In 2003, the Boise National Forest revised its 1990 Forest Plan. During Forest Plan revision, wildlife habitat families that had declined from historical conditions were identified and management direction was developed for these families based on identified habitat conservation and restoration needs. However, a comprehensive strategy that prioritized areas for wildlife habitat maintenance and restoration was not included in the 2003 Forest Plan update. Instead, the revised Forest Plan contained a wildlife objective (WIOB03) that called for developing such a strategy—the WCS.

Work began in 2005 to meet this wildlife objective by developing a strategy that prioritizes areas for treatments to improve the health and sustainability of forests and associated wildlife habitat. A strategic approach will allow the Forest Service to focus its limited resources in areas where the greatest benefits may be realized.

The long-term goal of the WCS will be to maintain or restore a representative, resilient, and redundant network of wildlife habitats across the Boise National Forest that will provide for a diversity of terrestrial species and be consistent with overall multiple-use objectives. The short-term emphasis will be placed on prioritizing and restoring habitats associated with species believed to be of greatest conservation concern.

Only those portions of the Forest Plan needed to integrate the WCS will be amended through this forest planning process. The remaining portions of the Forest Plan that address other multiple-use management goals and objectives will not be changed.

July 2010

Wildlife Conservation StrategyBoise National Forest

Location of the Boise National Forest

What is the Wildlife Conservation Strategy?

1

The Boise National Forest is developing a Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS) in accordance with its Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The WCS will prioritize the types of activities that should be undertaken to help maintain or restore habitat for wildlife species in greatest need of conservation. The WCS will also identify where these actions are most needed.

Assessing 300 wildlife species and their habitats on the planning unit is very complex. To reduce this complexity, the WCS and associated Forest Plan amendments will be completed in four phases over the next 4–5 years, based on four major biological communities:

Phase 1: Forested Biological Community♦

Phase 2: Rangeland Biological Community♦

Phase 3: Unique Combinations of Forested and Rangeland Communities♦

Phase 4: Riparian and Wetland Communities♦

The Forest Service completed Phase 1 of the WCS in July 2010.

Why did the Forest Undertake Development of a WCS?

Old-forest ponderosa pine habitat

2

Six Conservation Principles

Historical range of variability (HRV) concepts have been used as an underlying foundation to this amendment process. Using HRV concepts to guide forest planning first came from a committee of scientists. While the HRV has limitations, it continues to be used as a tool to develop management strategies. The following are underlying assumptions in using the HRV:

The risk of losing species, ♦ecosystem processes, or genetic diversity within populations

increases as habitat departure from the HRV increases.Strategies using the HRV remain ♦useful in light of evidence of climatic change because historical forests were likely more resilient and resistant to drought, insect pathogens, and severe wildfire.Using the concept of the HRV ♦does not mean taking landscapes back to a pre-Columbian condition or that human uses should be precluded from the landscape.

Using the HRV to guide ♦management implies managing for a range of conditions, not a single condition. Managing within the range of the ♦HRV allows greater latitude and requires greater flexibility than many traditional management strategies.To provide for the variety of ♦multiple uses from the Boise National Forest, managing for a subset of HRV rather than the full range was deemed appropriate.

Underlying Assumptions for Developing the WCS

Alternative B (the Proposed Action) has been selected by the Responsible Official, Forest Supervisor Cecilia R. Seesholtz. The rationale for making this decision can be found in the Record of Decision (ROD) issued in July 2010. This decision is subject to the optional appeal procedures available during the planning rule transition period pursuant to 36 CFR 219.35(b) provisions of the 2000 Planning Rule (65 FR 67514) and 2001 interpretative rule (66 FR 1864). The ROD contains direction on filing appeals.

A brief overview of the WCS assumptions, foundational conservation principles, alternatives assessed in the supporting Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and their anticipated effects are presented below. For detailed alternative discussions and effects disclosure, refer to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

WCS Phase 1 Decision

To ensure the WCS is based on the best available science, it draws upon a variety of scientifically accepted conservation concepts that were converted into six conservation principles to guide the development of Forest Plan strategies. The principles and indicators generated by the interdisciplinary team provided the framework for developing the Proposed Action:

Species well distributed across 1. their range are less susceptible to extinction than species confined to small portions of their range.Habitat in contiguous blocks is 2. better than fragmented habitat.

Large blocks of habitat containing 3. large populations of species are superior to small blocks of habitat containing small populations.Blocks of habitat close together are 4. better than blocks far apart.Interconnected blocks of fragmented 5. habitat are better than isolated blocks, and dispersing individuals travel more readily through habitat resembling that preferred by the species in question.Blocks of habitat that are in areas 6. where the direct or indirect effects of human disturbance are low are more likely to provide all elements of species’ source environments than areas that are not.

Pileated woodpecker, a Forest Plan Management Indicator Species (MIS)

3

Historically, wildfire disturbance helped shape forested landscapes across the Boise National Forest. However, decades of fire exclusion, forest management, wildfires, insect outbreaks, and other factors have substantially altered the structure of forests, especially in the low- to mid-elevation ponderosa pine forest that comprise about 52% of the forested acres on the Boise National Forest.

While fire frequency has remained relatively stable, ongoing drought, severe weather conditions, and in some cases, altered forest structure have contributed to a dramatic increase in the number of acres affected by wildfire over the last two decades. In addition, past forest management—which actively suppressed most wildfires and favored harvesting large, economically desirable ponderosa pine and other fire-resistant species—helped create undesirable conditions that vary

from historical conditions.

These same influences have directly and indirectly affected wildlife habitat quality, quantity, and distribution, especially within the low- to mid-elevation ponderosa pine forests. Moreover, the updated multi-scale assessment indicates that most terrestrial wildlife species of concern associated with the forested biological community are linked to habitats found in the low- to mid-elevation ponderosa pine forests.

The Role of Fire

As wildfires were excluded over the last century, many warm, dry forests in southern Idaho developed multiple “stories,” or canopies, with smaller trees filling in below and between large, old trees (right).

Total acres burned between 1952 and 2007

Historically, many low-elevation forests in southern Idaho were “single-storied,” characterized by old, large ponderosa pine (below).

4

Current Forest Conditions Compared to Historical ConditionsCompared to historical conditions (i.e., HRV), an updated assessment by the Boise National Forest found or projected the following trends:

Substantial reductions in the abundance and extent of the large tree ♦size class and old-forest habitat, especially in the low- to mid-elevation ponderosa pine forests1

Substantial reductions in the abundance of legacy ponderosa pine, western ♦larch trees, and large snags in managed areas. This reduction is believed to result from substantial reductions in the large tree size class and old-forest habitat, snag removal levels in historic salvage operations, and greater removal of wood products where road access is extensive.

Substantial increases in tree densities and ladder fuels within stands, ♦resulting in reduced habitat quality and increased risks for habitat loss from future uncharacteristic wildfire or insect events in the low- to mid-elevation ponderosa pine forests

Reductions in habitat quality due to increases in climax tree species ♦(e.g., Douglas-fir and grand fir) that historically would not have been as widespread within the low- to mid-elevation ponderosa pine forests

Reductions in forest cover from uncharacteristic wildfire and/or insect and disease events, all of which have become ♦more extensive and severe with changes in tree species composition and increases in tree density and continuous ladder fuels, combined with ongoing drought and extreme weather events

Reductions in habitat quantity and quality due to historic and/or continued increases in human use across forested ♦landscapes—increased human use has reduced and fragmented habitat through forest management, recreation, and residential development

1 The low- to mid-elevation ponderosa pine forests fall within what is referred to as the nonlethal and mixed1 fire regimes. These forests were typically maintained through fires that burned every 5–75 years. Forest fires in these fire regimes historically resulted in low-to-moderate levels of tree mortality. Today, these forests are experiencing substantially greater levels of mortality due to changed conditions.

The Historical Range of Variability (HRV) is

defined for this analysis as the vegetation

conditions that existed more than 100 years

ago. Researchers assume that if a variety of

historically functioning ecosystems across

the landscape can be produced or mimicked,

then much of the habitat for native flora and

fauna should be present.

Need to Change the Forest PlanIn response to these findings, the Forest Service identified the following needs to change its Forest Plan:

The need to develop a more comprehensive and diverse strategy for 1. wildlife conservation that relies on scientifically accepted conservation concepts (FEIS Appendix 1) and associated principles.The need to shift from a commodity production emphasis to a restoration 2. emphasis in certain areas, including reintroducing fire in these areas where it can be done safely.The need to emphasize retention of most forest stands that meet the 3. definitions of old-forest habitat or large tree size class.The need to focus restoration to promote desired old-forest habitat or 4. large tree stand conditions and reduce hazards and risks to these habitats. The need to emphasize retention of large snags while balancing other 5. objectives associated with a given management prescription.

5

Amendments to the Forest Plan that Address the Needs for ChangeThe Forest Service proposed the following changes to the 2003 Forest Plan (i.e., the Proposed Action):

Develop a diverse strategy for wildlife conservation that relies on scientifically accepted conservation concepts ♦(FEIS Appendix 1) and associated principlesReallocate 400,000 acres from a commodity production prescription (Management Prescription Category [MPC] 5.2) ♦to a restoration emphasis prescription (MPC 5.1) so that all acres would have a desired condition that falls within the HRV (see maps on pages 6 and 7)Add Forest Plan direction that emphasizes retaining most forest stands that meet the definition of old-forest habitat or ♦large tree size classAdd Forest Plan direction to focus restoration that promotes desired old-forest habitat or large tree stand conditions, ♦and reduces hazards and risks to these habitatsAdd Forest Plan direction that emphasizes retaining large snags while balancing other objectives associated with a ♦given management prescription emphasisAdd a spatial strategy to prioritize vegetative and wildlife habitat restoration treatments in one area over another to ♦increase the overall probability of restoration successIdentify the location of priority or key habitat areas for wide-ranging carnivore species, such as the wolverine; retain ♦linkages between these habitats; and identify where conflicts between this species and human use may exist and warrant further reviewBalance wildlife habitat restoration needs with multiple-use objectives, such as handling emergencies (including ♦wildfire); reducing hazardous fuel in the wildland-urban interface (WUI); providing for public health and safety; exercising prior existing and Native American rights; and addressing other statutory requirements, such as the Endangered Species Act.

The need to prioritize vegetative and wildlife habitat restoration treatments to increase the overall probability of 6. restoration success.The need to identify the location of priority or key habitat areas for wide-ranging carnivore species, such as the 7. wolverine, retain linkages between these habitats, and identify where potential conflicts between this species and human use may exist and warrant further review.The need to balance wildlife habitat restoration needs with multiple-use objectives, the exercise of existing rights, 8. and other public needs.

Need to Change the Forest Plan (cont.)

Examples of before and after hazardous fuels treatments near Warm Lake, which was affected by the 2007 Cascade Complex Wildfire. In 2008, the Forest, in cooperation with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, assessed the effectiveness of the fuels treatments.

6

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

^

"

"

¬«21

¬«75

¬«21

£¤20§̈¦84

¬«55

6.1

4.1c

5.1

6.1

4.1c

2.2

2.2

5.1

4.1c

2.22.2

5.2

1.2

5.1

3.2

4.1c

5.22.2

2.2

2.2 3.1

4.1c

4.1c

VALL

EYCUS

TER

GEM

ADA

GEM

BO

ISE

AD

AM

SVA

LLE

Y

ELM

OR

E

CA

MA

S

AD

A

ELM

OR

E

¬«55

5.1

3.2

4.1c

3.2

1.2

Boul

der C

reek

5.1

3.2

5.1

1.2

5.2

5.1

5.14.1c

3.2

1.2

5.1

5.2

5.1

5.25.2

3.2

5.2

4.1c

4.1c

5.1

4.1c

5.2

4.1c

4.1c

3.2

3.1

4.1c

5.1

4.1a

1.2

5.2

3.1

4.1c

1.2

3.2

5.25.1

5.2

4.1c

3.1

4.1c

5.2

3.2

2.4

4.2

3.2

3.2

6.1

5.2

5.1

5.2

4.2

5.1

6.1

4.1c

4.2

5.1

5.2

4.1c

3.1

3.2

5.1

4.1c

5.2

5.1

1.2

3.2

4.1c

3.2

4.2

5.1

2.2

6.1

5.2

2.2

5.2

2.2

3.1

1.1

1.1

3.2

5.1

3.1

4.1c

3.1

Boise

Banks

Emmett

Lowman

McCall

Stanley

Cascade

Donnelly

Fairfield

Idaho City

Yellow PineNew Meadows

Mountain Home

The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. Using GIS products for purposes other than those intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results.Map produced by: B.Geesey, Sawtooth NF, 08/2009

0 5 10 15 20 Miles

¯

Boise National ForestAlternative A - No Action

2010

Administrative BoundaryAdministered by Boise and Salmon-Challis NFCounties

Management Prescription Categories (MPC)1.1 Existing Wilderness1.2 Recommended Wilderness2.2 Research Natural Area2.4 Boise Basin Experimental Forest

4.2 Roaded Recreation5.1 Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forest Landscapes5.2 Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes

Non-Forest System Lands

Wild & Scenic River ClassificationRecreation (R)Scenic (S)Wild (W)Suitable Wild & Scenic River

6.1 Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes

4.1c Undeveloped Recreation: Maintain Unroaded Character with Allowance for Restoration Activities

3.2 Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources

3.1 Passive Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources

4.1a Undeveloped Recreation: Maintain Inventoried Roadless Area

Alternative A—

Approximately 400,000

acres of National Forest

System lands remain

allocated to MPC 5.2 (areas

shaded brown).