 3.2.3 Cumulative Watershed Effects Cumulative watershed effects are described as impacts on water quality and quantity that resuh fi-om the interaction of past and current conditions and the pi-oposed management actions. A cumulative watershed effects assessment included the combined past and current effects aci-oss all ownerships in the watershed analysis area. Timber harvest and associated activhies can affect the timing, distribution and amount of water yield in a watershed. DNRC completed a coarse filter evaluation of watershed conditions, road drainage and cumulative effects as outlined in Forest Management Rules (ARM 36. 1 1 .423) concerning watershed management. The coarse filter approach consisted of on-site evaluation, of harvest areas and roads, assessing the extent of past harvest activities, through the use of maps and aerial photographs, and stream channel evaluations. Past management activities in the Timber Creek watershed include timber haiTcst, mineral exploration, grazing and road construction. The drainage is dominated by mixed lodgepole pine/western larch forests that were initiated by the fires of 1910. Poilions of the lower watershed were historically cleared for pasture below the DNRC ownership. Fi-om 1980 lol9&9, about 163 acres were harvested on Lolo National Forest lands and approximately 17 miles of road were constructed in the drainage for timber management and construction of BPA power lines. Based on an analysis of aerial photos the denshy of existing roads is 2 miles of road per square mile of the watershed analysis area. Thnber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 32 Figure 3.1: Watershed Analysis Area ^^V\fetershed Area P^^'V^- ' Between 1990 and 1993, the Lolo Nalional ForesI completed the Hawk- Packer Timher Sale thai included hai-vest of approximately 286 acres in the Timber Creek watershed. During the same period Plum Creek and other non- industrial private landowners haiTested appi-oximately 400 acres in the watershed. Portions of the non- industrial private lands have been subdivided as forested home sites. From 1994-1996, the DNRC commercially thinned 223 acres and removed approximately 50% of the existing crown cover. In 1990, The Lolo National Forest completed a cumulative watershed effects analysis of the Timber Creek watershed using the WATBAL computer model. The results of that analysis showed only slight increases in average annual water yield (1%), sediment yields Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 33 (16'^), average annual peak flow (1^) and duralion of peak flow (2%) through 1989. DNRC updated that analysis in 1993 lo project effects of commei'cial thinning harvest. Water yield was determined using the Equivalent Clear-cul Acres (EC A) method as outlined in Forest Hydiology part 2 (Haupt et al. 1976). EC A is a function of total ai-ea loaded and harvested, ^ ciown cover removal in harvest ai-eas and the amouni of vegetative recover^' that has occurred in the hanest area. Watershed conditions have had minoi' change with no substantial timber hai^ests since 1994. Previously harvested sites have regenerated to conifers and recovered some waler yield increases. Subsequent harvests since 1993 have been limited to selective thinning and dealing of approximately 25 acres for home sites on private lands. Table 3.1 Summary of Existing Watershed Conditi Dns 1994 2006 Total Watershed Area (acres) 5232 5232 Existing Water Yield Increase 6% 5.7% Existing ECA in Watershed 905 855 Watershed in ECA \1% \6% Stream channel stability ratings were completed at several sites on the main stem of Timber Creek and the West Fork Timber Creek in 1994 and 2005, using the USES Siream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation Pixxedui-e (Pfankuch, I97&). All reaches evaluated were rated as good in 1994 and 2005. No evidence of cumulative watershed impacts was obsewed during field reconnaissance of the project area. 3.2.4 Cold Water Fisheries Timber Creek supports a known fishery. Species present include brook trout, westslope cutthroat trout (WCT), and bull-trout. A fishery sampling completed in 2002 did not find bull trout in Timber Creek, but bull trout are known to occur in the St. Regis River and are exhapolated to occur in Timber Creek based on connectivhy and suitable habitat (MTFWP 2006). The genetic nature of WCT is not known but potentially may include relatively pure genetic strains. Both westslope cutthioat trout and bull trout are considered sensitive species by DNRC. Timber Creek has good (o excellent cold water fish habitat, and fish were observed in Timber Creek during field reconnaissance. No direct sources of sediment fi-om i-oads were observed in the project aiea, although some low levels of sediment from existing roads or grazing may occur in the Timber Creek watershed. A trend toward reduced stream shading may be occurring due to lodgepole pine mortality. Wetlands adjacent to stream channels are shaded by mixed brush species. Stream channel stability was evaluated as good on stream segments of Timber Creek and the West Eork Timber Creek in the DNRC parcel. Thnber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 34 3.2.5 Noxious Weeds Noxious weed infestations including spoiled knapweed and oxeye daisy occur along poilions of Ihe existing access road syslem and wilhin Ihe section and adjacenl lands. 3.2.6 Forest Conditions and Forest Heallh The DNRC is commilled lo maintaining biodiversity by managing for appropriate sland siruclures and com|X)sitions on slate lands (ARM 36.1 1.404). Appropriate stand cover types aie determined by Ihe ecological characteristics of Ihe site (habilat type, current stand conditions, climate, disturbance regime, etc.) and estimated historical conditions that existed on the site prior to European settlement. Approximately lO'it of stands within the project area currently exist as appiopriate cover types as identified by the DNRC Stand Level Inventor^' (DNRC SLI 2004). Table 3.2 Cover Type Conditions within the Project Area Current Cover Type Appropi'iate Cover Type (DNRC SLI data, 2004) Acres Percent of Forested Project Ai'ea Ponderosa Pine Ponderosa Pine 29 7.3% Mixed Conifer Western White Pine 27 6.8% Mixed Conifer Western Lai'ch/Doug las-fir 34 8.5% Western While Pine Western While Pine 27 6.8% Lod^epole Pine Western White Pine 120 30.2% Lod^epole Pine Lodgepole Pine 21 5.3% Lod^epole Pine Western Lai-ch/Douglas-fir 100 25.1% Lodgepole Pine Ponderosa Pine 39 9.8% Total 397 99.8% The habhat type of stands in the project area all belong to Fire Group 1 1 with grand fir as the indicated climax species. Fire severity varies in this fuel type due lo the moist nature of these forests and variable fuel loading. Historic fire intewals typically ranged from 50-2(X) years. Heavy fuel loading pi-obably existed historically due lo Ihe pitiductive nature of these shes, and diverse forests were generally developed due lo the variety of tree species present and their varying res|X)nse to fire (Fisher and Bradley, 1987). Stand replacing fires in 1910 initiated the even-aged stands of 80 -90- year-old lodgepole pine that currently dominate the site, resulting in a very homogenous age class and canopy structure. Nearly all (90%) of the pi-oject area is a single storied forest EO-90 yeais old and lodgepole pine is the dominant species in 70% of stands (DNRC SLI 2(X)4) Mature Douglas-fir, western larch, ponderosa pine and Englemann spruce occur in vaiying amounts. The hai-vest entry in 1996 commercially thinned appi-oximately 230 acres of Ihe lodgepole pine, with a subsequent decline in stand condition as a resuh of mountain pine beetle infestation. Advanced regeneration of lodgepole pine, western white pine and Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 35 western larch has produced a well-slocked imderstory. Due to the relatively young age of these stands and the seventy of the 1910 fire, old-growth stands have not been identified on this site. Mixed conifer stands whhin the project area are very heavily stocked (90-120 square feel of basal ai'ea per acre ). These stands are in good condition, though growth rales and tree vigor aie beginning to decline due to competition for resoui-ces. Canopy closure appioaches 100^ in these stands. 3.2.7 Heavy Truck Traffic and Public Safety Access to the project area consists of paved and unpaved county and forest service roads in the vicinity of private property and residences. Vehicle traffic fiom residents as well as motorized recreation on unpaved roads produces significant load dust near homes during dry |>eriods. The Packer Creek Road along the West Fork of Timber Creek is groomed for snowmobile recreation in the winter and snowmobiles share public roads with wheeled vehicles. 3.2.8 ORV Access Motorized vehicle use is restricted to federal, state, and dedicated county roads or other roads regularly maintained by the county, or to other roads which have been designated open by DNRC. Off road travel is piohibited within Section 16. Snowmobile use is allowed on roads if permitted by local traffic laws or regulations. Extensive ORV trail systems have developed in the project area whhin the last decade, bypassing DNRC and USPS gates and crossing multiple ownerships. Potential wildlife disturbance, soil erosion and recreation user conflicts occur as a resuU of these activities. 3.2.9 Visual Quality Mature forest currently occupies the site, with moderate or full canopy closures on most sites. Mature trees effectively limit visibility from open roads and sight distances within the stand are generally limited to 300 feet. Suriounding topography is typically not visible due to the existing canopy. Recreational and commuter traffic occurs on open i-oads throughout the project area. Those using these roads, adjacent homeowners and people recreating on the site generally consider the undisturbed nature of the site desirable. The increasing amount of dead and dying trees may detract from the aesthetic value of the stands. ' Basal area is defined as the cross sectional area of a tree slem 4.5 feel above the ground, measured in square feet. When calulated for every tree in a stand, it is commonLy used as a relative measure of stand density. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 36 3.2.10 Fire Hazard The current fuel loading in Ihe projecl area is approximalely 10-20 Ions per acre (visual eslimale). The current niorlalily trend for lodgepole pine as a result of mountain pine beetle infection has the potential lo create much heavier accumulations of underslory dead fuel and standing dead fueL Additionally, very dense (1000-4000 trees per acre) lodgepole pine and grand fir regeneration exist in the underslorj' in these stands, creating ladder fuels that could carry fire into the overstory. These hazaidous conditions occur adjacent to homes in Ihe wild land/urban interface environment of the projecl area, where high severity slond replacing fires historically look place under similai' forest conditions. Recreation activity and public traffic pose a considerable risk of fire ignition from motorized vehicles, cigaielles and campfires. Dead lodgepole pine in large amounts near public roads has also resulted in significant firewood cutting activity, a potential source of ignition. 3.2.11 Endangered Species 3.2.11.1 Gray Wolves Wolves north of Highway 12 west of Missoula and north of Interstate 90 were recently re-classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Cover, and road and prey densities likely have some infiuence on wolves. For cumulative effects analysis, the analysis area encompasses the cun-enl extant of the DeBorgia pack*s known locations (as of 4 December 2006; using data from ht I p: //f\\ p . m t .^ o v/ w i Id t h iii^ sfw o I f/ w mt re port him l?p= 2 ) as well as nearby mapped winter range for an analysis area of approximately 317 square miles. 0|ien road denshy within the cumulafive effects analysis area is approximately 1.89 miles of open road ptr square mite (simple linear calculation; approximately 600 miles of open road). Currently, no known wolf den or rendezvous site is located within I mile of the project area. 3.2.11.2 Grizzly Bears Grizzly bears are a listed as a federally thi-eatened species and are the largest terrestrial predators in North America, feasting upon deer, rodents, fish, roots and berries, as well as a wide assoilmeni of vegetation (Hewitt and Robhins 1996). Depending upon climate, abundance of food, and cover distribution, home ranges for male grizzly bears in noilhwest Montana can range from 60 - 500 mi" (Waller and Mace 1997). The search for food drives grizzly bear movement, with bears moving from low elevations in spring to higher elevations in fall, as fruits ripen throughout the yeai\ However, in their pursuh of food, grizzly beais can be negatively impacted through open roads (Kasworm and Manley 1990). Such impacts are manifested through habitat avoidance, poaching, and vehicle collisions. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 37 The piojecl area is approximately 14 miJes southwest of the Cabinet Yaak Ecosystem grizzly l>ear recovery aiea, wliich is known to have a small grizzly beai' |X)pulalion. The project area is also oulside of occupied grizzly bear habilal by approximately the saine distance. Grizzly bears are known to be more vulnerable to human interaction in areas with high open load densities or ineffective road closures. Currently there are 1.57 miles of open road per square mile (simple linear calculation; 390 miles of open i-oad), and 1.84 total miles of road per square mile (45S miles of road), within the 248 square mile analysis area. Within the project ai'ea, thei'e ai'e approximately 2.21 miles of open road per squaie mile (pioject area is approximately 386 acres), and approximately 3. 82 miles of total road per square mile (simple linear calculation). 3,2.11.3 Canada Lynx Lynx are currenliy classified as threatened in Montana under the Endangered Species Act. In North America, lynx distribution and abundance is strongly correlated with snowshoe hares, their primary prey. Consequently, lynx foraging habitat follows the predominant snowshoe hare habitat, early- to mid- success ion al lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce forest. Eor denning sites, the primary component appears to be large woody debris, in the form of either down logs or root wads (Squires and Laurion 2000, Mowat et al. 2000, Koehler 1990). These den sites may be located in regenerating stands that are >20 years post -disturbance, or in mature conifer stands (Ruediger el al. 2000, Koehler 1990). Elevations in the project area range from 3,220 to 3,563 feel, and suitable habitat types (Pfister et al. 1977) for potential foraging occur in the area. Snowshoe hares aie important lynx prey and are associated with dense young lodgepole pine stands, as well as mature stands with subalpine fir understories. Within the project area, there are appi-oximalely 143 acres of mature foraging habitat and approximately 252 acres of lynx habitat identified as "Other". Within the 136 sq. mile cumulative effects analysis area, the Stale of Montana manages approximately 30 acres, DNRC manages 401 acres, 3,915 acres are in private ownersliip, 456 acres are industrial forest lands, and 82,266 acres are managed by the USES. Lynx have been sighted and have been known to den within the cumulative effects analysis area (B. Kennedy, USES Wildlife Biologist, pers. comm., 8 August 2006). 3.2.12 Sensitive Species 3.2.12.1 Flammulated Owls The flammulated owl is a liny forest owl that inhabits warm-dry ponderosa pine and cool- drj' Douglas- fir forests in the western United Stales and is a secondary cavity nester. Nest trees in 2 Oregon studies were 22-28 inches dbh (McCallum 1994). Habitats used have open to moderate canopy closuie (30 to 50'it) with at least 2 canopy layeis, and are often adjacent to small clearings. It subsists primarily on insects and is considered a Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 38 sensitive species in Montana. Periodic imderbums may contribute to increasing habitat suitability for flammulated owls because low intensity fires would I'educe understory density of seedlings and saplings, while periodically stimulating shiub giowth. Within the project area there are appi-oximalely 43 acres of flammulated owl preferred habilal iypes. 3.2.12.2 Pileated Woodpeckers The pileated woodpecker is one of the largest woodpeckers in North America (15-19 inches in length), feeding primarily on carpenter ants {Camponolus spp.) and wood boring beetle larvae (Bull and Jackson 1995). The pileated woodpecker nests and roosts in larger diameter snags, typically in mature to old-gi-owlh forest stands (Bull el al. 1992) (McClelland et al. 1979). Due primarily to hs large size, pileated woodpeckers require nest snags averaging 29 inches dbh, but have been known to nest in snags as small as 15 inches dbh in Montana (McClelland 1979). Pairs of pileated woodjieckers excavate 2-3 snags for potential nesting sites each year (Bull and Jackson 1995). Snags used for roosting are slightly smaller, averaging 27 inches dbh (Bull et al. 1992). Overall, McClelland (1979) found pileated woodpeckers to nest and roost primarily in western larch, ponderosa pine, and black collonwood. Carpenter ants, the primaiy prey of pileated woodpeckers, tend to prefer western larch logs with a large end diameter greater than 20 inches (Torgersen and Bull 1995). Thus, pileated woodpeckers generally prefer western larch and ponderosa pine snags > 15 inches dbh for nesting and roosting, and would likely feed on downed larch logs with a large end diameter greater than 20 inches. Within the project area, there are appi-oximalely 245 acres that likely contain trees with dbh > 15 inches, and with ci-own closures > 40^ thai would be considered potential pileated wood|>ecker habitat (SLI database). There have been several observations of pileated wood|>eckers whhin a 7 -mile radius of the project area in the past, as well as foraging trees located within the project aiea (Natural Heritage Database). The cumulative effects analysis area will encompass the pi-pjecl area and a 1-mile radius suri-ounding the affected School Trust parcels. 3.2.12.3 Fisher The fisher is a medium-sized mammal belonging to the weasel family. Fishers prefer dense, lowland spruce-fir forests with high canopy closure, and avoid forests with little overhead cover and o|>en areas (Powell 1978, Powell I97&, Powell 1977, Kelly 1977, Powell 1977, Kelly 1977, Clem 1977,Couher 1966, Coulter 1966). For resting and denning, fishers typically use hollow trees, logs and stumps, brush piles, and holes in the ground (Coulter 1966, Powell 1977). Within a 1-mile radius of the project area, there is a total of appi-oximately 4,159 acres of fisher preferred habhat types, with approximately 397 acres on the affected School Trust parcel. However, there would likely be a low probability of fishers occurring north of Interstate 90 (B. Kennedy, USPS Wildlife Biologist, pers. comm., S August 2006). Within the project area, the most suitable habitat is along the forested riparian areas of Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 39 Thiiber Creek and the WesI Fork Timber Creek. These riparian areas totaf appioximalely 61 acres. 3.2.13 Big Game 3.2.13.1 White-lailed Deer and Elk Densely stocked lliickels of conifer regeneration and overstocked mature stands provide thermal protection and hiding cover for deer and elk in winter, which can reduce energy ex|ienditures and stress associated with cold tem|>eratures, wind, and human-caused disturbance. Areas with densely stocked mature trees are also impoilant for snow interception, which makes travel and foraging less stressful for deer during periods when snow is deep. Dense stands that are well connected provide foi' animal movements across wintering areas during periods with deep snow, which impi-oves their ability to find forage and shelter under varied envii-on mental conditions. Thus, removing cover that is impoilant for wintering deer through forest management activities can increase 111 nr e 1 eri; y e> pe i d ilu k s and ^Ims ii ¥ Id ler. b j i m ay ii :re a ^f fo rag e p ro d u c lio d fo r j se o d ^j[R[Q arrange. ReduclioD&JD cover :oil Id ullimalfly resjiiii a rfdjciior ir 'i^'irler range carrying capacity and sub^eqjerl increi^es in lv intfr lu orialily w ItbiD locil deer herds. W itb in Lhe projcc i a re a , III f re are a p p roi im alely 1 9 1 acre ^ of d er £c ly c an up ied fore si, ¥ li icli con Id pro > id e SQ 0¥ -ii lerce p I, ir d po ssib ly lb erm al co v er fo r d eer an d elL AddiliDially,graziri| ofdoraeUicaled liveslocl doe&Doloecjroilliisparcel. 3.2.13.2 Moose M (id&e i\t [be lirgfsl uigalak in N orlli A m erica, distribulfd llirouglioul A li&ka. C irada, and many oftbe border slalfs. Id geDeral.m oo&e bibilai iicludes: areas ofibuidarl bigb-qualiiy * irier brow se; sbeller ire as tbai allow aeee^s Id food; isoltled jiles for c alv ir ° ; jq J aiie le ed ing arf as , y on i g fo re&l surds w itli dec id u on s ^li rj b & and fo rb ^ for sj [n [Q e r feed Id !; ; m ilu k fo ml lb a I p rov id m ^b e lier fron sr 0¥ or be a I; and it] ii en I lick ^ [Tbonip^DD and Sien' arl 1^9S). A& such.mticb oflbe projecl irea receiver use by moo^f. The S 3 ,9 20 acre ai t ly sis area for m oose corresp ob d ^ ¥ illi M T F W P -ra jp pe d * ir le; raigeaod olberbabilai. TbereireipproiiraiklT 4.S67jcrEsofseed-iree/slie!leT¥Dod It arv e&l. c learcu Is, ar d g ra ^sUd d w illi ii I lie in aly s is are a . aid ap p ro), iiti alely 2 07 icrc s (o caled ¥ lib Id lb e p ro jecl ire a . 3.2.14 Other Species 3.2.14.1 Northern Goshawk The noilhern goshawk is a forest habitat generalist with specific nesting habitat requirements (McGralh et al. 2003, Squires and Reynolds 1997. Reynolds et al. 1992). The goshawk forages on a wide range of species, with the most predominant prey being snowshoe hare, Columbian ground squirrels, red squirrels, blue and ruffed grouse, noilhern flickers, American robins, gray jays, and Clark's nutcrackers (Squires 2000, Clough 2000, Watson e( al. 1998, Cutler et al. 1996, Boal and Mannan 1996, Reynolds et Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 40 al. 1992). Thus, given the dEverse array of prey species, goshawks forage from a diverse array of habitats. However, (Beier and Drennan 1997) found goshawks to forage in areas based primarily on habitat characteristics rather than prey abundance. Beier and Drennan (1997) found goshawks to forage selectively in forests with a high density of large trees, greater canopy closure, high basal area, and relatively open understories. For nest stands, goshawks will nest in pine, fir, and as|>en stands on noilh-facing slopes that are typically in the stem exclusion or understory reinhiation stages of stand development, with higher canopy closure and basal area than available in the surrounding landsca|>e (McGralh et al. 2003, Finn et al. 2002, Clough 2000, Squires and Reynolds 1997, Reynolds et al. 1992). Nests aie typically suriounded by stem exclusion and undersloiy reinitiation stands (with canopy closure > 50*^) within the 74 acres surrounding the nest; higher habitat heterogeneity than the surrounding landscape, and an avoidance of stands in the stand initiation stage of stand development typify habitat in the 205 acres surrounding goshawk nests (McGralh el al. 2003). Goshawk home ranges vary in area from 1 ,200 to 12,000 acres depending on forest type, prey availability, and intraspecific competition (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Within the 5,765 acre analysis area for goshawks, approximately 2,3E5 acres have recently been affected by timber harvest or clearings associated with private residences or the Interstate. Thus, appi-oximalely 3,380 acres of the analysis area (approximately 59^) have foiested stands with canopy closure >50'^ (using orthophotos from 2005). Much of the forested area within the piojecl area could be used by gosliawks for either foraging or nesting habitat. A potential goshawk nest was located whhin the project area in 2005. However, no sign of recent use of the nest site was obsewed (M. McGrath, SWLO Wildlife Biologist, personal observation). Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 41 4.0 Environmental Consequences 4.1 Iiilroduction This chapter describes the environ menial effects of each alternative on the resources described in Chapter 3 and provides a scientific and analytic basis for comparison of alternatives found in Chapter 2. This chapter is also designed to pi-ovide the analytic process used to evaluate impacts. 4.2 Predicted Effects of Alternatives oa Relevant Resources 4.2.1 Soil Resdu rces 4.2.1.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A: Deferred Har\'est (No Action) would have minimal effects on soil resources consistent with described existing conditions for soils. Existing i-oads could require routine maintenance in the future 4.2.1.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects Primary soil concerns are potential for excessive suiface disturbance, ei-osion or soil compaction with harvest operations. Recent hai^est were f o m p le Ie d t o □ si^lf 1 1 * iih BM P 3Dd did Dolresullin fxcMsive soilinipicts.TD [Qiintair soil[irodiLi:tJviiy,aDd proQiole conifer regeneralior.B M P'^ ivi \\\t li^lfd it] iligilioi iti easure^ «oiild be LmpJetQenled lo itiiDiniizf llif area and deijref uf^uileffecls associalfd uiib liarve^l op eralio 1 s. Mitigations include skid trail planning, limiting season of use to diy or frozen conditions, installing drainage where needed and retaining a portion of woody debris for nutrients and to conti-ol eiosion on disturbed sites (DNRC 2004). For iJirienlcycliDi; ii is desirable lo leave woody debris (>3" dia.) i\ "^-Id iorWai:re od Iheliarvesliirils. LodLiepolepirieritorlality liasresulled ir iree^jheddjri| ibeirreedles, w b icb b e Ip s k Ij rr □ u Irien Is lo I lie so il. Slash would be processed in the woods or return skidded from the landings to facilitate nutrient cycling. Protection of established regeneration and healthy over-story trees would be a priority. Poilions of the harvest area would be scarified and jackpot burned to promote tree regeneration. The machine scai'ification would be limited to slopes of 35% or less to avoid excessive soil displacement that would affect soil pioductivity. She sjiecific road reconstruction requirements would be implemented to impiove load drainage and control erosion. Temporary roads would be stabilized and revegetated. For these reasons, there is a low risk of direct and indirect effects to soil resources as a result of the proposed action. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 42 4.2.1.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest Cumulative effects to soils can occur from repeated ground skidding entries into the hai-vesl area and additional road construction, depending on area. There are minimal effects from the previous harvest in 1994 and the haivest units have been regenerated. No eroded or deeply rutted skid trails were noted during field reviews of the site. The temporary stream ciossing sites and low standard road in the SW coiiier of the project area are well vegetated and stable. There is low risk of cumulative effects based on the implementation of BMP' s, and mitigation measures that would minimize the area of detrimental soil impacts to less than IS^i- of harvest units. This level of effects is consistent with DNRC soil monitoring (DNRC 2004). Laige woody debris would be retained for nutrient cycling and long term pi-oductivity. 4.2.2 Water Quality 4.2.2.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Deferred Harvest (No Action) would have minimal effects on water quality and consistent with the described existing conditions. Sediment from County roads may occur in flux, depending on the levels of road maintenance. Road maintenance would continue as needed . 4.2.2.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects The primary risk to water quality is associated with loads and especially stream crossings or sites where sediment could be delivered to stream channels. The proposed action would i:oD&iriii:ll.]^ milesofrew road loi:^ud n'elljiAa) [[ool sjrfice^aler, preserliig a lc¥ ri^k Df&edi[itf[ililiDD.Draiiai|e feiliLm incliidLii^ diti:lic&,cjhcrl^jiid drajr dipsvi'oitld bf incorpuralfd iito ie«' road :or^lrj:lioD ind vegetalion nould be TEgereratEd lo coiiroleroUoD oi disturbed soils. Road lu aiiieraiiEf aid rfconsiruclioQ lyoEild ht corapleied or eiislii^ roadsio impruve draiiaijf ard l^'ouM bf luaiDiiiafd f □ :ii Hf 1 ily *' illi operations to reduce maintenance needs. To prevent stream channel disturbance and sedimentation, a temporary bridge would be installed across The West Fork of Timber Creek. The bridge would be located on existing gravel-based pads at a stable ci-ossing site used in 1994. The temporaiy bridge installation would not disturb the stream banks and has low risk of sedimentation. Logging equipment operation can directly impact water quality if off-site erosion occurs. Protection boundaries (SMZ's and RMZ's) would be located along harvest unit segments that are adjacent to Timber Creek, The West Fork of Timber Creek, ephemeral streams and wetlands. The piotective boundaries would restrict equipment operation to protect vegetation and prevent erosion and sediment delivery consistent with Forest Management Rules for protection of streams with senshive fish species. Harvest operations would include cable har\'est of slopes o\eT45% to avoid excessive disturbance or erosion. The proposed ground based timber haivest would present a low risk of on-site erosion and sediment delivery to Timber Creek and The West Fork of Timber Creek Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 43 The DNRC would [inplemenl aM applicable BMP's, Forest Management Rules and SEle- specific mitigation measures to control erosion and protect water quality. The proposed limber barvesl and road maintenance is expected to result in low risk of direct or in-direct water quality impacts from erosion and sediment delivery due to buffer distances and implementation of mitigation measui-es. For these reasons, there is low risk of impacts to water quality or downstream beneficial uses occurring as a result of the proposed action suiface drainage. These measures are expected to reduce erosion and sediment delivery potential to adjacent stream channels and draw bottoms. 4.2.3 Cumulative Watershed Effects 4.2.3.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A: Deferred Har\'est (No Action) would have low cumulative effects from past management activities consistent with the description of the existing conditions. Water yields may increase naturally, but not substantially, as older lodgepole stands are attacked by beetles and die. Those increases are expected to be well below detrimental levels. As hydi-ologic recovery continues to occur it is reasonable to assume that these effects would decline. 4.2.3.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed aclion would create an additional 123 acres of equivalent clearcut area (ECA) as noted in the following table. Table 4.1 Summary of Predicted Watershed Conditions of Action Alternative Total Watershed Area (acres) 5232 Pioposed Hai'vest Acres 258 (5% Watershed) Proposed ECA (acres) 123 Predicted Water Yield Increase <2.5% Total ECA in Watershed 978 Watershed in ECA 2(X)6 18.5^ The (evel of harvest on DNRC lands as a proportion of the drainage area (5%) is relatively low and the project is located near the valley floor with relatively low level of precipitation (average 25 inches/yr). The canopy removal associated with the pi-oposed barve&l w on Id not nDiiceabl^ increise w iter yield 4:o[il pared Id Ihe lost cancipy ii lercep lid D and e v apolrai sp iritio n assuc ia kd « iEb d eferred h arv esl ar d :or lii u ed eit Ler uv e lod^ epo (e p ii e id c rialily . As a re so ll J lie re is a lo t ri^k o f cu ni j laliv e «aiersliEd Lmpacl^duelowikryield and sediinciLtyiEld iicrei^esoeeurrinf from lliis propo^aldue lo llie folloi' iiig rciiOES.rhere add Id be i niDderate aiDDDDl of EC A ^Dd pDlEDlialwater yield increase ii Tim ber Creek from llie proposed jclioi. Tlie proposed ^e leclic 1 li a r> esl CO D Id be ei pee te d Id ae celera If ^ ro w lb ^q d v ii; d r o f lb e rela ii ed st^D d . Tbe proposed le>eh of liarve^l ire belD« IbDse lorra ally associated ¥ iib deiriru eiial increases in peak flo« or duraiior of peal flow s. Stream cliaBDels w itbiD tlie projecl area a re ^lab le 3D d 'i^' aler y ie Id is be Id 'i^' lb o &e lev e Is no rm a lly assoe iaied w illi d elrioi cd la I Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 44 rmpacts to stream channel stability and function. Therefore, there is low risk of cumulative watershed effects as a result of this piojecl. 4,2.4 Cold Water Fisheries 4.2.4.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) would have minimal effects on fish habitat consistent with the described existing condhions for fisheries. 4.2.4.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects The implementation of Alternative B: Hai^est would remove dead, dying and threatened lodgepole pine from sites adjacent to the SMZ's and RMZ's on Timber Creek and the West Fork of Timber Creek. SMZ's and RMZ's would provide riparian protection and the extensive amounts of riparian shrubs would continue to piovide stream shading. Selection haivesl would occur within a segment of RMZ adjacent to the West Fork of Timber Creek where the Packer Creek Road separates the creek from the harvest unit and slo|>es do not exceed ]5%. SMZ protection would be applied on this stream segment. There would be low risk of diiecl oi' indirect effects frojn erosion, sediment deliveiy or lemperalui'e change to fish habitat. 4.2.4.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative Bi Harvest There is a low risk of cumulative impacts to fisheries in Timl>er Creek and the West Fork of Timber Creek with the pro|X)sed timber haivesl and road construction, due to the following reasons: 1) SMZ and RMZ boundaries would be established to prevent disturbance near water resources and piotecl vegetation. 2) Combined mitigation measures for harvest operations and season of use would all be directed at minimizing soil disturbance to prevent erosion and sedimentation. 3) No new roads would be constructed adjacent to streams. 4) A temporary bridge would be used to access the Southwest harvest aiea using an existing crossing site lo prevent stream bank impacts and sedimenlation, 5) Slreamside snags and i-ecruilable trees would be retained to piovide for long lerm woody debris availability lo sli'eam channels to maintain fisheries habitat. For these reasons, there is low risk of sediment delivery increases in stream water lemi^eralui-es or impacts to potential fish habitat are expected to occur as a result of the proposed action alternative. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 45 4.2.5 Air Quality 4.2.5.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Aetiou) - Direet and Indirect Effects Unpaved public roads would conlinue to produce a minor amounl of dusl during dry periods. Polential smoke associated witli wildfires would continue lo be a Ihreal to air quality. Continued ORV and non-motorized public recrealion in Ihe project area presents an increased risk of wildfire ignition. In the event of wildfire, air quality would be affected. Impacts to air quality associated with logging slash disposal would not occur under the No Action Alternative. 4.2.5.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects Mitigations for soil nutrient retention would require that slash produced by the harvest remain on site. As a result, burning of slash piles would likely not occur or would be minimal. Burning of slash accumulations to reduce wildfii-e risk, if necessaiy, would occur when atmospheric conditions are conducive to smoke dis|iersion. Dust created by log trucks on gravel loads or logging machinery operating on dry soils could temporarily degrade air quality locally. Dust control measures on gravel roads adjacent to residences would minimize dusl associated with log trucks. The potential wildfire risk presented by logging equipment operation during Ihe dry season could negatively impact air quality. 4.2.5.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest Smoke resuUing from this project could have a cumulative effect with other prescribed burns being conducted in Ihe region as well as with pollutants produced from other sources. The cumulative impact to air quality would be minor and of short duration as resuh of the pi-oposed action. 4.2.6 Noxious Weeds 4.2.6.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Wilh no action, noxious weeds (s|x>tted knapweed and oxeye daisy) will continue to spread along roads and increase on the drier site habitats. 4.2.6.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of Alternative B: Harvest would involve ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to introduce or spread noxious weeds in susceptible habitat types. For the Alternative B: Haivest, an Integrated Weed Management (IWM) appioach was considered. Prevention, revegetation and weed control measures for spot outbreaks are considered the most effective weed management treatments for this pi-pject. Noxious weed densil) ^nd occurrence i^'ould bt sin il^r oj [lolfiilially sli^hliy higlie: due lo soil Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 46 (J[slurbance and decreased tree canopy. Conliol efforts would pi-oiiiote revegetaliou and emphasize Irealmenl of any new noxious weeds. More weed control would occur compared lo no-action alternative. H erbicidf afiplic^lioD Mould be completed to conhin spotted knajiiA' eed and oieye dtisy along segm^Dtiofspoi infeskd road.Herhicide would be afiplied record irg to label dJreclioDS, hh s ^nd rules, ^nd ^ ould be applied n ilh ^dequale buffers Id (ir^venl b erb ic id e rii noff into su rface * aler. Im pleni enlalion of IW M ni e asu res lisUd in Ihe m itJg^tioDs tt ould reduce eiijsliiif i^ ttAi, lim it Ih^ possible spread ofh ^eds, ^nd tm prove curreni condilions.to fironok ei^istirj; oaliv^ v^^etaiion. 4.2.6.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest Disturbance of soils and vegetation fi-om the construction of i-oads and from skid trails could cause increased competition between noxious weeds and native species and decrease soil productivity and stability. A combination of prevention, i-evegetation and monitoring would be implemented to reduce the possible infestation and spread of weeds associated with this pioject. 4.2.7 Forest Conditions and Forest Health 4.2.7.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Under the Alternative A: Defen-ed Harvest (No Action) harvesting would not take place al this time and tree gi-owth and stand productivity would continue to decline as a result of insect attack and competition. Shade tolerant species would continue to increase, creating conditions unsuitable for regeneration of serai species such as western larch and western white pine. 4.2.7.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of the action alternative would alter stand condition considerably. The proposed timber harvest would reduce the tree canopy cover in the harvest units by approximately 40-60'^, reducing competition to mature dominant and codominant trees. Species composition would become dominated by shade intolerant species and age classes would be more evenly distributed. Release of advanced lodgepole pine regeneration would likely result in dense (1000-4000 trees per acre ) underslory stand. Treatment would improve species and structural diversity by favoring serai species and retaining trees of muUiple age classes. Growth rates should increase dramatically due to reduced competition, and other plant species currently on the site such as grass, forb, and shrub species should also experience an increase in gi-owth and vigor due to canopy reduction and nutrient release. The residual stand dbh would be more variable than that of the present stand, as trees of all diameter classes would be retained. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 47 4.2.7.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest I mple menial ion of Allemalive B: Harvest would bring appi-oximalely 50 acres of previously unentered stands into active management. Treatment of these stands as well as treatment of previously managed stands would result in a cover type conversion of approximately 188 acres and would alter age and size class distribution on 24E acres of the project area. The resuhing stands would be mixed species, mulli-aged stands dominated by shade intolerant species in the oversloi-y and lodgepole pine in the underslory. Due to Ihe clumpy nature of the existing mature western larch and Douglas- fir, occasional openings of Vi acre or more may occur in units with a proposed Individual Tree Selection prescription. 37 acres of lodgepole pine to be treated through an Overstory Removal prescription would result in a laige stand of lodge|x>le pine and wesleni white pine regeneration without mature retention trees. 4.2.8 Heavy Truck Traffic and Public Safety 4.2.8.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Under Ahernative A: Deferred Harvest, commercial log hauling would not take place. Dust and noise produced by log tiucks and logging equipment would not occui' in the project area as a result of Ihe pi-oposed action. 4.2.8.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects Commercial (rucks could produce a significant amount of dust on unpaved roads. Dust would likely be insignificant when hauling occurs on frozen or snow covered roads. Visibility and air quality could be negatively impacted by heavy truck traffic. Noise produced by heavy truck engines and compression brakes could disturb adjacent homeowners and individuals recreating in the vicinity. Heavy trucks may present a traffic hazard on public roads due to the size and mass of these vehicles. 4.2.9 ORV Access 4.2.9.1 Alternative A: Direct and Indirect Effects Disturbance fiom ORV operation may resuh in avoidance of the project area by many wildlife species, including threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Use of established trails would contribute to soil and watershed impacts. User conflict would likely continue to increase as a resuh of ORV operation on designated closed roads. Thnber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 48 4.1.9.2 Alternative B: Direct and Indirect Effects Closure of trails through |x>sled signs, and earlh and vegetation barriers would reduce potential wildlife disturbance and user conflict. ORV users may be opposed to closure of these trails. ORV use could |X)tenlially increase on adjacent lands. 4,2.10 Visual Quality 'l.l.lO.l Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) load building and haivesling would not take place. There would be no immediate change to visual quality as a result of forest management. Continued lodgepole pine mortality could reduce the aesthetic quality of the site due to the appearance of large areas of dead trees. Stand replacing fires could similarly reduce the visual appeal of the site. 4.2.10.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed new road construction could reduce the visual appeal by exposing bare soil and creating unnatural patterns on the landscape, though retained canopy would block the view of new i-oads considerably. These i-oads would remain in place but would be closed to all public motorized traffic and revegelated after harvest. The commercial thinning pro|X)sed for the Douglas-fir stands would maintain a forested appearance with a more open canopy. An average of 100 trees per acre would be retained in these units. When the ground is snow covered, the portions of harvest unils ovei' a|>proximately 35% slo|ie may a|>pear as a mottled while and gi'een as o|>posed to the solid green look of a forest with a closed tree canopy. Cable skidding corridors may be temporarily visible in the form of narrow vertical strips of open canopy. Red needled slash may lemporaiily detract from the quality of the site. Individual Tree Selection and Overstory Removal prescriptions applied to lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands would have a variable effect on visual aesthetics. Lodgepole pine is such a small component on some stands that the effect may not be visible, while other stands may appear consideiably more open. The o|>en stands of IO-20"dbh western larch, Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine that would remain after harvest may be desirable in appearance to some individuals. The short term effect on aesthetics is likely to be negative due to the appearance of fresh slash, stumps and skid trails. The absence of the cuiient lodge|x>le pine canopy would also likely have a te]ii|X)rary negative effect on visual appearance. 4.2.10.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B; Harvest Cumulative effects should be moderate in the short term. Following treatment all stands would have a more open appearance. Some stands may have continuous canopy openings Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 49 as large as ten acres, rapidly filling with existing regeneration. Proposed roads may have a minor effect until vegetation becomes established on disturbed soil and tree ci-owns obscure the road location. 4.2.11 Economics 4.2.11.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) harvesting would not lake place and no new revenue would be generated. 4.2.11.2 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects Approximately $315,000 in gross revenue would be generated for the Common School Trust fiom the harvest and sale of the estimated 1 .5 MMBF. Stumpage value is estimated at $200/MMBF. Res|X)nsibility for development costs associated with the project would be assigned to the purchaser and administered by the Forest Officer. Development costs for the project are estimated at approximately $30,000 for 1 .6 miles of new construction, existing road impi-ovements, materials and the installation and removal of a temporary bridge. The amount of Forest Improvement (Fl) monies collection from this sale would be $ 1 6.27 /MB F of saw logs harvested. The Fl collection would be appioximately $24,400 which would be applied to forest improvement projects both on and off this particular site. Fl expenditures in the project area may include weed spraying, pre -commercial thinning or tree planting and may require an investment of up to $10,000 in the next decade. If this proposed project was implemented, it would provide work for a road building contractor, a logging contractor, their subcontractors, and their employees. The forest products would most likely be processed in local mills providing further job opportunities and contributing to local, state and federal tax revenues. 4.2.12 Fire Hazard 4.2.12.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Dense lodgepole pine stands with high mortality from mountain pine beetle infection would continue to create a heavy accumulation of standing dead fuel and increase the risk of high intensity stand replacing fire (Fisher and Bradley, 1987) Ladder fuels created by dense grand fir and lodgepole pine regeneration would continue to present the |X)ssibility for fire to climb into the overstory. 0|>en public roads, heavy off-road vehicle o|>eration, firewood cutting and non-motorized public recreation would continue to present significant ignition sources for wildfire. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 50 4.2.12.2 Alternative B: Harvest- Direct and Indirect Effects Surface slash accumula(ions resuming fi-om timber harvest could creale a shoil lerm fire hazard. Logging equipment o|>eration poses a risk of ignition near fuel sources such as log decks and slash accumulations. Removal of standing dead limber could reduce the fire hazard, and would likely reduce the potential inlensily of fires thai could occur in Ihe project area. 4.2.13 Endangered Species 4.2.13.1 Grey Wolves 4.2.13.1.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects No change from current conditions would be expected under Alternative A: Deferred Harvest 4.2.13.1.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) No change from current conditions would be expected under Alternative A: Deferred Harvest. 4.2.13.1.3 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects Through a proposed timber harvest, the proposed action would reduce vegetative scrcening on appi-oximalely 250 acres, and effectively close approximately 0.5 mile of road to motorized access. Additionally, riparian buffers would be retained that would promote travel corridors for prey, and potential escape cover for wolves. While the proposed action would reduce visual screening cover, there aie no known den or rendezvous sites within I mile of Ihe affected paicel. As a I'esult, there would likely be low risk of direct or indirect effects to wolves from the pro|X)sed action. 4.2.13.1.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest Within the analysis aiea, there is relatively little livestock grazing. Given the limited amount of grazing, i-oad densities, and limited spatial extent of the pi-oposed action, there would likely be low risk of cumulative effects to gray wolves as a result of Ihe pi-oposed action. However, should a den or rendezvous site be located within I mile of the affected paicel, operations would halt and a DNRC wildlife biologist would be consulted and additional mitigations would be develo|ied and implemented. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 51 4.2.13.2 Griiifj Bears 4.2.13.2.1 Alternative Ai Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects No change from current conditions would be expecled under Alternative A: Deferred Haivesl. 4.2.13.2.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) No change from cuixenl conditions would be expecled under Ahemative A: Defeired Haivesl. 4.2.13.2.3 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects The pi-oposed action would effeclively close appioximately 0.5 mile of currenlly open road, construct approximately 1.39 miles of new road that would be effectively closed post -harvest, harvest approximately I&& acres with an individual tree selection prescription, appi-oximately 23 acres through a commercial thinning, and approximately 37 acres in an overstory removal. As a result, sight distance and total road density would increase, but o|>en road density for motorized access would be reduced from 2.21 miles of open i-oad |>er square mile to appioximalely I.3S miles of open load per squai'e mile. Additionally, the pro|X)sed action would retain a minimum buffer of approximately 75 fl, but usually more, on Timber Creek and West Fork Timber Creek. These buffers would provide travel corridors, riparian habitat, cover, and forage for grizzly bears. As a resuh of the pro|x>sed reductions in open road density, ripaiian buffers, and low population levels in the nearby Cabinet Yaak recovery zone, there would likely be low risk of direct and indirect effects to grizzly bears as a result of the proposed action. 4.2.13.2.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest Within the grizzly bear cumulative effects analysis aiea, appioximalely 75 of the 24S square miles (30*^) are currently unroaded and managed by the Lolo National Forest, which is mandated by the Endangered S|>ecies Act to assist in the recovery of federally Threatened and Endangered species. The proposed action would marginally reduce open road densities through the effective closure of approximately 0.5 mile of open road, and would increase tolal load density from 1.84 to approximately 1.85 miles of road per square mile through construction of approximately 1.39 miles of load that would be closed to motor vehicle access post -haivesl. Additionally, with the aforementioned timber harvest, riparian buffers would be retained that would provide travel corridors, riparian habitat, cover, and forage for grizzly bears. With implementation of the mitigation measures, low Cabinet Yaak grizzly bear population levels, and the uni-oaded U.S. Forest Service lands within the analysis aiea, there would likely be low risk of cumulative effects to grizzly beais as a resuh of the proposed action. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 52 4.2.13.3 Canada Ljnx 4.2.13.3.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects No change from current conditions would be expected under AUemative A: Deferred Haivesl. 4.2.13.3.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Harvest) No chaiige from cuixenl conditions would l^e expecled under Alternative A: Defeired HaivesI 4.2.13.3.3 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects The pi-oposed action would liarvest limber wilhin approximately 37 acres of tlie existing 143 acres of mature foraging habilal, and approximately 205 acres of the existing 252 acres of "Other" habitat within the affected pai'cel. However, two patches of mature foraging habitat totaling appi-oximalely 55 acres would be retained along the Timber Creek and the West Fork of Timber Creek riparian corridors. Additionally, snag recruits would be clustered near these corridors to pi-ovide for future coaise woody debris recruitment, which would likely provide future habitat for prey species such as snowsboe hares and red squirrels. Because much of proposed har\'est units 1 , 2, and 3 have well- established seedlings and saplings, much of the affected lynx habitat would likely remain in the "Other" habilal category post -harvest. Thus, with retention of corridors of mature foraging babilat and likely post -harvest "Other" habitat conditions, there would likely be low risk of direct and indirect effects to lynx as a resuh of the pi-oposed action. 4.3.13.3.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest The proposed action would harvest limber within approximately 37 acres of the existing 143 acres of mature foraging habitat, and approximately 205 acres of the existing 252 acres of "Other" habitat within tbe affected pai'cel. However, two patches of mature foraging habitat totaling appioximalely 55 acres would be retained along the Timber Creek and the West Fork of Timber Creek riparian corridors. Additionally, snag recruits would be clustered neai' these corridors to pi-ovide for future coaise woody debris recruhmeni, which would likely provide future habitat for prey species such as snowsboe hares and red squirrels. Because much of proposed harvest units 1 , 2, and 3 have well- established seedlings and saplings, much of the affected lynx habitat would likely remain in the "Other" habitat category post -harvest. Thus, with retention of corridors of mature foraging habitat and likely post -harvest "Other" habitat conditions, there would likely be low risk of direct and indirect effects to lynx as a resuh of the pi-oposed aclion. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 53 4.2.14 Sensitive Species 4.2.14.1 Flammulated Owls 4.2.14.1.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest {No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects No change from current conditions would t>e expecled under Alternative A: Deferred Haivest. 4.2.14.1^ Cumulative Effects of AUemalive A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) No change from current conditions would be expected under Alternative A: Deferred HarvesI 4.2.14.1.3 Alternative B: Harvest — Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The proposed action would harvest limber within approximately 20.6 acres of the appioximalely 43 acres of flammulated owl -associated habitat types with in the affected pai-cel. Of the 20.6 acres, approximately 20 acres would nol be considered suitable flammulated owl habitat due to high canopy closure and lack of complex structural development. The proposed action prescribes an individual tree selection ti-eatmenl for the 20 acres considered to be too dense for this species. As a resuh, the proposed treatment would likely open the forest stand and promote forest regeneration and future flammulated owl habitat. Thus, the proposed action may impiove flammulated owl habitat in the long term. Therefore, the pi-oposed action would likely have low risk of negative direct, indirect or cumulative effects to this species. 4.2.14.2 Pileated Woodpeckers 4.2.14.2.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects No change from current conditions would be expected under Alternative A: Defeired Haivest. 4.2.14.2.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) No change from current conditions would be expected under Alternative A: Deferred Harvest. 4.2.14.2.3 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects Of the appioximately 245 acres of potential pileated woodpecker habitat within the project area, the pioposed action would harvest limber in approximately 9& acres, largely through commereial thinning and individual tree selection. However, the proposed action Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 54 would not enter approximately 49 acres of the most suitable pileated woodpecker habitat that occurs along two ripaiian areas within the pi-ojecl area. Post-harvest, much of the 98 acres of affected potential pilealed woodpecker habitat would likely be below 50*^ crown closure, and may not contain potential nest sites as a result of the reduction in crown closure. Of the affected 9S acres, the most impact would be within the 23 acres covered by Hai"vest Unit 5. These acres currently provide potential foraging habitat. The remaining 75 acres of affected habitat currently has marginal crown closure for this species and may provide occasional foraging op|x>i1 unities. Through avoidance of the two riparian areas, the proposed action would retain the most suitable pileated woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat within the pioject area, and would pailially mitigate for potential losses of foraging habitat affected by Haivesl Unit 5. As a resuh, there would likely be low to moderate risk of direct and indirect effects to pileated woodpeckers from the proposed action. 4.2.14.2.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest Within the approximately 5,765 acre analysis area, approximately 2,385 acres (41*^) has been affected by timber harvest or clearings associated with private residences or Interstate 90. Such areas currently may not be considered as habitat for pileated woodpeckers. The proposed action may increase this estimate thiough harvesting timber on appioximately 98 acres that may contain suitable habitat. This may resuh in a 2% increase of temporality unsuitable habitat within the analysis area. Given the habitat changes within the analysis area, there may be low to moderate risk of cumulative effects to pileated woodpeckers as a result of the proposed action. 4,2.14.3 Fisher 4.2.14.3.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects No change from current conditions would be expected under the no action alternative. 4.2.14.3.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) No change from current conditions would be expected under the no action alternative. 4.2.14.3.3 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects The pioposed action would harvest limber within approximately 250 acres of habitat types (Pfister et al. 1977) associated whh fisher. Of these acres, only approximately 57 acres that would be treated with an individual tree selection prescription could currently be considered potential fisher habitat due to forest structure and development. Posl- hai"\'est, the affected 57 acres of potential fisher habitat would likely not be suitable fisher habitat for at least 40 years. However, the pioposed action would also retain wide riparian buffers along Timber Creek and West Fork Timber Creek, where fisher habitat currently exists, and subsequently retain fisher corridors in existing habitat. These Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 55 corridors would total approximately 55 acres. Thus, while the pi-oposed action would temporarily reduce the availability of fisher habitat within the project aiea, the highest quality habitat would be retained . As a result, there may be a low risk of direct and indirect effects to fishers from the proposed action. 4,2.14.3.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest Within the analysis area (I -mile radius surrounding the affected parcel), the USFS has scoped a fuels reduction pi-ojecl (DeBaugan Fuels Reduction Project, 7 Febiuary 2006), which would partially occur in sections 20 and 22. As scoped, the fuels reduction project would employ heavy thinning/sheUerwood and commercial thinning prescriptions, as well as slash and burn piles. These actions would treat fisher habitat on the affected USFS lands that is disconnected from fisher habitat within the DNRC project ai-ea due to past timber harvests on adjacent private lands. Additionally, recent past timber harvests within the analysis area has temporarily reduced available fisher habitat by approximately 1,230 acres. The proposed action would fuilher temporaiily reduce available fisher habhat by approximately 57 acres, while retaining approximately 55 acres of higher quality habitat along riparian corridors. While the pi-oposed action, coupled with the pro|X)sed action on USFS land, would likely reduce the amount of available fisher habitat, such action may not affect fishers due to a lack of fisher presence north of Interstate 90 (B. Kennedy, USFS Wildlife Biologist, pers. comm., S August 2006). Asa resuh, there may be a low risk of cumulative effects to fisher from the proposed action. 4.2.15 Big Game 4.2.15.1. White-tailed Deer and Elk 4.2.15.1.1 Alternative A; Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects No change from current conditions would be expected under Alternative A: Deferred Hai'vest. 4.2.15.1.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) No change from current conditions would be expected under Alternative A: Deferred Haivest. 4.2.15.1.3 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects The pi-oposed action of haivest ing limber on approximately 250 acres and effectively closing approximately 0.5 mile of existing road may benefit white-tail deer and elk summer range conditions. Through reductions in crown closure, there would be less com|>etition for light affecting shade- intolerant forbs and grasses. As a resuU, such species should res|X)nd favorably to post-hawest conditions, providing more abundani and nutritious forage for white-tailed deer and elk. Effectively closing both the 0.5 mile Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 56 of existing road and the proposed new road construction would also aid in reducing hum an -related mortality during the hunting season. Thus, there would likely be low risk of negative direct and indirect effects (o white-tailed deer aiid elk summer range as a resuh of the pi-oposed action, 4.2.15.1.4 Cumulative Effect of Alternative B: Harvest A large proportion of Hunting District 200 is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and does not contain roads. Past I imber harvests have largely occurred in the southern poll ion of the hunting district, and have improved summer range for white-tailed deer and elk through improving the abundance and nutrition of desirable grasses and forbs. The proposed action would likely continue this trend thiough the proposed treatment of appi-oximately 250 acres. Thus, there would likely be low risk of negative cumulative effects to these species as a resuh of the proposed action. 4,2.15.2 Moose 4.2.15.2.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) — Direct and Indirect Effects No change from current conditions would be expected under AUemative A: Deferred Haivest. 4.2.15.2.2 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) — Cumulative Effects No change from current conditions would be expected under AUemative A: Defeired Haivest. 4.2.15.2.3 Alternative B: Harvest — Direct and Indirect Effects The pioposed action would reduce ci-own closure on appioximately 250 acres, while a total of approximately 55 acres of riparian foi'est in two riparian corridors would not be entered. As a result, moose would be able to utilize the riparian corridors in winter and benefit from the associated reduced snow levels, while having access to nearby abundant and moi'e nutritious forage that would likely result from the proposed timber harvest. While the proposed action would reduce snow intercept cover within the piojecl area, pailicularly in Haivest Unit 5, the juxtaposition of snow intercept cover in the riparian corridors with resuhing forage in the adjacent harvest units would likely benefit moose winter range. Thus, there would likely be low risk of direct and indirect effects to moose winter range as a resuh of the proposed action. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 57 4.2.15.2.4 Alternative B: Harvest— Cumulative Effeets Approximately 44,715 acres of the 53,920 acre analysis area (83%) is managed by the U.S. Forest Service, wilh poilions of thai acreage containing moose winter range. As moose winter range is currently mapped (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, April 4, 2001), the project area is currently not considei'ed to be moose winter range. As a result, there would likely be low risk of cumulative effects (o moose winter range from (he pi-oposed action. 4.2.16 Other Species 4,2.16.1 Northern Goshawk 4.2.16.1.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) — Direct and Indirect Effects No change from current conditions would be expected under Alternative A: Deferred Haivest. 4.2.16.1.2 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) — Cumulative Effects No change from current conditions would be expected under Alternative A: Deferred Haivest. 4.2.16.1.3 Alternative B: Harvest — Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed aclion, as previously stated, would hawest approximately 250 acres thiough overslory removal, individual tree selection, and commercial thinning prescriptions, while also constructing approximately 1.39 miles of new road within the project area. Of the affected acres, approximately 46 acres would be harvested within a circular 74-aci'e nest stand surrounding the unknown nest, primarily through an individual tree selection prescription (approximately 36 acres) ,and appioximalely O.E miles of new road would be constructed in the same area. However, approximately 3.8 acres suri-ounding the nest would not be entered in an effoil to pailially mitigate effects from the proposed harvest, as well as affoid the nest protection fi-om harvesting equipment (i.e., line machines). Such actions would likely reduce crown closure post harvest, leaving the resulting stands in low canopy closure (i.e., <50%) stem exclusion and understorj' reinitiation stmctural stages (McGralh el al. 2003). Such structural changes within the nest aiea would likely render the nest as temporality unsuitable for nesting by gosliawks. However, the prescription would likely improve the long term suitability of the site, and would likely attain suitable nesting habitat characteristics within 20 to 25 yeai's post -haivest. Within a circular 205 acre post -fledg ing area (PFA) surrounding the unknown nest (inclusive of the 74-acre nest stand), the proposed action would construct approximately 1.34 mile of new road, remove the overslory on approximately 17 acres, use an individual tree selection prescription on approximately 55.6 acres, and commercially thin approximately 23 acres. The post-hai-vest habital within the 17 acre Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 58 overstory removal woufd be expected to resemble staiid iniliatEoii structural conditions (Oliver and Larson 1996), given the advanced stage of regeneration present; the individual tree selection prescription would likely resemble stem exclusion with canopy closure < 50%; and the commercial thinning would continue to resemble an undersloi^ reinitiation stand with canopy closure < 50% post -harvest. Such post-harvest conditions would be expected to reduce the nest site suitability of the unknown nest lo a point where it would be unsuitable for nesting by goshawks (sensu McGrath et al. 2003). However, the prescription would likely promote forest growth such that suitable nesting conditions may be achieved 20 to 30 years post -harvest. Beyond the scale of a goshawk PFA, the effects of the proposed action are less clear because il is unknown how goshawks would likely utilize the project aiea for foraging. Examining habitat only within the pioject area, the proposed harvest may temporarily (15 to 20 years) reduce foraging habitat suitability within the pi-oject area for goshawks. However, the proposed harvest would likely improve the long-term foraging suitability because the hawesting would: I) favor retention of pondeiosa pine, western white pine, and western larch, many of which are larger diameter; 2) foster conditions that would increase basal area; and 3) open the understory, which would subsequently make prey more I'eadily available. Such effects describe habitat characteristics that goshawks select for foraging opportunities (Beier and Drennan 1997). Thus, within the project area, the proposed action may have low to moderate risk of reducing short-term (15 to 20 yeais) foraging habitat suilabilhy, and longer term (20 - 30 years) effects on nesting. However, there may be greater long-term benefits. 4,2.16.1.4 Alternative B: Harvest — Cumulative Effects The proposed action would increase the amount of forest fragmentation fi-om approximately 41% (2,385 acres) of the analysis area to approximately 42 "it (2,442 acres); fragmenting the central poilion of the analysis area in the pi-ocess. While much of the past hai'vest within the analysis area has largely been seed-tree and clearcut regeneration, which pioduces habitat unsuitable for nesting and foraging, the proposed action would harvest laigely through individual tree selection and retain forest structure thioughout the hawest units. Habitat that would resuh fiom the proposed harvest would likely be marginally suhable foraging habitat in the shoil-term (15 to 20 years), and unsuitable nesting habitat within the harvest units. Current land management on adjacent U.S. Forest Service land would likely sustain local goshawk populations while the project area recovers. Thus, there would likely be low to moderate risk of cumulative effects to a potential goshawk territoi^ as a resuh of the proposed action. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 59 4.2.17 Cumulative Effects Associated with other DNRC Projects Several other DNRC projects are either ongoing or have undergone scoping in the general area around llie Timber Creek Project Area. The following table displays the naine of the proposed activity, the year when activity is planned, and the type of activity pro|X)sed. Of the projects listed, all aie outside of any Analysis Area used in this assessment and would have no measurable cumulative effects on wildlife considered in this assessment. Table 4.1: OTHER DNRC MISSOULA UNIT ACTIVITIES Project Name Approximate Air miles from Timber Creek Year of Proposed Activity Description of pioposed Activity Mill Creek 62 2009 S an it at ion/S e lect ion Davis Point 90 2007 Overstory Removal PackerGulch Fire Salvage 110 2007 Salvage Tai'kio Thinning 42 2007 Precommercial Thinning Dry Gulch 100 2007 Sheltei"wood Roman/SixMile . 20 2006 Thinning and PCT Tyler Creek 34 2005 Shellerwood Lolo Land Exchange 1/4 to 100 miles 2008 Land Exchange Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 60 5.0 List of Individuals Associated with the Project Preparers: Wayne Lyngholm Foresler/Projecl Leader. Missoula Unit, SWLO, DNRC Jeff Collins Hydiologisl/Soil Scienlist. SWLO. DNRC Mike McGralh Wildlife Biologisl. SWLO. DNRC Jeff Rupkalvis ForesI Management Supervisor. Missoula Unil,SWLO. DNRC Jon Hansen Unit Manager. Missoula Unit, SWLO, DNRC Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 61 6.0 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted and/or Provided Copies of this EA, Bob Henderson -Wildlife Biologist, DFWP, Missoula Pal Reiinie -Aix:heologist, AGMB, DNRC, Helena Mack Long -Regional Supervisor, MT Fish Wildlife & Parks Jason McCleese - Mineral County Road DeparlmenI DaiiaBoruch -DNRC Righl of Way SpecialisI Ecology Cenler Alliance for Ihe Wild Rockies L ocal C itizens Rex Lincoln Jeaiinie Sage Olher locals notified or in allendance at public meeting available on requesl. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 62 7,0 References Beier, P. and J. E. Dreiinan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of norlhern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7:564-571. Boal, C. W. and R. W. Mannan. 1996. Prey sizes of male and female norlhern goshawks. Southweslern Naturalist 41:355-358. Clem, M. K. 1977. Food habits, weight changes and habitat use of fisher Ma rtes pennanli during winter. M. S. Thesis, Univershy of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Clough, L. T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in west-central Montana. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. Couher,M.W. 1966. Ecology and management of fishers in Maine. Dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. Cutler, T. L., R. J. SteidI, and S. DeStefano. 1996. Diets of noilhern goshawks in Oregon. Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Tucson, Arizona. Finn, S. P., J. M. Marzluff, and D. E. Vailand. 2002. Effects of landscape and local habitat attributes on northern goshawk site occupancy in western Washington. Pages 249-258 ill S. DeStefano and R. G. Haight, eds. Forest Wildlife-Habitat Relationships. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, Mainland, USA. Fischer, W.C.; A.F. Bradley. 1987. Fire Ecology of Western Montana Forest Habitat Types. General Technical Report INT-223. Ogden, UT: U.S. Depailment of Agricuhure, Forest Service, Intennountain Research Station. Frank, Gaiy, 1993. Timber Creek Timber Sale Hydi-ology Report, Montana Depai1men( of Stale Lands. Missoula, MT. Graham, Russell T.; Harvey, Alan; Jurgensen, Maitin; Jain, T.; 1994. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pa|>er INT-RP-477. Ogden, Utah: U.S. DA., F.S., Intermountain Researeh Station, I2p. Haupt, H.F., et al., 1974. Forest Hydrology Part II Hydrologic Effects of Vegetation Manipulation. USDA Forest Service, Region I. Missoula, Montana. Hewitt, D. G. and C. T. Robbins. 1996. Estimating grizzly bear food habits fi-om fecal analysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:547-550. Hutto, R. L. 1995. Com|X)sition of biid communities following stand -replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9: 1041- 1058. Timber Creek Timber Sale EnvironmenCal Assessment ^ri Kasworm, W. F. and T. L. Mauley. 1990. Road and trail influences on grizzly bears aiid black beai's in northwest Montana. International Confei'ence on Bear Research and Management S:79-S4. Kelly, G. M. 1977. Fisher {Maries pennanti) biology in (he White Mountain National Foi-esl and adjacent areas. Disseilation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Koehler, G. M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 845- 85 1. McCallum, D. A. 1994. Flammulated owl (Ottfs flammeohfs). Pages 1-24 in The Academy of Natural Sciences; The American Ornithologists' Union, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. McClelland, B.R.,S. S. Frissell, W. C. Fischer, and C. H. Halvorson. 1979. Habitat management for hole-nesting birds in forests of western larch and Douglas- fir. Journal of Forestry 77:480-483. McGrath,M. T., S. DeStefano, R. A. Riggs, L. L. TrAin, and G. J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Noilhwest. Wildlife Monographs 154: 1-63. Mersmann, T. J. 19 S9. Foraging ecology of bald eagles on the northern Chesapeake Bay with an examination of techniques used in the study of bald eagle food habits. M. S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. MFISH (Montana Fisheries Information System). 2006. Montaiia Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Natural Resource Information System. Helena, MT. Montana Bald Eagle Working Gioup. 1994. Montana bald eagle management plan. Montana Bald Eagle Working Gi-oup (Montana bald eagle management plan. U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana. Mowat, G., G. Poole, and M. O'Donoghue. 2000. Ecology of lynx in northern Canada and Alaska. Pages 2fi5-3Q6 in L. F. Ruggieio, K. B. Aubry, S. W.Buskirk,G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires (eds.). Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. U. S. Depailment of Agricuhure, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Reseai\:h Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado. General Technical Repoil RMRS- GTR-30WWW. MT DNRC 2004, Collins, Jeffry, Compiled Soil Monitoring Report on Timber Harvest Projects I98&-2004., Montana Depailment of Natural Resources and Conservation, Tiust Land Management Division, Forest Management Bureau^ Missoula, MT. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmenlal Assessment £. MTDNRC, Missoula Unil, 1993, Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmenlal Assessment Trusl Land Management Division, Forest Management Bureau, Missoula, MT. MTFWP Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, Fishery Biologist 2006. Phone conversation on fish resonrces. MTDEQ (Montana Deparlment of Enviromnental Quality). 2006. Montana 2006 303(dJ Reports and assessments. Helena, MT. NRIS, Montana Natural Resources Information System, Internet database search for water, water rights, soils, and fisheries, 2006. ht t p: //nris. st ate . mt . u s/iiit e raci i v e . h t ml Oliver, C. D. and B. C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. John Wiley & Sons. Inc., New York. Pfankuch, D. I97S. Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation - A Watershed Management Procedure. U.S. Depiulment of Agriculture - Forest Service, Missoula, MT. 26 pp. Pfister, R. D.,B. L. Kovalchik. S. F. Arno, andR. C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. U. S. Depiulment of Agricultnre, Forest Service, Inlermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. Pierson, E. D., M. C. WackenhnI, J. S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call D. L. Center, C. E. Harris, B. L. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K. W. Navo,J. M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend's big-eared bat {Corynorhinus townseiulii and Coiynnrhiiufs townsendii paliescens). Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Powell, R. A. 1977. Hunling behavior, ecological energetics and predator- prey communhy stability of the fisher (Maites penmiuti). Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. . 1978. A comparison of fisher and weasel hunting behavior. Cainivore 1:28 34, Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassetl, P. L. Kennedy. D, A. Boyce Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the Southwestern United Stales, Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the Southwestern United Stales. U. S. DepailmenI of Agriculture. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RM-217. Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment ^j- Ruediger, B., J. Claar. S. Gniadek,B. Holt,L. Lewis. S. Mighton, B. Naney. G. Palton . T. Rinaldi.J. Trick. A. Vaiidehey.F. Walil. N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx coiiser\'ation assessment and slralegy. U.S. DeparlmenI of Agricullui'e, ForesI Service, Missoula, Monlaiia. R I -00-53. Squires, J. R. 2000. Food habits of noilhem goshawks nesting in south central Wyoming. Wilson Bulletin 112:536-539. Squires, J. R. and T. Laurion. 2000. Lynx home range aiid movements in Montana and Wyoming: preliminary results. Pages 337-349 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W.Buskirk.G. M. Koehler. C. J. Krebs, K. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires (eds.). Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. U. S. Depailmenl of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Squires, J. R. and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Noil hern goshawk. Pages Pp. 1-32 ^/r A. Poole and F. B. Gill, The Birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Stalmasler, M. V. I9S7. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York, New York. Thompson, I. D. and R. W. Stewart. 1998. Management of moose habitat. Pages 377- 40! in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, eds. Ecology and management of Ihe Noilh American moose. Smithsonian Insthulion Press, Washington, D. C. Waller, J. S. and R. D. Mace. 1997. Grizzly bear habitat selection in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 1032-1039. Watson, J. W.,D. W. Hays, S. P. Finn, and P. Meehan-Martin. I99S. Prey of breeding noilhern goshawks in Washington. Journal of Raptor Reseai-ch 32:297-305. Thnber Creek Timber Sale EnvironnienCal Assessment ^f-