decision memo nut basin whitebark pine project usda forest...

of 21

DECISION MEMO Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project USDA Forest Service, Northern Region

Nez Perce National Forest, Salmon River Ranger District Idaho County, Idaho

I. Background

The Salmon River Ranger District of the Nez Perce National Forest is proposing to restore whitebark pine on approximately 480 acres located at T25N R2E Sections 1 and 2, and T26N R2E Sections 25, 35, and 36, Boise Meridian, Idaho County. The three treatment areas are located approximately 10 air miles northeast of Riggins, Idaho on the Salmon River Ranger District of the Nez Perce National Forest (see attached maps).

Whitebark pine is a keystone species at high elevations for watershed stability, and is an important source of food for many animal species because their large seeds have a high fat content. Red squirrels and Clark’s nutcrackers usually harvest a large share of whitebark pine seeds. Bears raid squirrel caches that contain cones to get pine seeds, one of their favorite foods. Other mammals, large and small, and many species of birds also feed on whitebark pine seeds, or pine nuts, as they commonly are called. Because whitebark pine are long-lived and can grow large trunks, they provide valuable cavities for nesting squirrels, northern flickers, and mountain bluebirds.

Whitebark pine communities are rapidly declining throughout their range due to a combination of factors including fire exclusion, white pine blister rust, and mountain pine beetles. Whitebark pine is a fire-dependent species that is able to regenerate in harsh conditions following fires. Fire exclusion tends to favor other species. Whitebark pine is often the first species to colonize areas, and often acts as a nurse tree that ameliorates sites so that other species can grow. In these mixed species stands, whitebark pine tends to be replaced by other species if natural competition is not kept in check by disturbances such as wildfires.

Whitebark pine is extremely susceptible to white pine blister rust, a fungal disease introduced from Europe that attacks all sizes of trees. In the northern Rocky Mountains, whitebark pine mortality in some areas exceeds 90%. Blister rust results in canopy losses in large trees which greatly reduces cone crops. Additionally, blister rust causes rapid mortality of younger trees.

Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project Decision Memo

of 21

The threat to whitebark pine by blister rust is currently complicated by widespread outbreaks of mountain pine beetle near the project area in Idaho and Montana. Mountain pine beetles have killed large numbers of whitebark pine in the northern Rocky Mountains. Increasing the health and vigor of whitebark pine could help fight off mountain pine beetle attacks which are currently affecting lodgepole pine in the vicinity.

Efforts to restore whitebark pine include removing competition around existing mature and immature whitebark pine,

which causes increased growth, vigor, and survival. This removal of competing vegetation or “release” around mature whitebark pine could increase cone and seed production size and frequency. Seeds from these cones could then be widely dispersed by the Clark’s nutcracker and thereby improve whitebark pine regeneration success.

The Salmon River Ranger District initiated the proposed actions to restore whitebark pine in 2007 as part of the Little Slate Project on the Nez Perce National Forest. These activities were separated from the Little Slate Project because only small diameter tree and brush removal, prescribed burning, and planting were proposed, and these were the only actions within roadless areas. The project was subsequently renamed the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project and analyzed separately.

II. Purpose and Need

Purpose (Desired Condition): The purpose of this action is to:

Restore whitebark pine in selected areas suited to their establishment and growth, using methods appropriate to the undeveloped character of its habitat.

Release immature whitebark pine by removing the surrounding competing species

Encourage natural regeneration around mature cone-producing whitebark pine.

Forest-wide management direction in the Nez Perce National Forest Plan related to this project can be found on pages II-16 to II-23, and II-25 to II-26 (USDA Forest Service 1987). The management area direction for Management Areas (MA) 12, 19, and 20 may also apply to this project. These management areas provide direction to manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a


of 21

sustained yield basis (MA 12), to provide for increasing or maintaining available forage for livestock grazing (MA 19), and to provide "suitable" habitat (existing and replacement) for old-growth-dependent wildlife species (MA 20). For all three management areas, a Forest Plan standard specifies that planned ignitions, when within prescription, will be allowed to burn to enhance resource values.

Need (Existing Condition): The need is based on the serious decline of this species from its historic occurrence, estimated at 78 percent decline in the Slate Creek watershed as determined in the Slate Creek Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) (USDA Forest Service 2000).

The vegetation in the upper headwaters of Van Buren Creek is composed of whitebark pine snags and mature whitebark pine trees surrounded by subalpine fir and lodgepole pine trees. About 983 acres of nonwilderness, open forest on ridges is suited to slashing (cutting of undesirable trees or shrubs), burning, and planting of whitebark pine. At elevations of 6200 to 7000 feet in more closed canopy forest, 6125 acres are potentially suited to provide forest openings for whitebark pine establishment through stand replacement and planting of whitebark pine (USDA Forest Service 2000).

In support of proposed efforts, current scientific analyses such as Management Guide to Ecosystem Restoration Treatments: Whitebark Pine Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A (USDA Forest Service. 2010. RMRS-GTR-232), Restoring Whitebark Pine Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA (Keane, R. and Parsons, R. 2010. Ecological Restoration 28:1:56-70), and Whitebark Pine: An Ecosystem in Peril (Lantz, G. 2010. American Forests Spring:33-44) recommend slashing, burning, and planting activities to restore whitebark pine habitats in high elevation areas.

III. Decision

I have decided to approve implementation of the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project to restore whitebark pine in three treatment units on approximately 480 acres on the Salmon River Ranger District of the Nez Perce National Forest. The activities associated with this decision consist of removing competing vegetation, primarily subalpine fir and lodgepole pine trees, by felling the vegetation within a 10 to 15 foot radius of immature whitebark pine trees, and within a 30 to 50 foot radius of mature cone-producing whitebark pine trees. In addition, dead trees (snags) less than 10 inches in diameter may be felled to supplement the fuel loading for the prescribed burn. Larger snags will be left standing in accord with the Northern Region Snag Management Protocol (USDA 2009). The felled material will be lopped and scattered and treated by prescribed burning. The prescribed burn will be conducted using hand and aerial ignition. Subsequent planting of whitebark pine seedlings will occur. The slashing (cutting of undesirable trees or shrubs) and burning activities will be done in the next one to five years (2011 to 2015).

These actions will reduce the competition to whitebark pine trees (immature and mature) and create a burned condition which will provide a seedbed for planting and natural regeneration.

Design Criteria

The Nut Basin Whitebark Pine project includes design criteria identified below to minimize effects to water quality, fisheries, and cultural resources. These items are not all-inclusive, as the regional and Forest Plan standards are incorporated by reference (USDA Forest Service 1987, as amended).


of 21

Do not construct roads or hand fireline. Do not sell or remove cut trees from the project area. Do not cut live trees greater than 8” in diameter at breast height. Limit the height of stumps to eight inches or less. Do not cut trees or brush between Forest Road 441 and the ridge to maintain visual quality

objectives. Conduct slashing activities within the Dead Point Trail (Trail #307) corridor based on

recommendations made by the District Trails Specialist to retain visual characteristics and ensure public safety.

Do not cut trees within the 30 acres of Management Area 20 (Old Growth). Do not cut trees or brush within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), including the

following streamside RHCAs: Van Buren Creek: Mouth to headwaters – 300 feet (fish bearing). Unnamed tributaries to Van Buren Creek: Confluence with Van Buren Creek to

headwaters – 150 feet (non-fish bearing).

Coordinate with the archeologist during treatment area layout to avoid known heritage sites. If cultural resources are discovered, take appropriate action to protect the site. Notify the Forest

Archeologist of discovery so he can properly evaluate and document the materials in compliance with 36 CFR 800, and provide recommendations on how to proceed.

Conduct slashing activities one year prior to the prescribed burning activities to ensure burn objectives will be obtained.

Conduct prescribed burning activities after the first hard frost in the late summer or early fall. Do not ignite fire within the RHCAs. Fire may back into the RHCAs. Locate helicopter landing sites and refueling areas outside of the RHCA where possible. Where

not possible, refueling areas within RHCAs will have an approved spill containment plan, and will not affect fish or critical habitat.

Locate helicopter base operations (fuel storage) for the prescribed burning activities at the Marv Lowry Memorial Seed Orchard.

Transport, store, and use toxic materials, including spheres and torch fuel, to minimize the risk of accidental spills and introduction into live water.

Follow procedures outlined in the North Idaho Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement, including restrictions imposed by the smoke management-monitoring unit.

Monitoring

The Nut Basin Whitebark Pine project includes implementation and effectiveness monitoring identified below.


of 21

Implementation Monitoring Responsibility: District Fire and Fuels staff. District fire personnel will perform pre- and post-burn monitoring within the prescribed burn blocks to determine whether fire, fuels, and vegetative management objectives are met. Additional monitoring may be conducted in cooperation with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation pending future agreement and funding.

Responsibility: District Fire, Fuels, Hydrology, and Fisheries staff. District personnel will monitor the prescribed burn project to ensure the desired effects are attained.

Responsibility: Heritage staff. Cultural Resource Specialists may inventory the project area for cultural artifacts exposed by prescribed burning activities.

Effectiveness Monitoring Responsibility: District Fire, Fuels and Silviculture staff. District Specialists will monitor attainment of tree mortality objectives by surveying the project area or using aerial photos, and will include a burn severity map in their report.

Responsibility: District Silviculture staff. District Silviculture staff will monitor the size of created openings to determine the number of whitebark pine seedlings to be planted following the prescribed burn treatment, and will monitor whitebark pine survival over a five-year period.

IV. Rationale for Decision and Reasons for Categorically Excluding the Decision A. Category of Exclusion and Rationale for Using the Category

Based on information in this document and the project record, I have determined that no extraordinary circumstances affecting resource conditions exist (36 CFR 220.6), that this project may be categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS, and that it meets all the criteria outlined for 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6) Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement that do not require the use of herbicides or no not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction.

The rationale for my decision is based on: 1) the proposed action fully meeting the criteria for Categorical Exclusions, 2) the proposed action meeting the purpose and need, 3) the findings related to extraordinary circumstances, discussed below, 4) the project’s consistency with laws and regulations, including the Forest Plan, 5) the on-the-ground review and discussion with district resource specialists, and 6) my review of the Biological Assessments (BA), Biological Evaluations (BE), and specialists’ reports.

B. Finding No Extraordinary Circumstances

Based on the findings for resource conditions described below, I have determined that no extraordinary circumstances are associated with my decision. Forest Service direction at 36 CFR 220.6(b) describes the resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstance related to the proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EIS or EA.


of 21

Additionally, 36 CFR 220.6 (b) states “The mere presence of one of more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. It is the existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions and is such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.”

1. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species:

The Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) Botanist, and Wildlife and Fisheries Biologists determined the proposed actions would have no direct or indirect effect or impact on listed or sensitive plant, wildlife, or fish species or habitat, and suitable habitat would not be altered because habitat is not present in the project area, habitat is present but the species do not occur in the project area, or habitat is present and the species may occur, but the project would not affect the habitat for the species, and therefore no incremental effects exist that would cause a cumulative effect, as documented in the Biological Assessments and Evaluations, and specialists’ reports (see plant, wildlife, and fish sections of the project record), with the following exceptions.

Rare Plants The Botanist determined the proposed actions may impact individuals or habitat of the following plant species, but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for the populations or species: leafless bug-on-a stick and Idaho douglasia. For these two species the proposed action would also have beneficial effects.

Substantial suitable habitat occurs in the whitebark pine units for these two sensitive plant species. The proposed burning of the whitebark pine units would be a direct disturbance to the modeled and field verified habitat for both of these species. Concerning the moss leafless bug-on-a stick, it is possible that existing moss plants could be harmed during implementation. However, these disturbances are generally beneficial because of the opening or maintaining of soil conditions that the species requires.

Habitats for Idaho douglasia were surveyed closely, and no individuals were found. It is possible that slashing and burning activities could harm potentially-existing plants. Due to the open soil and fuel conditions the species prefers, it is doubtful that burning would negatively affect plants, but there is some potential. The overall effect of the action will be more open forest and soil conditions, which would be beneficial to the species and its habitat. Thus the effects of the project on this species may be harmful in the short term, but beneficial in the long term. Therefore, no extraordinary effects to rare plants or habitat were identified.

Wildlife Species and Habitat

The Wildlife Biologist determined the proposed actions may impact individuals or habitat of the wolverine, but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for the population or species because the effects would be miniscule due to the scope, scale, and duration of activities, and the extensive habitat available in the area. Therefore, no extraordinary effects to wildlife or habitat were identified.


of 21

Fish Species and Habitat

The Fisheries Biologist determined the proposed actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the following species and habitat: spring/summer Chinook salmon and designated critical habitat; steelhead trout and designated critical habitat; Essential Fish Habitat for spring/summer Chinook salmon in Slate Creek; and bull trout and designated critical habitat.

Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout and Designated Critical Habitat, and Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Essential Fish Habitat Spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead trout rear in the mainstem Slate Creek and the lower two miles of Little Slate Creek downstream and outside of the project area. Densities are extremely low and available data suggest that current use is sporadic and limited to the mainstem and lower reaches of Slate Creek and Little Slate Creek.

The potential pathways for adverse effects to salmonids from the proposed action are primarily through inputs of sediment and ash. Adverse effects will be indiscernible because no steelhead or salmon occur in the project area, and tree cutting and prescribed burn methods, such as diameter size limits for cutting and a prescribed low intensity burn, will result in effects that are localized and minimal in scope and duration, resulting only in small amounts of sediment and ash. Based on this information, and successful implementation of the design criteria, the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect spring/summer Chinook salmon or steelhead.

The proposed action has the potential to affect water quality and riparian vegetation elements of critical habitat for spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead, and habitat which has been designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for various life stages of Chinook salmon. Tree cutting and prescribed burning may increase sediment, reduce riparian vegetation and large wood recruitment, and decrease water quality. However, adverse effects to critical habitat and EFH from the proposed action will be indiscernible for the following reasons: 1) Tree cutting and fire ignition will not occur in riparian areas, which act as buffers during potential runoff of sediment and ash; 2) The buffers will protect the supply of large woody debris in the stream; 3) Selective tree cutting and low intensity burns reduce the potential for harvest- or burn-related events; and 4) Restricting road and fireline building will reduce the potential of long-term sediment effects. Based on this information and successful implementation of the design criteria, the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for spring/summer Chinook salmon or steelhead, or habitat which has been designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for various life stages of Chinook salmon.

Bull Trout and Designated Critical Habitat Bull trout rear in Van Buren Creek within the project area and within Slate Creek and Little Slate Creek downstream of the project area. Due to the presence of bull trout and subsequent spawning in Van Buren Creek, the impacts of the prescribed burns in the headwaters have the potential to effect bull trout and/or habitat in lower Van Buren Creek. However, due to the relative small areas of the burns in proportion to the Van Buren Creek drainage area (4.5 to 7.1 percent of the Van Buren Creek drainage area), and project design criteria (i.e. low intensity prescribed burn, and no ignition within the riparian areas), any potential sediment or ash delivery to Van Buren Creek will be immeasurable, and impacts from the project are expected to be discountable. The spawning and rearing functions and baseline condition of the critical habitat will be maintained. Therefore, the determination for the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine


of 21

Project is may affect, not likely to adversely affect bull trout and their continued existence in the Slate Creek drainage and designated critical habitat in the Slate Creek subbasin.

The Forest Service completed informal consultation with the NOAA-Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding these determinations of effect for fish species and habitat in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, and Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the agencies concurred with these determinations on May 9, 2011 and May 18, 2011, respectively. See the project record for additional information on fish species and habitat. The determination rationale is further documented in the Biological Assessment for the Nez Perce National Forest Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project Federally Listed Species. Close adherence to design criteria from this Biological Assessment, which are incorporated as a part of the proposed action, minimize effects to fish species and habitat, and therefore no extraordinary circumstances were identified.

2. Floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds:

No designated municipal watersheds exist in the analysis area. No impaired (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) listed) waterbodies are within or directly adjacent to the project area. Wetlands and floodplains exist within some of the treatment areas. During treatments, wetlands will generally be avoided since trees rarely grow to high enough densities in wetlands to require thinning. Similarly, few, if any, areas of floodplains will be thinned. Effects on floodplains will be mitigated by the design features applied to streamside Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs).

On a site-level basis, thinning using hand methods will have little, if any effect on erosion. Lop and scatter of felled trees and prescribed burning should result in limited areas of severely burned soil, which would not exceed the 15 percent areal disturbance threshold. Residual unburned slash will contribute important organic matter to the soil, which is thin and rocky at these elevations.

Minimal (if any) soil disturbance is expected when the trees are cut, lopped, and scattered. There is greater potential for sediment to be delivered to Van Buren Creek following prescribed burning treatments. However, since minimal burning will occur within the RHCAs, an immeasurable amount of sediment may be delivered to Van Buren Creek as the result of this project being implemented. Based on this analysis no extraordinary circumstances were identified regarding the effects to water quality of streams within the area; downstream waters; or resources in floodplains, wetlands, and municipal watersheds; thereby complying with EO 11988, EO 11990, and FSH 1909.15 Chapter 30.3.2.

3. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas or national recreation areas:

The proposed action is not located within any of the congressionally designated areas, including wilderness, wilderness study areas, national recreation areas, and Wild and Scenic River corridors and therefore no extraordinary circumstances were identified.

4. Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas:

The project area is located within the Nez Perce National Forest Plan FEIS Appendix C Little Slate Creek Roadless Area, and these same acres are also identified as the Little Slate Creek Idaho Roadless Area, with a Backcountry Restoration Theme in the Idaho Roadless Rule (36


of 21

CFR 294 Subpart C).

Vegetation management that maintains or restores the characteristics of ecosystem composition, structure, and processes, such as the proposed activities, are allowed in the Backcountry/Restoration Theme of the Idaho Roadless Areas [36 CFR Part 294.24(c)(1)(iv)]. For this project, trees will be cut and felled on-site with hand equipment to remove competing vegetation around existing whitebark pine trees. The subsequent prescribed burning and seedling planting will help restore ecosystem processes and improve the diversity of plant and animal communities that have been changed by past fire suppression activities.

In addition, I have determined that the project meets the requirements of 36 CFR 294.24(c)(2).

294.24(c)(2)(i). The project was analyzed for potential effects to the nine qualities that have been identified as important characteristics of Roadless Areas and potential designation for wilderness (Effects on Appendix C and Idaho Roadless Areas in project record). I determined that the roadless characteristics will not be negatively affected by the proposal and the ability of the area to be considered for wilderness will not be altered. One or more of the roadless area characteristics will be improved as a result of implementation of the project.

294.24(c)(2)(ii). The project maximizes the retention of large trees as appropriate for whitebark pine communities because only small diameter live trees (less than 8” DBH) are proposed for removal. This removal of competing vegetation within a 30 to 50 foot radius of mature whitebark pine and a 10 to 15 foot radius of immature whitebark pine trees will decrease lower canopy layers which provide a ladder of fuel that allows a surface fire to move upward into the tree crowns, and would promote fire-resilient stands.

294.24(c)(2)(iii). The project is consistent with the Forest Plan in three management areas (12B, 19B and 20C) and in one Forest Plan FEIS Appendix C Roadless Area (#1851 Little Slate Creek). This Appendix C Roadless Area is not managed for wilderness (refer to the project record for further information on Forest Plan consistency).

Additionally, the State of Idaho, Idaho Roadless Commission reviewed this project’s activities and advised the Governor that they did not have any concern with the project and did not find any need for further involvement (Commission Meeting Notes 9/11/2009).

Considering the consistency of this decision with the Forest Plan and its compatibility with the Idaho Roadless Rule, I find that there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the effects on the Little Slate Creek Roadless Area.

5. Research Natural Areas:

The project area does not include land designated as Research Natural Areas, and therefore, no extraordinary circumstances were identified.

6. American Indians and Alaska native religious or cultural sites and 7. Archaeological sites, or historical properties or areas:

The Forest Cultural Resource Specialist has conducted an appropriate inventory and cultural properties were located within the project area. The Forest Cultural Resource Specialist made a determination that the project will have no adverse effect to these properties because the project is designed to avoid effects to components/features associated with Class I and II properties.


of 21

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this determination on December 7, 2009 (Determination of Eligibility and Effect in the project record).

V. Interested and Affected Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted

On June 18, 2007, a letter providing information and seeking public comment was mailed to 364 individuals, organizations, a variety of state and local agencies, and the Nez Perce Tribe. Additionally, project information has also been made available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/nezperce under NEPA projects. The proposed actions were originally presented as part of the Little Slate Project. A legal notice appeared in the Lewiston Tribune on June 20, 2007, inviting comments for 30 days from publication. Seven letters were received addressing this project and are addressed in Appendix A.

Since the above letter was mailed to the public, the Idaho Roadless Rule was signed. The deciding official for the proposed whitebark pine treatments changed from the District Ranger to the Regional Forester, and the project was renamed the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine project.

VI. Findings Required by Other Laws

Based on my review of the actions associated with this project, I find that the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine project is consistent with applicable Federal laws and regulations.

National Forest Management Act and Nez Perce National Forest Plan: This action is consistent the 1987 Nez Perce National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987), as amended, as required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 because it follows the standards and guidelines contained in that plan (see project record for further information). In addition, the decision considers the best available science (36 CFR 219.35(a) [Reinstatement of the 2000 Planning Rule; 74 FR 242]).

Forest Plan Amendment 20 - PACFISH Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs): All activities associated with the proposed action comply with direction regarding PACFISH because the project design criteria prevent adverse modification of aquatic habitat.

Endangered Species Act: A Forest Service Fish Biologist, Wildlife Biologist, and Botanist evaluated the proposed action with regard to the Endangered Species Act as documented in the Biological Assessments, Biological Evaluations, and specialists’ reports, and determined the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine project is consistent with the Endangered Species Act. In compliance with the Endangered Species Act, and Section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Forest Service consulted with the NOAA-Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the determinations of effect for fish species and habitat and the agencies concurred with these determinations on May 9, 2011 and May 18, 2011, respectively.

Clean Air Act: This project will comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Any prescribed burning associated with this project will comply with state and federal air quality regulations. Compliance with procedures outlined in the North Idaho Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement would result in no long term effects to air quality. These measures protect air quality and ensure compliance with the rules, regulations, and permit procedures of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ).


of 21

Clean Water Act and State Water Quality Laws: The Interdisciplinary Team Hydrologist has determined that this project complies with the Clean Water Act and state and federal water quality laws, and will protect beneficial uses because this proposal will have no adverse effects to the water quality of area or downstream waters. The project area is located within the Van Buren Creek drainage, tributary to Little Slate Creek, Slate Creek and the Lower Salmon River. The beneficial uses for Van Buren Creek include cold water biota, salmonid spawning, and secondary contact recreation. The project area contains no water quality limited streams.

Based on the implementation of project design measures and adherence to Idaho Best Management Practices, this proposal would produce no measurable increase in temperature, and therefore would have no impacts to beneficial uses. This proposal will not affect the water quality of Van Buren Creek or downstream waters.

National Historic Preservation Act: The Forest Cultural Resource Specialist has conducted an appropriate inventory and determined that the project will have no adverse effect to historic properties because the project is designed to avoid effects to components/features associated with Class I and II properties. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this determination on December 7, 2009. Therefore, this project meets the agency’s responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470), as amended and is consistent with the Programmatic Agreement between the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Region 1 National Forests in Northern Idaho Regarding the Management of Cultural Resources.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: No substantial losses of migratory bird habitat are expected from the implementation of this proposal, nor any measurable impact on neotropical migratory bird populations as a whole. The proposed action would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The project complies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Order #131 related to the applicability of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to federal agencies and requirements for permits for “take.” In addition, this project complies with Executive Order 13186 because the analysis meets agency obligations as defined under the January 16, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designed to complement Executive Order 13186.

American Indian Treaty Rights: The Nez Perce Tribal Government Liaison and the Nez Perce Tribe reviewed the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine project, and determined the proposed action would not affect Nez Perce Tribe Treaty rights or Nez Perce Tribal members’ abilities to exercise those rights.

Environmental Justice: The proposed action will not disproportionately impact consumers, Native American Indians, women, low-income populations, other minorities, or civil rights of any American Citizen in accordance with Executive Order 12898. No disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations were identified during scoping or the effects analysis.

Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forest Land: The proposed action complies with the Federal Regulations for prime land. The definition of "prime" forest land does not apply to lands within the National Forest System. The project area does not contain any prime range land or farm land. Federal lands would be managed with appropriate sensitivity to the effects on adjacent lands.


of 21

Map 1. Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project Location Map


of 21

Map 2. Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project Treatment Area Map


of 21

Appendix A Response to Public Comments On June 18, 2007, a letter providing information and seeking public comment was mailed to 364 individuals, organizations, a variety of state and local agencies, and the Nez Perce Tribe. The letter was also posted on the Forest Website. The proposed actions were presented as part of the Little Slate Project. A legal notice appeared in the Lewiston Tribune on June 20, 2007, inviting comments for 30 days from publication. Seven letters were received regarding this project and are addressed in the following table.

Planning Participant

Baird, Dennis

Comment: Supports whitebark pine restoration.

Response: Thank you for your support.

Gary Macfarlane, Jeff Juel, Mike Peterson, and Ron Mitchell, FOC, AWR, WWI, TLC, and ISC

Comment #1: Cutting down subalpine fire around whitebark pines likely won't lead to increases in young whitebark pine trees through natural regeneration, because it misunderstands the mechanism of regeneration. The real issue facing whitebark pine is blister rust. Rather than suppressing fires, the agency needs to let them burn in the project area. Another possible alternative would be to light fires in these stands.

Response #1: For this project, managers will use slashing, prescribed fire, and planting to restore whitebark pine.

Current scientific analyses such as Management Guide to Ecosystem Restoration Treatments: Whitebark Pine Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A (USDA Forest Service. 2010. RMRS-GTR-232), Restoring Whitebark Pine Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA (Keane, R. and Parsons, R. 2010. Ecological Restoration 28:1:56-70), and Whitebark Pine: An Ecosystem in Peril (Lantz, G. 2010. American Forests Spring:33-44) recommend slashing, burning, and planting activities to restore whitebark pine habitats in high elevation areas.

Additionally, the purpose and need of this project is to restore whitebark pine, not to change fire management strategies for the area.

Comment #2: Forest structural changes that have occurred on the landscape are mainly due to logging. Ref: Barrett et al 1991; Weir et al 1995; Brown et al 1993; etc. Fire suppression apparently has done little if anything to change the natural occurrence of lethal fires in this area. Ref: Baker and Ehle 200; Tiedemann et al 2000; Cohen 1999. We believe that high intensity forest manipulation as you are proposing, which is really designed to replace natural fire, will not lend toward restoring functioning ecosystems.

Response #2: We reviewed your references for background information. In support of proposed efforts, current scientific analyses, as mentioned above, recommend slashing, burning, and planting activities to restore whitebark pine habitats in high elevation areas.


of 21


Comment #3: The scoping letter mentions old growth guidelines but does not explain whether old growth stands will be targeted for logging. Will stands that currently meet the definition of old growth, whether MA 20 or not, be logged?

Response #3: No trees will be cut within the 30 acres of Management Area 20 (Old Growth), and only trees less than 8” in diameter at breast height in non-old-growth areas will be cut.

Comment #4: The EIS will need to analyze impacts on roadless areas. This includes uninventoried roadless areas.

Response #4: Effects to inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas were analyzed, and no adverse effects to extraordinary circumstances were found associated with the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project on the Nez Perce National Forest Plan FEIS Appendix C Little Slate Creek Roadless Area, nor the Little Slate Creek Idaho Roadless Area.

The entire project area is located within a roadless area, therefore, no uninventoried roadless areas occur within the project area.

Jon Marvel, Western Watersheds

Comment: No logging, roading or cutting should occur in roadless areas.

Response: Vegetation management that maintains or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition, structure and processes, such as the proposed activities, are allowed in the Backcountry/Restoration Theme of the Idaho Roadless Areas (36 CFR Part 294.24(c)(iv)).

Effects to inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas were analyzed, and no adverse effects to extraordinary circumstances were found associated with the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project on the Nez Perce National Forest Plan FEIS Appendix C Little Slate Creek Roadless Area, nor the Little Slate Creek Idaho Roadless Area.

Lynne McWhorter, USDI-EPA

Comment #1: Effects analysis of prescribed burning on air quality, with the potential to exceed air quality standards. Describe what these impacts would be and how they will be mitigated. EIS describe the measures that will be taken to ensure that air quality standards will be met.

Effects analysis should provide an overview of the smoke management program that would be followed to avoid public health impacts and potential ambient air quality exceedances. Ref to: EPA document.

EIS should identify and evaluate potential consequences of the proposed project "outside" the project area boundaries. Indirect effects of air quality.

Response #1: This project will comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Any prescribed burning associated with this project will comply with state and federal air quality regulations. Compliance with procedures outlined in the North Idaho Smoke Management Memorandum of


of 21


Agreement would result in no long term effects to air quality. These measures protect air quality and ensure compliance with the rules, regulations, and permit procedures of the EPA and the IDEQ.

Because of the location of the project’s activities, the amount of smoke that would be generated, and the general weather patterns from the southwest, air quality for populated areas will be minimally affected.

Comment #2: Suggest using mechanical treatments instead of prescribed burning where they can endanger human life and property

Response #2: Mechanical treatments alone, such as slashing, would not provide the open sites for nutcracker stashing of whitebark pine seeds or for new seedlings to grow, whether planted or through natural regeneration, and thus would not meet the purpose and need to restore whitebark pine. Prescribed burning is needed to open the treatment units for this purpose, and is supported by current research as described in the purpose and need section.

Comment #3: Issues to be discussed and analyzed thoroughly in the EIS: heritage resources. Request disclosure of these issues in the Executive Summary or Introduction.

DEIS should identify historic resources and assure that Treaty rights and privileges are addressed appropriately.

Conduct consultation with affected tribes (consistent with EO 13175). Include draft document in DEIS.

Strongly encourage the Forest Service to consider inviting affected Tribal government to participate in the draft document development process as cooperating agencies.

Response #3: An appropriate inventory has been conducted and the project will have no adverse effect to cultural sites, including Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, or historic properties, because the project has been designed to avoid effects to features associated with Class I and II properties. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this determination (Determination of Eligibility and Effect 12/7/2009). Therefore, this project meets the agency’s responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470), as amended and is consistent with the Programmatic Agreement between the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Region 1 National Forests in Northern Idaho Regarding the Management of Cultural Resources.

The Nez Perce Tribal Government Liaison and the Nez Perce Tribe reviewed the proposed project, and determined the proposed action would not affect Nez Perce Tribe Treaty rights or Nez Perce Tribal members’ abilities to exercise those rights.

Comment #4: Issues to be discussed and analyzed thoroughly in the EIS: Inventoried Roadless Areas. Request disclosure of these issues in the Executive Summary or Introduction.

Provide a clear description of activities that could occur in Roadless Areas and strive to avoid such activities by developing alternative actions.


of 21


Response #4: Effects to inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas were analyzed, and no adverse effects to extraordinary circumstances were found associated with the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project on the Nez Perce National Forest Plan FEIS Appendix C Little Slate Creek Roadless Area, nor the Little Slate Creek Idaho Roadless Area.

The proposed activities, including design criteria and monitoring, are described in the decision above.

Comment #5: EIS should identify measures that are consistent with Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species. Use USFS direction for noxious weed management, a description of current conditions and the BMPs that will be utilized to reduce the likelihood of introduction and spread of invasive species with the proposed management.

Response #5: The project is consistent with Executive Order 13112. No weeds are known in the area. The habitat susceptibility and risk of invasion are low to closed (not susceptible). Any weeds resulting from this disturbance will be waifs and not persist.

Comment #6: Issues to be discussed and analyzed thoroughly in the EIS: Old growth. Request disclosure of these issues in the Executive Summary or Introduction.


Comment #7: Effects analysis to TES species and their habitat.

EIS should describe the critical habitat for TES species, identify any impacts the proposed project will have on these species and their critical habitat.

Explain how the proposal will meet all requirements under ESA, including consultation efforts with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries.

Issues to be discussed and analyzed thoroughly in the EIS: potential effects to TES wildlife. Request disclosure of these issues in the Executive Summary or Introduction

Response #7: The effects to federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species are discussed above in Finding of No Extraordinary Circumstances.

A Forest Service Fish Biologist, Wildlife Biologist, and Botanist evaluated the proposed action with regard to the Endangered Species Act as documented in the Biological Assessments, Biological Evaluations, and specialists’ reports, and determined the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine project is consistent with the Endangered Species Act, including consultation requirements with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries.

Comment #8: Effects analysis of prescribed burning on water quality, with the potential to exceed water quality standards. Describe what these impacts would be and how they will be mitigated. EIS describe the measures that will be taken to ensure that water quality standards will be met.


of 21


Response #8: There is potential for sediment to be delivered to Van Buren Creek following prescribed burning treatments. However, since there will be minimal burning within the RHCAs, it is expected that only an immeasurable amount of sediment may be delivered to Van Buren Creek as the result of this project being implemented. As such, no adverse effects to the water quality of Van Buren Creek are expected.

Lynn and Vince Murray

Comment: First, we are opposed to the Nez Perce National Forest logging in any roadless area within its domain. We have precious few roadless areas remaining within our National Forests, and we must do all we can to preserve such areas because they provide vital habitat for wildlife (wolves, salmon, steelhead, bull trout, etc. on the Nez), protect water quality, and, obviously, are the remaining areas where intact forests still exist.

Response: Design criteria for the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project specifically exclude the sale or removal of trees from the project area, and the purpose of the project is to restore whitebark pine communities, not harvest timber. These activities are proposed to maintain one or more of the roadless characteristics over the long term.

Vegetation management that maintains or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition, structure and processes, such as the proposed activities, are allowed in the Backcountry/Restoration Theme of the Idaho Roadless Areas (36 CFR Part 294.24(c)(iv)).

Effects to inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas were analyzed, and no adverse effects to extraordinary circumstances, including wildlife, fisheries, and water quality, were found associated with the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project on the Nez Perce National Forest Plan FEIS Appendix C Little Slate Creek Roadless Area, nor the Little Slate Creek Idaho Roadless Area.

John Robison, Idaho Conservation League

Comment #1: The Idaho Conservation League appreciates the Forest Service¹s attempt to restore whitebark pine. However, the underlying assumption for any whitebark pine restoration is that Clark¹s nutcrackers will disperse seeds. The Forest Service should ensure that sufficient bare ground is available for seed caching.

Response #1: Proposed prescribed burning activities, which will follow slashing activities, are designed to open the treatment units for nutcracker stashing of whitebark pine seeds or for new seedlings to grow, whether planted or through natural regeneration.

Comment #2: Competing vegetation, including subalpine fir, should either be lopped, scattered, and broadcast burned or hand-piled and jackpot burned. Slash piles should be burned that fall or next spring to prevent Ips beetles from being drawn to the piles and infecting neighboring whitebark pines (Bob Keane, pers. comm.). Any large diameter competing conifers (> 18” dbh) should be girdled rather than mechanically thinned in order to maintain standing old growth structure for cavity nesters, especially within IRAs.


of 21


Response #2: Proposed activities include lopping, scattering, and broadcast burning competing vegetation, including subalpine fir.

Prescribed burning will occur the following fall or one year after slashing activities to ensure burn objectives will be obtained.

No live trees greater than eight inches would be felled or girdled. The structure of larger diameter trees would be retained, independent of species.

Comment #3: This project should test local whitebark pine seeds for blister rust resistance. From these initial results, natural reseeding might (be) best as long as the nutcrackers have access to the ground. To be successful, treatments may need to be reapplied over several years to thin back new subalpine fir saplings that catch up with whitebark pines. The potential long-term nature of this project needs to be addressed in the DEIS, experimental design, and funding.

Response #3: Site specific prescriptions will include reference to local blister rust resistance data, and will provide sites for seed caching for natural regeneration.

Recommendations for future fuels treatments to keep sites open for regeneration are probably outside the temporal scope of this analysis, but could be included in stand and project files.

Comment #4: The best way to control noxious weeds is to prevent their spread in the first place by limiting road use and limiting exposure of mineral soils where weeds may become established. Special care should be taken to safeguard ecologically intact areas that are not currently infested.

Response #4: No weeds are known in the area. The habitat susceptibility and risk of invasion are low to closed (not susceptible). Any weeds resulting from this disturbance will be waifs and not persist.

Comment #5: Old growth also needs to be preserved for biodiversity, to meet National Forest Plan standards, and should not be utilized for commercial interests. The silvicultural prescription should contain some type of diameter limit or other incentive to retain old growth and old growth replacement trees.

The forest-wide management direction in the Nez Perce to manage for old growth dependent species applies to this project area.

Response #5: Design criteria for the Nut Basin Whitebark Pine Project specifically exclude the sale or removal of trees from the project area, and the purpose of the project is to restore whitebark pine communities, not harvest timber.

Additionally, no trees will be cut within the 30 acres of Management Area 20 (Old Growth), and only trees less than 8” in diameter at breast height in non-old-growth areas will be cut.

Project activities are consistent with forest-wide management direction and Forest Plan standards for Management Area 20 (see project record


of 21


for additional information).

Comment #6: We appreciate the fact that no commercial logging and road building activities are proposed in Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Response #6: Thank you!

Comment #7: A sufficient number of snags need to be left standing in each treatment area for cavity nesters until snags can be replaced by natural recruitment.

Response #7: Generally, cavity nesters prefer larger snags (Raphael and White 1984). Although snags less than 10 inches in diameter may be felled to supplement the fuel loading for the prescribed burn, larger snags will be left standing in accord with the Northern Region Snag Management Protocol (USDA 2009).

John R. Swanson

Comment #1: Always retain old growth.


Comment #2: Designate each of the following areas as wilderness: North Fork Slate Creek (17552), Little Slate Creek (28351), John Day (20253).

Response #2: Although the purpose and need of this project are to restore whitebark pine, not designate wilderness, we analyzed the effects of the proposed action on the Nez Perce National Forest Plan FEIS Appendix C Little Slate Creek Roadless Area’s and the Little Slate Creek Idaho Roadless Area’s (36 CFR 294 Subpart C) potential designation as wilderness, and we found the ability of the area to be considered for wilderness will not be altered.

decision memo nut basin whitebark pine project usda forest...

Documents