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:<j&|jng roads
Proposed Hsyt Road
Traclor
Cable
Unit 1
41 Acres
Tractor/ITS
Unit 2
75 Acres
Tractor/ITS
Unit 3
32 Acres
Tractor /OR
Unit 4
32 Acres
Tractor/ITS
Units
23 Acres
Cable/CT
Unite
40 Acres
Tractor/ITS
N
Timber Creek Timber Sale Environmental Assessment
IS
2.4 Mitigation Measures of Alternative B: Harvest
Miligalions are incorporated into project design, as a contract slipulatron or may be
Lmplemented piogrammatically. The following discussion will address mitigation
actions associated with the project.
2.4.1 Water quality, Soils, Cumulative Watershed Effects and Fisheries Mitigations
2.4.1.1 Harvest Unit Design
• DNRC would locate, mark and maintain suitable water i-esource protection
boundaries including Streamside Management Zones (SMZ's), Riparian Management
Zones (RMZ's), and Wetland Management Zones (WMZ's) adjacent to streams and
wetlands consistent with State Forest Land Management rules.
• Equipment restriction zones would be established lopiotect sensitive and moist soils.
• The contractor and sale administrator would agree to a general skidding plan prior to
equipment operations.
• Ground based skidding would be limited to slopes of 45'it or less.
• Operating season limitations would protect vegetation and prevent mtting and soil
compaction by operating equipment on dry il^silliao 20^ nioislur^coDienlufrozei
(I r s n ¥ - 1 V e r e d ^ o i I i .
• Soil moisture conditions would be monitored prior to equipment operation and
throughout the project.
• Contract stipulations would require grass seeding and installation of drainage features
and vehicle bairiers. Slash would be placed on skid trails to protect soils and reduce
erosion potential.
• Retention of 5-15 Ions/acre (old and new) coarse woody debris (CWD) greater than
3" inches in diameter would be distributed on site and skid trails for nutrient cycling
and erosion control.
2.4.1.2 Road Design and Location
• Foresliy BMP's and Montana Administrative Rules for Forest Management would be
the minimum standaid for all operations with the pi-oposed timber sale.
• Existing road segments would be improved and maintained in association with the
harvest activities.
Timber Creek Timber Sale EnvironmenCal Assessment 19
• Road improvemenls would include iustallalion of drainage fealuies lo pievent surface
erosion and sedinienl delivery lo slieams, ditching lo im|>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-
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11