1

Decision Memo

Muley Creek Aspen Restoration Project

USDA Forest Service Challis-Yankee Ranger District, Salmon-Challis National Forest

Custer County, Idaho T 11N, R 15E, Sections 9, 10, 11, 14, 15

Decision

After reviewing the environmental analysis regarding the Muley Creek Aspen Restoration Project, on the Challis-Yankee Ranger District, it is my decision to implement the 525 acre timber stand improvement and wildlife habitat restoration project in the upper reaches of the Muley Creek drainage. The project area is located in Muley Creek, which is the next drainage down from the Yankee Fork drainage on the north side of the Main Salmon River below Sunbeam, Idaho. The legal description is T11N, R15E, Sections 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15 (See map attached). Management activities will accomplish the following: 1) promote fire resilient species by regenerating aspen stands, 2) modify fuel loads to restore ecological structure and functions to the landscape, and 3) minimize potential catastrophic wildfire effects on the wildlife, watershed, and aquatic systems. The project was designed in compliance with the standards and guidelines of the Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Proposed Action involves treatment of 437 acres within the Idaho Roadless Rule, Squaw Creek Roadless Area that is classified in the Backcountry Restoration theme and 88 acres outside the roadless area along the Muley Creek Road. The proposed action within the roadless areas would introduce fire in a mosaic pattern over 40 to 70 percent of the landscape, to stimulate aspen regeneration and to remove encroaching conifers. To accomplish this, a black line would be burned around the head of Muley Creek drainage and then the aspen stands would be ignited to allow fire to move into and through the aspen clones. The project is not intended to burn large areas of sagebrush/grassland, although some would burn in conjunction with the aspen to help carry fire and to create a natural fire barrier on the ridge without constructing fireline. A mosaic burn pattern is defined as the intermingling of different burn intensities and burn severities over a given area resulting in a variety of burned and unburned patches across the project area. The prescribed fire would be conducted when conditions are conducive to meeting the objective, typically in the spring or after rain in the fall.

In the 88 acres outside the Idaho Roadless Rule, Squaw Creek Roadless area, the proposed action would include cutting of conifers from aspen clones, thinning overstocked conifer stands from below, and prescribed burning to stimulate aspen and lessen fuel accumulations on the ground. Only conifers less than 24 inches (61 cm) diameter at breast height (DBH) would be cut from aspen stands along the road outside the roadless area. Cut materials less than 4 inches in diameter would be piled for later burning where fuel loadings exceed 10 tons per acre. Conifer removal and prescribed fire would stimulate aspen clones to resprout and to create a new generation of

2

aspen.

There is no logging nor any road building proposed in this project. It is mainly an aspen restoration project with some thinning from below in denser Douglas-fir stands along the road corridor through the project area. Not all 20 to 24 inch DBH Douglas-fir would be cut but key ones in the aspen clones (less than 20%) could be cut to provide more nutrients and water for aspen reestablishment and expansion. The project area is comprised primarily of aspen stands with Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine, surrounded by mountain big sagebrush. Scattered trees occur on the upper slopes of the project area and aspen scattered under Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine occur on the lower slope of the area. The project area is surrounded by steep slopes to the north, east, and west, with the headwaters of Muley Creek flowing south. The project area is within the 1987 Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) management area #8, Thompson Creek. The management emphasis is on enhancing wildlife habitat, and provides for mineral activities and dispersed recreation opportunities. The management direction for wildlife and fish states the priority is on maintaining or improving winter range with emphasis on burning. Approximately 437 acres of the proposed action are within the Idaho Roadless Rule, Squaw Creek Roadless Area where prescribed burning is allowed under the backcountry theme. Need for Proposed Action

Over a century of successful fire suppression has altered the vegetative species composition in the Muley Creek drainage area dramatically. Fire history shows that frequent wildfires of low-severity maintained a mosaic of seral conditions and prevented conifers from competing with aspen and sagebrush/grasslands. The stands were more open and grasses and forbs were present. South-facing slopes generally favored bunchgrass openings with some sage pockets. Aspen clones were well distributed due to fire-induced regeneration. Fuel accumulations during the inter-fire periods were generally not sufficient to result in the mortality of larger trees during subsequent fires, although some trees were killed due to fuel concentrations and basal scarring. Mature fire-resistant species were more likely to survive and conifer regeneration was often killed, so that these fires served to perpetuate ponderosa pine rather than Douglas-fir. The present landscape, stand structures and species diversity is not within the desired future condition outlined in the Forest Plan. Without fire influencing the natural process and keeping the conifers in check the aspen are not as healthy and regenerating as they were historically. Without fire, the aspen clones are being overtopped by conifers and beginning to die out.

3

Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of the Muley Creek Aspen Restoration Project is to treat vegetation to restore the historic ecosystem composition, structure and function to a more diverse, productive, resistant and resilient condition as measured by Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)1. In the project area, approximately 59 percent of the landscape is in high departure (FRCC 3) and the remainder is in moderate departure (FRCC 2). Restoration treatments will promote fire resilient species by stimulating aspen clones, reducing hazardous fuels, thinning the denser conifer stands, and creating snags, while maintaining the larger Douglas-fir on the landscape. Prescribed burning is being used to lower FRCC and mechanical thinning treatments within the project area outside the designated roadless area will lower risk of losing ecosystem components such as large fire-resistant trees, native grasslands, and fire-dependent species (i.e., aspen). The goal of the project is to move the proposed treatment units toward Condition Class 1 which will substantially reduce the risk of losing ecosystem components from wildfire in the present hazardous fuels conditions. Reasons for Categorically Excluding the Proposed Action

This project has been determined a routine action with no extraordinary circumstances related to it, and it falls within category 6 (“Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction.”) of the 31.2-6 of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, WO amendment 1909.15-2004-3.

This project does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect (40 CFR 1508.27) on the quality of the human environment and, therefore, may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment. A project or case file and a decision memo are required and were prepared. There are no known or reasonably foreseeable connected activities associated with this activity. The categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because there are no extraordinary circumstances potentially having effects which may significantly affect the environment. Specifically this determination is based on the following:

a) Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or their critical habitat: This project will have no effect on Threatened or Endangered species or their habitat. It will have no impact, or may impact individuals or habitat, but will not contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to populations of Sensitive species. Biological Assessments and Evaluations (BAs, BEs) have been completed and are part of the Project File.

1. FRCC is a classification based on a relative measure that describes the degree of departure from the historical natural fire regime. This departure results in changes to one (or more) of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g. insect and disease mortality, livestock grazing, and drought). FRCC 3 is a “high” departure from the central tendency of the natural (historical) regime. Low departure is considered to be within the natural (historical) range of variability, while moderate and high departures are outside

4

b) Flood plains, wetland, or municipal watersheds: No project activities will occur in any flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds. No activities will occur within 150 feet of Muley Creek. c) Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or National Recreation areas: No project activities will occur in any designated or proposed wilderness, wilderness study area, or National Recreation area. d) Inventoried roadless areas: Project activities will occur in the Idaho Roadless Rule, Squaw Creek inventoried roadless area. This decision is consistent with the Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C). The project is permitted under 36 CFR §294.24(1)©(iv) as it is designed to restore aspen communities which are in decline. The project maintains or improves one or more of the roadless characteristics over the long-term. It will increase the diversity of plant and animal communities by restoring communities in decline. §294.24(2)(i). The project will maximize the retention of large trees as appropriate for the forest type to the extent the trees promote fire resilient stands. The large trees in the project area are Douglas-fir, which evolved with fire, and many have numerous fire scars from fires more than 120 years ago. The project will treat the Douglas-fir stands in conjunction with treating aspen intermingled amongst them and remove ladder fuels and reduce density of the crowns promoting more fire resilient stands. §294.24(2)(iii). e) Research natural areas: No project activities will occur in any designated or proposed research natural areas. f) Archeological sites, or historic properties or areas: A cultural survey conducted by the Forest Archaeologist found no sites. The Forest Archaeologist determined on December 19, 2011 the project will have no effect to any historic properties and recommended proceeding as designed. Any unknown sites discovered during project activities will be subsequently avoided and promptly reported to the Forest Archaeologist. Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with this finding on January 10, 2012. Scoping and Public Involvement Issues and concern were determined by responses from the scoping process. In addition to obtaining input from Forest Service specialists, scoping letters dated January 19, 2012 were mailed to the public for comment. A scoping notice about the proposed project and soliciting public comments was published in the Challis Messenger on January 19, 2012. Letters were sent to local resource agencies, county, and private parties in an attempt to advise key community members and local resource managers of potential management activities and to solicit concerns and comments for potential-issue evaluation. Three letters and one phone call were received. The letters expressed concerns regarding the removal of trees up to 24 inches DBH to promote aspen regeneration, the project in relation to the roadless rule, aquatic animal species, any timber removal within RHCA buffers, and potential cumulative impacts. To address these concerns, the ID Team agreed not to cut all trees up to 24

5

inches DBH but only the ones necessary to meet the objectives of the project. A roadless analysis was completed for the project as described in “d.” above showing the consistency with the Idaho Roadless Rule. A BA and BE were completed for aquatics and no trees would be cut in the roadless area or the riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA). No cumulative impacts were found when analyzed. A comment also expressed concerns on finding new cultural resource sites during implementation and as always, implementation would stop until the site was evaluated. Other concerns were breeding birds, cavity trees and invasive weeds. A BA and BE were prepared for terrestrial animals, as well as a noxious weed report and monitoring will be conducted for breeding birds and weeds. The phone call was to find out if the road was being closed to ATVs and since it was not the caller had no more concerns. Collectively, external and internal comments were reviewed and evaluated to determine (1) whether or not significant issues were present. None of the comments or concerns submitted raised any key issues that needed to be considered in alternatives or any extraordinary circumstances that required further analysis in either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A formal 30 day Legal Notice for comments was published April 12, 2012 in the same paper, as a result of Court Ruling Sequoia Forest Keepers vs. Tidwell. One commenter replied during this time period to reaffirm their comments sent during the original scoping announcement. And as depicted in the above paragraph, these comments were taken into account and some design changes made to address them. Findings Required by Other Laws All activities of the proposed action are consistent with the Challis National Forest Final Land and Resource Management Plan, and as required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Use of a Categorical Exclusion and Decision Memo document is in compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) for implementing NEPA. Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990 (wetlands) and 11988 (floodplains): There are no wetlands, floodplains or Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas included within the treatment area. No 303d (water quality impaired) listed stream segments will be affected, and beneficial water uses will be maintained. A hydrology report is included in the project file. Clean Air Act: Prescribed burning activities will be implemented following analysis, evaluation and planning pursuant to direction in the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group Operating Guide. Air quality will be minimally affected because of need to comply with guideline directions and constraints and experienced firefighters and hand crews will be used to manage the fire and smoke. Migratory Bird Treaty Act: The minimal environmental effects associated with the proposed action would not measurably affect habitat availability for migratory bird species nor would it measurably affect migratory bird populations associated with the project area or surrounding area. This project meets the requirement to design activities in order to avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources. These findings are contained in the wildlife specialist report as well as the determination that the proposed Muley Creek Aspen Restoration Project is compliant with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order

6

#13186. Thinning of trees will occur in mid to late summer, well after nesting season. Project implementation will not constitute a direct or indirect taking of migratory birds. National Forest Management Act (NFMA): This action is consistent with the NFMA and the Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and PACFISH Amendment that strive to improve forest health, watershed, fish and wildlife habitat conditions. Forest Plan goals require resource managers to maintain and improve wildlife habitat and habitat diversity and to improve watershed conditions as opportunities arise. Specific management area direction requires the same. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice): In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this action does not directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. No disproportionately high and adverse environmental or human health effects on an identifiable low-income or minority population were discovered. National Historic Preservation Act: A cultural survey conducted by the Forest Archaeologist found no sites. One previously recorded site, historic cabin ruin outside the project area, was determined ineligible for nomination to the National Register in 1991. The Forest Archaeologist determined on December 19, 2011 the project will have no effect to any historic properties and recommended proceeding as designed. Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with this finding on January 10, 2012. It will proceed with the understanding that if areas of general impact or intense impact change or become more extensive, or if heritage resources are discovered within the project area, the Forest Archaeologist will be immediately contacted for additional project review prior to implementation of those changes. Endangered Species Act (ESA): This decision is consistent with the ESA. A Biological Evaluation for Fish Species for the Muley Creek Aspen Restoration project was completed February 29, 2012, and determined “No Effect” for federally listed Threatened and Endangered (T and E) species and for species proposed for federal listing as T or E; and “No Impact” for sensitive species. A plant and terrestrial animal species Biological Evaluation and Assessment for the Muley Creek Aspen Restoration project was completed February 27, 2012, and determined “No Effect” for federally listed Threatened and Endangered (T and E) species and for species proposed for federal listing as T or E. For species listed as sensitive species by the Regional Forester, it will have no impact, or may impact individuals or habitat, but will not contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to populations. No USFWS or NOAA Fisheries concurrence with these determinations was necessary. Implementation Date

Implementation of this project could begin in the summer of 2012.

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215. Appeals must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. Only individuals or organizations who submitted comments or otherwise expressed interest in the project during the comment period may appeal. Appeals must be postmarked or received by the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45

8